Thesaurus of Universal Organizational Science
// Explanatory Dictionary
of Terms, Principles and Methods of Bogdanov’s Tectology //
Revised and Supplemented
Appearance of tectology in the scientific sphere is an event of historical scale: humankind for the first time has found a powerful methodological arsenal for scientific cognition of the world around and practical mastering of it. The universal organizational science, created by A.A. Bogdanov in the beginning of XX century, has become the reason of the avalanche birth of multitude of the most different system sciences and theories, and its richest theoretical and methodological potential has become the main general scientific base of the information civilization of the third millennium. Just therefore tectology can quite pretend to the status of general scientific paradigm of XXI century.
The purpose of this work – to systematize the concepts, principles and methods of tectology into a single whole for giving a primary notion about the universal organizational science, on the one hand, and for being a convenient reference point in its deeper studying, on the other hand. All terms are put in alphabetic order and brought without inversion.
The most of definitions have been given in the way they have been formulated by A.A. Bogdanov. In cases of absence of brief definitions in the original, all the unwrapped explications have been compressed, but by means of selective citing they have as much as possible been approached to the author’s ones with the obligatory reference to the source. Italics in citations correspond to the original.
All terms, principles and methods, to which separate articles are dedicated, have been typed in the text by italics, that together with applied system of footnotes gets the dictionary the information searching functions of thesaurus.
Absolute — extraempirical, false cognitive complex which exists only in thinking and has no practical value. This is a fictitious concept, because «a content of concepts is taken only from experience, and in experience there is and there can be nothing absolute». But also «“to come near” to absolute through relative, i.e. to infinitely far through finite – it is quite impossible, for “infinity” is a mathematical symbol with negative value. It is possible to add to or to subtract any amount of finite quantities from infinite one – it does not change from that: such is the mathematical characteristic of infinite quantities». Therefore «the distance from “absolute” is invariable» and «to speak about “coming near” to absolute is a sneer both at logic, and at any progressive aspiration» [Belief and Science, p. 46]. It is in absolute «there is the source and the end of all fetishistic values, of all imperative norms, all constant and inexorable laws, hanging over the world from the outside. Absolute is the last generalization of all idols of cognition; but for obscured view of a fetishist it is represented as the first and highest reality, as the basis (or “the creator”) of all really existing. And when there is broken the living connection between this supreme idol and those lowest ones, which draw the sanction from it, – then the authority of idols falls, and the authority over minds weakens. It means that the roots of all the system of idols have already been deeply undermined, and from a living organism it turns more and more to a mechanical cover for new vital content, contradicting it and hindered by it» [Country of Idols, pp. 216-217].
Absolute communism — «the monstrous intellectual model of “communism”, in which all is continuously “socialized” contrary to even elementary technical expediency: you have found a larva – to carry it and to divide among all commune; a man wears a shirt – by all means to take it from him and to put on another; you have made a cudgel on the own hand – to take it away for the benefit of anyone, etc. Certainly, such a communism would not be sustained even by most primitive man. It is simply the unconsciously (and sometimes, maybe, also consciously) polemic concept of “absolute” communism» [Historical Materialism and Questions of Primitive Life, p. 20].
Absolute conservation of system — a fiction of «the perfect energy balance» of system, i.e. «an ideal combination, a product of the abstract thought», because such an equilibrium shows the absence of selection and in continuously «becoming complicated vital medium, the resistances of which inevitably increase in general, it would go to negative selection – in degradation of the vital form». Such «increase of resistances of environment necessary follows from the fact, that for preservation the vital form exhausts those “vital means”, which for it are in environment; and if even the sum of these means for the given form has appeared relatively unlimited (as, for example, the sum of a sunlight, carbonic acid and water for plants in atmosphere and ground), all the same the general development and growth of a life in an environment would lead to replacement and destruction of such a form, which only keeps safe, not developing (for example, at such a plant the others, expanding around, would take away a sunlight by their shadow and water by their roots, etc.)» [Empiriomonism, p. 252].
Absolute disorganization — deprived any real content and conceivable only verbally full absence of organization. If something absolutely unorganized «would exist, we could know nothing about it. Really, let us imagine for ourselves what it should be: this is such a combination of activities, in which they are directed quite helter-skelter, down to the smallest, to infinitesimal its elements. Hence, all these elements collide between themselves and are the resistance for each other, and in all infinitely big number they are mutually paralysed, mutually destroyed. But then they cannot show any resistance to our efforts: there is nothing to feel and perceive; from the point of view of our experience it is the purest “nothing”. Even when we observe “disorganized” combinations they are always made from the organized parts; otherwise these parts would not be accessible to experience» [Questions of Socialism, p. 403].
Absolute egocomplex — individual «I», extremely «torn off the social – and especially off the world whole: this “I” is “subject”, being opposed to everything else as to “object”», the unity of which is «out of his field of vision», at that this unity is not merely invisible to him, but it is spontaneous, unorganized, full of contradictions, difficult and incomprehensible. Including socially-fragmented and contradictory experience and becoming isolated in it, the absolute «I» falls a prey to «accursed questions»: «what am I?», «what is this world?», «whence is all this?», «what for?», «why is so much evil there in the world?», etc. ad infinitum. These «accursed questions» express «sorrows of a torn life», these are questions of «a living part, which has lost connections with its vital whole»: «what am I? – isn’t it the most natural question for any finger of a hand, which has been torn off a body?» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 37-38].
Absolute emptiness — «complete absence of environment» that from the tectological point of view is devoid of real content, since even imaginary emptiness of world space «is the area of the least resistances», i.e. the environment consisting of the least organized complexes. In tectology organizationality is a relative concept: if the world space for a system, moving with small speed, is minimally organized, as the system is undergoing insignificant resistance from its side, then at such a speed of the system’s movement, which is close to speed of light, the resistance of world space increases ad infinitum, – correspondingly its organizationality also [Tectology (1917), pp. 19-20]. Consequently, «the notion about empty space as about absence of any environment» is absolutely false and «contradicts all sense of contemporary science»: from the point of view of tectology «environment is always present», however its organizationality is relative [Tectology, v. 1, p. 165].
Absolute imperative (religious or «categorical») — inevitable consequence of abstract fetishism, the essence of which is actually very simple. Two factors, the enormous sizes and deep differentiation owing to division of labour, have transformed society into «formally unorganized, anarchical system». However real cooperation between its members and groups has not disappeared anywhere, it «has been absolutely masked by their formal isolation and struggle of their interests». Being «an indirect consequence of labour development of humankind», «the ethical consciousness has just expressed in itself this dual nature of society, being that form, in which material connection of labour solidarity limited and bridled the anarchical tendencies of groups and individuals in struggle of their interests». The fetishistic character of this consciousness, its «incomprehensibility» followed «from the contradiction between the real connection of cooperation making its basis and hiding this connection – formal independence of individuals in labour process and struggle between them». But as «the basis escapes from supervision, and the display possesses an obvious vital reality and practical value, that is why it is very clear, that it is presented to the fetishist “a voice from other world”» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86].
Absolute incoherence — from the tectological point of view senseless concept, because «something, that has no connection in itself, cannot represent any resistance to our effort, but only in resistance we learn about life of things; hence, for us there is no life» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 72-73]. See absolute disorganization.
Absolute monarchy — «police-bureaucratic state» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 403].
Absolute movement — «movement not relative to other bodies, but relative to the very space», i.e. «thinkable only at the evident or latent recognition of distinction between the parts of space as such». Until now this obsolete scheme, connected with heterogeneity of space, has been reanimated «in physics, being covered with the shell of the theory of “motionless ether”, shared by many scientists: the absolute position of ether mass in space supposes, certainly, the absolute space with the different, at least mentally, parts» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 140-141].
Absolute space — heterogeneous space; or, from the tectological point of view, the degressive form of fixation of general human experience, characteristic of the primary stage of development of science, when «the world space was not accepted as neither infinite, nor homogeneous, what it is for us». For example, in the time of antiquity Aristotle «considered world space to be limited», and Epicurus although «recognized space of the universe as boundless», but nevertheless he was far from the concept of its homogeneity, «considering that atoms of matter are necessarily moved originally “top-down”, passing the way of infinite falling; consequently “top” and “down” were absolute and irreversible for Epicurus»; even in the time of Columbus his plan «to reach India by western way was objected: having come beyond the camber of the terrestrial globe, it would be already impossible to go up back “upwards” along it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 140].
Absolute time — time, which «proceeds independently of any events» and which, the same way as absolute space, «possesses evidently or latently the character of heterogeneity» and as well in the contemporary physics until now still «serves as the precondition of outdated theories, an obstacle for mastering new experience». Along with the principle of limitation of time, which became obsolete comparatively earlier than the principle of limitation of space, today this old scheme of time «is insufficiently elastic for the new scientifically-empirical content» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 141].
Absolute truth — a certain unconditionally strong, immutable and quite reliable basis for human doing, which, unfortunately, «no cognition can give. Truth of cognition is always relative, i.e. bounded, is valid only within the limits of known conditions». Even if cognitive ability of man was ideally perfect, «if the human mind in itself was able to achieve complete, constant truth – then it was unable to be expressed by word, which has changeable, variable meaning and is an imperfect instrument of transfer of thoughts. If there can be something absolute in cognition, this is only the negation of absolute, if something can be constant, this is only changeability. Old meaning is necessarily replaced by new», if it is «more complete, more perfect than old». Man needs «truth for activity; and since human doing in any given time is limited, then limited, i.e. relative truth of cognition can be quite sufficient for it. With expansion of activity a former truth becomes insufficient and has to change». The history of development of cognition testifies: «each epoch has its own truth, which is sufficiently complete for it and satisfactory; but another epoch, with larger development of human doing, should be higher, should see more clearly and farther». Therefore from the ideological aspect the history of humankind is continuous «struggle of old truths against new ones» [Basic Elements, pp. 9-10].
Abstract analysis — see abstract method.
Abstract-analytical induction — «a method of simplifying decomposition of facts» representing the third, «the most complex form» of tectological induction [Questions of Socialism, p. 383]. From all its three basic forms it is the superior step of inductive research, on which «there are determined the primary laws of the phenomena expressing their constant tendencies. The tool for this purpose is: “abstracting”, i.e. making apart, removal of the complicating moments; it finds out in the pure state the basis of the given phenomena, i.e. that constant tendency which is hidden under their visible complexity»; and this abstraction is necessarily «analytical», because «its essence consists just in decomposition, in the analysis of complex objects and complex conditions and in operating with simplified objects and simplified conditions as the results of the analysis». Only abstract-analytical method is capable to give «true and universal tectological laws» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 130-133].
Abstract fetish — the latent collectively-labour connection. For example, «the pure truth is in essence the truth, common to all humankind, the truth, created by humankind, as the whole in its labour». Or, for example, the fetish of individualism – «freedom, personal liberty, free “I”. In fact, it is the expression of such a connection of collective, at which each member of collective develops freely» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, pp. 89-90].
Abstract fetishism — a perverted notion of reality, «generated by the organization of exchange society. The reason of abstract fetishism is in social fragmentation, in formal independence of a private enterprise, in market competition, generally in economic struggle, indissoluble with exchange relations. An individual, a private proprietor, remaining objectively a member of collective, is subjectively come off from it and lost the understanding of sociolabour unity», hence sprayed on a host of individual activities common social activity «stops to exist for him» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 66-67]. By this means, the reason of abstract fetishism is «the authority above people of their own sociolabour relations, not allowing them to understand the essence of these relations», because the disorganization of exchange society and its internal struggle hide the connection of cooperation from consciousness of people. «This fetishism shows up that reality is taken as different impersonal forces, which are attributed to dominate above it: the abstract causality – necessity, immutably leading consequences after their causes; the value, which dominates over exchange of the goods; pure truth, which is independent of people and ruling in cognition; absolute equity and duty, which are also independent of people and obligatory for them in all mutual relations». Similar to religion, above persons abstract fetishism puts «something superior, to what they should submit», – just not in an image of deity, but «in the form of impersonal forces», constraining by this means a spontaneous willfulness of persons and not allowing «their boundless divergence between themselves in their separate evolution». By virtue of it «abstract fetishism is the necessary adapter, as a counterbalance to anarchical tendencies of individualism, which otherwise would destroy any social unity» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 388-389].
Abstract knowledge — «a knowledge which has come off social labour – the basis – and is thought as absolutely independent of it». Specialization in exchange society generates different knowledges which inseparable connection with practice in its own field is always obvious. But knowledges spread to society through communication of people and, passing to a specialist of another field, seem abstract to him because they have no relation directly to his practice [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 374].
Abstract law of distribution — the law, which regulates «transition of products from the sphere of social labour to the sphere of private use» [Basic Elements, p. 192]; or, from the point of view of tectology, it is a form of social degression, which expresses a norm, according to which «each element of society – a group or a separate member – should get all necessary for execution of the production function. At the epoch of collectivism this law, which has operated till now only as a spontaneous tendency, with constant fluctuations and violations, becomes the principle of the scientifically-conscious organization of society» [Questions of Socialism, p. 304].
Abstract method — the third basic form of tectological induction, which «is the most fine, most perfect and most difficult method of inductive research» [Questions of Socialism, p. 384]. It is referred to abstract, because its essence is in «“abstracting”, i.e. making apart, removal of the complicating moments» in a studied object, but it is also referred to analytical, because preliminarily it decomposes an object to simple elements and after procedure of abstracting it operates already with simplified object [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 130-131]. Great importance of this form of tectological research consist in that «only abstract method is capable to give us true and universal tectological laws», on the basis of which the subsequent «wide tectological deduction» is possible [Tectology, v. 1, p. 133]. As more brief and by virtue of it more common in tectology, the term «abstract method» is the synonym of abstract-analytical induction.
Action — 1) an influence of environment, any its activity, on a system; 2) proper activity. According to the third law of Bogdanov, «for tectology the concepts of “activity”, or “action”, and “resistance” are entirely correlative and change places mutually, when the point of view, the starting point of analysis is carried from a complex on its environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 218]. Furthermore tectology considers the use of the synonymous word-combination of «external action» to be unnecessary and even inexpedient, since from its positions the external actions are «not those which are directed at a system geometrically from the outside, but which tends to break off the connections of its activities-resistances». For example, the activities of pathogenic bacteria, being inside of an organism, or the action of poisonous products are related by tectology to external actions [Tectology, v. 2, p. 128].
Active harmonization — increase of connectivity of a complex due to «development of organizing adapters» that always tends to «complication and expansion of a life». The essence of the way is in the following: some two «combinations, which at their direct joining turn out to be in a mutual contradiction, connect easily, already without a contradiction, by means of a third combination – of “organizing” combination. Without such adapters, for example, no complex organisms are generally possible». If elimination and smoothing of contradiction, peculiar to passive and neutral type of harmonization, mean only release of a complex «from known waste of energy», then at its active type «the role of organizing adapters» has often «much more positive character». Empiria testifies that «two mutually coordinated quantities can give more significant real sum than which would turn out at simple addition». For example: «a joint contraction of thousand muscular fibers gives for struggle for a life a positive effect not in one thousand, but in far greater number of times surpassing that one what would turn out from an isolated contraction of one fiber; coordinated movements of two hands carry out not twice, but four times, five times more useful work than a movement of one hand». From the energy point of view there is no «creation of new energy from nothing», but only «its distribution, more favourable for a life», inasmuch as «all comes that from the total energy expense of a vital system the more considerable proportion goes for “useful work”, the less considerable one goes for “harmful resistances”». At passive and neutral harmonization «there are decreased those harmful resistances, which arise from a relation of one part of a complex to another», and at active harmonization «of the parts of a complex, which do not represent such “harmful resistance” for each other, there is increased the coefficient of “useful work” and there is decreased the coefficient of “harmful resistance” from an environment». In sociogenesis the active type of harmonization is dominating; moreover, as social development proceeds, the role of organizing adapters increases all the time: covering all that area, which towers above technical process, they form ideological process in their development and are grouped in three basic types: forms of direct communication, cognitive forms and normative forms [Empiriomonism, pp. 266-268].
Active labour-type — «changing type of labour» with the futurist purpose of creation of new conditions of environment, i.e. a form of labour doing with progressive tendency characterized by that «man aspires to create what has never been in his direct perception, to change what is present in them, to make it different than it has been and is»; in other words, a represented purpose of labour is put by future, since it does not coincide with what are in his memories of the past and also with what are in his direct experiences of the present. At changing type of labour the center of all labour activity «is a plastic notion, which itself changes during work, becoming still more definite and clearer (as a purpose is realized)», further, «the very labour process in the greatest measure is composed of plastic actions (the lesser usual and the newer is a purpose, the lesser suitable are usual ways for its attainment and the more necessary are plastic ways)», and «at last, that is more important than all, as a result there are turned out new conditions, which haven’t been experienced before, i.e. conditions, at which former, usual adjustments become insufficient or even useless, and there is a necessity of new, plastic ones. Thus, at mainly plastic character of the very labour process, psychics is in addition tuned to further, still new and new plastic reactions; all psychical activity is formed by plastic type still in greater and greater measure. Changing the environment, man creates changeable psychics to himself» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 246-247].
Active psychotype — a type of central nervous system with dominating active reaction to actions of an environment, or, as applied to a separately taken organism, an individual with volitional complexes of unequilibrated type. Getting into adverse conditions of environment, such an individual takes a fighting attitude towards it: «he struggles vigorously against its hostile forces, expanding his active manifestations and increasing their tension», in consequence of what «losses of energy, caused by negative actions from outside, increase further by its new expenses for struggle, and the sum of contacts with an environment, a penetration into it, generally what is possible to be named “vulnerable surface”, rise still more». From the tectological point of view such a process «is contrary to the principle of Le Chatelier» that «points at a complex of unequilibrated type», since the law of Le Chatelier is true for equilibrium systems, and in it «the matter is about internal processes of a system, about internal regroupings of its activities, which directly decrease the result of an external action». Representatives of active psychotype «are able either to development, to progressive victories over external forces, or to degradation through defeats», but «frequently both are mixed up in different ratios, for example, creative development, connected with destructive leading a fast life, not uncommon among artists; even more often one gives place to another, unequilibrity of rise to unequilibrity of regress, when, for example, environment changes sharply to adverse side; but return change is also possible» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 255-256].
Active reaction — «contrary to the principle of Le Chatelier», a counteraction of a system to adverse external actions, which expands the area of its contacts with environment, by that increasing the sum of these adverse actions. Such a type of reaction is characteristic to a nonequilibrium system, since its activity is directed not at correction of intrasystem processes, that corresponds to the principle of Le Chatelier, but at correction of extrasystem processes: against the reason of adverse action or against its carrier [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 256, 254]. The result of such active counteraction is double: either subsequent development of system, or its degradation, that has found the reflection in folk tectology: all or nothing.
Active system — a nonequilibrium system, in which active reactions predominates in the sum of its interactions with environment. Among such systems are, for example, an attacking army, «an initiative, impulsive, militant» man of active psychotype and a collective, indomitably «growing, being victorious over spontaneous and social resistances» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 257].
Activities-resistances — 1) the concepts, «forming the content of complexes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 145]; 2) the concepts, meaning action of a complex on environment and counteraction, corresponding to this action from environment. In tectology these terms «are entirely correlative and change places mutually, when the point of view, the starting point of the analysis is carried from a complex on its environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 218]; in other words, «the categories “activity”–“resistance” are not only quite correlative, but also reversible: any activity is resistance for others activities, to which it opposes, and also vice versa». For example, «from the point of view of a hunter or an observer, who takes him for the center of the observable facts, the efforts of this hunter represent activities, and the efforts of all animals, for which he hunts, – resistances; but if an animal, struggling for its life, is put in the center of the description, then its efforts embody activities of its organism»; more simply, in struggle of two organisms «activity of one is resistance for another, and inversely». From the positions of tectology there are no basic distinctions «between living and lifeless, conscious and spontaneous and so forth», because «elements of any organization, any complex, studied from the organizational point of view, are reduced to activities-resistances» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 118-119].
Activity — 1) tectological quantity, measurable by that sum of energy, which is spent for overcoming resistance; 2) tectological concept, describing either ability of a complex to have a changing effect on another complexes, or just an action of one complex on another. For example, activity of man, activity of gravitation, electric, magnetic, chemical activity, etc. Tectology studies the combinations of activities and resistances, which differ in quantity of their practical sum and are reduced to three types: a) organized complexes (when «the whole is practically greater than the simple sum of the parts») [Tectology, v. 1, p. 114]; b) disorganized complexes (when «the whole is practically less than the sum of the parts») [Tectology, v. 1, p. 120]; c) neutral complexes (when «the whole is equal to the sum of the parts») [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 124-125].
Actor of selection (factor of selection) — «that which acts on an object, preserving or destroying it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 194]. For example, in a system of «the nature – a population» the actor is the nature, and the object of selection – a population. It is necessary to note, that not only the nature, but man also in all his labour activity consciously or unconsciously acts «as factor of selection: destroys the connections of complexes, inappropriate to the tendencies of his efforts, supports and develops the connections, appropriate to them». At that the basic difference between the two factors of selection consists in the following: «the natural environment surrounds those complexes, which are the objects of selection for it, always from all sides; but a man comes into contact with the complexes, selected in this or that direction, always only partially, he represents only one element of their environment, though sometimes the most important, the decisive one», from what it follows, «firstly, the limited importance of this kind of selection, secondly, the especial limitation in its very direction» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 166].
Actuality — «human collective practice in all its living content, in all sum of efforts and resistances, forming this content», and its any fragment, for example, an ordinary building brick, is a result of a certain «combination of sociolabour effort and natural resistance» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 214, 216]. From the point of view of tectology all forms without exception, which are accepted by reality, are nothing but every possible combinations of activities and resistances, i.e. simply complexes or their systems.
Adaptability — ability of a complex to adapt to changing conditions of environment, dependent on its plasticity, arogenity, stability and vulnerability.
Adaptable complex — a set of adapters in structure of external relations of a system, more simply, a combination of adaptons.
Adaptant — any complex without exception, a change of which is considered from the point of view of adjustment to environment, from which, finally, «any process of evolution comes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 156].
Adaptation — a process of adjustment of a complex to an environment. According to the principle of relativity of Bogdanov this process, as well as any another, is one-in-two fact, but not the sum of two facts – change of complex and rest of environment. The first rule of determination of environment says: the environment for an adaptive complex is the set of all activities, taken in relation to it, in other words, it is a certain external complex of activities, directly influencing on adaptant. According to the third law of Bogdanov any change in an adaptable complex is accompanied by equal and opposite changes in its environment, i.e., as it was found out, in a certain complex-adaptator. Consequently, adaptation is one-in-two process, covering both an adaptable complex and a complex-adaptator, i.e. environment. Then final and more exact definition of adaptation will be the following: it is mutual process of adjustment of a complex and its environment to each other. At that such mutual adjustment should not be confused with coadaptation, which is joint adjustment of two and more complexes to an environment (to a complex of external activities influencing on them) on mutual-complementary basis, when each of coadaptants takes part in regulation of relations with an environment, but doesn’t give this task to another. As a result of such optimal interaction coadaptants make arogenic system. For instance, «a termite – a flagellate» system is arogenic, and «a tapeworm – a man» system – catagenic; the first one is an example of coadaptation, and the second one – of adaptation.
Adapter for development — «such a form of adapter, the significance of which is mainly in that it accelerates and facilitates development and decreases the possibility of degradation». If the other forms of adjustment serve direct preservation of system, then by means of this special form it develops. For example, in process of development of vital forms there have been formed two types of such special adapters – sexual reproduction and psychomotor system [Basic Elements, p. 117]. The highest form of adjustment is consciousness of man, which together with his psychics accelerates process of making of socioforms and their further development.
Adapton — an external connection, which increases adaptable possibilities of a system, i.e. one or another adjustment considered not as a process or a way of survival of a system, but as an element of its external structure, which increases biopotential of the system. From the energy point of view an adapton is a new energy channel, by means of which a system, being connected to a broadened energosphere, increases its own energy, modernizing the structure so that its external relations would not destroy internal ones, more exactly, so that its internal relations would corresponded to changed external ones, supplementing them and by that conserving the integrity of all system, by what, actually, its stable development is just provided.
Additive complex (additive system) — «a neutral complex, which is equal to the simple sum of the parts», i.e. a complex with such a combination of activities and resistances, in which they «are mutually destroyed, or, rather, paralysed» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 125, 124]. The additive complexes serve as object of mathematics.
Additive system — see additive complex.
Additivity — structural property of neutral complexes, which from the practical hand represent the whole being equal to the sum of its parts [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124].
Adjustment — 1) a way of survival of system; 2) «its successful struggle against the external nature for the existence»; in other words, it is «the primary and basic condition of the life» of a system [Course of Political Economy, p. 6]. Being only «one of special cases of change» (a useful change, which increases biopotential), an adjustment in itself represents «nothing inevitable, obligatory under any conditions»: it «can be and cannot be», at that «the last one is much more frequently than the first». Really, the experience testifies that harmful changes «represent enormous majority of the general number», but, being the material for negative selection, they are destroyed; as of useful changes, there are much less of them, but they are the positive material for selection and «are kept, generally speaking». Certainly, not any adjustment will be kept: there is known the role of chance, on which whim «where a number of adapted forms is insignificant there can be easily turned out so that an adjustment will disappear to no purpose». However there are appeared «such adjustments, which simultaneously arise in a large number of forms. Truly, if identical forms live – as it happens more frequently – under similar conditions, then changing influences can quite often prove to be approximately identical»; and then – under the formula of causality – «internal changes of forms can also prove to be identical», i.e. «an adjustment, which covers any significant number of forms», «should be kept» with great probability. By the empirical content «an adjustment is reduced to dual influence of environment, which changes directly and selects changes, – on a form», though «this duality is only a cognitive abstraction», since per se «selection represents only a special case of change of a form» [Basic Elements, pp. 103, 100, 105]. Thus, arising of any adjustment takes place by the formula: A = C + S, where A – adjustment, C – change, S – selection.
Aesthetic ideal — a social form of degression which «increases organizationality of collective life» of people «in the sphere of world perception», i.e. what is recognized as beautiful [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].
Affectional — emotional correlate of «increase and decrease of energy of psychical system», which are «identical to direct increase and decrease of its biopotential», at that positive affectional «is psychically expressed in feeling pleasure», negative one – suffering. From the point of view of empiriomonism affectional with its either sign (+ or –) is «time derivative of energy quantity of system C (if this quantity of energy is q, and time – t, then dq/dt is exact expression of affectional with its changing sign)» [Empiriomonism, pp. 135, 212].
Albedo (from Latin albedo – whiteness) — the characteristic of physical properties of a surface, expressed by a number, which shows, what part of incident radiant energy is reflected by a given surface. Depending on a geometry of a surface it is used either plane albedo or spherical; depending on a spectrum of incident radiation it is recognized optical, infrared, ultraviolet and monochromatic albedo, and at the account of all flux of radiation it is used integral (energy) albedo. See albedo of the Earth.
Albedo of the Earth — the ratio of quantity of energy, reflected by the Earth, to all radiant energy, which falls to the Earth from the Sun.
Alienation — a form of fragmentation of man in exchange society, characterizing by «isolation of a person, contraposition of man to man generated by force of fundamental vital conditions»: «by developing specialization, by private property, by external independence of a private enterprise, by contradictions of private interests in the market, by struggle of them in all field of life». It is quite natural that life, organized in such a disharmonious way, «opposes a separate person to all other, as an expert, a proprietor, a contractor or a competitor, in general as a special center of interests and aspirations, as a fighter for himself and for his own» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 232-233].
Algorithm of tectological research — general methodological procedure, which is carried out in two stages in accordance with Bogdanov: the first one represents tectological induction, and the second one – tectological deduction. The inductive way of research has three steps: at the first step the induction is made in the generalizing-descriptive form («description of the organizational facts to cover the relations of any possible elements»), at the second one – in the statistical form («quantitative account of the facts and calculation of their recurrence»), at the third one – in the abstract-analytical form (there are determined «the primary laws of the phenomena, expressing the constant tendencies of them»). On the basis of determined tectological laws there is made the wide tectological deduction, giving not only interpretation of an event, but also predicting the further development of an object under investigation [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 129-134; Questions of Socialism, pp. 376-387].
All-connectivity — continuous interaction of all fragments of universum, i.e. of every possible combinations of elements of experience, structurally different in degree and in type of organizationality, from spontaneous chaos of elements up to the harmonious, collectively-coordinated experience of people. For example, if in a perception of a separate man there are notable a number of some combinations of elements of experience, let us assume, a man, an animal, a bacterium and a stone, then all these complexes «are not at all isolated one from another, but are in general connection of world process and act on each other mutually, “are reflected” one in another», at that being also reflected in experience of a concrete man as perceptions of figure of another person, animal, bacteria, stone, i.e. «in his highly organized system all these reflections get an organized form» [Country of Idols, pp. 240-241].
Alogism — the necessary method of human creativity, accompanying the organization of getting experience and reduced to two types: dynamic and static. The dynamic alogism is the method of illogical trial and errors, eliminable by practice. The static alogism – spontaneously developed concepts, expressing organizational inertness and stagnation of human collectives. The first one is a source of creative abilities, and the last one – a ground of social collisions: racial, national, class, etc.
Alpha and beta of progress — two «“elementary factor of progress”, of quantitative and structural», which in tectology are the criteria of progressive systemogenesis: the quantitative criterion states growth of the sum of elements of a system, and the structural one – growth of its harmonicity, i.e. reduction of its internal disingressions; at that both factors should be in such a harmony with each other so that in a system there may be grown not simply a great number of various elements, but there are may be increased multiformity and versatility of their combinations: only such a harmony broadens the possibilities of further development of a system and provides its further tectological progress [Tectology, v. 2, p. 277].
Alpha of bioadaptation — reproduction, guaranteeing «a great duration of continuous existence of life on the earth». The mechanism of such an adaptation consists in the following: in some elements of a bioform in process of the development there is more than once reproduced one of a former stages of its existence; at that each such reproducing is a separate bioform too: «it can again go successively through all changes of the parental form, including a reproducing of self-similar ones», but «a reproducing proves always to be only approximate», and «a new form can never be absolutely similar to the parental form». The ways of such reproducing are various: «from rather complex types of sexual reproduction up to the elementary – asexual gemmation and division» [Basic Elements, p. 81].
Alpha of existence of sociosystem — the primary and basic tendency of development of any social system, which determines success of its struggle against the nature, i.e. it is «the tendency of adaptation», or, more precisely, the tendency of «sociolabour adaptation». Its essence is the following: «any social system, in the whole and in the vital-necessary parts, should reach practically-sufficient satisfaction of its needs; otherwise there is its complete or partial destruction»; its really effective adaptation in struggle for existence «is made actively, by means of labour process», at that «expenditure of labour energy of society, or its productive activity», and «distribution in its environment of products of this activity should be organized so that its each part carries out a function, which is vitally-useful and necessary for the whole, and so that the part remains capable to the further execution of such a function. Then we deal with a real social system» [Course of Political Economy, p. 6]. By character of interaction with an environment such systems are referred in tectology to as active systems.
Alpha of heuristics — the starting position of heuristics, according to which «the possibility and probability of solution of tasks increase at their statement in a generalized form». For example, «when tyrant Hieron charged Archimedes with the job of examining the composition of the crown, which he suspected of replacement of a part of gold given to a jeweler on it by silver, even the supergenius of Archimedes would prove to be powerless, if the efforts of his thought did not come off from the direct data of the task». But Archimedes «replaced it by the other one, generalized and not bound by the concrete data, – about determination of relative density of bodies of any form, and, having solved this one, had the possibility to cope not only with that task, which had been specified, but also with uncountable others of the similar type. And so all huge cognitive and practical force of mathematics is based on the maximally generalized statement of questions» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 46].
Alpha of scientific cognition — «the general causal connection of the phenomena», which «is the general law», the highest of all the laws ordered by the human mind to the nature; simply speaking, it is that reliable point of support, which is found by cognition «not in the very things, but in their relations» [Basic Elements, p. 41].
Alpha of sociodifferentiation — «the beginning of fragmentation of society into classes and social groups», which from the positions of historical monism «is in the same place where the beginning of any social development in general is also – in technical progress»: the starting point of social stratification is division of labour, two tendencies of which, ingressive and egressive, generated correspondingly two ways of social division: social groups – the sociodifferentiation of the first sort and classes – the sociodifferentiation of the second sort; in the first case the typical relation is specialization, in the second one – «domination and submission». Thus, social differentiation is derivative of technical differentiation [Empiriomonism, pp. 295-296].
Alpha of sociogenesis — «the initial point of any social development», including the global one, which «lies in technical process»; at that «the basic line of development goes from technical forms through the lowest organizing forms of ideology to the highest», and the derivative line – conversely: «from the highest organizing forms to the lowest and from ideology to technics». Roughly speaking, the alpha of sociogenesis is technical process itself, which, in fact, decides all further fate of sociogenesis: just «in technical process there are lain the dynamic conditions of social development and degradation, the motive forces of these processes» [Empiriomonism, p. 294].
Alpha of socioprogress — maximization and synergization of social energy, or, more shorter, maximum of collectivism, which growth in fact just provides both tendencies, the necessary and sufficient for stable social development.
Alpha of tectology — the starting point of tectology, its main heuristic purpose, according to which «it is possible to determine the universal methods and laws, on which the most various elements of the universe are organized in complexes». This is the very position to give the basis for universal organizational science – for that great «new science, by means of which the humankind will be able to organize its creative forces, its life on all line in planned way» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 254-255].
Analogy — a structural similarity of forms, «heterogeneous by origin, but become similar owing to similar functions». For example, «an eye of man and an eye of octopus with their parallel parts, with their sensitive layers of retina located in reverse sequence; or bones of skeleton of vertebrates and “bone” of cuttlefish; or a wing of bird with its skeletal basis and a wing of butterfly, arose from a fold of chitin cover. Alga Caulerpa represents a gigantic (in size up to several inches) cell; it is possible to discern quite clear root, a stalk and leaves in it; but these organs are certainly only similar to the roots, consisting of uncountable cells, to stalks and leaves of the higher plants». An example from the other field: «the breeding of aphides at ants-graziers and the culture of fungi at their American relatives-tiller are only analogous, but not homologous to cattle-breeding and agriculture of people. “The affinity of functions”, by which all analogies are explained in this sense, is just the similar relation to environment, and that mechanism of selection, which in the line of divergence of forms makes unrecognizable their initial relationship, can create an amazing illusion of such relationship in the lines of convergence» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 91].
Analogy through isomorphism — similarity, which is carried out between complexes of the same, identical structure. This is a consequence of «structural unity of nature» and of the second law of Bogdanov, showing «a possibility of identical expression of laws of nature» from the points of view of various complexes [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].
Anamorphosis — extremely developed regeneration, inherent in highly organized forms of life, when «one cell, being separated from highly differentiated whole, consisting of millions, billions or even trillions of cells, step by step “regenerates” a species form of the whole in full measure. However, such property belongs only to one type of cells, only to an ovum; even billions and trillions another cells, separated from the whole, do not give similar renewal» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 241].
Analysis — a way of thinking, widespread in that cases, when «direct generalization is not possible». From the point of view of tectology the essence of this way consists in increase of plasticity of complexes under investigation: «by means of decomposing complexes on their elements, i.e. mentally breaking off the connections of these elements, thinking gives them “relative mobility”» with the purpose to collect them next in a new desirable combination [Tectology, v. 1, p. 157]. The methodological imperfection of this way of thinking consists in that the analysis of elements, i.e. of parts of a whole, «gives not whole, but less than whole»: really, a building is not a heap of constructional materials, an atom is not simply a mix of elementary particles, etc., not to speak of such a most complex phenomenon as life, since, everywhere it is, a whole always «is greater than the sum of its parts as an alive human body is greater than the heap of its members» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 123-124].
Analytical abstraction — the extensive fictitious separateness class, being formed under thinkable «breaking of groups of the elements of one type away from the elements of other type, which are inseparably intertwined with the first, for example the visually-spatial away from color. But psychologically in practice there is carried out a break between two associations of notions being formed and fixed in two concepts», which «means a real disingression of psychical activities in a boundary sphere of two associations»: «a color of an object is mentally segregated from its form, a space, being occupied by a body, – from its material content, the categories of cognition – from experience, which keeps within them, “an essence” – from its “manifestations”, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 175].
Analytical sum — «a result of combination of specific activities or respective resistances at every conjugation» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 147]. Analytical sum is always less than arithmetic one and only in ideal case is equal to it.
Anarchical system — a complex of social systems, which are not integrated by common egression; in other words, it is ingressive system of various egressive complexes. For example: the system of capitalist economy, which every enterprise is covered by internal egression, while externally they are not connected by it and are united with each other only by ingressive connecter – by market.
Anarchism — «limited collectivism», the ideal of which is in the solution of following organizational tasks: «elimination of class system by destruction of the general organization of domination of the superior classes – the state; transition of means of production in hands of independent labour communities under formation of free association of individuals and keeping the connection of production by friendly exchange of their products». Anarchism is alien to «the idea of centralized collectivism, of the organization incomparable wider on its functions than modern state, because it should cover all economic life of humankind». On external character the anarchical ideal «does not as though fall into a number of the ideals, constructed on the principle of preservation of differentiation», but it does in this way, because «independent labour communities» exchange their products, that means «preservation of anarchy of production. Exchange is the expression of this anarchy, and its essence consists in isolation of organizing-volitional activities and in their collisions, disingressions. Within the limits of each commune this activities are organized, consolidated in the whole, which can be named as the volition of a commune, but in an act of exchange communal volitions come out not only as independent, but inevitably as directed in opposition: each commune wishes to get more, to give less and cannot regard for interests of another commune as to own ones. Here, there are already both the disorganizational moment, and separation of parts of the system, leading to their progressive divergence and so to the further accumulation of contradictions. Isolation of internal life of communes should increase, the necessity of expansion of exchange and having always enough surpluses for it should intensify the specialization of production between them, at the same time in future it should weaken their living connection of interests, their direct communications, their mutual understanding. The exchange in these conditions should more and more take the usual character, peculiar to market relations, i.e. the character of economic struggle. And if there is a struggle, there are winners and losers and then a dependence of losers on winners, i.e. revival of classes», which, in its turn, leads to rebirth of the state. Thus, the anarchist ideal «is reduced to reiteration of the same given task through some intermediate phases» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 75-77].
Anarchy of production — the first basic contradiction of class system, which «is reduced to disconnection of internal life of enterprises». Similarly to a living organism, consisting of specialized elements – cells, a class system «consists of specialized elementary groupings – enterprises», the connection of which «is embodied in an exchange of the goods, in “the market”; it is the external side of life of enterprises. But in it they act as struggling units: the efforts of a buyer and seller are directed oppositely, just as the efforts, for example, of two competing sellers or buyers», owing to there are formed uncountable disingressions, which in the field of contact of complexes are «the disjunctive moment of them, the breakage of their connection» [Questions of Socialism, p. 287].
Animism — universal substitution «in the erroneous, fetishistic form, as animation of all nature, as the settling of unorganized bodies into highly organized “souls”» [Empiriomonism, p. 237].
Annihilation —— along with arising it is one of the basic crises of forms, which means only «a change up to unrecognizability»; in other words, where people «cease to recognize a changed form, to find in it what it has been before, – there they speak that the form “has been annihilated”». For example: «in a block of ice a man usually still recognizes water, which he just see there, and consequently he does not speak that water has been annihilated, but he speaks only that it has frozen, i.e. it has changed»; but if «water has evaporated, an uneducated person supposes that it has really been annihilated». But «since change of forms goes endlessly, while human ability “to recognize” at any given time is limited – then it is necessary, with sorrow or without sorrow, to accept that annihilation is the common destiny of all forms of movement. But the more human mind is filled with the concept of continuity, unity and mutual connection of all existing, the more the concept of annihilation takes conditional character, step-by-step merging with the concept of change in general» [Basic Elements, pp. 60-61].
Anthropoconjugation — «a conjugation between human beings», known in three forms: sexual, psychical and physiological. Sexual conjugation is «very partial», the same way as of other organisms too. Psychical conjugation, i.e. «intercommunication of experience, conjugation of feelings», is made «by speech, mimicry, art and other ways of expression and perception, which have been developed in a number of functions of neuromuscular apparatus». It is necessary to note that this conjugation is not merely psychical, to what its results testify «at recurring and long communication»: for example, between spouses «for 15-20 years of joint life owing to dependence of all organs and tissues on neurocerebral activity there is also got physical similarity of appearance», which «is made on average not less, but sometimes more than usual similarity between brothers and sisters». Physiological conjugation is made in «one-sided and very partial» («various inoculations of organs and tissues»: from «inoculation of skin at big burns, blood transfusion, injection of blood serums, etc.» up to «inoculations of sometimes the most complicated organs» – transplantation of kidney, eye, heart, etc.) and two-sided to one or another degree of completeness (for example, exchange of blood and lymph at mutual transfusion) [Tectology, v. 2, p. 82].
Anthropodeterminism — conditionality of existence of physical world by existence of humankind. The physical world is socially-organized experience, i.e. experience of all humankind in its development; in other words, it is «the world of strict, established, made regularity, of the definite, exact relations, the very well-arranged world, where all theorems of geometry, all formulas of mechanics, astronomy, physics etc. are in force». This world does not exist independently of humankind; it is impossible to tell, that this system of experience has already been in existence before it. For example, what does such an argument mean that our planet «is under and has always been under the law of gravitation, let us assume? By this law, gravitation of bodies is proportional to their masses and is inversely proportional to the square of distances. Clearly, that force of the law expects measurement of masses and distances, moreover, by stable, exact measures, which have been worked out by agreement of people, – it expects algebraic operations of multiplication, squaring, division, which are carried out by people, it is plain. Reject “social practice” of measurements, of determination of measure units, of calculations and so forth, – and nothing remains from the law of gravitation. Therefore, if the law is said to be in force before humankind, it is not the same, that independently of humankind. We face simply conditional transference of our activity outside of its historical limits: if millions years ago there was humankind and if it made use of the methods of measurement and calculation, such as we did, it could master the astronomical phenomena by means of such law. If we shall look absolutely aside from humankind with its methods of work and cognition, then there is no physical experience, there is no world of regular phenomena in front of us, – there is only spontaneity of the universe, knowing no laws, because it does not measure, does not calculate, does not generalize. To understand it, to master it, we should imagine humankind again, which struggles with it and cognizes it, changes it and organizes by the efforts: then once again we get the physical experience with its objective, i.e. socially-made and socially-suitable law» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 226-227]. Apropos to notice: as the physical world is initially caused by existence of humankind, all mysteriousness of the so-called «anthropic principle» disappears also: own initial precondition is formulated as a conclusion in it.
Anthropogenesis — a biosocial process of adaptation of humankind to natural environment, beginning at origin of man, his becoming as a species during the formation of society and up to the contemporary state of transition from an object of selection to its active actor. Depending on correlation of animal and rational ways of adaptation, anthropogenesis has two stages – the stage of animal type of development when zoos dominates in processes of adaptation of man, and the stage of rational type of development when noos dominates.
Anthroposphere — humankind, one of the shells of biosphere, its nooderma (from Greek νοος – mind, reason and δερμα – leather, skin); from the tectological point of view it is the system of the most plastic adaptation of biosphere to geospheric and cosmic conditions, moreover, it is the system of highly organized adaptation of geosphere to natural environment; in the structural relation it consists of three complexes: ideo-, eco- and technosphere.
Antilogy — «a contradiction of two concepts», but «not a contradiction of real forces or tendencies». For example, the contradiction of two concepts «to stand» and «not to stand» somewhere, applied to movement, «is only ideal contradiction, which exists only in thinking», and to reduce a real fact to it – movement – this means to ignore the objective, socially-coordinated experience [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 190].
Apologetics — infringement by people «of their own forms of thinking». So, «mostly, it is possible to disprove someone, who creates this apologetics, logically-convincingly from the point of view of his own principles. On the contrary, a form of thinking does not distort anything in essence, but only works all in its own way» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 319].
Apologia of individualism — «the most stereotyped defense of individualism based on wordplay, confusing it with development of individuality – in the sense of individual abilities». In reality «only collectivism for the first time creates conditions for their systematic and planned development», while «the world of individualism suppresses their largest amount not only by the specialization, narrowing a life, but also even more by necessity for a man to defend his creative individuality at the cost of severe struggle, in which the large majority of people is a priori put in the most disadvantageous conditions. Of this majority those few, who have managed to defend it, can vitally show it only within the limits of that remainder of forces, which is kept at them in addition to the wastes of this struggle. Such is individualistic freedom of individual development» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 236].
Applied sciences — aggregate of sciences, which are «not independent by the methods» and can scientifically solve their tasks «only basing on natural sciences and mathematics» [Questions of Socialism, p. 306].
A priori — a knowledge, previous to experience; the certain prerequisites of cognition, which are initially inherent in consciousness of man, are independent of experience and are supposedly «the common, necessary conditions of cognitive activity. For example, such are the “forms of contemplation” – space and time; such are (at Kant) the different “categories”, in which a cognizing mind puts necessarily all the content of cognition; by the way, such are also the basic logic laws, without the help of which it is generally impossible to reason about something». At that «these necessary conditions, these very “prerequisites” of cognition are not subject to analysis, and in general to any research – are not subject because any analysis, any research presupposes them, is based on them; there is possible no explanation without them, that is why they cannot be explained themselves. Any attempt to break them down or to find their origin is ridiculous by virtue of that it is necessarily should lean upon those very “prerequisites”, which it is striving to research. So, for example, if the associationists and psychophysiologists explain the origin of ideas of space, time, “I” in a definite way, – then all these explanations make no sense from the “gnoseological” point of view; for all experiments, on which the explanation is based, are themselves given to a researching person in space and in time and are connected by unity of “I”». From the point of view of tectology all above-stated is nothing but an ordinary logical error, the essence of which is in the confusion of «directly experienced action» with «notion (or concept) about such action». In fact «when Kant cognized the cognition», he «was seeking “a priori” not in the very process of seeking, which was being experienced by him, but in that material, which he viewed during this process». His «theory of cognition operates, consequently, not with cognition, as with a direct act, but with notions and concepts about cognitive acts, with their images. Only in the last ones this theory can seek and find constant “forms”, differently called “prerequisites”, or “a priori”». And really, «by means of the act of cognition they are distinguished from the notions about cognitive acts. They are consequently the result, the product of the act of cognition, and a characteristic, an element of the notions about cognition». It is quite clear, that they cannot «be presupposed» in an act of cognition in any way, cannot be its «preconditions», its «a priori». It is obvious, that «such assertion is based on gross, naive muddle of concepts: on confusion of direct act of cognition with notion about this act». Therefore «abstract space», «abstract time», «universal causality», etc. cannot be «the necessary conditions» of the very process of cognition: all these so-called «cognitive “a priori” are not in the least the prerequisites of cognition», they are «the highest abstractions, got by the long process of cognitive development» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 255-258].
Architecture — a special form of social degression fixing mentality of people’s masses, their stablest organizing traditions; simply speaking, it is «a peculiar language of feeling» which «expresses and socializes human moods», but only the «longest, stablest, age-old moods of masses». Let us take, for example, gigantic temples of feudal religions: they had been building by the whole generations, sometimes by a whole number of generations, and «the artists-builders, children of the epoch, consciously, and even more often unconsciously, put their dominating feelings, their belief in the stone forms. The Gothic buildings of the Middle Ages, such as Cologne Cathedral, are the most striking and the simplest illustration of the sense of architectural “style”. Their orderly, ogival shapes, being directed upwards with huge force, had ideally deeply and vividly embodied the impulse to renunciation of all terrestrial and everyday, the impulse to heavenly-far. It is the basic mood of Catholic religion, the comforter of the masses, promised Heaven to them for tortures of this life, which among the land closeness, unrestrained-fierce wars and under the oppression of exploitation represented the significant similarity to hell. Architecture has fixed and continuously passed the prevalent sensations of nations and classes from one generation to another». Its huge educational significance consists in this: «organizing the sensations of descendants according to what their ancestors experienced, it has been a custodian of organizing tradition for the most part» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 354].
Area — «nothing more nor less than a body of infinitesimal or simply ignored thickness». Areas of only two dimensions, which are allegedly «thought» by mathematicians, «cannot exist in a perception because they are invisible and intangible; therefore they cannot exist in a notion because it is a trace of perceptions; thereby they cannot exist in a concept too, i.e. they cannot “be thought” because the material of concepts is notions. In practice, certainly, mathematicians “think” not about what they speak in their verbally-contradictory definitions, but absolutely other» – about the area, which are «accessible to sight and visual notion» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 220].
Arising — «such crisis of a form, after which the cognition begins to recognize its existence». Its difference from other crises is «quite relative, conditional», since it depends completely on development of cognitive ability. For example: «the followers of spontaneous origin of life supposed that they observed primary emergence of the elementary organisms in a nutrient solution», but, as it turned out subsequently, «these organisms had already existed there previously, in the form of small germs», which couldn’t had been found previously; «thus, “origination” of vital forms was moved to the other moment of world history». Inherently the concept «origination» is static, since it is obliged «by birth to the fact that in crises the continuity of change of forms escapes our feelings quite often»: if, for example, «30 years ago you saw a senseless piece of flesh called infant, and now there is the adult in front of you», so «you do not speak that the infant has been annihilated, but you recognize him in your interlocutor, because you or others have been observing the continuity of change of the form» [Basic Elements, pp. 60-61].
Army — in the structural relation – a system of chain egression; on destination – a degressive system, because it is «an organ of protection and rescue of the whole», a part of which it is; on composition – mass of «the people trained for murder»; on consumption – a commune of authoritative type; on character of employment – the military organization, which is withdrawn from production and is on full state maintenance [Questions of Socialism, pp. 181, 335-336]. A contemporary army is «a million collective with all mass of the technical means plus the huge economic apparatus of the servicing enterprises», in general – an organization of colossal sizes and significance, at that «the energy concentrated in such organization can be delayed by external conditions in the display, but it necessarily aspires to pass into action. A dead mechanism is able to stand without the use indefinitely; but a living and growing organism, – and a contemporary army by harmony of the whole and separateness of the functions is closest to the type of organism, – should gravitate to expansion of the activity in the external environment», creating «the special forces of pressure, which increase together with accumulation of energy in the forms of militarism» [World Crises (April), p. 152].
Arocapitalistic exploitation — the scheme of distribution of surplus value among the new bourgeoisie – hired tectorate. These «hired organizers on government service turn easier into bureaucrats, and elimination of competition of enterprises can easily become death for technical and economic progress». In this respect competition is replaced by «bonus system»: «receiving a known percent from profitability of a government enterprise over the properly employee pay, an engineer and an administrator are interested in development of business, the initiative and creativity get a support». It is «in the form of such a bonus that a share of surplus value, which will not go on expansion of production, should be distributed» [the World War and the Revolution, p. 103].
Arochronic — a complex, which accelerates a systemogenesis.
Arochronism — a tendency to acceleration of a systemogenesis.
Arocommunism — communism of sufficiency, which in contrast to catacommunism is a natural consequence of development of the capitalist formation at introduction of the processes of collectivization in the sphere of production. With increase of social synergy arocommunism turns into socialism.
Arogenesis — organizational progress of a system, connected with complicating of its organizational structure towards improvement of its evolutional possibilities. The term is synonymous to the concept of «tectological progress», but it is more common, because it represents a word-concept rather than a phrase-concept. The necessary condition of arogenesis: synergy should exceed dyssynergia in a system.
Arogenic individual — a man, whose activity promotes progress of the social system, a member of which he is. Such a man lives not only for himself as a physiological organism, but also for a society as an actor: on the one hand, «his energy comes into the general stream of life and strengthens it, helps to win what is hostile to it in the world», and on the other hand, he «lives owing to work of the other people, takes something away from life surrounding him. But while he gives it more than takes, he increases the sum of life, he is a plus in it, a positive quantity. It happens that up to the end, up to the physical death he remains such a plus: his arms have already weakened, but the brain is still well-working, an old man thinks, teaches and educates others, giving them his experience». But it happens not always so: sometimes «he begins to take from life more than gives it», decreasing its sum and becoming a minus in it, a negative quantity, i.e. a catagenic individual [Questions of Socialism, pp. 264-265]. It is necessary to note, that arogenity or catagenity of an individual are relative concepts and are determined in relation to concrete social system. For example, a member of a solidary criminal grouping is arogenic to this grouping, but catagenic to a society, in which it operates.
Arogenic system — system of complementary complexes, possessing the increased adaptability in comparison with catagenic system. Organizational progress of arogenic system is energetically provided with two tendencies: increase of energy assimilation from environment and decrease of entropic transformations of assimilated energy.
Arogenity — evolutional orientation of an activity towards organizational progress of a system, in other words, an utility of some intrasystem activity in terms of increase of adaptable abilities of a system, i.e. of intensification of its arogenesis.
Aropsychism — «expansion of a soul» connected with «pleasant, joyful feelings corresponding to an increased inflow of energy in neuropsychic system», which «dispose to development of communication with environment in all sides – to strengthening of activity of external senses, to increase of mobility, to rise of “sympathetic” tendencies, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 245].
Art — 1) a highly organized ideological complex, which includes all three types of organizing adapters, inasmuch as its social content «comes partly to transference of direct feelings from one man to other, partly to transmitting of accumulated experience to other men (i.e. partly to the first, partly to the second type of organizing adapters)», at that containing «the elements of the third ideological type – the socially-normative», since «the principle of art – the beauty – becomes a norm of human behaviour» [Empiriomonism, pp. 269-270]; 2) «an instrument of social organization of people», which, in contrast to science, «organizes experience in living images and not in concepts» [Questions of Socialism, p. 421]; 3) an area of human doing, in which «organization of ideas and organization of things are undivided». For example: «taken in themselves, an architectural construction, a statue, a picture are systems of “dead” elements – of a stone, a metal, a canvas, paints; but a vital sense of these works is in those complexes of images, emotions, which are united around them in human psychics» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70]. Art has organizational character initially, its content is always «tectological; that is the basis for its vital significance. It is tectology in visual images instead of abstract schemes». A novel, a story, a drama depict human mutual relations in their development, arising, destruction, i.e. represent «organizational and disorganizational processes in social environment. A beautiful statue gives the visible scheme of the harmonious construction of human body, i.e. of its expedient organization. Even lyrics, music, a landscape give in the different ways the schemes of harmonious or disharmonious “moods”, i.e. orderly organized or disorganized complexes of perceptions, emotions, aspirations, etc.». For this reason art «with its organizational methods is subject to special tectological research» [Tectology (1917), p. 71].
Art creativity — an organizational human doing, in which «organization of ideas and organization of things are inseparable. For example, an architectural construction, a statue, a picture taken in themselves are the systems of “dead” elements – of stone, metal, canvas, paints; but the vital sense of these works is in those complexes of images and emotions, which are united around of them in human psychics». By the special methods art creativity «organizes notions, feelings, moods of people, closely touching with cognition, often directly merging with it, as fiction, poetry, painting». The basic principle of art creativity is orderliness and harmony [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70].
Art form — «a way to combine harmoniously the elements of content, i.e. to organize its material»; at that «always and everywhere a way of organization depends on a material being subject to it», since «a form cannot be independent on the content» [Questions of Socialism, p. 451].
Arti-auti (from Greek αρτι – now, just, at the present moment and αυθι – here, on this place, on the spot) — fixation of a directly observable change, to which the beginning of system of coordinates is attached, in the forms of world degression; simply speaking, it is chronotop of a directly observable event in the form of «here and now».
Artificial selection — «a conscious activity of man», proving as purposeful selection and operating under the scheme «maximum of divergence and minimum of conjugation», according to which as the purpose there is defined the very system divergence, but «not in the form of a certain, completely concretized technical task, but as divergence in general». For example: search and «production of new sorts in gardening, poultry farming, etc., and also in scientifically-experimental researches of formation of new biological forms». In these cases the scheme of selection is the following: there is firstly undertaken «the samples, which are little differing, practically “identical” in the point of unity of variety», then «they “are separated”, i.e. are put in different conditions, in consequence of what they undergo dissimilar changes», and «as soon as a certain variation takes shape», the samples, in which it has showed, are again separated from the others, «in order not to not allow the conjugation», since it «would impede the divergence and would smooth it. These acts of separation are repeated again and again, making the basis of “artificial selection”. In the nature at natural selection analogous separation is reached only by that the differently changed forms, so to say, are by themselves put in more and more different relations to the environment. Certainly, such a separation is incomparably less complete than artificial one; in the whole mass of cases conjugation remains possible and weakens the tendency of divergence» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 10].
Artist — «an organizer of feeling and thought», but at that always «an ideologist of some collective – a class or a group», embodying in an organized way in images «its world sensation, world understanding, practical world attitude, aspirations, ideals» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 452, 455, 450].
Asceticism — a passive reaction of a man to adverse actions of an environment, expressed by stable «tendency to self-restriction» in the form of abstention from life’s pleasures, «reduction of needs», and sometimes also full renunciation of all vital goods [Tectology, v. 1, p. 255]. More often inclination for asceticism is showed by natures of passive psychotype.
Aspiration — «an act of consciousness, which reflects an incipient weakened reproducing of the very action» [Basic Elements, p. 196], more simply, it is «a reduced form of a volitional complex of “action”», i.e. «an incomplete volitional complex, not reflected in the nearest image on complexes of environment, but under sufficient conditions directly passing into volitional act, which is already “reflected” in environment» [Empiriomonism, pp. 278, 156]. From the positions of psychoenergetics an aspiration is «a centrifugal act of consciousness» connected with «waste of nervous energy in direction to peripheric muscular apparatus», and as a uncompleted action, intensifying, «it tends to pass in complete action, and even moreover, it always implies a greater or smaller part of the real muscular contractions and efforts, of the true motional innervation» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 120].
Assimilation — the process of «getting of elements from environment, at which they, being a part of a given complex, form groupings in it, “similar” to its other groupings, becoming like them» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 198]; easier speaking, «absorption and digestion of activities from outside» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 13].
Associative connection — «the special form of organization» of psychical experience, by means of which «perceptions, overviews, aspirations are grouped in the certain chains and complexes», uniting then «around one, the strongest and stable complex of memories, feelings and aspirations – that complex, which is designated by the word “I”» [Empiriomonism, p. 23].
Astronomical unit (à.å.) — the measure of cosmic distances which is equal to major semiaxis of the elliptical orbit of geosphere, i.e. according to the properties of ellipse to the average distance between the centres of geo- and heliosphere. 1 à.å. = 1,49 · 1011 m.
Astronomy — «teaching about orientation of labour efforts in space and time» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 227], or, more exactly, «method of spatial and temporal orientation of human labour, based on observation over the largest bodies of the universe» [Course of Political Economy, p. 165], i.e. «a science, giving division of time». Being initially an agricultural knowledge, and then also a nautical one, at present «astronomy directs all spheres of production absolutely». For example, clock, used everywhere, – «entirely astronomical instrument: it is constructed according to astronomy, and then clock is constantly controlled by it; a check of all clocks, from one to others, is finally made throughout astronomical observatories; and without this check all clocks would quickly differ from themselves and it would be impossible for people to organize exactly any work, any communication among themselves. In old times directly the sun and stars served as clock; their movement on the sky is imitated by uniform motion of hands on a clock dial» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 376].
Asymmetric chain connection — see heterogeneous chain connection.
Asymmetric connection — see heterogeneous connection.
Asymmetric form of cooperation — a socially-production form, which essence «consists in mutual connection and correspondence of different roles in production, of different psychical forms at separate individuals». It is technical progress that has destroyed symmetric cooperation of primitive tribal society and has created asymmetry in social relations: sizes and complexity of growing social production have demanded the division of labour firstly into organizing and executive, and then into a great number of special one [Basic Elements, p. 181]. Asymmetric forms of cooperation are authoritarianism and production individualism, or specialization.
Asymmetric ingression — irreversible connection in system, at which «assimilation of one part of system corresponds to disassimilation of another or others», i.e. «connection from A to B is not identical with connection from B to A, but opposite to it». As one of the conditions of structural stability of a system the asymmetric ingression is characteristic for complementary connections, arising and developing in a system under differentiation of its various parts. For example, such is the connection between termites and living in their intestine flagellates, digesting absorbed by termites cellular tissue, which is not assimilated by termites without them. The geometrical scheme of asymmetric ingression is represented in the form of «concave line for one part of system» and «convex one for another» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 23-24].
Asymmetry of eidoforms — a consequence of asymmetry of socially-production forms, which «causes fragmentation of society into groups with more or less different psychology». So, for example, «a medieval feudal lord and the peasants, subordinated to him, are in the asymmetric relation of cooperation»: a feudal lord «carries out the organizing role in the affair of protection against external enemies and in other undertakings, impossible for small peasant economies (arrangement of means of communication, mills, communal baking stoves, wine presses…)»; peasants «keep everyone the small agricultural economy connected with some auxiliary trades» [Basic Elements, p. 198]. Different external influences, under which there are these two groups, naturally, lead to asymmetry of ideological forms: feudal lord is the main organizer of distribution, in addition he judges and gives laws, and peasants admit this role for him, but the further development of such social forms strengthens their asymmetry inevitably.
Asynergia (from Greek α – not and συνεργία – cooperation, partnership) — a break of general orientation of intrasystem activities, i.e. the intrasystem state opposite to synergy. A synonym is dyssynergia.
Atavism — a phenomenon of «return to type of ancestors», which is observable in the sphere of heredity and is shown not in complete reproducing, but only in few features. Under the common name of this peculiar phenomenon there is united «the mass of the facts of enough various character: and features of lower type in higher one, for example, simian features in human beings, and physical or psychical similarity of descendants with more or less remote ascending ancestors, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, passing the parents», at that «the phenomenon of atavism is limited ordinarily to few visible features of organism: hairy body, great-grandfather’s nose, grandfather’s melancholy, etc.» [Basic Elements, p. 87].
Atom — «highly differentiated system» of egressive-degressive «“polar” construction, with a positive electric nucleus and mobile in dependence on it negative electrons», i.e. it is a stable «system of equilibrium of electric elements, positive and negative», which as a result of «extremely long system divergence under extremely intense selection» has achieved a high degree of stability, «based on the immeasurably-fast, cyclically-closed motions» of these elements – «electric activities» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 29, 196, 20, v. 1, p. 72]. Certainly, stability of atom is relative: even radioactive elements decay at «the various speed – from milliard years at thorium and uranium up to negligibly small fractions of second at other emanations». Moreover, «on the modern concepts of the structure of atoms, in essence, their any complex possesses explosive properties. There is required only an impetus, able to break simultaneously an equilibrium of sufficient number of these atoms; then releasing colossal energy of internal movement will destroy in its turn a structure of not smaller or even greater number of other atoms, etc., until a material is exhausted. Although usual influences destroy constantly some number of separate atoms, but they are too weak to develop this process on explosive type, and though, it may be assumed, they disorganize any elements little by little, but with immeasurable slowness for us. It is just as at room temperature a mix of hydrogen and oxygen passes into water at speed, measured by hundreds milliards years, but from a spark, at once involving in reaction a sufficient number of particles, it blows up “instantly”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 251]. From the newest meaning atom «is nothing else than the organizational center», i.e. egressor: in fact «contemporary atom stretches the entire universe essentially, even from the point of view of the theory of relativity» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 323].
Atomism — a sort of sociomorphism, i.e. «the transference of the concept of social relations, exactly individualistic, to the nature». In fact the word «atom» means the same as «individual» essentially. Historically «the individualistic form of thinking was necessary, and this form was extended for all the nature» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 323].
Attention — a vasomotor-muscular activity directed at increase of «nutrition of those elements of the central apparatus, which are in active state». For example, if a man, wishing to have a good look at details of a separate object, scrutinizes it attentively, this means that his «vasomotor system, by distention of the minute vessels feeding the active areas of the brain, directs to these areas the greatest sum of food at the expense of others. By such a way the potential energy is rapidly accumulated in corresponding optically-brain cells, and they turn into the charged apparatuses, which discharge at a least external impulse as though by explosion of energy causing secondary fluctuations in many points of the central system. It is quite natural that under such conditions in the general coordination of psychical experience there got even comparatively very small light irritations corresponding to small details of a perceived picture» [Basic Elements, p. 50].
Attraction — «the elementary organizational tendency, directed to formation of the simplest systems – electronic, atomic, molecular» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 197].
Attribute — an element, representing some complex of elements [Tectology, v. 2, p. 167].
Attributes of socialism — three basic characteristics of conscious sociogenesis: 1) «the real authority of society over the nature, infinitely developing on the basis of scientifically-organized technics»; 2) «harmonious organization of all production system, under the greatest mobility of its elements and their groupings and at high psychical homogeneity of workers as comprehensively developed conscious workers»; 3) «socially organized distribution on the basis of public property on all means of production» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 92, 94-95].
Autarchy — «independence of a nation-state economy in all its scale». Autarchy «proposes just a national-state organization as a whole», when «the raise of scientific technique with its ideology on the step of conscious intensification of productive forces» makes «an economy of country self-sufficing» and «independent of the international communications» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 11, 23]. For an economy to become self-sufficient, «it is necessary that all things are “own”, if some of the essential elements of production are gotten from outside, it is necessary to put their procuring at itself, even with the lowest coefficient of productivity; and if the nature of a country does not give preconditions for this purpose, it is necessary to find suitable and sufficient replacement», that, in turn, generates the most intense investigation of natural riches available in a country, «the search of new sources of technical matter and energy, the account of their stocks, etc.; and in necessary connection with this – the intensified theoretical research of their genesis» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 461-462].
Authoritarianism — an organizational form of cooperation in social system with strongly pronounced egressive center, when organizational labour has stood apart from executive one [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 316]. «The authoritative form of life» arose at the second historical stage of division of labour and «in the further history of humankind it acts in uncountable variations, developing and becoming complicated and collapsing»: «in the form of soft matriarchy and severe patriarchy, in the form of priestly authority invested with religious mystery and of feudal authority invested with force of weapon, in the form of system of servitude alien to any formalities and of system of wage labour full of cold formalism, in the form of senseless-stupid eastern despotism and western-cultural authority of the elect, in the form of paper-dry authority of bureaucrat above inhabitants and of authority of ideologist above his citizens basing on moral force», etc. Authoritarianism is still «the basic and main division of a society». With the beginnings of authoritarianism the first fractionation of man has happened – separation of organizer from executor, till now keeping «the same basis: distinctly or vaguely the experience of one man recognizes as in principle unequal to the experience of another, the dependence of man on man becomes one-sided, the active will comes apart from the passive will» [Questions of Socialism, p. 33].
Authoritarian causality — such a perverted understanding of all relations of reality, at which «an effect is determined by a cause per sample of that as an execution – by an order of people», as a result of what all natural phenomena are covered by authoritative connection [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 338]; in other words, it is a sort of sociomorphism, when authoritarian cooperation «is transformed into a model for connection of phenomena: a cause, as masterful force, “producing” an effect; an effect, as something lower, subjected to a cause» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 37]. As the basic principle, organizing the system of thinking, such a form of causal relationship arose at an early stage of development of humankind and in essence represented the first type of universal substitution.
Authoritarian cooperation — «division of labour between organizer or leader and executor or subordinates» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 5].
Authoritarian dualism — «the historically first form of “world view”», together with which cognition arises for the first time. Really, «distinguishing active and passive parts in the phenomena, man thereby “explains” already a manifestation of the second by way of the first. Certainly, it is only the beginning of cognitive development; the chain of “explanation”, the chain of causality breaks here already on the second link: if a phenomenon has its cause in its own “soul”, then further this soul there is no place to go for explanation. But just as authoritarian relations, becoming wider, developed in long series of consecutive links, the chain of causality became also complicated and developed; in social life of people authoritarian series of relations always converged on some one highest authority; and in exactly the same way the cognition of people aspired to reduce all causal series to one highest initial cause. So cognition reflects the social life of people not only in its content, but also in its forms» [Questions of Socialism, p. 34].
Authoritarian psychology — a psychology of «embryonic people», which is still widespread in the contemporary society and which characteristic features are «rudeness and arrogance in relation to people who are considered beneath themselves by position, deference in relation to those who are recognized above themselves» [Belief and Science, p. 71], i.e. the typical psychology of dichanthrop.
Authoritarian relation — a social connection of egressively-degressive type, a connection of an organizer and an executor.
Authoritarian system — a social organization of egressive type, which «has been prevailing everywhere during all the historical epoch» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 108]; more simply, a social system based on authoritarianism; in other words, «it is the collective constructed on authoritarian cooperation, on the guiding role of ones, the executive role of others, on the authority-submission. Those are the patriarchal tribal commune, the feudal society, the serfdom and thraldom organization, the police-bureaucratic state; the modern army and in small scale a petty-bourgeois family have the same character; and at last, the capital also makes its enterprises on the authority-submission» [Questions of Socialism, p. 430]. The basic contradiction of authoritarian system consists in that «the “organizing function”, i.e. the structural adaptation of all system, depends entirely on an individual brain of “authority” or the ruler, whereas the scale of organizational life is certainly collective. Consequently, a partial and at least short-term individual insufficiency has sometimes irretrievable or even disastrous effect on all collective» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 218].
Authoritarian thinking — the notion about the world by the scheme of «authority – submission»; in other words, the notion by the pattern of authoritarian cooperation of all without exception «relations of human life, life in the nature, and the world process in general; for example, the concepts about “soul” and “body”, as commanding master and passive executor, about “gods”, as the organizers of the world, about knowledge, as revelation of these organizers, about morality, as their dictate, about humility, obedience, loyalty to authorities, as the superior virtues, etc.» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 5]. A synonymous term is religious thinking.
Authority — from the tectological point of view «not a simple egressive center of some organization of people, not simple its actual leader», but also an egressive-degressive complex, fastening this organization in a single whole, easier to say, «egression, connected with degression» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 146].
Autogenesis (from ãðå÷. αυτός – self and γένεσις – genesis) — a metaphysical conception, which contradicts completely to the system of experience and according to which evolution of bioforms occurs by virtue of exclusively internal causes and does not depend at all on an influence of the external environment. Such an approach to evolution is characteristic to the epoch of individualism.
Automaton — «self-acting mechanism» and in higher form of complication – «self-regulating mechanism» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 108].
Autotomy — a protective adjustment of some animal organisms developed historically on the basis of the special reflex process, which essence is in that at external jamming of a certain part of a body it is spontaneously cut off by sharp contraction of muscles. Autotomy is usually connected with the subsequent regeneration of the lost part of body. For example, Octopus defilippi taken by a feeler parts with it immediately, at that the feeler continues to wriggle, and a predator, rushing to it, misses the main purpose. The cut feeler twitches still for a long time, being capable even to crawl and stick. The wound at octopus does not bleed in the place of cutting off, because the blood vessels are strongly contracted, and skin at the end of the stump, growing on the wound, closes it quickly. Already during the second day the wound heals completely, and on the place of the cut feeler a new one begins to grow. Autotomy is characteristic for such invertebrates as nemerteans, annelid worms, crustacea, mollusca, actiniae, polyps, sea lilies, starfishes and others echinoderms, and from vertebrates it is observed only at some lizards.
Axiology (from Greek αξία – value and λόγος – teaching) — a division of tectology, which studies a social significance of organizing adapters.
Axiom — the most compressed form of empirical generalizations. Tectology relies on four such generalizations: these are axioms of vseedinstvo, self-similarity, uniqueness and holism, the complex of which represents the first principium of tectology.
Axiom of holism — the sum of properties of a whole is greater than the sum of properties of its parts; in other words, a whole possesses the properties, which are absent in its parts [Tectology, v. 1, p. 114].
Axiom of self-similarity — in the structural relation reality in all its manifestations, in all its spheres is similar to itself. Just in this sense «nature is uniform single one – in great and small, in alive and dead» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 282]. The basis of the axiom is «the universal concept of structural unity of nature», the consequence of which is the principle of isonomism, representing «the possibility of identical expression of laws of nature for physically contrary positions» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].
Axiom of uniqueness — «there are never found two absolutely similar complexes in experience. Differences can be practically insignificant – “infinitesimal”, but at sufficient research they could be always discovered» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 5].
Axiom of vseedinstvo (axiom of total interconnection) — all in the world is anyhow, to some extent interconnected. In tectology this «idea of connection of all existent» is showed in the concept of world ingression [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52].
Balance — a size of foreign trade relation expressed by difference between the sum of export and import. An excess of export over import gives positive balance, their inverse ratio – negative.
Banner — «a symbol for rallying of one or another fighting organization», which protection in a battle «is conservation of organizational solidarity of soldiers, of their moral connection by the objective significance» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 159].
Base of tectology — all three basic cycles of scientific knowledge: mathematical, natural and social. As the science with the universal point of view tectology «represents, in essence, their developed and generalized methodology», the bases of which are «exact observation and experiment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 283, 286].
Basic cultural principles — the fundamental «principles of social organization», which «are put in the very construction of society» and which action reaches all area of the social whole and «tells on activity and on destiny of all its elements». The essence of any social association is in cooperation of people in their joint struggle against the nature. In other words, in the basis of any social organization there is lain association of human doing, which «can be made on three basic types. The first type is characterized by that one man disposes of actions of another man or other people, indicates or orders to them, and they act accordingly to his will; in economic science such a type is referred to as division of organizing and executing labour», while in tectology – as the principle of authoritarianism. The second type of association of doing differs from the first by «formal equality of workers and their independence in the statement and execution of labour tasks, – one, for example, is a craftsman, another – a peasant, the third – a fisherman, etc.; and the connection between them is expressed in exchange already by results of their work (direct or indirect, i.e. of a product for a product, or of a product for money, and of them for another product). Economically it is most correctly to call unorganized division of labour, because the workers are not united here organizationally and operate each for himself, though objectively they work just for each other». In tectology such a type of cooperation is expressed by the principle of individualism. The third type harmoniously combines in itself the equality of the second with the organized unity of the first: «workers jointly solve and jointly carry out a task». In economic science «it is an organized simple cooperation», while in tectology – comradely or collectivistic cooperation, or, briefly, the principle of collectivism. The first epithet – «comradely» – «expresses the character of relations between workers», and the second – «collectivistic» – indicates their belonging to an organized, united and homogeneous whole – to “collective”». All three listed principles express a certain form of cooperation of people and in the aggregate make the sociotectological triad; in tectology they are referred to as the basic, because «all wealth of labour human connections in society can be reduced to three stated forms and their combinations» [the Great Vampire of Our Time, p. 69].
Basic law of conjugation — «at every conjugation the sum of conditions of possible development, or quantity of possibilities of development, increases» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52], and on the contrary, a separation of complexes or simply an expelling of some element from a system narrows the basis of their further evolution.
Basic metaphor — «the first germ and prototype of unity of the organizational point of view on the universe»; in other words, «the basic condition of human thinking about the nature», when «a spontaneous action was designated by the same word as a human one». Without this condition «people could not speak about the external nature and consequently could not develop concepts about it: thinking about the world would be impossible». Basic metaphor allowed to humankind «to step over the deepest abyss of its experience: over the border between itself and its eternal enemy – elemental forces». Until basic metaphor a word had been only «an instrument of organization of socially-human activities», after it a word «began to be used in integration of experience in relation to activities of the external nature: those and others were in principle generalized in the organizational sense» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 80]. Thus, basic metaphor is just the very primary sociomorphism, which «opened the road to infinite expansion of the field of thought, organizing the experience» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 227].
Basic psychophysical law — an empirical generalization in the field of psychophysiology of organism, expressing the quantitative ratio between irritation and sensation, according to which «with increase of external irritation the sensation grows as its logarithm; or, more simply, when an irritation intensifies in geometrical progression, the sensation increases in arithmetic one». For example, when energy of irritation increases at ratios of 1:2:4:8:16…, then the force of sensation grows at ratio of 0,1,2,3,4,5… However it is necessary to note that «the psychophysical law represents only approximate expression of the real phenomena; it is true, generally speaking, for irritations of average force; for the weakest and the strongest ones there is not so: sensation grows more slowly than by the progression deduced for average ones, and above the known border it ceases to increase absolutely». Deviations from the law are observed because energy of external irritation «is not completely transmitted on pathways to the center of psychics, but its more or less significant part is absorbed both by the very ways and by their environment» [Basic Elements, pp. 245-246].
Basic sense of civilization — «development of sociality of humankind» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 241].
Basic technospheric tendency — «to decrease the expenses of human energy by use of energy of the external nature» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 245].
Basic tectological contradiction — «an increase of organizationality in some directions is achieved at the expense of its decrease on others» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 126]. On knowledge of this contradiction there is based the rule of directional tectogenesis, widely used in system researches.
Basis of contradiction — see system divergence.
Basis of forming mechanism — see conjugation.
Basis of further development — «the sum of conditions of possible development, or the quantity of capabilities of development», increasing at every conjugation, «the universal importance» of which is «in that it breaks off the cyclic isolation of organizational processes of the nature, in that already by itself it guarantees the forward process of development, excepting simple recurrence, simple returning constantly the same forms» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 52-53].
Basis of selection — «that side of an object, on which its preservation or elimination depends». For example, «useful adapters or features of inadaptability in “natural” selection» (refractoriness of buildings at a fire), «conformity with a need of a man at technical selection» (isolating property of a material at designing an electrical appliance), «conformity with the structure of a society in social selection» (qualification of a worker at hiring) [Tectology, v. 1, p. 195].
«Beadedness» — a type of structure characterized by «non-uniform connections in different parts of complex or in different directions». The more is their non-uniformity, the more is «beadedness». For example, an iron rod «with alternate narrowings and broadenings» is more bead-like than a bolt from the same metal, which, in its turn, is more bead-like than a rod of the same length, but of «equal thickness on all extent». The properties of all three rods will be different in a number of cases: a resistance to breaking is less at the most bead-like one, in water it will rust sooner, in a cold environment «it will lose the heat more quickly; but in a warm one it will get the heat just more quickly», «its static electrocapacity is greater, the resistances to current are more significant, etc. All these are the consequences of an increased surface, of a greater sum of contacts with environment». But in reality it is all the same whether «the matter is about a physical surface, as in this case, or about other contacts with environment», – in any case, «the greater is a number of them, the less is concentration of activities-resistances falling per unit of such border area on the average». But so long as in most «beaded forms» this concentration is even more non-uniform, representing «more fluctuations from point to point», then according to the principle of minimum «destruction of connection of these forms, their disorganization is made easier», i.e. negative selection is shown for them more intensively. For example: «cooling of a rod is the negative selection of its thermal activities», consequently, a more bead-like rod is cooled more quickly. However it is obvious that for the most «beaded forms» positive selection is more intensive too: really, «where a heating takes place, i.e. thermal energy is mostly assimilated than disassimilated», a most «bead-like rod gets more thermal energy at different times. The greater is a quantity of contacts with environment, corelatively the greater is assimilation from it». Consequently, for conservation and development of a complex under positive selection there are more favorable the most «beaded» structure [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 244, 243, 246].
Beauty — «organizationality. That is what is referred to as truth in science and as force in vital struggle and labour. Where it is, a victory will be necessary and inevitable there too» [Questions of Socialism, p. 426]. If to globalize this thought, i.e. to generalize up to scales of global sociogenesis, then Dostoevsky’s known saying will take the shape of the formula: organizationality will save the world. At the highest steps of culture there is inevitably arisen the tendency «to transform all life of people into work of art, and the principle of art – beauty – becomes a norm of human behaviour» [Empiriomonism, p. 270].
Beginning of human history — the conditional historical moment, dividing the conscious sociogenesis from the unconscious, spontaneous one; in other words, it is «the change of one type of development by the other: the disharmonious development of the fragmented humankind – by the harmonious development of the united humankind»; at that all the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis as a whole is considered as the prologue of history. The basis for such a periodization is the observable crisis of the state of humankind as a whole and of man in particular. Till now a man has represented «a fraction», i.e. «an incomplete essence, a part, which has been torn off from the whole and which has developed disharmonically». But since a man is necessary recognized as undoubtedly «a developed essence, instead of embryonic one, a complete, instead of fractional one», a conscious, instead of spontaneous one, then the conclusion will be unequivocal: «man has not come yet, but he is not so far, and his silhouette is appearing on horizon clearly» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 45-46].
Belief — a form of ideological thraldom, widespread at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis, which in initial and elementary kind is «the absolute trust to an authority, dominating above volition and idea of a man» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 110], i.e. such a trust, which «is based on submission, on elimination of own thought and criticism, on denial of research, on suppression of any possible doubts, on act of will, directed to cognitive passivity» [Belief and Science, p. 40]. If «a theoretical view speaks: on the basis of such facts and proofs I think so», «a belief speaks: neither facts nor proofs are important to me, – I feel that it is so. A firm, i.e. «a really true belief needs no theoretical props: its basis is inflexible will, true to itself». If a belief starts to search for arguments, «it is obvious that the will is no longer so firm, that the belief has been already shaken. A living faith does not search for proofs, it does not even want them, as a superfluous, useless ballast» [From Psychology of Society, pp. 232-233].
Bible — «the encyclopedia of the Jewish feudal epoch», having «the appearance of historical and moral manual of the different sides of life, constructed on revelation» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 230]; it is «a monument of collective creation of the epoch of authoritative way of life», in which «there is given primitive cosmology and the legendary history of the chosen people, the whole system of morality and justice, mass of technical instructions on different cases of life together with rules of the cult, a number of political doctrines, etc., – all this as revelation, i.e. sacred invariably obligatory norms for practice and cognition» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 29].
Bicentrism — the form of dualistic egressive systems. For example, «the systems of world views, which concentrate all experience about some two supreme, extreme concepts or principles», such as matter and spirit, good and evil, etc. [Tectology, v. 2, p. 121]
Binomial of Bogdanov — two joint fundamental principles of empiriomonism, expressing the unity of cognitive method in relation to all experience from its qualitative and quantitative sides: α + β, where α – the principle of universal empirical substitution, β – the principle of universal energetics.
Bioactivity — an expense of energy from a bioform in an external world. If energy is spent for change of external relations of a bioform in such a way that it is kept, then such its activity is referred to as struggle for existence. In general any active movement of a bioform represents «a special case of crisis, since the basic characteristics of crisis are present here: and fast decrease of conservatism of a form (compare a body of animal at rest and at the moment of action), and transformation of latent energy to explicit» [Basic Elements, p. 80].
Bioadapton — an adjustment for development generated by a bioform in the struggle for existence, i.e. adapton, which broadens its evolutional possibilities.
Biocenose — the system of the adapted for the common territory populations, which represents the result of coevolution of all occupying given territory living organisms and provides the biological circulation of substances in a biogeocenose. As totality of all living organisms a biocenose is subdivided into three interdependent complexes: the forming organic substance producents (mainly green plants), the assimilating organic substance consuments (animals) and the mineralizing organic substance reducents (microorganisms). Thus, a biocenose represents three-complex biosystem, the major stability factor of which is the trophic cycle – continual integration of the elementary trophic acts made by all living organisms, forming an united local trophic chain in a given territory.
Biodifference — the energy quantity of vital processes, characterizing a difference of states of living organism from the energy point of view: under an overweight of assimilation over disassimilation there is increased the energy of system, which can be spent subsequently on vital process, and on the contrary, a prevalence of disassimilation decreases the internal energy of system. The first case represents a positive biodifference, the second – a negative one [Empiriomonism, p. 57].
Bioexpansion — an extensive way of preservation of bioforms, overcoming negative consequences of the second characteristic of dynamic bioconservatism, which essence is in impossibility for bioforms to assimilate directly the material of own disassimilation, by virtue of what «for preservation of a form it becomes necessary a constant, still further and further spreading change of its external relations: a vital process should assimilate still new elements of environment, because the old elements, which it has given to this environment, are not suited for the former role any more» [Basic Elements, p. 77].
Biogeocenose — a section of an earth surface with a certain complex of biocenoses and inorganic components, combining by metabolism and energy exchange into uniform biosystem.
Biogeolimit — «the general border of the area of struggle for life», which depends on albedo and doesn’t depend on particular features of one or other bioform. So far as «energy of the vital phenomena is one of special cases of transformation of the solar radiant energy received by the Earth», then «it is obvious that all expense of energy, which is made by vital forms in their struggle for existence, should always appear less than that sum of energy, which the Sun expends on the Earth» (radiant energy of stars is not taken into consideration, since «for the Earth it is less than solar in tens millions times») [Basic Elements, pp. 89-90].
Biohierarchy — a ladder of bioforms of «still increasing complexity, but still lesser definiteness»: a cell, tissue, organ, organism, family, herd, species, biocenose, biogeocenose, biosphere [Basic Elements, pp. 69].
Biolimit — a border of «an area, within the bounds of which a vital form has the real possibility to struggle for the existence». For each bioform the dimensions of this special, narrower border are different and «are determined by what is usually called “particular properties” of a given form, i.e. by special character of its internal relations». For example, «a plant with chlorophyll assimilates the elements of carbonic acid of air – and for this purpose it directly uses radiant energy of the Sun; while animals and plants without chlorophyll cannot use such a way of struggle for existence. A cow eats grass and by this way fills up disassimilation of the organism; while a cat cannot eat grass and should resort to other ways for maintenance of the life. In general, each vital form, by virtue of its certain developed construction, is capable only to the certain types of interaction with the external nature, and in the struggle for life it can assimilate external energy not under any conditions, but only when this energy is in the definite, suitable forms. Further, a cow cannot eat that grass, and a cat – that mouse, which is for hundred versts from it, or behind a strong wall, or in general inaccessible to it for some reason or other. Consequently, for each separate form the borders of struggle for life depend not on total amount of solar radiant energy, but on that its part, which is at present, so to say, in a suitable kind, and at that within the limits of external relations of the form (i.e. within the limits of its direct influence)» [Basic Elements, pp. 89-90].
Biological law — «an organizational scheme, expressing structural conditions of preservation and development of vital system» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 130].
Biology — «science about forms of life, about forms of struggle for existence. The method of biology is characterized by the principle of selection which is added to the general methods of mathematics and physics. Its essence consists in the idea that survival and destruction of arising forms of life are made naturally, depending on their relation to environment; from here – the aspiration to consider all changes of forms of life as processes of their development or degradation, i.e. of increase or decrease of possibility for them to be preserved in struggle for existence» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 205].
Biomotility — so-called «motor reactions» of bioforms, those their «expediently directed movements», which play the decisive role in struggle for existence, i.e. getting food, escape from dangers and other ways of self-defense and attack. The expediency of all these reactions depends first of all on orientation, i.e. on «directing brain work, which itself is based on external feelings, at higher organisms on sight most of all». But, certainly, in incessant and unpredictable struggle for survival even the best orientation does not yet guarantee success, does not save from harm and destruction, if the environment in itself is unfavourable [Tectology, v. 2, p. 162].
Biopotential — «a degree of conformity of external and internal relations» of living organism, «at that unconformity is understood as that case, when the external relations destroy the internal ones» [Basic Elements, p. 98]. From the energy point of view there is more biopotential such an organism that has «the greatest sum of energy, together with the greatest flexibility and variety of organic adapters» to environment [Tectology, v. 2, p. 191]. In its struggle for existence an organism, expending the accumulated energy, overcomes the resistances of environment and carries it out the more successfully, the more absolutely, the greater sum of the accumulated energy is got by it and the higher is the energy organization, which is determined by the structure of this organism. Both the moments, taken together, represent the measure of «the force» of an organism in its vital struggle, – the measure of its biopotential. There is more viable that living organism, or, in the most general view, «that form of a life, which with relatively equal expenses of energy makes relatively more changes in environment – useful for itself, directed to preservation of the form» [Basic Elements, p. 95]. The concept of «biopotential» should be distinguished from the concept of «social surviving»: biopotential of an organism is a result of natural selection, while social surviving – a result of social selection, i.e. at coincidence of the object of selection (a living organism) and the basis of selection (its adaptability in the concrete environment) the factors of selection are different (natural environment in the first case, social environment – in the second). For example, under capitalism there are survived «not the higher organized individua, but those, who have the greatest and the most favorably invested capital, i.e. the opportunity to possess all superfluous energy of a society, its “surplus labour”, more fully than all. The experience shows, that these conditions, generally speaking, do not coincide with the maximum from vital organizationality by any means» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 191-192]. Thus, «any biopotential is relative; it exists only in relation to one or another given environment; and the elements, highly adapted for one environment, the most stable under its actions, can prove to be and in most cases will prove to be little adapted and unstable in another environment or under essentially other actions» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 211].
Bioprogress — quantitative and qualitative development of biosphere characterized by a number of arising and preserving bioforms; more simply, growth of life on Earth.
Bioselection — a manifestation of the second law of Bogdanov in the field of life, according to which «identical influences acts equally – in destroying or preserving way – on forms, identical on biopotential», while in case of different forms – «there is selected and preserved a greater biopotential, there is eliminated a lesser one»; simpler speaking, bioforms are selected and destroyed by action of their environment under the known scheme: «external relations determine the destiny of internal ones, as well as in general they determine these internal relations in process of change». Thus, «in struggle for existence preservation and reproduction mean always biopotential of forms, their decline and destruction – a lack of biopotential». All bioforms without exception are subject to action of bioselection, at that «for preservation or destruction there are selected not only individuals, but also the whole families, communes, species – collective forms; there are also selected cells within the limits of an organism – elementary forms», at that «those forms, which are not reproduced independently, are subject to selection by means of the forms, which are reproduced directly. So a species disappears, if its individuals perish without posterity, the tissue of organism atrophies, if its cells die without reproduction». The mechanism of bioselection, regulating the area of life, «leads to that some peculiarities of construction of forms are kept by means of reproduction, others perish together with the very forms [Basic Elements, pp. 98-99].
Biosphere — all «sphere of vital phenomena», which from the point of «unity of origin of all forms of life» and of collaterality of their struggle for existence is considered «as the united, overall form of life» [Basic Elements, p. 68]; in other words, it is the compound-organized geospheric system of biogeocenoses, representing the certain form of their adaptation to natural processes; i.e. it is the result of natural selection, in which all the total biogeocenotic Earth’s cover is the object of selection, and the environment, i.e. geosphere and cosmos, – the factor of it. Thus, biosphere is the generated during the evolution organic shell of geosphere, the composition, the structure and the energy of which are determined by cumulative activity of all living organisms; easier speaking, it is the thinnest shell of life on the Earth, or even more shortly, its bioderma (from Greek βιος – life and δερμα – leather, skin), including not only individuals, populations and species, but also the environment of their habitation. Being «life as the whole», biosphere covers the part of lithosphere, all hydrosphere and the part of atmosphere down to the ozone shell [Tectology, v. 2, p. 17], differing from them and generally from all nature in that it represents «the sphere of reproductive forms» [Basic Elements, p. 81].
Biosystem — any form of life, every bio- or bioinorganic complex of the interdependent and co-subordinated elements, which mutual relations and peculiarities of structure are determined by their functioning as the whole; for example, a complex of all organs in a living organism or some complex of living organisms, forming a troop, a population or a biocenose. Thus, the concept «biosystem» includes in itself not only separate individuals, but also their various complexes of different scale and rank: from family, troop, colony up to population, species, biocenose, biogeocenose, ending with biosphere. The biosystems of highest levels coordinate the functions of the biosystems of lowest levels and control them, and this regulation is carried out by the loops of direct connections and feed-backs.
Biotectology — a division of tectology studying biosystems from the organizational point of view.
Biotissues — specific systems of cells, which form a multicellular organism and which, being specialized in execution of certain functions, are adaptive structures of an integral organism and act as building materials in relation to organs, at that one and the same system of cells can be a part of various organs.
Bipersistent — the system of two interconnected persistent complexes. For example, the basic structural unit in the system of living organisms – a species is a bipersistent. In this case the principle of selection comes simultaneously in two forms, as «natural and sexual selection»; at that «only the whole individuals and through them – the species of organisms» serve as the object of selection, i.e. the selection is carried out in the interconnected way at the genetic and phylogenetic levels [Tectology, v. 1, p. 196].
Biregulation — a double feed-back between complexes, when they mutually adapt to each other by means of continuous conjugational interactions.
Biregulator — «double regulator», i.e. «such a combination, in which two complexes regulate each other mutually», in other words, it is «such a system, for which no regulator from the outside is needed, because it regulates itself». Tectology considers the biregulators among the systems of «true equilibrium», the stability of which is explained by that between mutually regulating complexes there is «the certain structural correspondence, guaranteeing their strength». For example, the mechanism of mutual regulation of speed and steam pressure in a steam-engine consists in established between them intercomplementary loops of direct connection and feed-back: «if the pressure increases above an appropriate level, the speed increases also, and then the mechanism, depending on it, decreases the pressure, and inversely» (that for one complex is direct action, for another – the reverse one, and inside out). In the given example the tectological state of a steam-engine with the base parameter (steam pressure) in a certain limits («an appropriate level»), which is got by change of the sign of feed-back (from the strengthening influence on the weakening one, and vice versa) under vibrations of steam pressure within the limits of «an appropriate level», i.e. about the requisite quantity, is considered to be stable. A steam-engine is an example of technical biregulator. An example of natural biregulator is «the system of equilibrium of “water – ice” at 0° C». In a society «biregulator is widespread in the form of systems of “mutual control” of persons or institutions, etc» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 97].
Bisubjective physics — transitional, or so-called relativistic, physics, i.e. «the physics of two observers», which solves the question about the ways of their communication, of the mutual coordination and «about influence of these ways on their cognitive mutual relation». Here the basic and practically almost only way of communication is the light one, i.e. by electromagnetic interactions, at that «there is admitted objectivity, i.e. general significance, of the laws of the nature and there is supposed conditional transformation of coordinate systems»; in other words, the laws of the nature for two observers remain constant, «they are only supplemented with others, the laws of coordinating transformation of degression of experience». The necessity of coordinate transformations is caused by «the fact that mutual movement of two systems separates them specifically. The greater is the relative speed, the more strongly it separates them: if the speed has reached the size of speed of light, the separation would be absolute, transference of energy between the systems would become really impossible, the events in one of them would not be accessible to perception from another and would not give the projection in it. At usual, small speeds, the degree of separation is insignificant, a projection through transference of energy turns out and gives images of occurring events, little differing from which are perceived in the very given system and correspond to “reality” from its point of view». Thus, «the matter is about projections, images, which have been changed by separating process of movement, and, consequently, are subjected to corrections. It is just theory of relativity that formulates corrections, through which from projections and images of events of the system A in the system B it is possible to pass to “reality” of these events in that system A, where they occur, and inversely». Human «sense organs, plus memory, plus all auxiliary scientific means of perception and fixation of facts, are possible to be considered as some kind of cinematographic apparatus. If such two apparatuses, being in the systems A and B, make mutually a filming of these systems, then their “films” will be changed, “distorted” in comparison with filming from own system: pictures of bodies will appear shortened on the line of movement, the very course of events will turn out to be decelerated (“lagging of clock”), one and other is equal from both sides. For example, in these “films” a man has one height, when he stands, and another, – when he lies. Clearly, that the formulas of transition from the coordinates of one system should be understood as the formulas of corrections for transition from more or less distorted images to internal reality of each system, the formulas of substitution of things and events under their perceived images. Understood differently, mutual, for example, lagging of clock would be simply a trivial contradiction, logic absurd. In general what the relativistic physics really recognizes in the principle of relativity that «is bilateral symmetry of any process of movement. Symmetry is a structural fact; and if it is stated, this is certainly a step forward in cognition of the world structure, of the organizational form of the world. But the concept of bilateral symmetry is applicable just where, and only where there are only two sides. Therefore theory of relativity should be exclusively understood as the physics of two observers. And as soon as data and statements of a problem go out of the limits of two mutually moving complexes, so the formulas of relativity become insufficient, and if then to apply them mechanically, they can even lead to direct misunderstandings» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, pp. 143-146, 150].
Bisubjective-dynamic system — such a system of observation, «expressing the transition from position of one observer to position of another on the basis of complete reciprocity at their relative movement, when any motionless system is excluded». Since «movement of a system is a deforming moment for its perception», then «the image of one system, receivable, under the known deforming conditions, in other system, distorts the object in certain proportions, and as these deforming conditions are common, reciprocal, then distortions are reciprocal also». By means of the certain formulas it is possible to correct these distortions and to go on from «images», correlative to an individuum, to «object», correlative to collective. Thus, having executed all number of such replacements for all available reciprocally moving systems, it is possible «from bisubjective-dynamic combinations to get their solution in objectively-dynamic system» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 335, 336].
Bisubjective-static system — such a system of observation, expressing «the transition from one individual point of view to another, individual too», which «is not yet “general significance”», i.e. is not objectivity. A solution of contradiction «is given by synthesis of all possible individual systems into universal collective one», representing already «objective system, but still objectively-static», which «has already developed in prescientific consciousness and shaped in the old physics» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 334].
Bisubjectivity — «a coordination of experience of two observers», which «is not yet the universal coordination», because «the social significance, i.e. objectivity, is not settled by that, which is “significant” for them». For example, in the theory of relativity «formulas of mutual corrections for two positions» are objective, i.e. possess the universal importance. «But the images, getting by this way, are not yet objective, but only “bisubjective”, – obligatory for both subjects, correlatively connected with these two positions, – but are liable to control from “the third” side, i.e., generally, – from the collective. For example, the formula of beam deviation by solar field of gravitation is objective, but a perception of position of a star, a beam of which is deflected, and a perception of the Earth from this star, is “bisubjective”. It just should be verified from the point of view of “the third”, the position of which is neither of the two». Thus, the limitation of the theory of relativity, more precisely, the weakness of some its formulas arises just from that this bisubjective nature is not realized, and its «images are recognized as entirely and completely objective, or on the contrary, there is denied the very opportunity of objective, i.e. of the coordinated images for all observers» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 128-129].
Blood — «internal conjugational environment of an organism», at the expense of which there is occurred all assimilation, necessary for every its cell; more simply, it is «internal, nutrient medium» of a living organism [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 15, 117], its living «universal tissue, in which there is something from all other tissues and which, in its turn, acts upon all other tissues structurally». By virtue of such universality, in addition possessing a number of absolutely unique properties, «blood as a tissue or an organ differs in breadth of its function from the others: it is the general intermediary between them in vital exchange, it necessarily comprises both the elements of nutrition for all of them, and products of their disassimilation, which are subject to distribution in an organism or to moving away from it», and «the chemical regulators of vital processes», and «the protective substances». Thus, «all the structure of an organism finds the interrelative reflection in it» [Struggle for Biopotential (the book), pp. 102, 97].
Body — 1) «a whole mass of continuous processes, which merge between themselves and in their turn are in indissoluble connection with processes of an environment» and «pass into them directly» [Basic Elements, p. 16], more precisely speaking, it is a constantly changing certain form of process; 2) a complex of elements of experience with stable interrelation [Empiriomonism, p. 8]. A body in contrast to its perception is «a much more definite and much more compound complex, because it is formed by social harmonization of uncountable “perceptions”; in a “perception” it is never appeared completely, entirely, but always only partly; for example, a “perception” of a body can never give it at once from all sides» [Empiriomonism, p. 31].
«Body» (human) — in the system of «soul – body» it is «executive, or passive» side of man, in contrast to active «organizing, or guiding» side, which represents the opposite pole of the system and is called «soul» in folk tectology [Tectology, v. 1, p. 81]; 2) degressor in the system of «ingressor – degressor – egressor» (the tectological model of living organism), where the system of sense organs is ingressor, while the brain – egressor.
Border — see tectological border.
Bourgeoisie — the individualistic organizing class having replaced the dominating authoritarian groups of nobility and clergy, which composition included: «capitalists, large, middle and small; bourgeois-organizing intelligentsia, advocatory and official, on the one hand, engineering-technical and academic-professorial, on the other; and after all petty bourgeoisie in the proper sense of the word, the remains of independent small producers of town and country, partly still adapting somehow to new social conditions, partly quickly losing their lives under impacts of capital»; i.e. it is quite «a huge complex of social groups, various in many respects and divergent in many respects». On the field of the common struggle against the repressive old order all these individualistic groupings could even more or less unite into the block, but on the termination of this struggle they should inevitably show their heterogeneity [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries, p. 122].
Brain — «the egressive center of an organism» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 107]; «the most perfect» and «the mightiest one of mechanisms of the nature», representing «the extreme step of egression yet known» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 103], i.e. «the most highly organized one of the biological complexes, the most complex, the most plastic, but also and the most soft one, it is disorganized by the most insignificant harmful influences, since they have found an access to it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 126]. In borders of an individual organism the environment for brain «is more favourable, than for the other organs: from the external one it is protected, and the internal one, the nutrient – blood and lymph – is distributed with non-uniformity in its favour», therefore during development of an organism the egressive difference between brain and the other organs increases, i.e. «the relative significance of brain, its “power” over the whole, rises», at that «this process proceeds even when a life begins to decline» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 117]. In themselves the cells of brain and the cells of nerve ganglions, connected with them, «possess some uncertain perceptibility to any external irritations, as well as they also possess a known, very small, contractile mobility; both are property of any living protoplasm». But owing to egression there is turned out that both perceptibility and mobility of all central nervous system «in incalculable number of times surpass direct quantity of one and other, inherent in brain tissue. If, for example, rays of light directly fall on the nervous centers, they would generate no greater than a vague, undifferentiated excitation from non-uniform heating. But brain is egressively connected to retina of eye – a small part of the same nervous tissue, which has developed up to the highest degree the specific excitability in relation to light vibrations at the cost of almost full loss of any other irritability. As a result brain has the whole world of thinly differentiated optical perceptions as if it would possess all extraordinary light sensitivity of retina». This concerns also its connection with the other sense organs: «it hears, perceives, smells, etc. – to what in itself it would be not capable at all. Large contractility of muscular tissue together with hardness and strength of skeletal elements makes it possible for brain to carry out various movements, significant and complex mechanical actions on environment, surrounding the organism. Brain itself develops so that to be high-sensitive only to irritations from the direction of conductive nervous streams, to show external activity only in the form of innervation. But by these two ways egression concentrates a series of special peripheric activities in it, making of this jellylike mass the most perfect and sometime in the future – also the mightiest one of mechanisms of the nature» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 102-103].
Breakage of connection — «insertion of elements of environment into a system in lines of destroyed resistances, i.e. of complete disingressions» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 165]. In any specifically distinguished system breakage of connection «is strictly determined only when it is specified in relation to what elements-activities it has occurred», since in systems, ordinarily formed by set of different activities, «breakage of connections, relating to some of these activities, can be accompanied by preservation of connection of other activities: for example, breakage of molecular connection of a cut piece of metal – by preservation of electric, magnetic, thermal conjugation; separation of tissues of a mother and the born child – by supporting and initiation of a number of other connections, etc.». Therewith it is always necessary to remember that «there is and there can be no complete breakage of connection, absolute separateness of complexes in our experience, which all is united by world ingression» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 9, 12].
Buddhist ideal — nirvana, i.e. «absolute equilibrium of a soul, its complete calm in contemplation of eternity, disturbed by nothing». Of all existing social ideals the Buddhist one is «the purest and the most finished» ideal of «passivity and indifference» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 256].
Bureaucratic socialism — a social system, which production and distribution are organized «by hierarchy of officials with patriarchal-moral monarchic power at the head», that in socially-ideal measurement represents «something average between the ideals of technical intelligentsia and feudal-class»; simply speaking, it is ugly modernization of feudalism which «is often called “state socialism”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 75], and in contemporary researches, uniting both terms, – «state-bureaucratic socialism».
Capital — private property «as the instrument of domination over labour and of its exploitation» [Empiriomonism, p. 319]; more precisely, property in means of production as «the instrument, transformed into means of exploitation». If «people, as the organization, do not master it», then «capital dominates over people» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 245].
Capitalism — «the long and complex transitional process, leading from one certain and homogeneously-constructed social organization to the other». From the tectological point of view it is the permanent crisis of the parasitic system of authoritarian relations in the direction to the non-parasitic system of collective relations. All the most complicated dynamics of transition from one persistent condition of society to the other is determined by three basic contradictions of capitalism: firstly, «its production as the whole is constructed otherwise than its parts: the separate enterprises are organized in the planned way, but all the system is unorganized, anarchical», secondly, «its production is heterogeneous with its appropriation: the first one is collective in the basis, the second one invariably remains individual», and thirdly, «the capitalist society is divided into classes, which do not represent the simple organs of the uniform social body, mutually supplementing each other, as feudal estates, but are organized independently, in mutual struggle», in other words, «the basic classes of society do not adapt one to another, but turn into more and more hostile camps: each class develops its own type of the organization and tends to propagate it to all society by final submission or elimination of the other class» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 443-444]. Under capitalism there are survived «not the higher organized individua, but those, who have the greatest and the most favorably invested capital, i.e. the opportunity to possess all superfluous energy of a society, its “surplus labour”» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 191-192]. For example, «if a weak and sickly parasite-rentier survives, while near to him a strong, all-round gifted proletarian perishes frequently, it is because the first one is really adapted for his environment, but the second one doesn’t»: it is explained by that «for a parasite his relations to other people and to their work – relations of “capital” – create the special, exclusively favourable environment, for which he is quite enough adapted, whereas for the second one the social environment is absolutely different, to which in this case even his mighty organization has proved to be unable to adapt» [Empiriomonism, p. 247]. As for adjustment to conditions of capitalism as a whole, i.e. in general for all forms of capitalist adaptation without exception, then from the positions of tectology it is an adaptation to unadapted: since «capitalism itself is an unadapted system», then to arrange in it – that is «just the same as to arrange more comfortably in a ship, which is being blown about by hurricane in the absence of rudder and tackle» [World War and Revolution, p. 99].
Capitalist accumulation — «expansion of production», which «consists in that some part of profit is put in the enterprises in the form of means of production and wage so that to make a profit in turn. Chain connection of production requires that accumulation in different branches should be made in the same proportion». Let us assume that «production of paints for fabrics has expanded on 10 %, and production of fabrics, which are painted by them, only on 5 %», consequently, there has occurred an overproduction of paints, i.e. «their superfluous quantity will not find sale, the accumulation in this branch will become slower»; the same will occur «if production of iron and steel will surpass the growth of making of products from them, or engineering industry – the growth of the sum of the branches using the machines, etc.». So long as «capitalist organization has no planned management», then «such disproportion always happens, in large or small sizes», but «the mechanism of market makes the necessary equalization by the spontaneous methods – by downturn in prices of an excessively made goods, by stop of accumulation in some enterprises, and frequently by ruin of others, by migration of capitals and so forth», i.e. «the equilibrium is reached, but as usual in spontaneous processes – at the price of wasteful expenditure of forces» [World Crises (July), p. 224].
Capitalist organization — «the anarchical cooperation of the separate, formally independent enterprises, consolidated by spontaneous power of the market» [Course of Political Economy, p. 70].
Capitalist rent — «a private kind of profit on a capital». Under capitalism rent «assimilates with profit», since «beside the real capital of society, representing its past crystallized labour, there is fictitious capital, corresponding to rent» [Course of Political Economy, p. 51].
Capitalist society — from the tectological point of view the complex disharmonious social system of unstable type in contrast to the feudal society, and from the economic one – «the most finished exchange system». Its internal contradictions are countless and multiform, but the basic of them are the contradictions of the market, class antagonisms and collisions of group interests. Total struggle at «unobstructed development should destroy the society», however the development of normative forms limits and keeps this tendency into the frameworks. But no norms «can replace the planned unity of social organization; therefore they are not able to stop the arising of new contradictions, new antagonisms», which, in their turn, conduct «to complication of the former norms and to making of some others, etc». By virtue of this «the net of moral and especially legal norms grows up, gets entangled», generating «the additional contradictions; and this means the necessity of the further creation of norms too» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 418-419]. As a result all this net of social degression lags behind the social development and as a consequence «in all spheres of life of the social whole the disorganizational moment increases, bringing, in its uncountable manifestations, the colossal and constantly progressing waste of social energy. The tectological task of our epoch is put by that» [Questions of Socialism, p. 289].
Capitalist state — «the system of collective, capitalist insurance, i.e. collective security of the capitalist classes from dangers and contradictions», arising as inside, and outside of a state [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, p. 10]. The complex of measures of insurance against the internal factors of disorganization is presented by normative ideology, intended in juridical and «moral» forms «for strongly organizing the basic social conditions» of class domination. All base of normative ideology «is reduced to two principles – of property and legality, from which the first one is mainly “legal”, and the second – mainly “moral”». The content of the first principle is practically «found out in the general and basic fact for capitalist system that a product of labour entirely and exclusively belongs to a proprietor of means of production and in no way – to a worker». All other legal norms of capitalist society «are generalized in this principle and are its particular applications»: all civil legislation serves as its organized embodiment, all criminal legislation and all state constitution «serve as the organized protection of this principle». Since the existence of the ruling class is bestead by struggle in the form of competition and «in the form of constant conflicts with the “executing” class», then «the struggle against the social struggle» becomes an essential moment in bioactivity of the state. All necessary «organizing forms for this struggle are developed in the form of various norms of “social and political behaviour”», which «are aimed to be distributed and strengthened in all society» by the ruling class with a view of social anesthesia. «The final link of all such norms, expressing their basic and general tendency, is the principle of “legality”», really meaning the submission of society to the ruling class [Empiriomonism, pp. 318-319]. The complex of measures of insurance against the external threats is realized in technical area and reduced to two principles – of autarchy and militarization.
Casting form — any certain environment, in which under the action of equally directional selection the various, but structurally homogeneous complexes get a certain similarity. In technics, for example, it is a stamping press or moulds, in society – educational programs or cultural principles, in the nature – aquatic environment for fishes and dolphins, which long influence on them gave the similar forms to their body, or digestive apparatus at animals: in fact if food simply mixed up with their internal composition, it would change continuously, changing at that the structure of an organism also, but actually existing constancy of homeostasis means that food passes «through some chemical casting form», whence it comes off «only in the form of compounds, specific to a given organism» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 96].
Catachronic — a complex, which decelerates a systemogenesis. For example, a chronophage.
Catachronism — a tendency to deceleration of a systemogenesis.
Catacommunism (catagenic communism) — from the positions of historical monism it is an organizational form of a social system, which arises on conditions of deficit of social energy, i.e. it is communism of deficiency, communism of extremity, or simply siege communism, which, as in general every «catastrophic communism, communism of disaster, is not a development of one or another economic formation; it is phenomenon of a special sort, it can turn out from any social system and corresponds to such a condition, at which production is disorganized or sharply weakened and does not cover consumption, and the task consists in that the whole could live till restoration of normal conditions by means of filling up the lack of production by available supplies. It is forced communism of a ship, which has lost the tackles in a ocean, communism of a beleaguered city, and also communism of a country, which has been cut off from the world turnover and has already so closely connected with this turnover that long existence of the country is impossible outside of it». Catacommunism is first of all «a communism of consumption: all necessary products are requisitioned and distributed with possible planned character»; then in the case «if internal exchange of goods is kept, communism of consumption involves regulation of market and then regulation of production also, accordingly to inseparable connection of economy» [the World war and the Revolution, p. 96]. The historical example of catacommunism is army, or war communism.
Catagenesis — organizational regress of a system, connected with simplification of its organizational structure and decrease of its adaptable abilities. The term is more common, than the synonymous phrase-concept «structural regress».
Catagenic complex — an intrasystem complex, which generates regressive tendency of development in a system. For example, a complex-vampire in social systems.
Catagenic form — a factor of negative selection in tectogenesis. For example, an obsolete social form, which in concrete sociohistorical conditions is in obvious contradiction «with general level of development of collectivity» and impedes its development; such a form proves in society as social vampiroid: it exists «at the expense of the general biopotential of society», and «while in the life of society there are dominated positive selection, while the biopotential of all system increases», until then it is kept in society, but only by connection with society as a whole [Empiriomonism, p. 249].
Catagenic individual (social vampire) — a man, whose activity promotes regress of that social system, the member of which he is. Such a man «takes from life more, than gives it», decreasing its quantity by his existence, in consequence of what «there is arisen the enmity between him and it; it repels him, he sticks into it». Thus, «he is not only a parasite of life, he is an active hater of it; he drinks its juices in order to live and does not want its living, the continuation of its movement. He is not a human, because the human, socially-creative being has already died in him; he is a corpse of such a being. An ordinary, physiological corpse is also harmful: it should be moved away or annihilated, otherwise it infects air and brings diseases», but a social vampire, i.e. «a living dead man, is more harmful and dangerous». Moreover, it is much more harmful and more dangerous, if he has been an arogenic individual formerly [Questions of Socialism, p. 265].
Catagenic system — a system with a non-complementary complex, generating along with entropic transformations of energy, assimilated from the outside, its additional waste, by virtue of what creating a certain catagenity inside of the system.
Catagenity — evolutionary orientation of an activity towards organizational regress of system, i.e. towards weakening of its adaptable abilities. In social systems it shows in the forms of social parasitism and vampirism.
Catapsychism — a state of psychics in conditions of negative selection, which is connected with «distressing, painful feelings», causing «as though of coagulation of soul, weakening of attention to the ambient, slackening of all sensing activity, a lowered communication with other people, aspiration to rest and so forth», at that «an organism, adapting, passes from more “beaded” interrelations to more conjoint»; i.e. in this case the psychics of a man is subjected to the same tectological laws as well as the body of a tortoise in unfavourable conditions for it [Tectology, v. 1, p. 245].
Catholicism — a social degression of authoritarianism, i.e. a kind of authoritarian ideology, which in the epoch of feudalism coherently and harmoniously united the greatest sum of human experience. As socially useful and necessary system of ideas Catholicism was a truth during that epoch: «then, at domination of authoritarian relations in all social life of people, as their quite logical and harmonious addition, as their conceptual end there were the ideas about the authoritarian order of the universe, about its control by the whole gradation of small deities, and about the supreme sovereign ruling over all of them». And presently Catholicism «would be a truth if it was capable to organize the contemporary experience of humankind harmoniously and orderly, without contradictions. But it is clear to everyone that Catholicism cannot organize it in such a way, for it implies a great number of the ideas standing in the sharp contradiction with the present experience, as, for example, the idea of “miracle”, the idea of “absolute and eternal truth”, etc.». Moreover, presently Catholicism not only has lost the socially-organizing force, but it has turned into a socially-disorganizing force, so long as it has become one of the centers of eidovampirism [Belief and Science, pp. 62-63].
Causal relationship — a connection of «necessary and constant consecution» of non-simultaneous facts, which permits to foresee the future, to predict «that is not present yet, on the basis of what is and was» [Empiriomonism, p. 115], and from the tectological point of view it is the most general method of «the social organization of experience», having «as its basis the practical connection of socially-labour process», that is nothing but the «universal sociomorphism» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 227]. Three laws of Bogdanov are three forms of causal relationship, three models of causality, three stages of its cognition.
Causality — strict functional dependence of «preceding facts with subsequent» [Empiriomonism, p. 115], which reveals «the common causes of homogeneous facts» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 280]. As the universal «form of “objective” experience [Empiriomonism, p. 29] such functional dependence of its facts is «the basic principle, the organizing law of system of thinking», since «a new world understanding can attain complete independence only when there has been developed and found out distinctly a new form of causal relationship, peculiar to it» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 208].
Cause — «an energy source, at the expense of which a consequence results. But the first has other cause, i.e. its energy comes, in its turn, from other source, etc., endlessly: the chain of causality is the chain of energy transformations». According to the third law of Bogdanov, energy is not destroyed, but turns into other forms, therefore there are «just as many energy in cause, as in consequence: a cause is equal to its consequence. To put it more precisely: a cause is equal to the sum of its direct consequences, because in practice it turns always not into one, but in some different forms» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 458].
Cell (living cell) — a «biological atom» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 101], i.e. an elementary living complex, which unlike viruses, another elementary form of life, can exist both as a separate organism (bacteria, protozoa, some algae and fungi), and in composition of tissues of more complex forms of life – multicellular organisms (of animals, plants and fungi). Instead of the widespread and polysemantic concept «cell» there is preferable the term «cytocomplex» in tectology.
Cell-element (histocyte) — an elementary bioform, not capable to exist independently, since, having developed in a structurally functional element of one or other tissue of a complex organism, it «has lost the greatest part of its separateness». The traces of origin of these dependent elementary bioforms from independently living monocytes are clearly traced, firstly, «in development of a complex organism from one reproducing cell», secondly, «in proceeding independent reproduction of cells of some tissues during lifetime of an organism, already adult», and at last, «in the fact that the separate cells extracted from a whole (especially it relates to the lowest organisms) still continue to live and struggle for life during some time, even short». As is known, «even leukocytes of human blood still move some minutes in physiological solution of table salt similar to movement of amoebae» [Basic Elements, pp. 69-70].
Center — a reduced variant of the term of «central complex», or simply egressor.
Central complex — a complex with dominating tectological function, which has prevailing influence on other complexes structurally dependent from it; in other words, it is «the main, higher organized, complex of an egressive system», or «simply its center» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 101, 109].
Central degression — an intrasystem «center, but not egressive», since «its uniting role is based not on its higher organizationality, but on its greater stability, strength». For example, such a degressive complex as symbol «is not higher organized than any of the notions united by it; if you just compare even the same word “man” with a concrete psychical image of man: the first one is an insignificant complex of innervational (muscular-motor) and sound elements, while the second is a most compound combination of visual, tactile, innervational and any other elements» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 131].
Central nervous system (CNS) — the egressive system in a living organism, which carries out complex highly differentiated reactions to influences of external environment, i.e. it is the basic and most important system of adaptation of a highly differentiated individual, beginning from turbellarian worms and finishing with man, the «terrible generation» of cephalization, since in human body CNS is already just the very «man» proper.
«Centralist» connection — see egressor.
Centralist complex — see egressive complex.
Cephalization — the same as cephalogenesis.
Cephalogenesis (from Greek κεφαλή – head and γένεσις – genesis) — an irreversible tendency of development of zoosphere, which has led to isolation of head in the separate bioforms (in the organisms with bilateral symmetry) and to subsequent growth of brain. Historically this process is caused by that the front part of an organism, in which the organs of capture of food and the oral fissure are located, comes into contact with the environment in first, i.e. tectologically it represents an ingressive connecter of organism with energosphere. Therefore just here there are concentrated sense organs and those departments of CNS, which control these organs and form the brain, i.e. what in tectology is referred to as egressive center. For protection of these highly organized and plastic organs there have been developed hard external integuments at invertebrates and skull at vertebrates, i.e. degressive complexes. In the scientific literature there is used the synonymous term – cephalization.
Chain assimilation-disassimilation — a chain mutual transfer of activities of some parts of system to others, which supplements them functionally. All system of production is based on such sequence of intercomplementary connections, which is present practically in each to some extent separate part of this system. For example, «by the activities hidden in the material form an axe, a saw supplement functionally the human organ – a hand and from it they get, “assimilate” the activities of their action, use», but also «in a very axe or in a saw each part adapts to others so that all of them would functionally supplement each other by means of mutual transfer, i.e. by chain assimilation-disassimilation of activities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 21].
Chain connection — «any uniting of complexes by means of the common links», which can «be unrestrictedly developed in the most various directions and with constantly changing connective elements». For example, development of such connection in society occurs in the following way: «A with B are connected by the common tastes, B with C – by the common tasks, C with D – by the common misfortunes etc.: the chain coils, interweaves, tangles with another chain, forms a ball, covering millions of people, from which the large majority do not even know about the existence of each other» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 153]. «Any complex system is strong and stable so far as it is connected by “chain connection”, in which each part supports others functionally. Such are a living organism, a well-organized society, regularly arranged mechanism, etc.». Chain connection «means some or other proportional interrelations». If they are broken, the law of least enters into force: «a whole is determined by the weakest of its necessary links, by that part, which functionally lags behind others mostly» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 117]. Chain connection is made in two sorts: «homogeneous, or symmetric, and heterogeneous, or asymmetric». In some cases «chain connection is established only by exact research, with application of advanced methods», in others – «it is necessary to supplement these links even theoretically, because it is not possible at all to make them directly accessible to our feelings», for example, physical vacuum. Thus, chain connection is «the form of our thinking about organized combinations: we cannot represent them differently as accepting the presence of common links between their discerned parts, and if we do not find such parts, then we are forced to construct them mentally» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 154-155]. In the contemporary scientific literature the term of «network» has become widespread, which is a shorter synonym of homogeneous, or symmetric chain connection.
Chain degression — step connection between various forms of protection of one and the same plastic content, i.e. «matryoshka» system of heterogeneous degressions. For example, an organism of baby formed in the womb of mother is protected by successively interconnected number of degressions: its skin – the womb of mother – the organism of mother – her clothes – her dwelling – the norms of social maternity protection, etc.
Chain egression — an irreversible connection between complexes of different level of organizationality in a complex system of matryoshka type, which elements of rhizome are connected by the scheme of matryoshkas; more simply, it is a complex several-stage egression, which «has one higher, common center» and which each group of elements «is directly connected with one of the nearest, but not with two or several centers»: for example, an army, in which «a number of central complexes of lower order – commanders of small units – is united by the center of higher order, by a chief of a larger part; a number of such centers – by still higher one, etc.». Such several-stage egression concentrates activities manifold, at that each its next degree strengthens their concentration by a factor: for example, as is known, «a man is able to support a living and harmonious direct cooperation at in the least bit complex work no more than with several tens of men, at other kinds of labour it is less than that»; however «if one is able to control, let us assume, even only ten men, then at two-stage egression a higher leader, dealing with ten of lower, can control one hundred men; at three-stage one – a thousand, etc.; then chain egression from 6 links unites one million, from 9 links – a milliard». Moreover, chain egression considered on a global scale is, in addition, one of the basic ways of survival of man in struggle against the nature that allows him, «taking possession of some complexes of external activities, to dominate by means of them over others» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 118, 114, 124].
Chain ingression — a continuous sequence of ingressions between united complexes. So long as the way of uniting by ingression is «a particular method of creation of chain connection», while any common link between complexes can be considered as a connecter, then chain ingression is in the essence «the universal form of chain connection». Consequently, there is no essential difference between chain connection and chain ingression: all depends on a point of view on common parts of conjugates: a tectologist «has a right to decompose complexes as it is required to him in the organizational analysis» and to consider all common parts as separate connective complexes, i.e. ingressors [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161]. Moreover, tectology considers any given chain of ingressions as a special case of the world ingression.
Chain selection — a sequence of selection in complex systems from tectologically boundary groupings and connections to tectological internal, since «any change of a system has the starting point where it is contiguous to the external environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 156]. Being the universal mechanism of regulation, chain selection is carried out not only on horizontal: from one organizational layer to another, but also on vertical: by matryoshka scheme (see the principle of matryoshkas), i.e. from selection in enveloping system to selection in nested one, for example: selection in cosmic environment regulates geospheric structures, selection in geosphere – biospheric ones, selection in biosphere – anthropospheric ones, etc. up to selection in social environment, which regulates all variety of forms of individual adaptation.
Chain vibration — a complex of rhythmic processes connected by the principle of matryoshkas. For example, a human organism numbers more than 300 such psychophysiological vibratory processes, which, interacting with each other and with vibratory processes of external environment, form in aggregate a certain supervibration in the form of chain egression.
Change — «a chain of acts of connection of what has been divided, and division of what has been connected». For example, nutrition of a living organism «is addition of elements of environment to its composition», and its reproduction is separation of «a certain grouping of its elements» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 143]. On the other hand, change is always a result of action of oppositely directed efforts, i.e. a difference of mutually resisting activities, that from the energy point of view means «a difference of intensities of energy between the adjacent complexes» or between a separate complex and environment [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 170-171]; at that every change of a complex has a starting point where it is contiguous to an environment, from which, finally, «any process of development comes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 156]. From the point of view of selection any change represents «preservation or multiplication of some activities, consolidation or strengthening of some connections, elimination, reduction, weakening, break of others in one or another complex, in one or another system» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 152]. Moreover, from the tectological point of view «every change, when a cognitive interest is concentrated on it exactly, on a distinction of the form in its beginning and the end, should be considered as a special crisis». Really, «if there is occurred a change of tectological form of a complex, then its essence consists in that either new activities come into the complex, a part of the former others is eliminated from it, or they are regrouped in a different way; generally speaking, there is happened the first, the second and the third at one time, only in a different measure. The first means a disruption of old external borders of a complex, the second – a formation of new; and the third – a removing of its internal borders between the groupings entering into it, its parts, i.e. again the breaks and new formations of borders between them. All this exactly corresponds to the scientific understanding of crises» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 253-255]. Therefore in the briefest formulation every change is a crisis.
Change of classes — «a change of dominating cultural principles». Within the limits of such a definition all «“great” revolutions are the revolutions, replacing the domination of cultural principles» [Lines of Culture, p. 120].
Change of generations — «a series of waves of growth and decline of life superimposed one on another» [Questions of Socialism, p. 396].
Change of scientific paradigm — «reform of a developed system of concepts» as resolution of system contradictions in consequence of «increase of conservatism of ideological forms in the direction from below upwards, from organizing adapters of lower order to the higher». Contradictions in a system of cognition grow gradually: firstly «there is accumulation of particular facts, which do not go into the limits of the system», then from this «new facts there are formed generalizations, which do obviously not agree with particular generalizations of the existing system», but «the system as a whole continues to remain nevertheless», since «its particular positions are corrected and improved in order to smooth over the contradictions», at that «its highest principles remain unshakeable»; and «only when their discordance with transformed basis of the system becomes too sharp, then also the highest principles get the character of “disputable” ones», that means the beginning of negative selection, the turning point for which «is arising of new “highest principles”, which are of the same degree of breadth and generality as the old ones, and meanwhile which are in quite harmony with all sum of facts and particular generalizations covered by the system»; then «for old highest forms here comes the epoch of hopeless competition, in which they perish at last» [Empiriomonism, pp. 285-286]. That is just the moment of transition to a new scientific paradigm.
Change of tectological forms — a transition from one organizational form to another through complete disingression in space or through crisis in time [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. In other words, «change of a form can consist only either in destruction of some prior connections, or in arising of new ones, or in one and other together» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212].
Changeability — 1) such a tectological quantity, characterizing a structural instability of a system, which is numerically equal to a quantity of changed tectological forms in a unit of time, or to a number of crises in a unit of time; 2) tectological concept, expressing the ability of a complex to structural transformations. In experience «there are only changes», and «any change can be considered from the point of view of difference of a form between its initial and final points» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 254]. The term is secondary in relation to the term «conjugation». Under the semantic content the last term includes the first, as general includes particular. According to empiriomonism, changeability is identical to causality, therefore «the initial point of any change of forms is finally always in their environment» [Empiriomonism, p. 246]. Thus, changeability is the consequence of the regularities, reflected by two principles – of matryoshkas and of causality: the organizational processes in an enveloping system cause changes in an embedded one.
Chaos — «the spontaneous life of the universe», which «is nothing more nor less than struggle and development of different types and steps of organization» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 251].
Characteristic — in tectology a little-used concept, by means of which «static cognition distinguished one thing from other things». On the basis of totality of characteristics of a thing such cognition determined the unity of its existence. Organizational thinking «puts form of process on the place of characteristics of thing» [Basic Elements, p. 24], at that considering characteristics as «simpler elements» of a thing, i.e. of a form of process [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 215]. Since each «word is incomparably less changeable, less plastic» than «notions, connected with it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 131], then tectology, at least, in the initial stage of its development, of course, uses the word “characteristic” as such, but uses it not as a tectological term, i.e. not as a universal one, but only as a special term of some separate discipline or as a usual «instrument of discourse» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 131], i.e. tectology uses it as an element of natural language.
Charybdis of bioprogress — all set of particular limiters, which in contrast to the single general limiter – Scylla of bioprogress, controlling all biosphere in whole, – narrows by each its partial regulator the area of development of one or another separate bioform. For each of them a narrow border of area of struggle for life is determined by internal relations of a given form and depends not on the total quantity of solar energy, but only from a part, being at the direct disposal, i.e. in a suitable way for a given bioform and besides within the limits of its external relations. In other words, «the area, within the limits of which a vital form has the real possibility to struggle for the existence» [Basic Elements, p. 89], is limited by its concrete biolimit, and the whole set of biolimits is just, figuratively speaking, Charybdis of all bioprogress in whole.
Christ — the egressor of Christianity, its main ideologist and the basic authority, or, more exactly, the trigger egressive center of all Christian culture and its world organization. Being the reformer of the Old Testament mentality and the trigger of the New Testament one, «Christ, if he existed, was undoubtedly a proletarian». At that time creators of the new ideology should be to the greatest degree «proletarians, free people, the less oppressed, spiritually not so weakened by the life» like slaves, which, nevertheless, brought into Christianity «very much: their involuntary organization, their authoritarian-domestic downtroddenness, their spirit of non-resistance and aversion to cruelty, to violence». If the economic component of the Christian organization was basically a merit of slaves, then the ideological one – of proletarians. «At that time in Judea there were in general many proletarians because of the powerful devastation of this province. The apostles were free people as well, but devoid of property and communists», and acts of apostles «written later by someone» are, strictly speaking, just «the history of the first Christian communes» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 12]. For an orthodox Christian Jesus from Nazareth is not only the proclaimer of truth, «around of which there are gathered the representatives of a new, developing life», he is truth himself. When Pontius Pilate «asked Christ the contemptuously-derisive question: “What is truth?” – the centuries-old classical culture stood under the belt of the self-satisfied sceptic and spoke out of his mouths. The old, grown decrepit world had believed in no truth; it had been enmeshed in hopeless contradictions. This world was so hopeless that its representative – Pilate – was recognized unworthy of getting the answer to the question: the answer would not be understood all the same. The truth was intended not for that world which had outlived itself, – but for that one which had been only just arising, ahead of which there was the future» [Basic Elements, p. 1].
Christian ideal — an ideal-dream, which elements are «the notion about fairness in the next world, about the reward to the suffering, humble and resigned, about the punishment to the malicious and proud, at that both the reward, and the punishment are carried out not by efforts of the very people, but by the deity, the supreme world activity, which restores the equilibrium disturbed in the terrestrial life». The Christian ideal is a psychical «reaction of “self-consolation”, quite corresponding to the principle of Le Chatelier: internal counteraction of a psychics to that pain, which is caused by destructive forces from the outside»; in other words, this ideal-dream expresses «the gravitation of a collective towards equilibrium» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 256-257]. See the law of equilibrium.
Christian ideology — a form of social lechatelierism, or, from the point of view of tectology, a social degression of passive type, i.e. an ideology without practical revolutionary character which calls not to active struggle, but to obedience, patience and passive expectation of the coming of the Leader-Savior (Messiah) who will organize the new world order for the benefit of all suffering and oppressed. In the initial period of the development «the ideas of Christianity were expressed and developed mostly by free people – the proletarians, and partly by representatives of the propertied classes joined the new faith», and on the contrary, «the slaves, being too oppressed by bondage and exploitation, were ideologists-creators rarely». However exactly their vital conditions were most strongly reflected in Christianity, in which the conception about world order «was developed as deeply authoritarian: unlimited power, being at the head of universe, and people – its slaves, irrespective of their properties and position». The same is also indicated by all moral doctrine of Christianity, «inspired with the spirit of meekness, humility, non-resistance», that did not correspond absolutely «to the mood of the proletarians of that time, with their not in the least mild, often wild customs, with their predilection for savage shows, like gladiatorial games», and on the contrary, that corresponded completely «to the mood of slaves, the defenceless victims of another’s cruelty, far from even the idea of struggle. Influence of the slaves, instead of the proletarians had also an impact on the remarkable, for those times, organizationality of movement: the proletarians-tramps were always little capable to it, while the slaves were brought up in strict discipline». Christianity became the common religion of all oppressed classes by virtue of its «comforting doctrine about other life, about transformation of the last into the first», and in general, in the rich material of Christianity there were enough ideas satisfied all oppressed classes without exception; and so long as no struggle was between them and «the oppressed position brought them together», then the general ideology named Christian in honour of the Leader-Savior could be developed exactly in their environment [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 399-400].
Christianity — an egressive-degressive eidosystem of passive type, more exactly, a global system of Le Chatelier in eidosphere, i.e. «the colossal organization and the powerful culture, which has won the world»; a culture, «all imbued with the spirit of passivity, non-resistance», with «the consumption-communistic ideal» torn off from the reality; a culture of authoritarian type with the elements of individualism. The construction of the world in Christianity is «strictly authoritarian: the god created the world, all submit to him; the moral doctrine is throughout imbued with the spirit of submission, – let the slaves obey the masters, let any soul obeys the powers that be». The purpose put in Christianity to each separate man, – personal salvation, – is individualistic, but in submission to authority, as long as it is achieved only by the instruction of deity and with his help. Primarily Christianity was «a communistic sect. What is called Communion that is recollection of the common meals»: donations were gathered, and a common diet was arranged. The spirit of Christianity is the spirit of love, from which there is deduced non-resistance, disgust at violence and, as a consequence, the passive attitude to the reality with absence of ideas of creativity and struggle. The Christian ideal – «the kingdom of heaven» – is cut off from the reality and is subject to implementation not by doing of people, but by will and power of the deity [Elements of Proletarian Culture, pp. 9-10].
Chronophage — a complex, reducing a productivity of labour and decreasing the efficiency of use of working time, i.e. a complex of any kind, which is a cause of either unproductive or uneconomical expenditure of time. For example, in any dormitory «all breaches of peace and order influence on each resident: one nervous and restless or sick person deprives all other of calmness and rest too; one person, who works nights, undermines day work capacity of many others, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 269].
Chronophagia — an unproductive expenditure of labour time, which is necessary for execution of an assigned task in time; i.e. a very process of loss of productive time under influence of unforeseen hindrances, at interference of extraneous factors in a technological process; for example, suspension of an enterprise at power cut, delay of assembly of a unit or of installation of a construction at lack of a detail, dissipation of creative time of a scientist or a writer in conditions of household disorders (family quarrels, children, noisy neighbours, importunate friends, failure of plumbing, of heating, of electric stove, cutout of water, of electricity, etc.).
Chronotop (from Greek χρόνος – time and τόπος – place) — spatio-temporal degression of some event. For example, the chronotop of Napoleon’s death: 5 May 1821, Island of St. Helena.
Church — «an ideological… organization of domination of the higher classes» [Questions of Socialism, p. 188].
Clade selection — see chain selection.
Class — a social complex, arising «because of the progressive isolation of organizing and executing functions in society» [Empiriomonism, p. 327]; «the social grouping of people on the basis of their position in production, the position, on which their interests, aspirations, ways of thinking depend. Each class defends the conditions and means of its predominance in society; an ideology of a class has just such significance for it. Therefore the victory of a new class means also the transition to domination of a new ideology, overthrowing the former one» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 206].
Class differentiation — the social differentiation of the second sort, which beginning is in the egressive division of labour, and the end – in social revolution. As distinct from social differentiation of the first sort, «class division of society is deeper both in its basis, and in its development, and in its final results», therefore «in its final phase it is not smoothed out, insensibly becoming dull», as social-group division, but it «is forcedly overcome in severe struggle and cruel crises» [Empiriomonism, p. 299].
Class society — the social dipole, in which the necessary stability of polarization of egressor (ruling classes) and ingressor (subordinated classes) is provided with sufficient strength of degression (ideology, law etc.).
Class struggle — a driving social force, not the basic, but «a derivative, inherent to a society, which is not organized on its whole, especially capitalist one», because «the production, the struggle of society against the nature, is the basic dialectic force of social development» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 206]. Moreover, being one of the forms of struggle inside of a society, class struggle is «not only a mover, but partly a brake of progress» [Questions of Socialism, p. 76].
Class system — a social system, which is differentiated in relation to production and tectologically «parallel» to estate one, but more flexible and plastic. It «is also based on specialization, but only far wider and deep, – is in the same way constructed on division of dominating and subordinated classes, the highest and the lowest, – is in the same way fixed by means of the certain ideas – religious, philosophical, scientific – the certain principles and establishments, moral, legal, political». But class system «differs by much greater flexibility and plasticity of connections, much greater mobility of elements; the conjugational processes are made immeasurably more intensively in it». For example, the speed of dissemination of any scientific discovery is on some orders higher in it than in estate system. But as in any differentiated system, «and here the conjugational processes go highly non-uniformly in different directions: much weaker between separate specialized groups, and furthermore – between different classes, than inside of these groups and classes». The development of class system is directed towards «the accumulation and increase of the internal contradictions», from which the basic are anarchy of production and struggle of classes [Questions of Socialism, p. 286].
Classes of proprietors — feudal lords in the stage of authoritarianism, slavers during the transitive authoritatively-individualistic period, capitalists and landowners in the stage of individualism. During the epoch of capitalism «all classes of proprietors – both capitalists and landowners, even peasants and craftsmen – by their nature are either hostile or at least alien to proletariat»: any even «smallest landowner is as though by the instinct hostile to proletarian free from property», feeling fear before his socialist aspirations, by virtue of what the last «is lonely in his struggle for socialism» [Proletariat in the Struggle for Socialism, pp. 83, 85].
Cliodynamics (from Greek Κλειώ – Clio, one of 9 muses, the patroness of history and δύναμις, δυναμικός – force, strong) — a division of scientific history reconstructing the past of humankind as a continuous conjugation of set of social processes which are changed under influence of some or other factors; more simply, a scientifically-historical discipline using the factor approach to a separate historical process or generally to history of humankind in whole. Specializing in the field of cliodynamics, a historian usually determines a certain, more often hierarchic, complex of factors influencing on a historical process researched by him and as consequence of their influence he reconstructs its course in one or another chronotop, i.e. in a certain moment of time and in a certain place. For example, the peasant war of 1773-1775 in Russia is considered by such a historian as a trigger sociohistorical situation, in which the trigger-factor were the group of cossacks led by the «tsar» Yemelyan Pugachev, and the counterfactor – the governmental armies of «his spouse». It is an example of local cliodynamics. An example of global cliodynamics is a studying of influence of cosmic factors, in particular, of heliofactor, on geospheric processes and, finally, on historical process. Cliodynamics was begun to create already by Russian historian V.O. Kljuchevsky, analyzing an action in «human community» of such «historical forces» as «nature and human spirit» and determining them as «the basic general factors, without which human community is impossible and which make the very connections joining people into unions». The other Russian historian and sociologist M.M. Kovalevsky suggested already directly multifactor approach to historical processes. The universal and most powerful method of scientific history is tectological method – historiomonism, or in the synonymous terminology – cliomonism.
Cliofactor — an activity influencing on historiogenesis.
Cliomonism — a shorter variant of the term of historical monism.
Cliorhythm — periodicity of historiogenesis which duplicates the same periodicity of heliocycles; in other words, pulsation of historical process caused by periodic vibration of activity of heliosphere, in consequence of what it is possible to take the duration of one heliocycle as a unit of measure of historical time.
Ñlock — «the main and universal astronomical tool», which regulates «all organization of the life of society» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 87], i.e. the device for reckoning of time, in which some stable periodic process is used. For example, in a sundial there is used Earth rotation, in a mechanical one – a vibration of pendulum, in a quantum one – a transition of atoms from one energy state into another. In relation to the last it is necessary to note that they have allowed to create the system of reckoning of time independent of astronomical observations.
Coadaptants — structurally or functionally intercomplementary complexes, taking part in united adaptation to environment. For example, hydrosphere and atmosphere – in the inorganic world or flora and fauna – in the organic one. In the process of evolution among the living organisms there was formed the extensive class of coadaptants – the arogenic symbionts, i.e. the representatives of mutualism.
Coadaptation — the united form of adjustment of complexes to environment, in the basis of which is the principle of intercomplementarity. The synonym is coevolution.
Code — system of conventional signs (symbols) for transfer, processing and preservation of various information.
Coefficient of complexity of labour —