Thesaurus of Universal Organizational Science

// Explanatory Dictionary

of Terms, Principles and Methods of Bogdanov’s Tectology //

 

Second Version

Revised and Supplemented

(First Version: St. Petersburg, «Info-Da», 2004)

Kostov S.V.

 

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 (а.е.) — 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 а.е. = 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 греч. 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.

Сlock — «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 — a number, showing «how many times at such-and-such complex labour, physically qualified or mental one, the expenses of energy are greater than the expenses at an average “ordinary” labour. The algorithm of its determination is the following: it is fixed, what a concrete «kind of complex labour is necessary for society; for maintenance (and in economically progressive society – for development too) of respective labour force in full measure there are required such-and-such articles of consumption in such-and-such quantity; they cost society the labour energy in 2, 3, 5, 8 times greater than the sum of articles of consumption, sufficient for maintenance (and for normal, average development) of ordinary labour»; and inasmuch as «the cost of this complex labour force for society in 2, 3, 5, 8 times greater than the cost of ordinary one», then «respective complex labour is socially equal to ordinary labour, multiplied by as much time» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 267].

Coefficient of efficiency of technosphere — criterion of development of productive forces of a society, which is expressed by ratio of labour expenses for production of means of production to general industrial expenses, i.e. which fixes their relative share in the general system of labour. For example, the coefficient of efficiency of technosphere at beginning of the twentieth century did not exceed the efficiency of steam engine, in other words, the share of labour forces of the humankind, falling on production of means of production, in the ratio to «the share of all labour energy, which had been at the disposal of humankind», was only «near 2-2,5 and by no means more than 3 percents» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 320-321].

Coevolution — 1) joint development of complexes by means of the noncontradictory mutual adjustment – by synergy; 2) development of complexes, the organizational processes of which are arogenically complementary; 3) the mutual adjustment of conjugating complexes to environment, i.e. coadaptation of conjugates.

Coevolutional invariance — such an organizational symmetry of interconnected complexes, at which the combination of their arogenically complementary activities is invariant relatively to any of complexes, that means the optimality of their joint development.

Coevolutional systems — interactive systems, the organizational processes of which are arogenically complementary.

Coherent — a complex-connecter, which is the common element of two systems. For two systems A and B complex C is their connecting element, if C ⊆ A and C ⊆ B, i.e. A ⊇ C ⊆ B. The synonyms are ingressor and connecter, at that the last term is usually used in the meaning of common element of two complexes.

Cognitariat — the workers of brain labour, or «organizational intelligentsia» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, p. 20], which is subdivided into «technical (engineering-scientist) and “normative” or state (official, military, advocatory) intelligentsia» [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries, p. 130], i.e. on technariat and nomoriat. The Greek equivalent of this concept is tectorate.

Cognition — «an organization of experience» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243] as «the system of adapters to socially-labour struggle for existence, briefly speaking – to “production”»; in other words, it is such a mean of adaptation of society to environment, which «plays the same role in life of the social whole that consciousness does in life of an individual», at that in process of development of humankind this role increases. Being a derivative of imitation, cognition together with it makes up the system of social plastics and coordination of forms of social labour. It is necessary to note that «the significance of cognition is particularly great just for coordination of human actions: this activity is mainly organizing in the social struggle for life» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 222, 177, 179], at that «in its organizing function the cognition covers the reality more widely than labour practice» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 319]. As a sort of chain egression cognition is a converging rhizome-process; more simply, it is biopsychosocial process, i.e. «the complex result of development of simpler phenomena – biological, psychical, social» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 255].

«Cognition is greater than practice» — an extremely briefly formulated generalization in tectology which states that «cognition in its organizing function covers the reality broader than labour practice». For example, «cognitively we can weigh Sirius and its satellite, but practically we cannot put them on scales» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 319].

Cognition of cognition – research of notions and concepts about cognitive acts, i.e. research «not of that cognitive process, which is being carried out at this very time, – but of the other cognitive acts», which are available «in the form of reminiscences, notions». The point is that «cognition, as directly executable act, and cognition, as object, as material for another cognition, – two very different things, though they are designated by the same word». It is impossible to cognize that very cognition, which is being directly experienced, i.e. «it is impermissible to confuse cognition – research with cognition – object of research. The first one is a directly experienced action, the second – a psychical image, notion (or concept) about such action. The first one is never an object of direct research: it should have been previously transformed to the second, the act of cognition should have turned into a “form” of cognition; the action should have become a notion or a concept, the production should have crystallized in a product – and already then its analysis can begin». Just therefore every possible «cognitive “a priori” are not in the least the prerequisites of cognition» and «“the gnoseological point of view” in its Kantian understanding proves to be a logical error» – the confusion of the concrete cognitive process with the notion about this process [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 256-258].

Cognitive complexes — «collectively-developed instruments of organization of activities of a collective», the set of which represents a cognitive system. Figuratively speaking, «their set cannot be represented in the form of mechanical heap of particular instruments for special cases», since they do not «simply lie side by side like tools in a bag of a worker or on a shelf of a workshop», but have an influence on each other and inevitably «take the shape of coordinated whole, of organized system», the ideal of which is «maximal, in their parts and as the whole, correspondence to real tasks of practice of collective». For each separate cognitive complex «the criterion of truth – of objectivity is, firstly, its fitness, as an instrument, in a direct practice, secondly, the harmony with the general system of cognition», at that both «come to the coefficient of utility of energy expenses from the point of view of collective, in its integral life and development», since «non-coordination of some cognitive complexes with others means a decreased productivity of energy expenses, of expenses in the sphere of thinking (difficulty of remembering of these complexes, of orientation in them, of combining of them for concrete problems)» [From Religious Monism to Scientific, pp. 329-330]. A synonym is cognitive forms.

Cognitive doing — «a doing of consciousness turned on processes of transition from one fact of consciousness to another», i.e. discerning of these transitions [Basic Elements, p. 148].

Cognitive forms — organizing adapters of the second type, which «serve for systematical coordination of labour on the basis of endured experience». Such forms are concepts, judgements and their complex combinations in the form of religious doctrines, scientific and philosophical theories [Empiriomonism, p. 268]. «In processes of selection any developed form of cognition comes out as true or false, i.e. adapted or unadapted. At that according to different sorts of selection it is possible to find a diversity of different criteria of truth, which are relative. The least relative and most objective one of them is the tendency of social development». Systematization of cognitive forms «is carried out by monistic tendency, which seeks to eliminate contradictions and to create harmony of all forms of cognition both within the limits of a separate mentality and in their social totality», as a result of what, in essence, there is formed a system of cognition, commonly accepted on a given historical moment [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 202]. From the organizational point of view the cognitive forms are the forms of social degression of egressive type, i.e. as organizing adapters, fixing the extensive and very plastic system of experience, they are the various forms of egressive degression in eidosphere. For example, picture of the world is «the highest, all-organizing cognitive form», focusing in itself the general and integral notion of man about the world [Empiriomonism, p. 232].

Cognitive ideal — a social form of degression, «increasing an organizationality of collective life» of people «in the sphere of systematization of experience», i.e. that what is recognized as true [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

Cognitive plastics — a psychical process of adjustment of a living organism to continuously changing conditions of life, when «psychical selection tends to adapt a new fact of consciousness to former» facts, i.e. a new generalization is brought under old forms of generalization. Such process includes two moments: firstly, «the forms of generalization and distinction act not separately, but together with their forms of expression; so, in plastics there are taken part exactly the forms of cognition – concepts, judgements, etc.», and secondly, «cognitive plastics can be accompanied by representation of its purpose: then it can be already named process of research». Thus, «cognitive plastics is partly performed spontaneously, partly joins with the consciousness of purpose, i.e. has the character of labour; but in both cases it is social process» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 181-182, 202].

Cognitive system — a complex of some cognitive forms, the necessary set of which is determined by a concrete problematics of scientific, world view or everyday character, for example, by tasks of some scientific research.

Cognitosphere — the world environment covered by the human mind, i.e. cognized by humankind. A synonym – system of cognition.

Cohesion — a totality of activities, which support some connection in a system. For example: in a solid body the intermolecular cohesion, outweighing thermal activities, paralyses their separating action; if to heat up a body, i.e. «to increase its thermal activities», then «overweight of the cohesion over them becomes less; but while it is still present, has not reached zero quantity, a body remains solid, its molecules in the fluctuations keep the former interrelative arrangement»; and «if the process goes further, there comes the moment, when opposite activities become equal, thermal energy reaches the level, on which it already breaks the cohesion; the former stable connection is broken, and instead of fluctuations about one average position the particles begin to move on complex orbits», – and the body passes from solid state into liquid [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212].

Collecting of man — counterdifferentiation of such complex, most highly organized and plastic biosocial system, differentiated during historical development, as man is. Such process leads «to the transformation of man-fraction into man-whole», when the place of «narrow specialist» of «authoritarian-individualistic type» with his specialized technical methods and undeveloped psychics there is taken by harmoniously developed, «widely educated, monistically thinking, socially-living» man of collectivist type, «combining the organizing and executing points of view in one directly-integral activity» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 40-43]. The process of fragmentation of man corresponded to the stage of spontaneous anthropogenesis, on which the mass of forces was spent for struggle of man against man and only small part went on perfection of man and on harmonization of relations between people. With the termination of such waste of forces there is begun the stage of conscious anthropogenesis, at coming of which «forces of development» of humankind are exclusively switched over to struggle against the natural spontaneous forces. Thus, «collecting of man leads not to stagnation, but to 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», when «from mutual communication of people there are continuously originated new and new questions and tasks for everyone», when «the harmonious consolidation of collective forces gives everyone the possibility to enter into the common struggle against the spontaneous nature with confidence in the victory». At that each new stage of collecting of man «facilitates the further, increasing the connection and mutual understanding of those elements of humankind, which are involved in the process of “collecting”. Consequently, however difficult, however painful this process is at times, but with each its new phase it is carried out ever more easily. Its speed increases» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 45, 43].

Collective — not simply «a mass of the colleagues, united by a common work or struggle», but a system of people, united by a common doing, where a common doing is «the development of the organization of things, people, ideas». Consequently, «a collective is there, where the practical truth is, i.e. the objective truth, in other words, in that part of colleagues and in those ideas, which show the way to the greatest, under given conditions, development of collective doing» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, pp. 110-111]. From the tectological point of view a collective is a synergistic social system, which common purpose is the triune organizational task. In the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis it can be a separate synergistic complex and be a part of social system, which is the simple association of a mass of colleagues by a common work.

Collectivism — 1) the extremely organized cooperation, at which «all society becomes one enterprise» [Questions of Socialism, p. 301]; 2) as «world comradely cooperation of people» it is «the future organization of society», i.e. socialism [Questions of Socialism, pp. 349, 296]; 3) the certain «world attitude, i.e. both practical, and theoretical attitude to the world: the practical ideal and the theoretical idea. The ideal of collectivism is the united, harmoniously-composed, comradely organization of production and all creative work of people. The idea of collectivism consists in that the true actor of work and cognition, the true builder of life, the fighter with spontaneous forces and mysteries of the nature is the collective. A person is just an element of living tissue of collective, and in the activity – a partial embodiment of its forces». Such world attitude has reached the highest development in empiriomonism, which recognizes not only the collectivism of labour and social struggle, but also the collectivism of cognition, thinking. From the point of view of empiriomonism science and art are «the collective experience, which is collected, put into order and organized» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 107]. As «socially-practical, actively-organizational» ideal the collectivism is inherent to «the collectives, which grow and win over the spontaneous and social resistances» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 257]. Only collectivism «can guarantee continuity of development for society to some extent». Individualism «has already led to return motion as it was in the ancient world, and partly now, in the epoch of financial capitalism». Collectivism «will not result in this, it can guarantee development of society» and can extrude by itself all other forms of cooperation; and «while in society there are basic conditions of disorganization, there is always possible return to a lower step of development, to a lower principle of technics» [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, pp. 283-284].

Collectivist — not simply a member of a collective, but «a follower of the scientific solution of questions», for whom there is not excluded the possibility of «such a situation, when he is one against the others, because he sees and knows what the others do not see and do not know». Inasmuch as «the experience of a collective is in particles distributed in its environment», there is «thinkable such a combination that in head of one man there will be got not only more significant portion of the collective experience than at the others, but also concluding those elements of it and in that grouping, which are necessary for a solution of a known task, facing to a collective. Then the objective truth is on the side of the one; but the others do not agree with him and are temporarily not capable even to understand him: the soul of a collective is living in him alone at this moment, and it is sleeping in the others. And he will not yield, if he is a collectivist in full measure, merging himself not only with a body of collective, but even more and first of all with its doing». It is quite clear, that in this case his «criticism is directed not against the collective, but against some moment in its movement, which is not in line with its development as a whole» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, pp. 112-113].

Collectivistic order — the limit, to which «the long revolution of methods of production and forms of cooperation» gravitates, i.e. that revolution, «covering a few centuries», which together with «uncountable contradictions, continuous struggle, unstable equilibriums» and movement from some crises to other is only «the transitive phase between two organic social systems», which is known in history of humankind as capitalism [Questions of Socialism, p. 295].

Collectivization — a process or a principle of organization of economic life of people, which is reduced to two basic organizational forms – «authoritarian and comradely; in collectivism there are types of cooperation, in communism – of distribution. In practice these forms has been as yet observed almost always in the mixed kind with prevalence of one or other». For example, such a social system of authoritarian construction as patriarchal community «had also the embryonic elements of comradely type in the form of “primitive democratism” nevertheless» – of common discussion and decision by general meeting of especially important questions of the life [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, pp. 82-83].

Commensalism — the form of symbiosis, at which one of the symbionts entrusts to another the regulation of the relations with environment, but at that there is occurred no metabolic interaction between the symbionts. In other words, such coexistence is advantageous to one organism and is indifferent to another; for example, sea hydroids, settling on a skin of fishes and feeding on their excrement.

Commodity fetishism — «an original distortion of economic reality in the consciousness of exchange society», at which «to the goods, products of human labour, there are attributed the relations, which are in practice the relations of the very people». For example: «if a dress is exchanged on half a pound of silver, then in the consciousness of a commodity producer it is represented by the relation between the very goods, but not between people, who have made them». Really «exchange of goods is exchange of work divided between people-employees», but not exchange of «values», which «are attributed to the nature of the very goods». In other words, «turning the reality of life over», commodity fetishism transforms «division of labour into capability of the goods to exchange mutually, i.e. production connection into relations between things»; it is a consequence of «misunderstanding by man of his labour connections with other men» that finally leads to «power of social relations over him». Certainly, commodity fetishism is an error, but «an error from a higher point of view than thinking of exchange society; but for this society it is not at all so: there commodity fetishism is the simplest, the most practically suitable, the least contradictory way of understanding of facts» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 370-371].

Common ideology (mentality) — the most stable «ways of thinking», i.e. «the most conservative side of human nature», because «it is able in the greatest measure to be kept as a remnant of the past among new vital conditions and relations and can be the strongest brake on the way to the future». As one of the forms of social degression a common ideology plays the important part in sociogenesis, because «all the political and economic interests are refracted through it and are formed by means of it» [Questions of Socialism, p. 307].

Common purpose — common objective orientation of activities. In tectology the meaning of this concept is universal and is not limited to only subjective content. As common organizing element a purpose carries out the role of connecter in system, because represents that very «real element of community», which, essentially, forms «the basis of organization of cooperation». A common purpose is not equal in this case, because a simply equal purpose is not enough for an organized association. «For example, concerning two competitors it is possible to tell rightfully that they have “equal” purposes: one wishes for himself what is wished by another for himself; but, clearly, both of them together do not make up an organization, because they have no common purpose. The word “common” means not similarity, but coincidence. At a competition the equal purposes do not coincide, but go away: they are differently directed. Organizationality is achieved in so far as a direction of activity, expressed by purpose, is identical for both colleagues. Consequently, a connection is created by an element, which is really common, the same, included in both complexes». This common organizing element is the very «common orientation of activities», owing to which «the cumulative result of their actions» proves to be «greater than simple sum of individually attainable results»; if there is no common direction of efforts, it turns out to be less than this sum. Thus, in the sphere of social activity a common purpose is an including in consciousness of people «element of their psychics», which, «carrying out the organizing function», directs individual efforts toward a common direction and generates a synergy at their objective coincidence [Tectology, v. 1, p. 150].

Common sense — «the generalizations of narrow, ordinary experience, which can always prove to be false, as soon as one comes out this small area». So, for example, for a long period of time the very common sense did not allow a man «to understand even that the earth didn’t stand motionlessly» [Basic Elements, p. 97].

Common to all humankind — «what has always been in humankind, but that has not been understood by it». For example, the collectively-labour content of its life: «the humankind has always lived and developed by force of collective labour», which «hasn’t stop to be collective from that it is separated into a great number of economies, and from that people, transmitting to each other, distributing the products of this labour, go into the struggle between themselves in the market», – all the same «there is that people have always worked and work for each other, and, consequently, they work for collective»: simply «the collectively-labour meaning of the life has been concealed, hidden from people by the seeming fragmentation of collective and seeming struggle; but it has been only concealed, obscured» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 89].

Commune — the limiting form of siege communism, arising in the conditions when «the dominating groups, too full of private interests, do not want or are not able to organize it. Then the subordinated mass get the aspiration to overthrow them, and, naturally, the least individualistic elements, and also the most hostile to ruling classes, lead the way. It was so, for example, in beleaguered Paris in 1871, where domination of the bourgeoisie, not wished to struggle up to the end and unable to organize the life of the city, as this struggle demanded, was overthrown by the block of proletarians and petty bourgeoisie, hostile to the capital; it is this block that carried out siege communism, though still far from complete» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, p. 84].

Communication — psychical conjugation; more simply, a mutual coordination of experience of different people, which, on the one hand, is a partial making of general significant experience, and on the other hand, – a partial supplement of direct experience with indirect. Each man is «world, but a partial world, not cosmos, but a microcosm», i.e. «not the whole, but only a part and a reflection of the great whole». He is made to be a part by «what connects him with the whole», i.e. by communication. «If man was one, he would not be a microcosm», because «his experience and the world would coincide between each other», and «any expansion of this experience would be then expansion of the world as a whole». It is exactly communication that «makes man to be a microcosm», inasmuch as it teaches him «that there are things, which do not belong to his experience and, however, “exist”, because belong to experience of other people, that there are feelings, which he does not feel, but which, however, “are real”, because flow in consciousness of other people». As the result man «makes certain of that the stream of experience is not one, but there is great number of them, and all of them merge for him into endless ocean, which he calls the nature». Thus, connection between him as a particular, individually-organized experience, and the nature as the universal, collectively-organized experience, is created by communication [Questions of Socialism, p. 30].

Communism — collectivization in sphere of consumption on the basis of «negation of private property, of individual right of property», i.e. it is «a concept connected first of all with the sphere of appropriation, distribution». For example, such is the communism of consumption in the early Christian communities, which «obliged members of the community to give their property to its consumption fund», or «the land communism of feudal peasantry expressed in communal ownership of land at fragmentation of process of cultivation of land, etc.». The concept «communism» should be distinguished from the concept «collectivism» connected with the sphere of production. In particular historical realizations both organizational forms of collectivization are quite often separated, but are mostly connected to some extent. In different historical conditions communistic tendency is shown in one or another form, for example, war communism, «siege communism», «communism of extremity», etc. For example, when communistic tendency merges with individualistic one, it turns into primitive sharing: «aspiration to distribute available property evenly in private property»; at the merging with authoritarian one – its communism extends to lower classes mainly: for the rulers «the communism is not obligatory or obligatory only partly»; and only merging directly and inseparably with the related collectivistic tendency, at last it realizes socialist ideal, natural and only befitting to humanity as to reasonable race [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, pp. 82-83, 85].

Communism of consumption — a natural result of merging of individualistic and communistic tendencies in appropriation of social product, given in the «democratic» form of primitive «sharing out – aspiration to distribute a present property evenly into private property». The same form of communism is also shown in such still widespread social phenomenon as joint satisfaction of personal needs, to which it is necessary to assign every possible feasts at home, at work, in cafe, buffets, bars, restaurants, clubs, pubs, snack bars, all these organized or spontaneously arising, regular or occasional «gatherings», «get-togethers» while sitting, standing, i.e. formal and informal dinners, suppers, parties, picnics, banquets, stand-up meals, lunch breaks, smorgasbords, etc. Such communism is not connected with collectivism of labour and communism of distribution, but it even contradicts them, since they as «social unity and regulation mean increase of force, represent the way to victory over the nature», while in joint consumption «this is not present at all: consumption is individual by the very nature, here one man cannot really help another. True, during the old times a joint table, feasts, drinking comradeship played a considerable role in strengthening of social connection between people; it depended on that at the lower steps of development the satisfaction of such needs was the maximum enjoyment in life and a consolidation on its ground served as a means to bring people together, to create a mutual relationship at them. On this principle there are still based diplomatic banquets and any official dinners, with which meetings of businessmen are opened. But for a contemporary labour man, little versed in gastronomic enjoyments, similar feasts, which drag on for hours because all should wait for everyone and everyone for all, are only unbearably boring, and even repulsive as vestiges of barbarity. And it will become even difficult for future generations with their collectively-labour aesthetics to understand how people could gather for execution of such ungraceful and, perhaps, unpleasant actions as mastication, deglutition and so forth, which all the same everyone carries out only individually. It will be perceived approximately in the way as already we perceive rough communism of toilets» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 269-270].

Communism of extremity — temporary communism of consumption, inevitably arising in critical conditions in social system of any construction and any composition, i.e. «even among the elements filled entirely with economic individualism in their usual life». For example, in such extreme situation, known in navigation, when «a ship strikes reefs at a deserted island, as great as the respect of the captain of the crew and the passengers for the principle of private property may be, all provisions are taken away from separate persons for even distribution in order to that everybody can somehow live till the moment of salvation» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, p. 83]. Critical conditions, in which there is communism of extremity, can be both natural and social. See siege communism.

Complementarity — organizational intersupplementarity of complexes: the structural one, if they have the common elements (for example, a common surface of a screw and nuts), and the functional one, if their activities are arogenic (for example, the doing of a rural worker is useful both to him, and to a handicraftsman, and vice versa).

Complementary complex — a complex, structurally or functionally intersupplementary to its coevolutional partner – to a complex-«coadaptant». Complementary complexes form an arogenic system.

Complementary connections — in the nature and society the widespread type of exchange connections, enhancing the stability of a complex and arising as the regular result of system divergence (see the principle of complementary interrelations). Structural intercomplementarity of elements of a system as the certain guarantee of its stability is the basis of selection, by force of which «a system divergence is directed at the line of complementary connections» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 22]. The synonyms are intercomplementary connections and complementary interrelations.

Complementary interrelations (intercomplementary connections) — such interrelations, arising under a system divergence, at which divergent parts supplement each other mutually, at that «there are developed such differences, which increase connexity and stability of system, its strength under external actions, in a word, its organizationality». For example, «the cells of a root assimilate some of elements plentifully from the nearest environment, the cells of leaves and a trunk – the others; by means of conjugation they transmit the surpluses to each other, mutually sustaining the structural stability» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 14]. Representing asymmetric ingression, «complementary interrelations are primarily characterized by their “irreversibility”: assimilation of one part of system corresponds to disassimilation of another or others» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 23]. Complementary interrelations arises at the second phase of a tectological act – the phase of system differentiation, – where they «can be made in different directions and can be plural and complex; but each of them, if it is cognitively distinguished, is easily expressed in the form of the certain tendency, “polarizing” a system in two parties». If a system has not disintegrated at this stage, at the third phase of a tectological act – the phase of system consolidation – complementary interrelations get a perfect form: selection, eliminating the system contradictions, finishes a complete forming of system, strengthening and fixing the most stable combinations of the intercomplementary connected elements [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 259-260].

Complete disingression — from the organizational point of view «complete neutralization of activities» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 164], that always means «separation, breakage of some organizational connection». From the other hand, on the contrary, disturbance of a complete disingression is always related to «formation of organizational connection» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212]. Complete disingression «always causes introduction of elements-activities of environment along lines of destroyed resistances, – formation of a tectological border», and «creates separate complexes where there was a single whole», i.e. makes separateness [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 165, 169]. Through complete disingression there is made «transition from one organizational form to another in space, just as it is made through crisis in time» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. From the energy point of view complete disingression means «equality of tensions of energy», that, in its turn, tectologically means «equality of mutually opposing activities» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 177].

Complete egression — the developed form of «centralistic» connection, when it achieves such a step that «the complexes K, L, M, N, taken in the sum… are more determined by the complex A in their changes than it is done by them». An example of such quite expressed egression is the phase of development of tribal commune, among which «there is stood a constant organizer-patriarch or leader, who systematically controls its life» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 105].

Complex — 1) a conjunction of activities-resistances, their certain combination; 2) «a connection of some elements» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 120]; 3) the whole, consisting from the parts, functionally dependent on it and interconnected among themselves, or elements; 4) a system, or an organizational form (terminological synonyms) [Tectology, v. 1, p. 188]. Complexes are characterized by composition, i.e. by «the elements, of which they are formed», and by construction, i.e. by «interrelations between these elements» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 119], in other words, they are not substantive, but organizational and functional associations. From the tectological point of view all set of complexes is reduced to three subsets: organized, disorganized and neutral complexes. All without exception complexes «should be understood dynamically, and not statically», i.e. as «continuous arising and elimination of elements» [Empiriomonism, p. 338]. In such a context the unity of existence of a complex and its separateness from other complexes consists in that all its «parts are in continuous connection and interaction, in permanent conjugation, in exchange confluence of activities», in other words, between the parts of a complex there is continuous «levelling of developing distinctions». For example: «a concentration of the dissolved substances changes in different places of a drop of water, – but just right here there are occurred mixing and diffusion, which tends to destroy this heterogeneity», but «between separate drops such a conjugation are not present, and the distinctions can increase without difficulty, the divergence – intensify» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 6-7]. And, at last, it is necessary to remember, that a complex is «a conditional quantity and subdivision of it into parts depends from a researcher entirely, considering them as the special complexes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 147].

Complex-connecter — see ingressor and coherent.

Complex-process — such a tectological description of all conditions of a complex and its environment during a certain time, at which their «relative activities-resistances» are considered as the links of one time chain from the unified point of view, i.e. in accordance with a purpose and research tasks [Tectology, v. 1, p. 220]. Thus, a complex-process represents a sequential recording of all tectological states of the system «a complex – environment» during a certain period of time.

Complex-vampire — a social complex – a vestige, i.e. a catagenic complex of adapters in social system, which, firstly, has outlived the conditions of its arising, secondly, impedes development of the adapters already available and adequate to the environment, and thirdly, interferes with origin of new adapters. For example, an idea, a social group, which have outlasted their time, or a man, who «takes from the life more than gives it», who by his existence «reduces its quantity», trying «to return it back, to that past, in which he felt the connection with it», by virtue of what he is not simply a parasite of life, but exactly its active hater, «drinking its juices» [Questions of Socialism, p. 265].

Complex deduction — a deduction, in which «for understanding or prevision of a certain special case there are applied at once several inductive generalizations or laws». For example: if there is a need to predict the trajectory of a thrown stone or an artillery shell, then it is necessary «to take into consideration three abstract laws, which relate to falling of bodies, to velocity addition, to resistance of air» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 278].

Complex of conservative type — «a complex, which selection of elements occurs on relatively conservative basis» and which «is the less capable to preserve itself stably, or to develop, the more changeable is its environment. Such complexes are destroyed «at acceleration of the tempo of changes in their environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 161]. The synonym is rigid complex.

Complex of equilibrated type — a complex, which interaction with an environment is regulated by the law of equilibrium: any action on it leads to internal regrouping of its activities, which «decrease directly the result of external action» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 254].

Complex of unequilibrated type — a complex, which activity under an external action is directed not at correction of intrasystem processes, that corresponds to the principle of Le Chatelier, but at correction of extrasystem processes, i.e. it is aimed at either against the reason of adverse influence directly, or only against its carrier indirectly. Therefore, such a complex differs from a complex of equilibrated type only in a direction of its counteracting activity: in the first case it is directed inside, and in the second – outside, but consequences of these two ways of adaptation are absolutely different: complexes of the first type, «being unable to develop their resistance to environment, pass to degradation naturally as it becomes exhausted», while complexes of the second type are capable either to further development through «progressive victories over external forces», or to degradation «through defeats» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 254, 256].

Complex form — a set of interconnected simple forms, which mutual relations are its «internal relations», or «simply its construction» [Basic Elements, p. 49].

Complex system — a set of functionally interdependent homogeneous and heterogeneous elements united by chain connection. For example, cellular tissues, populations, biogeocenoses, systems of transport and communication are complex systems of elements united by homogeneous chain connection, i.e. they are networks; while classifications of organisms, blood-vascular and nervous systems, army and church hierarchies, officialdom are complex systems of elements united by heterogeneous chain connection, i.e. they are rhizomes. «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-planned society, properly arranged mechanism etc.: any well formed combination. Chain connection means one or other proportional interrelations», but if «they are broken, then “the law of least” appears on the scene» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 117]. Since «any complex, developing system represents a chain of groupings, not identical, on the one hand, by their relative antiquity, and on the other – by their connectivity and stability», then in historical section each phase of its systemogenesis presents «a certain series of consecutive layers: some were formed earlier, others – later, “laying” over them in the organizational sense». But as «development of any grouping is regulated by the mechanism of selection», eliminating less stable connections in it and fixing more stable, then if «a grouping is kept and supported in system, it should become more and more stable, more and more stronger. Consequently, with other conditions being equal groupings of earlier origin should be also more “strengthened”, more resistant in relation to destroying actions than ones formed later». For this reason in case of «sufficient uniformity of disorganizing influences, when they seize all system uniformly and parallel», according to the scheme of historical layers there are firstly disintegrated «the groupings of the posterior origin – the process goes like layer-by-layer, the way of destruction repeats shortly the way of system formation in reverse order» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 277-278]. Observable tectogenesis in the world is accompanied by continuous complication of systems, which have passed the test of negative selection. Among the highest category of complexity tectology reckons highly organized plastic egressive-degressive systems.

Composition — elements, of which a complex is formed, i.e. set of elements and their quantity [Tectology, v. 1, p. 119].

Compound complex — any complex «formed by elements of different activities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 9]. In tectology this concept is sufficiently conditional, since in the nature all complexes are compound, and the degree of compounding character of one or another of them is determined in relation to other complexes.

Compromise — for that who understands the essence of existent processes it is «a necessary organizational act in their common chain», expressing «the maximum of achievable at a present moment», and above all – it «is not “a treason to a principle”, even partial», but on the contrary, «a next stage of a unified organizational process, the form of which is expressed by “a principle”». But for that who understands the general organizational essence of current things incorrectly or who is generally «free from such the understanding, “principle” and “compromise” turn out to be extremes; and there is realized only compromise in practice; principle “submits” to it – as the result there is «a treason to a principle», and a man, getting used “to subordinate” it to compromise, becomes a hopeless time-server [Questions of Socialism, p. 330].

Compulsion — a form of people control realized in three basic ways: physical, economic and ideological, which are used both in the pure form and in the combinations.

Comradeship — the optimal system of cooperation constructed on the basis of synergy and according to the principle of organizational symmetry. The essence of comradeship «consists in unity of purpose, which is put by people to themselves freely, without any compulsion and exceeds the bounds of personal interests of each of them» [Questions of Socialism, p. 68]. Comradeship reaches the highest degree of its development at the stage of conscious sociogenesis.

Concept-persistent — most general concept, which differs in «largest strength and conservatism» and «at the same time has both the general character by the content and large distribution in society. Such concepts are few», but they «have been established in heads of people far strongly than others and are liable to variations only to very weak degree. These are the most dependable concepts, they are least able to inspire mutual misunderstanding in people. Such are first of all the most ordinary concepts, with which most people have to deal most often»: for example, such words-concepts as «man», «mother», «father», «day», «night», etc. In comparison with particular and special concept a concept-persistent is «less changeable by its content», since more «general concept covers more wide circle of notions than a particular one; therefore, in order to cause a noticeable change of concept, in the first case it is necessary to add a larger quantity of new notions to former ones than in the second one». In order to give «more strength and definiteness» to changeable concepts, «it is necessary to reduce them someway to the first, then probability of misunderstandings decreases greatly. Reduction of more particular and unsteady concepts to more general and constant ones is called definition of concepts» [Basic Elements, p. 6].

Concepts — elements of thinking, which are combined in thoughts or ideas. As psychophysiological facts they are complexes of certain notions, but as facts of ideology they represent already «socially-ideological complexes», which, it is very important to note, are characterized «by original plurality of values. During social development this plurality is limited to differentiation of words, but is not destroyed and cannot be destroyed. It is possible to consider as a rule that the more general is a concept, the more expressed the plurality is… In scientific thinking the concepts are most specified, the meanings of terms are distinguished to the maximum… Philosophical concepts, on the contrary, are most polysemantic, and their different meanings diverge most far (illustrations – “matter” of philosophers, “thing”, “quality”)» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132]. All total «complex of concepts, dominating over a given society», forms system of cognition of given society [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 216]. As psychophysiology has determined, concepts should not be confused with simple «notions». In reality «notions are living images of things and events, being in consciousness not only of man, but also of any dumb animal, free from any ideology. On the contrary, a concept, thinking are ideological facts, peculiar only to man and, maybe, to some social animals; living images are not enough for thinking, but there are necessary their signs or symbols; such symbols are words». However, as is known from psychophysiology, «word and concept are in essence identical, if, certainly, to take a word, not tearing off from its sense, with which it is inseparable in the very life and without which it cannot in the least be referred to as a word». It is precisely a word-concept, which is the primary element of «thinking – of ideological, social process», even proceeding in consciousness of a separate person. And though «at a later time the thinking uses also other signs, for example, images of art, written symbols, mathematical figures, etc.», nevertheless, being included in thinking, these signs «cannot form it in themselves, i.e. without words-concepts, but remain only its auxiliary means» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 302-303].

Conditions of environment — such a complex of external actions, being undergone by a system, which is «taken exactly in relation to it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 110].

Conditions of instability — a preponderance of disassimilation over assimilation and system contradictions over complementary interrelations that is a result of one of tendencies of system divergence. The basis of arising of contradictions is an increase of tectological difference, i.e. «increase of organizational distinctions between the parts of a whole», which are diverged by «tempo of life» and «by force of their relative resistance to environment» that «inevitably leads to disorganization, a slower or faster one, depending on the sum of conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 24-25].

Conditions of stability — a characteristic of general state of extrasystem and intrasystem relations, giving a relative guarantee of conservation of a system in continuously changing environment. The requirements to energetics of external interactions are reflected by the necessary condition of stability, while to energetics of internal – by the sufficient one.

«Сonjointness» — a type of structure, characterized by larger quantity of connections between elements and their greater uniformity in different parts of a complex or in different directions. The more are connections between elements, «the less is the spaciousness for penetration of elements or complexes of environment between them»; the more is uniformity of connections, the more is «conjointness». For preservation and development of a complex under negative selection there is more favorable more «conjoint» structure. For example, under adverse vital conditions, when selection is negative, there is advantageous «centralistic» structure as more «conjoint» in contrast to «federative», more «beaded» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 244-246].

Conjugate («conjuganta») — a complex, taking part in conjugation, – in joining with other complex, as a result of which there is arisen «a system from transformed conjugated complexes», at that «complexes can either remain in mutual connection, or can be again separated in the very course of changes, caused by conjugation» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 149].

Conjugation — a joining of complexes in a new system, which, being «the primary moment to generate change, arising, destruction, development of organizational forms», is «the basis of forming tectological mechanism». Universality of this concept is obvious, because «conjugation is both a cooperation, and all sorts of another communication, for example a conversation, and a junction of concepts into ideas, and a meeting of images or aspirations in the field of consciousness, and an alloying of metals, and an electric discharge between two bodies, and an exchange of the goods between enterprises, and an exchange of radiant energy between heavenly bodies; conjugation connects our brain with the most distant star, when we see it in a telescope, and with the least bacterium, which we find in the field of vision of a microscope. Conjugation is assimilation by an organism of food, which maintains its life, and of a poison, which destroys it, tender embraces of lovers and rabid embraces of enemies, a congress of workers of one business and a fighting battle of hostile troops…» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 144]. The basic organizational significance of this very important tectological formator consists in that «exactly conjugation gives a new material for regroupings and their selection, i.e. generally for structural transformation of all system» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 44]. At that «the results of conjugational processes can be different – both positive (new ingressions), and negative (new disingressions)», depending on which there are occurred the changes of structure of conjugates: «partial or fundamental, in the form of deformations or crises, development, degradation, destruction» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 178]. In doing so, as a rule, one conjugate has more influence on another than on the contrary, «because the conjugations are not in the least characterized necessarily by uniformity of mutual changes of both parties, in practice such a uniformity even never happens» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 93]. The initial moment of each conjugation is a connecter formation, which «itself is reduced to confluence of a certain sum of elements of uniting complexes. This confluence is based on complete correspondence of connective elements of one and other part. However the mechanism, by which “connecter” is created, far from always represents simple overlapping of the elements, already quite corresponding to each other. In many cases the very correspondence, the very possibility of coincidence is to a greater or lesser extent the result of some interaction between united complexes». So, for example, two men who have come into practical connection on the basis of some common purpose, can imagine this purpose at first not equally and, «especially the plan of actions, leading to it; but by communication, verbal and labour, mutually influencing on each other, step by step they come to increasingly greater solidarity in understanding both of tasks and means» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 30]. From the energy point of view no conjugation «can be performed without waste of activities», because for each of conjugates their junction «means an inclusion in its structure of some new combinations, alien by the origin and not adapted to this composition», as the consequence of what «the reorganization of the system» goes on the type of crisis and in conditions of intensified work of negative selection, and at that «the waste can be more or less; the benefits of joining are also different on extent, as well as on the character», and on the whole «the general result of reorganization can be both a plus and a minus» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 47]. Nevertheless, irrespective of a result «at every conjugation there is increased the sum of conditions of possible development, or the quantity of opportunities of development. Its world significance is in that it breaks the cyclic isolation of organizational processes of the nature, that it already in itself guarantees the forward course of development, excepting simple recurrence, simple returning of the same forms constantly» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52]. Just for this reason conjugation is also one of the basic integral organizational mechanisms of tectogenesis.

Conjugational crisis — see crisis C.

Conjugational scheme of increasing potentialities of development — see the principle of evolutional prospect.

Connecter (coupling) — «a special, third link» in any connection of two complexes, formed by “entering” of elements of one complex into another and connected them in a new integrity. Such tectological combination is called ingression, and the connection – ingressive [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161]. But since «ingression arises just in so far as connecter is formed, then connecter is product of conjugational processes, which generate ingression», thus it is possible to give the other «dynamic definition of connecter: it is field of conjugation as organizing factor» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 37]. The static definition of connecter is the simplest – «aggregate of common, coincident elements between complexes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 153]. In particular the role of connecter can be also performed by one their common element, then its formula will be the briefest – common link of conjugates. For example: a connecter of two conjugated amoebae or bacteria – it is that merged part of their bodies, which belongs equally to both; a connecter of efforts, organized in cooperation, – their common object; a connecter of two chain’s links – that part of one link, which is inside of another, and inversely, including their contact surface. Just in the field of connecter there are taken place all those changes, by which there is determined organizationality or disorganizationality of an originating system. At conjugated living cells just there are made the exchange processes, which increase their biopotential, or – in cases of biologically unsuccessful combination – decrease it. The latinized variant of the term is ingressor.

Connecting crisis — see crisis C.

Connection — what unites complexes into a single whole – into their system. Any connection of complexes is caused «by their certain structural adequacy, in whatever it consists», and if it disappears – connection disappears also: this «is similar to as if screw and nut have lost the coincident threads, their elements of community; the comparison is rough, but truly expressing the essence of the fact». From the tectological point of view all connections, observable in the world, – chain, plastic, complementary, direct, feed-backs, «centralistic», «skeletal», «mediate», coordinated, exchange, reversible, irreversible, symmetric, asymmetric, etc. – all without exception are reduced to the one basic type – to ingression, which in case of irreversible connecter degenerates into egression and degression. Each organizational connection «relates to certain activities». For example, such a «centralistic» connection as «connection of army, officialdom, production hierarchy», relates «to “organizing” activities; the connection of system of the Sun, planets, their satellites – to the activities of “gravitation” and so forth» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 115].

Consciousness — 1) «apparatus of the most intensive selection of the most complex and various combinations» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 22]; 2) «direct psychical experience», i.e. «a combination (of complexes), which is compound, changeable, stable in changes and in which other combinations (of complexes) “are reflected” in the form of “perceptions”, “external impressions”, etc.» [Empiriomonism, pp. 137, 336]. Since consciousness in such a formulation is «some combination of experiences, which belongs to a certain psychical system», then in relation to the last it is possible to determine consciousness as «area of coordinated changes of a psychical system (at that the form of their coordination is associative connection)» [Empiriomonism, p. 138]. From the point of view of survival of an organism in changeable environment a consciousness, already «as a certain link in continuous chain of physiological processes of psychical apparatus», is «an adapter, as the necessary moment in process of making of motor reactions» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 126], because it «serves a living being – a man, an animal, – in order to organize own life: to coordinate own movements, actions with needs, to combine own feelings into harmonious order of memory» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 288].

Consequence — what «turns out from a cause like in production a practical result turns out from energy spent for it»; moreover, what «exhausts a cause» or, that is the same, what «is equal to it, – like in production the practical results, useful and useless or harmful, taken together, exhaust energy spent in it» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 211].

Conservation of forms — «just a result of that each of arising changes is immediately counterbalanced by another, opposite to it, – it is dynamic equilibrium of changes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 197]. The way of conservation of forms is single – it is vibrational process, into elements of which it is always possible to decompose «every dynamic equilibrium seemed to be continuous» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 270]. In continuously changeable environment «the only thing can give relative guarantee of conservation, – it is increase of the sum of activities» of complex at the expense of environment. Thus, constant preponderance of assimilation over disassimilation is the necessary condition of relative conservation of organizational form of a complex in any environment [Tectology, v. 1, p. 201]. The sufficient condition is preponderance of total activity of intercomplementary connections between its elements over total activity of contradictions between them [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. But finally the fate of its organizational form in a concrete environment is decided by the law of minimum [Tectology, v. 1, p. 217].

Conservatism of forms — not something opposite to changeability, but only its relative character, when forms, changing sequentially, are nevertheless kept to some extent and cognition considers them to be the same: exactly sequence and relativity of change of forms allow consciousness to recognize some unity of their existence. Thus, conservatism of forms is without what they would not exist for cognition. Therewith, as it has been already noted, conservatism of forms has various degrees: «changes of some forms are made easier and more quickly whereas changes of others demand more significant influences and occur more slowly», at that these degrees of conservatism are not constant, but relative: «it is impossible to recognize one form as generally more conservative than another», since «under one system of external influences, in one environment one form is more conservative, in other – other. A small impulse makes significant changes in a heap of dry nitrogen iodide, and the most insignificant – in a block of mine salt. But a whole stream of water will have only the weakest influence on nitrogen iodide whereas it will transform salt out of recognition. A threat makes a strong influence on some person, on other – a weak one, whereas endearment – on the contrary, etc. Human consciousness was always inclined much more to overstatement of conservatism of forms than to the opposite mistake. It depends on some roughness of perceiving apparatus of psychics and from imperfection of memory. When a change occurs very gradually, then it remains unnoticed still for a long time after reaching the sizes, which for a direct perception would be quite sufficient. Quite often a man does not notice even significant changes, taking place in himself, and quite sincerely continues to consider himself to be “all the same”» [Basic Elements, pp. 41-42].

Conservative selection — maintenance of the sum of activities of a complex in equilibrium with the activities of environment. According to its scheme, «from among arising changes of a complex there are kept those, which draw its resistances near to equilibrium with reformative activities of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 32]. But «for preservation in a changeable, i.e. finally in anyone, environment the simple exchange equilibrium is insufficient» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 201].

Consolidation — a transition to stable interrelations as a result of formation of complementary connections. For example, in the final stage of a tectological act – in the phase of system consolidation – such a transition is reached by means of «conjugation, passing through arising system divergences», i.e. by means of counterdifferentiation, in process of which «the mechanism of selection strengthens and fixes stable, reiterative interrelations, weakens and destroys unstable, casual; elements and groupings, being in a contradiction with connection of a whole, are torn off, are thrown out from it; a whole “is consolidated”» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 266, 260].

Consonance — an organized complex of sounds «in relation to perceiving activity of man». Two or several tones form a consonance, «if at them there are coincided some of the nearest overtones», which «serve as organizing elements of a chord». For human hearing «these overtones are their common basic tone in the proper sense of the word; for if a very thin ear will just recognize one or another overtone, it cannot analyze what a part of this force is connected with one or another of the basic tones: this overtone is perceived as one sound, instead of two or more, as one and the same common part of consonance» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 151]. Thus, consonance is chain connection of tones by means of common overtones – their connecter.

Constant «c» — the speed of light, which «is not absolute, but is correlative to a real physical system». As «light moves and its speed is measured not in abstract “systems of coordinates”, but in real physical systems», then in them it «can change at transition from one in another». Let two observers exchange light signals, at that one is at the bottom of a sea, and another – on the shore. The first one «finds the speed of light to be always 0,75 c, and the second – «always about 0,999 c, and both are objectively right»: a ray from the observer on the shore went «at “air” speed, and it came into water at this speed; but there it got into other system of electrodynamic tensions, in which it couldn’t keep the former speed, and adapting to it», during insignificant, but by no means zero distance, it changed the speed on a new, “water” one, which was only possible there. There is neither a contradiction, nor a special riddle. A third observer, familiar with both environments, will easily “reconcile” the observations of both». There is no contradiction also in constancy of the speed of light in the kinematic abstractions of the special theory of relativity. Let «the system A moves in relation to the system B objectively with the speed, say, – 1.000 km/s». A ray of light from a source, belonging to the system A and having the speed of 300.000 km/s in relation to it, reached the system B, in which its speed «turned out to be again c in relation already to this system, without the increase». This is seemingly obvious contradiction, but it arises «from inability to take objective, third point of view, only from the remains of subjectivity. While a ray was going within the limits of the real physical system A, in relation to this system its speed was, certainly, c; but in that way in relation to the system B it was objectively c+v, i.e. 301.000 km/s. However optically the observer B could directly never establish it», because «having passed in the real physical system B, a ray should adapt to it and get the only possible speed in its limits in relation to it – c too. The excess speed v was lost, its traces remained in Doppler shift of lines. But in relation to the system A the speed of this ray was now objectively c-v; however the observer A was deprived of ways to establish it optically – the ray had gone away from its system. But if it had returned, for example, in world geodetic line from the other side, then it would again get the former speed, which would erase the traces of all changes of the speed on the way». Thus, the «constant» speed of light dominates in the special theory of relativity «only owing to optical compensation» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 341-342, 345].

Construction — «internal interrelations of a complex», i.e. mutual relations between its elements [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 203, 119]. At that the word «construction» should not «cause the static notion about immobility. If, for example, in Solar system the Moon moves around the Earth under the certain laws, and the Earth in its way makes the certain fluctuations depending on movements of the Moon, then these mutual relations of the planet and the satellite belong to the “construction” of Solar system» [Basic Elements, p. 49]. In scientific literature the synonym «structure» is more generally used.

Consumption — unsocial relation of a man to the external nature. Really, «there is no jointness in direct consumption, in immediate assimilation of external energy by separate men. Consumption belongs to physiology completely, to the science about vital processes of a separate organism». In some cases it is spoken «as though about social consumption: joint food intake, drinking partnership, theatre», etc. But «here it is not necessary to confuse consumption with those conditions, at which it takes place. People are together – it is one side of the fact. But if I eat, drink, enjoy a play, – then all this has only my person for purpose, and this is by no means directed to preservation of life of other men. Taken separately, consumption is outside of social connection; it does not connect, but divides people» [Basic Elements, p. 159].

Content of complexes — set of elements-activities, forming a separate complex [Tectology, v. 1, p. 145].

Continuity of experience — an endless stream of the universe, or in the terms of tectology it is single, but infinitely-dimensional stream of activities-resistances. From the point of view of crises «any “continuity” can be broken by analysis into the infinite chain of crises» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 253]. Such a world degression as «the space of experience has three dimensions. But the continuity of experience has more dimensions. And when the relativists speak about “continuum” of four and five dimensions, they do not in the least go out from the limits of scientifically-experimental formulations. Time in physics is continuity. Potential of gravitation too. Any continuity can be expressed by the graphic symbol of line. Because of this it does not become a line. Time, for example, differs from line in its irreversibility». Using a graphic symbol, it is necessary «not to forget about its technically-conditional character and in the analysis to consider the difference of not spatial continuity from line representing it. Within the range of common properties of the given continuities the graphic symbol can be used without limitations, as well as relating, actually, to it, but not to these continuities, the terms of “curvature”, “deformation”, “radius of curvature”, etc. For example, on a drawing we can to take one dimension of space – as one coordinate axis, a line symbolizing time – as another, a line also symbolizing any continuously variable tension, even gravitational, – as the third, – and then to form with their help and to research different “vectors”, “curves” with “radiuses of curvature” and so forth. We can operate with all this and get correct results until in our operations there are touched the specific differences of our continuities from their technical-graphic symbols. As it will happen – the conclusions will be incorrect. Consequently, it is necessary to avoid vulgar-inexact expressions, such as “space of four, five dimensions”, and, using the concepts like “radius of curvature of fourth continuum”, to remember and consider their graphical-technical, conditional character» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 346-347].

Contradiction — result of system divergence, generating the conditions of instability [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]; «source of negative selection» [Empiriomonism, p. 260]; consequence of imperfection of organizational interrelations in a system, when its intrasystem «exchange of activities does come up to the end», in other words, when a part of activities, which are given by its some internal complexes into another, «serves not for assimilation, but, on the contrary, for weakening, destruction of these last, i.e. it makes loss in them, disassimilation of activities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 19]. At that it is necessary «to remember that internal contradictions, even significant, can put no obstacle for a system to exist and even to progress, if only its organizationality outweighs these contradictions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 122].

Control — a purposeful action on a social or natural complex with purpose of achievement of a priori predictable results. A complex, which undergoes such an action, is referred to as controlled one, and, correspondingly, a complex, which makes an action, – as controlling one.

Convergence — 1) an increase of similarity of complexes under influence of environment, which action on complexes is opposite to their present distinction [Tectology, v. 2, p. 7]; 2) «a result of similarly directed selection from a similar environment», when «similarity of complexes is determined not by their own communication, but by their relation to environment». An example: a contemporary dolphin and fish are more similar than their faraway ancestors, – this is a result of long influence of the identical environment. From the genetic point of view a system convergence is a consequence of «tectological unity» both of complexes and of their common environment, which exactly by virtue of this is shown in «similar relation of complexes to their environment» and on the contrary. In other words, the fact of their organizational unity is in the end «a result of genetic unity», which expresses their common «connection of origin, only a remoter one» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 90, 95].

Convergent selection — an organizational regulating mechanism, which operates on a line of convergence of forms and creates analogies. For starting of such a mechanism, «there is necessary some, in advance available organizational homogeneity» of convergent forms: «the more different is the very organization of them, the less probable is the identical relation to the environment. People and ants could converge in making of adjustments for getting food, because both are collectively-labour animals; there is even stronger the convergence of ants and termites in the architecture of habitations, which has created at them quite independent, because they are not only homogeneous in sociality of the type of life, but also closely related by the structure of organisms. On Mars and on the Earth after their cooling from the fire-liquid condition there could be formed a similar atmosphere in many respects, only because both these planets were generated from the homogeneous material as children of one nebula». In other cases structural homogeneity of forms, which is necessary for convergence, is represented to be very remote, for example, vibrations generated in air by a body of molecular composition and in ether – by an electron, or Saturn rings, the rings of a nebula in interstellar environment and oil rings in liquid environment, arising in it at rotation of an oil sphere. But convergence of forms just stretch in the similar cases only for the most general fundamentally-architectural form, «and the corresponding degree of general structural relationship can be also between the systems, which are the most remote in the other relations: the very possibility of universally-tectological generalization is based on this». It is, so to speak, a formal general tectological convergence in contrast to a real, deeper, acting in «the examples, where the question is about the systems of common origin, which have converged during the development: such as fishes and water mammals or Earth and Mars» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 91-92].

Cooling — negative selection of thermal activities; in other words, thermal crisis with preponderance of disassimilation over assimilation. Under all other equal conditions a cooling «is more intensively shown for “beaded forms”» than for «conjoint»: for example, it «occurs more quickly for a bead-like rod than for even one» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 243].

Cooperation — conjugation of labour activities, organizational connection in social system on the basis of common purpose. Being always «material vital connection» between members and groups of society, cooperation, irrespectively of their particular understanding of directedness of own efforts, can be both «in unorganized, anarchical form», characteristic, for example, to capitalism, and in organized, collectivist form, characteristic to socialism: the ultimate expression of the first type of cooperation – all society becomes market, the ultimate expression of the second type – «all society becomes one enterprise» [Questions of Socialism, p. 301]. See forms of cooperation.

Cooperation in collectivism — «the scientifically organized system of comradely connections, the centralist collective based on the greatest mobility of its elements and their groupings, with high psychical uniformity of toilers as comprehensively developed conscious workers» [Questions of Socialism, p. 304].

Coordinated connection — see synergy.

Cosmos — «the continuous chain of the forms, passing from the lower steps of organizationality to the higher others by struggle and interaction». It is necessary to note, that these forms and their development are considered in tectology «in their relation to the highest of them – to the labour collective of humankind» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 113]. The synonyms are the universe, the universum, the world environment.

Cosmosphere — the world environment as living space for development of humankind, i.e. the possible environment of its habitation, its energosphere.

Cost — «socially-labour relation» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 386].

Counterdifferentiation — «direct conjugation of the very diverged forms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 90], i.e. unifying process between those parts of a system, as a result of structural divergence of which the disorganizing contradictions have arisen in the system, and at that this process is opposite to «that divergence, in which the complementary connections have been developing» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 38], in other words, it is the tectological mechanism of overcoming of system contradictions [Tectology, v. 2, p. 81]. See resolution of system contradictions.

Creativity — «the highest, most complex kind of labour», which «is made up of organizing (or disorganizing) human efforts» and «which product is not a reproduction of a ready sample», but always «is something “new”». A creative process proceeds under the scheme of «conjugation plus selection»: «its first phase is a combining effort, the second – a selection of the results, elimination of unsuitable, preservation of suitable. In “physical” labour there are combined material things, in “spiritual” – images», at that «combination and selection of images occur incomparably easier and more quickly than of material things». A creative process «is always collective, however narrowly-individual in special cases there are its purposes and its external, direct form (i.e. also when it is a labour of one person, and only for himself)»: «creative efforts are necessary to be based on former results of collective labour» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 192-194]. As «the special, superskilled type of complex work» creativity «is expressed in a “constructive initiative”, “formation”, “invention”, “researches”, in general in solution of variable tasks – technical, art, scientific, political», at that psychophysically it is characterized by that in it «there are not only jointly participated specially big number of elements of nervous system, but also still new and new ones should be constantly involved, forming changeable combinations not occurred earlier», for what «there are required psychophysical stimuli, which would take away a brain from usual equilibriums of its partial mechanisms». This role is plaid by any «new influences from the outside, variations of impressions, breaking a stereotyped course of life», at that «the stronger and more complex an external excitation is, the greater number of sensitive-motional mechanisms it will touch, creating by that a communication between them; the less habitual an excitation is, the more unusual, original combinations can turn out in a brain as a result of it». Such stimuli come, firstly, from «communication with the nature», living connection with which is «the natural source of creative excitations, the most precious and gratuitous source»; secondly, from artificial sources, which are «theatres, museums, books, meetings, play of personal feelings and change of personal connections, and also temporary change of conditions by travels and so forth» (including also such artificial sources, destroying a human organism, as alcohol, drugs, gaming and lechery); and thirdly, from «the very processes of destruction as such», when under blows of destiny «an organism loses its vital equilibrium», in consequence of what «there are also arisen new and new combinations, on which a creative labour can be based. Certainly, then it is short and cannot reach that greatest breadth, which is peculiar to creativity in conditions of growth and flowering of life», since in this case a human organism works at full stretch, like a machine «without repair of obliteration of parts, taking place in it, of any damage and breakages» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 271-272].

Credit capital — «the highest contemporary form of usurious capital, dealing in money», which main borrower are «industrial capitalists and not small producers». In so doing the trade is made «not only by own money, but still more – by another’s, which are specially for this purpose collected by credit capital from everywhere by various borrowing operations, going alongside its loan operations» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, pp. 109-110].

Crisis — 1) disturbance of intrasystem equilibrium and simultaneously «the process of transition to some new equilibrium», which is considered as «limit of changes, occurring at crisis, or as limit of its tendencies» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 218]; 2) «a change of organizational form of a complex», or «a change of form, which is considered from the point of view of difference between its initial and final point», at that «transitions in time and space are equally appropriate here» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 257]; 3) «formation or disturbance of complete disingressions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212]. «The concept of crisis is universal for tectology. It is simply a special point of view, applying to all that occurs in experience: there are occurred only changes, and every change can be considered» within the limits of the second definition. In other words, «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», moreover, generally «every “continuity” can be broken by the analysis in an infinite chain of crises» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 254, 253]. According to the third definition of crisis, «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, or 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 the 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» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 254-255], i.e. a change of the form is «a result of disruption or formation of complete disingressions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 254]. The first type of crisis is designated in tectology as a crisis C, i.e. conjugational, or connecting, and the second one – as crisis D, i.e. disjunctive, or dividing. In concrete tectological researches the concept of crisis is always relative, because «its application depends on that in what limits there is carried out a research of an organizational form», since, as it has been already told, the fact of crisis is recognized only «if as a result of observable process there is turned out not that tectological form which have been before it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 252]. The tectological understanding of crises leads to that they can be found out «in many such cases, where the ordinary thinking does not find them at all. So, suppose, that a body moves with acceleration, then this acceleration is lost, and then it changes to deceleration. In that point, where the acceleration becomes equal to zero, evidently, there has turned out a complete disingression between the force, which generates it, and some counteracting forces. For usual observation there has occurred nothing especial – the movement continues, and at that on the former line». Actually there is «a crisis – a deep change in the very character of movement», which in mathematics is expressed by that derivative of speed turns from positive quantity to zero, which is the symbol of crisis by the way [Tectology, v. 2, p. 214]. From the energy point of view «the concept of “crisis” is inseparably linked with the concept about transformations of energy, or, that is the same, about various ways of its perception», therefore any observable crisis is only «such a moment, when a way of perception of process changes». As far as «in the developed organism of man the various ways of perception are to a high degree isolated one from another», then «any crisis, any change of ways of perception is directly represented as a very sharp transition, and only a further research, historical in the guideline, ascertains the continuity of process in crises as well»; therefore all observable arisings and annihilations are nothing more nor less than illusion [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 78].

Crisis C (conjugational) — a connecting crisis, the basic content of which are the conjugational processes, because «a break of tectological border between two complexes is in general the beginning of their conjugation, the moment, from which they cease to be what they have been before, – tectological separateness and form some new system, with the subsequent transformations, with arising of connecters, of partial or complete disingressions, in a word, it is the organizational crisis of the given complexes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176]. The tectological formula of a connecting crisis: CD, i.e. essentially it consists of two phases – the initial phase C, the starting point of which is a break of tectological border with the subsequent series of conjugational processes, and «the final necessary phase» D, the terminal point of which is «the making of new borders of system, new complete disingressions in exchange for the broken old» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 223-224]. The most widespread examples of connecting crises: a process of junction of two drops of water up to limiting equilibrium, of two cells, of some communities, enterprises, political parties, different dialects, religions, scientific ideas and concepts.

Crisis D (disjunctive) — a dividing crisis, because its basic content is arising of tectological border in earlier complete complex, i.e. from the point of view of systemogenesis it is disorganizational crisis, since «a formation of tectological border, creating the new separatenesses from a given system… makes it in organizational sense not to be what it has been before», but less or even lower organized. Inasmuch as «every division is caused by previous conjugations», then from the two types of crises, connecting and dividing, the crises D are secondary [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176]. According to the tectological formula of crises all of them begin with phase C and come to an end with phase D, therefore if there is recognized an especial group of crises D, then there is meant «only a prevailing significance of phase D». In other words, the attention is given «to such crises, where it represents the special interest, is put in the forefront» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 236].

Crisis of explosive type — avalanchely developing crisis C, at which «there is occurred “a destruction” of initial form; i.e. the ordinary consciousness, being guided by habitual forms of perception, does not find it at all in what has turned out. For scientific consciousness the case is certainly otherwise. There has kept all structural material of a destroyed system, only in the fragmentary form, having passed in complexes of environment». The force of explosive crises «does not mostly as though depend on an impulse, directly causing them; however its energy should be “sufficient”; and if it does not exceed some minimum, an explosion is impossible». It is necessary to note, that «the explosive combinations of any sort represent the so-called false equilibriums», i.e. «those processes, which proceed in the form of explosion, do not begin only since it: they have been going before it, only so slowly, that they haven’t been caught by usual ways of observation», and «the role of impulse, directly causing an explosion, is reduced to acceleration of tempo of already going processes». The avalanche course of explosive crises depends on «that those activities, which “get free” at it, i.e. pass from the closed forms to unclosed, “set free” by themselves the same activities in adjacent parts of the system», as the result of what «the activities, getting free in crisis, surpass the energy of initial impulse incomparably», i.e. «there is observed what is called the independence of force and the sizes of crisis from a causing agent» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 226, 228-229].

Crisis of fading type — a sort of crisis C, infinitely widespread in the nature: «it covers the whole world of vibrations and delayed movements. If the concept, on which the world process tends to stable equilibrium through continuous increase of entropy, will have proved to be true, then all life of the universe in its modern phase turns to be one crisis of this type». The reversible reactions in chemistry and generally all cases of applicability of the principle of Le Chatelier can be considered as crises C of fading type. For example, in a solution there are combined alcohol and acid, the result of conjugation – ether and water; «but as soon as a quantity of ether has turned out, it proves to be capable to conjugate with water by itself, forming spirit and acid». Both of processes represent a typical crisis C with final moment D, but both go side by side, at that «their speed is proportional to quantity of conjugating reagents: the greater is availability of spirit and acid, the more quickly there is turned out ether from them; but the greater is ether, the more vigorously is the reverse transformation. When the reaction was just beginning, all it was going to one side – formation of ether; but as its quantity appears and increases, – there is arisen and intensified the opposite process, which, adding with the first one, gives its visible progressive deceleration. Things are heading so, until both of them will become quite equal and will paralyse each other», that is «the limiting equilibrium, to which the crisis of the system gravitates». It is assigned to the type of «true equilibriums», to which the principle of Le Chatelier is applicable. System of equilibrium of water and ice at 0 °C, a vibrating tuning fork, a body, moving in a resisting environment, – all these are the crises of fading type, which are contrast to the crises of explosive type [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 232, 231].

Crisis of higher order — a crisis of crisis… of crisis. Assume that there is a body, which moves «at first with increasing acceleration, then with decreasing acceleration, then with deceleration, passing at last in a stop. All this process can be considered as a crisis of position in space, changing spatial relations of the body to its environment, – a crisis of the first order», which graphically «can be expressed by that line, on which the body moves. Its course is characterized by speed; speaking mathematically, it is the first derivative of space with respect to time». If «to represent it in the form of a curve, then in it there will be found the point of turn, where it ceases to increase in order to pass to a decrease next; there acceleration becomes equal to zero; and it is certainly a crisis, but already of the second order». Mathematically here the second derivative, i.e. acceleration, passes through a zero point. If to represent it in the form of a curve, «then in it there will be also the points of turn: in its first part, where positive acceleration ceases to increase in order to pass to a progressive decrease next», and in the second – where «in the similar way a negative one (i.e. “deceleration”) ceases to increase. In both cases through zero there is passed “acceleration of acceleration”, or the third derivative: a crisis of the third order. It is obvious, that, complicating the example, it is easy to determine also the crises of the fourth order etc.». Mathematics finds out, that all these «crises of movement, crises of speeds, of accelerations, of accelerations of acceleration etc.» can «go on ideally endlessly, as well as a chain of derivatives. But practically seldom it is necessary to perform research beyond the crises of second order. Then in part it probably depends also on that the crises of higher orders are not caught by usual ways of perception, but are opened by scientific calculation or comparison» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 255-256].

Crisis of second order — a change of tempo of a current crisis. Let, for example, there is «a detonating mixture of oxygen and hydrogen at low temperature; their slowly going compound into water is a crisis of the certain type, “average”». An ingress of a spark in the mixture changes radically the course of the crisis to avalanche one, i.e. «the former crisis continues, but in the new way», because in its current there have also had occurred the crisis. In the general result it is already a crisis of crisis. When the temperature of the mixture reaches «the height, at which the particles of water start to decompose back, then the course of the process becomes “fading”. Such changes are “crises of second order”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 255].

Criterion — «a measure and a way of verification» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 8].

Criterion of scientific character — a human practice, i.e. social, industrial or purely experimental doing.

Criterion of scientific character of a reasoning — in consequence of polysemy of words, multiplicity of its meanings in order not to fall into an error in long chains of reasonings, «stability of meanings is necessary for each given reasoning» and constant check of each chain of reasonings by experience, at that «after possibly fewest number of links»: if to check after a lot of links, there is a great probability that the reasoning will be wrong; and if to check «after two-three links, and this is found true, then it is possible to go farther with certainty» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), pp. 289, 262].

Criterion of social development — inasmuch as «the social development is not the absolute law of the nature, but only an empirical fact», then «the question of availability of this fact is solved on the field of struggle of society against the extrasocial nature: if the energy of the social whole increases in this struggle, it develops; if the energy decreases, it degrades» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 190].

Criterion of stability of a systemogenesis — factual interrelativity of tendencies of change of tectological states of a system and its environment as one-in-two organizational fact of their coevolution, permitting to make a scientifically objective estimate of a systemogenesis from the point of view of quantitative and structural stability, i.e. from the point of view of increase of activities of a system and decrease of its internal disingressions. The algorithm of determination of tectological stability by means of this criterion is the following: there is fixed a tendency of change of organizationality of a system in quantitative and structural relations, then there is fixed a tendency of change of an environment and on the basis of interrelativity of tectological states of a system and an environment there is gave a scientifically objective estimate of stability of systemogenesis in relation to conditions of environment at a given moment and in the near future, at that a prognostic estimate should «be referred not to all possible cases, but only to most constant, recurring conditions of environment with their typical, most probable changes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 274].

Criterion of truth — «practice»; in other words, «if something turns out in practice according to a prediction, then you have proceeded from true, correct concepts» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 286]. A synonym – criterion of scientific character.

Criterion of unscientific character — «if a verification of conclusions is impossible by criterion of practice, discourse should be considered as extrascientific and unscientific». Inasmuch as «words-concepts are characterized by primordial plurality of meanings», then «in any chain of discourse the probability of an error increases according to a number of links and plurality of meanings of intermediate terms in geometrical progression (“avalanche-like”)», therefore «practically any discourse, which consists of several links and is not verified on experience, is possible to be considered as fallacious – the probability of an error is close to reliability» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), pp. 132-133].

Critical quantity — «a quantity, with which unavoidability of crisis is connected». For example, the critical temperature of boiling «is that one, at which a liquid turns to gas inevitably, independently of other conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 209].

Crossing — a bioconjugation, leading «to increase of organizationality only when heterogeneity of conjugating complexes does not reach a known degree, which it is possible to determine rather exactly (the level of “specific” difference)» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 36]. Sexual crossing is the most complex and most effective kind of bioconjugation, representing «the method of counterdifferentiation, developed by the nature and also used by man, which equalizes individual, racial, sometimes even species features». By artificial selection «there are developed the breeds rather perfect in different special relations; but usually each such breed proves to be less perfect in some other relations. For example, a racehorse is not suited for transportation of weights, a cart one – for fast run; the best hunting dogs are very delicate and sensitive to influences of climate – a draught can ruin their thin scent; mongrels are of greater endurance, but their scent is weak, etc. When in a situation there are combined unfavorable influences of different sort so that one of the given forms cannot endure it for one reason, another on another, then a suitable crossing are made, at that mostly there is certainly lost some part of advantages of differentiation, but disastrous impracticality is eliminated». For a certain purposes man resorts also to interspecific crossing, i.e., overcoming a level of specific differences, he crosses «different species, which have been differentiated by the very nature. For example, for transport in highlands there are required very strong and hardy and very quiet animals, with firm gait free from nervousness. A horse is strong, but nervous and capable of relatively little endurance; a donkey is free from nervousness and capable of great endurance, but is not so strong because of small stature. Their mongrel – a mule combines all the necessary qualities. But, certainly, mixing is far not always gives simple results; sometimes it generates quite new and unexpected structural changes, sometimes its products prove to be unstable from the very beginning, so, for example, between species, as though not less close than horse and donkey, a crossing is not possible at all» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 42-43].

Crowd — «a gathering of individua connected on the basis of physical nearness by direct imitation», which action «concentrates on those groups of psychical reactions, which are the most identical for all; but such are the lower groups, the higher – with their complex differentiation – diverge much greater. Therefore in a crowd a man, who has kept only the small remains of zoological heritage in his psychics, can make the same atrocities, as another one, in which this heritage prevails over sociality» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 242]. Such «attaining to the level of the lowest» is a direct consequence of the principle of minimum.

Crowd-heroism — an authoritarianism from the organizational point of view, i.e. a relatively stable teleological connection of egressively-degressive type, which arises in society as a result of action of the tectological principle of circular causality, which essence in respect to a system of «crowd – hero» consists in that the organizational instrument (“hero”) is inevitably determined by what it organizes (“crowd”). This principle clears up well the mutually influencing interrelation of “crowd” and its “hero”: «genetically – a hero is “reflection” of the crowd, its generation; he absorbs in himself its mass, vague moods and aspirations, which are only forming in it; but if a hero has been created, now he controls the crowd, it goes where he will direct», since «a hero is an organizational instrument of the life of crowd, as brain – of the life of organism, ideology – of collective» [Questions of Socialism, p. 327]. All history of humankind is throughout permeated by crowd-heroism: from the beginning and to our time inclusive it presents the painful and bloody, figuratively speaking, crowd-heroic initiation ritual of humankind into reasonable race.

Crowder — an element of crowd, i.e. an individuum, which psychomotor system at a moment of observation is identical to gregarious actions and emotions of crowd.

Crowdization — a tectological act as a result of which a gathering of individua becomes a crowd, and the constituent individua – crowders. The semantics of the term is transparent, since its root (the term is formed from the word «crowd») and the characteristic suffix «izati» have been already loaded with the univocal meaning of quite concrete crowd-creation, namely of transformation of a unique diversity of people into a primitive uniformity of crowders indistinguishable from each other.

Cult — mystical «connection with authoritarian tradition», realized in the form of «communication with the deified ancestors» by means of a prayer, a sacrifice or a ceremony [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 32], i.e. it is ritual «worship of ancestors-organizers, which were gradually transformed into deities by the national thinking». Historically such transformation was made «by progressive accumulation of authority of the eldest ancestors, as generations changed in a commune», since, «going away into the distance of the past, images of ancestors-organizers grew in consciousness of descendants, reaching the superhuman sizes», and «respect for them turned, at last, into the real deification» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 330-331].

Cultural-historical types of Bogdanov — the stable forms of adaptation of humankind to the environment, which are historically arisen on the basis of a certain type of cooperation. Tectology distinguishes four such types, which, being arranged chronologically, determine four types of culture respectively: protocollectivistic, authoritarian, individualistic and collectivistic. Historically the protocollectivistic cultural-historical type corresponds to primitive society, the authoritarian type dominates patriarchal and feudal society, the individualistic – in capitalist, and the collectivistic – in socialist.

Cultural interaction — conjugational processes between different tribes, nations and races in the form of «marriage mixing, mutual influence of dialects and languages, adoption of techniques, knowledge, customs, communication of literatures, in general, any sort of cultural mutual assimilation», the more strongly which occurs, «the more organized, the more stable there is became cohabitation of tribes and nations and races on earth surface. The usual course of things is such: as differentiation becomes deeper, contradictions accumulate; sooner or later it is solved by a crisis. Forms of crisis has happened to be various; more often – a war, coming to the end by a peace treaty or a conquest; sometimes also without it – a treaty of alliance, a formation of common government bodies, regulating the relations of the sides. Solution of the problem has turned out to be sometimes positive, successful, sometimes negative – outcome into decline; into decomposition of connections; one and the other is possible at any form of crisis. For example, a war many times has led to the closest conjugation of fighting sides, to their equivalent mixing or to absorption of one of them by another; but it has happened that also peace state or allied association resulted next in disorganization». But somehow or other the real resolution of contradictions «has been only as a result of communication, greater or smaller interpenetration of diverged system complexes», whether it be isolated tribes of one nation or nations of one race, or, actually, the very races standing apart [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 39-40].

Cultural level — a degree of organizationality of experience and of its connectivity. For example, a low culture means «insufficiency of organized experience and its incoherence» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 222].

Cultural principles — the forms of social practice, fixed in the forms of thinking; figuratively speaking, the casting models for vital combinations, i.e. historically developed normative forms for recasting of old and casting of new relations both in practice, and in thinking of people. From the tectological point of view they are the most stable forms of social degression, characterizing by the maximal vital conservatism, i.e. the persistents. And it cannot be otherwise, because the cultural principles are the fixing of most stable, most repeating interrelations between people, caused by socioeconomic necessity. Just therefore both people and collectives submit to them automatically [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries]. According to the cultural principles there are organized technical and economic processes, which, in their turn, form them already in accordance with the principle of social causality.

Culture — such a way of adaptation of humankind to environment, i.e. to biosphere, geosphere and cosmos, which represents complex system of degressive forms – cultural principles. In relation to the substratum, i.e. to its bearer, a culture represents the casting form of stereotypes of its social practice and thinking. As the most stable organizational integral a culture falls into two complexes-differentials: material and spiritual culture. The material culture is «all sphere of production, with its technics and economic relations, social labour, directed on the external nature, with all its consequences and forms». The spiritual culture is «that sphere, which is outside of direct struggle against the nature, it is speech, thinking, morality, art, etc., in a word – ideology, social consciousness» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 266]. According to the principle of circular causality a culture «is determined by technics and economics, because it serves for them as the organizational adapter» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 291]. In a short tectological formulation culture is the universal socioadapton, which represents the system of organizational methods and forms of collective.

Culture of a class — «all set of its organizational forms and methods» [Questions of Socialism, p. 331]. Struggle of classes is struggle of cultures, and all great revolutions are the revolutions, changing a domination of cultural principles; a class, which does not have own culture, submits to the dominating one [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries].

Culturogenesis — evolution of culture on the basis of selection of eidogenes. From the sociolabour point of view the culturogenesis during development of historical forms of labour passes four stages: protocollectivism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism.

Cumulation — the tectological result of unified orientation of homogeneous activities. For example, a concentration of any human doing in one direction (raising, carrying and cutting of a log by two workers: each of these three operations is the mutual coordination of homogeneous human efforts in unified direction). The content of this term is not identically to the content of concept of «synergy», being only its part.

Current megatendencies (megatrends) — the basic directions of global sociogenesis, observable at the scale of current time. These are the basic information tendencies, connected with exponential growth of making of information, with its accessibility and high speed of spreading, the basic demographic tendencies, caused by hyperbolic growth of number of humankind, the basic communication tendencies, observable as the increase of intensity and extensity of communication, as globalization of thinking, and all other most general tendencies of scientific and technical development.

Custom — a type of social degression in the form of «a rule of life, established in a society and verbally transmitted from generation to generation». In other words, it is «primary social norms, verbal and strongly traditional», moreover, «they are that beginning, from which justice and morality developed at the further steps of culture». It is necessary to add that «a custom is already ideology, i.e. a form of social consciousness» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 335-336]. «The wide concept of “custom” covers all developed, stable social relations – technical, socially-production, distributive and others. The less strong and constant is a given social form, the less appropriate is the name of custom to its manifestations. In the world all is relative, including also stability of customs. The processes of development, the processes of degradation – in general the phenomena of changeability of human nature under various influences create quite often in separate individuals the psychical forms, inappropriate to customs, being in the contradiction with them. It is expressed in the actions directed to destruction of an established social form – in so-called “infringements of custom”». If a new harmful influence does not remain single, but repeats, then society should adapt to it somehow or other: «sometimes process of adaptation comes to that a very custom disappears», but if a custom possesses a sufficient strength, «then changeability together with various kinds of selection – psychical, social, external – create a new form of adaptation; the purpose of this form consists, naturally, in counterbalancing or eliminating of that harmful influence, which is made for life of society by the actions breaking a custom. A new social form is referred to as legal». So justice arises [Basic Elements, p. 194].

Cycle — a recurrent tectological act, i.e. a process of transition of a tectological form in itself periodically repeating in time. In other words, a cycle is a self-copying of a tectological form. But so long as there is no absolutely unchangeable environment, then there are no absolutely identical copies either, i.e. in the nature there is no ideal replicator of tectological forms. Therefore a cycle is a vibration of process of adaptation within the limits of the most optimal tectological form in the given conditions, which optimality is determined by selection conserving or destroying a tectological difference of copies following one after another. Thus, if during a crisis tectological acts replacing each other become recurrent, there is arisen a stable tectological form. It is necessary to note that a cycle is an elementary organizational process, therefore any other complex organizational process represents a system of cycles, or a hypercycle. For example, the known hypercycle of carbon is a complex egressive system, in which the cycle of organic carbon is an egressor, and the conjugated cycles of inorganic carbon, carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, calcium, phosphorus, iron, silicon and others – peripheric cycles. At that each of them, in its turn, is also a hypercycle in the system of already other cycles conjugated with it, where it is the egressor. From the tectological point of view all this biogeochemical mechanism of circulation of chemical elements and substances represents a chain egression.

Cyclic selection — a closed chain selection. Let, for example, in system of production «there has been a change in its boundary elements»: at some enterprise «a new technical method, a new instrument has been developed». This entails «the corresponding economic regroupings» and «as a new experience is fixed in new ideological complexes: the improvement is brought into the system of knowledge, of science». But so long as ideology «is the organizational environment for all economics, all technics», then chain selection starts to go in the opposite direction, i.e. «already from new ideological complexes», according to which «economic and technical process begins to be reconstructed»: a new method, a new instrument by practical or scientific acquaintance extend to all system of production [Tectology, v. 2, p. 156].

Cyclicity — «recurrence, or, more precisely, similarity, of phases of any process separated by intervals». Cyclicity is colossally widespread in nature and society: any process can be decomposed into cyclic, i.e. «periodically-vibrating elements, whether the matter is about conservation of a living organism or an atom, a molecular system or a psychical image» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 270]. For example, «all processes of life are cyclic, and for the developing life the end of one cycle passes into the beginning of another, a higher one. Cognition as one of bioprocesses is cyclic too. And when it comes to cognition of the very cognition, when, having passed through a series of objects of ascending complexity, in the end of this series it finds itself and by such way it comes back to itself, – by that it finishes one of the cycles of the development. This finishing is at the same time the highest form of checking; and if cognition finds the own corroboration in it, then with still greater confidence and clearness cognition begins a new cycle of the development» [Empiriomonism, p. 339].

Damage — a harmful change, which decreases biopotential of forms. In contrast to useful changes, i.e. adjustments, damages «represent the enormous majority of the general number», but, being «a material for negative selection, they are destroyed» [Basic Elements, p. 100].

Death — transition of an organism to lower tectological level in consequence of «breaking of basic equilibriums of a living whole» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 262]; simply speaking, transition of living matter in dead one, that from the tectological of view is «a result of entering into an organism of external activities: fast and unusual – at violent death or acute infection, gradual and consecutive – at death from old age or from metabolic diseases»; in any case it is «a break of vital connection of an organism», i.e. a typical crisis C [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176]. «A man “lives”, i.e. he survives in his given environment; consequently, between him and it there is a naturally determined correspondence, sufficient for this; he dies – consequently, such a correspondence is already not present; one or another cell of his body lives until it is adapted to the environment, i.e. first of all to the very organism in its whole, and through it – also to external world, and a cell perishes, when this interrelation has been broken in sufficient measure; and as well as any element of a cell, any of its partial connections, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 191].

Decency — a form of social degression, which relates to normative forms and in their number is «on the border of traditional law and morality» [Basic Elements, p. 197].

Deduction — «the method, applying generalizations, making conclusions from general to particular», i.e. such a method of cognition, the essence of which is «in that the generalizations and the laws, got by induction, are applied to special cases, real or mental, and in that way there “is inferred” an explanation of these special cases, as well as a prediction concerning them». Just for this reason all predictions and all previsions «represent nothing else than similar conclusions» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 268, 278].

Definitely-changing environment — an environment, from the direction of which a complex undergoes definitely changing actions, i.e. either to some extent naturally, or in a range known in advance [Tectology, v. 1, p. 223]. If a complex of actions, i.e. conditions of environment, has in advance certain tendency of its change, then it is the type of regularly-changeable environment, if changing conditions of environment vibrate around of a certain average value, it is the type of restrictedly-changeable environment.

Definition of concepts — reduction of more particular concepts to more general ones, i.e. degressive egression. Such a cognitive procedure gives comparatively-changeable concepts «more strength and definiteness» and decreases probability of any misunderstandings in communication of people; in other words, «definition of concepts is precious remedy for their confusion and for mutual misunderstanding of people». The most optimal variant is considered to be reduction to the steadiest terms – to concepts-persistents. It minimizes disagreements of people maximally, although it does not eliminate them finally, since there are no absolutely immutable concepts: «nevertheless word serves as the instrument of definition», and word develops and «is not something invariable», by virtue of what «even the most constant concepts possess some changeability; therefore the purpose is not quite achieved» [Basic Elements, pp. 4-7].

Deforming environment — our surrounding «molecular environment, refracting, reflecting, absorbing the rays» and representing one of the factors, distorting the objective reality of observable. In the presence of such a deforming moment the type of necessary corrections for transition from subjective perception to real object is good enough «illustrated by visual world of a man, being in a cavern, the entrance in which is enclosed by a glass plate with curved surfaces. Distorted measures and ratios of bodies of external world for cognition and prediction demand of him the complex operations with the formulas, similar to the formulas of universal relativity, – and specially the application of Gaussian coordinates. And here the distortions are mutual – they are the same for people, observing things and events in the cavern from outside. Air with its refraction forms just such a deforming glass, in essence, and not only in relation to the external astronomical world, but even inside of atmosphere». For example, when we speak that we «see objects», we speak not exactly, because «rays do not directly come from an object to an eye, as it would be in emptiness», but «on the way through layer of air they change both speed, and direction, at that unequally and non-uniformly», in consequence of what «an eye has to do only with the last elements of changed way of rays; and a visual feeling corresponds not to the exact form of an object, but to projection of these last elements, i.e., essentially, to “supposed image”» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 336-337, 333].

Deforming moment — factor, distorting a perception of an observable by an observer. The basic deforming moments are four: distance between an observable and an observer, deforming environment between them, movement and fields of gravitation. All these moments should be considered by an observer in scientific research. For example, «transition from reality of one observer to reality of another» demands sometimes simple, but sometimes more complex corrections by means of the formulas of universal coordination [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 336-337]. At that it is necessary to remember that objectivity, i.e. social significance, doesn’t become exhausted by coordination of experience of two observers, because «the formulas, relating to two, are objectively insufficient already when we take a third one into consideration» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].

Degradation — disorganizational process, during which the sum of activities of a complex decreases and its structure becomes simpler, because the continual inadaptability of a complex to environment destroys it step by step, but at that unlike to regress any new «adapter is not created at all». For example: «if an organism weakens from illness, whereas forces are necessary to him for a life, then it is a degradation, instead of regressive development; but if a parasite loses muscular strength, which is not necessary to him, it is a regressive development» [From Psychology of Society, p. 51]. In the brief formulation degradation is «transition to a lower step of development» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 215].

Degree of differentiation — an interrelative tectological difference between complexes on line of ingression, egression and degression; or within the limits of a given system it is certain ingressive, egressive or degressive difference between its parts. At that degree of differentiation «should not be confused with level of organizationality. For example, in central nervous apparatus the sphere of the highest organizationality is without any doubt represented by cortex of big hemispheres. But that part of medulla oblongata, which is referred to as “vital junction” and which operates rhythmicity of breath and blood circulation, is also so undoubtedly more differentiated organ, and that is why more necessary for organism in execution of its relatively elementary functions, – its injury leads to organism’s destruction much more quickly. And so in scientific and technical statement of fine and complex works some narrow expert, possessing one detailed operation in perfection, can prove to be more irreplaceable than a scientist-organizer, the head of this affair». Determining a degree of differentiation, it is necessary to consider its interrelativity: for example, a man have been amputated a hand, but he continues to live, while the offcut organ dies; but if, for example, from a body there is taken out heart, which «is differentiated no more than a hand», then «both die». The matter is that «a physiological complex of “body minus a hand” possesses totality of functions, among which there are also quite homogeneous with the functions of lost hand or very little differing from them: another hand remains. Thus, for body the lost organ is interrelatively only in a little degree differentiated, since it is weakly differentiated in relation to one of the parts of this body – to another hand. On the contrary, for the offcut hand there is lost the great sum of functions, absolutely absent in it, the interrelative differentiation of the other body is very great, and the possibility of preservation here comes to naught. And the interrelative differentiation of heart from the point of view of the other organism is also great, because in any part it does not possess the functions quite homogeneous or close to cardiac; and the result of removal of heart is different than amputation of a hand. As well as the matter stands with injury of parts of brain cortex and “vital centers”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 240].

Degree of organizationality — an order of disposition of a complex in a system of chain egression in relation to the lowest peripheric complex.

Degression («skeletal» connection) — relatively stable form of protection of the plastic content of system from external actions and internal disorganization, and unlike degradation and regress it is «the organizational form of huge positive importance», because «only it makes possible the higher development of plastic forms, fixing, fastening their activities, preserving the gentle combinations from their rough environment» and providing with it the maximum possible strength of system under the given conditions [Tectology, v. 2, p. 130]. This is just the tectological importance of degression, which, together with the other basic tectological form, egression, is a special case of asymmetric connection, i.e. it is entirely within the limits of the principle of system divergence and «decomposes into several ingressions with irreversible connecter» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 145, 151]. The forms of degression are various: in the inorganic nature they are a bed of lake, a channel of river, an ice cover of the northern seas and Arctic Ocean, the earth’s crust; in the organic nature they are limy and bony skeletons, corneous tissues of epidermis, chitinous covers of insects, clam-shells of mollusca, etc. At that «skeletal complexes should not be represented as certainly stronger or firm in mechanical sense»: for example, «when a pursued cuttlefish surrounds itself with a cloud of the ink fluid, making water opaque, so the efforts of an enemy cannot go precisely and don’t succeed, it is the temporary external skeleton of cuttlefish too»; at the other animals the role of «external skeleton» is played with «a surrounding zone of specific, disgusting smell for other animals; even the coloration of some harmless insects, imitating the coloration of the poisonous others, and rejecting an attack of predators» – «an external skeleton» of the same sort. Degression is applied with gigantic breadth in technical life of a society: «this way are concerned the clothes – an additional external skeleton of a body – and a dwelling, a similar skeleton of high order; the boxes and cases for preservation of any products of work, vessels for liquids» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 129-130]. In the field of ideology all sorts of symbols, in particular, «their main group – words, concepts, carry out the skeletal role for the socially-psychical content»; judgements, theories, dogmas are formed from words-concepts. Moreover, «the nature of ideologies is generally degressive, skeletal with all its necessary features» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 138]. In social organizations «the function of “skeleton” is carried out by their so-called “formal” side» – that is «official programs, charters or rules of regulations, technical or tactical directions and so forth». All skeletal forms are more conservative than the plastic others: they are still kept when the plastic forms have already outgrown them – «and there is inevitable such period, in which they become a cumber and an obstacle» for the further progress of system. Thus, «the conservatism of degression is that condition which in process of world, biological, social development makes change of forms necessary and generates their continuous searches, spontaneous or conscious ones» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 144-145]. The organizational scheme of degression, similarly to every another, «is a method of organization of our experience and in the application it is necessary determined by our point of view. As in this or that system we consider some complexes as specially-protective or specially sustaining a connection between the others, so far as we give high importance to the last, and to the first – only service one. But that means that those we take from the point of view of their higher organizationality, i.e. in relation to the activities, which are higher organized in them, instead of relation to other activities, which are higher organized in service, degressive complexes. The application of the scheme depends on our position, on our specific target, practical or cognitive one. Let a shot is directed to the man B, and the man A covers him by his body. Within the limits of this act, within the limits of the direct task of A, his role is degressive; the life of B is taken here as some subject to preservation, i.e. from the side of the moments of its higher organizationality; the life of A – only from the mechanical resistances, represented by his body; all its other elements are ignored here; this is not a man, but a shield, which with the benefit can be replaced by a metallic plate; and until we shall come out the framework of the given task, evidently we accept him as a complex of lower organizationality – we think about him from the point of view of degression» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 149-150].

Degression of higher order — «the so-called world coordinates of space and time», scientifically determined by astronomy, for which «the sky of motionless stars and regular movements of space bodies serve as the strong base». As in memory of humankind «the contours of constellations haven’t yet had time to change noticeably» (by virtue of insignificance, from our point of view, of huge speed of their movements in comparison with their colossal distances), then as world coordinates it is expedient to accept «the structural lines of this system», which «practically are constant for us. On the other hand, if to take the positional relationship of planets, the Sun and the stars at any moment, it will recur exactly never more; and it can be considered as determination of one stable point in the chain of the moments, in order to calculate in both sides from this point: it is just the point which will be an “era” of exact calendar. Any position of space and any moment of time associate with world coordinates through measures, by which distances of positions and intervals of moments are counted» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 135].

Degressive complex — in a degressive-plastic system the «lower organized, but more stable» complex, fixing the plastic complex, «higher organized, but less stable in relation to some destructive influences» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 136]. For example, «the ideas, norms, political establishments are degressive complexes for stable organization of living activities of society»: firstly, they are subordinated to this «sociolabour» activities, «depend on them, are determined by them»; and secondly, «in process of development they are more conservative, than their sociolabour basis – the plastic part of social system» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 144-145]. Or other examples: a river-bed fixes the plastic part of river – the masses of flowing water, and the skeleton of a man – the plastic tissues attached to it [Tectology, v. 2, p. 137]. Sometimes in their organizational development the degressive complexes do not simply lag behind from the plastic others, but «get even more “narrowed” in process of this development, lose the former degree of breadth and elasticity». Tectologically this phenomenon is easily explainable: «it can be always expected, where a degressive complex is a product of the system, which it fixes, where it is formed and sustained at the expense of its own elements»; therefore, lagging in its conservatism behind the plastic part of system, the complex «turns out to be in the contradiction with it, its connection with it can be broken in other relations too: it stops to be sustained by it quite or partly»; and «then this degressive complex undergoes the negative selection; it regresses in parallel with a progress of the plastic part of system; by that a disparity of the complex with it intensifies in a greater measure» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 141-142]. The synonym is skeletal complex.

Degressive difference — within the limits of a given system, tectological difference between its complexes in the line of degression. For example, organizational difference between central and peripheric degression: between skeleton and skin at vertebrates, between plasma membrane and properly membrane of animal cells.

Degressive-plastic system — two-complex system, consisting of two parts: the plastic one – «higher organized, but less stable in relation to some destructive actions» of environment, and the skeletal one – «lower organized, but more stable», carrying out the protective function with regard to the first one [Tectology, v. 2, p. 136]. At that the skeletal complex is usually «a product of the system itself, which it fixes» and in which «it is formed and supported at the expense of its own elements» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 141]. For example, limy skeletons of many mollusca, rhizopoda and some polypus were formed so: from discharge of carbonic lime. In other cases the same role «is played by another discharged substances: cellular tissue, forming an external membrane of the most of vegetative cells, silica of some protozoa, chitin of crayfishes, spiders, insects, etc» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 127]. Development of a degressive-plastic system is in full compliance with the principle of system differentiation. In the conditions of positive selection, if at that «there are no special conditions, particularly auspicious for the skeletal part», the processes of growth and complication in such a system «will have been making more strongly and more quickly in the plastic part as higher organized, more capable to assimilation», and «the skeletal one, less capable to it, should retard then». The previous equilibrium between them «is broken: the “skeleton”, connecting the plastic part of a system, tends to hold it within the framework of its form, and in that way to delay its growth, to limit its development». The examples are countless: «external skeletons, chitinous and corneous covers of many insects, Crustacea, vertebrates, remaining behind plastic tissues during the process of growth, start to restrain them vitally; then these shells should be broken off and be shed, being changed into new», and «for a man the bony skeleton is the principal cause of growth stop of all body», etc. In the conditions of negative selection «the regularity is the same: the plastic part gives more in to destructive influences, the skeletal one, more stable, lags behind in it in this case too». For example: the formal side of degrading social systems «goes to ruin more slowly, than their living content», and at exhaustion the internal and external skeletons of living organisms «are still kept for some time in almost a previous kind». It is necessary to note the following phenomenon, «not constant, but extremely widespread in the field of both spontaneous, and social life»: system relations between skeletal and plastic complexes develop in the direction of all-increasing organizational divergence, that inevitably leads to regress of the first one and to progress of the second [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 136-137, 139-140, 141-142].

Degressive system — a system, which organizational purpose consists in conservation of another system, conjugated with it; for example, skull in relation to brain.

Degressor — in a system the most stable complex, fixing the groupings of activities, adaptively important for it, and protecting less stable «gentle combinations from their rough environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 130]. For example, in the degressive-plastic system of «skull – brain» skull is degressor. Its tissue is of much lower organization in comparison with tissue of brain, but the last «would come apart at the slightest external pushes, even at simple motions of an organism, if it has not been put in cranium» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 127].

Deification — the spontaneous process of «progressive accumulation of authority of the eldest ancestors, as generations changes in a commune and a tribe». Ruling over «such extensive and complex system as a commune, a patriarch in the huge majority of cases does it according to a provided pattern, using the accumulated experience of his predecessors, their “precepts”, i.e. rules and instructions, which have passed to him from them, being transmitted in a number of their generations. Constantly referring to these “precepts” and exposing himself to the commune as an executor of the will of ancestors, by that he raises their authority over his one, as the highest and more powerful». In the same respect «the previous patriarchs stood to those, which place they occupied, and in the similar way put them above themselves in opinion of the commune; and those made the same towards the predecessors, etc.». Thus, going away into the distance of the past, images of the eldest ancestors «grow in consciousness of descendants, reaching the superhuman sizes; the respect for them turns, at last, into the real deification». Such worship of ancestors resulted historically in creation of gods and begun the most ancient religions [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 330-331].

Deity — «tectological illusion», representing «imaginary egression; but in practice it is degression» in the form of universal «ideological complex, which has originated on the basis of real egressions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 148]; as the most supreme authority it is imaginary symbolical «representative of all authorities and every power in general» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 53]. Easier speaking, it is imperious uniting fetish – from the scientific point of view [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 86], and «supreme world activity» – from the religious one [Tectology, v. 1, p. 256].

Democracy — a form of cooperation, based «on creation of authority from elements of individualism: the individua are taken as equal units, a majority of them forms the authority, to which a minority submits» [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries, pp. 123-124].

Depopulation — decrease of number of humankind, which takes place in two forms: direct extermination of the population, i.e. direct depopulation, and reduction of reproduction – indirect depopulation. From the tectological point of view depopulation in any form is «a victory of spontaneous forces» over struggle of man against the nature, «renunciation of unlimited growth of life» and «its inevitable stop on one of the next steps». Humankind «wins, while attacks», i.e. while fights with the nature actively; but if it refuses from growth of its number, then it has «already been besieged by spontaneous forces from all directions», that according to conditions of stability means «the beginning of the end» [Questions of Socialism, p. 153].

Destruction — process of disorganization, which never be complete and, coming to known depth, «stops on some or other elements of the former whole, i.e. on partial complexes, which damage is anyhow overcome by corresponding regeneration» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 248]. As a widespread, but not the only possible, result of crisis D destruction is always «a result of process, sometimes quite complex, but from the quantitative side acting as reduction of the sum of activities-resistances. Destruction can be perceived as “instantaneous”, for example, smashing of a block by steam hammer blow, or cessation of life of an organism by stroke of lightning; but it depends only on imperfection of our ways of perception. Theoretically, i.e. scientifically, each such event is separated into a continuous number of changes, decreasing in series the sum of elements of complex». Breakages of connection, forming the content of such process, arise «from disingressions, which paralyse resistances of a complex by activities, opposite to them, destructive for it, tectologically “external”», at that «each such disingression develops by successive intrusion of these external activities, quick or slow – it does not matter for a generalizing scheme, by paralyzing intrusion, i.e. practically taking away, disassimilating own elements-activities of complex» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 201-202].

Development — all that selection-guided «complex process, in which there are arisen and made forms of adjustment»; i.e. from the point of view of adaptation it is such process of accommodation of a system to conditions of environment, which, being «one of particular processes of change» [Basic Elements, pp. 106, 111], means always «increase of organizationality» [Empiriomonism, p. 54]; from the point of view of crisis a series of tectological acts, as the result of which there is necessarily a certain adapter of system to environment. There are two types of development: progressive and regressive. In the first case «to former adapters there are added new ones, at that more and more complex and various», and since all of them in aggregate «are the material for further adapters, then, evidently, there is also increased possibility of adaptation in general». In the other case a system «loses simply some adapters, which have become unnecessary or even harmful with change of environment», – and here a system «adapts, because this change is advantageous to its conservation; but possibility of further development decreases, evidently» [From Psychology of Society, pp. 50-51]. According to formal dialectics development is carried out exclusively through overcoming of contradictions, however the experience, accumulated by humankind and generalized by tectology, testifies that development is possible both by struggle and by synergy. In the most general form a development of any system is described by the tectological triad of principles: of changeability, succession and selection and comes to action of two organizational mechanisms, forming and regulating. The first, conjugating new activities from environment, groups them with former ones in new combinations, which further destiny is regulated already by the other mechanism – selection, «eliminating less stable» and «strengthening more stable combinations» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 278]. Simpler speaking, development of a system is understood in tectology as «processes of its particular changes and of their selection» [Questions of Socialism, p. 286], at that by itself, without conjugation, «development cannot create something new in essence, but only new and more complex combinations of what has already been available before in the form of elements» [Empiriomonism, p. 53]; but during formation and further improvement of every possible «adapters for development, the chances of development increase, its forward motion accelerates», and «speed of progress grows continuously» [Basic Elements, p. 129]. As wider by its content the term «development» includes evolution (gradual change) and revolution (discontinuous change).

Dialectics — «organizational process, which goes by means of opposites, or, that is the same, – by means of struggle of different tendencies». From the point of view of tectology dialectics is «a special case of organizational processes, which can also go by means of other ways» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 169, 204]. See organizational dialectics and formal dialectics.

Dichanthrop — a man, who conceives himself in the concepts of «soul» and «body», and the other people – in the concepts of «commander» and «obedient», i.e. a victim of authoritarian fragmentation of egocomplex, a man-fraction.

Dichanthropogenesis — the sociohistorical process of doubling of man. The phenomenon of dichanthropy arises with the development of authoritative relations in primitive tribal society, with disappearance of its initial homogeneity, and «begins with that thinking of people ceases to be “continuous”, that one man in their consciousness is separated from another as a special, original world of experience. There is arisen “I” – a center of separate interests and aspirations. But it is just at the very beginning of the development: this “I” is the personality of an organizer, there is not still the antithesis to it in the form of other “I”, which would collide with him as the units independent of him; before him there is only subordinated units, which are inseparably linked with him as the lower bodies of his organism. An organizer cannot completely separate himself as independent “I” from the executors: he is interrelative to them, he is unthinkable without them, as well as they are without him; logic impossibility is organizer without executors and executors without organizer. Further the authoritative fragmentation carries over all nature, keeping the same character of interrelativity and connectivity. The world was represented by primitive thinking as chaos of actions, because his own struggle for life presented to man exactly in the form of actions. At that an “action” appeared in the consciousness as one and integral vital act among other such acts. Now an “action” is split up in experience, divides into two separate moments, – into actively-organizing will and its passive execution. And all nature, as the world of actions, becomes dual like that: in any phenomenon there is accepted active will as determinative one; and passive force as determined one: they are “spirit” and “body”. Man himself – a phenomenon in a number of the phenomena – undergoes such a division equally with all the rest: he gets the “soul”, as at the same time stones, plants, animals, stars get it. Animism develops as the general form of thinking» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 33-34].

Dichanthropy — authoritative fragmentation of egocomplex, or doubling of man.

Difference of tensions of energy — 1) difference of relative quantities of possible changes under unequal resisting activities; 2) the necessary condition of any physical and psychical experience. Only where there is a difference of tensions of energy between complexes, something can occur objectively in the form of action, if the complexes are objects, or subjectively in the form of sensation, if one of the complexes is a subject. Tectologically the difference of tensions of energy means incomplete disingression [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 176-177].

Differentiation — see system divergence.

Differentiation of a species — a breaking of a species into kinds under influence of a changing external environment. The process of such a modification occurs in the following way. Let «in some limited area, assuming that on an oceanic island, a breed of insectivorous birds lives. Their extreme zeal for extermination of insects, and also, maybe, climatic fluctuations, epidemic diseases among insects and suchlike conditions generate during the known epoch the lack of food for birds. On the one hand, negative selection begins to rage severely, taking advantage of a heavy competition between birds; on the other hand, the changed environment causes a number of internal changes in their organisms. Among all mass of birds of the given species, inhabiting the island, there have also been some distinctions and features before: some have been nimbler and quicker on the fly, others have been more sharp-sighted, the thirds have possessed a stronger beak, etc. But formerly these distinctions have had no relation to biopotential of birds: dexterity has been always sufficient at all of them to hunt for those insects, which they ate, and vigilance has given no appreciable advantages, and it has been required no special strength of beak in order to crack the chitin cover of insect. With intensification of the competition all similar features have ceased to be indifferent: among the intense struggle for life the selection mercilessly exterminates what are to some extent weaker than others and conserves only what possess some useful deviations from the average type. Those from the birds, which are notable for the greatest dexterity, have a great advantage on a plane seashore, in fields and on meadows, where it is not too difficult at all to notice a flying beetle or a sitting butterfly and where it is necessary mainly quickness in order to outstrip the rivals in pursuit. On the contrary, vigilance appears especially useful in woods, where it is difficult to notice a prey among impenetrable leafage or thick moss or in dark splits of rind of trees. In one environment more dexterous, in another – more sharp-sighted of birds win over a prey from others and are mainly conserved by action of selection. As a result the species breaks up into two kinds – the wood one, which is notable for sharp sight, and the flat one, which possesses a greater lightness and dexterity of flight. At such distinctions of external and internal conditions the further changes of both kinds should be already made far from equally». If hard times proceed, the differentiation of the species proceeds also. The competition continues to grow, «the changeability shows its action still stronger, and the selection becomes still severer»: there are begun to get a greater significance and to be subject to selection such deviations and features, which on their insignificance are inaccessible even to observation. The less fastidious ones of the coastal flat kind «under influence of hunger devour sometimes the snails, which remain on a coast after flow», and by that they survive; «in just the similar way the field inhabitants of the flat kind turn partly or fully into granivorous ones», etc. All in all the species of insectivorous birds «breaks into a few kinds, which, with further increase of distinctions, can become special species» [Basic Elements, pp. 101-103].

Direct connection — a concrete action of one system on environment (or on another system) without taking into account a correction from the environment on this action.

Direct experience — see psychical experience. A synonym, equally common in tectology and empiriomonism, – «immediate experience».

Direct reproduction of bioforms — the way of self-preservation of the certain forms of life by direct self-reproduction. For example, all living organisms, and also their simplest elements – cells, – «are capable to independent reproduction» in contrast to more complex bioforms, such as family, herd, species, population, biogeocenose and all biosphere in whole, which «are not reproduced independently, – but are only conserved by reproduction of organisms» [Basic Elements, p. 93].

Direct selection — such a selection, going in all directions, at which a complex, being an object of selection, is surrounded by environment from all sides, and its destiny is determined by «all sum of conditions, all actions of the environment». Certainly, such all-embracing regulation can be fulfilled and is fulfilled by the nature; as to man, which in his doing acts as conscious or unconscious factor of selection, then the area of regulation, being subjected to him, is only representative selection, since man «comes always only partly into contact with the complexes, selected in one or other direction», i.e. in essence he «represents only one of the elements of their environment, although sometimes the most important, decisive». In other words, «where man intervenes, there the nature does not cease to do its work», and an effort of man, directed on conservation or elimination of some complex, is only one of the summands of all sum of conditions, of all actions of environment [Tectology, v. 2, p. 166].

Direction of selection — a certain tectologically focused regulating action on the same basis of selection, developing a certain tectological type and character of created forms. A stability of a direction of selection depends on a constancy of environment: «the more conservative is a situation and the longer is action of selection in the same invariable directions, the more perfect and complete there is turned out the correspondence of developed forms with this very situation, the more full there is reached their equilibrium with it». But at that an object of selection loses plasticity, because «the highest degree of correspondence to an environment means a lack of correspondence to any other environment; any subsequent changes in situation are supposed to be the same destructive, if they will go at relatively accelerated tempo» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 157].

Disassimilation — a decrease of the sum of activities of a complex as a result of adverse action on him from an environment, i.e. under negative selection [Tectology, v. 1, p. 202].

Discerning — a psychical process, which is derivative of generalization, but «with the inverse tendency», and the essence of which is that «elements of distinction of images act with increasing intensity, elements of similarity – with decreasing» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 148, 138]. For successful adaptation to an external environment it is necessary for each living organism to distinguish useful and harmful processes to its bioactivity. This function is fulfilled by consciousness. But to distinguish any process proceeding in an environment, it is necessary to fix its sequence, i.e. «it is necessary to distinguish and compare its separate stages; and each such discerning is a special act of consciousness, which requires a known, certain time». If this time is not enough, discerning is impossible: consciousness does not fix this process, and for a living organism it as though does not exist, or consciousness does not fix some stage of this process, its change, then the last occurs in this case as though instantly, and an organism fixes it as arising. Any discerning of processes from the side of their harm or good is expressed in psychics by feeling of suffering or pleasure. Moreover, with development of psychics an adjustment, to the highest degree useful to it, was already discerning of «degrees, quantity of pleasure and suffering, – i.e. discerning of character of transitions from one fact of pleasure or suffering to another. Let us assume that at a known moment in consciousness there has been arisen a pleasure equal by intensity to three units of general measure of similar phenomena, and at a next moment – a pleasure, equal to five such units; the process of transition between these two consecutive facts of consciousness, their distinction will be expressed by + two units. If consciousness notices this distinction, i.e. if a notion about it remains in the memory, then we are faced with already a germ of cognition, this germ develops and becomes complicated with development of consciousness in general». In fact the very «process of ascertainment of distinctions and similarities, in general of any relations between facts, which is taken in its whole, makes cognition», at that «already a most elementary cognition presupposes memory» [Basic Elements, pp. 134, 148].

Discoursation — «cognitive utopia», which essence is in «the tendency – to open “basic truths” on the basis of limited experience, without living practically-scientific check». For example, «medieval scholasticism was the historically-forced form of discoursation: its basis was penury of experience and domination of authority. The latest relapses of discoursation represent nothing but degeneration of different great doctrines». For discoursation in its any form there is characteristic the verbal fetishism [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132].

Discourse — a process of organization of words and concepts into system of conclusions, in which «elements of reasoning» are «concepts with their coverings – words», «instruments of reasoning» are words, and «cognitive connections are established through a number of mediate parts» – ingressions. Inasmuch as «words-concepts are characterized by primordial plurality of meanings», then «in any chain of discourse the probability of an error increases according to a number of links and plurality of meanings of intermediate terms in geometrical progression (“avalanche-like”)», therefore «practically each discourse, which consists of several links and is not verified on experience, is possible to be considered as fallacious» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the report), pp. 131-132].

Disharmonicity — a disparity of different sides of development of some system that leads to structural regress, and at its sufficient degree also to degradation. For example, «if functioning of excretory organs, kidneys and others does not develop» in conformity with strengthening of functioning of digestive organs, «then organism becomes clogged and is poisoned with products of decomposition», that finally can bring it to ruin [Tectology, v. 2, p. 275].

Disharmonious system — a system, which «is composed of “competing” complexes, mutually weakening each other» [Empiriomonism, p. 163].

Disingression — «the basic form of disorganization», which is formed by the same way as ingression, but with a destructive result, i.e. it is «negative ingression» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 163]. In other words, disingression arises through «intrusion of elements of environment in a system» with a subsequent formation of tectological border between the complexes, which have earlier made a single whole. At that a course of going disorganization is convenient for seeing, if to decompose an intrusive element, i.e. an external activity, into two parts: the one, which destroys a resistance of system, and the other, which already acts at a resistance equal to zero. For example, if to cut a piece of tree by a knife, the course of the process will be the following: «a pressure of a blade paralyses the cohesion of molecules of tree by opposite acting pulls», and «as soon as it has reached, a blade gets an opportunity to move ahead in a tissue of tree» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 164-165]. A disingression may be complete or incomplete, depending on a degree of neutralization of activities. Complete disingression forms separateness, incomplete disingression makes change [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 171, 177].

Disjunction (division) — in relation to conjugation the secondary moment, taking part in change, rise, development and destruction of organizational forms; in other words, as the necessary element of the forming mechanism it is nevertheless the derivative act, because unlike conjugation it «cannot be direct» and «is always a result only». For example, it is necessary to cut a piece of tree into two parts or to break simply. There is no direct, immediate act, by which it would be reached: a man «should certainly bring the cutting object to a contact either with the instrument, or with the organs of his body – the act of connection and should make a certain effort to this system – the other act of connection. The break of the object connection will be made only as the consequence of these combinations, as the event of secondary character» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 143]. By virtue of its secondariness in relation to conjugation and of coincidence in content with complete disingression this term isn’t practically used in tectology.

Disjunctive crisis — see crisis D.

Disorganization — 1) the whole, which is practically less the than the sum of the parts [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161]; 2) intrasystem «decrease of the practical sum of activities by the very method of their combination», when «some part of them becomes the resistances for some other part of them». From the tectological point of view this concept is relative: as all processes in the world are organizational, then intrasystem disorganizing process is the result of more powerful organizational process, external with regard to a system. For example, division of a maternal cell in two daughter cells is one of the processes, by which the life in the nature is organized [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161].

Disorganizationality — the result of collision of different organizational processes, when one system organizes itself at the expense of activities of another system, in that way destroying its organizationality [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 70-71].

Disorganizational experience — all total arsenal of disorganizing methods accumulated by humankind for the historical period of the development; or in general all empiriography of disorganizational processes.

Disorganizational process — destruction or transition of a complex to lower level of development, that points to that its activities are the material for organizational processes in environment; ultimately, it is organizational process, if to consider it from the point of view of an external complex or of a certain combination of complexes, assimilating the activities of a destroyed complex. And in a local system of reference, related to a regressing complex, «the course of disorganizational process in the scheme is the same as well as of organizational one», because «the formula of three phases can be applied not only to organizational act actually, but to every tectological transition of forms, to “tectological act” in general». Thus, in relation to an orientation of organizational processes tectological act is more universal generalization [Tectology, v. 2, p. 262].

Disorganized complex — a complex, by the way of its organization representing «the whole, which is less than the sum of its parts» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 114]. For example, in a system of two colleagues their «common labour force» can turn out «less than the sum of their separate labour forces», if «two workers do not help, but hinder each other» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 120].

Disorganizing activity — 1) «struggle of organizational forms»; 2) «result of collision of different organizational processes. If people kill and eat animals, they disorganize other vital systems to organize their elements in composition of their own body. If they exterminate the predators, so that they find disorganizing forces in them and, eliminating them, in that way they organize the vital environment in their interests. If societies, classes, groups collide destructively, disorganizing each other, it takes place just because each of such collectives tends to organize the world and humankind for itself, in its own way». Thus, it is «the result of separateness, isolation of organizing forces, the result of that their unity, their common harmonious organization have not been achieved yet» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 70-71].

Displacement — a crisis, at that, on the one hand, it is a crisis D as the moment of disorganization of a system of «body – environment 1», i.e. «separation of an object from this environment», since between them there is always «some ingressive connection, at least minimal», and on the other hand, it is a crisis C as the moment of organization, i.e. joining of an object to a system of «body – environment 2» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 221]. In other words, «displacement represents a special case of interaction of a body with its environment», and at that «a specific case», when «a body loses and gets not energy, but connections with environment – loses the connection (of spatial contact) with its some elements and gets the connection with other» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 140].

Dissipation — entropic process, inevitable as «the result of selection of arising movements: under selection in all forms and at all steps there is occurred the squandering of energy, transition to its lower organized sorts, and entropy is the special case of such squandering. It is a kind of the price of selection, which is made under transition of energy from one system to other» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 204].

Dissipative system — a system, the development of which is accompanied by entropic processes. Tectologically it means, that all sum of activities, acquired by a system, cannot be used exclusively on arogenesis of a system: a part of activities is spent on catagenesis, accompanying its development.

Dissonance — «a disorganized combination of sounds in relation to perceiving activity of man» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 151].

Distance — a deforming moment of spatial and temporal interrelations, which «decreases an image – its angular diameter – and changes a temporal interrelation (tardiness of visible event), – both in simple linear regularity. For two observers both deformations are quite mutual, mathematically-identical, because their basis is the same. There are no two distances from A to B and from B to A, there is only one distance between A and B; and if we express it vectorially in terms of two quantities and write AB = -BA, then it means only the change in our position, in a direction of our activity, when, really or mentally, we pass this way, proceeding from one or another end». By virtue of exclusive simplicity of interrelations the complete solution of available contradictions could be made «already in prescientific, even in quite spontaneous phase of the life of humankind»: it is a question of «transition from “physics of one observer” through the corrections of “physics of two observers” to “physics of three observers” (and of collective in general)» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 336].

Distinction — as well as similarity, it is «the primary form of relations between facts», of which there are made up more complex relations [Basic Elements, p. 148].

Distribution — «process of interaction between society and an individual», which «consists in that since a known moment a social product is recognized as individual means of consumption», at that undergoing «no new changes or shifts, no new processing», remaining in itself «absolutely the same, than it was». Consequently, «distribution is purely ideological process», since it «occurs only in heads of members of society, and consists in that the attitude of people to a product of their work changes» [Basic Elements, p. 187]. For stable development of society it is necessary that its each element «gets from social product so much that it enables him to carry out normally the social function, the role in the system of production. It is the abstract law of distribution. As any abstract law, it is not in the least the simple description of facts, it does not mean that phenomena always occur in practice just in this way. No, it expresses the norm of phenomena. Reality almost never corresponds to this norm precisely, more often fluctuates about it in one or other side, sometimes deviates from it sharply» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 261]. From the tectological point of view all social forms, corresponding to distribution, are the forms of social degression.

Distribution at collectivism — in contrast to exchange it is the symmetric form of appropriation of social product, strictly corresponding to the abstract law of distribution. Historically the change of the asymmetric form of distribution to the symmetric one passes two stages. At the first stage, «when the new order only develops, when its productive forces are still limited and compulsory discipline of work cannot be eliminated yet, distribution should be based on proportionality between labour and compensation. The society cannot exceed these limits because differently at its disposal there would be an insufficient sum of labour. It should still finish labour education of its members, especially of which have come from the families belonging before among the ruling classes; and in addition, it is forced to be economical in consumption in order to guarantee a prosperity to all and at the same time to extend quickly and strengthen the technical basis, on which durability and stability of the new order depends». At the second stage, «when productive forces of society have been brought up to the height, which makes saving excessive, when its organization has quite established, and the vestiges of individualism and parasitism have disappeared, then the limiting motives fall away, and in the field of distribution there is reigned the same freedom as in the field of production: “from each according to his forces, to each according to his needs”». At the first stage «labour “is remunerated” by society, and, consequently, though private appropriation of means of production has been destroyed, but there is individual property on articles of consumption»; at the second stage «the concept of “property” is equally inapplicable neither to means of production nor to articles of consumption: then the history of this economic category has been completed, the content has been overcome. The new apparatus of distribution, which replaces the spontaneous mechanism of the market by itself, should be characterized by enormous complexity from the very beginning; its basis should be the most exact, continuously current statistics of made products and their consumption» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 304-305].

Distributive forms — one or other way of «transition of products from the sphere of social labour into the sphere of personal use». Since «the process of distribution relates to the area of ideology», then «the respective social forms are ideological forms», i.e. «distributive relations for social process are more indirect relations of struggle against the external nature than technical and socially-production ones». The symmetric socially-production forms of primitive-tribal commune are corresponded by the communistic form of distribution: «everyone has as much as it is necessary for maintenance of his life and for performance of his social role», at that «the organizing role in distribution, just as also in production, belongs to a very commune». The asymmetric socially-production relations are corresponded by the asymmetric distributive form of appropriation – exchange [Basic Elements, pp. 192, 187-188].

Divergent selection — an organizational regulating mechanism, which operates «on the line of divergence of forms» and «makes unrecognizable their initial relationship» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 91].

Dividing crisis — see crisis D.

Division (disjunction) — after conjugation the secondary moment of development of tectological forms, since «absolutely independent act of division, which has been not caused anyhow by connecting act, cannot be». For example, at biological conjugation of monocytes «cells, which have been exchanged a part of their elements, diverge again and divide further independently» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 144, 149].

Division of labour — the differentiation of human doing, connected with the differentiation of the system of experience and caused by progress of social forms of life. Historically this process has been made in three stages: 1) «the physiological, based on the difference of male and female organism, of adult, children’s and senile»; 2) the authoritarian division of labour, based on the difference between work of organizer and executor [Tectology, v 1, pp. 76, 80]; 3) the specialization, caused by further differentiation of authoritarian forms of labour and based on the difference between work of separate «specialists», each of which «participates in social life as a quite independent unit», by virtue of what «society as the whole becomes unorganized, anarchical system» [Questions of Socialism, p. 36].

Divorce — a complete disingression in a marriage union with formation of separate egocomplexes in that place where they have made a single whole – family. If in such «a small organization of two persons» as marriage «both parts “poison the life” of each other, i.e. their energy is dissipated in mutual counteractions», then divorce «acts as termination of disorganization of two private lives», at that not infrequently its result «is tectologically different for both parts: for one spouse – “liberation”, elimination of destructive disingressions, for another – “complete collapse”». At the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis the question of divorce, as a rule, «is considered from the point of view of “morality”, “duty”, “honour”, etc. By these concepts there are hidden organizational forms of different social systems. So, feudal “honour” is a norm of organizational relations of aristocratic estate. Philistine “duty” is a norm of relations of bourgeois classes. Break of marriage can be incompatibility with feudal honour because it is a partial destruction of the family-patrimonial form of organization of this estate; break of connection of a vassal with the suzerain, which oppresses him, – because it undermines the authoritative part of the same organization» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 167-168].

Dogma — «a system of theoretical ideas and norms or both together, covering some vital content, a certain sum of cognitive and practical material». For example, «in the religious world views a dogma, at first oral, and then being fixed by holy books, shaped the historical experience of people, fastened their life, economic and political organization, frequently even the methods of their technics» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 138]. From the tectological point of view a dogma falls within the area of social degressions and as a sort of ossified ideology represents a complex degressive complex.

Dogmate — a dogma’s particular proposition accepted on faith and approved by higher, more often by religious, authorities as a constant truth not being subject to criticism; from the point of view of tectology it is a sociodegressive complex of limiting conservatism, which serves initially as an organizing instrument, but then in the process of the historical ossifying it degenerates inevitably into eidovampirism, turning gradually into the opposition – into a disorganizing instrument.

Dogmatism — an extremely conservative form of authoritarian thinking, which operates with dogmas.

Doing — a regrouping of activities of a natural or a social complex, which from the different points of view is interpreted as organizing or disorganizing process. For example, human doing is the triune organizing process, including the organization of external forces of the nature, the organization of human forces and the organization of experience [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71], easier speaking, it is the organization of things, people and ideas for ourselves and in our own way [Tectology, v. 1, p. 106], but from the point of view of that natural or social complex, at the expense of activities of which all this is carried out, it is a disorganization.

Doubling of man (dichanthropy) — the initial animistic doubling of the world, which essence is in that «inside of a man-body there has been placed – “introjected in him” – a man-soul. The first one was represented to animistic consciousness as a passive, inert element; the second – as an active, driving element; or, if to express it in the terms of the sociolabour relations, the first one – as an embodiment of executive function, the second – as an embodiment of organizing. In other respects there was no essential difference between them in the beginning. Both of them were similar by the form, by the physical properties and physiological needs, both are quite “material”, if to speak from the point of view of contemporary concepts. “Airiness”, “ephemerality”, “abstractness”, as well as “immortality” of a man-soul are a result of long subsequent development» [Country of Idols, p. 222].

Doubling of the world — historically long stage in the development of cognition, connected with arising of dualism, i.e. with «the creation – alongside with the visible world – of the other, invisible one, hidden under it like a grain under nutshell»; simply speaking, it is known cognitive procedure of division of the world into the world of things and the world of «things in itself». Historically initial form of doubling was general animism: «the visible world was “bodies”, the invisible world – “souls” put into them», and the final form – general materialism, which is in essence an inversion of animism, since at materialists all is inside out: «the visible world is “impressions”, “experience”, in general “psychical” or “spiritual”; the invisible world is “matter”» [Country of Idols, pp. 221-222].

Dream — «neither more nor less than an effort won in reality and left from it in field of imagination» [Questions of Socialism, p. 255].

Dualism — a «bicentric» form of social degression, i.e. such an ideological system, which «concentrates all experience about some two supreme, extreme concepts or principles, for example “matter” and “spirit” or “good” and evil”, etc.». Such cognitive system of notions is stable only as long as there is a definiteness of differentiation between the central concepts: as soon as «people have made sure of that mental processes depend on bodily ones, and conversely, that good and evil are relative and so forth, so in dualism there is arisen the disorganization, struggle of its central tendencies, instability of forms; the way out is the submission of one principle to another or both of them to the other, the third one», i.e. the change to monism [Tectology, v. 2, p. 121]. As the world outlook state of collective mind a dualism can be compared with a split of consciousness of an individual that is not accepted as normal even from the point of view of the philister with eclecticism peculiar to him. Historically the genesis of dualism in experience and cognition is directly connected with violation of the tectological principle of adequacy, because «the dualism of experience and cognition begins not where there are two types of the organization of experience», i.e. individually- and socially-organized experience, but «where both types are not in the organized interrelation, i.e. are not combined harmoniously»; in other words, the dualism in experience and cognition «results in the event that the individually-organized experience ceases to be an integral part of the socially-organized experience, that the first one develops in the original forms, independent of the forms of the second one, unadapted to them harmoniously, in a word, in case that “psychical” turns into the special world with its own categories and laws, which do not form an organic unity with the categories and laws of “physical”. Then the world of experience, devoid of integrity, changes into the world of contradictions and struggle». The unique «way out from this dualistic position is possible only in the event that there will be a systematical adjustment of the individually-organized experience to the socially-organized one, so the first one will find a place to itself in the uniting forms of the second one», as, for example, «a cell in the system of tissues of an organism» [Empiriomonism, p. 28].

Dualistic contradiction — from the empiriomonistic point of view «the absence of harmony between a part and the whole», which reduces the adaptable abilities of «either parts, or the whole, or both together». For example, «the organization of a cell, on the one hand, and of an organism, to which it belongs together with the other cells, on the other hand, does not form a vital dualism still; it arises only there where a cell has begun to live an independent life, not adapting itself to the whole» [Empiriomonism, p. 28]. In other words, a dualistic contradiction arises in consequence of violation of the principle of adequacy.

Duty — a «socially-organizational norm» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 386]; or, more specifically, «a norm of relations of bourgeois classes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 168], and at last, more precisely, an organizing adapter of the third type which serves for elimination of contradictions of individualistic society.

Dynamic bioconservatism — dynamic equilibrium in bioforms on the basis of continuous change of external relations that is the necessary condition of preservation of bioforms in their struggle for existence. So far as according to the formula of causality the source of internal changes of any form of life is its environment, i.e. its external relations, then in essence its struggle for life is reduced to bilateral process: «each change of a form in one direction is corresponded by its approximately equal change in another, which is with the same necessity caused by external changes as well as the first; and as a result preservation of a form is observed. An expense of energy of a form in external world represents disassimilation of energy (and of “matter”); but as a result of all set of external changes, generated by this expense, there is (at usual conditions) a corresponding assimilation», i.e. «opposite currents of energy go continuously side by side», but assimilation is nevertheless primary, since a bioform «at the very “arising” already comprises a known energy content, which should appear from somewhere or other, and, certainly, – from the outside». In comparison with inorganic forms of movement dynamic bioconservatism has three characteristics: the first – «corresponding processes of assimilation and spending of energy for vital forms are in very many cases are separated by sufficiently significant time intervals» (for example: «in the daytime the higher plants extract to themselves carbohydrates from water and carbonic acid by means of solar radiant energy; and at night this process stops, meanwhile the inverse process – of oxidation and transformations of carbohydrates into carbonic acid and water – is made at night too»; objects, depending on fluctuations of temperature, «either lose heat or fill up it again»); the second – «in very many processes a form of life disassimilates energy in such a kind that it cannot again directly assimilate the same material any more» (for example: an animal, assimilating chemical energy, disassimilates thermal one, not to mention that excretions of an animal are not suitable for repeated assimilation; «meanwhile any crystal in saturated solution can again and again add to itself a particle which has just separated from it»); and the third – bioforms assimilate from external environment «not only what quite corresponds to their internal construction, but also elements of other construction, which only by the way of quite a number of transformations are led to such correspondence» (for example: «a cow eats grass, and grass is very poorly similar to those tissues of body, which will turn out from it», while «for a crystal in saturated solution the received elements are quite similar by the chemical composition to what are excreted») [Basic Elements, pp. 75-78].

Dynamic conservatism — relative dynamic equilibrium, which «comes to complete sequence of changes, which makes it possible to recognize old in new». Dynamic conservatism is to the highest degree characteristic for bioforms, at that for all without exception. Moreover, «formerly there was believed that the sphere of life is the empire of dynamic conservatism for the most part; exactly here it was stated first of all». However for contemporary science it «represents a rather widespread phenomenon in all nature», i.e. «common for all forms of movement» [Basic Elements, p. 75]. See dynamic equilibrium.

Dynamic element of conservation — overweight of assimilation, i.e. continuous increase of activities of a complex at the expense of environment that is the necessary condition of relative guarantee of its conservation in any changing environment.

Dynamic equilibrium — such an interrelation of a complex and environment, at which there is kept «practically relative equality of two processes – assimilation – disassimilation». For example, «body temperature is kept identical only when it gives environment as many heat vibrations, as gets from it». A dynamic equilibrium «is never absolutely exact: there can be no complete, unconditional equality of opposite changes; it is always only approximate, practical». In other words, a dynamic equilibrium «is ascertained in that event if a difference of assimilation – disassimilation is practically sufficiently small in order to it would be possible to disregard it and to consider a complex to be “the same”, preserved within the limits of the time, concerning a given task». We recognize a baby and adult man, who turned out from him, for the same being only «because during each given moment the changes of growth are imperceptible for us» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 198-199]. Thus, in the nature there are no absolutely stable, i.e. absolutely unchangeable equilibrium systems with unlimited period of life, inasmuch as their such an effective enough way of adaptation, as dynamic equilibrium, is also «only relative equilibrium; changes, though slower than under other conditions, are nevertheless made; sooner or later a form falls into decay and perishes» [Basic Elements, p. 81]. See the principle of dynamic equilibrium.

Dynamics — the doctrine about one or other forms, taken in movement, or «the research of the forms and their movements in their changes». The tectology of organized and disorganized complexes represents the organizational-dynamic point of view, and the tectology of neutral complexes – the organizational-static one [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124].

Dyssynergia (from Greek δυς – not and συνεργία – cooperation, partnership) — a combination of activities, the total effect of which influence on environment is less than the sum of influences on environment of the same activities, operating independently; simply speaking, the state of a system opposite to synergy, or asynergia.

Eclecticism — a fragmentary world view which is opposite to monism. Such a world view is inherent in a philister which head «contains a number of separate boxes, not communicating with themselves and each comprising a special branch of cognitive materials and practical norms; each box is opened as required, and then it is again closed, and another is already opened»; as a result the morality of a philister lies absolutely separately from those business rules, by which he is guided, for example, in service or in trade, «family virtues separately from lecherous aspirations and habits, theory separately from practice, etc.». A striking example of eclecticism is a narrow-minded conversation of the fair sex creatures: «quickly passing from one theme to another, they every minute change the preconditions, obviously contradicting themselves and being unconscious of it at all» [Empiriomonism, p. 176].

Ecology — a division of tectology which studies the structure of interrelations of biosystems with the environment. The most problem one is now anthropospheric ecology which researches the external relations of anthroposphere with biosphere, geosphere and cosmos. The circle of its primary tasks includes not only a revealing of the causes of negative processes in technosphere, but also development of ways of their elimination.

Ecology of scientific character — the three rules which should be known by a scientist in order not to lapse into the sin of discoursation: 1) «scepsis in relation to any chains of reasonings»; 2) «conscious aspiration to overcome verbal fetishism in them and not to allow substitution of meanings»; 3) «check by experience after possibly the least number of links» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), pp. 132-133].

Economic forms — «social structure of technical forms» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 226]. A synonym – forms of cooperation.

Economic necessity — «domination of socially-labour relations over people». During the epoch of individualism owing to specialization, which expands and improves production, «man goes out of the authority of nature», which hung over him during the early epochs, however «the disorganizationality of exchange system puts man under the authority of social relations, in the image of conditions of the market independent on him». And the conditions are such that «a producer is economically forced to carry his product to the market because at specialization of production he cannot live by this product directly», and «in the market he is economically forced to submit to those prices which he finds there, which are not established by him and on which he is personally unable to influence noticeably. If the prices will appear unfavourable for him, he will not gain for the goods so much to get sufficient means for the life and for the further conduct of the enterprise; then there comes ruin, economic destruction» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 362-363].

Economic plan — a project of conscious regulation of an economy with the purpose to satisfy the certain human requirements. If a project unites all spheres of production and there are scientifically-organizational principles of regulation in its basis, then such a plan is called unified economic plan.

Economic process — a social labour directed not to the external nature, as technical process, but turned straight to people: «acting on the nature technically, in the labour they enter into various connections and interrelations: they cooperate, divide the labour between themselves, distribute a field of labour, for example, separating some plots of land from others under the name of “property”, expropriate products of labour from one another by different ways and so forth» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 284].

Economic struggle of proletariat — a social activity of intercomplementary character in relation to the system-formative activities of capitalist society, more exactly, it is a complementary element to the basic elements of its oikosphere. And really, this kind of struggle of proletariat is a positive component of all economic process of capitalist society and optimizes the development in whole, so long as this «rather improves a rate of development of capital, reducing a sharpness of its fluctuations» and, above all, that is a more important plus for it, this «accelerates the technical progress». Increase of material and cultural level of proletariat does not decrease a surplus value got by capitalists, on the contrary, even increases it: «rise of level of wages, being an expansion of consumption market, leads to a much greater growth of market in whole», that is a plus for capital. And «even strike losses, heavy for a separate capitalist, do by no means harm to the general accumulation of capital: they correspondingly decrease the sum of its wastes which depend on anarchy of production, on crises; if these breaks were not present, growth of disproportionality between production and market demand would be accordingly sharper, the stronger losses from a crisis would replace the avoided losses from strikes» [Lines of Culture, pp. 127-128].

Economics — the set of all forms of economic process [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 284], i.e. of socially-productive and distributive forms [Basic Elements, p. 192], or the system of «interrelations of people in production and appropriation». Economics is not a synonym of economy: economics «is determined by technics» and together with it forms a system of economy [Questions of Socialism, p. 306]. Within the limits of the triune organizational task economics represents the area of organization of people, i.e. ecosphere.

Economy (chozyaystvo) — economics plus technics, since economic relations include not only «mutual relations of people in production and appropriation», but also «relations of people to the nature, all sum of methods of struggle against it or its exploitation» [Questions of Socialism, p. 306]. The purpose of an economy is «satisfaction of human requirements (and then, certainly, their development too)» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 276].

Ecosphere — see oikosphere.

«Ectism» — a «bicentric» form of social degression, widespread at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis; more precisely, a sort of «dualistic system of world view», which «concentrates all experience about two» such «supreme, extreme concepts», as «subject» and «object» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 121]. In other words, «ectism» is an individualistic and therefore historically transient form of thinking, which arisen from the authoritative antithesis of «spiritual – corporeal», or, that is the same, of «organizer – executor», since the basis for this is the fragmentation of collective human experience, which results, essentially, in fragmentation of man. Now «ectism» cannot be perceived otherwise as an atavism of thinking, as still preserved «habit of philosophizing people to imagine cognition to be separated into subject and object» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 258]. The brief formulation of «ectism» is the «subject-objective» dualism.

Ectogenesis (from Greek εκτός – beyond, outside and γένεσις – genesis) — a conception which is opposite to autogenesis and according to which evolution of bioforms has purely external causes, i.e. it occurs exclusively under the influence of changes of environment. Thus, if autogenesis absolutizes significance of internal causes, ectogenesis, on the contrary, absolutizes significance of external ones; meanwhile empiria testifies about one-sidedness of both concepts. Tectology in the empirical generalizations proceeds from inseparable twofoldness of the system of «bioform – external environment» and universum surrounding it that demands, depending on research tasks, consecutive inclusion of system into the enclosing «matryoshkas of the universe» as an element of the higher organized structures. From the energy point of view the source of evolution of a bioform is a changing environment which causes respective changes of the bioform and carries out their selection.

Education — a purposeful «organizational selection», which «maintains and strengthens one elements of psychics» of a man, «destroying and removing others» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 193]; or more specifically, it is the organization of system of «soul – body» with the purpose of «development of physical and spiritual abilities of a person», in order to its developing activities «were correlative to the external and internal environment of a society, a member of which the person is». Thus, education is «virtually a process of insertion of a new member in a social system. It prepares a man for that vital function, more precisely – for that sum of functions, which will be necessary to him in a society. These functions, a situation, in which they will be carried out, the resistances, with which they will have to do, can be partly predetermined in advance or can partly lie outside of prevision of educator». Consequently, the conditions of task of education are dual: on the one hand, there is supposed a definitely-changing environment, and on the other hand – an indefinitely-changeable one, and at that «the relations of two sides of the task are various in different historical systems». As a process of an adjustment of an individual to a society education is regulated by social environment, but therewith the connection between an individual and a society is reversible: «an object of education is a person; but his factors and tasks are in the ingressive social whole – a society, a class, a group», by virtue of what in compliance with the principle of circular causality «an education of a person is objectively nothing else than a partial self-education of a collective» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 232]. Thus, being a complex social process, an education is not only the selection of optimal correspondence of an individual to a society, but also the selection of their stable interrelation on conditions of environment, external for both of them, i.e. the selection of the stable form of coadaptation.

Educator — «an organizer of society, who creates a true man from what was not a man»; simply speaking, «a worker, who transforms a human larva in a real member of society», i.e. a specialist in putting of new units into a social organization, which work «consists in preparing of a man for execution of that role, of those functions, which will be carried out by him in the system of society» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 237, 231].

Ego-clock (autochronometer) — «subjective measure of time which is given to us by usual course of our psychical processes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 201], by their periodicity generating the internal mechanism of our individual orientation in time.

Egocomplex — a differential egressor of experience, which integral egressor is the global collective, i.e. humankind. From the point of view of empiriomonism the picture of the world is represented as «the infinite chain of complexes consisting of elements, identical with the elements of sensation», at that the complexes change, unite, break up, i.e. they «enter into different combinations by different types of connection». In this chain there are «nodal points», i.e. «places where the elements are connected among themselves more closely and more densely» – that are exactly egocomplexes, or the separate human «I». When some or other complexes of universum enters into connection with some egocomplex, they prove to be his «feelings», and when this connection is broken, the complexes disappear from the system of feelings of the given egocomplex, but at that they do not stop to exist, because they «act in other combinations, maybe, in connection with other “nodal point”, with other “I”» [Empiriomonism, p. 226].

Egodiplasia (egodiplasty) (from Greek εγω – I and διπλάσιος – double) — a «dual personality» meaning a presence of two psychical individuals in one physiological, which occurs in the cases when «the extensive groups of feelings, being separated from the main system of psychical experience, form complex and stable coordination of the same type, as well as this main system, into which they are not entered». The essence of this original phenomenon is in that all psychics of an egodiploid «changes periodically, passing from one state to another and inversely – sometimes there are just more than two such different states, – at that the former associative connection of psychics is obviously broken or even interrupted, being replaced by a new one»; at that sometimes an egodiploid «loses absolutely even any recollection of what he thought, said and did in the previous state»; Sometimes recollection are kept, but an egodiploid «feels so psychically changed that he cannot recognize himself as the same person who was before this», because all his character, views and manners change», «and not only he himself considers himself as “other” person, but the same is also recognized by the people around him – on the basis of the general picture of his statements»; if recollections of the previous psychical phase are kept, then an egodiploid designates it by the expressions of «other» or «other “I”»; but if the previous phase is absolutely forgotten, then sometimes an egodiploid «should again study to write, read and count, partly even to speak, and he should again make the acquaintance of all surrounding conditions», at that «change of one phase by the other occurs usually more or less sharply, sometimes at once and unexpectedly, sometimes after a deep sleep, sometimes after an original twilight state» [Empiriomonism, pp. 46-47].

Egodiploid (from Greek διπλόος – double and ειδος – a form, an idea) — an egocomplex in the state of egodiplasty. The essence of the phenomenon is in that «psychical experience of a person does not exhaust all the sum of “feelings” connected with his physiological processes; outside the experience’s limits there can be a mass of different feelings which are in usual cases relatively isolated and scattered, but sometimes they are grouped in complex totalities, to a large extent analogous to the main system of psychical experience», at that «these collateral psychical groupings can even displace the main one temporarily and can dominate over the area of statements instead of it», and at some cases they can be present with it simultaneously [Empiriomonism, pp. 47-48].

Egogenesis — development of an egocomplex from the beginning of formation up to degradation, going by the scheme of historical layers; more simply, the development of a separate person which repeats the general process of person in history of humankind. Really, «in the psychology of the first years of human life there are caught many features of original impersonality and naive communism, which draw a child together with a primitive savage; and specific children’s language represents a lot of similarity to primitive germs of language»; in the subsequent development of a child «the religious tint usually comes out in thinking, while in practice – the moments of imperiousness and obedience with prevalence of one or other, depending on family conditions: the phase which corresponds to authoritarian formations of social life»; then «a strained creation of “I” comes out, not infrequently in fighting contraposition to the environment: the individualistic phase»; later – «if development reaches it – the phase of social idealism, the spirit of collectivism. In general such is exactly the historical way of humankind», which is naturally reflected in the period of degradation of a person too. Psychical senility passes the same stages in a reverse order according to the scheme of historical layers: «the stage of strained egoism, authoritarian imperiousness or religious obedience and the stage of depersonalization in final decline» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 280-281].

Egotempo — a tempo of life of an egocomplex which is determined by usual course of his psychical, physiological and biosocial processes.

Egotemporality — a temporality of an egocomplex which depending on the character of formulated tasks is determined by a range of one or other egotempo; but more often it is reduced to the range, within the limits of which psychical processes of the egocomplex proceed, and it is usually measured by their average duration. See ego- clock.

Egotheism — a solipsistic variant of elevterism which negates all three laws of Bogdanov in the format of «I am god to myself». It is the most extreme form of individualistic world view, identifying a separate egocomplex with universum, which short formula is the following: egotheism = elevterism + solipsism.

Egressio-degressive connection — an intrasystem interrelation of egression and degression, all which combinations are reduced to two types: «either degression goes in parallel with egression and serves for its fixation» (for example, an authority), «or both are related to different specific activities which then should be strictly determined and differentiated» (for example, a ship, which is egressively subjected in the motion to crew with captain at the head and at the same time contains degressively both captain and crew) [Tectology, v. 2, p. 150].

Egressiogenesis — formation of structural center in a system that is a consequence of system differentiation; in other words, natural process of centralization of system connections, as a result of their convergence to one complex, which develops tectologically more rapidly than others. For example, formation of social egression is one of typical cases of such process. As is known, in primitive tribal society there was no systematical leadership: «methods of struggle for life were so simple and instinctive that everyone knew and could as much as others. The germs of leadership – acts of imitation, calls to action – came in one case from one, in other from other member of group, not yet creating stable differences between them. But nevertheless homogeneity of group could not be complete», since there was to some extent an individual difference in abilities which «was expressed in an unequal degree of initiative, speed, expediency of actions amidst changeable conditions of collective struggle against the nature. That member of community, who excelled others in it, set them an example or an instruction at a necessary moment especially often». With the course of time this primary difference increased, since «a man, higher organized biologically, got the accumulating collective experience better and more completely than the others, and consequently he differed from them in the speed and success of orientation in conditions of vital practice more and more: this is a typical “increase of tectological difference” under the law of divergence», which proceeded also after the death of such man. To some extent heredity passed to his children «psychical flexibility, his organically-higher type, all the more the healthiest and most beautiful wives, capable to bring the best children, fall usually to the share of him, and so long as a father took part in education of children, there was created a higher opportunity of development for them in comparison with others. It is natural that from among them, if not always, but in a large majority of cases, there was stood out such one who had time for the life to rise over an average level of the relatives still any more. Just in the same way the difference continued to increase little by little in the next generations too. Experience and will of one more and more became the determinative moment in practice of a whole collective: stable egression developed [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 104-105].

Egression («centralist» connection) — a special connection in a system of complexes which «concentrates certain activities» and «is decomposed into simpler, ingressive connections; but all these connections are irreversible and converging to one central complex», which tectological function «differs from the tectological function of others considerably», consisting in that it «has the prevalent influence on others, as the Sun in the planetary system, a head in a group of people». At interaction of such a system with an environment it is egression that concentrates in itself the system’s activities (energy, substance, information) and creates possibilities of their maximal accumulation. Its special tectological significance lies exactly in this that allows to formulate egression shortly as a centralized concentration of intrasystem activities. From the genetic point of view «egression is a special case of differentiation, of organizational divergence; the more widely and further it is developed, then, therefore, the stronger is this differentiation with all the consequences», including also «development of system contradictions» which is «absolutely inevitable» at that. For example, the type of egression most widespread in society – an authoritarian system. Its forms are extraordinary various in the history of humankind: «patriarchal community, feudal order, slaveholding economy, east despotism, bureaucracy, contemporary army, petty-bourgeois family, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 101-102, 116].

Egressive — «organizational-determinative in relation to functions of a given system, – like the Sun is the determinative center for planetary motions, a nervous system for biopotential of all other organs, a head – for work of his subordinates, etc.» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 159].

Egressive-degressive inversion — intrasystem transformation of egression into degression. The example of larval reproduction of insects Cecidomyiae can serve as a good illustration: «a larva-mother is certainly the egressive center of life for larvae-children: but they are formed inside of it» and «develop at the expense of its tissues», and when «mother dies, turning to simple cover for a small colony of new larvae», they «gnaw through this cover and go out of it», – «consequently the egression has passed into peripheric degression» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 129].

Egressive-degressive system — a compound complex with harmoniously developed and functionally intercomplementary «centralist» and «skeletal» connections formed as a result of mutual action both of positive and of negative selection. Egressive-degressive system is a kind of degressive-plastic system.

Egressive difference — tectological distinction between «a main, higher organized, complex of an egressive system» («central» for it, or simply its center) and other («peripheric») complexes [Tectology, v. 2, p. 109]. In other words, this is a difference of levels of organizationality between links of chain egression. Each «transition from a higher link to the lower ones corresponds to decrease of organizationality» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 114].

Egressive inversion — «“conversion” of egression, change of a sign of its difference», which takes place at development of egressive system towards decrease of egressive difference between egressor and subegressor. For example, in a system of «mother – baby» the egressive difference at once begins «to decrease from the moment of birth of baby in the form of one impregnated ovum up to the act of delivery when baby is separated from the mother physically and physiologically», at that the egressive ratio between them does not change: mother feeds, protects the baby, controls it, supports the favorable conditions for its development, by virtue of what «the egressive difference continues to decrease; and finally there comes the time when it is reduced to naught»; then the mother has grown old, and the matured child becomes the head of the family, i.e. egressor and subegressor change places [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 109-110].

Egressive center — «a complex which has prevalent influence on others», for example, «the Sun in the planetary system, a head in a group of people» or nucleus in an atom [Tectology, v. 2, p. 101]. The synonyms are egressor, center, central complex.

Egressive complex — a complex, which connectivity and unity are determined by the structural center, with which elimination the complex breaks up. For example, an authoritarian complex of «head – executors»: with elimination of any executor the complex is kept, with elimination of the head – it breaks up; an example from astronomy: a gravitational complex of «star – planets»; or an example from ideology: a complex of religious concepts with organizing idea of deity. The synonym is a centralist complex.

Egressive system — 1) in the elementary case it is a system with centralist way of organizationality, which composition includes a tectologically especially significant central complex and a number of peripheric complexes structurally dependent on the first [Tectology, v. 2, p. 103]; 2) in the more complex case it is «a system of chain egression, for example, an army», when «a number of central complexes of lower order – commanders of small units – is united by a center of higher order, by a chief of larger unit; a number of such centers – by still higher one, etc.». In all stable egressive systems «between any higher link and the lower ones connected directly with it there should always be egressive difference meaning the different level of organizationality; transition from a higher link to the lower ones corresponds to decrease of organizationality which should be sufficiently great so that these lower ones may be constantly and stably determined by the higher link in their changes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 114].

Egressor — an egressive center of a system, i.e. its central complex, for example, a patriarch in a community or a queen at social insects.

Eidoadapton — an ideological adapter for development, an element of social degression. The basic such eidosphere-formative adjustment is language.

Eidocollectivism — a global eidosystem of active type, which synergizes anthroposphere, being formed on the basis of tectology and representing the optimal system of adaptation of anthroposphere to external environment, i.e. a system of Bogdanov in eidosphere, which minimizes the internal socioenergy losses; more simply, it is the ideology of collectivism, or, more specifically, such a new form of thinking, inherent in the stage of conscious sociogenesis, which basic tendencies of formation are at present «destruction of illusions of individualism», «destruction of abstract fetishism», «destruction of remains of authoritarian fetishism» and «destruction of remains of statics». The essence of the first tendency is in «the radical change of the point of view»: where an individualistic consciousness «put a person as an independent center of interests, aspirations, cognition, action, – a new consciousness learns to put a group, an organization, a class, a collective in general». The essence of the second tendency is in transition to the sociolabor point of view which is «higher than thinking of exchange society»: where abstract fetishism («necessarily connected with individualism as its complement») «takes social forces for independent of people», a new consciousness, revealing all its mistakes, «finds their real, social sense, and at the same time their only historical, transient meaning». The essence of the third tendency is in change of dualistic way of thinking by monistic one, more exactly, of authoritarian by synthetic: where an individualistic consciousness cannot go out of the scheme of «organizer-executor», at that duplicating authoritarianism and «fundamental disorganizationality» of the historically transient world, a new consciousness opposes more perfect cognitive forms, basing on the developing synthetic ways of organization of labour of the new arising world – on comradely cooperation in which «organizing and executive functions are not separated, being embodied in independent persons, but they approach and tend to merging into collective». The essence of the fourth tendency is in complete renunciation of the organizational-static point of view, which is based on the idea of existence of unchangeable and absolute in the nature, and in the final transition to the organizational-dynamic point of view, which has the idea of general changeability and relativity in the basis: where the social groupings, which dominates over the outgoing world, solve the tasks of «retention of the old order, of stopping of the movement leading to a new», trying in conformity with this «to prove that intrasocial struggle, classes, submission, etc. – are eternal, invariably necessary, that a progress of life is impossible without them, etc.», the global collective, which is coming into being before our eyes, puts the task «of exactly the most drastic and complete change of social forms» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 452-453].

Eidocycle — a tectological act of scientific progress: origin, development and change of a formed system of cognition; or according to the formula of three phases: initially «accumulation of particular facts which do not go into the limits of a system», then formation of such generalizations from the new facts, which «do not agree with particular generalizations of an existing system», and at last, change of a scientific paradigm, i.e. «reform of a developed system of concepts» [Empiriomonism, p. 285].

Eidodialectics (dialectics of concepts) — a general method of formal dialectics, to which all «logic» of world process is reduced; from the point of view of tectology it is a formal method, according to which there is development of concepts, at that this method is «unrestricted to the highest degree and cannot be exactly scientifically formulated», in the essence – it is a simple «naive sociomorphism». In the formal dialectics the basic scheme of dialectic development of concepts is so-called «triad», which eidodialectical essence consists in that «each concept, as soon as it is determined and formed, displays immediately such a fundamental contradiction in the content, which, revealing, transforms this concept into its opposition. For example, the first, most general concept of world logic is «being»; at first sight it seems simple, alien to any duality and contradictions. But as soon as it is thought in the pure, finished form, so the singular motion, which conducts to its decomposition, begins in it. Pure being means being in which there is nothing other, apart from being, – any properties or concrete attributes. But where no properties and attributes are present, there is no content, i.e. there is nothing in general; consequently, there is present something opposite to being – “non-being”. Pure being passes into non-being logically because the dialectic contradiction has been hidden in it: in order to be in general, it is necessary to be something; while in order to possess only being, and nothing more, it is impossible to be something concrete. Having passed from the “thesis”, the initial concept, to the “antithesis”, its opposition, thinking comes to a contradiction with itself, and certainly, it cannot stop on this, but it seeks a way out in the further motion. The way out consists in creation of a new, a higher concept – “synthesis” which unites and harmoniously merges the contents of both previous, by that eliminating their contradiction». In this case such a synthesis is «becoming» – «the concept of transition of something into something other», which «contains both “being” and “non-being” directly connected in each moment of the process: what is and what stops to be at the same time, changing into other. The triad is finished, the “idea” makes a certain step in the development. Then the reached step becomes the beginning of the same dialectic motion, – and really of the same unrestricted mental construction, – a new triad, etc.». Such is the mechanism of dialectic development of concepts, which change represents in the essence the life of the universe, so long as in formal dialectics by means of idealistic substitution «a “concept” is substituted in return for a given sum of the phenomena as its essence, as something cognitively identical with it». And of however higher degree the efficiency of eidodialectics will be, which has united a colossal material by the volume with minimal expenses, nevertheless, from the positions of tectology it gives an example of sufficiently naive sociomorphism. Really, the basic scheme of eidodialectics – triad – «is simply the typical scheme of controversy where one interlocutor puts forward one position, other – other, contradicting the first one, and as a result of dialogue there is developed a new one, which takes into consideration both of them and eliminates unilateralities». This is quite clear, «since under all real processes there is substituted thinking», which, as is known, is «speech minus sound», or «conversation of soul with itself», and it is quite «clear that thinking in the motion reproduces a course of living, socially-proceeding speech. But it is also clear that uncountable events of the nature and history have too little common with “conversation” and “reflection” so that it may be possible to treat them by this model without stretches and distortions» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 178-180]. From the positions of tectology eidodialectics is an unscientific method.

Eidoforms — see ideological forms.

Eidogene — unit of social heredity, for example: a norm of behaviour, a tradition, an architectural style, a scientific discovery, a conception, a technology, a religious dogma, a myth, a legend, a fable, a fairy tale, a true story, a song, a melody, an anecdote, a culinary recipe, a medical procedure, an element of fashion, a style of clothes, a mimicry, a gesture, a slogan, a toast, a proverb, a saying, a phraseological unit, a humourous byword, a rapid speech, an aphorism, a superstition, a spell, a joke, a dance, etc. From the tectological point of view an eidogene is socially-degressive persistent of elementary type.

Eidogenous complex — a system of eidogenes, mutually supporting each other, which have coevolved at complementary interrelations.

Eidogenous conjugation — a form of social conjugation between human beings «by speech, mimicry, art and the other ways of expression and perception», in other words, «communication of experience, conjugation of feelings», i.e. interchange of eidogenes [Tectology, v. 2, p. 82].

Eidomonism — the second stage of development of monism arisen during the epoch of specialization and connected with domination in eidosphere of different philosophical systems which aspire «to find a unity of experience» in «the form of some universal explanation» by means of some idea or conception [Tectology, v. 1, p. 141].

Eidonaut — a thinker.

Eidopluralism — philosophical polycentrism, or from the tectological point of view the «multicentered» form of social degression in the field of philosophy characterized by arising of a number of philosophical conceptions not reduced to each other. Eidopolycentrism represents the second stage of development of pluralistic tendency and, being polar to eidomonism, presupposes the fundamental impossibility to unite experience by means of some universal idea.

Eidoriat — organizers of ideas: poets, writers, scientists, philosophers.

Eidosphere — within the limits of anthroposphere it is degressive complex which organizationally fixes high plasticity and complexity of both technical and economic forms. It is also an adjustment of society to an external environment, but «an adjustment even more indirect than economics» which «is still further distant away from the direct struggle against the nature, from the starting point of all social development» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 285].

Eidospheric revolution — «the deepest and the most general crisis of ideology» which has no analogues in the past and is connected with the transition from fetishism to practice; and though «among grandiose technical and scientific revolutions, among severe social struggle» it «occurs imperceptibly for the majority of our contemporaries», nevertheless, «it is not a simple change of the old ideological forms by new ones, which was observed in the former crises», but the complete and at the same time radical «transformation of the essence of ideology, of all its vital construction, of the laws of its organization» and of the functional role in the global sociogenesis; by the degree and coverage of structural changes such a revolution is akin to a metamorphosis, so long as «ideology in general, in its most various and opposite manifestations, – becomes not what it has been before»; plus to everything, this revolution «is the most striking from all, which prepared the new phase of the life of humankind» – the phase of conscious sociogenesis, by virtue of what there is every reason to suppose that exactly it signifies the finishing stage of the prologue of history [Falling of Great Fetishism, p. 3].

Eidosystem — a short variant of the term of «ideology», i.e. one or another «form of speech, thinking, law, morals etc» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 135].

Eidotectogenesis — organization of ideas, i.e. that part of the triune organizational task, which solution comes to harmonization of eidosphere [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71].

Eidovampire — a catagenic ideological complex. For example, the opportunistic idea of social peace.

Eidovampirism — a catagenic form of existence of old ideologies «outlived their vital basis», the extreme degree of their incompatibility with new ideologies which develop already on a new vital basis. For example, «when hard times came for English trade unionists, the obsolete world view harmed the trade unionists not because it took away from them the means and energy for the direct maintenance», but because it «did not allow the new adjustments to develop and to be really shown, which were in accordance with the changed vital conditions» and exactly by that it «prevented the success of their vital struggle». Become catagenic, «old world view did not permit of other methods of vital struggle, apart from old ones which were already far from being sufficient and often led to fruitless waste of forces: strike struggle against a worsening of working conditions, which depended on the general narrowing of the market, political support of one or another bourgeois party depending on promises of candidates, on promises which they partly could not, partly just did not wish to execute, all this could no longer seriously improve the situation, but all this prevented the organized workers from uniting into an independent party and from defending their vital interests by systematic political class struggle. The new adjustments had arisen, but these germs broke long against conservatism of traditional views and methods of struggle incompatible with them; for them the tradition was a pernicious-hostile part of their social environment. Only when negative selection had finally undermined and had broken the tradition, only then these germs, which were repeatedly weakened by negative selection too and were also destroyed by it not infrequently, but which were again and again called into being by the same conditions, could grow and develop and increase the biopotential of the whole. Here “vampiric” forms not so much “drank blood” of progressive elements of life, as “gnawed through the throat” while they could» [Empiriomonism, pp. 259-260]. Particularly eidovampirism is also an expenditure of time for learning of different philosophical systems, ancient treatises and in general of any obsolete ideas-vampires that is rather useless presently and breaks the principle of economy of thinking. The process of thinking of any philosopher «is impossible to be reproduced exactly in one‘s consciousness»; therewith, if «to try to think over and understand each position up to the end», then «it will require some years». For example, «for an obsolete philosophical book one wastes the time which is enough for studying of 2-3 sciences that is infinitely more useful». Therefore if nevertheless it is necessary to read some philosophical treatise, then one should «be interested in the structural part, in the very conclusions». And generally, «one should study not old chains of reasonings, even the best of them, – it is necessary to go to the nature, to the life, any chain of reasonings should be checked in the nature, in the life, there is the criterion, there is the truth, while all the rest, all expenses of efforts to what has been gone through and cannot be revived, – this is grave digging, this is vampirism of what has become obsolete and what does not wish to die» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 263].

Elder — a social egressor of elementary type, «an organizer of labour» during the primitive epoch [Empiriomonism, p. 296]; in other words, the central element of the simplest «authoritarian form of life», historically arisen at the second stage of division of labour, when the sum of collective experience increases up to such sizes that a separate man «takes possession of it only in late stages of his life, and even not everyone does it in full measure. Then an elder stands out in a tribe, as a bearer of all experience of the group, as opposed to its other members, having only incomplete experience». Relying on his accumulated experience, he «begins to direct, the others – to follow his directions». And in the sequel, «in order to cover the greatest sum of experience within the limits of the psychics, he who directs to another, he narrows his “physical” activity in still greater measure: he operates personally less often and less often, more often and more often – through others; he turns into a manager for the most part, in an organizer of group life. The others, on the contrary, keep personal initiative ever less, get used to submit, become regular executors of another’s instructions» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 32-33].

Electricity — the most flexible of the forms of energy known to humankind, which «changes easily into all other forms of energy and which turns just the same easily out from them», which by means of transformers «is transmitted over wires at great distances with rather small losses» and quickly, which is easily «divisible exactly into arbitrary small parts, distributable in detail, accountable and controllable». At the present time it is possible by electrotechnical methods to utilize widely energy of waterfalls, «force of falling of the rivers», to accumulate solar energy and also energy of sea flows and wind [Questions of Socialism, p. 297].

Electronocentrism — the point of view on the universe at mental placement of center of coordinates on a separate electron. In cognition of the world structure, i.e. of the organizational form of the world, such a view is useful, especially in respect of heuristics, and in the some, undoubtedly, not frequent researches, it is even expedient, with a purpose of simplification and success of calculations. Such a sufficiently paradoxical point of view is competent with any other, usually accepted in astronomy, so long as the principle of relativity, as is known, recognizes «bilateral symmetry of any process of motion». It is also known that «placement of center of coordinates into one or another physical body does not mean at all even a temporary recognition of this body as rest, motionless, but this means only mental placement of our instruments of perception and measurement on it». Symmetric transition from the points of view generally accepted in astronomy to the electronocentric is carried out simply: it is sufficient to imagine mentally any elementary atomic system, for example, hydrogen or helium. The number of turnovers of an electron in such systems «is a size of the order of 10¹⁸ per second. If each such turnover is, as in the motion of the Moon about the Earth, a turnover of an electron about the axis», then if «to take an electron as rest and the universe as circulating about it», the following picture of the universe results: «the circle of the world», i.e. the end-capping world geodesic line, according to the relativistic theory, «has the length of the order of hundred millions of light years», consequently, the speed of motion of the remotest bodies from an electron by calculation «will be greater than the usual speed of light approximately in 10³³ times». For a mathematician this size differs in no way from any other, «however it is clear, up to what a degree all the physical and astronomical calculations would be complicated and tangled, if the basic physical constant – the speed of light – was taken so variable in order to change the size from one (actually, even from nought, at negative accelerations) up to one with 33 noughts». Nevertheless, such electronocentric model of the world, being not equally expedient to the generally accepted in astronomy, in some cases, let even in the extremely rare ones, can turn out sufficiently useful, moreover, suitable for a research [Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, pp. 149-150].

Elementary cooperation — a conjugation of homogeneous labour activities on the basis of a common purpose; in other words, «a joining of equal labour forces», which leads «to increase of practical results in a greater proportion than quantity of these labour forces». Arising positive non-additivity is explained by that «the present activities are joined more successfully than the resistances opposed to them»: though the organized labour activities are added not without a loss, nevertheless, their practical sum proves to be greater than the external resistances which «either are not added at all» or «in a less complete way, if they are added». This should be augmented by the effect of psychical influence of cooperation which also increases positive non-additivity, but already reducing «the internal resistances of an organism». For example, in consequence of imitation: working alone, «a worker undertakes and carries out all actions at the expense of own initiative and own stimuli; for each new act he should quite independently adjust his nervously-muscular apparatus in the respective way», while in a joint labour «a significant share of this process of adjustment goes on at the expense of imitation, i.e. by a much more mechanical, more automatic way, at which for an imitating man the internal resistances of the organism is much less». In addition «the stimulating action of apparent success of labour is also reduced to decrease of internal resistances, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 114, 117, 116].

Elementary deduction — a deduction in which «only some kind of an inductively obtained position» is used. For example: if «it is determined that development of exchange economy is connected with development of individualistic ideologies», and if it is known that «some African tribe, which has formerly lived completely by natural economy, enters now into a brisk exchange with the European merchants penetrated into it», then there is directly turned out «the conclusion that among this tribe the elements of individualism should also arise and grow» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 278].

Elementary factors of progress — the factor of quantitative progress: growth of the sum of elements of a system, and the factor of structural progress: decrease of disingressions in its separate groupings. The question about the progress of a system in its complex changeable environment is not solved by simple statement of presence of the given attributes of progress, so long as, firstly, «the question about ratios of these elementary factors should be solved, i.e. whether they are in organizational correspondence between themselves, in “harmonious” connection», because «their disharmony is already a moment of common structural regress», and secondly, «even within the limits of harmony between them there is the question about expansion or reduction of possibilities of the subsequent tectological developments», first of which is actually «expressed in increase of diversity and versatility of groupings», and the second – «in decrease; at that the last case is also a moment of regress» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 276-278].

Elements of experience — the initial concept of empiriomonism that means the elementary indivisible experience, i.e. those direct givens which by the principle of economy of thinking are combined into complexes and which are the same both for psychical and for physical experience: «colors, tones, spatial elements, elements of hardness, thermal ones, etc.»; at that a psychical complex differs from a physical only by connection: in the first case it is associative connection, and in the second – objectively-natural one [Country of Idols, pp. 235-236]. «The infinite stream of experience, from which the cognition is crystallized, represents in the whole not only a very grandiose, but also a very variegated picture. Decomposing this whole step by step, analysis passes from its larger parts to more and more small ones and reaches at last some border where decomposition is further not possible. Elements of experience are here» [Empiriomonism, p. 6]. They are «as though bricks, of which a world view is constructed. An ordinary brick is neither more nor less than a quantity of clay made and worked by labour; clay is a “matter”, it is a “resistance”; it becomes a brick by an effort of people directed on this resistance. Since all reality is reduced to the sum of efforts and resistances, as well as a brick – its certain part – is a crystallized combination of a sociolabour effort and a natural resistance. The same is quite applicable to any element of experience too. A brick itself is such an element while they have not decomposed it further, have not isolated its components and properties. But in order to make it – each time there is necessary a new effort by which a new resistance is overcome». And so any element of experience is «a product of a previous and new labour», and «however far there is decomposition of experience into smaller and smaller elements, up to infinitely-small, – each of them will be still both a crystallized effort and a conquered resistance, – each will keep the collectively-labour character». Thus, an element of experience is «a product of social labour embodied in cognition; it is created on the basis of the social need for differentiation of different conditions and parts of this labour», first of all of physical and then of mental. So long as «experience is analyzed by the most different way» and according to the tasks of analysis «some or other parts are distinguished in its content», then the elements can be «both actions and things, and properties; a brick and red color, and hydrogen, and a cell; at last, even an atom and a monad». At that no division of experience has «the ultimate, absolute meaning», since its «elements are entirely correlative to a given task, practical or cognitive» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 216-218]. Moreover, from the positions of empiriomonism «differences of elements disappear in the unity of relations», and in the place of the world of elements there is come out the world of relations, in which «orderliness is achieved by an expedient grouping of complexes – by their delimitings and connections according to the requirements of the least contradictions and the greatest harmony» [Empiriomonism, pp. 33, 32].

Elements of an organization (a complex, a system) — 1) every possible «activities-resistances» from the most compound psychophysical efforts of man up to the elementary quanta of energy; 2) «parts to which it has been necessary to decompose an object in compliance with a research task; they can be arbitrary great or small, can be divisible further or not – it is impossible to put any limits to analysis» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 119]. The expediency of analytical subdivision has the simple tectological explanation: so long as «any decomposition into elements, carried out really or only mentally, is… disorganization», «it is made just in order to reduce a resistance of things to our efforts, by means of which we subsequently organize the elements into new combinations desirable for us» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 120]. If a necessary degree of analytical subdivision is reached, then the parts, of which there is composed or into which there is decomposed a given object, are considered already as a single whole without a further partitioning.

Elements of rhizome — separate links of asymmetric chain connection, which consist of egressor and dependent peripheric complexes in case of chain egression or of degression and several plastic complexes in case of chain degression. If a rhizome is regular, then in dependence on quantity of peripheric or plastic complexes in a link it can be mono-, bi-, penta- or polyrhizome. For example, the revolutionary organization of S.G. Nechaev was planned by him as pentarhizome; cell division is birhizome; a construction of army is polyrhizome, and Russian matryoshkas represent a monorhizome chain degression.

Elements of universal culture — «collectivism of labour, freedom from fetishes, unity and wholeness of the vital point of view, vital methods»; in short, all elements of the socialist ideal [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 91].

Elevterism (from Greek ελευθερία – freedom) — «the doctrine about “internal freedom” of a consciousness», which represents «along with the doctrine about vital force one of the last refuges of static thinking» and «rejects for consciousness – usually with different limitation – causality at all stages of its cognition». From the point of view of tectology supporters of this doctrine reject one or another law of Bogdanov, in consequence of what elevterism exists in three modifications. The doctrine about freedom, negating the first law of Bogdanov, considers «human will as the primary initial point of some actions», so will appears above this law, according to which «the initial point of any change is in the external environment: “I act so just because I want this, and my desire has no external causes”». In the other version of the doctrine about freedom «there is made a concession on the question of the external causes of motives», but the position about «free choice» are extended that conflicts already with the second law of Bogdanov: supporters of this version state that under the given conditions they can act somehow or other, i.e. «in the same form under the same conditions different changes are possible». And at last the doctrine about freedom in the version, which negates the third law of Bogdanov, recognizes the facts of consciousness as «qualitatively, in essence differing from the changes of the external nature». The contemporary science has a vast «mass of the new positive facts in favour of the doctrine about strict causality of all psychics, consequently, of consciousnesses too. While in favour of the theory of freedom it has been never presented and nobody has presented a positive position accessible to scientific check. This theory is supported not by what has been found out, but by what hasn’t been found out. At that it is in the contradiction with that direction in which scientific progress is made. It is voluntary and antiscientific, as its double in biology – vitalism» [Basic Elements, pp. 139-140].

Elimination of contradiction — the way of passive harmonization, meaning from the energy point of view the elimination of a source of dissipation of energy by «decrease of those harmful resistances, which arise from relation of one part of complex to another», or by destruction of one of them or both at once, at that the last way is «rather low-economical» in perspective of further development of a complex, which became less compound. More perspective way of overcoming of contradiction is active harmonization: creation of organizing adapters, when two parts, «which turn out in mutual contradiction at their direct joining, are easily connected, already without a contradiction, by means of the third combination – “organizing” combination» [Empiriomonism, pp. 266-267].

Elite — «the best representatives» of scientific and technical intelligentsia, which consciously or unconsciously aspire «to an independent organizing role, to seizure of power over social economy, over social system». In other words, it is that vanguard of scientific and technical intelligentsia, which, being the most advanced social group, aspires already as an independent socioeconomic organizer to become differentiated from the other classes and «to become a class for itself» with own ideology and the certain tasks. The claims to power in society it carries out by two strategies: «by hard work on the line of scientific organization of labour in different areas and directions» and «by the tendency to monism, to monism of scientific consciousness, to economy of scientific thinking» that promotes making of independent ideology [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 13, 19-23].

Emergent evolution — a metaphysical concept of development in which there is fetishizing the appearance of a qualitatively new and there is also asserted its incognoscibility. From the point of view of tectology we are up against one more concept cut off from the reality and reducing the naturally occurring phenomena to all the same long ago forgotten intermundia (intermundia – a cleft of the world), from which, like trolls, every possible «new qualities» jump out. In spite of the name the concept is static in the basis, since something can arise only in the static world, while experience testifies that there is nothing unchangeable in the world, all changes and is subjected to selection which conserves more stable changes. With respect to the very concept of «arising», it is, in turn, also static by the content, since in the cases when emergent evolutionists speak about arising of something new, in reality their sight does not simply notice the continuity of changes, which nevertheless occur in those cases, but which are practically imperceptible for their observation; though, at sufficient technical equipment a strict research experiment can always find out them. And at last, in relation to arising of some «new higher qualities» it is simply enough to remind that already from the law of conservation of energy it inevitably follows that in the observable world stream of changes «there are possible only quantitative differences; while there can be no qualitative differences, i.e. absolutely irreducible to quantitative» [Basic Elements, p. 206].

Emergent fetishism — a perverted interpretation of integrity as an incognizable substance which is the basis for the world processes, in consequence of what the essentially uninterrupted tectogenesis is understood as spasmodic increase of organizationality; at that non-additivity of developing organized complexes is explained by sudden appearance of new properties, which are not reduced to properties of their parts, that, actually, just leads to structural rupture between higher and lower levels of organizationality.

Empiria — both psychical and physical experience which from the point of view of empiriomonism are essentially homogeneous, but the first is necessarily subordinate to the second, more exactly, to the cognitive forms arising on its ground. Fundamental homogeneity consists in identity of elements of psychical and physical experiences: the difference of their law is explained only by «the difference of individual and social organizationality of experience – two stages of an organizing process», of which the physical one represents the higher step of organizationality; «and the subordination of psychical experience to the norms of physical one is expressed in psychoenergetics with its different particular applications» [Empiriomonism, p. 334].

Empiricism — «philosophy of experience» which problem field is represented by «questions of method». The contemporary empiricism aspires to be exclusively philosophy of «pure experience checked up critically, released from any additions, fictions, distortions», in consequence of what «it searches for the scientific support for itself in the methods of the newest natural sciences». The former empiricism «was notable for individually-psychological understanding of experience», which «was reduced to sensations and notions»; the contemporary one is «characterized by impersonally-realistic understanding: experience covers both things and sensations, physical and psychical complexes» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 165-166].

Empiriocriticism — critical philosophy of experience which «reduces all construction of the picture of the world to systematization of experience at constant criticism of its content. It emphasizes identity of elements of psychical and physical experience (colors, tones, innervational elements or elements of a form, elements of hardness, heat and cold, etc.), identity even of the whole complexes of these elements in one and other area (for example, “bodies” and their “perceptions”) and it finds that all difference is reduced to a character of connection of complexes or elements between themselves. The task of cognition, in the opinion of empiriocriticists, consists in a description of connection of elements and complexes, in a description, which should be as much as possible simple, exact and systematical and suitable for prediction of a course of phenomena in as much as possible great number of cases. For this purpose it is required that the description should cover the greatest possible material of experience and eliminate from it all “subjective and casual”, all individual both in sense of features of one or another person and in sense of circumstances, of a moment of observation. In this “purifying” of experience is just consists its critic». A very important and characteristic feature of this philosophy consists in that in «the “criticism” outside of experience it considers communication of people as a pregiven moment, as some kind of “a priori”, and, aspiring to create as much as possible simple and exact picture of the world, at the same time it means also general suitability of this picture, its practical satisfiability for as much as possible great number of “co-men” for as many as possible long time». Empiriocriticism is exactly characterized by acknowledgement of equivalence of individual experience and collective, i.e. experience of «co-men». In that there is shown the «gnoseological democratism» peculiar for this philosophical school, though there is still no «gnoseological social democratism» [Empiriomonism, pp. 225-226].

Empiriodualism — dualism of psychical and physical experience which «is a remnant of authoritarian differentiation of spiritual and corporal nature conserved because of authoritarian, organizational function of an intellectual-specialist in production» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 168].

Empiriography — creation of a picture of the world on the basis of coherence of set of psychical experiences by the principle of reverse reflection. The process of its creation occurs in the following way: «the infinite, uninterrupted tissue of the elements forming different complexes in different, changing mutual connection», among which «there are stood out more coherent and rich complexes by the content – human individua», or egocomplexes; «the other complexes enter into different relations with them, and each network of similar interrelations is an individual system of experience, as which center the nervous apparatus of an individuum serves» – a brain, more precisely, «those parts of brain, with which a consciousness is connected»; «development of any individual network of experience is reduced to that its central component adapts to its whole, i.e. to the environment»: all other complexes, which «are taken depending on this apparatus, make up a psychical experience» – a consciousness, while which «are taken in their connection, independent of the central apparatus, form a physical experience» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 145]; superposition of physical experience of egocomplexes is just a general picture of the world arisen as a result of coherence of physical part of set of individual networks, at that an individual picture of the world as a fragment of the general one arises by means of coordination of direct experience with indirect.

Empiriomonism — 1) «organizational philosophy» of the single experience, representing «a stage on the way to organizational science» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 115]; simply speaking, it is the philosophical foundations of tectology; 2) the theory of experience as single and only reality with which man deals; i.e. the doctrine about unity of elements of experience, the attempt to reduce all observable empirical diversity to the different forms of organization and on this basis to construct the monistic methodology which covers not only all spheres of cognition, but also all kinds of practical doing of people. Thus, empiriomonism, being «already a noncompletely philosophy, but the transitional form» from philosophy to tectology, which is not already a philosophy [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 255], represents in essence the philosophical anticipation of the scientific, i.e. empirically verifiable, theory of universal character. The task of empiriomonism is to overcome «dualism of connection of experience», psychical and physical [Empiriomonism, p. 227]. The demanded unity of world understanding is achieved by the unity of cognitive method: «cognition abstracts from the ways of direct perception, and the world of “elements” is replaced by the world of relations», then «differences of elements disappear in the unity of relations, and the integrity of cognition is restored. But at that the very opposition of “physical” and “psychical” loses the sense. An individually organized experience is included into the system of experience organized socially as its inseparable part, and ceases to make up a special world for cognition. “Psychical” disappears in the uniting forms created by cognition for “physical”, but also physical ceases to be “physical” as soon as it does not have its constant antithesis – psychical. The single world of experience acts as the content for the single cognition. It is empiriomonism» [Empiriomonism, p. 33]. Thus, the essence and unity of empiriomonism is in «sociolabor world understanding», whence all its distinctive features follow: a) «the new form of causal relationship – socially-technical» («on the basis of machine production with its diverse transformations of forces there are formed such a point of view, according to which any given phenomenon represents the technical source of other phenomena for the collective in its practice», at that «this interrelation becomes the type and model of connection of causes with their consequences»: «cause and effect – the same sum of energy in two consecutive phases; they are equal and belong to one uninterrupted process in labour or experience of collective»); b) «new understanding of elements of experience, sensually-labour» («they are the product of social effort, in labour or in thinking; they stand apart depending on practical needs, develop and accumulate with growth and complication of the system of labour»); c) «elimination of abstract fetishism from the philosophical concepts of objectivity and subjectivity» («objective in experience and thinking is socially-coordinated or, that is the same, socially-organized»; «physical experience, which is objective, is a socially-organized experience; on the contrary, a psychical experience, with its subjective character, is only individually organized», at that these are two «different steps of organization of experience, between which there is continuity of transitions»); d) «the doctrine about sociomorphism of thinking» («the basis for cognitive methods is practical methods»; «connection of elements of technics in production and economic connection between people serve as the source and model for connection of concepts in cognition»); e) «the theory of universal substitution» («the scheme of substitution has come from relation between statements on the one hand and their contents on the other, between symbols and what is symbolized»; the general tendency of substitution «is directed to replacement of a smaller and more organized material of experience by a richer and weaker organized one, i.e. which gives a greater sum of combinations and can be more easily processed»); f) within the limits of the scheme of substitution there is established the interrelation «between physiological processes of brain and psychical phenomena substituted under them» («that sum of energy, which is a psychics in an indirect, continued experience, turns for other people to physiological changes of brain in a direct physical experience»; «then there is created the continuity of substitution in all line of experience, leading to the monistic picture of the world»); g) «this picture represents us the universe as a continuous chain of development of forms which pass by struggle and interactions from lower steps of organizationality to higher ones» (from the least organized ether up to «human collective with its objectively-regular organization of experience, which it makes in the work – the world-building») [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 241-243]. Empiriomonism is the third way of realization of monistic tendency in the field of cognition reached the perfection in tectology – the top of scientific monism.

Empiriomonistic method — see the energy method.

Empiriopluralism — scientific polycentrism; from the position of tectology it is a «multicentered» form of social degression in the field of scientific knowledge, being a natural result of specialization and accordingly of a number of special methods of separate sciences. Scientific multicentrism represents the third stage of development of pluralistic tendency and is characterized by the high degree of fragmentation of system of experience and by fundamental ignoring of the «uniting forms», which are capable to create «cognitive continuity of “real”». Really, cognition cannot organize experience without «every possible breaks of experience», but without the «uniting forms» these «breaks will remain simple disruptions of continuity». Empiriomonism restores the unity of experience by the unity of cognitive method, and on the contrary, its opposition – empiriopolycentrism – leads either to «a new form of dualism» or on the basis of pluralism of methods to «pluralism of “continuities divided by breaks”» [Empiriomonism, pp. 85-86].

Encephalization — the same as encephalogenesis.

Encephalogenesis (from Greek εγ­κέφαλος – brain and γένεσις – origin) — the process of nucleation in a central nervous system with formation and development of the complex of higher level of organizationality – brain; simply speaking, arising of brain and its further development. In the scientific literature there is quite often used a synonymous term – encephalization.

Endogenesis (from Greek ένδον – inside and γένεσις – origin) — a metaphysical conception which proceeds from the notion about purely internal causes of development of natural and social forms. Such a view contradicts the first law of Bogdanov and is typical to the epoch of individualism.

Energetics — «the principle of machines directly transferred to cognition; because it is machines that just carry out transformation of energy in practice» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 223].

Energism — the doctrine about unity of energy, according to which «all processes in the nature are completely homogeneous, and their difference has only quantitative character», therefore «the essence of changes occurring in the form of movement is reduced to increase or decrease of energy of different elements of a form in relation to its external environment and to each other» [Basic Elements, p. 219].

Energobalance of social system — difference of assimilation and expenditure of energy in technical process, at the expense of which all social process is made in whole, i.e. development of social system, if assimilation exceeds expenditure, and its degradation, if on the contrary. Assimilation of energy of external environment in technical sociolabor process occurs in the following way: «social labour of people, changing the external nature, transforms it» in such a way that energy of social system increases in relation to its environment», and «energy of environment decreases in relation to it. This relative change is just a quantity of vital plus of social system», i.e. a quantity of its assimilation. But so long as «social labour in itself is expenditure of energy, decrease of energy of social system in relation to its environment», then such relative change is already a quantity of vital minus of system. There are arisen two variable quantities with the plus and minus signs: «their difference represents vital balance of socially-technical process», at the expense of which «there is gone all other, extratechnical life of the social whole. Consequently, it is possible only when a difference of assimilation and expenditure in technical process represents a sufficiently positive quantity» [Empiriomonism, p. 265]. If this quantity is negative, social system degrades. Moreover, it degrades even when assimilation is equal to expenditure, since conditions of environment change constantly and simple conservation of the tectological state by a system is insufficient for its further development.

Energocurrent — «a continuous number of influences of one process on another», i.e. «a continuous number of changes passing in space and time» [Basic Elements, p. 244].

Energomonism — a reduced variant of the term of «energy monism».

Energosphere — area of struggle for existence, from which one or another form assimilates energy for the further development. For example, for biosphere such area is the quantity of solar energy assimilated by the Earth. Increase of biopotential of one or another form expands the sphere of its struggle for existence, increasing the assimilation of energy from the environment.

Energy — 1) «the principle of measurability, commensurability and continuity of changes occurring in experience», expressing «the unity of cognitive method in relation to any experience from its quantitative side» [Country of Idols, p. 242]; 2) «the source of changes and their quantitative measure: activity perceived sensually or taken mentally, as the cause of changes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 177], for example, heat, light, electricity, mechanical movement, etc. – «this is only the different ways of its perception by human consciousness» [Basic Elements, p. 35]; 3) the coefficient which characterizes quantitative stability of organizational forms in relation to definite external influences [Tectology, v. 1, p. 207]. Energy «does not imply anything absolute, it is not the “substance” of things, but their interrelation»: «it is the measure of those changes which one “thing” can cause in other “thing”» [Empiriomonism, p. 264]. Thus, «if it is possible to attach any special meaning to the word of “energy”, then exclusively such one that in this term there is expressed the commensurability of all changes taken place in the nature, their reduction to one quantitative measure». Moreover, since energy «is shown only in changes, and in nothing else, since it is measured only by them, since it is cognized only in them, then it is obvious that for cognition energy is absolutely the same as the changes occurring in the nature» [Basic Elements, p. 35], i.e. «a change taken from its quantitative side» is actually energy [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 47]. «With respect to its “tension” (temperature, potential, a level of weight, etc.), it is a relative quantity of changes which are possible depending on a given complex of energy». Equality of tensions of energy, i.e. equality of mutually opposing activities, when no changes take place, means tectologically a complete disingression, while «difference of tensions, without which nothing can occur, means, consequently, incomplete disingression» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 177]. The last one has the fundamental significance in experience: «objectively something takes place only where there is difference of tensions of energy between adjacent complexes», just for this reason «difference of tensions is the necessary condition of any physical experience, as well as psychical» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 176-177]. Concerning all forms of energy known to humankind it is necessary to say that all of them are «only a result of partial releases of those its reserves which are accumulated in the atoms of matter, immeasurable reserves, surpassing any imagination»: humankind will have to master the reserves of energy, which «in thousands of millions times exceed what have been found before». However even their partial assimilation gives «in hands of people such gigantic and terrible forces, which necessarily demand a control of universal collective, otherwise they can appear disastrous for all life on Earth» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 297-298].

Energy causality — the contemporary form of causal relationship of the phenomena of experience, which essence is in that the cause of a phenomenon is considered to be «another phenomenon, commensurable with it, quantitatively equivalent to it, passing in it without remainder» [Empiriomonism, p. 22].

Energy communication — a labour conjugation carried out by two methods – «exchange of labour support» and «exchange of products of labour» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 50].

Energy fetishism — the perverted understanding of energy, at which it «from a pure symbol of interrelations between the facts of experience» turns «into the substance of experience, in the “matter of the world”», in consequence of what energy monism as a universal methodological principle «gets metaphysical, i.e. socially-fetishistic colouring: conservation of energy is taken as eternity of some “substance”» [Empiriomonism, pp. 224, 325].

Energy method — a way of consideration of any natural or social phenomenon which is based on the law of conservation of energy and demands that this phenomenon should be «seen as a change, a process, and at that as a process which is subject to measurement». Thus, this method includes two moments: firstly, «a studied phenomenon is recognized as a process which is subject to measurement» and, secondly, «this process is recognized as something which is unable to arise from nothing or to turn into nothing» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 47]. Being general for cognition of any natural and social phenomena of any degree of complexity, the energy method is an empiriomonistic method by virtue of this.

Energy monism (energomonism) — «monism of method, monism of our way of research» developed on the basis of «purely methodological meaning of the concept of “energy”» which is understood as «a symbol of interrelations between the facts of experience». Only energomonism is not enough for complete world view, because it does not give a picture of the world. Moreover, so long as, actually, the very «material» of the world is indifferent for it, then at fetishization of energy both materialism and panpsychism is quite compatible with it: «when “energy” is represented as substance, it is neither more nor less than old materialism minus absolute atoms – materialism with the correction in the sense of continuity of existing» [Empiriomonism, pp. 224-225]. Energomonism is only a universal method of research, i.e. one of the methods of tectology.

Energy point of view — a universal view on any processes occurring in the world, which basis is the third law of Bogdanov: changes of form of movement of one of two interacting processes are accompanied by equal and opposite changes of form of the other. The expression of «equal changes» means their equality after reduction to a common unit of measure – to a certain quantity of energy, while the expression «opposite changes» means that increase of energy of one process is at the same time decrease of energy of another and on the contrary. However the more complex is phenomena and «the less are exact data determined concerning them at the moment of research, then the less is the possibility to be limited in research by one universal principle in all its definiteness and generality. If observation and experiments on a known group of phenomena are not characterized by clearness, definiteness of results, if, for example, it is not possible to measure these phenomena exactly, then the strict, quantitative formula of the general law becomes directly inapplicable and is replaced by the formula of less complete content» – by the law of determined action, i.e. by the second law of Bogdanov. So long as from the energy point of view any process occurring in the world can be expressed quantitatively as «a quite determined quantitative combination of homogeneous commensurable changes», then an influence of one process on another «means that one determined quantitative combination of changes in a determined sequence is joined with another determined quantitative combination. Clearly, at that only one, quite determined result can turn out: it is already completely given in joining quantitative combinations of energy, as a sum is given in its summands, and it cannot be other than it is. Thus, the course of a given process under a given influence changes inevitably in a quite determined way; and if two equal phenomena undergo equal influences, then the results turn out necessarily equal; or, in the other words: the same conditions generate the same consequences». The second law of Bogdanov is deduction of the third one and by virtue of the smaller richness of content does not demand an exact research for the applicability in many cases when the third law cannot be directly applied. For example, in cases of studying of all sorts of vital processes the energy point of view is based exactly on the second law of Bogdanov: «under the equal influences the forms of equal construction are conserved or destroyed in the equal way». As a result at such approach the law of «natural selection» widely known in biology turns out only a particular formula of the second law of Bogdanov, i.e. its simple application «to the facts of conservation and destruction of vital forms» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 69-71].

Enterprise — «an organization of people and things at the same time», at that «both are productive forces, organized in expedient unity» [Questions of Socialism, p. 397].

Entropic process — «a result of selection of arising movements: at selection in all its forms and at all steps there is dissipation of energy, transition to its lower organized kinds, and entropy is a special case of such dissipation. It is as though a price of selection, which is made at transition of energy from one system to another» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 204].

Entropy — inevitable «dissipation of energy, transition to its lower organized kinds» as a result of selection which regulates energy exchange between systems. Entropic process is always reduced to the scheme of selection and, on the contrary, «processes of selection at all displacements and transformations of energy… correspond inevitably to the law of entropy» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 204, 206], which «says about transition of the world content to more stable, more equilibrated groupings» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Environment — «external relations» of a complex [Basic Elements, p. 49], or totality of those external activities, which directly influence on it [Tectology, v. 1, p. 166]. There are three rules for correct and exact understanding of what «environment» is. The first one: environment is «totality of external influences, under which there is a system, but taken exactly in relation to it. Therefore the other system – the other environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 110]. The second one: «in tectology the word “external” has not a spatial meaning», since «those parts of system, which go out from its organizational connections, even if they are inside it spatially, also should be considered as become tectologically external» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 201]. And, at last, the third rule, which says: «environment is always present», since absolutely empty space does not simply exist [Tectology, v. 1, p. 165]. According to the principle of development an environment changes continuously. Tectology recognizes two types of development of an environment, in compliance with which it is subdivided into definitely-changing and indefinitely-changeable environment.

Equilibrium — «a particular case of crises». In each concrete case «it represents a certain crisis of movement and signifies change of tectological form of this movement. For example, a body, thrown directly upwards and reached the highest point of its trajectory, keeps there at one moment in equilibrium: the moment of crisis, forming transition from upward motion with progressive deceleration to downward motion with acceleration; on infinitesimal interval there is achieved, so as to be immediately broken, the complete disingression of activities of the initial upward push with the activities of gravitation» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 254].

Equilibrium, or «true» stability — 1) a tectological quantity, characterizing the capability of a complex to resist external actions and numerically equal to period of life of its concrete tectological form, during which, being kept in a certain environment, it is maintained by a continuous series of recurrent tectological acts, i.e. cycles; 2) a tectological concept, expressing the state of dynamic equilibrium in interrelations of a complex and an environment with relative conservation of its tectological form. In a continuously changeable environment the simple exchange equilibrium is insufficient: «the only thing, that can give a relative guarantee of conservation, is an increase of the sum of activities, an overweight of assimilation: then the new adverse actions meet not a former, but an increased resistance». Thus, the necessary condition of stability of a complex is increase of its activities at the expense of environment [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 197-199, 201]. Preponderance of total activity of complementary connections between elements of a complex over total activity of contradictions between them is the sufficient condition of stability of a complex [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. However any stability is relative, since a complex, being biopotential in one environment, is less biopotential or absolutely unstable in other [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 214-215]. The limit of stability of a complex in a concrete environment is finally determined by the principle of minimum, in other words, stability of a complex is limited by strength of its weakest link [Tectology, v. 1, p. 217].

Equilibrium system (system of Le Chatelier) — a system, reacting to external, changing actions by such internal change, which weakens this. See system of «true equilibrium».

Erudition — from the tectological point of view «a degree of organizationality of experience in psychics», which along with its «breadth and versatility» is the most «favourable condition for plasticity and progressiveness» of an individuum, a social group, a class or a society as a whole, since more organized and «rich material of a life gives many elements and stimulus for development». All the history of humankind testifies that erudition «was a specific distinction of organizing classes at all times» [Empiriomonism, pp. 299-300].

Esperanto — an artificial international language, the naive attempt of which creation «is based on misunderstanding of the vital function of speech», since from the point of view of tectology «to organize the world wealth of labour and experience is impossible by means of invention resting upon a microscopic experience of several scientists: an organizing form is correlative to a material which it organizes, and only on the basis of this material as a whole it can be historically developed», therefore «it is impossible by any naive-standard Esperanto to express objectively, i.e. in generally valid way, the infinite complexity and diversity of social relations and experiences with their shades and in their interlacement» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 39].

Essence — from the point of view of empiriomonism, as well as any superexperienced cognition, it is «a term without a content, an empty abstraction» [Empiriomonism, p. 12]. If to try to fill this term with an empirical content, then tectologically it can be reconsidered as internal organizational unity that, actually, is completely covered by the content of the term of «integrity». Consequently, in tectology this concept is superfluous.

Estate — a social group during the epoch of feudalism with the defined «special function in the social division of labour». For example: peasants were ploughmen, townspeople – craftsmen and traders; temporal feudal lords – military organizers, while priests – peace ones, at that all these estates were connected by «net of cultural forms, religious and political», by which their mutual relations and functions were fixed [Tectology, v. 2, p. 66].

Estate system — within the certain limits of divergence it is sufficiently harmonious authoritarian system, which relative stability is based on compulsion: «secular» – violent and «spiritual» – ideological. From the tectological point of view it is an egressive-degressive system, «divided into estates and fixed in its structure by complex religious ideology» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 284-285].

Estimate — «quantitative comparison of organization», its exact or inexact measurement. For example, scientifically-organizational estimates represent more or less exact measurement of organizationality of any taken system, and «all usual human estimations from the point of view of good, beauty, truth, i.e. moral, aesthetic, cognitive estimations» are inexact, frequently «rough» and «vaguely expressed» measurement of social organizationality correspondingly in ethic, aesthetic and scientific areas of human doing [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

Eternity — the infinitesimal temporality. To get an idea about eternity, it is enough to imagine the result of any infinitely slow process for infinitely large time interval. Let, for example, «on world’s end there is a diamond mountain, an hour of way per length, per width and per height. One time in hundred years a small birdie comes flying there, stops on it for a minute and cleans the beak by it. When the recurrence of this operation will erase all mountain up to the basis, then the first second of eternity has passed» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 200].

Ether — an environment with «the least resistance», which consists «of the least organized complexes». «Any body placed there undergoes an action of electric, magnetic, gravitational forces, – of the same which in other, more complex combinations characterize also each “material” environment known to us till now». In other words, a resistance for a body exists there nevertheless and grows with increase of speed of its movement; moreover, when speed of a body approximates to the speed of light, then the resistance of ether «grows up to infinitely large quantity, i.e. it becomes practically insuperable» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 165]. For radiant energy «ether is universal ingressive environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 159].

Ethical consciousness — as «more indirect consequence of labour development of humankind» in contrast to the logic form of consciousness it is «that form in which the material connection of labour solidarity has limited and restrained the anarchical tendencies of groups and persons in struggle of their interests» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86].

Ethical ideal — a morally best form of social degression, which «increases organizationality of collective life in the sphere of degressive norms of behaviour of people» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

Ethnocide — an extermination of separate nations; for example, «Europeans, meeting with backward tribes, exterminate them usually with huge hurry by means of weapon, trade robbery, enslaving, vodka and syphilis. This phenomenon is of the greatest historical importance; but meanwhile there is dominated the most antiscientific confusion of concepts over the views on it. Some approve it, proceeding from the roughly quantitative notion about the “level of culture”: exterminated savages are replaced by “higher Europeans”, it is a cultural progress, and that is why it is desirable. Others, on the contrary, condemn it, proceeding from the sentimental-humane morality; and the most widespread point of view – the mix of both; “it is sad, certainly, but in effect for the better; only they would do it with smaller cruelty”. On the place of these naive-vulgar solutions of the question tectology can put an objective and scientific one. The conjugational scheme of increasing possibilities of development say to us that a destruction of tribes and nationalities, even of rather backward, narrows the basis of further development of humankind in its whole. The scheme means a destruction of those original elements and conditions of development which arise from mixing and from communication of different nationalities. As far as absolutely higher the culture of the European merchants and the soldiers would be than the culture of any Australian aborigines, the first cannot qualitatively replace the second in those original features of physiological organization, technical methods, ways of thinking, which developed because of the other nature and the other history. The sum of organizational forms in the widest sense of this word, from which the progress of humankind proceeds, decreases necessarily and irreversibly at extermination of backward tribes» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 53-54].

Ethnosphere — the differential state of anthroposphere which represents geographically a «mosaic surface» in the form of set of nations, tribes, nationalities and covers chronologically all written history of humankind.

Event — «any change of complexes and their forms», representing «a chain of acts of joining of what has been separated, and of separation of what has been joined» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 143].

Evolution — an infinite chain of tectological acts [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272]. The term is synonymous to the concept of «development», because it also means «increase of organizationality» [Empiriomonism, p. 54], but it is narrower by the content and differs only in gradualness of changes, i.e. in tempo. Evolution can be progressive and regressive: for example, appearance of organs of sight at living organisms is a progressive evolution, while their loss (at moles and bathypelagic fishes) – a regressive one.

Exchange — «distributive form, corresponding to asymmetric socio-productive relations, exactly to that their type, which is referred to as the unorganized division of labour». At that the organized one is considered to be «such division of labour, at which labour, organizing all social production, is separated from labour of executors or private organizers, and makes work of a separate person, as in a patriarchal clan, or of a council of all commune, as in a primitive group» [Basic Elements, p. 191]. Each act of exchange includes two moments: «on the one hand, the technical moment – material moving of goods, money, bills – with its forms of cooperation – mutual relation of doing of different people at this moving, – on the other hand, the ideological moment – with all this going on the changeable concepts of people about ownership of one or another of them to this or that goods» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 227].

Exchange connection — such an intrasystem connection, in the presence of which «stability of a whole, a system, increases by that one part assimilates what is disassimilated by another, and back». Thus, an exchange connection is a system of two asymmetric ingressions, or simpler, a double asymmetric ingression. For example, connection between agrarian and industrial sectors of economics or gas exchange between the vegetative and the animal worlds: oxygen, generated by plants, is assimilated by animals in the process of respiration, and carbonic gas, breathing out by animals, is assimilated by plants. The limiting development of exchange connection is polarity, when «opposite flows of activities support each other particularly exactly in definite equilibriums» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 18-19].

Exchange fetishism — a perverted «notion of exchange value as internal property of goods», while «it is a property of social system»; in other words, this is a mistake of individualistic thinking «in relation to the subject of exchange value, which is society itself» [Course of Political Economy, pp. 174, 162]. Exchange fetishism was «the expression of the new authority, which subordinated man in exchange society to itself, – the authority of social relations». The market spontaneity with its fierce competitive struggle hides from producer the fact of social jointness in the struggle against the nature: «a buyer and a seller, each of which in fact worked for society, meet in the market not as two members of one social union, but as two opponents», at that for a producer of the goods «it is impossible to understand that his work is expense of socially-labour energy, as well as work of other producers». Observing a mass of cases of exchange, a producer makes to himself the false concept about value, which is represented to him as «the property of goods itself, the property, not dependent on people, on society, in general – the natural property of goods. Whence such a property appears, by what its borders are determined, a producer does not investigate this. For him the exchange value of an axe is two roubles, and only; it depends on nothing and exists in the axe in itself, as for a natural fetishist the soul of an axe is only the soul of an axe, and nothing more». Thus, «what is in fact relations of people seems to him to be relations of things. Exchange fetishism is consequently the opposite of natural one, which represented relations of things as relations of people. In exchange fetishism there is expressed the domination over people of their own relations, as in natural – the domination of the external nature» [Short Course of Economic Science, pp. 88-89].

Exchange ideology — degression of individualistic social system, for the culture of which there are characteristic: «firstly, ideological wealth; secondly, progressiveness; thirdly, individualism; fourthly, abstract fetishism» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 387].

Exchange society — individualistic social system, i.e. «society of independent small commodity producers», to which «the following features are peculiar: firstly, much greater wealth, variety and complexity of social forms; secondly, the absence of the sacred-traditional character, inherent in custom in authoritative ideology», inasmuch as «the norms of exchange society are justice and morality; thirdly, abstract fetishism, owing to which justice and morality are understood by people not as the organizational forms of their socially-practical relations, but as something independent of people, – as the expression of some “pure truth” or “pure good” or “pure duty”, etc.» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 361, 383].

«Exchange value» — an abstract fetish of metaphysical thinking, for which it is a certain substance, embodied in goods, or a force, determining a movement of goods in a market. Until its labour lining is opened, it adds nothing neither to a real goods, nor to the selling or buying – «absolutely nothing, as much as the “soporific force” adds to real opium and its observable action on an organism, until the physiological mechanics of action of opium is opened. In the fetish of exchange value a crystallized work of people is represented as internal essence of a thing – of goods» [Country of Idols, p. 225]. From the point of view of production a goods is a result of social labour, and from the point of view of exchange it is a value, which «corresponds to labour value». Embodying a certain socially-labour energy, goods is equivalent to a certain quantity of other goods, i.e. in essence its exchange value «means proportion of exchange – a distributive relation» [Essays of Realistic World View, pp. 291-292].

Executor — an ingressor, the role of which in authoritarian system is reduced to «physical action on objects of work» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 107].

Exergia — a conjugation of a human activity with a complex of the external nature. From the point of view of tectology «all production, all social struggle, all work of thinking are carried on continuously and steadily by selection: regular maintenance of the complexes, which correspond to the vital purposes of people, destruction of the ones, which contradict these purposes», but human «labour is however not reduced to selection completely. Similarly to selection in the nature, labour is always directed to conservation or destruction of certain forms; but selection is based on “changeability” of forms which does not depend on it directly; but labour does not only use the changes of objects, which arise independently of it, in order to preserve useful and to destroy harmful ones, but also causes these changes by itself; for example, a tiller does not only use that on the place of a grain, which has fallen to the ground, an ear with a number of new grains grows, but he also sows them. The method, by which he causes such changes, is certainly a conjugation of his own activities with a complex of the external nature» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 192].

Existence — from the sociolabour point of view «something to be reckoned practically; to require an effort; to represent resistances practically». When we say: «It is», it means «that we have to take “it” into account in our practice. Say, in society there “is” such-and-such a mood. We consider it, we have to reckon with it practically. There “is” such-and-such an object, we should reckon with this object. We can meet with resistance from them, we need efforts in relation to them: this is what “existence” means». And on the other hand, «it cannot be related to what does not require any effort, what does not require an activity, what does not collide with our activity. Existence is understood only in this way. This is its real meaning, not simply historical, not simply formed at present, but developed by the whole history of humankind, and nothing else can be named “existence”» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 256].

Exogenesis (from Greek έξω – outside and γένεσις – development) — an empirical generalization, according to which the cause of development of natural and social systems is external environment, both forming and regulating their changes. All energy necessary for their transformations is assimilated from the environment, and a selection of the most progressive forms is carried out also from its part.

Expansion of systemogenesis — «systematic, stable progress» of a system which «is realized as a conquest of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276]. A sand glass can serve as appearance model of such expansion, where the upper cone symbolizes environment in which a given systemogenesis is developed, the lower one – «the conquered elements of environment», and their common apex – a point of inversion in which the system from the object of selection for the upper cone becomes the actor of selection for the lower one. So long as environment represents a system of chain egression, figuratively speaking, a complete set of matryoshkas, in which a system, adapting to them, is an element of environment, i.e. the smallest matryoshka, then all branched structure of a number of vertical chain connections of a system with environment, in other words, all aggregate rhizome of external connections, is symbolized by the reverse upper cone; and on the contrary, the lower cone symbolizes the rhizome of internal connections of a system with the elements, for which it is the apex of other branched structure of a number of multistage egressive connections extending from it to each of the constituent elements. See system expansion.

Expectation — as a fact of consciousness it is «nothing but an adjustment, a preparation of a psychical system for an action, which has not come yet» [Basic Elements, p. 146].

Experience — interconnection of man with world around, which is realized in two forms: psychical and physical. Empiriomonism, «investigating their interrelation, comes to conclusion that of these two areas of experience the “physical” one represents the highest step of organizationality and consequently the derivative one then. Psychical experience is organized individually, physical – socially, i.e. they are the various phases of organizing process, of which “psychical” one is relatively primary» [Empiriomonism, p. 332].

Experiment — an active method of objective research, which essence is in that «man himself creates a certain combination of conditions in compliance with his task and then observes its results». Every possible theoretical constructions are checked and scientific knowledge are acquired by this method in practice: «what is determined by an experiment, this is determined scientifically and is a scientific fact because this allows to foresee a result accurately at realization of the same conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 286].

Explanation — substitution of more simple system under more complex one, i.e. «reduction of more complex to more simple», at that it is necessary «to go out a circle of “explained” phenomena in order to determine their connection with more simple phenomena than they themselves are» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 258].

Exploitation — a form of social vampirism which allows some social groups or classes to appropriate vital activities of others catagenically. For example, appropriation of another’s labour by private proprietors of means of production in parasitic society: here «a field of exploitation is all “surplus energy” of society, i.e. all excess of activities, which are assimilated by society from the nature, in relation to its labour expenses» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 120].

Exploiter — a social vampire; from the point of view of historical monism it is the most catagenic type of a social parasite, which, being historically transient, is inherent only in the spontaneous stage of sociogenesis; for example, a catagenic social group, a governing class or their separate representative.

Explosion — a «crisis of second order»: continuation of current crisis with sharp increase of its tempo, i.e. «crisis of crisis». In other words, «those processes, which proceed in the form of explosion, do not begin only since it: they have been going before it, only so slowly, that they haven’t been caught by usual ways of observation. So, from a spark, the mix of two bulks of hydrogen and one bulk of oxygen, detonating gas, turns “instantly” in water steam with huge heat evolution; but it gradually changes into it just without a spark in ordinary conditions; on approximate calculations at a temperature of 18 °C it is necessary 230 billion years in order to 60 % of the mix will have time to undergo this transformation. And equally a society, which is capable to revolutionary explosion, breaking the internal borders of its groupings and merging the uncoordinated masses in a fighting avalanche, experiences the processes of the same character in the scattered-partial forms and weak degrees already long before the moment of revolution: both the conjugations of revolutionary activities, and their breaks through organizational framework of a society». It is necessary to note, that all explosions without exception, in other words, crises of explosive type are among false equilibriums [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 255, 228-229].

Explosive type of crises — see crisis of explosive type.

Export — a market realization of national production which expresses «a share of authority of national capital over the world market». Exactly for this reason «expansion of sale is the basic purpose of aggressive struggle of capital», both «in a peace competition» and «in military conflicts» [World Crises (May), p. 113].

Expression — from the tectological point of view a type of social connection: «connections of mutual understanding, i.e. psychical communication, a passing of any sort of feelings between members of the social whole» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 131]. Forms of expression are speech, mimicry, gesticulation, pose, behaviour, art.

Extensive way of conservation of forms — such a universal way of conservation of the organizational form by a complex, which essence is in maintaining of dynamic equilibrium with an external environment by increase of the complex’s quantity in it that allows to neutralize destructive action of negative selection. As opposed to intensive way of conservation of forms it is a way not of individual, but of collective survival, since positive selection increases activities not of the very complex, but of its grouping, at that the tendencies, which determines this process, are the same as at intensive form of adaptation, only they are shown at the other level of organizationality. The forming mechanism, operating in this case according to the scheme of casting form, forms a grouping of identical complexes by their organizational form, each of which passes a series of tectological acts peculiar only to it and at that only a part of them stands the test by negative selection, as a result of what a quantitatively reduced, but qualitatively transformed grouping of survived complexes gets a rather greater adaptability than initial one. Interacting with the external environment already as a separate complex, this grouping can preserve the own organizational form, not only increasing the sum of the elements, i.e. replenishing with complexes with the initial organizational form, but also decreasing a disingression between them, in other words, preserving itself by the intensive way. Moreover, the possibility of survival of a grouping will increase, if its interactions with external complexes will be built according to the principle of coevolution. Thus, preserving itself, i.e. the own organizational form, by that it preserves the initial organizational form of the complexes entering into its composition. In general terms such is the mechanism of extensive way of conservation of forms, which combination with intensive way represents, in the essence, the optimal development of organizational forms within the limits of the principle of organizational symmetry.

External compulsion — in relation to a person it is «a complex, which disharmonically enters into his experience – violence of another man, authority of hunger», etc. [Empiriomonism, p. 202].

External environment — everything that does not enter into a given complex and causes changes in it. A short synonym – environment.

External history of form — «changes of external relations» of a form. For example, at research of simple forms the cognition «deals only with their external history», since for them «it has not yet found their internal history» for them [Basic Elements, pp. 49, 48].

External selection — such an element of chain selection, which in relation to a given system is its selecting environment. Differentiation of the single universal regulating mechanism into external and internal selection is always relative and conditional, since the second one is «direct continuation of the first» and «is completely subordinated to it» [Basic Elements, pp. 113-114]. In tectology there is more generally used the synonymous term – extrasystem selection.

Extrageneration — a kind of indirect reproduction of bioforms which are reproduced not by themselves, but, being the elements of a more complex bioform, are reproduced together with it. For example, organs and biotissues are reproduced only together with their whole – an organism.

Extrasystem selection — see external selection.

Extremely developed system — from the organizational point of view such a system, in which «polar functions of two parts are quite equal among themselves and precisely correspond one to another, for example, a magnet, a galvanic element». Both parts of extremely developed systems «are quite interrrelative, “division of functions” between them is quite perfect; one functionally lives exactly in such a measure, in what another gives it necessary activities for that, and conversely; each is practically impossible separately even for such a time what there is continued the life of an organ, which has been cut off from a human body»: it is impossible neither to strengthen, nor to weaken one pole of a system, not strengthening and not weakening another one in the same measure [Tectology, v. 2, p. 20].

Extremum — «the greatest or least possible quantity under the given conditions», to which an observable phenomenon gravitates [Tectology, v. 2, p. 199]. See maximum and minimum.

Fact — an element of physical experience, which is the best argument of a proof. Recognition of objectivity of a fact is «the lowest step of substitution, its most uncertain form» [Empiriomonism, pp. 127-128]. See a scientific fact.

Fact of consciousness — «an adjustment of a psychical system to conditions of struggle for life», representing «a certain crisis in the course unconscious physiological process», which is connected with «transition of unconscious psychics to conscious one» [Basic Elements, pp. 141-142].

Factor — an activity, which is a cause of some process or crisis. In tectology this term is little-used, since it is usually connected with an obsolete concept of «motive power».

Factor approach — the other name of the method of factors more widespread in special sciences, i.e. the well-known way of studying of a system when its development is supposed in a relatively conservative or in a definitely-changing environment. Depending on quantity of factors assigned in one or another concrete research such an approach to studying of systems may be multifactor or monofactor one.

Factor of catagenity — an intrasystem complex, which activity reduces adaptable possibilities of a system. In a social system such factor is any social group, which acts exclusively in the purely private interests.

Factor of selection — see an actor of selection.

Faculty of an individuum — a psychophysiological organizationality of a human individual expressed «in unequal degree of initiative, speed, expediency of actions among changeable conditions of collective struggle against the nature» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 104].

Fading type of crises — see crisis of fading type.

Fall — the crisis in the field of cognition and practice, caused by acceleration of sociogenesis and connected with transition of humankind from conservative tectology of preservation of old social forms of adaptation to novational tectology of mastering of its new forms. «The Fall hadn’t been happening in one day or in one thousand years: it was long, terribly slow process» and consisted «in that the life had been more and more ceasing to be absolute faithful to what it had been, – ceasing to be faithful in its primary fossilized form». Acceleration of sociogenesis is the direct consequence of significant preponderance of processes of assimilation over disassimilation, by virtue of what «the surplus of energy causes growth of a life and, accumulating, generates the necessity of new forms of its equilibrium», and «the more quickly the accumulation of energy is made, the more strongly the necessity of new combinations and relations is, the less possible and expediently simple conservation of the given forms is». Thus, «from simple recurrence of constant cycles the life had little by little started to turn to development, from the naked struggle for preservation of that which is, – in the struggle for greater», because «the given had ceased to be the unique purpose and norm for it» [Questions of Socialism, p. 48]. The preponderance of assimilation over disassimilation had been caused by appearance of new forms of collective labour, after which at first the division of experience and then the division of labour had followed. As a result the stereotypes of previous forms of adaptation had begun to collapse, and traditional tectology of social life had changed into novational one. This is the essence of the social crisis named the Fall, because exactly this phase of spontaneous sociogenesis had generated the first normative forms for harmonization of contradictions of social existence.

False equilibrium — a special case of crisis, the attributes of which are completely described by two empirical facts: «firstly, equilibrium is continuously broken in a certain direction, a complex is in process of transformation; secondly, we do not directly notice it owing to imperfection of our organs of perception and methods of observation» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 253].

Family — «the basic social cell» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 91]. Family «has developed, as is known, from rural family and in general from small economic one, which is constructed strictly authoritatively – of power of head of house, of father»; but «then it has been transforming step by step to the side of comrade relations, – a father sees a companion in his wife more and more, future companions – in his children» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 196].

Fantasy — «creative, combining activity of a psychics» [Empiriomonism, p. 166].

Fascism — a militaristic form of dictatorship of a ruling class with sharply expressed authoritarian tendency of normative regulation of life in national-state scale of organizational education; more simply, a militarized «organization of domination and order» of totalitarian character, which arises on the basis of «colossally developed state machine», is characterized by «aggressive nationalism, antidemocratism» and is entirely permeated with «military discipline» and spirit of «statehood» [Lines of Culture, pp. 131-132].

Feature — one or another deviation, which distinguishes one form from others and «is a result of changeability of forms under influence of a changing external environment. From among arising changes of construction of forms some are fixed by heredity and selection, others are destroyed. There are new and new deviations permanently» [Basic Elements, p. 99].

Feed-back — a certain action of result of development of a system on the very character of its development (a reinforcing action is referred to as positive feed-back, a weakening one – negative).

Feeling — a psychophysiological reaction of an organism to energy disbalance in its relations with environment. When «there is complete equilibrium between an organism and environment, where the contact of the organism and environment does not represent a difference in tension of energy», then «there is no ground for feelings in general: as though the organism does not exist, merging in indifference with its environment. Any feeling is distinction, and there is no life where there is nothing to distinguish. But as soon as environment and an organism act as energetically unequilibrated combination, as soon as there is a difference of tensions of energy, as soon as there is a certain stream of energy between both complexes – there is something to experience for an organism, indifference gives place to life» [Empiriomonism, p. 38].

«Feminine logic» — «a judgement by analogy as from one to another» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 19], for example: if organs of vision are structurally similar at man and octopus, consequently, organs of hearing too. Certainly, it is fun, sometimes also very ridiculous, when such logic is shown in a scientific controversy or simply in a friendly conversation, and it is not at all fun if power is guided by such logic as, for example, inquisition notorious in history: if a true believer has told something like some heretic, consequently, they are birds of a feather, – here a true believer should be responsible for all his heresies.

Fetish — a fictitious cognitive eidogene with the function of explanation; in other words, it is a stable cognitive form, which is transmitted from one individual to another and distorts a picture of observable or earlier perceived events. Fetish is a result of breaking of experience: in the phase of individual organization of experience it is a result of misunderstanding of inseparable connection of observable and observer, while in the social one – a result of misunderstanding of their sociolabor unity, in consequence of what for an individual there is generally ceased to exist such important organizing factor as social activity. Just for this reason an individual does not have an understanding of that an observable should correspond to a social activity just like its organizing form; just therefore, being taken irrelatively, «they exist for it in itself», and consequently «there is eliminated a possibility of research of their real sense, a possibility of their fundamental explanation», and the ground for fetishism is created [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 67]. Till now the life of people is filled with every possible fetishes, which control their behaviour and remove gaps of their understanding. «All economic life of contemporary humankind is throughout imbued with fetishism of exchange value, which interprets labour relations of people as properties of things. All legal and moral life proceeds under action of idols – legal and ethical norms, which are represented to people not as expression of their own real relations, but as the forces, which are independent of them and which exert pressure on people and demand obedience. Even in the field of cognition of the nature its laws are understood by most people not as real relations of things, but as the independent realities, which control the world, as the realities, to which things and people submit». Polytheism has not still disappeared: «from the vivid religious form it has passed into pallid metaphysical one». Moreover, even theoretical knowledge of the real sense of all these fetishes «does not free those, to whom it is accessible, from unconscious submission to fetishism in ordinary, practical respects in life» [Country of Idols, p. 215].

Fetishism — «any perverted notion of reality» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 52]. Where man «is faced with a spontaneous force, which he is unable to subordinate to himself and to which he cannot adapt by means of his consciousness, there he creates fetishes to himself inevitably» [Short Course of Economic Science, p. 89].

Fetishism of absolute values — a perverted notion of reality in cognition, aesthetics, morality, which serves as a necessary supplement of individualism, since it «masks the social part of human activity in an individualistic psychics, without what this psychics would be doomed to obvious and besides hopeless contradictions». Fetishism of absolute values is derivative of exchange fetishism [Course of Political Economy, p. 161].

Fetishism of laws — a perverted notion about laws, when they «are understood not as real relations of things, but as independent realities, controlling the world, as realities, to which things and people submit» [Country of Idols, p. 215].

Fetishism of private property — as a consequence of social fragmentation it is a perverted notion of an individuum about instruments of work, belonging to him, its products and goods got in a market: «man thinks that all this for him is something own, with no respect to other people, that his property of a thing is a relation only between himself and this thing». Really he is the owner of his property exactly and only «because society recognizes him as such», moreover, it even «actively protects, in case of need, his property, not allowing that it would be appropriated by other people». Thus, a relation of society to an individual and his things, i.e. relations between people, turn into relations between them and things, forming individualism in society: «opposing “own” and “another’s”, an individuum is sharply distinguished from other members of society just as his parcel of land is fenced off from their parcels», at that «people – companions on production – are thought as “alien”, i.e. as indifferent or hostile beings; things, property of a man, parts of the external nature – as “own”, as something close to a man, vitally connected with him. Fetishism of property covers both thought and feeling: when the matter is about property, man relates asocially to other persons and socially – to things» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 373-374].

Feudal rent — a rent, which is «inseparably connected with organizing function in production» and which basic form is natural [Course of Political Economy, p. 51].

Feudalism — the system of two forms of cooperation: authoritarianism and individualism with significant predominance of the first. In the organomic terminology «the feudal order is a combination of the second and third principles with still significant predominance of the second, especially in economics» [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, p. 283].

Fictitious separateness — not a real, but «only a thinkable» separateness, i.e. something differentiated only in «concepts and acts of thinking», what man «is not able or cannot to separate really. For example, the Earth is separated into southern and northern hemispheres, western and eastern: no real borders are present here, the equator and the first meridian are only imagined, and they are lined neither by the nature nor by man». Among the fictitious separatenesses are also «such “separate” objects of thought as space, time, the experience content contained in them, form and content in general, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 173].

Field of consciousness — a relatively small part of all psychical system of a man, which represents «area of continuous changes», having «coordination or psychically-organizational significance». Just «there associations of psychical elements and their complexes arise, become stronger, weaken, break up continuously», and all this occurs under continuous action of hedonistic selection: «what is in the field of consciousness that always in whole or in parts possesses a sensory tone, a character of pleasant or unpleasant» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 180].

Fields of gravitation — «the areas of special tensions in ether, slowing down all physical processes by its additional loading». As distance, refracting medium and movement, it is a deforming moment too, but unlike them, «it is necessary to mean that fields of gravitation are by no means only optical (projective) deformators, that gravitation is really, objectively slows down a course of any physical processes in general». Therefore «any clocks are really slowed down in field of gravitation, the standards of measures are really reduced», and as to optical deformation, it «is a derivative and a special case of these general changes» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 346, 345].

Finite — having a practical significance, «a sum of infinitesimals, i.e. elements, which do not have a practical significance taken separately» [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, p. 124].

Fire — «the primary instrument, which separated man from the nature», and at the same time it is the main collectivizer of primitive man, because «only collective of sufficient sizes is capable to keep up the fire reliably and continuously under impossibility to renew it in case of extinction; only collective can also use it successfully for protection against formidable monsters and against long winter cold. And if blood connection was the biological basis of collective, then fire was its technical cohesion» [Historical Materialism and Questions of Primitive Life, p. 22].

First law of Bogdanov — one of three fundamental empirical generalizations in tectology, which says: «if a form of a process does not change at a given system of influences, then a new external influence is necessary in order to change it»; or in the more compressed formulation: «any change of a form of a process comes from its environment, it is a result of action from outside» [Basic Elements, pp. 29, 28].

First principium of tectology — the initial precondition of universal organizational science, the essence of which is in that the entire world is considered as self-similar vseedinstvo of holistic uniquenesses. The content of this precondition is showed by four axioms: of total interconnection, self-similarity, holism and uniqueness.

First world war — «nothing but a general crisis of financial capitalism», caused by «struggle of two block groups of monopolists». The essence of the crisis is in the following: «the world was divided between several tens of financial groups, or a little more of them, and the former broad competition was replaced by the struggle of monopolists», which «is characterized by incomparably sharper tendency to escalation», since «an expansion of the field of exploitation for one is probable only obviously and openly at the expense of another, and representing even small increase of force of the first one, considerably increases by that the probability of its further victories, and consequently – absorption of the second. If even competition turned at times into in war, then struggle of monopolists tends to it inevitably». The opposing groups of financial concerns exactly «were that force, which involved humankind in the world war» that become a war of attrition just because it was the struggle of two monopolistic blocks, not conceding to each other, in spite of ruinousness of one and other side, since, as it has already been noted, «the one, which had conceded even on the moderate conditions, would prove to be the weakest side in the sequel and would be in advance doomed to absorption. The result was the deepest economic crash not only of won, but of winners too», at that in whole the impact on financial capital «was so much the stronger that destruction of real values of production – products, instruments, labour forces – at simultaneous huge increase of “ideal” values of the circulation, i.e. banknotes, papers, borrowings and other securities, sharply undermined the economic value of these last; while they just represent the specific, organizationally prevailing form of embodiment of financial capital» [World War and Revolution, pp. 94-95]. From the tectological point of view «the originator of the world war» is «organizational spontaneity of capitalist system. The question about who initiated war is presented minor in that case; it has the same significance as the question about from what branch of production the industrial crisis began, or, perhaps, even about what stock exchange made the signal to the common crash of values». Nevertheless, there is the simple and reliable criterion, by means of which it is possible to answer this question too: «a war is started by some state organization, which is a system of planned action»; at the developed informative apparatus of the opposed parties all of them «are sufficiently informed about the state of militaristic machinery» of each other, «therefore if it appears that one of them is prepared much more than another», then practically unmistakably it is possible to consider that it has just begun the war; and as far as «Germany was in such position», hence it is just «the direct initiator of the war. And further «all course of the world war was the continuous display of domination of the very spontaneity over regularity, the greatest one by scale in our world, – over the technical and economic mechanism of state. Crisis developed avalanchely. In each belligerent country the destructive process involved ever-increasing mass of human lives and material means». And none of the countries, seized by the furious vortex, could «tear away from it until for all of them the measure of destruction would be executed». The war ended only when «there was liquidated the overproduction of the human organized force, which had been accumulated in state units of the world system» [World Crises (May), pp. 120-122].

Fission — a postconjugational complete disingression in a systemogenesis. For example, a dewdrop, lying on surface of a leaf, conjugates with environment directly before the division: remaining quite homogeneous, «it increases gradually from water vapors falling from air» and, only having reached up to a known size, «is broken by action of own weight, which overcomes cohesion» of its internal elements, i.e. the molecular attraction [Basic Elements, p. 83]. A terminological synonym is disjunction.

Folk tectology — generalization of «everyday experience», crystallized in «the complex forms of the so-called “folk wisdom”: in proverbs, parables, fables, fairy tales», etc., many of which «are expression of the widest laws of organization in society and in the nature». For example, «the proverb “it is torn where thinly” is figurative, not scientific, but true expression of the most general law, on which there is occurred disorganization at all steps of the universe; any whole starts to be disorganized, if only in its one point a resistance will prove to be insufficient comparatively with a force, acting from outside: a tissue – where it is more thin than all; a chain – where there is a fragile or rusted link; an organization of people – where its connection is weaker; a living organism – where its tissues are less protected; a scientific or philosophical doctrine – where a joining of concepts is more vulnerable for criticism, etc.». Or other example: «the proverb “strike while the iron is hot” is not only a technical rule for forging work; it is a principle of every practice, every organizational and disorganizational work; it denotes the necessity of use of its favourable conditions in view of their limited duration and irretrievable importance of their loss»; and «the parable about twigs, which are easily broken by a child, and about a broom made of them, which cannot be broken by a strong man, is a folk-figurative expression of the universal idea of organization; it is also equal applicable both to people, and to things, and to ideas» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 93-94]. Folk tectology with its symbolics «searches not the explanations of facts, but the practical patterns, directives, which could monotonously, so to speak, mechanically, supervise over actions and thoughts of people». Unlike scientific tectology, determining the general methods for any concrete case, instead of ready-made universal solutions, «it has been developing the patterns, suitable for possibly greater number of cases, arising in the live of society». In it there is the imperfection and insufficiency of its formulas, especially for highly developed and complex social forms [Tectology, v. 1, p. 169].

Force — a concept of static world view and as a term is absent in tectology: it is created by static consciousness «in order to insert movement into the kingdom of motionless combinations; and when these motionless combinations are replaced by continuous processes, then the role of static “forces” has finished, they are no longer necessary for anything, and together with the other essences shelve in historical archive of humankind». However this term «continues still to be used through habit, especially where the character of processes, which are the basis for observable phenomena, is found out too little or not at all: there is said, for example, “force of gravity”, “force of traction”, “force of will”, etc.» [Basic Elements, p. 18]. Tectology as organizationally-dynamic concept uses the dynamic term «activity» in place of the static concept «force».

Formal dialectics — «the formal law of world development – some sort of architectural scheme of world process, equally covering its whole and its separate parts, sides, steps». The essence of the scheme is those: «any really developing form implies oppositely directed or “struggling” forces», which ratio, «first of all quantitative, varies continuously depending on all sum of conditions, internal and external», and «while the prevalence remains on one side, the form is kept; but the more the prevalence decreases, the weaker its stability becomes», and «when the form is destroyed, this stability disappears too; then “quantity transits to quality”, and there is a sharp transformation of the form, an overturn, a revolution», – that in organizational dialectics is designated «by the general name of “crisis”, – «a form “is denied”, passes in the opposite, “antithesis”», in which «there is also arisen an internal “contradiction”; and it, developing by analogous way, leads to “negation of negation” or “synthesis”, representing formal similarity to “thesis”, but enriched with content or improved in comparison with it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 267]. Thus, scientifically valuable in formal dialectics there was the approach to consideration of natural and social processes from the point of view of contradictions hidden in them, which were required to be found, so that further to explain development of these processes by means of the dialectic triad (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) and three laws of dialectics (struggle and unity of opposites, negation of negation and transition of quantity to quality. From the point of view of tectology formal dialectics is a special case of organizational dialectics, since organizational processes can also go by other ways. Really, if only to state that «dialectics is an organizational process, which goes by struggle of opposites», as «it becomes clear that dialectics is not in the least something universal, that it cannot become the universal method of cognition. It is a special case of organizational processes, which can also go by other ways. For example, we have no grounds to suppose that primary association of reproducing cells in a colony, which served as the beginning of development of multicellular organisms, has turned out as a result of struggle between these cells, or that tribal cooperation of primitive group has arisen by such a way: here a way of organization was undoubtedly other than at formation of the present great nations by wars and conquests, or of large enterprises by economic competition. The scientific method of generalization, as a way of organization of the facts of experience, is equally not reduced to dialectics, etc. The elements of dialectics can be found almost everywhere, but they do not exhaust the life and movement. Consequently philosophy should set its task in more general and wider form: to research the connection of world process from the point of view of all possible ways and methods of organization. Such is the basic idea of empiriomonism» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 204].

Form — the structure of a complex, which represents a way of its existence, adaptation to an external environment, and is perceived as its «separateness and unity» [Basic Elements, p. 26]. See a tectological form.

Form of adjustment — a separateness and continuity of existence of those changes of a form, by which the possibility of its conservation increases, i.e. from the tectological point of view it is a combination of adaptons. For example, «when an insectivorous bird swallows grains or pecks molluscs, that increases its biopotential, then we have a right to speak about a fact of adjustment»; and if «by way of repeated reiteration of similar facts and selection of respective changes there are developed such constant features of construction, which allow to eat grains and molluscs – if, for example, a suitable construction of stomach or beak has formed, – then it is a fact of adjustment too». However «in the first example (a bird pecks a mollusc) the content of the form of adjustment is the particular fact of “pecking”; in the second example (day by day a bird eats molluscs, repeating approximately identical actions) the content of the form of adjustment is considerably wider: it is all set of a whole number of the processes, which continuously proceed in nervous, muscular, digestive systems of an organism, the processes, which from time to time generate in their current the particular observable facts of devouring of mollusks by bird; the form of adjustment covers here a whole number of changes in construction of beak, stomach, digestive glands (the possibility to crack a shell and to digest a snail), in habits and inclinations (the absence of aversion for molluscs and arising of the opposite feeling), etc.». Thus, an adaptable complex, which has formed as «an extensive form of adjustment», «can be only a result of long process of accumulation and selection of particular, little changes», at that its germ is similar to it «not in a greater degree than an impregnated ovule to an adult man», and all that complex process, in which it arises and develops, is referred to as adaptation or simply development [Basic Elements, p. 106].

Form of cognition — «unity and separateness of a psychical association, which connects expressed thing with expressing reaction», more simply, «psychical unity of expressed thing and a form of expression». For example, «a notion of man plus the word of “man” is a certain form of cognition», at that «it is unimportant whether a word is really said, or it exists only in consciousness in the form of motor notion and aspiration». In this example a notion of man, i.e. a certain «form of generalization or association of such forms», is an expressed thing, and the word of «man» – a form of expression. It is necessary to note that a form of cognition is not individually-psychical: it is always social, since it «gets a complete reality not in separate psychics, but in mutual correspondence of separate psychics. Hence there is more exact and stricter definition of a form of cognition: it is a combination of mutually corresponding psychical forms of various individuals, forms, each of which represents unity of expressed thing and expressing reaction. Thus, a form of cognition cannot be considered as something static, as a separate, stable adjustment of a separate psychics: its form of cognition is made only by process of psychical communication of individuals». The elementary forms of cognition are concepts, and the more complex forms are judgements and their complex combinations in the form of religious doctrines, scientific and philosophical theories [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 171-172, 179]. The term is synonymous to the concept of «cognitive form».

Form of life — «separateness and unity of a vital process». As long as development of this process is inseparably connected with others, then its separateness is relative; its unity is relative too: for example, take the very «man, which is observable in different stages of his development». Any form of life is characterized first of all by that for its «conservation the necessary condition turns out to be an expense of energy of vital processes, which is directed to change of external relations» towards optimization of their correspondence to internal ones, i.e. aside increase of biopotential [Basic Elements, pp. 64, 66]. A synonym is biosystem.

Form of process — «unity of its existence and its separateness from other processes», i.e. what «should identify not a very process, but what remains for cognition constant and original in its current, – what constrains us to recognize its unity of existence and separateness among the nature» [Basic Elements, pp. 26, 24]. So, «observing some process, for example, a crystal of rock, during various moments of its existence, a cognizer gets similar impressions; he statically expresses this similarity of impressions, speaking about “constant properties of the object”; but at the historical way of cognition this similarity leads to establishment of continuity of the process, of its unity of existence». But «at the same time a cognizer distinguishes the given process from others, adjacent with it in space and time, singles it out from its environment», and in these observations «the connection between elements of the crystal turns out other than which exists between the elements of its environment; and besides this connection is approximately identical to different parts of the crystal and changes considerably only in that border zone where the crystal merges with the environment», – in this way «the separateness of process» is established. At that «the unity of existence and separateness of process are unthinkable one without the other», and «together they compose the form of process». A form of process is always relative: «its unity and separateness are not unconditional, they have the limits. A given process is in an inseparable real connection with other processes, and this connection limits its separateness; under action of other processes it changes the form, the law of the current, – and these changes limit its unity of existence. It is not only singled out from the environment by cognition, but it is also cognized as united with the environment; it is not only the same for cognition, but also something different during the different moments of time» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 67]. Moreover, as far as «the form of a studied process changes» – for example, the process of evaporation of water «reproduces itself in a former kind not completely, and its distinctions from other processes change», – then also this very «change should be studied as a special process», at that «the unity and separateness of this process represent its form», and «the elements of this process are those changes, which occur in a type, in a direction and speed of movement of water particles, passing into atmosphere». The form of process of evaporation is established at ascertainment of a character and a mutual relation of these changes. «If an observable process of evaporation is reproduced not in the former kind, for example, it becomes slower, – then this change of its form should be studied again as a special process, which possesses the own “form”, etc... The concept of “form of movement” is negation of absolute character of changes, occurring in the nature, it is recognition of their relativity» [Basic Elements, p. 26].

Forming mechanism — a universal tectological mechanism of «generation of organizational forms, complexes, systems», which content is uncovered in the concepts of «conjugation», «ingression», «connecter», «disingression», «border», «crises C» and «crises D» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 188].

Formogenesis (forming) — the universal organizational process, which generates arising, change, development, conservation, expansion, destruction and death of organizational forms. The initial phase of forming is the area of action of forming mechanism, and the final – of regulating one. See tectological act.

Forms of cooperation — organizational principles of oikosphere, in other words, a structure of social interaction, which historical development passes four stages: protocollectivism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism.

Forms of direct communication — the organizing adapters of the first type, which «serve for direct joining and coordination of human actions, and then also of notions, and emotions – psychical reactions inseparably connected with actions and determining them by self». Such forms are shout, gesture, speech and mimicry [Empiriomonism, p. 268].

Forms of experience — continuously «developing forms of coordination of elements and complexes», «types of their grouping in process of increase of organizationality and mutual connection of the feelings, which form experience» [Empiriomonism, p. 336]. The basic forms of the socially-organized experience are time and space.

Forms of thinking (mentality) — ways of organization of experience, which «develop and change with growth of the very experience and with change of its content». For example, the authoritarian form of thinking organizes experience under the scheme of «authority – submission», the individualistic one – under the scheme of atomism: the first one spread during the epoch of division of labour between an organizer and executors, while the second – during the an epoch of developed specialization, when «isolation of man from man» arose in society, when «people got used to think themselves and others as isolated units» and transferred this habit «also to the notion of the nature» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 102]. All religions without exception are «a product of authoritarian thinking», which puts a deity in the centre; the philosophy of «atomism» is a product of individualistic thinking, which puts a person in the centre. As a way of thinking individualism «opposes a person to other men and to all world, sees in him an independent creative figure of practice and a subject of any cognition, puts his free development as the ideal. Individualism arises on the basis of commodity-exchange division of labour, at which at the head of each enterprise there is a private proprietor, formally independent in his production activity and entering into communication with the same other owners-proprietors in the market; there their production connection takes the form of competition, struggle of all against all for prices and sale, and a person is practically opposed to other persons, to all society, defending his private interests against them» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, pp. 6-7]. An imposed form of thinking, i.e. apologetics, is easily eliminated by vital practice. So, it is practically always «possible to refute logically-strongly such a man from the point of view of his own principles, who creates this apologetics». Own forms of thinking it is impossible to refute, they can be only eliminated: «it is impossible to refute a stone axe, but it is possible to replace it by an iron one». Own forms of thinking «distort nothing in essence, but only work all up in own way». The following example serves as a telling illustration of this. An engineer points to a stone weighing more than a ton and asks a savage, whether he can shift it. «No», – the savage answers. «But I can by means of the knowledge and technics», – the engineer boasts. He takes a stick, puts another stone under it and shifts the stone from the place. The savage admires: «Yes, you possess a huge power over the spirits». The engineer laughs: «There is no power over the spirits; I do it by means of another stone and this stick». The savage answers: «Yes, but you have ordered to the spirit of the stick to shift the stone, and it has obeyed». The engineer again: «Nothing of the kind!». The savage is surprised at such dullness: «But it is obvious. How many you can shift by yourself? 100 kg, well, 150, no more. Then who has shifted all the rest?». It is absolutely irrefutable argument [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 319].

Formula — a type of social degression, which «fixes a number of connections and interrelations of labour and research experience» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 141].

Formula of causality — «external changes generate continuously internal ones» [Basic Elements, p. 75], or, in respect to a given system, any change of its external relations is necessarily leads to change of its internal relations.

Formula of interaction — a universal formula, which expresses all cases of mutual influence of every possible complexes of experience, which essence is such: «complex A, directly or indirectly reflected in complex B, generates in it not in the direct form, but in the form of a certain number of changes of this second complex, the changes connected with the content and structure of the first complex by functional dependence». In the various modifications this formula corresponds to various historically developing forms of understanding of causality of phenomena [Empiriomonism, p. 77].

Formula of science — the basic organizing function of scientific cognition, which content is shortly and fully expressed by the known aphorism «to know in order to foresee, to foresee in order to act».

Formula of stability — a certain interrelation of activities of environment and a system, at which the system is not destroyed; or more specifically: a system is stable, if in a definitely-changing environment with activities A, B, C, D…M, N it wil oppose the own activities a, b, c, d…m, n to them so that all the relative resistances will be greater than one, i.e. a:A, b:B, c:C, d:D… m:M, n:N>1.

Formula of three phases — a universal scheme of any process, which any element is presented by it as sequence of three stages: conjugation, differentiation and consolidation. All three stages «are made of different partial crises C and D»: in the first one there are dominated crises C, in the second – crises D with derivative crises C, in the third – crises C with derivative crises D [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 262, 260].

Fragmentation of man — caused by division of labour, the process of differentiation of so complex, the most highly organized and plastic biosocial system, such as a man is. «The authoritative form of life» has caused «the first fragmentation of man» – the «authoritative one», and at that there are fragmented not so much «the content of human experience, as the relation of people to the data of experience», because «the one who rules, and the one who submits, perceive the same facts from different point of view inevitably». «The second phase of fragmentation of man» is caused by specialization, which «narrows the content of life, and collective experience turns out to be divided between people in such a way, that one gets its one area mainly, and other – the other one, etc» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 33, 35].

Free labour — a labour, which purpose is not «imposed» to a person by some external compulsion, and such a «useful one to development from the point of view of a person, as a separate psychical organization, can be only a labour, which follows from this organization, from own and basic needs of a person». The history of humankind «puts complex questions, and it just simplifies them. Nowadays it transforms the question of systematic, planned, continuously progressive development of human psychics – into the question of free labour» [Empiriomonism, p. 202].

Free social energy — a surplus labour, which quantity grows as technosphere develops.

Freedom — «the greatest adaptability to all possible influences» of environment [Basic Elements, p. 204]. All-round liberation of human activity is one of the basic tendencies of social development. The essence of this process is in liberation of man from dictate of compulsory norms: falling into decay, norms of compulsion are gradually replaced by norms of expediency, at that «the very process of liberation proceeds inevitably in the forms of compulsory relations – moral, legal». For example, «in the cultural countries there is “freedom” of conscience, of speech, of press, of unions». As possibility to act in compliance with own ideals, interests and purposes, such freedom is a certain right and as a normative form it necessarily «includes elements of external compulsion», the essence of which is «in that any attempts of infringement of this freedom are suppressed by social force». For example, the juridical content of «freedom of speech» is the following: «nobody should prohibit the others from telling their thoughts, and who does it, he is imposed a penalty. But the very idea of possibility to prohibit people from telling their thoughts means that there are still kept the traces of former compulsory normalization of human statements and that there are, at least, reminiscences about former violent censorship of word. When these traces and reminiscences will finally disappear, then society will think about freedom of speech as little» as it «thinks about freedom of breathing or freedom of dreams». Thus, «legal compulsion of censorship is overcome by the legal compulsion, which protects freedom of speech, and only together with this last negative compulsion there is generally disappeared a legal form in the given area. From freedom of conscience, of speech, etc. metaphysical idealism in social sciences creates a number of “absolute” or “natural” human rights, immutable and eternally obligatory. It does not understand that true, quite realized freedom is not in the least a “right”, but negation of a right. It has reached that step of development, at which a policeman, who constrains freedom, is aspired to be replaced by a policeman, who protects freedom» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 64-65].

Function — an intrasystem purpose of an element, its «role in a system» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 261], which depending on arogenity or catagenity of element can be organizing or disorganizing. For example, the function of authority is organizing for a group, which is controlled by him, but it can be disorganizing in relation to surrounding society, if this group is a criminal organization, and it can be organizing, if it is a design department or a cabinet council.

Functional isomorphism — conservation of an organizational form of doing at change of substratum of a complex.

Future — an end result of «the tendencies of the present and the past, which can be objectively established and compared» by means of abstract analysis and deduction. It is quite clear that a prognosis, being got at this, will be in a certain measure both relative and conditional, but all conclusions of science are such in general. The algorithm of prediction is simple in itself that is certainly impossible to tell about the object of prediction, which quite often appears extremely complex. In order to give a prognosis, for example, of a future state of society, among the social reality it is necessary «to single distinctly out the basic tendencies of development; then to combine them, mentally continuing them up to that vital limit, up to which they remain mutually compatible». It is the same method which is used at reconstruction of pictures of the prehistoric social formations, but only it is realized in the opposite direction; at that in both cases «the guiding principle is adjustment of society to conditions of its labour struggle for existence». Certainly, by such a way it is possible «to find out only the most general, but on the other hand the main features of social system of the future accessible to our prevision» [Questions of Socialism, p. 295].

Galaxy — a gigantic star system, which is the basic structural element of metagalaxy and includes from 10⁷ to 10¹³ stars. Our heliosphere is only one of two hundred milliards stars, which form one of milliards of such galaxies – the Milky Way.

Gene — unit of biological heredity of living organisms.

General coordination — the universal way of fixing of empiria («living experience») by means of «the scientific system of coordinates, i.e. collectively developed by humankind», more precisely speaking, by means of the world coordinates and measures, by means of which «any point of space and any moment of time are connected with the world coordinates» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 135].

General education — from the tectological point of view «training of a neuropsychic system for not predetermined possibilities». For example, «from serenely-sleepy provincial life a man gets into hurricane of social elements of the revolutionary epoch with its unexpectedly changing streams of destructive activities; how to resist, where to aim the efforts, which are not finding the usual objects?». General education enables him «to rely on sufficiently general acquaintance with history and social sciences» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 235-236].

General significance — from the point of view of empiriomonism «nothing but coordination of experience of different people, mutual correspondence of their experiences» [Empiriomonism, p. 15].

General statement of tasks — the most general approach to studied phenomena, which takes into account for its conclusions only few their basic conditions, distracting from more particular and complicating, as the result of what the analysis becomes easier and the way to solution of tasks becomes shorter, more clearly; in other words, it is the most simplifying statement of questions. Certainly, a solution turns out only general, relating only to those basic conditions, which have been taken into consideration; but «this does not diminish the great importance of common solutions», because «their significance is directive, guiding. They direct the way of research and of solution of all particular tasks, which lie in their frameworks. A law, related to the basic conditions, gives a starting point and a main line of research», then it is possible to take into account special, complicating conditions one after another, and step by step to exhaust all fullness of available data; «in this way solutions of separate specific tasks are got. They can be correct or incorrect», because «errors are always possible, but if a common solution is correct, these errors will depend not on a false way, not on useless wanderings of a researcher, but only on insufficiency or inaccuracy of his data: the way of check and correction takes shape by itself then» [Struggle for Biopotential (the paper), pp. 9-10]. From the tectological point of view the most general statement is considered to be the universal statement of tasks.

General structural stability — a tectological concept expressing capacity of a system to keep its structure in restrictedly-changeable environment. If a certain system «is in a more or less constant environment, under some set of influences, which change only in the known borders – a man in his social environment, an animal or a plant in its usual spontaneous situation, etc., then it is possible to form summary notion about stability in relation to all this system of conditions. So, comparing two different political or cultural organizations, which live within the limits of the same society, it is possible to find that one of them is more adapted on its construction than another, i.e. it is structurally more stable. But if social conditions experience an unusual change – such as a revolution, a war, an economic crisis, the ratio will prove to be generally other, sometimes opposite». Such integral understanding of strength of construction of a system should be distinguished from partial one, at which structural stability is considered «only in relation to some or other influences», but not in relation to all conditions of environment in whole [Tectology, v. 1, p. 208].

«General substratum» — from the organizational point of view «elementary activities-resistances», the limiting level of organizationality of which is ether – the simplest form of their organization. It is «precisely this limiting-lowest organizationality that makes clear inapplicability of the concepts of “movement”, of “immobility” to ether in sense of mechanics. Both assume the known fixed interrelations, which are not present here, at least, they are not present in the degree accessible to the experience. If the indistinguishably-homogeneous parts of the ether environment move and are mutually replaced without any perceptible resistance, there are no physical ways for sensing and statement of these facts, there are no stable, definable elements, without which it is impossible to speak about “movement”» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 158].

Generalization — universal «cognitive method of joining of different complexes», by means of which cognition directly finds and combine their common elements, totality of which forms connecter [Tectology, v. 1, p. 157]. As a result of such cognitive method generalization is actually this connecter, joining observable complexes, but as cognitive process generalization is sufficiently effective type of substitution, representing the most widespread procedure of simplification, by means of which any cognitive or practical «task comes to minimal number of the most recurring elements; many complicating moments are separated from it and are rejected», by what its solution becomes easier, «and since it is received in such a form, the transition to more particular task is made by reverse inclusion of the eliminated concrete data». Any generalization is based on an ingression, which is determined, in its turn, by a conjugation. In the sphere of scientific knowledge the limiting simplification is tectological generalization, which is achieved by means of tectological transition [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 47, 179, 129].

Generalizing-descriptive induction — one of the basic forms of the inductive research, making the tectological generalizations, which «gravitate to “abstractness”» in the much greater measure unlike the generalizations of special sciences. In other words, «the description of the organizational facts, in order to cover the relations of any possible elements, should… distract from any elements», that in qualitative manner distinguishes it from the description of special sciences, which «always means those or other certain elements and cannot distract from them». The task of tectology is «to exceed this limits», therefore a generalization becomes tectological only «when in an equal measure it expresses connections or combinations of both bodies, and notions, ideas and so forth. In front of tectology, as in front of mathematics, its earlier developed part, all the phenomena are equal, all elements are indifferent. Those few generalizations of experience, from which mathematics proceeds, are universally general, but also maximally abstract. Tectology of organized and disorganized complexes should certainly make much more generalizations than “tectology of neutral combinations”, i.e. mathematics, but of the same type» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 129-130].

Genesis of sociosystem — arising of society on the basis of labour ingression, «assuming community of environment, against which there are directed efforts of people». Joint struggle for existence «united people in gregarious tribal groups earlier than their solidarity got ideological forms», i.e. ingression of common ideological elements developed «from ingression of labour: from common efforts directed to a common purpose». At that common environment is not an ingressive connecter between people: «since the matter is about social organization of people, so far as environment is just what is opposed to this organization, what is outside of it, therefore, what cannot be a connecter of social ingression; and the word “common” should not led to misunderstanding here» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 186-187].

Genesis of universal language — the natural process of linguistic unification, which forms the single international language historically intended for integration of humankind into the single world collective. From the point of view of tectology, up to formation of the world market linguistic connection between nations developed by the pattern of chain connection, i.e. of simple ingression: «each nation had acquaintance with the language of the neighbours, not being interested, generally speaking, in the language of remoter nations», but «the world market has changed the situation: a language, at least of each of the greatest advanced nations, became “universal” to some extent, in each country having the representatives and representing the real interest for natives of each country». For example, «English, German, French are found in the general world field and to a different measure are spread in it», and in such conditions the formation of the single language is developed by the other way – by the pattern of egression: «that language, which in the world competition proves to be vitally stronger than others, should get an ever-increasing prevalence over them and become the international language for the most part. It is just its transformation into that transitional form», which becomes «the natural base of development of the single language of humankind», since, «being in the greatest contact with all nations, in the greatest communication with all other languages, it should just in the greatest measure take their vital elements, acquire from them all necessary and useful for the world organizing function, – develop most quickly and intensively in its direction». The cultural task of tectorate in the field of such global linguistic process consists in the following: «to determine objectively what language is just historically intended for this role» in order to bring next a planned character in its development – «finding out its tendency, to support it and to eliminate the counteraction to it» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 330-331].

Genetic method — the special approach in tectology to research of a complex from the point of view of its origin and the evolutionary past, at which there are also considered the tendencies and tempos of its development, having formed to the moment of studying.

Genetic point of view — a view on a given complex with account of history of its development, possible either in a synthetically generalized form on the basis of the complete knowledge of this history or in a analytically more defined form on the basis of already detailed and profound studying of it.

Genetic system — genome plus plasmon, i.e. a set of chromosomal and nonchromosomal genes; from the tectological point of view it is an egressive system, in which genome is central, and plasmon – peripheric complex. A genetic system keeps and transmits from generation to generation all hereditary information, necessary for their adaptation, the basic volume of which is concluded in genome and only the insignificant one – in plasmon; moreover, along with the approved information it transmits also the trial one – mutations. Thus, within the limits of tectological triad it executes the functions of succession and changeability, delivering a necessary genetic material for the selection, which is carried out from environment. As highly organized hereditary apparatus a genetic system represents tectologically a casting form, i.e. a degression, but with the certain degree of plasticity, that allows it to change, keeping biopotential in a changing environment.

Genius character — «an organizational ability, going out a usual level» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 134].

Genius — active psychotype of social organizer, extremely expressing «the progressive tendency of psychical development» and characterized by «creativity, activity of will, realism of world view and its monistic tendency». Genesis of a genius occurs usually according to the following scheme: as a result of various actions of environment a man experiences «huge mass of direct feelings», from which material by positive psychical selection there are developed «every possible combinations of psychical complexes», but under the action of negative selection there are kept only «the most stable ones by virtue of their connection with the most recurring influences of environment and by virtue of their harmony»; further, «if a man is in wide communication with other people», intensively and completely perceiving their experience, then «in the material of his psychics there will find a place to themselves all general and important contradictions of life experience of the contemporary society, all essential needs and requirements of his epoch», then by virtue of its monistic tendency his psychical development «will be directed to harmonious reconciliation of these general contradictions, to satisfaction of these general needs and requirements; and the solution of these tasks in the given psychics will be, on the one hand, the most complete and perfect, owing to the mighty creativity and active will, on the other hand – the most reliable and stable, owing to its realistic bases» – and «an encyclopedic genius of his time will appear to us» [Empiriomonism, pp. 165-166].

Genofund — the complex of certain genes, which are possessed by individuals of a given population, groups of populations or of species.

Genome — the hereditary apparatus of living organisms, from the tectological point of view representing the persistent complex of the certain genes localized in a single number of chromosomes of a separate individual; in other words, it is a set of genes in the form of the basic haploid number of chromosomes. Genome is the central complex of genetic system, concluding the basic volume of hereditary information. The size of genome of man makes up around 3 billion pairs of nucleotides and includes 80 – 100 thousands of genes, and the size of genome of bacteria – about 0,5 – 5 million pairs of nucleotides and accordingly 0,47 – 4,29 thousands of genes.

Genosphere — undifferentiated state of anthroposphere in the prewritten period of history of humankind.

Geoactivity — a certain activity of geosphere considered in one or another concrete scientific research, for example: a gravitational, thermal, electromagnetic, kinetic, tectonic, volcanic one etc.

Geofactor — an activity of some geospheric shell which influences on a researched process in other shell (for example, volcanic activity in lithosphere causes changes in bio-, hydro- and atmosphere); or activity of all geosphere in whole which causes changes in its external environment (for example, gravitational action of the Earth on the Moon).

Geometrical scheme of intercomplementarity — the evident model of complementary interrelations, or of asymmetric ingression, in the form of a geometrical figure, in which «each connection, expressed by concave line for one part of system, is expressed by convex line for another» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24].

Geometry — the science about spatial quantities, or, as a division of tectology, the degressive system of collective experience in the spatial organization of things. At the present stage of development of geometry tectology covers only that its part, which is inseparably connected with physical experience, i.e. the empirical, instead of the metaphysical one, operating on formal logic. The space of such physical geometry «is characterized by three-dimensionality, homogeneity, infinity, infinite divisibility». The geometry bound to physical experience «is unthinkable without a socially-fixed, technically exact measure. Neither its postulates nor its theorems can be got without this, can be “true”, i.e. have a real meaning, be a support for practice. The notion about the “absolute” geometry, independent of the collective, historically developing experience, about “the truth of all theorems even in the world deprived of any life”, is fetishism, which secretly introduces the eternal and absolute measurer, i.e. the deity (which is nothing more nor less than the authoritarian symbol of the same social connection». In general, that part of physical experience, which relates to geometry, «covers spatial coordination (orientation and commensurating) of collectively-labour elements (efforts, and through them – and things)». As a whole «the contemporary geometry has the metaphysically-scholastic character in the basic construction, as well as in the way of statement. Its concepts are absolute and consequently are not thinkable in reality. A point, which doesn’t have a measurement; a line, which has only one measurement and so forth; they cannot be perceived sensually, hence, they cannot become a content of a notion, which is a trace of perception, and therefore – also of thinking, which operates with notions. A definition of these concepts is only verbal. In practice the geometers operates not with them, but with the living, real notions. A point is a body, which measurements are not included into a given act of research, do not interest cognition in this case (for example, atom, electron in usual calculations of a physicist; the Sun, other stars in calculations of star distribution, etc.). A line is a body, in which for a given task there is interesting only one measurement (for example, a ray in elementary calculations of a physicist; a cable at measurements of depth, etc.). A line should be considered as the sum of its points, an area – the sum of its ordinates, a volume – the sum of the ordinate areas. A finite, i.e. having a practical meaning, is the sum of infinitesimals, i.e. of the elements, which separately have no practical meaning. The “pure” postulates of the present geometry relate to its absolute concepts and are not thinkable together with them». And in fact the very «present way of statement of geometry, as a system of proofs operating on formal logic, are childish scholasticism – in essence, criminal waste of forces – by the results. The insufficiency of formal logic for a “proving” is an established thing now. It is already enough one concept of continuity to make unusable all scholastic proofs. Poincare formulates the idea of continuity in the following way: А=В, В=С, C>A». It is quite clear that «the transformation of geometry should return it to the experienced, i.e. the collectively-labour basis. According to it there should be constructed the statement and the teaching refined from the “pure” concepts. The “proofs” can be conserved only so far as they can appear sometimes mnemonically useful or can serve as the ways of solution of tasks; and it is enough to give their general methods on several illustrations. Real measurements and graphics will make the greatest part of proofs excessive. The new geometrical thinking will be more productive» [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, pp. 122, 124-125].

Georesonator — geospheric electromagnetic resonator which synchronizes biosphere, stabilizes its electromagnetic homeostasis.

Geosphere — the Earth planet, the third peripheric complex in Solar system, in the structural relation representing the set of interactive concentric shells, into the composition of which are included, beginning from nucleus and mantle: lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere. About 3-3,5 billion years ago as a result of tectological selection, acting in litho-, hydro- and atmosphere, from organic substance there was formed one more geospheric shell, the new active factor of evolution of the Earth – biosphere, the presence of which allows to consider geosphere as the self-regulated cosmic biosystem.

Gerontology — a division of biotectology, studying the processes of senescence of living organisms.

Gerontosis — «the general structural illness of an organism», connected with disturbance of organizationality of its functions, which goes in different directions and is «the result of that different organs and tissues develop not by one tempo, that between them there are increased vital divergence», which generates «firstly some, then the other “least”, then again new and new». In order to stop somehow or even to slow down general disorganization of an organism it is usually «tried to find the first least, and to support an organism in their line; so far as this turns out well, there is a success; but even these the first least are not always the same; that is why a success is not constant; and meanwhile, they should be inevitably followed by some others, which are determined still more difficultly. It is possible to solve a problem of any least only by the method planned for this by the nature – by the “conjugational” one», i.e. hemotransfusion. As is known, the essence of interstitial and sclerotic processes of gerontosis is in «that hardier cells of the lower tissues begins to displace more delicate cells of the higher, deeper differentiated ones. Endurance and delicacy get such a decisive importance exactly in a worsening environment; and blood and lymph serve as the basic vital environment of cells of an organism. Improvement of this environment, increase of “the least” ones, arising in its structure, is the general way of radical struggle against these processes. But it can be systematically reached only by going out of the frameworks of physiological individuality, – however alien this thought is to individualistic consciousness of our epoch» [About Physiological Collectivism, pp. 101-102].

Gesture — «a reduced, incomplete representation of labour acts» [Empiriomonism, p. 271].

Gigatendency (gigatrend) — the general orientation of all observable changes in the world towards harmony, i.e. essentially tectogenesis.

Global collective — humankind, organized on the principles of socialism and representing the highest type of life in general and the highest manifestation of human life in particular. The formation of such a form of life on planetary scale means the transition of humankind in the conscious phase of its development that is at the present time expressed by three tendencies: the first one leads to «change of the type of human person – to elimination of that narrowness and incompleteness of the human being, which are created by inequality, heterogeneity and psychical separation of people»; the second one – to «change of the type of social system – to elimination of elements of compulsion from relations between people» and the third one – «to change of the type of human cognition – to becoming free from fetishes, which limit and pervert cognitive creativity» [Questions of Socialism, p. 28].

Global conflict — conjugation of geopolitical pretenders to global egression which proceeds with huge expenses of social energy and leads finally to counterdifferentiation of all opposing parties. From the organizational point of view the most stable social formations in the history of humankind are authoritarian systems: patriarchal community, feudal society, serfdom-based and slaveholding organization, state, army, church, school, enterprise and at last family. The epoch of capitalism represents the transition from one stable state of humankind into the other. From the organizational point of view the development of any system goes on by the scheme: differentiation – counterdifferentiation. The world community has already passed the stage of differentiation and at the present point of time is in the stage of counterdifferentiation, i.e. of integration of all numerous social systems into the single global whole. Historically this process is uneven by the speed of transformations and social expenses: not high rate and low expenses correspond to the peace historical period, and on the contrary – to the period of war. From the organizational point of view the Second World War, as well as the First, and in general any war, is a moment of counterdifferentiation which proceeds with great intensity and enormous social expenses. Till 1917 the process of counterdifferentiation had exclusively the catagenic tendency of the development, globalizing the world community into the single whole by the old authoritarian scheme: where – a separately taken authoritarian system with the control centre (egressor) which inferior index means individual control, and the upper one – its catagenity, i.e. difference in interests and purposes between the center and periphery, – the global authoritarian system with the single control centre (global egressor) with the identical senses of indexes. The First World War was a moment of bifurcation when along with the dominating catagenic tendency there was arisen the alternative arogenic one where the upper index means unity of interests and purposes between the center and periphery. The Second World War put an end to the dominating position of the catagenic tendency, and till 1991 both tendencies developed on the parity basis. Since 1991 there was again prevailed the catagenic tendency where the inferior index means the collective control centre. However such global system with a collective, but noncoherent control centre, catagenic to the development of humankind, is unstable and has two endings in perspective: either degradation of humankind or transition to the stable arogenic tendency of development with a collective control centre, arogenic to the development of humankind. Stability of such global authoritarian system is provided by minimization of internal wastes and maximization of external ones that takes place as the social energy formerly spent for the internal conflicts is inverted to adaptation to the environment.

Global university — the integrated egressive system of scientifically-pedagogic and cultural and educational institutions, which purpose is to transform humankind into one global collective, perfectly wielding tectology and all set of methods and achievements of contemporary science.

Globalization — the anthropospheric tectogenesis proceeding in the form of conjugational crisis in techno-, oiko- and eidosphere, which organizes the extremely differentiated anthroposphere into one integral whole; in other words, integration of a great number of heterogeneous anthropospheric elements, – beginning from man and finishing with national-state and regional formations, – into the single global collective. Globalization is accompanied by growth of energy potential in technosphere, of synergy – in oikosphere and of tectological knowledge – in eidosphere. See megatendency (megatrend).

Gnoseogenesis (from Greek γνωσις – knowledge and γένεσις – genesis) — arising and development of cognition, at that «each forward step on the way of cognition or, that is the same, each true cognition is empiriomonistic», since it is possible only at presence of twofold empiriomonistic tendency, which either broadens the content of experience, «going into the given forms of cognition, – broadens its empirical material, or creates more integral and strong forms for this material, – transforms it monistically; the tendency realizes finally both ways» [Empiriomonism, p. 106]. In other words, the progress of cognition can be expressed by the following empiriomonistic formula: G = E↑ + M↓, where G – gnoseogenesis, E↑ – expansion of empiria and M↓ – its information compression.

Gnoseology — a special division of philosophy, which deals with the problems of cognition, its essence, conditions, preconditions, grounds, borders, possibilities, truth and interrelation with reality; i.e. from the scientific point of view a classical form of discoursation, historically transient, but which still remains an inexhaustible feeding for huge army of philosophizing logonauts and «beliberdyaevs» similar to them. It is quite clear that tectology «negates any “gnoseology” as scholasticism» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 296].

Goodness of a concept — stability of a cognitive concept in conditions of cross criticism: «criticism of generalizations and conclusions from the point of view of experience and criticisms of their underlying experience from the point of view of its connection and regularity», at that the last moment is the most important, «because only the experience, which is being verified, free from mistakes and illusions, is the reliable basis for criticism of cognition» [Empiriomonism, p. 39].

Goods — «a thing organized by capitalist society» [Course of Political Economy, p. 148], which «from the point of view of production is a result of social labour», and from the point of view of exchange – value. A goods embodies a certain quantity of socially-labour energy, i.e. it is equivalent to a certain quantity of other goods; in other words, a goods has a certain labour cost and a certain exchange value [Essays of Realistic World View, p. 291].

Gravitation — the resultant of two tendencies, attraction and repulsion, at numerical equality of which the first one is «practically greater». It can be explained on the following simple example. Let there are two atoms. As is known, each of them represents system of equilibrium of positively and negatively charged elements. But as long as ideal systems of equilibrium do not exist in the nature, each atom separately is a small oscillator, vibrating about its neutral condition. Then relative to each other two atoms will be charged first likely, then unlikely. In the first case they will repulse, and in the second will attract. Both actions will be directly proportional to quantity of charges and inversely proportional to squares of distance and will be equal mathematically. But tectologically these two actions will be different, because repulsion will be really shown as atoms move away, and at that repulsion itself will decrease, and the more distance is, the more it will; and on the contrary, attraction will draw atoms together and at that with decreasing of distance it will continuously grow. Thus, two processes, attraction and repulsion, even «numerically equal, are not equal effectually: attraction outweighs. This is the difference that forms newtonian “gravitation” between atoms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 197].

Gregarious instinct — the embryo of cooperation, «the spontaneous germ of collectivism», incompatible «with its highest, conscious form». As is known, «primitive gregarious instinct was impersonal, stereotype unity of people in their small collective», however «now a man is gregarious too, who impersonally and passively merges with his limited, partial collective, submitting to its moods and ideas, not aspiring to think about them critically and creatively, to raise them above, to bring something new and better in them. And now people in a crowd are very often gregarious; the sharpest example – a panic. Gregarious instinct in thinking is not so evident like gregarious instinct of a feeling or a passion, – but it has even greater importance in the life. It is narrow-minded, and not only narrow-minded, fear “to be not like all” in one’s own circle, to break its habits, proprieties, fashions». Moreover, «gregarious instinct of a crowd, of a group, of an organization generates struggle against what tries to be not gregarious. Quite often a crowd in panic mood pounces madly on someone, who does not come under the influence of the mood and tries to bring consciousness in its actions, or who does not go on its line at all». Gregarious instinct concerns also «any spontaneous-passive submission to the social environment». And, at last, it is necessary to notice that «collectivism converges with individualism in negation of gregarious instinct; but the motives are sharply different here. An individualist defends only himself and his own against gregarious instinct; while a collectivist aspires to raising and improvement of his collective, and he defends his own not as his own, but as the best, and not for standing apart from the collective, but for giving it this best, and on such a basis to keep and develop his unity with the collective». A gregarious being is «not a true member of collective, its member is only someone who gives it something his own, great or low, but personally and freely realized and consequently inevitably different than what others give. A gregarious unit adds nothing to a collective, except for the mechanical force, and at that it increases the inertia of collective. And this can be useful, while movement of the whole goes on an established, direct line, – but is inevitably harmful in the most important points of movement, on its historical turns» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 334-335].

Habituation — «an accumulating action of psychical selection», when one and the same complex is systematically caused in a psychics and becomes habitual [Empiriomonism, p. 191].

Harmonicity — organizational correspondence of different parties of development of a system, which is characteristic to structural progress. However such correspondence should not be understood in the sense of simple proportionality: for example, at doubling of work of muscles there is required not doubling of work of digestive organs, but less, and, probably, more than doubling of nervous expenses. Moreover, «sometimes it is even necessary that with strengthening of grouping A there will be reduction or weakening of grouping B»: for example, «significant development of brain is tectologically corresponded by no means to thickening of cranial bones and strengthening of their sutures, but to absolutely opposite changes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 275].

Harmonious system (non-parasitic system) — the system of arogenically complementary complexes, easier speaking, «the system of universal cooperation» [From Psychology of Society, p. 273]. The main organizational principle of such a system is the principle of coevolution.

Harmonization — increase of connectivity of a system at the expense of formation of complementary connections and «decrease of internal disingressions», that «allows on more significant scale to overcome destructively directed activities of resistance of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 274]. The general role of harmonization of both all world environment, and a separate system is carried out by negative selection. As empiria testifies, the universal regulator – selection – has two tendencies, one of which is expressed by positive selection, and the other – by negative; at that each of them operates in two directions too: the positive tendency of positive selection – increase of total activity of system, its negative tendency – increase of system contradictions, the negative tendency of negative selection – decrease of total activity of system, and the positive one – elimination of contradictions in system, i.e. its harmonization. The harmonizing essence of this tendency consists in that negative selection destroys «in the greatest measure what is least biopotential and most contradictory»: it finds out and exacerbates those latent contradictions, which are created and developed by positive selection. If in some system the «obsolete» elements are preserved under action of positive selection, then they reduce its total activity, though this reduction is imperceptible in the background of the general considerable increase of total activity, «caused by favourable interrelations of environment. But if such increase stops, conditions of environment become unfavourable and cause a decrease of energy» of system, then constant influence of the «obsolete» elements, reducing its total activity, «doesn’t already put on some mask and comes out openly, joining to action of unfavourable external conditions». Negative selection, oppressing a system from different directions, narrows its development on all line, but «at usual, not too big intensity of selection» there are perished only some parts of system, «the least stable, least adapted for available conditions of environment». Where there is a contradiction, an influence of selection is more deeply and more strongly there, its positive tendency is directed there in order to destroy the least adapted one from two sides of a contradiction, at that «a contradiction itself is eliminated». Just in this way negative selection harmonizes the internal content of a system, increasing by that the potentialities of its further development. The system «becomes more holistic and more harmoniously, all the best and the strongest and steady elements of development can be expanded more freely, meeting with no more obstacles from the elements, which are obsolete or unusable». Exactly for this reason the period of negative selection, i.e. the period of harmonization and «recovery» of a system, becomes the initial point of its new development, which is frequently «much more magnificent than what preceded it» [Empiriomonism, pp. 258-260].

Harmony — such «a correspondence of parts between themselves and a whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 113], which is «a reconciliation of contradictions, instead of their simple absence, an integration of various, instead of a simple monotony» [Questions of Socialism, p. 31]; at that it «is never given initially», but «turns out only as a result of development» [Empiriomonism, p. 266].

«Harmony of spheres» — the well-known Pythagorean model of the world, which tectology reinterprets as supersystem of chain egressive biregulation of infinitely various and uncountable cyclic processes, in other words, as supercycle of the modulated vibrations, i.e. in the form of matryoshka systems of modulations.

Heating — positive selection of thermal activities; in other words, thermal crisis with increase of internal energy of complex, at that positive selection is less intensive for more «conjoint» complexes than for «beaded». Really, where there is a heating, «thermal energy is mostly assimilated than disassimilated», and a bead-like, for example, metal rod «gets more thermal energy during equal time» than the same smooth one: since «the greater is the quantity of contacts with environment, then the relatively greater is the assimilation from it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 244].

Hedonistic selection (Ψ-подбор) — selection, which regulates development of psychics and directly expressed by psychical correlate of all psychical complexes present in field of consciousness, i.e. by their common sensory tone, which is feeling of pleasure at positive selection, and feeling of suffering – at negative. In the first case the function of hedonistic selection is preserving and strengthening, while in the second – weakening and destroying; in other words, «psychical complexes and their associative groupings, acting in sensory tone of “pleasant”, are kept in psychics and increase in their brightness and intensity», while «complexes and groupings with negative sensory tone, with coloration of “unpleasant”, show the tendency to elimination from psychics, to decrease of brightness and intensity, to weakening of their connections, to more and more difficult and less complete reproduction in consciousness». Depending on what a sensory tone dominates in the field of consciousness, one or the other tendency prevails, at that the more strongly it does, the more intensive a sensory tone is. Neutral sensory tone with «coloration of affective indifference» exists also, but it exists «just as equilibrium of positive and negative sensory tone connected in one complex or in one field of consciousness; at that this equilibrium or “neutrality” is never complete, but is always only approximate». Psychical correlate of positive selection – pleasant sensations, which «revive» consciousness, «increasing a wealth of images and a variety of their combinations», and of negative selection – unpleasant sensations, especially sufferings, which «narrow the life of psychics: field of consciousness becomes poorer, associations are more monotonous in it». The first of these conditions is known as macropsychia, i.e. expansion of a soul, and the second one – as micropsychia, i.e. reduction, narrowing of a soul. Within the limits of normal life, when hedonistic selection «doesn’t yet become destructive for a system, and the more intensive it is, the more greatly elaboration of psychics, or its organizationality, increases: under action of positive selection – in the direction of wealth and variety of psychical content; under action of negative one – in the direction of simplicity and strength of connections, harmony and stability of this content. In other words, in these limits the more energetic and more intensive is the life of sense, the higher is a type of psychics on other equal conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 180-182].

Helioactivity — a certain activity of heliosphere taking into consideration in one or another concrete scientific research, for example: gravitational, nuclear, thermonuclear, electromagnetic, neutrino, plasmous, etc.

Helioanthropospheric synchronism — such a way of adaptation of anthroposphere to external environment, at which the energy curve of sociogenesis duplicates the curve of heliocycles.

Heliocycle — a periodic vibration of solar activity with formation of spots, which number and total area change with the period about 11,2 years (the average time interval between the next maxima or minima), at that the period of growth of activity is equal to 4,2 years, and of decay – to 7 years.

Heliofactor — activity of heliosphere, in particular, its action on geosphere, i.e. on all system of geophysical processes, including biological and social. The general tectological state of geosphere depends on quantity of this action: its growth causes the corresponding geospheric disturbances, intensifying the vibrations of electromagnetic field in georesonator within the limits of 0,1-100 Hz with amplitude maximum in the range of 8-16 Hz, which coincides with the range of alpha-rhythm of electroencephalogram of man. In other words, in the chain egression of «heliosphere-geosphere-egocomplex» the coherent, i.e. the common connecter, is low-frequency range of their general electromagnetic field of 8-16 Hz.

Heliogeodesmos (from Greek ήλιος – sun, γη – earth and δεσμός – connection) — egressive connection between helio- and geospheric processes which according to the third law of Bogdanov is mutual, but owing to negligibly small quantity of geoactivity in comparison with helioactivity the influence of geosphere on heliosphere is as a rule neglected in scientific researches.

Helioluminosity — the total energy radiated by heliosphere in unit of time and equal to 3,86·10³³ erg/s.

Heliorhea (from Greek ήλιος – the sun and ρέος – a stream) — the plasma flow of solar origin which takes away the energy, equal approximately to 10^-8 of helioluminosity, in cosmic space. A synonym is solar wind.

Heliosphere — the Sun, the central complex of heliosystem, the egressive center of activities of gravitation, light and heat. Besides the visible luminary – plasma sphere, which concentrates 99,866 percent of the mass of the whole system, in heliosphere there is included its plasma covering – «solar wind», therefore the tectological border of heliosphere is the surface of contact of solar plasma with interstellar one. In the center of heliosphere temperature is about 16 million Kelvin degree, which is maintained by nuclear reactions of helium and hydrogen synthesis, at that electromagnetic radiation comes at 1 million years from here up to the surface of the luminary because of multiple absorption and reradiation, and up to our planet, the way to which is 200 times greater, – at 8 minutes.

Heliosystem — connected by gravitation, an egressive system with the strong gravitational center – heliosphere and with great number of peripheric complexes – principal and minor planets, comets, meteors, interplanetary dust and indifferent gas; simply speaking, it is our Solar system, which is one of the elements to form the galaxy of the Milky Way. Heliosphere as the structural center, determining the connection and unity of heliosystem, is not only the center of its gravitation, but at the same time also the center of radiant energy, at that in relation to this form of world activities all heliosystem as the whole is under action of negative selection: «they do not accumulate, but are spent, are taken away by ether environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 107].

Heliotaraxia (from Greek ήλιος – sun and ταράσσω – to excite) — a crisis of explosive type in anthroposphere caused by intensification of heliofactor which energy addition becomes a trigger in a social process proceeded in a system of false equilibrium. According to A.L. Chizhevsky, heliotaraxia is «a mutational moment in structural change of the system of human masses when its quantitative changes cause qualitative changes», i.e. «that “boiling point” of human masses which is at the boundary of the two different processes: the process of accumulation of neuropsychic energy under influence of social stimuli and the process of social expression of this accumulation, i.e. the statics and dynamics of masses» (Chizhevsky A.L. Cosmic Pulse of Life: the Earth in the Arms of the Sun. Heliotaraxia. M., 1995. P. 659).

Heliotrigger — in comparison with the average level it is an increased inflow of solar energy to geosphere, which causes a crisis of explosive type in its tectologically nonequilibrium systems.

Hemotransfusion — the method of «direct biophysical cooperation», the essence of which consists in that at the expense of blood of one individual «to overcome quantitative or qualitative insufficiency of blood» of another. The deep and «revolutionary sense of this method lies in breaking of the frameworks of physiological individuality, in supporting of one organism by vital elements of another for struggle against destroying spontaneity». The nature for a long time «use cooperation of analogous character for maintenance of specific life: cell fusion connected with reproduction. Man tries to bring the “conjugational” method in struggle for preservation of an individual life. Blood transfusion is one of plastic operations of this kind (inoculation of skin at burns, inoculation of thyroid gland of apes at goiter), but the most typical and, above all, representing the greatest possibilities of development. For blood, together with lymph, which is initial phase of its development, is the only liquid, i.e. quite mobile, ideally-plastic tissue of an organism. And at the same time blood, by means of the very lymph, the general environment for all cells of an organism, is the basic vital source in all their metabolism and energy exchange. It is carrier of hormones, by which there are regulated all equilibriums of an organism, the processes of growth and atrophy. Not casually a moment of death is agreed to determine by arrest of movement of blood» [About Physiological Collectivism, pp. 76-77].

Hemotransfusion effect — four moments, which are got by organizational analysis as positive and negative consequences of blood transfusion: quantitative increase of biopotential («when there is not enough blood, it cannot carry out its vital function in the real way; the position becomes grave at loss of the fourth part of its volume and quickly becomes irreparable at loss about half; the replenishment by transfusion restores the function of blood»); qualitative increase of biopotential («the striking examples are hemophilia, melaena of newborns, when addition of a small amount of some lacking elements at once makes saving change in coagulability of blood»); dynamic increase of biopotential («it is illustrated by treatment of malignant anemia, when a small amount of transfusd blood helps an organism to reconstitute it during short time in considerably greater scale»); disorganizational moment («it shows up in the phenomena of “incompatibility” of blood»). Organizational parallelism of hemoconjugation «with biological conjugation is evident and a priori is quite clear», since «blood transfusion represents a special kind of inoculation: direct mixing of homogeneous tissues from different individuals». However «if to compare the use of conjugation in the nature and blood transfusion in medical practice, it is necessary to note two important discrepancies»: firstly, «a conjugation of alive plasma in the nature is bilateral, based on reciprocity between cells-conjugantes», and a mixing of blood is «unilateral, with no reciprocity», and secondly, «a conjugation in the nature solves the problem of general increase of biopotential, if not always of individual, then of specific one», while «blood transfusion for the present put the problem of only particular, partial increase of biopotential of an organism, in relation to some or other abnormal conditions» [About Physiological Collectivism, pp. 90, 93-94].

Herd — a primary collective, which «is characterized by that its formative individuals – organisms – are together, are connected by community of that situation, in which they are», i.e. they «undergo the same influences from environment more or less constantly, systematically. And since they are organisms of one species, and even usually being in close blood relationship, it is natural that they react to these influences more or less equally; where reactions become heterogeneous, there gregarious connection should obviously break up» [Crises of Neuropsychic Systems, p. 118].

«Here and now» — chronotop of a directly observable process, i.e. the limiting form of spatio-temporal degression. See arti-auti.

Heredity — a consequence of the second law of Bogdanov, which essence is in that any «new vital process, beginning under the conditions, similar to what have led to arising of parental process, repeats this last in itself; a new form of life goes through the same series of changes, as an old one», at that not showing the absolute similarity: the nature does not create exact copies, «otherwise the fact of changeability would not be general. A complete recurrence of former conditions does not happen, therefore a new form necessarily deviates from an old one», and character and degree of deviation from strict heredity is determined «by distinctions in external conditions of arising and existence of an old form and a new one», in other words, by two factors: «firstly, by those external influences, under which there was a parental form from the arising up to the moment of reproduction; secondly, by those external influences, which are undergone by a new form during the existence». Thus, the second law of Bogdanov determines features of similarity of forms, and «deviations from a heredity are possible in those limits, in which there are unequal the external influences, acting on an old form and a new one, or there are unequal (again by virtue of the external influences) these very forms». Therefore the most simplified formulation of heredity will be such: «a vital process of a descendant tends to reproduce successively the vital process of an ancestor, so in analogous stages of the life of a descendant there should be the changes, analogous to what occurred in the life of an ancestor» [Basic Elements, pp. 84-85, 88]. Heredity is «the basic condition of conservation and reproduction of social forms. Replace all European children by small Papuans, or even by Negroes, – and the forms of social process will considerably change», – in this sense it is necessary to speak about heredity of the most complex psychical forms, at that «even where a child gradually reproduces psychology of the parents by imitation, – heredity, i.e. significant similarity of psychical organisms, is the necessary precondition. Heredity is not some mystical force, but factual similarity of two generations» [Basic Elements, p. 166].

Heterogeneity — diversity of elements, which are the parts of a system, i.e. variety of its composition, which is «the necessary condition of plasticity of a system in its changing environment». Diversity in itself does not mean disorganizationality: «it always means increase of complexity of internal relations of a system and decrease of their stability». But «when diversity becomes stronger, then complexity and instability, increasing, begin since a known moment to outweigh organizational connection and unity of the system, which becomes then already unstable in the whole; its sum of activities and resistances to the environment decrease; heterogeneity passes into disorganizationality» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 162].

Heterogeneous chain connection (asymmetric chain connection) — connection between unequal complexes, when «the relation of one to another is different», for example: «a screw and a nut are rather different at the form, and their common surface is convex for a screw where it is concave for a nut»; or other example: «cooperation of different specialists» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 154].

Heterogeneous connection (asymmetric connection) — connection between complexes of one system, which execute different organizational function in it [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 154-155]. The most widespread «particular cases of asymmetric connection» are egression and degression, for example, connection between an organizer of a project and its executor, between skin and nervous system [Tectology, v. 2, p. 145].

Heuristics — a division of tectology which studies the ways of optimal statement of tasks minimizing selection of possible solutions. For example, such a heuristic method as simplification, by exception of set of data, which concretize and complicate a task, reduces its particular variant of statement to a more general one with already minimal number of the most repetitive elements: solution of a task in such generalized statement is considerably facilitated, but being got in such a form it demands return transition to the initial particular task which is made by means of inclusion of all concrete data eliminated in the beginning.

Higher form — a complex form of life, which unlike motionless conservative lower form possesses, firstly, smaller conservatism, greater flexibility and plasticity, secondly, «wealth of vital content», i.e. «a large quantity of elements and variety of the parts, of which they are made up», and thirdly, «internal unity», organizationality and «close vital connection of their parts and elements» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 57-58].

Highest criterion of scientific character — «exact prediction in practice», i.e. practical confirmation of expected results [Tectology, v. 2, p. 286].

Hippocrene of tectology — the sociolabour understanding of experience as socially-organized and consequently objective one.

Hippocrene of philosophy — «the individualistic understanding of experience of people», which «reflects the practical individualism, developed by the organization of exchange society» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 95].

Historian — a specialist in reconstruction of the past of humankind, a systematizator of archeological, annalistic and astronomical data of experience.

Historian-contemporalist — a historian, studying the chronicle of current days, i.e. a scientist, who researches the most nearest historical past, considering at that all «deep-water» historical currents, i.e. the tendencies of historical processes, and predicts not «backward», as Hegel, but «forward», as Bogdanov. For successful studies on contemporal historical researches such a historian should be a tectologist.

Historical cycle — all known period of development of humankind, which in scales of historical time keeps within in a single tectological act: the spontaneous whole – differentiation – counterdifferentiation – the conscious whole; in other words, it is the process of formation of humankind as rational species, its social metamorphosis from the condition of socially undifferentiated humankind into the condition of socially differentiated, but synergically united humankind. The historical cycle covers four periods, the system-formative organizational principles of each of which were correspondingly: protocollectivism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism. From the tectological point of view the contemporary condition of development of humankind represents the final stage of its counterdifferentiation into one synergistic whole, when humankind will become one global collective.

Historical materialism — tectology of sociogenesis, i.e. «the doctrine about connection of different sides of social process. Its basic scheme speaks that development is primarily determined in that field where man directly collides with the nature, – in the field of technical relations of man to the nature, in the field of productive forces. Depending on these technical relations of man to the nature there are formed relations of production, and depending on both – ideas, norms, ideology. Therefore, the primary factor is technics, by which there are determined – economics and further – ideology. It is the law of development» [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, p. 272]. From the tectological point of view the basic scheme of historical materialism is considered as the system of three organizational processes, proceeding correspondingly in techno-, oiko- and eidosphere and connected in one cycle, which is in dynamic equilibrium with environment. In other words, continuously going processes of organization and disorganization in the nature change technospheric organizational processes, which in their turn change oikospheric ones, and change of both finds the reflection in eidospheric ones – this is direct loop of the cycle; but the process does not stop on it: changes in eidosphere transform organizational processes in oiko- and technosphere – this is inverse loop of the cycle, which, naturally, recommences again with the next change of natural environment.

Historical megatendencies (megatrends) — the basic directions of global sociogenesis, observable on the scale of historical time. In such time measurement the development of the global social process is directed towards the growth of the number of humankind and its influence on environment, towards the further increase of the tempo of social transformations, the complication and growth of organizationality of society, the growth of cooperation and all-round deliverance of human doing. All complex of these megatendencies forms the unified historical omega-tendency.

Historical method — an earlier originated version of tectological approach, the basis for which are the principles of isonomism, of world ingression and of structural intersimilarity. By virtue of its universality the method is effective in cognition of all phenomena without exception, natural, social and even the most complex of all – cognitive. Moreover, it is necessary to note that it «alone is capable to explain the origin of cognitive phenomena from simpler socially-psychical, biological, physicochemical». Being an organizational-dynamic method, by means of which any phenomena are researched as processes in their mutual connection, nevertheless, in every special science it «comes out only because of the enough developed static method (research of phenomena out of their universal connection, phenomena as independent “objects”). And only owing to the historical method, with its inherent precondition about universal homogeneity of phenomena, the sciences can be grouped in such a line, in which any next one can be considered as more particular in relation to the previous»; while the static method draws «too sharp borders between the sciences» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 259, 204].

Historical monism (historiomonism) — the approach to the history of humankind from the positions of social energetics, i.e. such opinion on global sociogenesis from the energy point of view, the essence of which is in the following: inasmuch as «social “assimilation” of energy from an environment» occurs only in the sphere of the direct struggle of man against the nature, only «in socially-technical process»; «whereas “expenditure” of energy occurs not only there, but also in the other spheres of social life», then «the very potential of extratechnical social functions and their real borders are entirely determined by that “surplus” of energy, by that overweight of assimilation over expenditure, what is given in the sphere of socially-technical life»; easier speaking, «in its whole all social process is made at the expense of technical one». This thesis forms exactly «the real basis of the doctrine of historical monism» [Empiriomonism, p. 264].

Historiogenesis — the scientific picture of origin of humankind and its development from animal condition into reasonable race. According to tectology the formation of humankind as reasonable species is developed under the scheme: the prologue of history, the beginning of history and the history proper. At the present moment the humankind has closely come nearer to the beginning of its history, after which the final stage of the historical cycle will follow.

History (from Greek ίστορια – a story, research) — reconstruction of the past of humankind on the basis of chronological arrangement of data of archeology, astronomy, ethnography, culture and written sources. Depending on methods of systematization of these data the history is subdivided into mental, narrative and scientific. Before becoming scientific, the history of humankind was understood either in the spirit of authoritarian fetishism or in the spirit of abstract one: some historians «saw in it the history of tsars, heroes, geniuses, generally of authorities and masters, of their feats and deeds, as though they determined the destiny of the world»; others were of opinion that the essence of history «is in the development of ideas – knowledge or moral principles, and they thought that this development goes by itself, under its own laws, while ideas, ruling over people, force them to act anyhow, and the historical events depend on this». From the tectological point of view the history of humankind is the history of its adaptation, its struggle against the nature; more simply, the subject matter of history is development of technosphere: «economic relations of people and ideas, depending on them, are made and formed» just there. People – masters or subordinates, heroes or masses – live and act, obeying the force of those modes of production and of those economic relations, which surround them and in which they are brought up; ideas, guiding the people, just reflect the very modes of production and economic relations. Social labour in its movement, in the change of its forms is the basis of history» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 461].

History of form — «sequence and legitimacy of its change», the most general expression of which «gives the concept about causality of phenomena». Scientific «research of a form is study of its external and internal history» [Basic Elements, pp. 47, 49].

History of humankind — «the way from tribal life through feudalism to domination of capital and through it – to integration of labour» [Questions of Socialism, p. 206]. The first part of this way is determined by tectology as the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, and the second – as the conscious one. Moreover, in so far as among the present representatives of humankind «there will be no several millions, knowingly aspiring to the really human type of life», then tectology, forced to establish this fact by the formula that «man has not come yet», considers all the way, passed by humankind, to be the prehistory, and the present moment of transition of fragmented humankind into united one – the beginning of human history [Questions of Socialism, p. 46].

Homeostasis — 1) ability, connected with stability, of a complex to resist to actions from environment, preserving at that its internal composition and structure; 2) relative constancy of composition and structure of a complex in condition of dynamic equilibrium.

Homogeneous chain connection (symmetric chain connection) — connection between homogeneous complexes, when «a relation of one to another is the same as of the second to the first: a chain, made of round links, a rank of soldiers» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 154].

Homogeneous complex — a complex, «made of homogeneous elements-activities», i.e. any complex, in which there is found out «a known degree of similarity between separate parts». For example, «the society consists of many homogeneous biological units – organisms; also an organism consists of homogeneous units – cells; a cell includes in its composition a number of protein compounds, representing the big similarity on chemical properties between selves; alloys are ordinarily formed of two or several substances, having the metal character, common for them; space systems – of astronomical bodies, similar on many characteristics at all their variety; crystals – of mutually similar and symmetrically directed particles, etc.». Experience proves that absolute homogeneity does not exist: in spite of a known degree of similarity, separate parts are not identical nevertheless, however their «heterogeneity can be so small, that it has no practical significance for this or that task in view». Thus, designating complexes to be «homogeneous, evidently we recognize thereby the presence of something common in them; but we do not consider them as the same, consequently, we find something different in them», i.e. «we to have to do with them not as with simple, indecomposable elements, but as with systems, more or less complex, consisting of elements, partly common, partly different – elements of the second order». For example, if a professor imparts knowledge to a student, then in all tasks, connected with teaching, they are heterogeneous complexes, but if a professor and a student carry a log or play chess, then in the given tasks they are homogeneous complexes [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 207, 149, 154, 150].

Homogeneous connection (symmetric connection) — connection between complexes of one system, which «fulfill an identical organizational function in it». For example, it is «a cooperation of workers, performing together an identical labour to each of them». In reality, full, absolute homogeneity «does not occur: two complexes, two relations cannot be exactly equal, up to identity; but heterogeneity can be so small that it has no practical significance for this or that task in view» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 154-155].

Homology — a structural similarity by origin, «expressing a divergence of forms». For example, comparative anatomy recognizes homologous a hand of man, a foreleg of horse, a wing of bird, fore fins of fish, since «they are the organs homogeneous by origin, developed from the common beginning», but «lost the most part of the similarity owing to different vital use, to different, consequently, lines of the adaptation to environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 90].

Honour — «a norm of organizational relations of aristocratic estate» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 168]; or, from the tectological point of view, one of the forms of social degression, which are necessary «for stable organization of living activities of society» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 144].

Horizontal chain connection — chain connection between complexes of one level of organization, representing chain ingression.

Hottentotism — «a use of opposite criteria for itself and for others». For example, «the characteristic of good and evil, stated, allegedly, by one Hottentot: “good, when I steal; evil, when I am stolen”». There is generally known «the naive-theoretical justification of hottentotism», which is present in the sphere of professional politicians: «we defend our interests, and we have to justify everything that corresponds to them, to deny and blame everything that hurts them; no impartiality can be here, – it would be advantageous only to enemies, who, you know, would not come to pay in the same impartiality». Thus, «hottentotism is a derivative of gregarious instinct, for which the whole is only own limited collective, and of group subjectivism, which does not see the whole at all» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 337-339].

Human activity — an element of the world activity, «from which it has been crystallized, at the expense of which it grows continuously». Beginning from an individuum and finishing with «the great social organism» – humankind, «all human activity has one character: this is the processes of organization. Technical doing organizes the elements of external nature in society; cognitive and art one – the social experience of people. Even a destructive work represents neither more nor less than struggle of different organizational forms or tendencies». For example, «a war is an organizational dialectic process», in which enemies treat each other as hostile forces of the external nature: each of belligerent parties «aspires to subdue or paralyze» the activity of the enemy by the own activity, i.e. «to organize the environment in the own interests». Even doing of a criminal from his point of view is organizational too, «not to mention that formally criminal work, which consists in the struggle for new, higher forms of social life against the old ones, becoming obsolete» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 251]. A synonym is human doing.

Human body — «a colony from 50-100 trillions of cells», each of which contributes the share of participation «in the common struggle for life with the external nature: for each cell separately the assimilation occurs at the expense of internal conjugational environment» – blood and lymph [Tectology, v. 2, p. 15].

Human doing — in the terms of tectology it is human activity, which «from the simplest forms up to its most complex ones – is reduced to organizing processes». Moreover, «humankind does not have other activity, except for organizational one», which all content can be expressed by the formula: «organization of external forces of the nature, organization of human forces, organization of experience» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 70-71]. Any human doing is considered by tectology as «a material of organizational experience» and is researched from the organizational point of view [Tectology, v. 1, p. 69].

Humankind — from the tectological point of view it is the highly differentiated biosocial system of global scale, which as a whole represents the nooderma of biosphere, i.e. a highly plastic system of adaptation of geosphere to space conditions. In the scale of historical time development of humankind is represented as a single organizational act, which in tectology is completely enough described by the known formula of three phases: conjugation – differentiation – consolidation; in other words, the systemogenesis of this specific biospheric nooderma passes sequentially three tectological states: genosphere – ethnosphere – noosphere. At first as a result of certain bioconjugational processes in biosphere the first people arose – protoanthropic humans, primitive tribal society came into existence, then «the development of humankind was accompanied by settlement of people in different territories and by the adaptation to the special environment. In this way there have been stood apart communities of one tribe, tribes of one nation, nations of one race, finally, special races by accumulating differences. The divergence has the system character: gravitation to complementary connections is clearly shown in that with the course of time the diverged groups and collectives develop an exchange of their special products and their different experience. The system contradictions are found out in the increasing cultural alienation, in mutual misunderstanding – in the foreground here is the divergence in the field of language, in collisions of interests, in enmity, in wars of tribes and nations, in colossal waste of energy, which is turned out from that». At the same time these contradictions are weakened and overcome by counterdifferentiation in the form of different conjugational processes, i.e. by any kind of cultural interaction, and the more strongly it goes, the more organized and «the more stable there is the cohabitation of tribes and nations and races on the earth surface», the more intensively there is carried out the transition of humankind from the differentiated state of ethnosphere into the integration state of noosphere [Tectology, v. 2, p. 39]. See anthroposphere.

Hypercycle — complex intercoordinated system of the cycles, connected with chain egression. Stability to a hypercycle is provided by a network of direct connections and feed-backs between cycles, which continuously acts on the base of biregulation. In other words, the reason of stability of a hypercycle, as well as any complex system, is dynamic equilibrium between its separate parts – the cycles connected with each other by complementary interrelations. Circulations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other chemical elements represent the most known examples of natural hypercycles. Such hypercycles and just similar to them form the basis of complementary interrelations between all shells of geosphere: for example, circulation of carbon – between biosphere and atmosphere, and water circulation – between atmosphere and hydrosphere, etc. Moreover, the same circulations regulate «the heat-retaining function of atmosphere». It is explained by that «the main components of air – oxygen and nitrogen – possess rather small retaining ability, and water steam, which is comparatively rather little in air, some tenth of percent, and carbonic acid, which is even less, surpass them in this respect in 16 000 times». Thus, the regulation of their quantity between atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere «is the basic condition, owing to which their temperature level is kept steady on average: a typical complementary interrelation» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 16-17].

Hypothesis — «a coming out of limits of real experience in the area of possible experience. A hypothesis is «a necessary element of any cognition; it is even the soul of cognition. Every cognition tends to construct possible experience on the basis of real experience – seeks for a true hypothesis, giving the strong basis for practice. A hypothesis, which deals with real elements of experience and its real relations and which only makes new combinations of them, such a hypothesis can be certainly false, but it is not metaphysical», because there are no «“preconditions” of metaphysic character» in it completely [Empiriomonism, p. 102]; it is a working hypothesis, i.e. «planning a way of research, a way of its practical test. Without preparatory constructions of such a type a research could not go forward, and could only loiter on an increasing heap of facts. A further research corroborates or refutes such a hypothesis or leads to its modification. For tectology any such construction is solution of the task – to organize the present data harmoniously. With addition of new data, which do not go into this solution, a special science rejects or remakes it. But for tectology, for collecting of organizational experience and making of organizational methods, it can also keep its significance in this case, since it helps to study the solution of organizational tasks in general». Moreover, «in the history of science there are quite a number of long ago obsolete theories and hypotheses, which, however, can still serve as significant tectological material. In this sense tectology will keep and preserve for humankind a lot of its work crystallized in the truths of the past. Undoubtedly that present truths will become obsolete and will die in due time, but tectology guarantees to us that even then they will not be simply rejected and will not turn into naked fruitless delusions in the eye of the future» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 99].

«I» (egocomplex) — 1) it is «the most compound complex of vitally essential combinations, emotional and volitional for the most part, generally which are in the closest connection with self-preservation of an organism» [Empiriomonism, p. 12]; 2) it is «an adjustment for individual struggle for life, and that is why only in the individualistic society, that is the contemporary one, for each person it becomes the center of experience which separate sharply its “psychical world” from the psychical world of other people» [Empiriomonism, p. 36]. However «if to consider a separate “I” as the subject of cognition, there are no fundamental obstacles to recognize all the world as a complex and developed comprehensively-systematized hallucination» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 220].

Idea — an organizational scheme, which acts either in the form of a technical rule, or scientific knowledge, or an artistic conception, being expressed either by words, or other signs, or images of art. For example, a technical idea coordinates directly the labour efforts of people; a scientific idea, being the instrument of the higher order, does the same, only more indirectly and in wider scale; an artistic idea serves as means of joining of a collective in unity of perception, feeling, mood, bringing up an individual for social life. Thus, an idea is powerful and versatile organizing instrument.

Idea-vampire — an idea, which has exhausted its organizing potential and which «has already become obsolete and unable to guide humankind forward». For example, the idea of religious authority has presently lost the former arogenity, but as the stark past it continues to stick hard into the present, retarding the social development, whereas the idea of democracy «hasn’t yet finished everything that can give; but in order to remain alive, it should change and develop with a society» [Questions of Socialism, p. 265].

Ideal — a «preliminary solution of vital tectological tasks, carried out in aspirations and thoughts» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 67]. The term «ideal» has many meanings, but «the most important of them is what relates to the arranging of life of a man, a group and a collective. A man speaks: “my ideal of personal, family, social life is such”. It means that he aspires to such thinkable arranging of personal, family, social life, considering it to be the most perfect form of organization» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 67]. Therefore in the briefest formulation an ideal is «an intellectual model of an organization» [Questions of Socialism, p. 437], at that as universal project «it expresses the aspiration to unite all humankind harmoniously for struggle against the spontaneous world, for continuous development of forces» [Empiriomonism, p. 4].

Ideal-dream — an ideal, «torn off from reality, from living practice» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 9], according to the law of equilibrium being «a psychical reaction to hostile action of environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 256]. For example, Christian ideal.

Idealism — one of two main philosophical tendencies, which is based on fetishistic substitution of concepts «spirit» or «idea» under all the content of experience and represents «a softened form of religious world view». Another historically developed main direction in philosophy is materialism.

Ideological complex — set of certain organizing adapters, which in accordance with three their basic types are of the first order – the complex of forms of direct communication, of the second order – the complex of cognitive forms and of the third order – the complex of normative forms. For example, a scientific paradigm is an ideological complex of the second order.

Ideological forms (eidoforms) — «the forms of indirect adjustment of people to the social struggle against the external nature» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 226], more exactly, «the forms of the adjustment of a society to its existing internal relations in the field of technics and cooperation», from the tectological point of view representing the various forms of social degression. Ideological forms are subdivided into three basic groups: «the forms of distribution», «the forms of mutual understanding of people (speech and cognition)» and «the forms of mutual control of people, or the normative (justice, morality…)» [Basic Elements, p. 162].

Ideological ingression — a form of social connection, which has originated and develops from labour ingression and the basis of which is a common ideological complex; in other words, it is a sort of social ingression, in which «a community of ideological elements» serves as the connecter. In full accordance with the principle of feed-back this ideological community, developing «from the common efforts, directed to a common purpose» (the direct connection), in its turn, serves to «coordination of efforts of various people for a common purpose» (the feed-back). Thus, «ingression of common ideological elements» closes by itself the loop of social direct connection and feed-back [Tectology, v. 1, p. 187].

Ideological process — one of three sides of social process, which is of «the second character genetically», inasmuch as «it is determined by technical process in such a sense that it arises and develops at the expense of preponderance of assimilation over disassimilation, inherent to it» [Empiriomonism. pp. 272, 294]. The essence of ideological process is in development of all forms of social degression [Tectology, v. 2, p. 138], i.e. of all «three types of organizing adapters of social life», covering «all that social sphere, which is outside of technical process, outside of direct relations of struggle of social man with the external nature» [Empiriomonism, p. 270]. Depending on a type of dominating social degression it is possible to recognize four historical periods in ideological process: primeval, authoritarian, individualistic and collectivistic. Our time is characterized «by the greatest bloom of the individualistic cultures, by their decline, beginning already, by the origin of the collectivistic culture, alongside with them and in struggle against them» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 291].

Ideologist — a social degressor, organizer of «vital relations and experience of people», creating organizing forms and making these forms social by means of communication. A writer, a philosopher, a religious teacher, a political leader – all these are examples of ideologists. A social degressor «develops organizing forms personally, but they organize life and experience of people not directly and straight (as it is done by “orders”, “injunctions”, etc.), but only having passed through social selection and having got in it the character of impersonal norms and ideas». For example, «a religious teacher offers the masses some religious doctrine; but this doctrine will become the real organizing form for experience and doing of the masses only when it will be adopted by them as “truth”, i.e. when it will take the impersonal shape of socially-developed cognitive system. They obey a chief, because he is a chief, i.e. an organizer; they follow a doctrine of an ideologist not because he is an ideologist, but because his doctrine is “true”; and owing to this truth, i.e. social fitness of his doctrine, he himself can become a “leader”, i.e. an organizer, to whom they submit already directly and blindly; but just therefore he is already not simply an ideologist then, but a “leader”, “tsar”, “embodied god”, a representative of power in general». Thus, an ideologist «carries out his role only on the condition of fundamental coincidence between his experience and tendencies of development with experience and tendencies of development of those masses, to which he serves». Exactly for this reason there is no difference of directions of social selection in environment of the masses and in environment of their ideologists. If on the known conditions there is formed the organizing class from ideologists, then «it will be no longer the class of ideologists of those masses, over which it will dominate» [Empiriomonism, pp. 303-304].

Ideology — an ideological system which in the narrow meaning is «an instrument of organization of society, production, classes and generally any social forces or elements, – an instrument, without which this organization is impossible» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 263], and in the wide meaning it is a system of concepts, organizing the social experience of people. For example, mathematics is the ideology of exact natural knowledge, and natural knowledge is the ideology of productive forces. As a field of «spiritual culture» ideology is «the highest organizational field of social life», by virtue of what it «is characterized by special intensity of negative selection»: those points, in which the principle of complementary interrelations is not sustained, «become the points of application of disorganizational work of criticism; as a result there is turned out either a general wreck of system or partial destruction and then restructuring» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 23]. From the point of view of tectology every ideology is degression [Tectology, v. 2, p. 138], the organizational task of which consists in «the harmonious and complete organizing of the experience of a collective, in such a correspondence with its structure, that the received cultural products would serve themselves, in their turn, as organizational instruments for it, i.e. they would conserve, shape, fix, develop further a given type of organization of a collective» [Questions of Socialism, p. 430]. Within the limits of the triune organizational task an ideology represents the field of the organization of ideas, i.e. ideosphere.

Ideomonism — the second way of realization of monistic tendency in the sphere of cognition (the first one is theomonism, the third one – empiriomonism, or scientific monism with its top – tectology). See eidomonism.

Ideosphere — see eidosphere.

Ignorance — «by no means a simple lack of knowledge», because in the contemporary «epoch of specialization everyone has only a small part of collective experience; and even the most learned, the most educated man cannot avoid huge gaps; this is not a basis for recognizing everyone as “ignorant”. The “ignorant” relation to science begins where a man permits himself to speak about subjects, which hasn’t been studied by him. The highest degree of ignorance consists in audacity to teach others, and particularly – specialists, in these unstudied subjects» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 177]. The culture of dialogue, which leads specialists to mutual understanding, is developed by tectology.

Illness — an organizational process, representing «the struggle of an organism against destructive influences, against disorganizing actions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 261].

Illusion — faulty perception or notion as result of unconformity of psychical experience to physical. When a physical body and its psychical image do not coincide, man takes one thing for another, in consequence of what «on the one hand, he can unsuccessfully react practically, so he gets various harmful influences from a given “thing”, on the other hand, he turns out to be unadapted theoretically, i.e. his statements generate contradictions in other people, and also in himself». In other words, illusion is such a form of perception or notion, in which «there is most directly shown mutual unconformity, disharmony of socially-organized experience with individually organized experience, of physical series with psychical series» [Empiriomonism, p. 25].

Illusion of memory — conjugation of a perceived psychical image «with notions kept in memory», when «some recollection, similar to a given perception, is getting so many its elements to be identified with it, and it seems to the person that he “has already seen” or in general he has already experienced earlier what actually he is seeing or experiencing just for the first time» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 30-31].

Illusion of perception — conjugation of a directly perceived psychical image «with notions kept in memory», when «a present perception is supplemented with all missing elements of old notion, for example, a suit, hanging on a wall, – with elements of human figure, so two images mix up finally» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 30-31].

Image — a passive type of psychical experiences, among which are sensations, perceptions, notions and which are «the immediate reflections of actions of environment in a psychical system». Complexes of environment cause quite certain changes in complexes of psychics, but if «the last have a passive character and are not reflected in their turn in complexes of environment», then they are only images; if «they get an active colouring and are reflected in their turn in environment», then they represent will – an active type of psychical experiences [Empiriomonism, p. 156].

Imaginary theory — «a theory, which is impossible neither to prove nor to refute, because the very criteria of truth and error are inapplicable to it. It can be never verified both directly and indirectly by any objective experiments and observations, and this is its “advantage”: it is invulnerable, as a shadow or a ghost» [Essays of Realistic World View, p. 341].

Imitation — «simple psychical process», which, being «the basis and the simplest method of any training», makes up together with its derivative – cognition – «the system of social plastics and coordination of socially-labour forms, forms of production». The processes of imitation «are supplemented with cognitive acts», as the result of which concepts are developed [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 178-179].

Immune system — the complex degression, which maintains homeostasis of a highly organized system. For example, the immune system of a living organism controls internal constancy of its internal structure, neutralizes, destroys and removes from the organism all structures, which are alien and atypical of it: infectious (viruses, bacteria), poisonous (poisons) and abnormal (tumor cells). The immune system of man has the complex hierarchical construction, including primary organs – marrow and thymus (thymus gland) and secondary ones – lymphatic glands, spleen, lymphoid tissue, associated with mucous membranes; at that all of them are connected between themselves and other organs by net of blood and lymphatic vessels, on which leukocytes move.

Impact — a transference of mechanical activity from one molecular system to another with entropic transformation of energy. From the point of view of tectology impact is not an instant act, but a complex process, at that «under the scheme of selection the course of this process is nonuniform and heterogeneous: while entropic transformation of energy during it decreases from maximum up to zero, transference of mechanical activity proper increases correspondingly», since in the initial stage of an impact energy «deals with molecular resistances and connections of a body and is spent on their changes – on deformation and heating», and in the final stage – «energy passes into moving of body still fuller». So this complex process goes in reality, «the exceptions could be represented either by cases of absolute elasticity or by such cases, when an external action would not change the molecular structure of a system at all» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 205-206].

Imperfection — «any deviation from complementary connections, any incompleteness in them» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 23], the consequence of what are insufficient harmony, incomplete connectivity of system.

Imperialism — the policy of financial capital, expressing «annexationist aspirations, which have become aggravated in the advanced countries because of world competition». The conception of imperialism for the first time arose in England before the beginning Boer War as the justification of its aggressive character: it «says that great empires represent the highest form of organization of humankind, that is why the rights of small nations should not be taken into consideration, when the matter is about formation and expansion of such gigantic states». The concept of imperialism «spread also to other countries – Germany, France, Japan, the United States, etc.», everywhere generating the aggressive plans, aggravating the national hatred and promoting the growth of militarism [Elementary Course of Political Economy, p. 144].

Import — realization of the goods of foreign production in home market. A size of import «expresses dependence of the country on the world market in the production and consumption» [World Crises (May), pp. 113-114].

Impression — a result of action on a psychics of «external “direct complexes” of different steps of organizationality», forming, finally, the content of the whole physical experience, free from discontinuities [Country of Idols, p. 239]. A synonym is perception.

Incest — «conjugation of too similar, insufficiently diverged gametes – as though “insufficient” conjugation», which «gives a worsened posterity in general» and «results in degeneration» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 47].

Incomplete disingression — «difference of tensions of energy between adjacent complexes»; moreover, it is «the necessary condition of any physical experience, as well as psychical one», i.e. «that difference of tensions, without which nothing can occur». Thus, «all the world of the human experience, taken both as the system of consciousness and as the system of action, is conditioned by some difference of tensions, some incomplete disingression in each link of its infinitely developing chain» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 176-177, 179]. The world significance of incomplete disingression consists just in this.

Incomplete egression — initial period of development of «centralistic» connection, when at interaction of higher organized complex A with other complexes K, L, M, N of the same system «the influence of A on K or on L is more than the counter influence of K or L on A, but all together complexes K, L, M, N… can make the more significant defining action on A than it makes on them». An example: «though an outstanding member of group sets a pattern or a guideline to each of others more often than someone other to him, but however in aggregate they guide him for the most part than conversely» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 105].

Indefinitely-changeable environment — environment, from the side of which a complex experiences indefinitely changing actions, time and quantity of which cannot be considered in advance [Tectology, v. 1, p. 223].

Indirect experience — see physical experience.

Indirect reproduction of bioforms — the way of dependent conservation of vital forms in struggle for existence. For example, such complex bioforms as species, biogeocenose, all biosphere in whole, not to mention families, herds, communities, disappear with destruction of the last individual. As for such bioforms as organs and tissues, they also «are not reproduced by themselves, but are reproduced together with the whole – an organism» [Basic Elements, p. 93].

Individual — a separately taken living organism, an indivisible unit of life, «biomorphous atom», a person. See individuum.

Individual experience — a result of coordination of individually-organized experience with a certain part of socially-organized one, i.e. their coherent; simply speaking, it is that unique «inner world» of a separate man, which continuously develops by means of communication. In tectology a connection of different forms of organization of experience is expressed by the short formula: SO Ê I Í IO, where SO – socially-organized experience, I – individual one, and IO – individually-organized experience; meanwhile it is quite clear that SO » IO, i.e. SO is many times greater than IO. Along with the term of «individual experience» in tectology there is also used the other one, identical to it – «individual system of experience».

Individual «I» — an egressor of psychical experience, its «organizing center», at which disappearance from the field of consciousness «the antithesis of psychical with physical» is ceased and individuation is eliminated. Invasion of individual «I» in collective «we» takes place at the moments of the highest activity of consciousness, for example, at the moments of «enthusiastic contemplation of a beautiful picture of the nature or of a truly art work», «at the moments of cognitive creativity» or «at the moments of intensive display of collective will», when an individuum ceases to feel duality in his experience, when he «forgets himself», – «and then his experiences are the most harmonious». In primitive tribal society, with its communism, with absence of internal struggle and contradictions, «man is unable to separate himself from his group; his experience merges directly with experience of other people, the word «I» means for him his own body with the direct needs, but not at all a complex of emotions and aspirations, which are sharply distinguished from emotions and aspirations of other people, as it happens in the contemporary society. In the society of higher type, with collectively-organized labour, with eliminated internal contradictions and sharp distinctions of individuals, human “I”, as little as in primitive society, can serve as a center of a special world – an individually-psychical world: in a close mutual communication, in a deep mutual understanding of people there will be disappeared any propensity to oppose the own “psychics” to psychics of other people; and harmoniously organized collective experience will give people such grandiose completeness of life, of which we, people of the epoch of contradictions, cannot make a notion for ourselves» [Empiriomonism, pp. 35-36].

Individual system of experience — one of the set of peripheric complexes in the system of experience, the coordinating center of which is the social system of experience.

Individualism — the most typical form of adaptation of man in disharmonious social system in the epoch of transition from authoritarianism to collectivism, in other words, «the necessary adapter in exchange society», which «allows a person to defend himself and his economy in economic struggle, induces him to develop the forces for resisting and wining, – conducts him, consequently, on the way of creativity and progress». The causes of individualism – «in anarchicity of society, in market struggle and the competition of the enterprises masking the cooperation», and «the essence is in that a individuum, keeping his outwardly independent enterprise, thinks of himself as a separate, self-dependent center of activity, a center of interests, opposing himself with the private property to the same other individua and to whole world», as a result of that «all tasks of man, all sense of his existence concentrate in “I” and in “mine”; both work, and cognition are considered as creativity of separate persons, at that everyone acts in himself, the personal “conscience” is a basis of their behaviour; personal freedom and private property are their first, “natural” rights, i.e. lying in the nature of people» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 388].

Individually-organized experience — subjective experience, i.e. experience of a concrete individuum, which «is limited by a given person, doesn’t fall outside the scope of an individuum life». In contrast to the concept of «individual experience», which expresses the belonging of experience to a person, this term «means exactly a method of organization» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 221], and just in such a way it, i.e. «experience, organized individually, is included into the system of experience, organized socially, as its inseparable part», in consequence of what it «ceases to make the special world for cognition», because psychical disappears in uniting forms of physical [Empiriomonism, p. 33].

Individuation — «an opposition of own “I” to external world», of psychical to physical [Empiriomonism, p. 35].

Individuum — an element of every social system, its indecomposable unit, «a social atom», i.e. a separate man, a person.

Induction — «the generalizing method, going from particular to general» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 268], i.e. such a method of cognition, at which from studying of individual things, phenomena and facts they come to general rule, to generalization. For example: having investigated the properties of individual chemical elements, Mendeleyev opened the periodic law and developed the periodic system of elements on its basis.

Inertia — 1) «the immutable form of movement»; 2) «the basic property of such a process, which is subject to quite equilibrated influence of an environment»; but in reality it is only an ideal case, because «the reformative influences are quite equilibrated for no form of movement; therefore the continuous change of forms of movement is the same general fact, as the very movement» [Basic Elements, p. 30]; 3) activity-resistance from the point of view of tectology. Formerly there has been a conception of inertia as «absolutely passive resistance», which itself «is not activity, but resists to activity». However «this idea has destroyed by the progress of science»: «inertia of matter, embodying in its “mass”, has proved to be the manifestation of energy concentrated in it, namely electric; the “inert” atoms are now considered as the field of the most intensive processes of the universe» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 119].

Infinitesimal quantity — an abstract symbol expressing «reduction of a variable quantity up to such a degree in order to that it becomes less than any given quantity». If a variable quantity means a real process, for example, quantity of movement of a body, it can be reduced to infinitesimal one only in the case when «the given movement is counteracted by another, directed to reverse side and moreover returning in its energy until it will not destroy all the speed of the first movement». Thus, infinitesimal quantity is a symbol of interaction of two oppositely directed activities, of which one destroys another. The limit of infinitesimals «is zero, i.e. absence of any size», the symbol of complete elimination of both activities, of their complete equilibrium. Within the known «law» of formal dialectics «here quantitative change turns into in qualitative, quantity – into the absence of quantity, movement – into rest» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 193].

Information — measure of organizationality of a certain system relative to organizationality of an environment, to other system or to itself at the various moments of its change, i.e. it is either an organizational difference between a distinguished system and environment or other system, or simply difference between two its own tectological states. Thus, the concept of «information» is entirely reduced to the concept of «tectological difference». Reflected by consciousness, this difference with a view of preservation, processing, transfer and reproduction can be thereafter coded in any system of natural or artificial language. Within the framework of concrete language information is a system of certain signs, which is able to unlimited reproduction and represents a typical persistent with a variable, not necessarily homogeneous substratum. The direct connection between information and tectological difference is conveniently showed by the following simple example: let’s imagine, that on some absolutely black screen there is only one small hole, through which there is visible only limited part of absolutely plane, evenly painted and continuously moving dark blue surface; some complexes of dark blue elements replace the others, but «we do not observe this movement», because «in our “perception”, in our psychical experience there is kept all the same complex of “dark blue” elements, which does not change, no matter how great the speed of “physical” movements of a plane may be» [Empiriomonism, p. 89]. Our consciousness does not find out any tectological difference between the sections of the dark blue surface, replacing each other: the information is equal to zero. But if on the moving surface there is a red spot, which is got in the view, then consciousness fixes the arisen quantitative and qualitative dissimilarity of the new observations with the previous. The certain information has already been available, however there is known nothing about the connection of the complex of «dark blue» elements with the complex of «red» elements: whether they form a uniform system or they are separate complexes. In other words, there is not known, whether the observable tectological difference is a change of tectological states of the same one system or the fixed tectological difference is a certain distinction of organizationality of one complex in comparison with another. Easier speaking, observing the movement of the red spot relative to the dark blue plane, we still do not know, whether it itself moves relative to us. But if we shall make some action on it, shall put, for example, a scratch near the spot and at that shall see, that the scratch moves at the same way as well the spot, with the same speed and towards the same direction, and at that the distance between them does not change, then our consciousness fixes already both movement of the plane, and the presence of the red spot on it with the scratch: there has been increased the tectological difference between the new observable complex and the former others, accordingly, the information about it has increased. Thus, the direct connection between them is obvious; moreover, from this very example it is clearly, that information about an observable complex reduces its uncertainty.

Information compression — cognitive simplification of an empirical material with a view of economy of thinking, as a result of which generalization is formed. The highest degree of information compression is tectological generalizations.

Information fetishism — perverted understanding of information, connected with its transformation from measure of organizationality of any complex to self-dependent essence. In reality information comprise nothing absolute, it is not the substance of complexes, but interrelation of their organizationality, tectological difference between them.

Ingression — 1) «introduction of a mediate complex» as «special third part» between two other complexes with a view of their connection in a uniform system: for example, glue between two surfaces or a translator between two foreigners [Tectology, v. 1, p. 156]; 2) the basic form of organizational connection, because the other forms «are separated into some ingressions with an irreversible connecter» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 151]; 3) «the universal form of chain connection», because in every connection of two complexes it is possible «to recognize “a connecter” as a special, third link between them», possessing of the common elements with each of them [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161]. By means of ingression «it is possible to connect even such complexes, which would be mutually destroyed at direct connection», for example: «reconciliatory mediation between two conflicting or belligerent parties» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 158]. Every ingression «assumes conjugational processes, the field of which is the area of a connecter» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 37], therefore it is, as well as conjugation, – «also the basic, primary form of connection» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 188]. Moreover, «determining the new and new connections, where they haven’t been before», the cognition «has already long ago come to the idea of continuous connection of all existing, to the idea of “world ingression”» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160]. In Russian cognitive tradition this idea has got the name «vseedinstvo».

Ingression of labour — the basic form of social connection. See labour ingression.

Ingressive connecter — «area of mixing of two organizational forms, conjugation of activities of both, of what generally makes the basis of crises of type C» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. See ingressor.

Ingressive difference — a tectological difference between the complexes, connected by means of ingression.

Ingressive system — 1) a system, formed of complexes, combined by a connecter; 2) any two conjugates, because in their connection it is always possible «to recognize “a connecter” as a special, third link between them» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161]; 3) any chain connection of complexes by means of various introduced links – connecters. Inasmuch as «ingression is universal form of chain connection», then irrespectively of a degree of complexity any complex may be considered as an ingressive system [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161].

Ingressor — any «mediate complex», joining two others into uniform system. For example, a peripheric complex in an egressive system, which concentrates all basic and primary connections of the system with an environment; or the productive social complex in social system, to which the central complex gives completely the function of regulation of the system with world around. A synonym is connecter.

Initial difference — a primary tectological disparateness of any complexes, even «absolutely identical». Later on a divergence of initial forms goes avalanche-like, because to initial distinctions there is joined dissimilar changes under action of continuously varying environment, a primary difference of which concerning both complexes grows also avalanche-like [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 5-6].

«Inner world» — from the point of view of empiriomonism it is a number of interconnected complexes of perceptions, notions, aspirations, emotions replacing each other [Empiriomonism, p. 7].

Inorganic world — «not a chaos of elements, but a number of the certain spatio-temporal groupings», which turns in cognition «into the harmonious system united by continuous regularity of relations» [Empiriomonism, p. 78].

Instinct — an adapter for conservation of an animal organism, which «differs from reflex by much greater complexity of reaction and by corresponding complexity of its anatomical mechanism». By expediency instinct is similar to reflex, but its speed of reaction can be insignificant; therewith «in instinct there is still remained the principal, basic feature of reflex – invariability of reaction, stability of its form (machine-like character)»; and though both of them are not related to adapters for development, «but from them there is originated psychical motor system of the higher animals, which is an adapter for development for the most part» [Basic Elements, p. 122].

Instrument — the supplementary link in relations of man with nature, by means of which his egression became stable and chain and which, continuously increasing the egressive difference in relation to other natural complexes, strengthens his position as egressive center. The scheme of such egression with the supplementary link: «by means of organs man operates instruments, by means of instruments – other external objects» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 124-125]. Easier speaking, in any technical process «instruments represent the supplement of body’s organs, of organizational elements of labour force» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70]. For example: «with the activities hidden in their material form an axe, a saw supplement functionally a human organ – a hand and from it they get, “assimilate” the activities of their action, application» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 21]. In the struggle of man against the nature the instruments are the basis of his victories, what gave and gives him all-increasing superiority over all living organisms in biosphere.

Instruments of self-organization of humankind — three forms of degression: word, ideas and norms, which are the products of organization of experience, carried out by humankind in the process of adaptation to environment. Humankind takes all these three types of organizational adjustment not from the external nature, as material instruments, but from its own one, – from its own activities, from its own feelings, from its own experience.

Integrity — internal organizational unity of all elements of a complex that gives the new properties to all complex, which are not inherent in the constituent elements [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 114-117]. Arising of new properties is a result of «general orientation of activities» of complex, i.e. a result of arising of synergy between its elements [Tectology, v. 1, p. 150].

Intellectual doing — organization of experience by means of «organization of ideas» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 106, 70]. As a sort of labour doing it also «comes from foreseeable limiting equilibrium» and also represents «nothing else than an infinite chain of crises C». However there is an essential difference of intellectual doing from production doing. Inasmuch as the processes of thinking are developed by much more complex chain of crises C, then «limiting equilibriums, to which they come, are expected in advance much less often, and then usually with lesser definiteness and accuracy than in a labour practice», by virtue of what it is necessary to recognize, that «in the present phase of development of humankind the processes of thinking are much less planned, i.e. more spontaneous, than practically-labour». And really: «in thinking of people there are rather much more quantity of errors and failures, i.e. disorganizational combinations, than in production; but they cost to people much more cheaply, do not make such a great waste of activities as errors and failures of labour practice», in consequence of what «it is more useful to transfer the spontaneity of searches from the second area to the first one, as more often and more full as possible», i.e. «long and complex series of mental combinations are verified really by one certain experiment, sometimes simple; and if in it a limiting equilibrium doesn’t turn out to be what corresponds to the results of mental series, all it is rejected by only one practical failure, instead of many fruitless attempts» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 234-236].

Intelligentsia — organizational, «state-official and technical, social group, being a class by the nature (the special position in system of production), but not developed in a class by its consciousness and organization: it is a class “an sich”, but not “für sich”» [World War and Revolution, p. 93]. At the present time it is sufficiently «extensive social stratum» from «technically, politically, culturally organizational elements», taking up the position between the dominating and subordinated classes; the stratum, which, «in spite of its special position in system of production and the large role in it, has not taken the independent class role till now», partly maintaining neutrality, partly taking «the cover of “labour intelligentsia”», but for the most part «associating itself with dominating force» and becoming «an agent of capital». And «while its role is like that, it in itself does not change a correlation of world forces» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, p. 92]. See cognitariat and tectorate.

Intensive way of conservation of forms — the universal way of preservation of organizational form of a separate complex in an environment by means of maintenance of dynamic equilibrium with it, which consists in increase of activities of a complex at the expense of environment and in subsequent structural transformations according to the conditions of stability. In comparison with extensive way of conservation of forms it is a general way of an individual survival of a complex.

Interaction — «the mutual transmission of activities, an expenditure from the one side, passing in getting of the other one, and vice versa» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 20]. It is the direct consequence of the third law of Bogdanov.

Intercomplementary connections — see complementary interrelations, or complementary connections.

Interest — resulting from experience, such a certain aspiration of any being or collective «for expansion and development of a life», which, «material and non-material, is nothing else than increase of vital organizationality, quantitative and structural one» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 299]. Thus, from the point of view of tectology all interests have exceptionally organizational character, not to mention that «all interests of humankind are organizational» and only organizational [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71].

Interference — «mutual destruction of the opposite complexes, serving as connection between others», i.e. such a type of change, at which in the infinite and continuous universum the separate complexes and their systems «remain divided», not merging at that «into one continuous field». As one of the forms of causal relationship interference reduces discontinuities in experience to continuity [Empiriomonism, p. 338].

Interjection — an acoustic reflex, i.e. a spontaneous sound reaction of an organism to external action. For example: interjections of feeling – oh! ah! ouch!, etc. or active interjections – labour shouts from which human speech originated.

Intermediate forms — «relative limiting equilibriums for a certain part of a studied process. For example, the group of radioactive bodies, forming the uranium family, is the consecutive series of the chemical elements, resulting one from another, existing longer or shorter time – from tens of milliards of years to small fractions of second: uranium I, uranium II, uranium X, ionium, radium with its derivatives, down to the final link of the chain, lead; it is considered to be already quite stable element, but, possibly, it is such just only for our present scales and methods of observation» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 220-221].

Intermundialism (from Latin intermundia – a cleft of the world) — a metaphysical discoursation.

Internal history of form — «changes of internal relations» of a form. At research of complex forms, in addition to their external history, it is necessarily analyzed also the internal one [Basic Elements, pp. 49, 48].

Internal selection — such an element of chain selection, which is considered within the limits of one or another given system; more simply, selection inside of a system that specifically means selection of complexes, which enter into the system’s composition and which selecting environment is the system as the whole; or, in the shortest formulation: intrasystem selection, which gives a material for extrasystem one, i.e. for external selection. For example, «since within the limits of an organism its cells are capable to die and reproduce without destruction of the whole, so far as they are subject to a special, internal selection»; at starvation «the least biopotential, least hardy cells die off», with restoration of normal nutrition there are reproduced the survived cells, which biopotential is greater than at the perished ones, – «and as a result the elements of organism prove to be more healthy on the average, more suitable for vital struggle than formerly». Such internal selection, «in which a selecting environment is the whole of organism in relation to its elements», gives «a suitable material for external selection, as which object there are served organisms». In medicine and dietology there is well-known such a health-improving action of internal selection: quite often «after acute disease, especially of feverish type, after temperate starvation or after not very massive loss of blood people become more healthy than they were before these sufferings» [Basic Elements, p. 113].

Intrageneration — a kind of indirect reproduction of bioforms, which are conserved by reproduction of their inner self-replicating elements, for example, a species survives and increases in number not by itself, but due to reproduction of its separate biological individuals.

Intrasystem selection — see internal selection.

Introspection — a method, «dealing only with the facts of consciousness», which «are cognized directly, straight, without necessity of intervention of organs of external senses», therefore, taken separately, it is an insufficient, often unreliable method, and therewith having the essential disadvantage: it «cannot get into sphere of unconscious» and proves to be useless, «if the causes, which determines consciousness, lie just there», since in this case «they do not exist» for it, and as a result «illusion of noncausality» turns out. The peculiarity of the method is in that «at introspection a cognizing subject merges with a cognizable object, whereas in other cases this is not present: “I” study an amoeba, and an amoeba is non-I, something “external” for me». However «pure introspection can yield different results at different people – and controversies will appear fruitless; while use of other methods supposes more or less exact check». Really, «it is too little to observe directly the facts of consciousness as they are; it is also necessary to see whence they appear and where disappear». Just for this reason other methods «possess categorical prevalence and supreme control over introspection. On this point of view there is contemporary physiological and experimental psychology» [Basic Elements, pp. 139, 130-131].

Irreversible connection — connection between complexes of different levels of organization, when an influence of higher organized complex on less organized one is more than the counter [Tectology, v. 2, p. 105]. Irreversible connection is a sort of asymmetric connection.

Isocomplex process — the intrasystem process of continuous change of the substratum of a system at invariable constancy of its structure. Such processes are characteristic for persistent complexes, which are, for example, a way of life, a factory, an educational institution, science and great number of others.

Isolated complex — a complex, which is connected negligibly small with an environment and the development of which depends only on internal changes, i.e. is determined by interaction of exclusively internal activities. According to the axiom of total interconnection, «there are and there can be no complexes, which are isolated in themselves: each of them is surrounded by environment, by differently organized complexes, by other activities», but in tectological researches sometimes it is permissibly to neglect interaction of a complex with environment surrounding it [Tectology, v. 1, p. 164]. The synonyms «self-contained system», «closed system», «self-contained complex» are superfluous and therefore not in use in tectology.

Isomorphism — the structural similarity between separate complexes.

Isomorphism of laws (isomorphism of physical, biological and social laws) — see isonomism.

Isonomism — the identity of laws, which operate in different complexes irrespectively of the nature of the elements, constituting them. Isonomism expresses the tectological total interconnection of world processes, or in other words, it is the consequence of structural unity of nature [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].

Judgement — a complex of the simplest elements of thinking, simpler speaking, a combination of concepts [Empiriomonism, p. 271].

Juridical law — a version of social degression, which dominates during the period of individualism, in other words, «a form of law which is peculiar mainly to the society with unorganized division of labour – to the exchange society. It arises from customary law and differs from it insignificantly – exactly in the technics of the development». As is known, the exchange society «consists of a group of organizers of labour mutually independent in the sphere of production and of a group of executors dependent on them», and naturally, the law is established by the first which «continue however to remain the main organizers of law even when they cease to be organizers of production, but have not yet lost this role in distribution» [Basic Elements, p. 197].

Juridical system — a degressive complex of a catagenic social system, for example, of capitalist society, in which «it is its skeleton, the necessary connection of its parts and the constant form, vesting them» [Questions of Socialism, p. 65].

Justice — one of the forms of social degression [Tectology, v. 2, p. 142], which as a normative form concerns to norms of compulsion, corresponding to the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis.

Kantian criticism — a masterpiece of scholasticism «with scientific pretensions, but with no scientific basis». Not only a tectologist, but also each monistically thinking, widely educated man is just unable to take seriously the logic fantasy of the Kantian «theories of cognition», where at every step «there is a naive belief in possibility to deduce something important from naked analysis of concepts» [Empiriomonism, p. 225]; to study all this useless nonsense quite seriously – all the same that to fall voluntarily a victim of eidovampirism and chronophagia.

Kantianism — a naive form of «substitution of metaphysically uncertain under physical and psychical». Incognizable «thing in itself» was the expression of historically grounded «aspiration to supplement experience by means of substitution», the undefined character of which signified «insufficiency of experience and cognition». The mistake of such a substitution «began where cognition tried somehow or other to finish with this uncertainty and created a hypothesis inaccessible to checking». The skeptically-metaphysical hypothesis of Kant «put incognizable on the place of undefined so that at the cost of overstatement of uncertainty to save itself from the work, connected with efforts to create greater definiteness on the place of it» [Empiriomonism, pp. 128, 130].

Kinematic abstraction — imaginary, instead of a real physical task, within the limits of which «a choice of “reference system” is indifferent: an electron, for example, moves away from solar surface at a speed near to the speed of light, – certainly, the Sun moves away from it at the same speed too». But as soon as the task is concretized, – there is brought, for example, a third body or idea of mass and gravitation, – then all will have changed: «instead of one or another half of our bisubjective system, we should accept the other system, objectively privileged one: with the center of coordinates in the common center of gravity of the Sun and electron, so, two nonillion of nonillions times closer to the center of the Sun» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 340].

Knowledge — system of generally valid notions and concepts; in other words, means of adaptation of humankind in its struggle against the nature. «Exact and correct knowledge», i.e. checked up in practice, – it is «the weapon, with the aid of which the world should be conquered to become the real “kingdom of man”». Historically «knowledge was grouped in accordance with division of labour and experience: peasants accumulated different information about properties of plants and ground, about ways of tillage, etc.; smiths – about ores and metals; doctors – about useful and harmful herbs, about course of diseases and so forth. Technical sciences are still divided into the same labour specialities, for example, agricultural ones, metallurgy, medicine. Inside of each arising science the knowledge was grouped in that connection, in what they were most easily remembered and transmitted; that is “logic” connection, which combines homogeneous things and divides heterogeneous». Thus, from the sociolabour point of view knowledge is «product of efforts» of man in his struggle against the nature, i.e. result of this struggle [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 103, 36, 235].

Labour (labour activity) — from the tectological point of view it is «none other than an infinite chain of crises C». Human activities «as though burst into objects of the nature, come into interactions with their elements; from a conjugation of a spontaneous complex with a complex of labour efforts there is turned out a preknown limiting equilibrium, a new form – a product». The basis of such expedient activity is the principle of limiting equilibrium: «a man foresees that limiting equilibrium, which corresponds to his need or desire, and enters his efforts into a conjugational series so that exactly it will be turned out», and he foresees, knowing that «the more identical in different cases are the organizational material and conditions, at which there are taken place the processes forming it, the more identical there should be the limiting equilibrium of these processes – their organizational products». The tectological description of labour act is the following: knowing, from what complexes, under what actions the necessary product was turned out, a man makes the expedient efforts to external objects, i.e. he «breaks tectological borders of the objects, causing a desired series of crises C with appropriate D finishing them» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 234-235]. Thus, labour is expedient human practice of transformative character, based on the principle of limiting equilibrium, since labour «“does not create” something, but only changes relations of objects and their elements» [Exchange and Technics, p. 329]. In whole as «conscious struggle for existence», as «an activity directed to achievement of prerealized purposes» [Basic Elements, p. 147], it is organizing process, which objective sense is in «organization of the world for man, in the interests of his life and development» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70], i.e. «labour in whole organizes the world for humankind» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 44-45]. From the energy point of view, being «a form of vital disassimilation», «labour is expense of energy, consequently, – a factor of negative selection» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 184], by virtue of what psychologically («as a source of innervational sensations»), it «in itself is a certain suffering» (a «pleasant» labour «should not be understood in the sense that a labour expense of energy can be a pleasure in itself; no, pleasant stimulations, which are got at process of labour and owing to it, – not from a very expense of energy, but from an environment, influencing on a psychical system, – can outweigh all sum of suffering, which is labour taken separately»; if such a labour «is deprived of any connection with its pleasant results», «it loses the character of pleasure immediately») [Basic Elements, pp. 229-230]. As an integral tectological quantity labour is «the activity of all humankind in historical connection of all its generations», as a differential quantity – a human effort overcoming some resistance. Being subdivided into intellectual and physical, at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis labour is compulsory, while at the stage of conscious one – it becomes free; in other words, in developed «collectivistic order the length of working day, similarly to choice of occupations, passes from the area of compulsion into the area of freedom. Labour is a necessity of a human organism, the parasitic degeneration is impossible in a worker collective; instructions of hygiene, on the one hand, individual forces and inclinations, on the other one, are quite sufficient in order to determine expediently a duration of one or another work for each producer», and «then for the central production apparatus there remains to consider the facts in this area, but not to prescribe norms» [Questions of Socialism, p. 303]. A synonym is social practice.

Labour cost — «the sum of social labour embodied in a goods», i.e. it is «purely production relation» [Essays of Realistic World View, p. 291].

Labour expenses — «a regulator of exchange relations». This regulator «operates spontaneously by means of the market, and the law of value, the law of labour value, is carried out by fluctuations», which essence is in «that everywhere in them there passes the tendency of returning to this norm. I.e. when there is a fluctuation in one side, deviation from a norm of labour cost in one side, this deviation is spontaneously, through a known period of time, compensated by deviation in the other one in approximately the same strong way». It is necessary to note that «if under capitalism the spontaneous regulator is labour expenses», and they keep the same function at the transitional formation, then under collectivism they are also the regulator; at that the action of the law of value «is carried out in one case more spontaneously, in other – more systematically, but this is one and the same law, the law of labour expenses, one and the same interrelation» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1926), pp. 211, 214].

Labour ingression — «common efforts directed to a common purpose»; from the tectological point of view «the basis of social connection, however it has been complicated and disguised by the further evolution of society». Labour ingression «assumes community of environment, against which efforts of people are directed: labour is organizationally single, since it is directed against one and the same number of hostile forces and resistances». Without this condition there could not be arisen ideological connections in society, i.e. ideological ingression developed from ingression of labour [Tectology, v. 1, p. 187].

Labour process — a socially-useful psychophysiological act, which «is generally unthinkable outside of “material” vital processes», since it can become socially-useful only «having realized in “material” changes of external environment. For example, “spiritual” work of a writer should be embodied for this purpose in a “material” manuscript», and work of a specialist-supervisor «is expressed in verbal instructions to his subordinates, i.e. it takes a physical form of sound vibrations of air environment» [Course of Political Economy, p. 12].

Labour shouts (labour interjections) — organizing adjustments, by means of which «orderliness and rhythmic regularity was brought into common work, unanimous character was given to it, simultaneity of efforts and their necessary order was reached. This role of labour shouts, and also of labour songs subsequently developed from them, has kept now too»: for example, in the Russian song «Dubinushka», when it is sung during a work, «the sound “ooh” unites all workers in the common effort»; in the same sort there are used the shouts «hop», «hah», «ba-bah», «ho-hoy», «hop-la», etc. When «they began to be used as words, i.e. separately from a labour act, to which they applied, then first of all as an appeal to action, like present imperative mood. And when they were used without such calling shade, they had a meaning of report that a work was done or had been done», at that «these shades were not expressed by any change of the very word, as in the latest languages, but only by tone, gestures, mimicry». It was already the germinal speech, from which there was arisen the colossal wealth of the latest languages, i.e. practically «from several tens of simple shouts there was turned out the contemporary speech, with its hundreds of thousands of different words and infinity of their combinations» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 303-304, 299].

Ladomir — society of the highest type, with collectively-organized labour and with eliminated internal contradictions.

Land — «a capital of special sort; its quantity is limited and it is impossible to increase it. Meanwhile for production land is always the necessary condition; in order to conduct an enterprise a capitalist should certainly own a land or rent it. It puts capitalists, the most of which do not own a land usually, in a known dependence on land owners». If «it is required rather very few land for industrial, trading, credit enterprises», then «it is required much many in agricultural and mining ones, and its qualities have enormous importance for success of business. Everywhere capitalists are forced to give a part of the surplus value to land owners for the right of the application of the labour and the capital to their land. This part is referred to as land rent, whereas a share of capitalists proper is referred to as profit» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, p. 107].

Language — an ideology, more exactly, «the basic one of the organizing socially-ideological forms» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 328], i.e. that primary and main «organizational instrument, by means of which there is coordinated the human activity in all its displays». Language «is correlative to all this activity in the full volume, it expresses all this activity; it is that actor of selection, by which the development of language is determined» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 60]; moreover, so long as it is the system-formative «part of social consciousness», then «sometimes it contains a hidden solution of questions, which the separate scientists are unable to solve» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 330]. From the tectological point of view language is the basic form of social degression. Therefore any social differentiation generates, accordingly, also a differentiation of language, and so long as it is «the primary and main organizing form for cooperation of people», then development of national languages is «a huge obstacle which slows down the process of making of the universal organization». Just for this reason there is arisen the «tendency to the single language of humankind», which is possible «only on the basis of real, practical unity of life of all races and nations, and only as a result of their living collective creativity». Making of the single language will be finished by the «developed collectivistic order», at that the reached «unity of language will be a huge economy of social energy in the cause of organization of labour» [Course of Political Economy, pp. 198-199].

Language of tectology — a general scientific language which «is forced by the unity of organizational methods or forms and expresses it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 103].

Laughter — a social phenomenon, including three moments: «its subject is a collective or a group; its object – an enemy or a prey, generally an essence excluded from social connection; its contents – sense of superiority. And in all line of the development, from primitive-rough forms of laughter up to the softest and cultural, it is easy to trace these three moments». Laughter is «a mighty, cruel weapon in social struggle»: it is enough to remember Ulrich von Hutten or Saltykov-Schedrin, which laughter «struck enemies none the worse than a sword» [Secret of Laughter, pp. 13, 12].

Law — from the point of view of tectology the most stable connection in the system of systems – the universe. Consequently, the various laws are the different types of connections inside of world supersystem, and the set of laws – its structure. In other words, the system of universal, i.e. tectological laws, is the structure of the world environment, i.e. of the objectively existing world. Thus, there are just the tectological laws, being universal as much as possible, that eliminate «a division between “structure” and “law”», because «a way of organization, resulting in a given structure, is really its own law» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 131].

Law of Bazarov — the law of stable development of economics, formulated in 1899 by Russian scientist V.A. Bazarov; or, more specifically, the law of normal distribution of social product which says: «each member of society, its each enterprise should get from the social product so many that they could carry out their role, their task in the system of economy» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, p. 172]. Being abstract in the essence, this law «is not at all a simple description of the facts, it does not mean that a phenomenon always occurs in practice exactly in this way», – it only «expresses a norm of phenomena» which is more often not observed in reality. For example, in consequence of anarchical character of capitalist economy its labour elements «often have no possibilities to restore their vital expenses completely», meanwhile as its nonlabour elements «use surpluses, which do not correspond to the expenses and which only lead to their degeneration towards parasitism: uncompensable for society, partial waste of labour forces and social product. In the other exploiter systems it happened just so that disorganization on this basis did not remain partial, but passed into disintegration and ruin of all society. Such were the eastern despotisms of antiquity, the antique slaveholding world, where constantly increased and became complicated consumption of the higher classes went side by side with decrease and ceasing of their socially-production function, being reduced to fruitless waste of social product, meanwhile as the share of labour lower classes became more and more insufficient for maintenance of their vital energy, so they degenerated and perished from exhaustion». The history of development of economic systems testifies that practical breach of the law of Bazarov «is incompatible with preservation of system and is equivalent to its partial or complete disorganization. Under capitalism, in its usual conditions, this law, as experience shows, is practically observed to several percent by way of spontaneous fluctuations in one or other side from the norm. Since these breaches, remaining partial, more than make up by the general progress of productive forces, so far as, despite of them, the capitalist society is capable to development. In a small organized society of the past, an authoritarian-tribal community, the same law was carried out in a relatively planned way: a production foreman, a patriarch, from the common resources gave each group the workers appointed to special work, both means for the execution and necessary means of consumption for maintenance of their labour force. In society of the future the same will be made on a gigantic scale, with scientific planned character» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 261-262]. See the principle of normal distribution.

Law of complementary connections — see the principle of complementary interrelations.

Law of conservation of energy — see the principle of conservation of energy.

Law of divergence of forms — see system divergence.

Law of Empedocles — see the principle of selection.

Law of energy — «the universal law of causality», being the highest of all laws, which «are ordered to the nature by the human mind». Inherently this universal law «is one of the forms of negation of absolute in the world of phenomena», since, «denying origination and destruction of occurring changes and determining their unity, the law of energy negates absolute borders of changes with time and absolute separateness of each change from other changes» [Basic Elements, p. 41].

Law of entropy — a fundamental empirical generalization, fixing «the transition of the world content to more stable, more equilibrated groupings». This law cannot be regarded as the law of progress, because stability, equilibrity is not equal to organizationality, since «the first one has the static, the second – the dynamic tendency» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Law of equilibrium — «if a system of equilibrium undergoes an action, changing any one of the conditions of equilibrium, then in it there are the processes, directed to the way to counteract this change» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 249]. This law, being first formulated by Russian physicist E.H. Lenz[1] in 1833 and in half a century later – by A.L. Le Chatelier[2] for physical and chemical systems, is actually tectological, i.e. universal, as it was established by Bogdanov. However «at all its breadth and importance» it «is not a special, tectological law», because it represents only «a particular application» of the principle of analytical sum «in the certain conditions»: «in the complexes of equilibrium there are always present the antagonistic activities, mutually neutralizing at some level … if such a complex undergoes an action, it means, that from an environment it gets new activities, corresponding to one or another of these antagonistic groups», but because of partial disingression their full mergence does not occur, by virtue of what «a performed change in a system … is less than an influenced activity, i.e. the matter is just as though in the system there has been happened the processes, “directed to counteraction” to this breaking influence, about what Le Chatelier’s law says», but in actual fact the essence of the event is in that «an analytical sum is always less than an arithmetic one». But it does not relate to the nonequilibrium complexes, because «a new influence changes a course of already going structural transformation there» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 258-259]. The law of equilibrium «applies to any system, conserving a given structure in a given environment», and expresses its structural stability. For example: «an electron, moving in ether at a constant rate, at any change of this rate gets “an additional mass” in a respective direction; i.e. in the system of “the ether – an electron” there is arisen a counteraction to rate change»; or at any change of direct current, circulating in an electric conductor, there is arisen «the so-called self-induction, which is directed oppositely to this change, reduces it, etc» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 248-250].

Law of harmony — «a unity in a variety», everywhere observable in the world. The real content of harmony changes in the process of development of humankind: «what is harmonious for a cultural man, in what a cultural consciousness finds a sufficient unity alongside of a variety, – that would be presented by a tiresome, sharp variety, contradictory multitude of images for a weak, uncultured consciousness», and vice versa, «what acts as harmony for a savage, it seems to be a boring monotony for us» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 124-125].

Law of identity — a principle of empiriomonism, which «in the firm logical norms expresses the strong possession of the whole mass of connections and interrelations between complexes of the nature» and by virtue of this «formulates mainly social and continuous character of this possession: “what for me at the given moment is A, that is the same A in experience of other people also, as well as in my following recollections of it”, such is the only possible meaning of the formula A = A, the meaning, outside of which it turns into a useless and lifeless combination of signs» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86].

Law of incomplete destruction of organizational forms — the law of conservation of a structural material of destroyed systems, which says: «a tectological form is changeable, but it is not destroyed to completion: at sufficient research the remains of original organizational connection can always be found» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 226].

Law of layer-by-layer disintegration — see the principle of layer-by-layer destruction.

Law of least — see the principle of minimum.

Law of least favourable conditions — see the principle of crowdization.

Law of natural biocide — the universal formula of natural destruction of bioforms, according to which there is established an equilibrium between their number and the sizes of their living space: so far as «the sphere of vital struggle for any given form during any given period of time is strictly limited» and «process of reproduction tends to replace each separate form by infinite number of similar ones, – then a number of conserved forms (for reproduction) is always less than a number of arising forms arising», since «equilibrium between a number of forms of life and the sizes of area of struggle, accessible to them, is established by destruction of enormous majority of arising forms and survival of their insignificant minority», at that «in many cases there are kept a few of millions». For example, «a quantity of wolves is limited by a number of hares and a number of bears, because hare is such a form of energy, which is directly assimilated by wolf; and bear is such an external influence, which, radically changing the internal relations of a given form, called wolf, is capable to cease finally any processes of assimilation for it». For simplicity it is possible to not mention the other limiting influences (illnesses, hard frosts etc.). On the other hand, a number of hares is limited by a number of wolves, bears and by a quantity of grass in the wood, which, in its turn, is limited by surface of the wood, by composition of the soil, by climate and, at last, by a number of the same hares. Thus, «for all this – for grass, hare, wolf, bear, – the area of struggle for life is strictly limited, – and, consequently, there is also limited the actual possibility to reproduce. And since reproduction in itself tends to increase a number of forms ad infinitum», there is the contradiction: «a number of arising forms turns out in general much greater than that number of forms, for which successful struggle for existence is possible. This contradiction is solved by the reality in a very simple way. Some wolves, before they will make the posterity, will have time to die from starvation, others – from the diseases generated by bad nutrition; the thirds – from teeth of a bear; the fourths – still from different other reasons; and only their insignificant part will have time to make the posterity, which is faced with the same destiny» [Basic Elements, pp. 92-93].

Law of «natural selection» — the second law of Bogdanov applied to vital processes, which essence in this case «consists in that conservation or destruction of a form are naturally caused by its environment». In other words, as the law of «survival of the fittest» it «is a particular biological formula of causality» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 71].

Law of progress — a fundamental empirical generalization, fixing «the increase of organizationality of complexes», going in two directions: towards an increase of the sum of their elements and towards a strengthening of the connection, uniting these elements. In biological and social sphere this law is formulated as «the infinite increase of completeness and harmony of life» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Law of stability — a fundamental empirical generalization, according to which a relative conservation of a system in continuously changing environment is possible in case that at the expense of environment it permanently increases its activities and at that the total activity of complementary connections between its elements outweighs the total activity of contradictions between them. Thus, the principle of selection in the form of this law determines the conditions of stability of tectological forms – the necessary one and the sufficient. According to the first one the simple exchange equilibrium between a system and an environment is not enough: «the only thing, that can give a relative guarantee of conservation, is an increase of the sum of activities, an overweight of assimilation: then the new adverse actions meet not a former, but an increased resistance» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 197-199, 201]. According to the second condition the activity of intrasystem intercomplementary connections in its total should predominate over the total activity of intrasystem contradictions [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. However any stability is relative, because a system, being of great biopotential in one environment, is of less biopotential or is absolutely unstable in another. The limit of stability of a system in a concrete environment is finally determined by the law of least, which limits the stability of a system to strength of its weakest link [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 214-215, 217].

Law of strengthened use — a particular consequence of the principle of selection, establishing «close connection between heightened functioning of an organ and its increasing adaptation, between its inactivity – and degradation»; at that intensity of functioning has the restriction: «when a strengthened use oversteps the known limits, then as a result of it there comes no longer development of organ, but degradation». All set of the facts, which fall under the action of this particular empirical law, is possible «to be divided into three groups. In some cases the necessity of strengthened use of a given organ leads to that individuals, at whom it is poorer developed, do not stand the struggle for life, and there are selected those, at which it is developed to the greatest degree. Then we deal with the usual form of selection of organisms at competition. In other cases a strengthened exercise, subjecting an organ to a strengthened destroying action of environment, intensifies the processes of internal selection of elements of organ: the unadapted elements to such an intensive action, what is required and carried out, perish; and on their place there are reproduced and spread the more viable elements, capable to stand an increased function». In the third group of cases the matter comes «to a developed construction of distributing system of organs. When a man is busy with gymnastics and subjects his nerves and muscles to a strengthened expense of tissues, then nutrition of these organs increases even more rapidly than their destruction. When an organ remains inactive long, then its nutrition decreases in an even greater degree than disassimilation of its energy embodied in its tissues. As a result – a strengthened development for the first case, an atrophy of organ – for the second. Such a feature in distribution of energy assimilated by an organism from the outside depends on a construction of distributing system of organism and is one of adjustments of an organism together with it», which are developed as a result of changeability and selection. Influence of strengthened or weakened use of organs is especially clearly shown at combination of «the conditions, which correspond to two or even to all three mentioned types of cases». Thus, the law of strengthened use in all its manifestations proves to be «derivative and subordinate law in relation to the general biological principle of selection» [Basic Elements, pp. 109-111].

Law of struggle of organizational forms — the basic thesis in tectology, expressing the main content of all taking place in the world: all observable processes in the world are organizational, and development of some complexes goes at the expense of others. From the tectological point of view the world represents «the infinitely developable tissue of forms of different types and levels of organizationality», which in mutual struggle, in continual changes, «form the world organizational process» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73]. In accordance with the third law of Bogdanov and the principle of relativity, the perception of some processes as disorganizational is connected with the cognitive purpose of a researcher, when the organizational processes in a system, for example, of «an environment – a complex», are considered from the point of view of a complex, losing its activities, i.e. of a complex, at the expense of activities of which there are organized the complexes of an environment, conjugating with it [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 125]. See basic tectological contradiction.

Law of sufficient reason — a principle of empiriomonism, which «summarizes the real vital significance» of confirmed by practice «possession of the whole mass of connections and interrelations between the complexes of the nature», that enables to transform the reality consciously and expediently, «to foresee the future» and that in particular gives «the release of incomprehensible accidents and miracles» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86]. More simply, the sufficient reason means the strong knowledge of tectology.

Law of universal causality — «the law of unity and eternity of energy», from which «follows that in the processes of the nature there are possible only the quantitative differences; and there cannot be the qualitative differences, i.e. absolutely irreducible to the quantitative others. In other words, the nature is essentially uniform for knowledge» [Basic Elements, pp. 71, 206].

Law of universal change — a basic empirical generalization, in tectology playing the role of «universal method of cognition», which says: in the nature there are only the changes distinguished by form, in its turn, a change of which «is uninterrupted continuation of a change equal to it». It is not difficult to see that the formulation of this generalization, which is extremely important in tectology, includes the first law of Heraclitus and the law of universal causality.

Laws of Bogdanov — the principle of tectogenesis and three laws of tectology named in honor of its founder: the first, second and third law of Bogdanov.

Laws of Heraclitus — the triad of tectological principles, for the first time formulated by Heraclitus: the first law is the principle of development, the second one – the principle of irreversibility and the third one – the principle of coordinated contradictions. In the notion of Heraclitus the universe is «the perpetual stream of changes proceeding in the form of struggle of opposites», and everything that seems stable in this stream – it is only «a result of temporary equilibrium of opposite processes»; whereas the essence of universal change, «the basis of the world stream is formed by fire passing by thickening into air, water, solid bodies and then reviving again by their destruction», i.e. the universe pulsates, its life is cyclic and shows «the infinite series of reiterations» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 205]. It is obvious that the idea of progress was alien to Heraclitus, tectology has eliminated this lack, having generalized the conception of universal change in the triad of the basic principles.

Laws of Hermes Trismegistus — the triad of tectological principles, which are contained in the text of «Tabula Smaragdina» with the aphorisms of Hermes Trismegistus: the first law is the principle of tectological unity, the second one – the principle of adaptation and the third one – the principle of circular causality.

Level of organizationality — such one of organizational characteristics of tectological state of a complex in relation to other complexes, which are asymmetrically connected with it, that is determined by egressive difference. In a system of chain egression a level of organizationality of a complex is determined by a degree, or an order of its arrangement relative to the lowest peripheric complex. For example, in such a typical system of chain egression as army, a mass of private soldiers is the lowest peripheric complex, which is separated from the colonel by two central complexes: platoon and company commanders; then, if to count from private soldiers, the degree of organizationality of a colonel differs on three orders from the degree of organizationality of rank and file. So long as «between any higher link and the lowest ones, connected directly with it, there should be always an egressive difference, which means different levels of organizationality», then, certainly, «transition from a higher link to a lower corresponds to decrease of organizationality» and vice versa; therewith in order that the lower links in their changes «were constantly and stably determined by a higher link», a quantity of egressive difference between them should be sufficiently great [Tectology, v. 2, p. 114].

Leveling distribution (egalitarianism) — «the naive form of communism under the scheme of “fair do’s”», in which, actually, there is just no «real, vital levelling», since «if one spends more labour energy, another – less, while they get for its restoration equally, then it is clear that real equality is not present here: one of two is relatively exploited. Economically-leveling is possible to be considered only such a distribution, at which there is equalized not a size of a very pay, but relations between expenses and assimilation of energy for each worker» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 268].

Levels of social arogenity (catagenity) — the five levels of a generally useful (harmful) doing of an individual: animal (a doing is useful only to his own organism), clannish (a doing is useful both to himself and to his own family), tribal (a doing is useful both to himself and to his family, and to his own tribe), national (a doing is useful both to himself and to his family, and to his tribe, and to his own nation) and universal (a doing is useful both to himself and to his family, and to his tribe, and to his nation, and to all humankind). For example, the doing of a single-handed thief corresponds to the lowest level of social catagenity, while the doing of Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Bogdanov, Vernadsky – to the highest level of social arogenity.

Lie — the distorted form of human experience, the result either of its conscious distortion, or of logically wrong thinking. As to the moral «never tell lies», which is widespread «in words», but usually broken in practice, it is necessary to notice, that «in the modern reality a man is doomed to ruin, if he is not capable to hide his feelings in many cases and sometimes to lie expediently» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 142].

Life — the continuous process of adjustment of the reproductive organic forms to conditions of environment, possible only on the basis of «prevalence of positive selection over negative one. If this prevalence is too considerable, positive selection as though blocks up a life with excessive wealth of arising and developing forms, and a life becomes disharmonious; if this prevalence is not present absolutely – the growth of a life gets impossible, and it comes to stagnation». Thus, the functions of selections in development of a life are intercomplementary and unequal: «positive selection is spontaneous creativity of a life», i.e. «life itself», «negative one – its spontaneous regulator», i.e. «controlling mechanism of its movement» [Empiriomonism, p. 261]. From the organizational point of view «life is the highest type of the phenomena of the universe, the conquering-progressive type», which, in its turn, represents the number of various levels of organization: from an elementary cell up to a human body – «the colony formed of many trillions of much more complex differentiated cells». In all its set this number forms «the stairs of development of psychical complexes, from primitive associations of the feelings, peculiar to any amoebas, up to the most complicated psychical experience of people, the different steps of the individual organization of elements». The highest limit of the stairs is the human collective – «the great social organism» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 241]. In its basic composition the life «is the combination of the same chemical elements, which form atmosphere and the oceans: oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon with addition of some more elements, existing as well in sea-water in the form of the dissolved compounds». In full accordance with the principle of complementary relations «the life as the whole, or “biosphere”», as well as atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere and the other shells of the Earth, is considered «as a part of the one, wider system» – geosphere [Tectology, v. 2, p. 17].

Life of organism — incessant «struggle against an environment for existence, for continuous conservation» of its own form of life, for permanent increase of its biopotential, that from the general positions of tectology «comes to a dynamic equilibrium with environment, to the processes of assimilation-disassimilation» and to reproduction [Tectology, v. 2, p. 209].

Life’s ideal — an egressor of some social degression; in other words, a concentrated ideological reflection of a certain tendency of sociogenesis, i.e. one or another social ideal, being the highest final purpose of human doing and expressing the aspirations of people for such thinkable «arranging of life», which «is considered as its most perfect form of organization» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 67]. Life’s ideals are made in passive-organizational, as, for example, the Buddhist or Christian ideal, and in active-organizational, as, for example, the socialist ideal.

Limiting equilibrium — «a limit of changes, taking place at a crisis», or «a limit of its tendencies». If «there are known tendencies of a crisis and those conditions, in which they are developed, then there is presented the possibility to foresee the final result of the crisis in advance – that certain equilibrium, to which it gravitates». For example, a historian-contemporalist, «which observes a happening revolution, taking into consideration the operating forces and all its environment, can specify in advance, what form of organization of society should come of it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 218].

Line — «a body of ignored thickness and width» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 220].

Line of scientific monism — the course of sequential empirical generalizations «from particular analogies to universal, from universal analogies to the general laws of world construction» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 291].

Lithosphere — the firm shell of geosphere, consisting of mobile «plates, which form as though gigantic mosaic» [Questions of Socialism, p. 239].

Lithospheric mobilism — displacement of lithospheric plates in consequence of large-scale convection, which covers all mantle of geosphere, down to the surface of the core, at that ascending convection streams form the rift splits, and descending – zones of lithosphere compression, «lifting the crust in one places, lowering it in others with imperceptible slowness in a number of millennia» [Questions of Socialism, p. 239].

Living organism — a highly organized plastic system, which is able to reproduction and «not only to regulate itself, but also to repair itself», preserving or increasing its biopotential [Tectology, v. 2, p. 95]. «All systems of organs of a living organism are mutually necessary and should be mutually sufficient in their inseparable chain connection: everyone gives some conditions of a life for others, and therefore the life of a whole is necessary limited by a level of bioactivity of the weakest, the most lagging systems. If, for example, the source of weakness and decline is in the system of respiratory organs or organs of excretion, then to support them exactly – it means to raise the life of the whole up to the level of the next system, the most lagging behind others» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 79]. From the point of view of adaptation every living organism is a self-regulating organic system, which according to the principle of dynamic equilibrium during its development «passes three successive stages: firstly, the stage of growth, when the assimilation predominates over the opposite process; secondly, the stage of approximate equilibrium, when the prevalence of the one or other side of the phenomenon is imperceptible; thirdly, the stage of decline, when the preponderance is on the side of disassimilation» and which «comes naturally to the end with destruction of the form» [Basic Elements, p. 79]. From the purely organizational point of view a living organism represents «a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts», since «the sum of activities-resistances, which an organism shows in relation to the environment with its hostile forces, is much greater than the simple result of addition of those elementary activities-resistances, which are individually possessed, for example, by the cells of our body separated from the whole, they are defenceless before environment and are immediately destroyed. But if even they could live independently like amoebae, then would 60-100 trillion amoebas make in relation to the nature really such a force what is represented by man?» [Questions of Socialism, p. 400]. In tectology there is common also the short variant of the term – an organism.

Logic — «the science about laws of thinking» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 89], which is regarded as the most abstract one, but in reality it is only the science of correct communication, i.e. «the science about what modes and rules should be observed by people in order to agree among themselves normally»[Science about Social Consciousness, p. 378]. So, «logic should be understood as the theory of social harmonization of ideas, organizational instruments of labour» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 227]. In contrast to sophistic the founders of logic, i.e. the representatives of the school of Sokrates, «found out methods, following which, people were permitted to convince each other, to come to unity of practical resolution or opinion on things» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 378].

Logic consciousness — as the direct «consequence of labour development», it is the immediate result of increasing authority of humankind over the nature, i.e., expressed in the firm logic norms, «the strong possession of the whole mass of connections and interrelations between complexes of the nature» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86]. The highest degree of development of such form of thinking is tectological consciousness.

Logism — the basic way of the static adjustment of man to community and environment. In the development of humankind the logism represents only the islands at the ocean of alogism, the numerous manifestations of which are eliminated by practice; in other words, it is the result of practical rejection of errors of human doing. The fetishizing of logism, which historically developed in exchange society, found the limiting philosophical expression in panlogism, which «identifies development of schemes and realities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 271].

Logogenesis (from Greek λόγος – word and γένεσις – origin) — arising of words and speech, or, from the tectological point of view, a biosocial process in the initial phase of sociogenesis; in other words, formation of biosocial connection of «labour act – nervous irradiation» and its subsequent development into social degression according to the principles of intercomplementarity and circular causality. The essence is in the following: from the biological side a word «is an innervational, reflex complex», i.e. «the known conditioned reflexes connected with some sound manifestations», and from the social side «this innervational system, a complex of innervational reactions, is connected with a certain content» of already social character designated subsequently as a concept. As far back as during those time immemorial when man just only began to turn into the speaking and then thinking creature, a word meaning had a meaning of labour interjection, but at that «each such interjection had an infinitely extensive meaning, acted in the most different cases, it was a reflex which was caused by the most different cases». For example: «such primary root of “rag”» with guttural “r”, which represents something like growl and, apparently, designated it, – the root can be found in all Aryan languages, – designated that growl which escaped a man at striking a blow in fighting mood; this sound quite naturally escaped a primitive man as long ago as many thousand years ago. When he really fighted, this growl escaped his chest by itself, as a result of intensified effort; and also when something brought him in fighting mood, when he saw an enemy or even thought about it, – primitive people were terribly ingenuous, they easily had an emotional reaction from a vivid impression. It was generated by everything that could remind him of striking a blow: an instrument, an axe; if he would see it, – he had an idea how he could strike by it, and this caused the same growl; in this case it represents the primary root which served as the beginning of uncountable words. In the Russian language, for example, “vrag”, “razit”, in Latin frango – break, fracture, with countless derivatives, in Greek ρήγνυμι, in German ragen, Rache, breshen. All sum of the meanings connected with all these diverse cases, things and actions, all this was designated by this interjection. Further, in social life, there was the development of roots on the basis of progress of technics, differentiation of instruments, labour processes. It led to that words were differentiated, the contents of concepts began to be limited; without it no progress of organization of production would be possible. A word meaning began to get greater stability. And now we have uncountable words which express a different content, without former mixture» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), pp. 245-246].

Logomachy (from Greek λόγος – word и μαχή – battle, struggle, fight) — a polemic form of logonautics, in which, as in a kaleidoscope, there are continuously changed the meanings of words-concepts used for a proving, since different contending parties put different sense in them, moreover, even the matter of dispute is quite often not clear; as a result of what there is a situation of complete mutual misunderstanding and mutual idiocy. As a social phenomenon logomachy is a typical form of communication of logonauts, in which any their controversy, dispute, discussion are shaped.

Logonaut — a verbal fetishist, or a follower of discoursation, i.e. a «thinker», who «has not got rid of blind belief in words and deceives himself and others assiduously, playing with different meanings of words and reducing the facts of life, full of real content, to empty, but loud terms, explaining something by nothing» [Basic Elements, p. 7].

Logonautics — a pseudoscientific form of discoursation, for which there are characteristic a minimum of experience, a maximum of play upon words, plus verbal fetishism, i.e. naive belief in that «a word has a meaning in itself» and «this meaning is unconditional and changeless» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132].

Love — from the tectological point of view an «organizing source» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 93].

Lower form — a simple form possessing greater conservatism, rigidity, «high direct stability», small quantity of elements and comparatively small internal connection [Questions of Socialism, pp. 57-58].

Lumpen-parasitarian — a marginal representative of extremely parasitic social group – of sacculina.

Lumpen-parasitariat — extremely catagenic social group of organizing class, i.e. sacculina.

Lumpen-parasitarism — the limiting form of degeneration of catagenic social system.

Luxury — «such a consumption, which is absolutely not caused by needs of production» [Essays of Realistic World View, p. 300].

Lymph — along with blood «the internal nutrient medium» of a living organism [Tectology, v. 2, p. 117].

Machine — «the highest type of instruments», all parts of which «are functionally supplement each other by mutual transmission, i.e. by chain assimilation-disassimilation of activities» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 21-22]. Thus, the main organizational principle of creation of machines is the principle of complementary interrelations. A machine «is composed of three parts: generator (source) of force, transfer mechanism, working tool», each of which shows «its special tendency of progress». The tendency of development of the first part was determined by striving of humankind for unlimitedly wide use of energy in the maximum flexible forms; the tendency of development of the second part – by striving for use of machines and automatic mechanisms; and the tendency of the third part – by striving «for the further development of accuracy and expediency of form of a tool». The highest form of machine is automatic mechanism, and its «higher step – a mechanism, automatically regulable» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 296, 298-299].

Machine production — the transformation of objects of nature into a product «not by forces of man, but by forces of nature», at that the role of man «is limited to control and supervision over a machine» and becomes analogous to organizational labour on its type. Inasmuch as physical strength of man has the bounds, then the productivity of manual labour cannot develop «farther from the known height», but «since the forces of nature are boundless, then during the progress of scientific knowledge the labour productivity in machine production can continuously increase up to still unknown limits» [Short Course of Economic Science, pp. 120-121].

Macropsychia — according to Aristotle it is expansion of a soul that from the organizational point of view means tectological state of a psychosystem under positive selection when pleasant and joyful sensations corresponding to increased inflow of energy «dispose to expansion of communication with environment in all directions – to intensification of activity of external feelings, to rise of mobility, to increase of “sympathetic” tendencies», in short, to greatest possible arogenic communication for a given psychosystem, at that it itself starts to prove more and more as a typical active system [Tectology, v. 1, p. 245].

Magnetosphere — the area of continuous conjugation of planetary and interplanetary magnetic field freezed in plasma of solar wind. In particular magnetosphere of the Earth is a result of conjugation of geospheric and coronary magnetic field which has been carried away in the interplanetary environment by solar wind.

Magnetosphere casp — complete disingression in geomagnetosphere, or, in terms of geophysics, the slit between closed and opened magnetic lines of force into which the solar wind flows and causes polar lights.

Man — the most highly-organized, the most complex and the most plastic biosocial organism, which is a result of a certain combination of genes and eidogenes; at that he is «not a representative of other organisms of our planet», but «in full measure a representative of the life on it, because in him this life has come to consciousness of itself» [Questions of Socialism, p. 251]. Being a resultant of natural and social selection, at the present stage of the development man is in the stage of transition from «spontaneous» adaptation in the biosocial environment into «harmonious» and «consciously-expedient» one. In other words, man is passing from the passive phase, in which he is an object of selection, into the active phase, where he becomes an actor of selection. And so long as he is now an «incomplete» and «disharmonically-developing» creature, then from the organizational-dynamic point of view «the conclusion will be the following: man has not come yet, but he is not so far» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 57-58, 46]. Being the social creature, nevertheless, man is not always the «socially-creative» being, and from the point of view of public benefit he is sometimes arogenic to society and catagenic to it. In short, «man has become the logical and ethical creature» [Questions of Socialism, p. 86], but not yet tectological. And after all, in the integral conception of empiriomonism the same logical-ethical creature, i.e. man, is already presented as a whole microcosm in cosmos and is considered as a certain partial world of experience – not full, but «a whole world», and at that «a developing world limited by no unconditional limits» [Questions of Socialism, p. 30].

Manipulation on consciousness — the basic organizational instrument of regressing authoritarian system, the efficiency of which increases with narrowing of partial experience of an executor (of an individual, a social group, a class) and with his ignorance in the field of methodology of social control. The essence of manipulation is simple: an executor is given incomplete complex of information on a situation, on the basis of which he acts as though «independently» in the way, exactly predetermined by an organizer of put-up manipulation.

Marginal — a type of maximum differentiated individualist, which extremely egoistical ideology is expressed by the pushkinian formulation: «we just considers all as zero, while as unity – themselves».

Marginal communism — a tectologically universal socioform, which is optimal in conditions of an energy crisis and inevitably arising at its intensification: in conditions of extreme energodeficiency all social systems without exception converge to it. Historically marginal communism is presented by such forms of catastrophic communism (catacommunism) as siege communism, war communism and, in general, any one or another communism of extremity known from history.

Market — a regulator of production and «the general organizing center for capitalist system, which is anarchical in the whole». Market reaches its highest development under capitalism; moreover, as «universally-centralizing apparatus» market just «makes capitalism to be united economic system», at that being the center of all of its general contradictions. Market is «the center of social spontaneity, which dominates over people», «the place of realization of all commodity values and specially of surplus value; from it there are come the impulses, which set capital of society in motion, – because only realization makes this motion possible, while unrealized values are capitalistically-dead» [Course of Political Economy, pp. 111, 8, 103]. The basic and the most important «feature of the market is interrelativity of its parts and their chain connection. Each branch of production serves as the market for others and, in its turn, finds the market in them. So, mining requires machines, which are bought from machine builders, and the different materials bought from factory owners of chemical manufacture, and mining itself, in turn, delivers metals for the first and different minerals for the second; machines are necessary also for other branches of industry, including those which make consumer goods»; spinning production works for weaving one, cotton plantations – for spinning one, etc. Owing to such chain connection «any expansion and any narrowing of market spreads as though by waves among the capitalist system, and by this way it increases itself many times. For example, if for calico-printing production demand has expanded by one million roubles, hence there is immediately arisen a many-millioned wave of expansion in the market. There is increased sale for weaving production, for example, by half a million roubles, for production of machines applied in calico-printing and in weaving business – by three hundred thousand, for chemical production, which delivers the material of paints, – by hundred thousand; there is expanded demand of weaving mills for yarn, and of spinning ones for machines and cotton, demand of machine factories for metals, etc. There is required an additional quantity of labour force in all these branches, and demand for consumer goods of workers increases correspondingly; and hence there is a new wave of expansion of market, certainly, a weaker one than the first, by which it has been caused. A still weaker wave can arise at that because the capitalists, which profit grows, show an increased demand for objects of their personal consumption. Waves of narrowing of market spread absolutely in the same way». In normal conditions waves of expansion proceed «only from the area of production of consumer goods», in other words, «the basis of increase of market in the whole is growth of consumer market» [World Crises (March), pp. 141-142].

Marriage — «the partial psychophysiological conjugation of two individuals with the formation of more complex integer – a family»; moreover, usually, it is a double conjugation, because it includes «the conjugation of two psychical persons for life cooperation, on the one hand, and of two sexual cells for origin of a new life – from the other hand». Such dual character of marriage «generates many contradictions and discrepancies in present humankind, and will generate them until the scientific thought and scientific technics will not take quite possession of conditions of the best combination of embryonic elements and harmonious development of a human being from the birth», i.e. the conditions of the optimal combination of genes and eidogenes. As no conjugation can be made without an expenditure of activities, then also in marriage a mutual adjustment of the sides takes place with an expenditure of forces too, but its quantity comes different: either «it more than gets covered by positive results of marriage», or «it reaches such a degree, that the whole turns out unstable and conjugantes go away again with the lowered biopotential or even invalid». Last case corresponds to «their excessive vital divergence», but on the other hand, too «weak differentiation makes the connection, so to speak, “empty”, fruitless for development of both sides», though quite often such a marriage is sometimes «more successful in the sense of creation of posterity; but equally it is possible a reverse also» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 49].

Mass — a coefficient in most of the equations of physics and chemistry, «describing quantitative stability» of a complex. For example, «two complexes of the same type, which are made of homogeneous elements-activities, can be directly compared on their quantitative stability, exclusive of concrete influences of environment: if in the complex A the sum of elements is greater than in B, then its stability is accordingly at any case greater under the same influences, whatever they may be» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 207-208].

Material of tectology — all organizational experience, which has been accumulated by humankind for all history of its development [Tectology, v. 1, p. 127].

Material world — 1) «all real and possible field of labour»; 2) «the world of resistances, opposing to each other» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 316].

Materialism — one of two main tendencies in philosophy, based on fetishistic substitution of the concept of «matter» under the content of experience. In other words, «the essence of materialism consists in that it considers all facts of experience as manifestations of matter, i.e. substitutes matter everywhere», while «idealism substitutes “spirit” or “idea” everywhere». From the point of view of empiriomonism «neither substitution would be however possible, if there had been realized the interrelativity of spirit and matter with human activity, i.e. the incomplete, dependent character of the very concepts of “spirit” and “matter”», which «escaped the thinking of people by virtue of abstract fetishism, being generated by the organization of exchange society». For a private proprietor, which is subjectively torn off from collective, «the understanding of sociolabour unity» is lost, and «social activity ceases to exist for him in its whole, being sprayed on atoms of individual activity. But matter and spirit are interrelative just to the social activity, the first one as its necessary object, the second – as its organizing form. Thus, for thinking, which has been brought up on exchange, for the individualistic thinking, matter and spirit turn out to be irrelative or “absolute”; they exist for it in themselves. By this there is eliminated a possibility of research of their real sense, a possibility of their basic explanation. But then there is created the philosophical possibility to substitute this or that under all the content of experience, under all collective practice». However, in contrast to idealism materialism «is closer to labour world view» nevertheless [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 66-67].

Materiality — «a real or possible resistance to labour effort; where it is not and cannot be present, there is even no character of “materiality”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 316].

Mathematical analogy — a high degree of similarity of heterogeneous processes (electric, thermal, mechanical, social, etc.) which at mathematical schematization «are expressed by identical form of equations or by identical type of graphically symbolizing curves» (schematization of extremely similar processes generates mathematical doubles, at which there are identical both a form of equations and the quantitative coefficients). And when a type of graphs is not identical, but only similar, then analogy will be qualitative [Tectology, v. 1, p. 283]. The synonym is quantitative analogy.

Mathematical crisis — «arising of quantities and their destruction». From the tectological point of view any quantity is a certain «symbol of some complex of practically-homogeneous activities». Assume that there is some positive quantity «X». In order to destroy it, it is necessary to add to it the opposite quantity «-X», i.e. «the symbol of activities, homogeneous with the first, but directed in the sense of complete counteraction to them». Then both quantities neutralize each other in complete disingression: «that is their practical interdestruction, the symbol of which is “zero”, “zero point”. Other absolute destruction of activities cannot be surely assumed in tectology». This is one type of mathematical crisis. The other type of crisis is «arising of quantities: transition from zero to “infinitesimal” quantity», which appears as an error of one or another method of measurement: «by subtraction of calculated quantity from real». However subtraction practically corresponds to disingression: if «a disingression is complete, then “zero” will turn out, no quantity remains; this would be at absolutely exact calculation». But inasmuch as absolutely exact measurements do not exist in reality, then this «disingression becomes incomplete from complete, is partially broken», and there is occurred a difference – «a quantity, though “infinitesimal”, i.e. practically insignificant, not taking into account», but which «is available». Consequently, both types of mathematical crisis «are connected with the concept of zero, i.e. of complete disingression of quantities: in one case it is formed in the place of former quantity, in the other – is broken» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 211-212]. In relation to natural crises it is necessary to note that «mathematical crisis “explains” crises in the nature only in that sense that it represents their last generalization»: «there would be created no concept about mathematical crisis at people if they did not observe crises in the nature» [Basic Elements, p. 57].

Mathematical doubles — a particular case of mathematical analogy when heterogeneous processes «are expressed by equation of the same form» and by equal factual coefficients [Tectology, v. 1, p. 283].

Mathematical formulas — «only instruments for analysis of physical reality. As they are abstract, they always imply formal possibilities, which are not present in this reality and which “are wider” than it, since they reject one or another part of its conditions» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 155].

Mathematics — «tectology of neutral complexes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124]. For today it is not only the most exact, but really a universal science also, which «gives the laws and formulas of combinations for any elements of the universe»: «in its schemes the numerical symbols can relate to every objects indifferently – to the star worlds or electrons, to people or things, surfaces or points, – and the laws of denumerable combinations remain the same». But if for mathematics «all objects are comparable, are subordinated to the same formulas as quantities», then for tectology «all of them are comparable, are subordinated to the same formulas as organizational elements» [Questions of Socialism, p. 406]. The starting point of tectology consists in that their «structural relations can have been generalized up to the same degree of formal purity of schemes, as the relations of quantities in mathematics; and on such the basis the organizational tasks can be solved by the ways, analogous to mathematical», at that quantitative relations are considered as the special type of structural, and mathematics – as «a branch of universal organizational science», which have earlier developed [Tectology, v. 2, p. 310]. In its essence mathematics «expresses the organizational-static point of view», and tectology – «the organizational-dynamic». It is clear, «mathematics researches the changes of quantities also, but not concerning the organizational form of those processes, to which they relate: this form is supposed to be static, invariable, and a result of any such a change – a new quantity – remains still a neutral complex, equal to the simple sum of its parts. The mathematical analysis includes also those cases, when quantities destroy mutually each other, quite or partly, i.e. unite in the sense of disorganization, as positive and negative quantities or as “vectors”; but it is a mutual disorganization, of quantities, and leading only to new quantities, – from neutral complexes to neutral. Consequently, this mathematical dynamics is not organizational dynamics, does not relate to transformation of organizational forms» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 124-125]. All known mathematical interrelations are «only particular, and at that ideal, case of tectological interrelations», therefore the mathematical thinking does not only cover all «real tectological processes», but also quite often «strike against contradictions in them». The following position is an example to this: «a mathematical equality of oppositions is in general a tectological inequality» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 195-196]. See the principle of tectological dominant.

Matryoshkas (nested dolls) — tectological symbol of fractal construction of the universe. On the other hand, matryoshkas in themselves as hollow wooden dolls, inserted in each other, represent the pictorial model of monorhizomic chain degression.

Matter — «the most stable form of activities» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 146]. According to Bogdanov, the most general characteristic of matter is «resistance to labour efforts» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 316], at that «in collision of two activities each of them is matter from the point of view of another. So in a fight of two armies each considers another exclusively as a material obstacle, which should be overcome» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 65].

Mature organism — «a form of limiting equilibrium for some group of proteins», to which «development of an embryo» tends and which represents «the most stable form of life, capable of reproduction again and again». But since «finished forms and stops on them are not present in the nature», then as the beginning of vital decline this grown-up form, in its turn, gravitates by itself «to still more stable limiting equilibrium, which comes as a result of death and decomposition, – to the equilibrium of inorganic bodies», at that this last «competes with the first – the mass of embryos and immature organisms perishes, not passing through the state of maturity at all». Nevertheless, from the tectological point of view the state of maturity of an organism is just «the most important and interesting», since «only it has the positive organizational significance, decisive for development of forms: what has been destroyed before this phase, that is simply struck off the register of vital evolution, as though vanishes away for it in negative selection; what has reached this phase, that can be reproduced again and again as an object of positive selection and a starting point of organizational progress, as a tectologically selected form» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 219-220].

Maximum — the greatest possible quantity under given conditions, towards which an observable phenomenon gravitates and which from the tectological point of view are «the symbol of own resistances or activities of a complex, being subject to selection». To understand any scheme of maximum or minimum (for example, «the law of least action»), it is necessary to reduce them «to the tectological law of selection», and for that it is necessary to transform these schemes so that «their mathematical concepts would relate exactly to some activities or resistances» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 199, 202].

Means of consumption — «a form of energy, which people are capable to assimilate directly». As is known, «the content of social labour does not consist in direct assimilation of external energy by members of society; it is reduced only to making – in elements of the external nature, in means of production – of a number of such changes, after which these elements takes a form of external energy, directly assimilated by people», thus, turning into means of consumption. For example: «a hare, running in a wood, cannot be directly consumed by people; but having passed through the process of production, i.e. being tracked down, killed and fried on a spit, it becomes a means of consumption», i.e. just such a form of energy, which people are already capable to assimilate directly [Basic Elements, p. 186].

Means of production — the means of «transformation of objects of the nature into a “product of human labour”», or, from the positions of social energetics, the means of «progressive creation of such an environment, in relation to which energy of social system would be maximum». Means of production and its products do not concern a social environment: they are an environment «transformed by social labour», they are «objects of the external nature» [Empiriomonism, p. 265]. In other words, the means of production are «materials and instruments of social labour directly turned to the external nature», which are used «to measure the biopotential of society at each given moment, because they limit the possibility of existence for it. With development of society the area of means of production expands, and they themselves are changed» [Basic Elements, p. 176].

Measure — a material instrument (standard), which «is socially (technically) developed and socially (ideologically) caused» – by its «recognition» [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, p. 122]. Such instruments are necessary for fixation and coordination of the plastic content of experience. For example, each point of space and each moment of time are connected with world coordinates by means of the special measures, «by which distances of points and intervals of moments are counted. These measures for time were always given by periodicity of astronomical processes: for space they were primarily undertook from the interrelations of organs and functions of a human body (“step”, “cubit”, “foot”, i.e. a foot of a leg, etc.), then also from the interrelations of the astronomical experience: metre and all system of measurement based on it». It is necessary to note that there were also the physiological measures for time (“instant”, “century”, etc.), but they lost the significance very early. Replacement of the physiological measures by the astronomical «followed from the very essence of degression – development of stability», so long as «the interrelation of huge cosmic bodies and their movements are incomparably more constant and more conservative than the interrelation of human body and its functions. It is probable that physics and the theory of structure of matter will find still more stable interrelations – and then the astronomical measures will be replaced by new» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 135].

Measurement — «an application of a technically specialized measure». «Measurement is not a simple direct quantitative comparison», because «only a measure and a result of its application – a certain numerical ratio – create a measurement from a comparison» [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, p. 122].

Mechanism — from the point of view of tectology it is «a system, which connections are relatively simple», i.e. some «combination of parts organized in a certain way», but only «of a lower step of organization, where simplicity and elementary character of connections corresponds approximately to the level of connections studied by mechanics and physics, in general by exact sciences». It is quite clear that this level «is not constant, but it changes with development of science», and so long as in all sciences, including biological and social, still new and new groups of facts pass in the field of «mechanical explanation», i.e. «in the field of exact research of connections», then any organization gets the character of «mechanism» for anybody who has completely studied it [World Crises (March), p. 139]. Thus, a more exact and besides the shortest definition of the term is the following: a mechanism is «an understood organization» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 99]. As a technical device transferring or transforming a movement, from the positions of the same tectology a mechanism is no longer only a certain system of bodies, but also «a link of egression» between a hand of man and a working tool, in consequence of what there is reached «a new expansion of egression, at that especially significant one», because «a mechanism is free from the biological limitation of the organs of a body and can operate indefinitely greater number of tools at once». It permits to develop an expanded chain egression already «in the form of chain of mechanisms, some of which actuate or regulate others», that «creates the conditions for unlimited increasing concentration of activities of the nature at the disposal of humankind, for the organization of the world under its power» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 125].

«Mediate» connection (ingressive) — a connection between complexes by means of introduced links [Tectology, v. 1, p. 159].

Medicine — the system of scientific knowledge about protection and promotion of health of man, about prolongation of his life, about prevention of illnesses, about the very diseases, about methods and means of their recognition and treatment. The basis for medical practice is the second law of Bogdanov expressed by two working formulas: the first – «identical influences make identical unhealthy changes in identical organisms» and the second – «identical actions under identical conditions of illness should lead to identical changes during illness» [Basic Elements, p. 72].

Megatendency (megatrend) — the basic direction, in which the development of global social process is made, i.e. the certain orientation of sociogenesis, observable in the scale of all planet. If to add to this spatial dimension the time one, then all set of observable global tendencies can be presented in the form of egressive system of two complexes: the central complex, composed of historical megatrends, and the peripheric complex, dependent on it and composed of current megatrends.

Memory — «periodic reiteration of some or other combinations» of elements of experience, at that «stably-changeable reiteration», since «at some reiterations a psychical complex is being changed in imperceptibly-small degree, at others – more or less considerably, at some with some concomitant complexes, in others with others» [Country of Idols, p. 236].

Mental history — reconstruction of the past of humankind, the basis for which is study of «development of national customs, feelings and ideas as the scientific essence of history», at that great events are considered only as «external manifestations of this deep, internal life of humankind» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 7].

Mentality — «the certain forms of thinking, in which people try to put the experience; but it is not in the least some eternal “construction of cognitive ability”, but simply the ways of organization of experience», which «develop and change according to the growth of the very experience and change of its content». For example: 1) «“the construction of cognitive ability” of a savage-animist demands that each moving object – a man, an animal, the sun, a stream, a clock, – and even any object in general, – should have its own “soul”; we have this form of thinking to die off»; 2) the same «savage, living in a commune, organized on authoritative leadership and passive submission, thinks, i.e. organizes in his consciousness, all the world on the same way – authoritative “god” and people and things, subordinated to him; as well as he mentally organizes a man and other objects from authoritative, supervising “soul” and passive “body”»; 3) «the individualistic fragmentation of life has similarly given philosophers the scheme of atomic fragmentation of elements of the world», etc. [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 101-102] See common ideology.

Metagalaxy — an element of the world environment, which is available to contemporary astronomical methods of research and includes more than 100 milliard of galaxies; in other words, it is the observable part of the universe.

Metamorphosis — change of tectological form in consequence of development of internal structure. The term is unnecessary, because in tectology its content is completely exhausted by the content of the concept of «tectological act».

Metaphor — «an application of a word, designating one phenomenon, to other phenomenon, having something common with the first, for example, when a poet names a dawn “bloody”, spring – “tender”, a sea – “terrible”». Historically the very first form of thinking, or the primary way of organization of experience, was the designation of spontaneous action «by the same word as human», i.e. metaphorical thinking. In other words, the fundamental factor of archaic mentality of our ancestors was metaphor, without which they «could not speak about the external nature and, consequently, could not develop concepts about it: thinking about the world would be impossible» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 80]. See basic metaphor.

Metaphysical cognition — extraempirical cognition, i.e. «empty fiction», because «cognition, lacking in unity, extramonistic, means only a gap of cognition». Easier speaking, metaphysical cognition is not true cognition [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Metaphysical system — a philosophical system, «operating outside of experience, out of possible testing», from the dialectic point of view «alien to the idea of development and proceeding from motionless, immutable, absolute» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 292].

Metaphysics — scientifically-philosophical world view, which organizes «data of experience around empty abstractions – “forces” and “substances”» and assumes laws of the phenomena «as impersonal forces, ruling over the nature, imperceptible in their real form, but active and insuperable» [Empiriomonism, p. 317]. Thus, the metaphysics by itself expresses «imaginary thinking», which arises where it «tries to fall outside the limits of possible experience», being carried out «in two directions: 1. There are accepted elements of fundamentally other sort, than which are available in experience. Such is the lining of “a thing in itself”, having in the content (i.e. in elements) nothing common with “a phenomenon”. 2. There are accepted essentially other relations, than those, in which elements of experience join. Such is all “absolute”, “unconditional”, “timeless”, etc». The metaphysics «is possible because the field of use of words is more widely than the field of thinking; it represents the verbal combinations without the cognitive content», since «it submits not to the laws of logic, but to the laws of grammar, though sometimes, however, breaks even them with enthusiasm» [Empiriomonism, pp. 101-102].

Method — «organizing law of science» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 330], «the basis of its creativity», i.e. «the way, by which it develops truth» [Questions of Socialism, p. 377]. Inasmuch as «in his organizing activity man is only learner and imitator of the great universal organizer – the nature», so far as any «human methods cannot fall outside the limits of the methods of the nature and represent only special cases in relation to them» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 142]. A method of a special science is «a pattern of research, peculiar to it», by virtue of that «any determined law is an element of a method, because it is taken into consideration under research, and any preconceived hypothesis is an element of a method, because it is taken at the basis of research, gives a point of view for it» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 203]. From the point of view of tectology both in practice, and in cognition a method is optimal process of selection, the mechanism of which belongs to the type of «casting form» and represents «the certain, stable groupings of former experience, which for reentering material play the role of as though directing channels, on which it should flow into the system: they introduce it into connection with such parts of experience instead of some other and give this connection such a form instead of some other» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 265]. In tectology all methods of cognition «are grouped in two numbers: inductive and deductive, or the number of “leading in” and the number of “leading out”. They supplement each other, going in the opposite directions». Tectological induction «organizes experience, coming from particular to general and getting in that way more and more wide “generalizations”»: the tectological concepts and laws. Tectological deduction «takes these generalizations and uses them as instruments of the further organization of experience, applying them to more specific facts and groupings of the facts, getting by this and that the various “conclusions”, among them there are “predictions”» [Questions of Socialism, p. 377].

Method of analogies (method of structural analogy) — this widely used interdisciplinary method becomes strictly scientific only in tectology, in other words, its application is lawful only in that case, when it has the status of tectological method. And it becomes such a method, if it is based not on qualitative similarity of elements (that is not only quantitatively inexpressible, but also generally unscientific), but on identity of organizational structure, when the investigated interrelations between elements are completely identical, though the very elements can qualitatively differ strongly. At that qualitative distinctions of elements should have been considered only in so far as they modify organizational connections to some extent. Thus, in the basis of the method is «the unity of construction of the most various objects of existence», or in short, «the structural unity of the universe», and analogy, used at this, leans upon «universal types and laws of construction» of investigated complexes [Tectology, v. 1, p. 291].

Method of analysis — a method of disorganization of a complex by its decomposition on elements with the purpose to decrease its resistance to efforts of a researcher in order to collect then the same elements in new, desirable combinations for him [Tectology, v. 1, p. 120].

Method of crises — the universal way of studying of systemogenesis as a certain chain of crises. The essence of the method is in the following: inasmuch as in experience «there are occurred only changes, and any change can be considered from the point of view of difference of a form between its initial and final points», then any continuous systemogenesis can be broken by tectological analysis into a concrete number of connecting and dividing crises [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 254, 253]. As the result of such approach an investigated systemogenesis is described by a certain tectological formula as a combination of crises C and D. For example, birth of a child is at first «the separation of him from the body of mother», i.e. a crisis D; then new complexes of activities enter in the organism of a child through various organs – this is already a number of crises C (for simplicity of writing, assume that there are two of them); «at last there is established a new relative equilibrium with environment on the basis of determined tectological borders», i.e. a crisis D again. As the result birth of a child is described by tectological formula DCCD. But «that is in the case if we don’t take an interest in or haven’t closely found out the conditions, which have caused the act of birth. If they come into calculation, for example, childbirth has gone prematurely in consequence of a mechanical effect or a nervous shock, – then the summarizing designation will be: CDCCD». Or other example: death is at first «a break of some connections, which are necessary for a life; then along with the further break of other connections of an organism it is also a disturbance of borders between its specialized tissues and at the same time a disturbance of the common borders between it and environment, from which the destructive dead and alive agents get into it; at last it is a disintegration into stable physical and chemical combinations». As the result the tectological formula of death: DCD [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 216-217].

Method of deduction — see tectological deduction.

Method of discoursation — the scientifically valueless principle of finding of truth by means of only discourses, when «it is wanted to open truth not on the scientific base of experience, but on small data, which are usual to a given man, which are possessed by such-and-such person, who studies in such-and-such room, just on this base by a chain of discourses»; i.e. «the principle is deeply reactionary», so long as «a finding of truth without expansion of experience, without use of check is an utopia of reactionary character, because the tasks are set oppositely to that how they should be set, they are set as it could be only before the turn of the wheel of history towards the scientific thinking, which rejects all this» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 261]. Simply speaking, it is a method not of heuristics, but of pseudoscientific twaddle, in which there are minimum of experience, maximum of wordplay plus verbal fetishism.

Method of energetics — a way of tectological investigation of a system from the energy point of view, at which there are considered all its assimilative and disassimilative streams and on the basis of «balance of outlays and assimilation» there are made the conclusions about tectological state of system in a present moment of time and about perspectives of its development in the future. The basis for this universal method is the fundamental law of «energy – entropy», which «is nothing else than the principle and method of machine production, directly carried to cognition. Conversion of energy from some forms to other – that is what exactly machines do in practice of production; the law of conservation of energy, according to which it is not created in experience, but always is taken from one or other available source, is the expression of the fact, that, using a work of the nature forces, a labour collective should always draw them from some given reserves. The law of entropy speaks about impossibility of full conversion of the nature forces to those forms, which can be used by humankind, – about constant partial dissipation of energy in the form of heat: direct expression of the objective limits, on which machine production clashes necessarily» [Questions of Socialism, p. 389].

Method of factors — a tectological approach to research of a system on the basis of exact determination of its external environment or separation of the most significant external activities for its systemogenesis which act in a chronotop given by the limits of research. In special sciences such a method is referred to as factor approach.

Method of induction — see tectological induction.

Method of ingression — a method, widespread in practice and theory, the essence of which is in that «by means of introducing links, expediently chosen, by one, or several, or many, it is probably to establish a real connection between any complexes, however mutually distant in a field of work or mutually incompatible in a direction of activities they may have been». If two complexes «have no common elements, then it is necessary to change their construction so that the common elements will have turned out to be available»; and «if the elements, capable to junction and coincidence, have already been available», it is necessary to put both complexes «in such interrelation in order to these elements will become common». For example, a stone axe was made from a stone and a stick «by means of getting of common surfaces: either there was drilled a hole in a stone, into which a stick was hammered, or a stone was driven in the material of a stick by one side», at that the closest coincidence of surfaces created a huge friction, which is necessary for junction of two complexes in one. Or suppose that it is necessary to unite efforts of two men, speaking in different languages: firstly, «a complete coordination is achieved only when both have in consciousness the same plan of actions», and secondly, in order to bring them to an understanding, there is required the third party – a translator. In technics the method of ingression is applied everywhere. The working part of a tool, for example, a knife blade is impossible to hold by hands, but a handle, convenient for it, «joins a hand with blade ingressively in one system». It is long to enumerate, but possible to imagine, what «a long chain of ingressions is necessary to get a system, in which a waterfall spins cotton or illuminates a dwelling». In the field of cognition a creation of an explanatory theory, a development of a classification, and in general any proof or solution of tasks – all this cannot do without use of the method of ingression. Any mathematical task represents «nothing but a finding of intermediate links for binding of given quantities» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 159, 156, 158-160].

Method of limiting equilibrium — see method of tendencies.

Method of «matryoshkas» — a universal method of tectological analysis, the purpose of which is determination of tectological state of an investigated system and tendency of its further development. The method consists of the following procedures:

a) from all system variety (set of complexes) of «world environment», each element of which is organized on the principle of matryoshkas, there is chosen an object of research with definite ascertainment of tectological border between it and environment;

b) a chosen complex, in its turn, is separated into component parts, smaller complexes, at that each of them becomes an object of research, in relation to which all «other parts are already considered as constituents of environment»;

c) there is investigated the structure of a chosen complex and there are determined the general type of the structure, the types of all connections;

d) there is analyzed the interconnection of a chosen complex with an environment and there is determined how much «the activities of environment are counterbalanced or overcome by the activities of the given complex or, on the contrary, how much they overcome and break off the connection of the last»;

e) there is determined the type of «mechanism of selection»: at positive selection «the activities of complex» increase at the expense of environment, and at negative one – they go off to environment;

f) after the analysis of all flows of activities there is made the conclusion about biopotential of initial object of research: at positive selection, when it absorbs matter, energy and information from the environment, its biopotential increases, at negative one – decreases;

g) there is given «the organizational estimation» on criteria of quantitative and structural stability: organizationality increases quantitatively, if within the limits of a given form and at its given structure there is united more significant «sum of elements-activities» at the expense of material from environment; organizationality increases structurally, if «within the limits of a system its activity joins with smaller disingressions», i.e. «the coefficient of energy use increases»;

h) after the organizational analysis there is made the conclusion about progress or regress of object of research: if a quantitative increase of organizationality is observed side by side with its structural decrease, then it is a regress, if on the contrary – a progress;

i) after the analysis of organizational correspondence of structural and quantitative organizationalities between each other there is given the estimation of their «harmonious» connection and there is made the final conclusion «about expansion or narrowing of abilities of further tectological development» of an object of research [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 152, 272, 277].

Method of principles — the way of construction of universal organizational science, which consists in that tectology develops continuously as system of corollaries, logically deduced from constantly replenishing set of principles, being the generalization of data of physical and psychical experience.

Method of «quotation stupefaction» — a way of imitation of scholarship by means of multiple citation of scientific authorities. Into the arsenal of such psychical attack there are included a didactical manner, which hides the professional ignorance, and an imaginary-huge apparatus of scholarship contained thousands of names and citations, which sweep «in wild dance, leaving in an inexperienced man the feeling of anxious confusion before that depth of knowledge, into which the insight of the author has penetrated». It seems to an uninitiated one that the whole life will not be enough to overcome such wisdom. Here he doesn’t care about criticism, let better true specialists philosophize instead of him and give him finished fruits of the scientific investigations; there is just no to read thousands of scientific papers to him, an uninitiated. The psychological result is known: «I shall believe “them”», because «“they” know better» [Belief and Science, p. 71].

Method of reduction (of abstractions) — a method of bringing of process, which is complex for direct understanding, to more simple and clear, in other words, a certain cognitive procedure of sequential simplification of any complex process. The scheme of such a procedure is the following: «let in one case there are given the conditions A, B, C, at which the process Z goes in a definite way. In other case the conditions are the same, but only C is expressed to a lesser degree, at that Z proceeds, certainly, somewhat in a different way. Let us find out, in what direction the form of process Z changes, when the value of C decreases. For example, the form Z was composed of elements a, b, g, d, and with a decrease of C there was decreased g. Thus, there is determined the tendency of change of the form Z with particular elimination of the condition C. By imagining of this tendency to be brought to its limit (in this case – to the final elimination of g), we get the deductive conclusion about how the process Z should proceed at more simple conditions A, B, which are not observable in experience. This conclusion is true, certainly, only in that case if the tendency has determined truly; and then it represents a suitable abstraction for a researcher. Together with other similar abstractions the obtained conclusion can serve then as a material for the further abstractions, corresponding to even more simple conditions. Having found out, for example, that tendency of change, which corresponds to elimination of B from the given complex of conditions, it is possible to join it with that, which has got in our first conclusion, and then we will have an abstract position about the elementary conditions, which is reduced to A only».

For example, in social life there is observed the wide variety of psychical constitution of separate persons and groups, and also «the role of these persons and groups in system of production is various. We make an empirical generalization, that at very significant distinction of industrial role of people there is also observed the highly significant divergence of their psychologies, and that, on the contrary – people and groups, which are occupied with more similar socially-labour doing, show less dissimilarity in mental constitution. It enables us to come to such a conclusion: psychical heterogeneity of people decreases together with heterogeneity of their industrial activity; and imagining the mentioned tendency to be brought to its limit, we get: psychical homogeneity of people is connected with their socially-industrial homogeneity – an abstract position» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 211-212].

Method of scenarios — a way of studying of evolutionary perspective of an investigated complex on the basis of tectological description of possible variants of its development at various presupposed changes of environment.

Method of social disingressions — a practical method of carrying of ideological struggle: «in order to break off, to destroy a solidary organization – labour, political, cultural one – by direct violent way, there may be necessary the influences of such energy», which is not available, «but if there will be found the means to inspire a distrust, a dissension of interests between members or parts of organization, i.e. to create disingressions of its internal activities, then the next causing of its disintegration will turn out to be a comparatively easier act, sometimes immeasurably easier», at that «it will may be executed already by other methods» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 166].

Method of sociocausality — a cyclic method of social research by the closed scheme: at the first stage tectological state of technosphere is determined, at the second – of oikosphere and only after that, at the third stage, tectological state of eidosphere is studied, at that initially as their common consequence and then as one of the reasons of their further development. In other words, eidosphere is researched, on the one hand, as an ideologically shaped result of interaction of techno- and oikosphere, and on the other hand, as the social factor, influencing on them along with the natural ones, i.e. ideological forms, which have developed in concrete technical and economic conditions of life of society, are considered «as their expression and at the same time as their organizing adapters» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 294]. The general scheme of the method: <E> = f (<O|T>) and <O|T> = φ (<E>); the step-by-step scheme: <O> = f (<T>) and <E> = φ (<O|T>), then <O> = ψ (<E>) и <T> = ξ (<O|E>), where <E>, <O>, <T> – tectological states of eido-, oiko- and technosphere respectively, while <O|T> and <O|E> – general tectological state of oikotechnosphere and oikoeidosphere respectively. Each subsequent cycle of research begins first of all with study of total influence of external environment on anthroposphere, and then after determination of tectological states of techno- and oikosphere there is studied new state of eidosphere from the same two points of view.

Method of sociomorphism — a cognitive method, the essence of which is that «the schemes of social relations are carried to relations of the universe», i.e. «the social practice is taken as the model of world understanding» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 88].

Method of substitution — a general method of the organization of human experience with the purpose of studying and explanation of observable, which consists in that one object or process is replaced by other, real or imaginary one; in other words, unknown is investigated and described through known. Heuristic and explanatory effectiveness of the method consists in that «replacement of smaller and more organized material of experience by wealthier and weaker organized one» gives considerably «greater sum of combinations» and is easier accessible to processing [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 242]. The most widespread variety of this method in science and technics is modelling.

Method of tendencies (of limiting equilibrium) — a prognostic method, the essence of which is in that at known tendencies of a crisis and at those conditions, in which they are developed, there is «a possibility to foresee the final result of a crisis in advance – that certain equilibrium, to which it gravitates». For example: if a box with pieces of sugar or with roughly sprinkled flour «is subjected to uncountable small concussions», then «the limiting equilibrium will be such one, at which the common center of gravity of pieces will have occupied the lowest position», and for a flour – «such one, at which the top surface of its layer will have turned to be horizontal» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 218]. The algorithm of the method is simple: at first «it is necessary to recognize distinctly the basic tendencies of development; then to combine them, continuing them mentally up to that vital limit, up to which they remain mutually compatible» [Questions of Socialism, p. 295]. Reliability of prediction of final results depends on accuracy and completeness of the organizational analysis, which is put in its basis. This method is especially important at research of crises of social systems, i.e. at studying of such unstable historical situation, when sociohistorical processes are disorganized. In order for a historian-contemporalist to understand the current sociohistorical processes, to determine the tendencies of their further development and to predict their final result (the limit of tendencies) with the greatest probability, it is necessary for him, firstly, «to separate mentally the social whole into its elements – classes, groups and to determine “the nature” of each of them exactly, i.e. its real functions at the life of the whole and historical training in the previous phases of its existence and struggle», and secondly, to distribute mentally an intended «viable» group of elements «in a system of equilibrium», where each of elements would occupy a position in correspondence with its «nature». In the final phase of prediction the tectological principle of limiting equilibrium plays a large role – the basic method of research of crises, as a model of which the following imaginary experiment can serve: «assume that we have taken a mix of different substances, for example, of water, kerosene, sand, stones, pieces of sugar and iron, and shake it up strongly. Some being of molecular scale would perceive this process as a cruel world catastrophe and would find no law in quickly changing directions of the observable movement. But, if it knew the elements of the mix and their properties in general, it also could predict, how these elements would settle down, when the shaking would have ended and they would have come in equilibrium» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 222-223].

Methodological monism — the cognitive orientation in tectology on the basis of the idea of unified methodological coordinates, in which all variety of the phenomena of the world can be considered from the uniform point of view. The very possibility of such heuristic approach goes back to the tectologically understood idea of total interconnection of world processes. Inasmuch as, according to Bogdanov, all material and non-material processes are organizational, then «there is evident the necessity of working out of the universal-general organizational methods» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 51]. In other words, monism of world processes should find its reflection in theoretical-methodological monism. Modern development of methods demands the general synthesis of universal methodologies, theoretical positions, principles, laws and conceptions, i.e. the concrete reduction of all this theoretic-methodological base to the uniform point of view. In the opinion of Bogdanov, «this role can be executed only by the organizational point of view», which generates methodological monism [Tectology, v. 1, p. 52]. Thus, methodological monism is such universal heuristic orientation, which reduces a research of any natural and social processes, material and non-material, to their consideration as organizational processes first of all. In other words, it is the uniform model of realization of the very process of research, the instruments of which are the universal-general organizational methods, worked out by Bogdanov.

Methodological necessity of monistic approach — the tectologically natural consequence of excessive specialization of science. On the one hand, «specialization is a necessary stage in the progress of forms of organizational experience», on the other hand, «specialization leads to divergence of methods». The arisen methodological contradictions grow and in process of exacerbation call for solution. Inasmuch as there is always a communication between branches, in one way or the other the methods of some «get into others, often causing in them the whole revolutions. Both in technics, and in science a number of the greatest discoveries, almost the majority of them, was exactly reduced to transference of methods outside the limits of those areas, where they had originally been worked out». In tectology such organizational process is referred to as formation of connecters, and the monistic approach as necessary ripened organizational process in excessively differentiated scientific methodology – counterdifferentiation [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 94, 97, v. 2, pp. 30, 38].

Microhistory — a social history of elementary level, i.e. of any particular social process. Besides scientific works of historians, who specializes in this field, microhistory concerns works of memoirs and epistolary genre and also art works of realistic trend – works of literature, theatre, cinema and painting of social subjects. In the terms of tectology microhistory is a degression of individually organized social experience.

Micropsychia — according to Aristotle it is narrowing of a soul that from the organizational point of view means tectological state of a psychosystem under negative selection when its distressing and painful sensations «cause as though compression of soul, relaxation of attention to surrounding, relaxation of all perceiving activity, reduced communication with other people, aspiration to rest» and in general to minimization of any communication with environment, at that the «soul» proves tectologically as a typical passive system [Tectology, v. 1, p. 245].

Militarism — a phenomenon of social inversion in the epoch of individualism when the degressive complex in social system aspires to become egressive; in other words, an inversion of disharmonious sociosystem when from egressive-degressive system it turns into degressive-egressive. So long as «a state represents nothing more nor less than organization of force for domination, then it is obvious that “militarism” is not simply one of the functions of capitalist state, but its primary and basic function». At intrasystem level the development of a state «in struggle of constituent groups and classes is inevitably first of all the development of this very function»; at extrasystem level its further development also inevitably causes the hypertrophy of this function – excessive development of militarism, from which point of view «a state is still also organization of force for domination, – but already for domination in the world market», i.e. «for domination of the capital of a given country not only over its labour classes, but over the capital and labour classes of all humankind» [World Crises (April), p. 137]. In both cases militarism is «excessive development of soldiery», which is characterized by increase of a number of army and by growth of its armaments. For maintenance of the domination within the country it is quite enough for ruling classes to have just a small hired army, but for struggle for foreign markets the greater an army is, the better. Therefore «each state tries to increase the armed force to become stronger than others; others, in their turn, in order not to appear weaker, also strengthen the armament, etc., endlessly. There are created enormous, million armies, which cost each large state hundreds of millions annually and encumber people with milliards of national debt». The military-industrial capital aspires by all means to achieve increase of army, «in every possible way trying to create hostility between nations, by threats, by spreading of alarming rumours about imminent attacks, etc.». Growth of arms is still more accelerated, that, actually, just generates harassing armaments drive in the sphere of the large states [Elementary Course of Political Economy, pp. 143-144].

Minimum — «the least possible quantity under given conditions», to which a phenomenon gravitates and from the tectological point of view which is a symbol of external influences, changing a complex, or of resistances, opposing to its activities. In all observable laws of type «minimum» it is necessary to see an action of selection: «such formulas, as the principle of the least action, of the least surfaces, etc., have formerly led to the deepest misconception in understanding of the nature», because «they have caused the idea of someone’s conscious choice, of actions, directions to certain purposes, and have assumed theological or, at least, teleological coloration». In reality «not a conscious choice, but the spontaneous selection takes place there». Thus, any formula, enclosing in itself the idea of minimum, as well as of maximum, «can and should be understood as a particular expression of the tectological scheme of selection» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 199].

Miracle — a cognitive form which arises in conditions of deficiency of knowledge. As is known, during the epoch of the Middle Ages many separate facts of experience, such as earthquakes, epidemics, healings of hysterical by suggestion, mass psychoses, sharp astronomical phenomena, mirages, etc. were interpreted «as breaches of the established natural order by intervention of some imperious force in it, and the idea of “miracle”, which had organized such facts together, was not only truth, but evident truth». During our epoch of swift growth of knowledge the idea of «miracle» has lost the status of truth [Belief and Science, p. 63].

Mirage — an optical process, definitely deformed by air environment, or, more exactly, a result of such intraatmospheric refraction, when an object, hidden behind the horizon, becomes visible owing to bend of rays of light in non-uniformly heated layers of air. Consequently, «mirage is a quite objective thing optically, but it is subjective, when and so far as this image is confused with an object». The simplest mirages are observed in deserts of tropical countries, more complex can be found, for example, in «the special theory of relativity». Really, all «those “shortenings of measures”, “decelerations of time”, “additions of speeds”, which act in the formulas of the special theory of relativity, are quite objective optically (projectively) and subjective, when they are related to reality» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 341].

Mistake — «a judgement, which contradicts the reality» and is consequently not truth. The last one just differs from mistake in that it does not contradict the reality. Both do not differ in the external form: «we are confronted with a judgement, in which there is maintained some connection of different phenomena, or absence of such connection. A mistake never embodies an open, obvious contradiction with itself, – then it would be not a mistake, but simply a nonsense. If somebody says: “man is not man”, it is a cause not to argue, but to treat. In a mistake a contradiction is always in more or less latent form; this is a contradiction with the reality, with “nature”; and this is just found out only when a false judgement comes into connection, into collision with the reality». Man comes into contact with the reality in all spheres of his doing. A judgement, obtained by previous cognition, can «serve as starting point, form the basis of further activity, of whatever sort. It is then that there is found out accordance or contradiction of judgement with the reality, its falsity or correctness. If my activity follows quite logically from a number of judgements and, however, leads not to what I have expected – then among the judgements there is at least one false». Only in human doing «judgements become in direct connection with the reality» and «only in activity their real price is found out» [Basic Elements, pp. 2-3].

Model — structural analogue of an investigated object, its mental or practical substitute with structure, identical to it. The synonym is isomorphic analogue.

Model of selection — ordinary sieve, the action of which «can be presented as practically generalizing», because «a sieve permits to pass the various particles, which have in common that they are less in size than some quantity, and stops the others, not less various, which are generalized by that they are more than the same quantity. Such is the generalizing role of selection» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 173].

Modelling — a tectological research of an object by means of mental or practical construction and studying of its model, which imitates the structure of an original; in other words, it is the method of structural analogy, widespread in experimental and theoretical areas of science. The basis for modelling is isomorphism and the method of substitution.

Molecular system — one of sorts of simplest systems, among which are «all instruments and objects of our labour and research experiments». In molecular systems «the processes of selection at all transferences and transformations of energy, which we cause or observe, are inevitably correspond to the law of entropy». The synonym is «molecular-organized system» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 206].

Money — «an instrument of exchange of commodities and consequently the most complete, the purest embodiment of exchange value». By money «it is possible to buy everything, any goods tends to exchange for money; but at purchases they are spent, and together with them – the economic force of their owner. Hence – the desire to have and get money as much as possible, turning at a capitalist, especially at a trader or usurer, into the real passion of accumulation – original “exchange fetishism of feeling”» [Science About Social Consciousness, p. 404].

Monism — the limiting result of information compression of all system of experience; in other words, it is the historically conditioned «cognitive unity of notions», which reflects «the increasing organizationality of life» [Empiriomonism, p. 336], easier speaking, «the unity of world view» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 65]. During all history of humankind the monistic tendency in cognition was realized in three stages and, accordingly, by three ways: religious, philosophical and scientific. At the first stage the cognitive unity was reached «by centralization of authority in the image of supreme deity», around of which all material of experience was grouped [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243]; at the second stage the unity was found «in the form of some universal explanation», and at the third one – it is already not “found”, but is created by actively-organizational way» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 141]. Thus, the measure of monism is historically relative, and «the strictness of monistic requirements increases with the development of humankind». At that it is necessary to remind that «the superhistorical-objective monism» does not exist, as well as there is no objective truth for all times [Empiriomonism, p. 243].

Monocentrism — the correct form of «centralistic» connection, when «harmoniously organized egression is characterized by one center, and if it is complex, chain, then it has one supreme, general center, and each group of its members contacts directly with one of the nearest, rather than with two or several centers» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 118].

Monocyte — an autonomous cell-organism, representing the elementary form of life of procariotic (all bacteria, including archae- and cyanobacteria) and eukaryotic type (infusoria, sarcodic, flagellates, sporozoa, cnidosporidia).

Monofactor approach — within the limits of a particular solution of a task it is a studying of a systemogenesis under action of one external activity, and within the limits of the universal solution – it is certainly the energy method.

Monosubjective physics — old, so-called classical, physics, in the basis of which is the laws of Newton, i.e. it is «the science of one observer, who, as required, mentally moved from one position into another, carrying also the system of coordinates together with himself», that «simplified a task, but, as any simplification, it was also abstracting from some part of its concrete conditions», since «there was fallen away the question about ways of communication between observers, for whom coordination was required, and about influence of these ways on their cognitive mutual relation» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 143].

Morality — a social degression, which as «a form of mutual control of people» [Basic Elements, p. 162] «relate to the area of norms of compulsion» [Empiriomonism, p. 324]. Observable in the scale of historical time, the omega-tendency leads to «abolishment of any morality», because «the social feeling, making people to be comrades in labour, pleasure and suffering, will develop quite freely only when it will have thrown down the fetishistic shell of morality» [Questions of Socialism, p. 105].

Morals — a type of social degression, which, as well as a norm of custom or justice, «fixes changeable, fluid relations of people to things and between themselves» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 141]. A synonym is morality.

Morphogenesis — a term, which is widespread in biology and means a well defined complex of regularly flowing processes, as a result of which there are generated some or other organs, biotissues and more complex systems of an organism. Since the historically developed content of this term is narrowly specialized, in tectology there is more preferable its Latin-Greek variant – formogenesis, which means arising and development already of any organizational form, and not only of such a particular bioform as a living organism.

Motoadapton — a motor adjustment of a living organism, being the basic «characteristic of zoological type of development» of biosphere and that «its primary feature, on which the others depend by closer way (for example, certain chemism of breath and generally of nutrition» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 76].

Motoreaction — a certain complex of movements of an organism, which is developed in process of its evolution. From the point of view of tectology it is a «crisis during a continuous physiological process», which, «almost inaccessible to present rough methods of direct supervision, proceeds in certain, nervous and muscular, elements of an organism; only under known external influences it is transformed in such a way that it becomes accessible to direct observation in the form of particular reiteration of reaction, – and when the influence caused the crisis disappears, the physiological process returns again to the former, unnoticeable course. If there is a break during this process, the former reaction will repeat no more. So, with destruction of separate parts of a brain or nerves or muscles, ability to the certain movements disappears». Bioactivity of an organ of any motional reaction is a continuous process, while the very motoreaction is «a crisis of this process, which repeats with breaks, arises from it in a continuous series of changes and returns again to it» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 70].

Movement — «changing spatial relation» between a body and an environment [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 338], or, more precisely, spatial change in a system of «environment – body» concerning a certain «degressive spatio-temporal framework». In compliance with the principle of equivalence, «any movement of a body or, generally, of a physical complex (for example, of a ray of light) in its environment, is a single (or, if you wish, one-in-two) fact, instead of the sum of two facts – movement of one side and rest of another one». Therefore «depending on a position of a cognizer, it can be expressed either as movement of a body in a known direction, or as movement of all its environment in exactly opposite direction». Scientifically exact expression of equivalent positions differs «only in direction of activity of cognizer», i.e. it «is identical, except for a sign symbolizing this direction» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 125, 128].

Movement of system — «a deforming moment for its perception». In consequence, for example, Lorenz’s formulas «are necessary to be considered not as the formulas of transition from reality of one observer to reality of another, differing from it, but as the formulas of transition from optical image (more generally – energetical projection) to objective reality, identical to both of them, or from this reality to image, to projection». All measures «should be objectively identical, and there are changed only their projections from one moving system to another. Both reductions of bodies, and decelerations of course of events, and additions of speeds are projective here, instead of objective». Thus, «all mystery disappears. Optical turn of coordinates of a prism is in principle similar to their turn in consequence of relative movement of systems, and gives the similar effects» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 335, 337].

Multifactor approach — a way of studying of a system when it is considered as result of environment’s action on it. The essence of the approach is simple: it is determined tectological state of a system within the limits of a given chronotop and then its development is reconstructed as consequence of complex influence of its external relations on internal.

Mutual adaptation — a conjugation of complexes with formation of connecter, in which basis there are laid the universal mechanism of selection, «bringing connectable parts of different complexes to mutual correspondence or coincidence». In the nature it is possible «to indicate infinite number» of examples of such mutual adaptation. «In the field of life it relates to any pair of cells, connected among themselves in an organism, to any pair of individuals, entering into family or gregarious communication. But also in the inorganic world it is not less usual. A typical illustration is equalization of electric potentials of adjoining conducting bodies, equalization of temperatures, and also of speeds of collided nonelastic bodies, etc. Deformations of rocks, soldered by pressure of higher strata, deformations of bubbles of foam, coming into contact, can serve as even more clear examples». Tectological analysis shows that in the basis of a mutual adaptation there are laid «the mechanism of selection at all its steps, from elementary-space up to social one. According to the first scheme of selection, the “conservative” one, from a number of arising changes of a complex there are kept those, which approach its resistances to equilibrium with changing activities of environment. Two connected complexes are components of the environment for each other, showing actions and resistances mutually. It is tendency to equilibrium of ones and others that determines organizational “adaptation” of both complexes. In the field of connecter there is selection of elements, by which it is reached». In one cases «stable equilibrium can turn out very quickly, as at electric processes», in other cases – «very slowly, as at the phenomena of thermal conductivity; it is indifferent for tectological characteristics of the facts, which is reduced to the methods of selection of the most stable elements and combinations». At mutual adaptation of more compound complexes, especially biological, psychical and social, into the foreground there is came out the second scheme of selection – the “progressive” one, according to which «there are stood out the groupings, increasing at the expense of their environment, the groupings with specific activities, surpassing the resistances of this environment». In this way, for example, there is occurred mutual adaptation of such compound complexes as human individuals, when they enter into chain connection: «selection is made in the sphere of their communication, strengthens and multiplies the congruent elements of their activity, smoothes or eliminates the mutually exclusive elements», at that «replenishment of both complexes with new connecting combinations» and «weakening of the groupings, incompatible from one and another side» is evidently shown up – «people “approach”, “make the acquaintance between themselves”, “come to an agreement”, “eliminate disagreements”, “resolve misunderstandings”, “reconcile contradictions”, etc.». However the very mechanism of selection remains hidden for a superficial sight: «meanwhile any influence of man on man is directed to strengthening of one elements of another’s psychics, to weakening of others; and whether it will be consciously-systematic, as, for example, in pedagogical activity, or semiconscious, as in ordinary communication of people, but objectively it is always a factor of selection» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 31-33].

Mutual hemotransfusion — the method of «simultaneous blood transfusion from one man to another and inversely by the way of double connection of their blood vessels by corresponding devices». The method owes the appearance to the idea of «renovation of life»: it was supposed that as a result of «exchange of blood between two human beings» there is transferred «a mass of conditions of increase of life» to each of them. As for the very idea, it, in turn, arose as analogy to the phenomena observable in the nature: so, for example, it is known that «in order to increase biopotential of cells or organisms, the nature constantly supplements one individual by another. For this purpose the unicellular beings, when their biopotential has decreased in monotonous conditions, fuse two by two into one, and only by this way there is come back in full measure their capability to reproduction – “immortality” of their protoplasm. A sexual crossing of the higher plants and animals has the same sense too: here there are also combined vital elements of two different beings in order to get more perfect germ of the third», and at last man himself «uses blood serums for transfer of elements of biopotential from one being to another, so to say, by parts – for example, in the form of increased resistance to some or other disease» [Questions of Socialism, p. 158].

«Mutual idiocy» — a widespread phenomenon of mutual misunderstanding, arising at communication of people with different forms of thinking. For example, the fact that «an organizational instrument is inevitably determined exactly by what it organizes» is empirically so obvious that requires no proof. Nevertheless, this alphabetic-elementary truth is understood by none of the official theorists, initiated into Marxism, who, «meeting with this alphabet», asserts at once «that it contradicts to the Holy Scripture of Marx and Engels», while an uninitiated in marxism, but «sensible worker perceives it quickly and easily as something very simple: there is nothing unclear for him, by the labour experience knowing how an instrument is determined by the material which it works» [Questions of Socialism, p. 327]. There is more than enough examples to illustrate a «mutual idiocy», and it is unnecessary to go far to find them, since all our contemporary society affected by pluralism is just nothing more nor less than grandiose gathering of «mutual idiots», crowd of the individuals, which don’t understand each other.

Mutual misunderstanding — a consequence of disharmonicity of the contemporary society which fragmentation generates people with different individual experience and different mentality: «a specialist does not understand another specialist because the material of their experience is different (for example, an artist does not understand a scientist, a philologist – a natural scientist, etc.), a submitting man does not understand a dominating one, and on the contrary, so long as there is different not only the material of their feelings, but also their real attitude to the same data of the experience (for example, what is an instrument of labour for one, for another – an instrument of exploitation, etc.)». Misunderstanding means that feelings and views of other people, available to a man, do not go into the regularity of his individual experience, by virtue of what he cannot «properly estimate their psychical conditions and foresee their actions» [Empiriomonism, p. 35].

Mutual understanding — social ingression on the basis of «common language and of that sum of concepts, which is expressed by it», in other words, on the basis of «what is named common “culture”, or, more precisely, ideology». For example, there is a mutual understanding between financiers, though they can be and more often are the fierce competitors and even enemies, nevertheless, they are «people of “one society”, because they are really capable to understand each other more full and more precisely»; and on the contrary, there is no mutual understanding between a financier and a farmer, the relative social heterogeneity of which «consists in the aggregate of unlike ideological elements, implanted in them by education and a life in their usual environment: their concepts, summarizing their experience of that “society”, or, more precisely, of that social group, to which they belong, are various; and though they speak one language, but their speech is different, at least many nuances, clear and habitual to one, are difficult to another, and vice versa». Without mutual understanding a society is unthinkable, its degree is «measure of the very social connection», and connecter is «community of ideological elements» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 185-186].

Mutualism — the arogenic form of symbiosis, the basis for which is the principle of intercomplementarity. As the prominent example of mutualism there is served the symbiosis of termites and flagellates (Hypermastigina), living in the back section of intestine of termites: the flagellates have the enzymes, digesting wood, eat it and digest it for termites, which are capable to gnaw and eat wood, but because of absence of necessary enzymes in the intestine they cannot assimilate it independently. Because these organisms perish one without another, it is an example of obligate symbiosis. Other example: on a surface of man’s skin, his mucous membrane of oral cavity and large intestine there are lived the bacteria, which promote the preservation of protective properties of skin and all human body.

Myth — a synthetic means of organization of experience and people. As is known, an ancient myth was «simultaneously an embodiment both of science and poetry: in living images of word it gave people what science gives now in the abstract concepts. For example, the myths of the book of Genesis were simultaneously cosmogony and history of Jewish people, put a Jew into the organization of the world, as it was understood then, in the organization of a community and in living connection with ancestors» [Questions of Socialism, p. 421].

Naive communism — a «mechanically-leveling distribution» of social product according to the scheme of «all get equal parts», though there is no real equalization in such a form of appropriation. Truly, «if one spends more labour energy, another – less, and they get fifty-fifty for its restoration, it is clear that there is no real equality: one of two is relatively exploited. It is possible to consider economically-leveling only such a distribution, at which there is equalized not a size of a very payment, but a ratio between expenses and assimilation of energy for each worker. Each rationing of earnings just should aspire to this». Mechanical equalization proceeds «not from scientific, but from morally-ascetic point of view», which is widespread among peasantry where complication and qualification of labour are expressed weakly, in consequence of what the ideology of equalizing is quite natural. At the present time in conditions of high qualification and increased complexity of labour such a primitive form of distribution of social product is a vestige [Tectology, v. 1, p. 268].

Narrative history — reconstruction of the past of humankind by means of chronological organization of historic facts, the essence of which is in «conscientious checking by documents and attestations how and when there were different important events, wars, transmigrations, formation of states, etc., and in subsequent exposition in their real order» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 7].

Narrowed environment — «some temporary and particular conditions» of development of any complex, which cause its structural regress, since they inevitably reduce adaptation, decreasing at that organizational potentialities of a complex [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276].

Narrow-minded experience — not connected in uniform integrity, exceptionally fragmentary experience in the form of «casual and separate scraps of collective experience, common to all humankind» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 94], i.e. that known to everyone worldly experience, which, being the common element between individua, from the tectological point of view represents a connecter, because «it is comparatively homogeneous and monotonous at all living in one social environment». For contemporary «uncoordinated collective, anarchical in its form» this worldly experience «serves as strong cement», differing at all its unscientific nature «in huge breadth and commonality of its content. It relates to the most various sides of a life: to organization of things, at least in household situation; of people – in family, in ordinary neighbour’s and other relations; to organization of ideas – in so-called “public opinion”». Exactly in this «not full, but many-sided, not scientifically-shaped, but practically-vital» narrow-minded experience «there is continued to be kept the naive unity of the organizational point of view, the spontaneous, but deep tendency to the unity of organizational methods. As its basic storehouse a national language serves», in general kernel of which «there are crystallized and elementarily shaped the traditions of the past, the experience of millennia», i.e. that worldly wisdom, which rightfully can be named folk tectology [Tectology, v. 1, p. 91].

Natural environment — a set of only those natural activities, under action of which there is a chosen complex, i.e. taken just in relation to it [Tectology, v. 2, p. 110].

Natural fetishism — a perverted «notion of a relation of things as a relation of people». In natural fetishism there is expressed «domination of the external nature» over man [Short Course of Economic Science, p. 89].

Natural knowledge — «the highest ideology of technics, the highest ideology of material-productive forces» and it is «the social technics finally» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 6, 24]; or, more concrete, it is the group of sciences, on their social essence representing «the general teaching about those resistances-activities of the external nature, which the collective labour of humankind meets with» [Questions of Socialism, p. 389].

Natural sciences — «the highest generalization of engineering sciences, the superstructure organizing them». The set of natural sciences represents «the highest ideology of technics» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge (theses), p. 461]; in other words, it is «the system of the norms of expediency of the highest order, the norms, which normalize the norms, subordinates an application of every practical rules to itself». For example, «when by means of mathematical analysis and principles of mechanics an engineer works out a project of construction of a building and a bridge, he makes the directly-technical norms of expediency with the help of the scientific norms» [Questions of Socialism, p. 63]. See natural knowledge.

Natural selection — selection of living forms by action of their natural environment; in other words, process of survival of the most adapted organisms for conditions of environment and death of the unadapted others. From the organizational point of view «the object of selection are the living organisms; the factor – their natural environment; the basis of selection – their biopotential in relation to this environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 191]. Natural selection «needs tens and hundreds of thousands of years to develop any significant change of living forms», while social selection makes with «hundreds and even tens of years» and at that its speed constantly grows [Empiriomonism, p. 246].

Nature — 1) from the tectological point of view it is «the great universal organizer» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 142], giving a man the infinite «field of organizational experience» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73]; 2) from the point of view of structure it is the infinite series of mutually influencing and internested complexes of various degree of organizationality [Empiriomonism, p. 129]; 3) from the point of view of human doing it is «the infinitely developed field of labour», «organizing the world for humankind» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 44-45]; from the point of view of continuity of experience it is «the infinite series of finite processes, merging with themselves» or, more precisely, «the infinite process, composed of immeasurable number of processes, which are finite, merge with themselves and do not have quite separate, self-dependent existence» [Basic Elements, pp. 16, 18]. Thus, for any, for example, anthropospheric process there are natural not merely the geospheric processes, but also cosmic.

Necessary condition of stability — such a tectological state of a complex, when the relative guarantee of its preservation in continuously varying environment is reached due to constant overweight of assimilation over disassimilation, i.e. an increase of its sum of activities at the expense of environment. Really, «assume it would be possible to ascertain that a complex A isn’t destroyed at all, but also does not experience changes to the other side, from the point of view of overweight of assimilation over disassimilation», i.e. we have «pure, ideal statics; but it is easy to be convinced that it could not be kept, and would inevitably come to decline. The complex A is in a given, certain environment, in complete dynamic equilibrium with it; and only while this environment remains the same, the equilibrium is guaranteed for the complex. But environment cannot be so unconditionally stable at all: it is connected with the world flow of events; at the rigorous analysis it expands just on the all universe finally; consequently, it is necessarily changes. Obviously, that there are also changed the relations of the complex A to its environment then». According to the principle of adversity these changes of environment «are immeasurably more often adverse for it». Hence, «in a changing environment a static position of the complex A turns in adverse inevitably: an overweight of losses over assimilation, a consecutive decline». Thus, «for preservation in a changing, i.e. finally in any environment, there is insufficient the simple exchange equilibrium» – there is required the constant «overweight of assimilation: then new adverse actions meet not a former, but an increased resistance». Just so in the nature there are kept every possible tectological forms, in particular the forms of life and, in fact, very «man in his collective self-preservation: by growth of complexes, by accumulation of a stock of activities», because «each step towards this side increases an opportunity of maintenance of a life under changing conditions. In other words, the dynamic element of preservation of a complex is an increase of its activities at the expense of environment» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 200-201].

Necessity — power of natural or social relations over people. For example, economic necessity is «power of social relations over people»; in economics it is «prototype of the abstract causality» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 365]. For the purposes of deliverance from fictitious power of relations «the strict scientific thinking accepts only such a necessity, the grounds of which have been found out for it» [Struggle for Biopotential (the paper), p. 11].

Negation of negation — one of three “laws” of formal dialectics, representing a sample of scientifically inexpedient naive sociomorphism, which explains nothing. The scheme of the “law” is known: thesis-antithesis-synthesis, i.e. triad, which has begun from some statement, comes back to a new statement through two negations. In regard to applicability of the triad to real phenomena, it is a result of the way of their comparison, which is chosen by a cognizer: when, for example, he «fixes a moment before the beginning of struggle of two opposite forces and a moment after its end, then there is inevitably turned out formal similarity between these two phases of equilibrium, and the intermediate period of struggle can be arbitrarily identified as phase of negation» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 197, 207].

Negative biodifference — energy characteristic of biological systems, meaning a decrease of their internal energy. Negative biodifference represents «quantitative degradation of a system» [Empiriomonism, p. 57].

Negative feed-back — such a type of feed-back, at which tendency of a certain development of a system is weakened.

Negative Ψ-selection — a kind of progressive hedonistic selection operating in not destructive limits and increasing organizationality of psychics «towards simplicity and strength of connections, harmony and stability» of psychical content. The common tendency of development of psychics at overweight of negative selection can be called Judaic, since just «the Jewish nation in its gloomy historical destiny has given the most finished samples of the types determined by this tendency»: for example, «the type of strict and quite often narrow “mono-Judaist”, the steady fighter for his truth»; or «brighter and pure sample of “Judaism” in this sense – the historical figure of our archpriest Avvakum, and in general the figures of prophets of pursued religions and sects. In the organizational experience of humankind the connection of this type with prevalence of negative selection was determined already long ago. When for protection of their force the priestly corporations needed to create cadres of narrow and unshakable fanatics, they always resorted to the methods based on this connection: to training of intended persons in heavy monastic discipline, privations and fasts, flagellations, sad meditations, etc.; and the purpose was achieved». But «when intensification of negative selection goes considerably further, its repressing action leads to reduction of activity of an organism. Then there is developed the contemplatively-ascetic type, weakly reacting on external actions and tending to “nirvana” – to the termination of any doing and any emotions». The extreme limit of the considered tendency is «melancholy», at which «one feels in the most possible agonizing way: convulsive state of vasomotor system at extremely weakened feeding of cells of brain owing to compression of small arteries causes a continuous negative emotion, which takes the forms of anguish, fear, shame». From the energy point of view «negative selection means decrease of energy of system, excess of its expenses over assimilation» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 182, 185-186].

Negative selection — «decrease of the sum of activities of a complex at preservation or destruction of its structure» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 194]. For example, cooling of a metal shank «is negative selection of its heat activities» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 243]. All mechanism of negative selection is based on disingressions. Really, «this selection is no other than disorganization of forms, which are unadapted to the environment, and therefore it can be presented as a number of disingressions» [Tectology (1917), p. 18], which «either directly, per se, reduce the practical sum of activities of a complex, or cause breaks of connections between them and transition of their part in the environment». It is necessary to note that disingressions are «only the basis, and not all the process of negative selection», since it includes also regroupings, i.e. changes and replacements of connections, so to say, “secondary” disingressions with “secondary” ingressions». And really, «while negative selection does not reach destruction of a form, it leads not only to simplification of the internal connections of a form, but also to increase of their harmonicity, that certainly assumes greater or lesser regroupings», and «such changes mean formation, – together with former ones or instead of former ones, – of new connections also». Negative selection decreases quantitative stability of organizational forms, «taking away activities step by step, simplifies the construction, changing it towards homogeneity, and increases structural stability as a result» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 194-195]. The important tectological property of this universal regulator, distinguishing it from the positive double, consists in that «for negative selection, i.e. for disorganization of a given complex, it is enough one unfavourable condition, a maladjustment even in one relation to one part of environment», while for positive selection «all aggregate of conditions of environment is required to be favourable» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 166]. «Quantitative decrease and narrowing of a life, but at the same time its harmonization and “recovery” by elimination of all contradictory and impractical» – these are two general tendencies of negative selection [Empiriomonism, p. 260]. From the energy point of view any act of negative selection decreases energy of a complex, reducing its evolutionary potential in that way. Therefore a relative conservation of a complex in conditions of negative selection is provided with an optimal interrelation of two lines of development: maximization of internal connections and minimization of external, i.e. increase of quantity of connections inside of a complex with simultaneous decrease of quantity of its external connections. In other words, successful adaptation of a complex in an adverse environment is provided with strengthening of “conjointness” of its structure, because «negative selection is less intensive for more conjoint complexes». Exactly for this reason on adverse vital conditions there is advantageous the «centralistic» type of organization in contrast to «federative» as less «conjoint» and more «beaded» one [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 244-245]. Negative selection is the cause of «general irreversibility of processes of the nature», since, firstly, «it goes there and everywhere», and secondly, «what it takes, it carries away irrevocably», in consequence of what «the nature itself is not the same already, and all new is formed in new conditions. If science speaks about reversible or recurring phenomena, it is only approximate, practical characteristics; at sufficient research it is always possible to show their inaccuracy» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 207].

Negative selection by connection — a decrease of the sum of the activities by a complex in environment, favorable for it in whole, because of the connection with a system badly adapted to this environment. For example, «those of hundreds of thousands of Russian peasants, which were lost in the war with Japan, in the usual conditions of sociolabour process would possess sufficient adaptability to live the average cycle of life and to make the posterity. But by virtue of their connection with the complex social organization – “bureaucracy”, being a part of the extensive social apparatus – “bureaucratic-state mechanism”, they were lost: as the peripheric elements of this mechanism, as the “working instrument” of this machine, they underwent first of all, before its other parts, the destroying influences of the historically given world environment, in which this apparatus as a whole was absolutely unviable» [Empiriomonism, p. 248].

Neokantianism — a modernized form of Kantianism, which from the scientific point of view is useless as a whole, though it gives, as any scholasticism, «a large practice in logic analysis». The utility of neokantianism «is not to be denied in this specially-gymnastic sense; in exactly the same way it is possible at writers of this school to find sometimes sensible ideas, which are not however in a direct connection with the internal logic of Kantianism, but simply cast by scientific knowledge of the authors» [Empiriomonism, p. 225].

Nervous irradiation — induction process in central nervous system, at which «an excitation of some centers of brain extends on others inevitably in part». The arising of speech at a primitive man is directly connected with this process: «when a man carries out some effort, this effort is reflected in his respiratory and vocal apparatus, and the certain sounds break from him involuntarily»; in other words, «in the labour act, except for its voluntary, conscious-expedient side or part, there is also the involuntary one; a labour shout relates to it. Evidently, in each case this sound was identical at all members of a tribal group: their organisms were extremely similar both by virtue of close relationship, and by virtue of joint life in one natural environment. Naturally, it by itself became a designation – clear for all – of that labour action, to which it related. So primitive words, or “primary roots”, were formed. Certainly, there were a few of them, at most some tens. But later on they changed, developed, became complicated; their involuntarily-spontaneous character was replaced with more and more conscious one», and, finally, from them there was gradually arisen «all colossal wealth of the latest languages». Thus, speech originated «from labour shouts», accompanying the united efforts of primitive people by means of nervous irradiation [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 298-299].

Nervous system — «organizing apparatus of an individual organism» [Empiriomonism, p. 270].

Network — homogeneous, or symmetric chain connection. In contrast to rhizome – vertical chain connection – network represents horizontal chain connection. A simplest example of network is subdivision of soldiers in army, which, in its turn, represents chain egression.

Network selection — see chain selection.

Neutral complex — such a complex, in which «organizing and disorganizing processes are mutually equilibrated» and which by virtue of such a way of organization represents «a whole, equal to the sum of its parts» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124]. For example, «a complex, made from several men, who are not connected by some cooperation, but also are not hostile to each other, from “mutually neutral” people, possesses, in general, the very quantity of forces or activities-resistances, which is equal to the sum of forces of these separate persons». Other example: «weight of a sack with potatoes, or its resistances to the efforts of a lifting man, is the exact sum of weight of separate potatoes and the sack» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 121]. It has historically developed so that before other parts of universal organizational science there has been developed the tectology of neutral complexes, more known as mathematics.

Neutral connection — connection between complexes, at which from each side there is arisen «equality of organizing and disorganizing action», for example, connection between a pregnant solution of any salt and a crystal of the same salt: «the solution corrodes the crystal, taking away its particles, and at the same time, becoming oversaturated due to it, the solution puts on it an equal quantity of particles in its turn. Thus, the crystal experiences from the side of solution the disorganizing and organizing action in parallel, and in its turn the solution experiences one and the other from the crystal» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 122].

Neutral harmonization — increase of connectivity of a complex due to minimization of disorganizing action of any internal contradiction, i.e. the essence of the way is not in elimination of contradiction, but in its complete or partial neutralization, when «a mutually contradictory interrelation of various functions or parts of a complex system is smoothed away by their change, unilateral or bilateral». Such a way is widespread in life of separate organisms and the whole species: «for example, there are changed instincts in the sense of transition from daylight way of life to night one, from vegetative food to animal one, etc., and there are correspondingly changed organs and functions of vision, digestion, etc. This type of harmonization can join – but far from necessarily – with some complication of a life» [Empiriomonism, p. 266].

Nicology (from греч. νίκη – a victory and λόγος – учение) — the science to win, the system of organizational principles of military art, which was first formulated in 1795 by the great Russian commander generalissimo A.V. Suvorov.

Nigredo (from Latin nigredo – blackness) — the characteristic of physical properties of a surface, expressed by a number, which shows, what part of incident radiant energy is absorbed by a given surface. Nigredo of surface of a body is determined by the formula: N = 1 – A, where A – albedo of surface of a body. See nigredo of the Earth.

Nigredo of the Earth — the ratio of quantity of energy, absorbed by the Earth, to all radiant energy, which falls to the Earth from the Sun.

Nirvana — «termination of any activities, of any emotions». The contemplative-ascetic type of psychics, weakly reacting to an external action, gravitates to such a state. This sort of tendency of development of psychics is observed at significant amplification of negative selection, when «its overpowering action results in reduction of activity of an organism» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 186].

Noant — a shortened variant of the term of «nooanthrop» formed of the first syllables of the Greek words: νοος – mind and ανθρωπος – man. This term defines a man of the epoch of conscious sociogenesis representing already «a developed being, instead of an embryonic one, a holistic, instead of a fragmented one» what he proves in the spontaneous epoch [Questions of Socialism, p. 46].

Nomocracy — power of nomoriat, the social ideal of which is «production and distribution, organized by hierarchy of officials» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 75].

Nomogenesis — a sociogenetic phenomenon, so long as «laws are not given finished in the experience, but they are developed by cognition as means to organize it», i.e. to coordinate the present experience into harmonious unity. Take, for example, such obvious regularity, periodically observable in the nature, as the change of seasons: all connected with this phenomenon complex generalizing concepts of «autumn», «winter», «spring», «summer» are not given to us in experience, but they «are developed historically. While in experience there have been given, for example, in quantity the elements of “cold”, in connection with the elements forming the complex of “snow”, “ice”, with increased quantity of the elements of “darkness” (long nights), etc.; and all this sensual material has been organized in the concept of “winter”. The other sensual material, also huge and complex (increase of the sum of elements of “warm”, “damp”, “green”, “light”, etc.), has been organized in the concept of “spring”. At last, reiteration of one or other sum of feelings, with relatively small variations, has served as the material for the organizing “idea” or “law”: spring follows winter. There is present and can be anything absolute neither in both concepts nor in the law uniting them; the experience can give us snow in May, it will bring some contradiction in the concept of “spring”, but insufficiently strong to destroy the very concept and to lead to development of a new organizing form. But if we shall settle down in the equatorial countries, the experience will bring us so many contradictions that the former organizing forms – concepts of “winter”, “spring” – will not stand them absolutely, and new forms will inevitably be developed, for example, – “the period of rains follows the period of dryness”» [Belief and Science, p. 62].

Nomoriat (from Greek νόμος – norm, custom, law) — «“normative” or state (official, military, advocatory) intelligentsia», being a part of tectorate [Lines of Culture XIX and XX centuries]. From the tectological point of view nomoriat is a subject of degression, i.e. degressor.

Nonequilibrium, or «false» stability — 1) a tectological quantity, which characterizes a relatively slow tempo of development of an observable complex and is numerically equal to its period of life, i.e. time of formation, development and disintegration of its concrete tectological form, in other words, duration of its tectological act; 2) a tectological concept, which expresses the known illusion of some constancy of an observable tectological form, representing the natural result of a certain difference between temporality of an observable system and temporality of a reference system, i.e. an observer. The more slowly is the speed of an observable systemogenesis relative to the tempo of life of an observer, the more static is perceived a concrete phase of development of a system and the more stable its observable tectological form. Inasmuch as the period of life of an observer goes entirely and most often many times into the period of life of a given tectological form, then during long time to his measures an observer fixes only a separate moment of development of tectological form, i.e. a practically unchangeable phase of one grandiose tectological act, figuratively speaking, «stretched out in time». For example, the Kazbek mountain or any other mountain, assume, even diamond one: «though from the practical point of view it will be kept quite long, but in exact theoretical formulation it is necessary to consider as a destructible complex» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 200].

Nonequilibrium system (system of Bogdanov) — a system, reacting to an external action by strengthening of its resistance, the outcome of which is double: either further development of the system, or its degradation.

Nonexistence — from the sociolabor point of view it is something, with what anybody has never encountered in practice and under no circumstances and what should not be considered in practice, since it represents no resistance practically; in other words, «if a thing is such that we, somebody, cannot learn about it under any conditions, this thing does not exist» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 324].

Non-additive complex (non-additive system) — a complex, by «a combination of activities, taken from its practical side», representing «a whole, which is more or less than the sum of its parts». In tectology the first type of complexes «is designated as organized, the second – as disorganized» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 114, 121]. The set of neutral complexes, existing besides these two types, refers to the third type and represents the class of additive complexes.

Non-additive system — see non-additive complex.

Non-additivity — a structural characteristic of a complex to show itself in the external relations either as an organized whole, which is greater than the sum of the parts, or as a disorganized one, which is less than this sum. Non-additivity is the result of a certain combination of activities-resistances, taken from the practical side, when activities are organized better or worse than resistances [Tectology, v. 1, p. 114]. In the first case it is spoken about positive non-additivity, and in the second – about negative one.

Non-parasitic system — see harmonious system.

Nooanthrop (nooant) (from Greek νοος – mind and ανθρωπος – man) — a representative not only of all life on the Earth, but also of the Earth in whole, moreover, a representative of Solar system, a representative of the Galaxy and in general a representative of cosmos, so long as all world environment is the field of application of his activity, for successful adaptation to which the tempo of his organizing doing should always exceed the tempo of disorganizing activity of the world environment. In other words, stable nooanthropogenesis is possible at consecutive elimination of catagenity in anthropo-, bio-, geo-, helio- and cosmosphere. A shorter variant of the term – noant.

Noos (from Greek νοος – mind, reason) — a factor of historiogenesis, which dominates at its conscious stage and represents the system of scientifically-grounded reactions of humankind on actions of external environment; in other words, in relation to zoos it is the secondary activity of anthroposphere, which, being inferior to zoos in the prologue of history, achieves gradually the dominating position, that, actually, just signifies the real beginning of human history. During this period anthroposphere is painfully synergized and, minimizing the internal catagenity, passes to the way of the arogenic, i.e. stabler development.

Noosphere — evolutional state of biosphere, possible only in the event that anthroposphere will go into qualitatively new phase of its development – the phase of stable arogenesis, when humankind will have been organized on the basis of universal synergy, i.e. according to the principle of organizational symmetry.

Normative fetishism — absolutization of moral and legal norms, which is characteristic of individualistic thinking, to which «socially-labour basis of its concepts is unattainable». Every «individualist finds only individual interests in social life, which collide with each other or conform casually. From this point of view a norm of law or morality protects some private interests to the detriment of other, “equitable” or “legitimate”, i.e. concordant with the very norm, to the detriment of “inequitable” and “illegitimate”, i.e. contrary to it; so, it dominates over them all, but does not depend on them. Therefore it is “absolute”, i.e. unconditional, bound by no conditions». In order to understand sociolabour character of norms, «it is necessary to go out from power of exchange ideology», i.e. to replace individualistic point of view with the higher one – collectivistic [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 386].

Normative forms — the organizing adapters of the third type, serving for «elimination of contradictions of social life by limitation of one or other functions, which would collide between each other disharmonically without these limitations». Such forms are «custom, justice, morality, decencies, practical rules of expediency for behaviour of people» [Empiriomonism, p. 269]. From the tectological point of view any norms, legal and moral, are social degressions. In other words, they are «degressive complexes for stable organization of living activities of society», at that the organizational dynamics of their development is fixed by tectology by two important moments: firstly, all these normative forms «are subordinated to living activities of society (“sociolabour”), depend from them, are determined by them», and secondly, «in process of development all these forms are more conservative than their sociolabour basis – the plastic part of social system: they are still kept when it has already outgrown them; and there is inevitable such period, in which they become a cumber and an obstacle for its progress» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 144-145]. Forming the cycle of direct connection and feed-back with conditions of social life, the normative forms, developing historically, correlate with the phases of sociogenesis: being initially conservative, «they take shape slowly and change slowly for the most part» and «always live longer than a need, which has caused them, and die only after stubborn struggle» [Questions of Socialism, p. 56]. The norms of compulsion correspond to the phase of spontaneous sociogenesis, the norms of expediency – to the phase of conscious sociogenesis. At the given stage of historical development all contemporary societies «are entirely supported by compulsory norms», in particular «the norms of property and contract submission constitute the soul of capitalism» [Questions of Socialism, p. 54].

Norms — after idea and word the third type of organizational instruments, which establish and form the relations of people in collective, fix their connections, from the tectological point of view being a sort of social degression. See normative forms.

Norms of compulsion — social norms, which serve only for «bringing the order in the disharmony of life, generated by spontaneous development», as a result «integration and regulation of heterogeneous vital processes turn out to be only external». Such order «is not yet harmony in positive sense of this word», because «conservatism of external norm collides sharply with the continuous tendency of progress and, in its turn, becomes a source – in this case the fundamental or even the only one – of the deep vital contradictions». Thus, though «externally compulsory norms are certainly necessary for conservation of a life in the contradictions of spontaneous development, but they achieve this preservation only at the cost of restraint of the very development, at the cost of its limitation and delays» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 56, 61].

Norms of expediency — scientifically justified forms of social degression, free «both from compulsoriness, and from conservatism of the former» norms of compulsion of imperative character. For example, scientific and technical rules, which «do not force in essence anybody to anything, but only point the best ways to achievement of one or another given purpose». Norms of expediency are «not a game of thinking, but the certain forms of life». They correspond to the harmonious phase of sociogenesis, in which the social principle of organizational symmetry is realized: «the maximum of life of society, as the whole, coincides at the same time with the maximum of life of its separate parts and its elements – persons». If such coincidence is not present, then «the harmonious development is out of the question – and consequently, the social domination of norms of expediency too»; if it is available, then «the purposes, to which these norms serve, at all their concrete variety, interflow in the highest unity of the socially-coordinated struggle for happiness, struggle for everything that life and the nature can give for humankind». The scientifically-proved norms of expediency «are entirely subjected to criticism of experience and cognition» unlike the norms of compulsion, which «demand to itself the domination over this criticism too» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 61-63].

Notion — «an incomplete complex-image, arising not from straight and direct action of complexes of environment, but nevertheless being their indirect reflection» [Empiriomonism, p. 156], easier speaking, it is «a trace of a perception», with which a thinking operates [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, p. 124], i.e. it is derivative of a perception, which, in its turn, is «the material of concepts» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 220].

Nucleation — continuous process of concentration of activities in central complex of system with formation of egressive center, in which the same process proceeds, but already at new level of organizationality. In other words, nucleation is rhizome-like converging process of continuous formation of egressor in egressor, i.e. chain of development of egression in the form of «ascending series, narrowed bottom-up». For example: «any feudal chain of organizers, going from a head of rural family through a great number of vassal-suzerain links up to emperor or Pope, or bureaucratic chain – from last policeman up to absolute monarch», which «is quite analogous to any ideological chain of concepts or norms, from the most particular up to the most general» [Empiriomonism, p. 295].

Nucleotide — a primary chemical complex, representing a link, or a monomer, of which a polymer chain of DNA is constructed. For example, in genome of a hook-worm (coelelminth) there are contained 97 million pairs of nucleotides, and in genome of a yeast fungus – 12 million pairs of nucleotides.

Object (thing) — «a whole mass of continuous processes, which merge between themselves and in they turn are in indissoluble connection with processes of an environment, go into them directly», however, «having merged with infinity of the nature and having turned into processes of change», they have not lost relative separateness and their relative unity of existence nevertheless. Both these characteristics serve «as the basis for contemporary historical cognition»: «if these “relative” supports of cognition have also disappeared, complete chaos would reign in the world, and there would be no place for any cognition». Instead of the concept «property of object» the historical cognition uses the concept «form of process». For example: «water is an object, having many properties», among which are mobility, transparency, ability to evaporate; «considering water as something absolutely separate and absolutely integrated in its existence, all these properties should be attributed to it “per se”, at that the property of mobility “is shown” in that water ripples from a weak influence, transparency – in that we see through water, ability to evaporate – in that water goes away from vessel gradually»; however «for historical cognition these properties do not exist, and there are only observable facts of water rippling, of transmission of light beams through it, its disappearance from the vessel». Moreover, «the form of the given process of water» is not reduced to combination of these facts: «they can only serve as means for cognition of the form of process, but they do not make it», since only in internal mutual relations of elements of a process it is possible to find «that constant which is superficially learnt by us in similarity of separate impressions that we get from a process, and that distinctive which constitutes the basis for differentiation of a given process from others», i.e. to find both unity of existence and separateness of process. In other words, all these «“characteristics” of mobility, transparency, evaporability, being “shown” only from time to time, on known conditions, and consequently not giving a studied process the unity of existence», are explained by historical cognition as «continuously existing mutual relations and interactions of processes-elements» [Basic Elements, pp. 16, 22-25].

Object of selection — «what undergoes it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 194]. For example, in the system of «biosphere – anthroposphere» the first is the actor (factor), and the second – the object of selection. An object of selection can be any complex both of physical and of psychical experience: a stone, a planet, a cell, «an individual, but also a social group, a class and some technical device, a word, an idea, a norm, etc» [Empiriomonism, p. 245].

Objectification of truth — recognition of one or another truth as «common property of people of a certain group» at required presence of two conditions: «firstly, the very ordinary life of a group should represent a sufficient material for establishment of this truth; secondly, the vital interests and aspirations of group should not be in contradiction with it» [Basic Elements, p. 249]. From the point of view of tectology objectification of truth goes by the principle of casting form.

Objective criterion of truth — «there are true those forms of cognition, which are conserved and develop in the course of social development – and by virtue of this development; there are false those, which social development tends to destroy. Truth is distinguished by that it must be victorious – such is its unique reliable criterion» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 190].

Objective expediency — «a result of world struggle of organizational forms», in which some forms are destroyed and disappear, and others are conserved (the last are considered to be «more expedient» in contrast to the first «less expedient» or even «inexpedient») [Tectology, v. 1, p. 113]. Thus, «where we observe “expediency” in the nature, really there is no “conformity” with anybody’s “purposes”, but there is a result of quite spontaneous processes, which are automatically regulated by destruction of all unadapted to the environment, of everything, which is unstable, not strong in its given conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 289]. And this, in turn, means that the content of the term of «objective expediency» in the tectological meaning is completely covered by the concept of «selection». Consequently, it is an unnecessary term in tectology, and its shortest formulation is the following: objective expediency is both process and result of selection.

Objective regularity — a stable connection of socially-organized experience, i.e. «the most harmonious, the most organized, the most developed» form of its connection [Empiriomonism, p. 125].

Objectivity — «the general significance of facts and relations, which is established in communication of living beings» [Empiriomonism, p. 127]; in other words, it is the general significance of the collectively-organized experience, the content of which is agreed between people as a result of their communication [Empiriomonism, p. 233]. «We call objective those data of experience, which have the same vital significance for us and for other people, those data, on which not only we make our own doing without a contradiction, but on which, on our opinion, should be based also other people in order not to come to a contradiction. Objective character of the physical world consists in that it exists not for me personally, but for everybody, and for everybody it has certain significance, on my opinion, the same one, as for me» [Empiriomonism, p. 15]. So, from the positions of empiriomonism, to possess objectivity – it means «to have to do with the socially-coordinated experience», i.e. to have «a socially-practical significance» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 222-223].

Oikoadapton — an economic adjustment for development. The basic such oikosphere-forming adjustment is cooperation.

Oikobalance — equilibrium of social economy which is attained at observance of two conditions: firstly, if «its each element will get by distribution all necessary means for execution of the socially-productive function» (a worker – «means of consumption, sufficient for maintenance of his normal labour force», an enterprise – «materials, fuel, instruments in a proper quantity for the further production, etc.») and, secondly, if the strictly determined proportionality will be established between all its elements («all of them should be mutually sufficient») [Tectology, v. 1, p. 274]. In other words, oikobalance is possible at observance of the necessary and sufficient conditions of stability, i.e. at presence of the energy and structural attributes of stable development.

Oikoriat — the organizers of people: the politicians, officials, the military, lawyers, priests, manufacturers, financiers, traders.

Oikosphere — within the framework of anthroposphere it is highly plastic and highly organized centralist complex of human activities, taken in mutual connection; in other words, egressor, which regulates technosphere and is determined by it at the same time. In oikosphere society adapts to environment too, and not directly, as in technosphere, but indirectly, «because economic process proceeds between people rather than between people and nature» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 285]. A synonym is economics.

Oikospheric organoms — the basic economic organizational principles, historically replacing each other, the formula of which turns out from the formula of technospheric organoms by substitution «of a man considered as an instrument – in place of an instrument». Man does not invent his organizational methods: «they have the basis in organizational laws of the nature and are somehow or other forced for man»; in other words, there are general «organizational laws, according to which there are processes of organization and disorganization in the nature and on which human organizational methods depend also». Therefore in accordance with the basic scheme of historical materialism the principles, which are formed in social technics, serve also as the basis of organization of social economics: «there is the matter about relation of instrument to man, while in social economics – about relations of man to man», at that «man can be considered as instrument of collective or of separate men in collective». Thereby from four replacing technospheric principles of social technics it is possible to deduce «four principles of social economics, namely: where we have took instrument before, we now take man as instrument and place him into the same formula»: as a result of such substitution there are turned out four economic organizational principles – i.e. four forms of cooperation, historically replacing each other. According to the first technospheric organom «in the primitive organization of things, in primitive technics, there is spontaneous, organic connection of instrument with collective», therefore by substitution we get: «in a primitive commune each man is a living organ of the whole, connected with this whole conservatively, unconsciously, spontaneously, by blood, and not by connections based on estimation, choice, agreement», in short, «man as instrument of collective is spontaneously, organically, conservatively connected with it». According to the second technospheric organizational principle «instrument is also in spontaneous, organic and conservative connection, though not with collective, but with an individuum in collective». By substitution «we get that one man for another is instrument, and the connection between them is spontaneous, organic, conservative. It is the second stage of development of economics: primitive authoritarianism». From «the third principle, when instrument is already in conscious, plastic connection with an individuum in collective too», by the same substitution «we get: man as instrument is connected with another man consciously and plastically. This connection is firstly conscious and secondly variable. Firstly man A uses man B, then back. A – a peasant uses B – a shoemaker as the instrument of getting footwear to himself; B uses him as the instrument of getting of bread. Such is the third principle in economic development; it is the exchange principle». There is remained the fourth principle, in which there is realized «conscious, plastic connection of man as instrument with his collective», that means, «firstly, that this connection is recognized by collective and by a person, and collective tries to adapt a person as much as possible; secondly, this connection is plastic», i.e. a comprehensively developed «person will enter into different labour relations, and collective should adapt him for different relations»; and since «the connection is conscious here, then man is not only instrument, and, taken not separately, but as a member of collective, he himself participates in determination of his function». Such form of cooperation is designated as collectivistic. Thus, the fourth technospheric organom – «the principle of machine production, brought in the field of economics, is the principle of socialism». Historical change of organoms in technosphere corresponds to change of organoms in oikosphere [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, pp. 279, 272, 278-281].

Oikotechnosystem — a system of «relations of people to the nature» and of «mutual relations of people in the production and appropriation», i.e. a two-complex system of «technics – economics», in which the basic, more specifically, system-formative complex is technics. As a word-formation the term is rather bulky, but in comparison with the shorter synonym «economy» («chozyaystvo») its form extremely expresses the content and in this sense is the most explicit, that immediately eliminates «the large and unformunate misunderstanding» which, actually, arises just by reason of «inexact use of words»: as is known, «“chozyaystvo” and “economics” are considered as exact synonyms in a narrow-minded consciousness, as well as in bourgeois science» [Questions of Socialism, p. 306].

Oikotectogenesis — «organization of human forces» in struggle of man against the nature, i.e. that part of the triune organizational task, the solution of which comes to harmonization of oikosphere [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71]. Historical oikotectogenesis has four stages: protocollectivism, authoritarianism, individualism and collectivism.

Oikovampirizm — catagenic form of economic process in the form of existence of economic relations become obsolete or becoming obsolete. For example, villaining, exploitation, credit and financial and commodity-money relations.

Omega of scientific cognition — a scientific prognosis, since science just «exists exactly in order to foresee»: determining tendencies of development of a given system and its environment, «science has to draw a conclusion about what will turn out from this» [Questions of Socialism, p. 90].

Omega of sociogenesis — «the general final purpose» of social development: «the maximum of life of society, as the whole, coinciding at the same time with the maximum of life of its separate parts and its elements – persons». In the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, at which the norms of compulsion dominate, there is no such coincidence, it arises only in the phase of conscious sociogenesis at social domination of norms of expediency, when «the purposes, to which these norms serve, at all their concrete variety, interflow in the highest unity of socially-coordinated struggle for happiness, struggle for everything that life and the nature can give for humankind» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 62-63].

Omega-tendency (omega-trend) — global tectological act, observable in the scale of historical time as the change of global forms of sociogenesis, connected with the transition of anthropogenesis from the stage, in which humankind was an object of selection, to the stage, in which it becomes the active actor of selection; in other words, the global crisis, connected with the transition of society from the spontaneous phase of development to the conscious one, at that society itself is considered as «the one vital whole, with the one direction of selection of its elements – social forms» [Empiriomonism, p. 294]. In the structural plan the omega-tendency represents the complex of the interconnected basic directions of global sociogenesis – megatrends, the general orientation of which is tectologically formulated as the omega of sociogenesis.

Optical image — «a particular kind of wireless telegram coming from an object» and stamped on retina of eye [Tectology, v. 1, p. 159].

Optimal interaction — such an interchange of activities, at which activity of one complex increases adaptability both of its own, and of a complex, interacting with it, and on the contrary; at that a system, made of such complexes, increases its adaptive abilities too. The example of optimal interaction is a connection of complementary complexes, which form an arogenic system.

Optimal state — a tectological state of a system with maximum possible at a given moment quantity of intercomplementary activities, constructed according to the principle of organizational symmetry, and with minimum possible at a given moment catagenesis and dissipation. Energy transformations inside of a system can be expressed by the formula: a sum of conjugated activities = arogenesis + catagenesis + dissipation, from which it is seen that decrease of «expenses of activities» for processes of catagenesis and dissipation at fixed «sum total of activities» increases the general arogenesis of system.

Optimality (optimum) — in conditions of a concrete environment the maximum possible coefficient of adaptive-expedient use of activities, got by a complex, at their minimal squandering, i.e. one of characteristics of tectological state of a complex, reflecting its best adaptation to a given environment. From the energy point of view optimality describes the state of the most expedient development of a complex at minimal «expenses of activities», i.e. «the best ratio» between these expenses and «sum total of activities», formed after their regular regrouping [Tectology, v. 2, p. 47].

Optimization — such intercoordinated process of harmonization of external and internal interrelations of a system, which is constructed according to the principle of organizational symmetry; i.e. harmonization of all systemogenesis as a whole. For example, in sociogenesis optimization is «conscious struggle for the maximum coefficient of use of all technical means and potentialities» at minimization of «varied squandering of productive forces, squandering of energy sources in particular» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 7-8].

Optimum of divergence — «the most favourable degree of divergence» of conjugating complexes, at which a level of development of «internal contradictions of a conjugated whole» and associated quantity of «expenses of activities» corresponds in the best way with a level of adjustment of a new integrity to environment and with associated total quantity of got activities. For example, incest as «conjugation of too similar, insufficiently diverged gametes» gives «a worsened posterity, results in degeneration». But on the other hand, «when greatly diverged varieties of one species are crossed», then «there is turned out a return to primary, undifferentiated type», i.e. negative selection rejects «a number of elements and groupings, got in process of divergence», inasmuch as «acquisitions of one conjuganta are not suitable for a construction of another and are destroyed owing to this contradiction, and inversely also» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 47, 49].

Optimum of education — the ideal of education, which is realized in the conditions of collectivism and the methods of which include, firstly, general education on the basis of tectology, secondly, special training, «supplementing and expanding general education, being its particular, practical development in one or another side», thirdly, education of will with development of personal independence, which sense is «in initiative, criticism, originality – generally in development of individual features», and at last, education of disciplined attitude to society on the basis of «alive comradely connection of collective, conscious submission to its common interests, its purposes» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 236-237].

Optimum of psychical life — strict differentiation of the moments of cognition and will in psychics, eliminating all obstacles in the way of their development, when «thinking, being free from submission to will, in turn, frees will», and its activity «can unfold in the full measure». Really, when «will finds in cognition not an obliging flatterer, but a true comrade, who honesty shows will the best means to achievement of its purposes, ascertains the chances of their realization, the degree of their progressiveness and on the whole their relation to the general course of the life», then «there is created the possibility of free progress of depth and clearness of cognition, on the one hand, of activity of will – on the other», and «energy of psychical life increases» [From Psychology of Society, p. 243].

Ordinary tectology — the narrow and imperfect systematization of an individual experience. Each man separately possesses only some part of the experience of the humankind, at that «not merely in his special field, but also – by scraps and shreds – in many others. He systematizes this part somehow or other, consciously, and even greater – unconsciously, and he is guided by it in the most various cases of the life. In other words, each man has his own, small and imperfect, spontaneously constructed “tectology”. In practice and in thinking he operates “tectologically”, not suspecting this by himself, just as a philister speaks prose or, having looked at watch, determines an astronomical quantity, without his knowledge and intention. But also it is by no means necessary to consider this ordinary tectology as simply individual. A man gets from the social environment, through communication with other people, the greatest part of his experience, and especially of the methods of its organization, so great part that his personal contribution in comparison with this represents a incommensurably small quantity and in addition a dependent quantity. Thus, in ordinary tectology there are also elements, which are common for mass of people», i.e. the commonly accepted elements, the most important of which are language, speech [Tectology, v. 1, p. 110].

Ordofication — the process of ordering, harmonization (from Latin ordo – order and facere – to make), i.e. the increase of organizationality. The variant «adification» is possible: from aedificatio, aedificare – construction, to build. See tectoрhany.

Organ (from Greek οργανον – instrument) — a part of organized whole, «having special destination» and functionally supplementing its other parts [Tectology, v. 1, p. 135].

Organism — «a living complex» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 274] as «self-replicating machine, which continues in one or another measure to replicate interrelations and equilibriums, creating in it» [Struggle for Biopotential (the book), p. 140]. The synonym is living organism.

Organization — 1) in the broadest sense «some combination of activities-resistances» [Questions of Socialism, p. 399], a result of which can be both additive, and non-additive (see non-additivity); 2) in the narrower understanding an organized complex, i.e. such combination of elements, which creates a greater joint activity or, that is the same, a greater joint resistibility than simple addition of activities-resistances of all elements, taken separately; in the briefer formulation – «a whole, which proves practically to be greater than the sum of its parts» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 308]; 3) process of formation or improvement of intrasystem connections, the essence of which is in increase of practical sum of activities by the very way of their combination [Tectology, v. 1, p. 114]; for example: «all the content of life of humankind» as the uniform interconnected process is reduced to organization of things, people and ideas, or more precisely, to «organization of external forces, organization of human forces, organization of experience» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71]. All empirical material, accessible to humankind, testifies that organization is «the universal fact», in other words, «all existing can be considered from the organizational point of view». At that it is necessary to take into account that «the concept of “organization” is not in the least spatial», inasmuch as «organizational-external influences are not those, which go on a system geometrically from outside, but those, which tend to break off connections of its activities-resistances»; for example: «pathogenic bacteria propagate “inside” of an organism, but functionally, tectologically they are an external force for it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 128]. Organization is a basic concept in tectology, and all three-volume work of Bogdanov serves as the explication of it.

Organizational act — an element of organizational process with predominance of progressive moments over regressive, as the result of what a complex passes tectologically to a higher step of its development; in other words, it is always tectological act of structural progress. In spite of its elementary character, every organizational act «proves in its turn to be extremely complex process» and consists of three moments: the first one – indefinitely-conjugational phase, the second one – phase of system differentiations and the third one – phase of system consolidation. «In the first phase an organizational act is outlined by crises C. In the second one it is developed on the basis of crises D, which in every system divergence can be followed by derivative crises C, intertwining with their line. In the third one it comes to an end with complete forming of a system on the basis of crises C with derivatives D» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 258, 260].

Organizational dialectics — organizational process in the form of continuous chain of tectological acts, which goes not only by means of contradictions, as formal dialectics asserts, but also by means of synergy. «It was scientifically important in old dialectics that there was the indication on oppositions, hidden in notions and things, which were required to search and which were meant to be sometimes a disingression of activities, sometimes simply a system divergence of parts or sides of a whole», and at that «there were outlined no ways for prediction how a negation of a form would shape in some new case; there was assumed only the possibility to oppose formally a new phase to previous one». Therefore, from the point of view of tectology, «the old dialectics is still insufficiently dynamic and in its naked formalism leaves obscure the general mechanics of development, unless only outlining it minimally». The organizational dialectics is scientific and tends to exactness, while its «precursor», old dialectics «is its “philosophical”, inexact, preliminary, expression» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 267-271].

Organizational experience — accumulated by humankind over all history of its existence, «experience, taken from the organizational point of view, i.e. as the world of organizing and disorganizing processes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73].

Organizational form — see tectological form.

Organizationality — in the brief formulation, «unity and connectivity» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 90]; in the more expanded one, a result of joining of elements in a certain integrity on the basis of such their connection, at which there is provided the maximal adaptation of this integrity to conditions of an environment [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 112-113]. If an integrity is constructed so that available activities are combined in it more successfully than resistances, being opposed to them, it represents an organized whole, which is «practically greater than the simple sum of its parts» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 117]. «Organizationality increases quantitatively, if within the limits of a given form, at its given structure there is united, is accumulated more significant sum of elements-activities, for example, when the mass of a nebula or a planet increases at the expense of a material from ambient spaces. Structurally organizationality increases, if within the limits of a system its activity joins with smaller disingressions, for example, when harmful friction of parts decreases in a mechanism, when the coefficient of energy use increases, i.e. its fruitless expenses become smaller» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

Organizational methods — all methods without exception used by humanity in practice and theory, since it «does not have other activity, except for organizational», and «other tasks, except for organizational» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71]. From such organizational point of view the essence of formations approach, and also the very mechanism of change of formations, will consist in the following: «each class, which is put forward by history, develops necessarily its special organizational methods, on which its life is formed and, when it gains domination, also the life of all society»; these special, so to say, formation methods «follow from the basic relations of production, finally – from that form of cooperation, which is characteristic for a given class; feudal classes have different methods than bourgeoisie; and proletariat – even more different»; here these organizational methods, and also organizing ideological forms created by means of them, make own culture of a given class: feudal-authoritarian, bourgeois-individualistic and proletarian-collectivistic [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, pp. 115-116].

Organizational parallelism — a consequence of isonomism and convergence of forms, the essence of which is in making of similar forms of adaptation by dissimilar systems by origin. For example, there are similar «the methods of reproduction of higher animals and higher flowering plants», although such a form of adaptation – sexual separateness – «developed independently in both cases»; there are similar «wide cooperation and complex division of labour at social insects» and at people, although «those common ancestors, from which people and insects descended from, were not in the least social animals», etc. [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 76-77].

Organizational point of view — the uniform and universal view on nature and society from the positions that «all is organization», all processes and «all methods are organizational». From this there is followed all complex of practical and cognitive tasks: researching interrelations of a whole to an environment and of parts to a whole, «to understand and to study all and any methods as organizational» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 74]. The universality of such a point of view consists in that all organizational variety, being found in nature and in society, is reduced to the few organizational schemes: «whatever the elements of the universe are different, – electrons, atoms, things, people, ideas, planets, stars, – and whatever their combinations are different by the appearance, but it is possible to determine a small number of the general methods, on which these any elements combine between themselves, both in spontaneous process of nature, and in human doing»; and at that of all these «universal organizational methods» there has been turned out three basic [Questions of Socialism, pp. 282-283].

Organizational process — a continuous series of organizational acts [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 258-260], directed «to formation of some systems from some parts, or elements», at that «everything, what is organized, is nothing but activities-resistances» [Questions of Socialism, p. 398]. Organizational processes in various spheres of human doing have different special names: in the field of cognition – “ascertainment”, “discovery”, “invention”, in technics – “production”, “manufacture”, in building – “erection”, in art – “creation”, “composition”, in biology – “adaptation” and “development”, in psychology – «association», in social sciences – “organization”, in mechanics, physics and chemistry – “formation”, etc. [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 95, 96]. A complex organizational process represents an interaction of tendencies of two types – tendencies to stability, to homeostasis of a system, demanding a strengthening of negative feed-backs, and tendencies of search of new, more economical ways of use of external energy, demanding a formation of positive feed-backs and a limitation of stability.

Organizational schemes — three basic ways of organization: ingression – simple, complex with reversible and irreversible connections, egression – simple and complex, degression – simple and complex. The interrelation of the main schemes: «ingression collects an organizing content, egression concentrates it, and degression fixes it». It is necessary to note that «egression and degression decompose into some ingressions with irreversible connecter» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 151-152]. «Having reached the level of the highest phase – an organizational scheme, – the laws of nature reach also the level of maximal generality», i.e. «of the universal formulas» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 131].

Organizational task — any practical and cognitive task of creative or destructive character, which solution with the appearance of tectology «has become an affair not of an individual talent or of a genius, but of scientific analysis, such as mathematical calculation in tasks of practical mechanics» [Questions of Socialism, p. 283]. In general humankind «does not have other tasks in addition to organizational ones» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71].

Organization of production — «the organization of people and things in an expedient unity». Being the basic sort of technical process, an organization of any production is always reduced to the task «to organize labour forces and means of production in a system, functioning in planned way» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70].

Organized complex — such a complex, which by the way of the organization represents «a whole, which is greater than the sums of its parts» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 113]. It occurs not because there are created activities from nothing in a complex, but «because its available activities are combined more successfully than resistances, opposing to them». For example, a symbiotic complex «has practically a greater sum of activities than if its parts existed separately», because a certain «portion of activities in the material form of one or other substance, being lost by one participant of symbiosis through unfitness for it, is directly got by another, and back, and consequently, is kept in a symbiotic whole» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 117-118]. The synonym is organization.

Organized system — a system, tectological state of which is not contrary to the sufficient condition of stability. See organized complex.

Organizer — from the tectological point of view arogenic type of egressor, which activity promotes further development of a system, its quantitative and structural progress; and from the historical and sociolabour points of view it is an originated during division of labour «personal form of organizing adapter», aimed «to direct and systematic coordination of the parts of labour process, to direct and systematic elimination of particular contradictions, acting in it». Unlike organizing adapters in the sphere of ideology, presented in the impersonal form of some idea or norm, an organizer fulfils a function, which has «more direct, more living and fluid character. Each “instruction” of an organizer is a kind of “norm”, created by him for a given special case, whereas an ideological norm, even the smallest on the vital importance, covers a whole uncertain series of special cases». In other words, «activity of an organizer covers each special case, to which it is relevant, incomparably fuller and can determine the case by itself entirely, while an ideological impersonal form always determines one or another social fact only partly, grasps only its some single “side” or feature» [Empiriomonism, pp. 327, 295]. From the functional point of view any doing of an organizer in social system is reduced to «direction and control over an executor» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 107]. As to extrasocial environment, then, starting from the most general positions, «the great universal organizer» is the nature, while man is its «learner and imitator» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 142], at that in the role of organizer he «cannot fully separate himself as independent “I” from executors: he is correlative to them, he is unthinkable without them, as well as they are without him; a logic impossibility is an organizer without executors and executors without an organizer» [Questions of Socialism, p. 33].

Organizing adapters — such the forms of organization of experience, «always connected with complication and expansion of a life», the essence of which is in that «two vital combinations, which at their direct joining turn out to be in a mutual contradiction, easily connects, by now without a contradiction, by means of a third combination – an «organizing» combination. In social life «organizing adapters play the role of the greatest importance, and at that an increasing one in the process of social development», because exactly «they cover all that area, which towers over “the technical process”, and form the ideological process in their development, in their arising and destruction». It is possible to recognize three basic types of organizing adapters: forms of direct communication, cognitive forms and normative forms, which in the aggregate cover all ideological process in social life [Empiriomonism, pp. 266-268, 270].

Organom (from Greek οργανον – instrument, νόμος – law) — organizational principle of some system, which connects its elements into one whole, i.e. system-formative principle. For example, the organoms of oikosphere are forms of cooperation.

Organomics — the area of organizational laws, which egressive center is tectology. For example, modelling of monocytes «from spumous or emulsive mixture, which by the chemical composition doesn’t have anything in common with living protoplasm»: by means of such «artificial cells», living amoebas, which reproduce movement, «there is solved the question of physical structure of protoplasm. What kind of experience is it? Should it be related to molecular physics? But this question is biological. To biology? But the object of the experience is not in the least living bodies. It is undoubtedly an experiment from the area of laws of organization in general». Constructing enormous colliders, physicists make the model of microcosm, – does it mean that such experiences are absurd? No, certainly, «because their sense is in the principles of construction, in the principles of the world organization» [Questions of Socialism, p. 410].

Organ of a body — «an organizational element of labour force» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70].

Overcoming of contradiction — three ways of optimization of intrasystem interrelations: passive, neutral and active harmonization; in other words, optimization of structure of a system either by means of elimination of contradiction between its parts, or by means of smoothing of contradiction by their unilateral or bilateral change, or by means of «development of organizing adapters» [Empiriomonism, p. 266].

Overproduction — a crisis of capitalist organization, the essence of which is in that «an increasing inflow of matter and energy from the area of production ceases to be assimilated by society owing to broken equilibrium of its relations and is spontaneously spent quite fruitlessly or even harmfully to society». The crisis arises on the basis of positive selection and develops entirely within the limits of negative one, at that «if negative selection, not having made complete or in general deep destruction of a system, will be again replaced by positive one, then the further growth and development of the system get the character of greater organization», as a result of which stability of capitalist organization increases. The scenario of such development of events is the following: «crisis of overproduction destroys a great number of the weakest or least expediently organized enterprises; at other enterprises it causes reduction of works connected with elimination of the least productive expenses, with strengthening of internal economics, often with removal of indifferent organizers – managers and engineers who could keep at good conjuncture, with end to nepotism which so easily develops up to enormous sizes in epochs of prosperity, etc.»; in general the crisis causes everywhere «the tendency to reject obsolete ways of production, obsolete forms of organization of enterprises in favour of more contemporary ways and forms which are only found», therefore «as a result after termination of the crisis, when positive selection comes into force again», all economic system can turn to be «originally improved and, in spite of sharp temporary slackening, is capable after that to reach a new prosperity at a higher level of technics and organization». However in that measure as negative selection operates spontaneously during the crisis, in the same measure «inconsistently, imperfectly and incompletely it carries out the progressive function», since «together with low-biopotential, antiquated, becoming obsolete, casual, elements, connections and groupings, it ruins a great number of others, useful and important for development of social system, actively-labour ones, which vital progressiveness is immutably found out in a further course of social process. It takes only to imagine squandering of labour forces and life in consequence of unemployment at an industrial crisis. But also the whole enterprises, which perish from the crisis, are by no means all from among technically and economically weaker or worse organized ones: a general crash carries along many advanced enterprises as well» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 212, 214].

Own vibrations of system — free vibrations of a system at the expense of accumulated energy in conditions of negligibly small actions from the side of environment; in other words, vibrations of intrasystem complexes, being in condition of dynamic equilibrium with the whole set of complexes, which constitute the system. In dissipative systems at breach of the necessary condition of stability the own vibrations decay.

P-balance — normal distribution of phosphorus, going into a human body, between two systems, being in extreme need of it, central nervous and sexual. As is known, making of spermatozoa «competes with bioactivity of nervous cells, demanding relatively great expense of phosphoroalbuminous or “nucleoproteid” substances, necessary for them: the greatest part of spermatozoon is in fact formed by nucleus, so rich in them» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 80]. Naturally, quantity of these expenses tells to one or other extent on work of CNS and, in particular, of brain; therefore constant, even very small shortage in the balance of these precious materials reduces intellectual activity of an individuum, who takes excessively a great interest in «making of spermatozoa». And on the contrary, at long or constant shift of P-balance in the other direction, CNS gets now into the sphere of action of positive selection in the line of assimilation of phosphorus, while negative selection oppresses the sexual system in the same line. Figuratively speaking, the oscillating demand for phosphorus generates crises of overproduction or underproduction of spermatozoa. Stable phosphoric imbalance of one or another system forms correspondingly two well-known psychophysiological types of person: the type of Don Juan and the type of Faust.

Pain — a negative affectional connected with «quickly coming overweight of expenses of energy of a system over its assimilation» [Empiriomonism, p. 42] and accompanied by increase of innervation, i.e. by «strong, sharp compression of peripheral arteries». A pain from a physical external irritation is strictly localized, but, nevertheless, «a pain is not given with sensation, but follows it», i.e. «a pain is a secondary phenomenon»: it «is not conducted to the head centers» from a place of the localization, but on the contrary it «arises in them». For example: «if a person is being given a wound, he is firstly receiving a purely tactile sensation of the weapon getting into his body, and only after then he is feeling pain already», at that «this delay, from insignificant fractions of a second, can reach 1-2 seconds. A pain is quite separable from tactile sensations, and, in other cases of action of narcotic substances, it is quite eliminated at conservation of all external feelings», at that «exact localization of a pain is based on its close direct connection with a certain tactile, exactly localizable sensation». As a fact of consciousness a pain is formed in CNS and is secondary to the facts of physiology, but nevertheless it is «a direct result of external irritation», a consequence of destroying influence on a body or a biotissue, therefore each not only tactual, but «even auditory, visual sensation, reaching a known force, gets the character of pain». Moreover, since compression of vessels is the base of all negative affectionals, then «difference between pain and other negative emotions is relative», and distinction between physical and psychical pain is unscientific [Basic Elements, pp. 232-234].

Pandeterminism — cause-and-effect connection of all with all.

Panlogism — a philosophical system, according to which existence is the embodiment of logic, i.e. its laws are determined by laws of logic. The classical example of panlogism is Gegel’s philosophy.

Panpsychism — «wider and less naive form of psychical substitution» in comparison with solipsism. As «the most harmonious and logical» individualistic world view [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 91] panpsychism «reduces objective law of the phenomena to subjective connection» [Empiriomonism, p. 54] by the formula: «if it is directly known only psychical, then about all known indirectly, by way of conclusions or substitution, we can, obviously, judge exclusively according to this psychical, and we can really imagine nothing unpsychical; and if we shall speak that there is unpsychical “matter”, then it will be an empty phrase, for which in our living experience there is no thinkable content». The weakness of such psychical substitution «consists in that it should subjugate all nature to psychical regularity, reduce all connection of the phenomena to the laws of psychology» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 91-92].

Pansophy — the universal cognitive system, uniting all human knowledge in the logic whole, in which one follows from other. Such a cognitive monism, i.e. identical knowledge of everyone about everything, is that consolidating ideology, which, eliminating disputes and wars, minimizes waste of social energy for struggle inside of a society and, establishing the international cooperation, optimizes the expenses of energy for struggle of man against the nature. Scientific pansophy is tectology, uniting humankind in one global collective.

Paper-gold inflation — a special form of inflation which «consists not only in increase of quantity of unchangeable paper money, but in increase generally of the sum of means of purchase in comparison with the sum of goods» [Paper at the session of Socialist Academy of Social Sciences on September 14, pp. 152-153].

Paradox of postcrisis development — a phenomenon of evolutionary splash, blossoming or accelerated development of a complex system, observable immediately after a crisis, the essence of which is in the following: during a crisis «less stable elements and connections are removed by destructive action of negative selection first of all, at that if this action stops at a known point, changing into a phase of positive selection, then preserved more stable elements develop and reproduce in expanse» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 152].

Parallelism — absolute separateness of any two processes, taking place «in parallel and simultaneously, as two sides of one reality, as “phenomenon” and “epiphenomenon”; none of them is cause, none – consequence; in this sense they are mutually independent and adjoin nowhere». Such a point of view «has no bases in the scientific experience in general. Science often has to deal with parallel series of facts. For example, a gas volume decreases in parallel with increase of pressure; or – development of organs goes in parallel with their functioning, or – a number of suicides decreases and increases in parallel with fluctuations of production in the direction of prosperity and crisis, etc. But the scientific thinking in these cases never affords to stop on “parallelism” and to consider that a question is settled by its statement. The scientific thinking always reduces this parallelism either to recognition of one of its sides for the cause, another for consequence, or to finding of their common cause, or to their dialectic connection into one mutually-causal series. The scientific thinking does not know and does not recognize naked “parallelism”»; it can allow this in no form, in no special case, and always reduces parallelism to causality [Country of Idols, pp. 238-239].

Paralogism (from Greek παραλογισμός – false conclusion) — as opposed to sophism it is an unintentionally erroneous reasoning which arises in consequence of infringement of the rules of logic. A prominent example of paralogism is the reasoning of Malthus about leading growth of means of existence in relation to growth of population.

Parasite — a complex, catagenically connected with other complex, which is arogenic to it, environment-adapted and used already as the secondary environment for its own adaptation. The negative sense, which is attached to the given concept as usual, is not always justified in tectology: for example, contrary to any «pampering-affecting» worldly notions a child in a womb of mother is nevertheless a parasite from the tectological point of view.

Parasitic degeneration — «the result of long preponderance of assimilation of energy over its reduced expenses – the most unfavourable case of positive selection for a life». Parasitic degeneration is one of the reasons of internal disorganization of a society and disintegration of disharmonious systems [Tectology, v. 1, p. 213].

Parasitic system — a disharmonious system with a complex, catagenically connected with other complex, which is arogenic to it, environment-adapted and used already as the secondary environment for its own adaptation. Thus, a parasitic system has the matryoshka structure and at the minimum consists of two complexes, two environments and two degressions of different orders.

Parasitism — catagenic connection of one complex with other complex, environment-adapted and arogenic to it, which is used already as the secondary environment for its own adaptation.

Partial information environment — one or another fragment of the system of experience, within the limits of which the bioactivity of a separate man or a certain social group is developed.

Partial information field — a partly ordered, partly fragmentary experience of a separate man accumulated by him during the life.

Partial information level — a degree of knowledge of an individuum or a social group about the processes occurring in society or nature, i.e., figuratively speaking, it is «an information matryoshka», into which an individuum or a social group is merged.

Passive harmonization — an increase of connectivity of a system by structural regress, when negative selection, arising just from an intrasystem contradiction, «destroys its one side, or even both, one of adapters, being in mutual contradiction, or one and another together». For example, in process of development of a special way of movement by means of wavy and spiral coiling of body the whole group of reptiles «have got all extremities to be atrophied step by step, which were not only useless for such sort of movements, but served as utterly inconvenient hindrance» [Empiriomonism, p. 266]. However, simplifying a system, passive harmonization narrows perspectives of its further development in that way.

Passive labour-type — a conservative type of labour with passeistic purpose to reconstitute former conditions of environment, i.e. a form of labour doing with conservative tendency characterized by «that a labour aspires to preserve, maintain, reproduce what has existed before, and in that kind in what it has existed before. Such is almost all technical activity in stagnant societies – primitive, patriarchally-tribal, feudal. The purposes for labour are directly put by the past. Man today makes the same that yesterday and in the same way as yesterday, – in the next year the same and in the same ways that in the present. If there are changes in conditions, in results of production, then with such slowness that consciousness cannot directly notice them». During natural disasters – in cases of bad harvests, floods, fires, etc. – such «a producer turns out simply unadapted, or if he gradually adapts, nevertheless he aspires to reproduce former conditions of his life, i.e. the purpose is nevertheless directly given by the past». Thus, at passive type of labour all complex of purposes «is composed for man by habitual notions, quite corresponding to perceptions, experienced in the past and experienced many times. Though in general labour always contains plastic reactions in greater or lesser quantity, but consciousness during labour process is constantly fixed on that habitual, not changing, which is a purpose». Passive type of labour conserves mentality of a producer, because, reconstructing the habitual conditions of the existence, by that he reconstructs also all complex of habitual reactions connected with them: «reproducing the past outside of himself, he reproduces it in his psychics. For example, making for himself the same house what he has had before, he gets a firm support for the former habits, for the old memories, etc.» [Cognition from Historical Point of View, pp. 246-247].

Passive psychotype — a type of central nervous system with dominating passive reaction to actions of an environment, or, with reference to a separately taken organism, it is an individual with volitional complexes of equilibrated type. At adverse actions of environment the natures of such a type «shows tendencies to self-restriction: patience, obedience, resignation», resulting sometimes in asceticism or even reclusion. The tectological sense of a similar reaction is in the following: «an environment by the inimical forces decreases the bioactivities of a psychical system; and it narrows the active manifestations, the area of the contacts with the environment; by that there is directly decreased the sum of adverse actions of the environment». Thus, such a psychotype behaves in full compliance with the law of equilibrium, just for this reason it ranks among the systems of equilibrium. The natures of such a type «are unable to practical progress, to development of their force, to victory over environment»; moreover, gravitating to equilibrium and «being unable to develop their resistance to environment», they «in process of its exhaustion pass to degradation naturally» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 255-256].

Passive reaction — «corresponding to the law of Le Chatelier», specific counteraction of a system to adverse actions of environment, the essence of which is in that a system narrows «the area of its contacts with environment», by what «the sum of adverse actions decreases directly». For example, if to strike a turtle slightly, it hides the head, paws and tail in the shell immediately: «by that there is decreased the surface, accessible to hostile forces, and consequently also their direct action, that quite corresponds to the law of Le Chatelier. So, in character of its psychomotor reactions the organism of a turtle corresponds to systems of equilibrium, gravitates to stability and is conservative», by virtue of what a turtle is never expected to show «progressive development of activity, active conquest of environment, to what organisms of other type are able» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 255, 254].

Passive system — an equilibrium or quasiequilibrium system, in which passive reactions predominates in the sum of its interactions with environment. For example: a herbivorous turtle, an army in defence, a man of passive psychotype, as well as a class, «stiffening in developed forms or already losing its position, not capable to defend it successfully» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 255].

Patriarch — egressor of tribal community, its leader and authority, who «allocated the labour, specifying to each relative what he had to do, distributed also products, disposed of communal reserves, directed the education of youth, resolved all bewilderments, misunderstandings, conflicts» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 316]. A patriarch «himself did not usually carry out any physical work»: by means of verbal communication he only caused and directed the labour activity of all his ordinary relatives – this was his direct connection with the community, and as the feed-back he constantly got various messages from all its members about unusual facts and «in general about what could have an importance for the life of community», i.e. all its experience flowed down to him. From the point of view of tectology all this – the attributes of development of stable egression: a patriarch «concentrated in himself vital activities of his system», at that egressive difference continuously increased, by virtue of what «the experience and will of one more and more became the determining moment in practice of the whole collective» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 103, 105]. See an elder.

Patriarchal community — a social system of authoritarian type, or, more exactly, «a collective-commune with clearly authoritarian basic construction», which «had also the embryonic elements of comradely type nevertheless in the form of “primitive democratism”, of common discussion by meeting of adult men for decision of those especially important or difficult questions of the life, which seemed doubtful or too responsible to the patriarch» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, p. 83]. Thus, a patriarchal community represented «ancient communistic society» with incomplete function of authoritative control, since general supervising will of a patriarch was not «simply his personal will, i.e. an individual arbitrariness, – but a resultant from this constant volitional conjugation», in other words, it was always at least also partial, but obligatory synthesis of all «organizing-volitional activities» of community, i.e. of all «subordinated wills of his relatives» [Questions of Socialism, p. 287].

Patriotism — a way of social adaptation, which is characteristic of the spontaneous stage of sociogenesis, when as a result of struggle between tribes «they had a psychological feature» in the form of «uncertain, but strong and deep feeling», comprising «both spiteful mistrust towards all alien nations and races, and spontaneous habit of own general vital conditions, especially of the territory», with which they «grow together, as a turtle with the shell, and some collective self-conceit», and sometimes also «simple thirst for destruction, violence, captures. The patriotic state of mind becomes stronger extremely and aggravated after military defeats, especially when winners take away a part of territory from losers; then patriotism of losers gets the character of long and cruel hatred against winners, and revenge to them becomes a vital ideal of all tribe, not only of its worst elements – “the highest”, or ruling classes, but also of the best – its working masses» [Questions of Socialism, p. 181].

Perception — 1) a certain complex of elements of psychical experience [Empiriomonism, p. 7]; 2) the result of interaction between complexes of complex system of «world environment – man», generalized in united integrity by the egressive center of the last, i.e. a human brain. From multitude of simultaneous sensations a perception chooses only their some combination by a single one integral act. But a perception of any body, though consisting of the same elements of experience as a body itself, is nevertheless «much poorer in them», because in perception a body «do never come entirely, completely, but always only partly» [Empiriomonism, p. 31].

Peripheric complex — such a complex in an egressive system, which is structurally dependent on the central complex [Tectology, v. 2, p. 109]. A synonym – subegressor.

Peripheric nervous system — organizing apparatus of a separate animal organism, consisting of somatic complex of nerves, which joins CNS with the body, and of independent vegetative one.

Period of life — time of formation, development and disintegration of a separate complex, or average continuance of existence of homogeneous complexes. For example, «for radium the average continuance of life of atoms is about 2500 years», and «for thorium – about 40 milliards years», and for isotopes of radon – «minutes, seconds, little fractions of a second. These figures just represent total coefficients of structural stability of the given forms of substance under those usual conditions, at which we have to observe them» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 208].

Period of a life of a tectological form — a duration of one tectological act, within the limits of which a tectological form arises, develops and changes into following one.

Persistent — a complex, or a system, with relatively constant structure and variable substratum. For example: most general word-concept, tradition, population, enterprise, flame, waterfall, etc. One of conditions of existence of such systems is the continuity of change of substratum. The synonym is «persistent complex».

Persistent complex (persistent system) — see persistent.

Person — not simply an egocomplex as special centre of interests and aspirations, but «an element of living tissue of a collective, and in his doing – a partial embodiment of its forces»; in other words, an individuum with a socially significant organizing function. Thus, a person is not simply a member of society, but namely a member of collective, i.e. an element of that central complex of a social system, which is «true actor of labour and cognition, true builder of life, fighter with spontaneous forces and mysteries of the nature» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 107].

Phase space — a form of degression of experience, or, more specifically, a way of mathematical formulation of a change of a complex system applied when it is required to schematize in whole the systemogenesis at a given quantity of descriptive elements. The essence of the way is in the following: «there is constructed rectangular system of coordinates in imaginary space of accordingly large number of dimensions; at two descriptive elements our space of three dimensions is sufficient, but at ten elements there would be required 11 dimensions, one additional is required for time axis; and then all the phenomena are symbolize by one point which coordinates express the parameters of all described elements; motion of such point (point figuratif) in this “superspace” (hyper-espace) will present then all course of the phenomenon». It is quite clear that such «fiction can facilitate the analysis only for man with specially-mathematical thinking, connecting together a number of equations. The real image of the phenomenon in whole should then be restored by decoding of each of these equations, with the concrete designation of that side or feature of the phenomenon which is symbolized by one or another separate parameter» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 282].

Phenognostic (from Greek φαινω – to show, find out and γνωσις – knowledge) — a detection of nomological statements in a text, which are expressed in explicit or implicit form and to which the author of text has not given names and which either have remained nameless or have got names, but already in other, later texts. As a kind of hermeneutics this method of cognitive indication represents ideally the instrument, making it possible to open all cognitive potential, which is contained in studied written sources both in explicit and implicit form. So far as any text, including scientific one, contains a much greater volume of information than what the author of text has aspired to state, the given method gives to a researcher a possibility to decode an interesting text in all its information completeness. The method is especially effective at decoding of such information compressed cognitive systems as various schemes, models, classifications, etc. An explaining example: Mendeleyev’s known table was created by him in the way of ranking of the present limited volume of knowledge in chemistry, nevertheless, it contains not only a much greater volume of the information from this field of knowledge, but also comprises the knowledge of molecular, atomic and nuclear physics. Naturally, a scientist, erudite both in chemistry and in physics, will take more information from the table than a «pure» chemist or physicist, who, in their turn, will get more than a «pure humanist». The method of phenognostic has been widely used at making up of the given dictionary and has shown a sufficiently high heuristic character in revealing of the total nomological base of the heritage of Bogdanov, mainly, of his basic work – tectology.

Phenomenon — an organizational process which depending on a chosen point of view can be either organizing or disorganizing [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 71-72]. In this sense «before tectology as before mathematics, its earlier developed part, all phenomena are equal» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 130].

Philister — an individuum with fragmentary consciousness, the most typical world view of which is eclecticism, corresponding «only to scraps and shreds of the culture, developed by common labour, only to the lowest and passed steps of the stairs of social development» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 9]; «a fragmented man» of authoritarian-individualistic type, i.e. a «man-fraction», which thinking «unites in itself both authoritarian dualism and individualistic getting torn» [Questions of Socialism, p. 38].

Philology — «science about verbal communication of people, by means of which all connections between people, all their practical interrelations are arranged. Its real sense is especially clear where there are different languages, dialects, patoises of different strata of society and where the task comes out – to attain so that in any affair a Russian understood a Frenchman, a Great Russian – a Little Russian, an intellectual – a peasant, etc. Philology can seem an “abstract” science, aspiring to pure cognition, free from practical interests, only because we do not take notice of the elementary fact: all our knowledges in the own and in the foreign languages, enabling us to come to an agreement about something with other people, are philological knowledges: science only puts them into the order, into the system» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 377-378].

Philosopher — a follower of eidomonism, a thinker-eidomonist. So long as «the task of philosophy is to bring the human experience to unity», then a real philosopher «would be the one who possesses all collective experience of humankind, practical and theoretical. Such all-specialists are not present now and cannot be. And so-called “philosophers-specialists” have for the most part even not in the least more significant sum of experience than other people: they study in books the philosophical attempts made by others, but not the very life and science, i.e. not what contains the completeness of experience; their real experience does not go outside the limits of a narrow-minded one, i.e. of casual and separated scraps of the collective, universal experience. From here there are small productivity of labour of the majority of philosophers-specialists, propensity to empty, “scholastic” reasonings and making no headway, so usual in their environment» [Decade of the Excommunication from Marxism, p. 94].

Philosopher-specialist — an absurd result of fragmentation of man, when there is not a philosopher – «an organizer of general-social experience», but «a man of room and library who can certainly organize just only what he has, namely experience of his room and library, an infinitely small and most unimportant part of that gigantic material, with which the true philosophy should deal». The technology of creation of another masterpiece of scholasticism is known: «it is read one hundred or one thousand of philosophical books taken outside of that reality, which has generated them, outside of their interests, efforts, social struggle, which have been reflected in them, – canned cold corpses of the experience of other people; these corpses are anatomized, are researched in the scholastic way, are cut in small pieces, at that the best splitting of a single hair into four parts is recognized as the top of wisdom; then from fragments and scraps there is joined a new book, which, naturally, possesses all properties of corpses too, except for one: that they were alive bodies formerly. Such is a philosophy of true specialists, which are majority, especially on subdepartments of universities. With philosophy as a sociohistorical phenomenon, as a social form of world view, they have nothing common, except for terminology», therefore «the first sign of a true philosopher is not to be a professor of philosophy» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 247-248].

Philosophical concepts — the most polysemantic socially-ideological complexes, which meanings «are uncountable, that it never happens and cannot be otherwise for the reason that in the general historical development there is no tendency to strict, exact differentiation of these concepts». Unlike scientific concepts, which «are differentiated in experience, in observation, in experiment», philosophical concepts «are characterized just by that they get no check in experiment, experience». And if there is no «tendency of strict and sequential more precise definition», then there is arbitrariness, reaching the colossal sizes in philosophical constructs, when «these concepts were historically transformed in each system to a considerable degree» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 251].

Philosophical discourse — an individualistic type of discourse in the form of «long chain of intertwined, parallel, crossed, combined links», of which then «conclusions are made», at that neither this chain nor conclusions are checked by experience («and they, usually, are not just accessible to check», as long as they «are concerned with some “quality” or “thing in itself”, and this can be checked in no way»). Such discourses represent no scientific value, let even they are stated by a philosopher of genius who «thought with the greatest severity and exactness». Take «a usual philosophical reasoning», in which, for example, there are ten different links: «A is in such a connection with B, B in such a connection with C, C in such a connection with D, etc., etc. And in the end of all this series it appears: X should be in such a connection with A. Let us suppose that there are 10 intermediate links here, and let us take the most moderate figure, – each term has only 5 meanings. What are the chances of that the reasoning will be correct? The chances are simply calculated under the theory of probability, one by five to the ninth power, this will approximately be 1 of 2 million. The a priori chances are those here». However 5 meanings – it is «a ridiculously small number», and if to increase it up to 10 meanings on a term, then this will be already «one chance of milliard». Really «the majority of philosophical discoursation words has far more meanings», since «philosophers operate with the most general terms». Therefore the probability of scientific character of a last conclusion «decreases, as the saying is, avalanche-like, in geometrical progression, with a number of intermediate links. And consequently any reasoning, which consists of several links and which is not checked by experience, as though it should be simply recognized as a priori correct, is not valuable, not scientific, because the chances are one of millions and milliards, these are the chances of the first win in a loan, or even of the constantly repeating first win for all time of existence of a loan, i.e. practically no chances are present here» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 255].

Philosophical migraine — a kind of headache caused by the «accursed», «last», «higher» or «eternal» philosophical questions: who are we, whence and where do we go? These are those insoluble philosophical questions, which have generated by the epoch of individualism: the questions about essence, cause and purpose of man, life and the world. It is the individualistic consciousness embodying shattered, contradictory experience that becomes a prey of these «accursed questions». What am I? – a discoursant-individualist asks, – and what is this world? whence is all this? what for? why is so much evil there in the world?, etc. ad infinitum. From the point of view of tectology all these are «the questions of fragmented man. The disconnected organs of one organism, if they continued to live and could ask, should exactly put these questions to themselves. What am I? – isn’t it the most natural question for any finger of a hand, which has been torn off a body? What for am I? whence? – how can a living part, which has lost the connections with the vital whole, not to ask about it? And as inevitable addition of these questions the others come out – relative to that whole, which is necessary and at the same time is inaccessible for the part: what is the world, what for is it, whence? And where a rupture of a living tissue separating the organ from the body takes place, there is felt an agonizing incomprehensible pain; – and here are the questions about the evil of the life. Hopelessness of the questions follows from that any answers to all of them can’t and shouldn’t satisfy an individualistic consciousness all the same. In fact these questions express the torments of the disrupt life, – and while it remains disrupt no answer will stop the pain because there can be no answer to a pain at all» [Questions of Socialism, p. 38].

Philosophical systems — the cognitive utopias, which had «socially-ideological significance» in due time, since «across huge gaps of knowledge they built bridges of discourses in order to create a coherent world understanding, which would be generally impossible at that time without this. These “monistic utopias” pushed thinking forward, were the prototypes of scientific monism and were the stages on the way to it» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132]. To empiriomonism all of them went completely into one of two main philosophical tendencies: either into materialism, «trying to present all world as “matter”», or into idealism, «aspiring to understand all existence as “spirit”», i.e. all of them without exception were based on fetishistic substitution [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 65-67]. From the tectological points of view philosophical systems represent a kind of social degression.

Philosophy — «a temporary and imperfect uniting of experience, which should give the place to its higher scientific unity» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 117]. At the origin philosophy was «simply a set of scientific knowledge not yet separated into specialities at that time and connected by naive generalizing hypotheses. During the epoch of specialization of sciences it is the superstructure above the scientific knowledge, expressing the aspiration of human thought to unity». Not having reached this in reality, philosophy has broken up into practical and theoretical branches. The task of the first one is «the general moral guidance of behaviour of people. For tectology morals – only an object of research, as an organizational form in a number of others». The task of the second one is «to find unity of experience» in «the form of any universal explanation», i.e. the tendency of theoretical philosophy is contemplative. The tendency of tectology is directed not to contemplation, but to practical mastering of methods of organization of the world around. In addition to that «the philosophical ideas differ from scientific in that they are not subject to experience check». In this there is the fundamental difference of tectology from philosophy, since for the first one «constant check of its conclusions by experience is obligatory: the organizational laws are necessary first of all in order to apply them». All philosophical concepts «will be researched, checked up and organizationally interpreted», therefore, «as any other organizational forms of experience», they will go into tectology and «will lose their philosophical character. Generally, in process of the development tectology should make philosophy unnecessary, and already from the very beginning tectology is above it, connecting the scientific and practical character with its universality» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 141-142]. As a historically transient stage of development of monism «the philosophy lives the last days» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 255].

Philosophy of a class — «the highest form of its collective consciousness» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 16].

Phylogenetic system — a basic set of the morpho-physiological attributes, which characterize a certain species. Within the limits of life of separate individuals it is a sufficiently stable and little changeable system, practically a persistent, but within the limits of the geological history of biosphere it is a quickly changing system, which has its own biogenealogy for each species, or phylogenesis – a historical series of ontogenesises gone through natural selection, i.e. a sequence of the individuals, which have survived and made posterity and which are connected by relations of succession: parents – children – grandchildren, etc.

Physical — what is organized socially, i.e. what relates to socially-organized experience and means its certain connection, more exactly, «most harmonious, most organized, most developed form of this connection». Being «a reflection of direct complexes, which influence on various psychics of alive essences socially connected by communication», and in comparison with psychical representing a higher «organizationality of a given reflection», a physical «belongs to a reflective namely – to a socially-psychical environment, is given by it and is developed in it; a reflexible in itself can completely represent no such a degree of organizationality» [Empiriomonism, pp. 125-126]. See physical body.

Physical complex — a combination of elements of experience, which acts «for us in a objective, valid regularity». As long as these «elements have neither physical nor psychical character», then difference between physical and psychical complexes is caused by communication of people: in relation to the first ones «the contents of experience is coordinated at “co-men”, in what “objectivity” just consists, i.e. general significance of these complexes and their interrelations», and on the contrary, in relation to the second ones «experience is coordinated only for each man separately and is not coordinated at different people, in what “subjectivity” just consists, i.e. only individual significance of psychical complexes and their connection» [Empiriomonism, pp. 54, 233-234]. Physical complexes are referred to as physical bodies.

Physical connection — a socially-coordinated, generally valid connection of elements of experience; i.e. such one, which «has a significance equally for all, being in communication», unlike a psychical connection, which is significant «only for a separate living being». If I am seeing any physical body, for example, a big stone on a road, «then from statements, actions, gestures of other people I am making sure that this stone exists also for them, and with the same properties as for me; going on the road, people are speaking: “Ah, the stone is not into its place!” – and they pass round it; and which “would have not seen” it for some reason or other, they stumble over it, hurt themselves, cry out... But if I shall imagine a stone on a road, then it will serve as a stumbling-block for nobody, and from actions and statements of other people I am easily convinced that, however clear I would imagine it, this has no real significance for them. My imagination of a stone on a road can reach such a force and brightness that I shall “see” it as well as in the first case; but when other people will tell to me that I am mistaken, that the stone is not present here, or when they will freely pass through it, then I shall understand that it is an only “psychical” complex, only “subjective”, that it is a “perception” and not a “body”. Only a communication with other people reduces my hallucination to degree of a “psychical” fact, which has a direct significance for me alone. And meanwhile the stone-imagination, or the stone-hallucination, takes a certain place in a number of my feelings; it influences on the further course of my experience; in case of hallucination a degree of its subjective significance for me can come to that it will cover from me other objects, that, having gone up to it, I shall feel it by hand or even I shall stumble over it, but all this is only for me» [Empiriomonism, p. 233].

Physical experience — a result of collectively organizing process, which harmoniously unites psychical experience of all people into a single whole. From the point of view of empiriomonism it is indirect experience, which supplements straight felt direct (psychical) experience by universal substitution [Empiriomonism, p. 238]. Physical experience is «someone’s experience, and exactly – of all humankind in its development. It is the world of strict, established, developed regularity, of certain, exact ratios, that well-organized world, where there are acted all theorems of geometry, all formulas of mechanics, astronomy, physics, etc.», and accepting them, «by that we accept also humankind with its doing». And on the contrary, «if we shall completely abstract from humankind with its methods of work and cognition, then we are faced with no physical experience, no world of natural phenomena, – there is only spontaneity of the universe, which doesn’t know laws, because it does not measure, does not calculate, does not generalize. In order to understand it, to take possession of it, we should again imagine humankind, which struggles against it and cognizes it, changes it and organizes by the efforts: then we get physical experience again, with its objective, i.e. socially-developed and socially applicable regularity» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 226-227].

Physical world — 1) the system of set of various physical bodies; 2) «the socially-organized experience» expressed in two basic forms of social coordination – in space and time [Empiriomonism, p. 21].

Physiological collectivism — unity of human organisms, which growth of biopotential is provided with mutual exchange of blood.

Physiological cooperation — mutual conjugation of organisms «for increase of general biopotential of individuals and a species». So long as a conjugation of all tissues of two organisms is impossible at present, then physiological cooperation is carried out partially, at that its most widespread form is hemotransfusion. Though «blood is only one of the tissues of an organism», but it is «the most general tissue, that one, which is in continuous bioexchange with all others, regulating all of them and being regulated by all of them on composition, construction, functions» [About Physiological Collectivism, p. 94].

Physiological individualism — the phenomenon of physiological xenosyncrasy, which arises in the individualistic epoch and is expressed in organic «aversion to breaking of borders of physiological person, to mixing with elements of another’s life», in «fear of imaginary loss of individuality; for exactly so an individualist interprets its creative broadening. There are necessary such collectivism of a feeling, such sociality of a nature, which occur seldom for the present. But they occur nevertheless and increase with progress of the culture; there is created that new atmosphere, without which there could not arise the very thought of physiological collectivism of life» [About Physiological Collectivism, p. 104].

Physiology — «science about normal vital functions of an organism», which represent processes of expense and recovery of energy [About Proletarian Culture, p. 226]. So long as «a man is a labour force of society» [Course of Political Economy, p. 19], then from the sociolabour point of view physiology of human organism is possible to be considered as «the teaching about labour force» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 226].

Phytocenosis — an element of phytosphere, representing one or another vegetative complex of the certain composition and structure, which has formed in the process of evolution of biosphere, for example, steppe, wood, tundra, desert, etc. In tectology the term of «phytosystem» is more generally used.

Phytosphere — the vegetative kingdom of organized nature, i.e. a part of biosphere, which represents the phytologic type of its development. In contrast to zoosphere, which «represents the area of motor adjustments for the most part», phytosphere «is possible to be characterized by development of forms of direct nutrition» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 75-76].

Phytosystem — see phytocenosis.

Picture of the world — the highest, all-organizing cognitive form: 1) from the tectological point of view «the continuous chain of development of the forms, passing from the lower steps of organization to the higher others by struggle and interaction» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243] and forming in «mutual interlacement» the united «world organizational process, dividing up in its parts without bound, continuous and indissoluble in the whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73]; 2) from the empiriomonistic point of view «the infinite, continuous series of complexes, the material of which is identical with the elements of experience and the form of which is characterized by the most various degrees of organizationality, progressively passing from “the chaos of elements” to complexity and harmony of “human experience”». Interacting, all these complexes cause changes in each other – «are mutually reflected some in others». In the highest complexes, i.e. in the psychical, these reflections form «impressions», communication of people «by these “impressions” leads to their social systematization» – to organization of them into physical experience. Thus, «differentiation of “phenomena” and “things in itself” turns out to be unnecessary: in front of us there is only the world of direct experience and indirect experience, the world of directly felt and the world of supplementing it “substitution”», at that «the area of “substitution” coincides with the area of “the physical phenomena”; under the “psychical” phenomena there is required nothing to substitute, because they are “direct complexes”». In communication of people just these complexes are the primary material of substitution, which «is based on them exactly and develops from them by social way». That is the empiriomonistic picture of the world, at the present «uniting the experience most harmoniously» [Empiriomonism, pp. 237-238].

Plan — a complex of the actions, which predetermine the process of a system «in such a way that there will be the basic coordination in the process and there will be no ground for destructive contradictions». A plan is carried out through control and regulation, at that control is the main, and the regulation is «subsidiary and secondary function» [Lines of Culture, p. 130].

Planned character — a strictly determined step-by-step way of development of a process in the form of a number of tectological acts, each of which is a science-based plan; simply speaking, it is spontaneity organized by plan.

Planned economy — such an economy, «in which all parts are harmoniously coordinated on the basis of uniform, methodically developed economic plan» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 274].

Planned organization — systematic initiative-creative guidance and regulation. The essence of the first organizational moment is combining of different elements of process, more exactly, combining of experience data by means of scientific methods into a harmonious plan. The essence of the second moment is ordering of what is being done, i.e. bringing of correctness into the going process. In the course of execution of plan there are arisen discordances and contradictions, which are eliminated by regulation. The character of regulation is made in two types: «individualization» and «normalization». At the first type «coordination is developed specially for those given conditions, which have caused intervention of a regulating activity»; at the second – «there are limited to use of some “norm”, which should serve for all cases of similar sort», i.e. «it is a regulation by template». Practically all economists consider state capitalism «as a “planned organization” of society economics, which is carried out by bourgeoisie in its interests». Really it is «not a planned organization, but only regulation, for the most part it is less than that – only normalization». And, for example, social process, taken on a world scale, actually «goes in the direction of planned organization of life» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 317-318].

Planetodynamics — movement of a planet under action of the general gravitational factor connected it with heliosphere , where  – gravitational constant,  – mass of heliosphere,  – mass of a planet, – distance between centres of a planet and heliosphere. In the heliocentric coordinates of general world degression the chronotop of such movement is described by ellipse, in one of which focuses there is the center of heliosphere, at that the area of the sector circumscribed by radius-vector of a planet is proportional to time of its movement, and squares of orbital periods of planets, being multiplied by the sum of masses of each planet and heliosphere, correlate as cubes of major semiaxes of ellipse: , where  and  – orbital periods of planets,  and  – their masses, – mass of heliosphere,  and – major semiaxes of planetary orbits. If at a first approximation to neglect masses of planets, the formula becomes simpler and squares of orbital periods of planets around the center of heliosphere correlate as cubes of their average distances from this center, i.e. of major semiaxes of their ellipses.

Plasmon — controllable by genome, a complex of nonchromosomal genes, which are included in cytoplasmic structures: mitochondrial DNA at all organisms, and at plants even DNA of plastids, mainly, of chloroplasts. From the tectological point of view a plasmon represents peripheric complex in a genetic system, in which genome, being the central one, controls organization and functions of carriers of plasmon – of mitochondria and plastids. Phenotypic manifestations of plasmon have exceptionally the maternal type of heredity: corresponding characters are inherited only from mother. Amount of genetic information of plasmon is insignificant in comparison with genome one.

Plastic complex — one of two complexes, forming a degressive-plastic system, with «mobile, flexible character of connections», «higher organized, more capable to assimilation», but «less stable in relation to some destructive actions» than skeletal complex, complementary to it [Tectology, v. 2, p. 136].

Plastic connection — mobile interdependence of elements of a complex, providing relatively big set of internal equilibriums of a complex by means of their fast regrouping. However «mobility of elements supposes also relatively easy destruction of connections between them, and complexity of internal equilibriums of a system means their comparative instability as well» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 125-126].

Plastic system — an organizational form, possessing all characteristics of plasticity. The basic tectological characteristic of a plastic system is ability to self-organizing. Such a system, changing its internal construction, is able to reduce adverse actions of environment to a minimum, increasing by that an area of its own possible development. Continuous accumulation of various adapters to changing conditions «leads to complication of organizational forms», and every new «complication is in its turn favourable for development of plasticity, because it increases wealth of possible combinations». The law comes from here: «the higher is an organization, the more complex and plastic it is» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 125-126]. From the energy point of view the main characteristic of a plastic system is ability to concentrate energy flows and to distribute optimally. For this reason the action of the law of least is reduced to a minimum in a plastic system.

Plasticity — a concept in tectology, meaning «mobile, flexible character of connections of complexes, ease of regrouping of its elements». It plays a huge role in organizational development of systems: «the more plastic is a complex, the more combinations are formed in it under any conditions, changing it, the richer is a material of selection, the more quickly and more complete is its adaptation to these conditions». For example, concentration of activities in weak link, where it is demanded by the principle of minimum, is possible only at sufficient plasticity of a complex. Moreover, exactly «tectological progress, based on plasticity, leads to complication of organizational forms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 125]. It is a characteristic feature of tectogenesis, its attribute, which is observable everywhere.

Pleasure — «progressive selection of a psychical system», which increases its energy [Tectology, v. 2, p. 177]; in other words, predominance of positive selection over negative, which represents a direct «increase of life» [Empiriomonism, p. 63], that from the energy point of view means increase of energy of animal organism. At that it is necessary to note that systematic overweight of pleasure over suffering lead to narrow adaptation, i.e. to unilateral adjustment of an organism to a narrowed environment that naturally decreases its biopotential in other conditions of environment, for example, in an indefinitely-changeable environment.

Pluralism — ideological polycentrism; from positions of tectology the «polycentric» form of social degression, i.e. such a cognitive system of notions, which concentrates all experience about some quantity of limiting concepts or principles, independent and not reduced to each other. Such a cognitive orientation is initially contrary to the empirical generalizations of tectology, in particular, to the principles of tectological unity and isonomism. Moreover, it is in general contrary to the cognitive process itself, since «cognition represents the organization of experience», and «any organization is the same in so far as it is uniform and holistic» («it is the necessary condition of biopotential for it»), then, quite naturally that «cognition always gravitates to unity, to monism» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243]. As a world view state of collective intellect the pluralism is possible to be compared with eclecticism of a separate individuum. During all human history the pluralistic tendency were realized in three stages: theo-, eido-and empiriopluralism.

Plutocracy — power of capital, the ideal of which represents a social dipole, stable and safe for own reproduction, in the form of «a huge trust or a system of trusts, covering all production and distribution» and eliminating «anarchy of production and of market by their normalization in planned way, and class struggle – by final suppression of fighting activity of working class, by planned concentration of pacifying forces, mechanical and economic, at every point, where there would be an attempt of struggle», including the continuous manipulation on public consciousness, inasmuch as «all ideological life of society should also be under the control of the same system of trusts» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 74].

Polarization — «a degree of organization… of opposite activities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 20].

Polarity — the limiting development of exchange connection, when «opposite flows of activities support each other particularly exactly in definite equilibriums» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 19].

Political economy — «the science about construction of society», more precisely, about «its labour organization» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, p. 5]; since «all the content of political economy is reduced, in essence, to research of how people adapt to objective working conditions» [Questions of Socialism, p. 407].

Polycentrism — the phenomenon of «polycentric egression» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 122], observable in complex egressive «systems with two or more main centers, with parallelism of connections of some lowest centers», in which «there are shown unequilibrity, contradictions, disorganization», because «determining influence of one center on its periphery collides with determining influence of other and there is turned out unstable interrelations» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 118].

Polymorphism — the phenomenon of variety, more exactly of multiformity, when «for the same set of elements is quite often possible not one, but a few different forms of limiting equilibrium». For example, «there are substances, which at complete identity of the chemical structure can be crystallized in different forms or can be sometimes amorphous, sometimes crystalline»; or among living organisms many of the species have two or larger quantity of divergent forms. It is necessary to note that «the number of possible limiting equilibriums is always extremely limited; and in essence for each given case there is even only one possibility – necessity; but our incomplete knowledge of conditions forces us to take into consideration and to research different possibilities, of which some one is realized» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 219-220].

Polysemy — multiple meaning of a word, i.e. presence of set of semantic meanings at the same word.

Polysubjective physics — new physics, the basis for which are the laws of Bogdanov, i.e. it is the objective physics, the general significance of which is based on general coordination, and is not limited to coordination of experience of two observers or simply to experience of one observer; simply speaking, it is «the science of all observers».

Population — a complex of individuals of one species, possessing common genofund and occupying a homogeneous territory in landscape relation. As biosystem of higher level a population consists of less complex biosystems – families, troops, herds, colonies and other intraspecific subdivisions. Populations of different species, living in one territory and being closely connected with each other by exchange of matters and energy, form a biocenose.

Positive biodifference — energy characteristic of living organisms, determined by growth of their internal energy, that conduces to their further development. Positive biodifference presents «quantitative side of biological progress» [Empiriomonism, p. 57].

Positive feed-back — such a type of feed-back, at which tendency of definite development of a system becomes stronger.

Positive Ψ-selection — a kind of progressive hedonistic selection, which within the limits of the undestroying action on psychics increases its organizationality «towards wealth and variety of psychical content». Really «there is unthinkable such psychics, which would develop entirely under action of positive selection or entirely under action of negative one»: both of them constantly replace each other in the life of consciousness. However there is quite possible «long prevalence of one or another of these phases of selection», when it is said as usual: «happy life» or «unhappy life». At stable systematic prevalence of positive selection, relations of a psychical system to environment, to the source of assimilation of energy, forms especially favorably. In this case «development of psychics should also necessarily go mainly and in a correspondingly increasing measure to growth of the sum of its material, to new and new combinations of the material, but at the same time it is just by virtue of their wealth and heterogeneity that it should go to their lesser and lesser mutual coordination and stability». At the same time, operating in recession, «negative selection, the relatively weaker it is, in the lesser degree is capable to carry out its own as though control function in relation to this development: to destroy the least stable complexes and their associations, to simplify, to make internal connection of psychics more homogeneous and stable». All this is found both in internal and external manifestations of a psychical system: moderate work of positive selection forms cheerful psychical types, intensified – spoilt ones. The general tendency of development of psychics with overweight of positive selection can be called Hellenic: in the ruling classes Hellas generated «the widest gamut of such psychical characters: cheerfully-active during the epoch of rise and victories, spoilt-weak during the epoch of parasitic degeneration». In general the Hellenic tendency acts also «in the life of every man in its “happy” periods»: such are more often «childhood and youth – epoch of growth, when there is accumulation of energy of an organism and “pleasant” organic sensations usually outweigh even significant dissonances in the psychics generated by adverse actions of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 182-184].

Positive selection — «increase of the sum of activities, which are organized in the form of a given complex, at conservation of its structure, the way of organization», and inasmuch as activities are not created from nothing, then «increase of their sum occurs at the expense of an environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 193]. Positive selection increases quantitative stability of organizational forms, concentrating activities in them and at that heightening the complexity and heterogeneity of their construction, but thereby decreasing their structural stability [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 194-195]. It is necessary to note the important tectological characteristic, distinguishing this type of natural regulator from its double – negative selection: «for positive selection in the nature, i.e. for conservation or development of a given complex in a given environment, it is required» all totality of conditions of environment to be favourable, while for destructive actions of its double «it is enough one adverse condition, a maladjustment at least in one relation to one part of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 166]. Positive selection «is characterized by two general tendencies: growth of the vital content and at the same time – of its latent contradictions» [Empiriomonism, p. 258]. From the energy point of view each act of positive selection increases energy of complex.

Positive selection by connection — an increase of the sum of the activities by a complex in the environment, unfavorable for it in whole, owing to connection with a system well adapted for this environment. For example, if «to put a parasite-rentier, stupid and flabby shirker, in average conditions of social and extrasocial environment for a given society, it is possible with confidence to expect detection of deep inadaptability and destruction of the organism. But owing to his connection with wider vital whole, owing to his certain position in the certain, highly biopotential system (in this case, for example, in an economic grouping called capitalist enterprise), he survives together with this system and at the expense of its biopotential» [Empiriomonism, p. 248].

Power — «authoritarian relation between people» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 421], or from the tectological point of view the relation of an organizer to an organizable, i.e. it is an egression, and if it is combined with a degression (is fixed by ideology), it gives power the greatest strength [Tectology, v. 2, p. 146].

Practical collectivism — comradely integration of labour.

Practical deduction — «generalization of previous labour, applied to a new material». Because of that this material, instruments of labour and conditions of application of practical deduction are not identical to previous, it is hypothetical in a certain degree, however «its truth or falseness are found out in practice there and then»: for example, if a new material proves to be insufficiently identical on characteristics with previous, then an unforeseen product will turn out. Making of a product according to a developed technical rule is a simple practical deduction, while «a technical invention, when it is not casual, but scientific, there is nothing more nor less than complex, combined practical deduction. A simplest example – the way, by which Archimedes set fire to the Roman ships during a siege of Syracuse. From his own or another’s former experience Archimedes knew the technical rule, according to which it is possible to make some heating of an object, having directed a reflection of sunbeams at it by a metal mirror. The other, much more general technical rule says that, repeating labour acts, it is possible to get an increased quantity of their product or of their results generally. The third one, again particular enough, but rather known, asserts that, increasing the heating of wooden objects, it is possible to reach their inflaming. Connecting the first and the third rules by means of the second, Archimedes concluded that, having directed reflections of many mirrors at one point of a wooden wall of a Roman ship, he would set fire to it. By means of 150-200 mirrors the deduction was realized and proved to be correct» [Questions of Socialism, p. 386].

Practical sum (practical organizational sum) — organizational result of analytical addition of specific activities of a system to corresponding resistances, taken in relation to a certain line of its development, to a concrete purpose or a set task; in other words, it is one of the characteristics of tectological state of a system. «Any practical organizational sum can be quite understood by us only when we shall separate it into the analytical sums of activities on one side, of resistances – on another» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 148]. For example, for an army «there are selected the human units, which are relatively uniform on strength and endurance», however their simple mathematical sum is insufficient for military calculations, even for approximate. «The experience of the French colonial wars in Northern Africa has shown that at equal armament an average Arabian soldier is not worse than an average French one in a conflict face to face; but a troop in 200 French soldiers is in fact already stronger than an Arabian brigade in 300 – 400 persons; and forces of 10 thousand Frenchmen defeat an army of natives in 30 – 40 thousand persons. The European tactics gives more perfect summation of human combatant forces, and the mathematical calculation is disproved in practice» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 123]. From the point of view of tectology it means that at equality of fighting units and at numerical superiority of the Arabs the practical result of conjugation of fighting activities-resistances of combatants turns out to be on the side of the French army, since its analytical sum of activities is nevertheless more than the analytical sum of resistances from the side of the Arabs. Thus, practical organizational sum is always determined by analytical interrelation, instead of arithmetic one, and the algorithm of its determination is simple: 1) at first there is revealed the analytical sum of specific activities of a system; 2) then there is revealed the analytical sum of corresponding resistances; 3) their comparison gives the practical sum. Let, for example, a mother with a baby is going to make a visit to a polyclinic. Since a baby cannot go, «its specific activity is equal to zero with respect to the task in view»; and the resistance – its body weight – represents a real size. For the mother the size of specific activity is real and exceeds the size of the resistance; for example, the first one can be expressed in coefficient of 100, while the second one – of 60; i.e. if the mother’s body weight is 60 kg, it means that she could go the necessary distance also in the case her weight would have increased up to 100 kg; the weight of her child is assumed to be 10 kg». So, the mother takes the child in hands and goes to a polyclinic: the practical organizational sum of the «mother – child» system has been determined by preponderance of the analytical sum of activities, making for realization of the task, over the analytical sum of corresponding resistances. In this case the final organizational result, expressed by the practical sum, is found by already known algorithm: 1) the specific activities of 100+0 give in the sum not 100, but «a little less, because the child increases the work of the mother not only by the weight, but besides restrains her movements, hampering in the normal position of the body at walking and distracting the attention», therefore the analytical sum will be less than 100, let it equals 95; 2) «on the contrary, the specific resistances – the weight or mass – are added without loss: 60+10=70» (an example of extreme case when analytical sum corresponds exactly to arithmetic); 3) «but nevertheless 95 is greater than 70, and the ratio shows the character of organizationality», i.e. the «mother – child» system moves to a polyclinic, since the practical organizational sum of this system in relation to the set task (to reach a polyclinic) makes 25 specific activities [Tectology, v. 1, p. 117].

Practice — 1) the material, transforming the environment, organizational doing of man, being the criterion of objectivity of his theoretical organizational experience; 2) the basis and control of truth of tectological knowledge, i.e. the starting point of theoretical constructions and the final testing of their scientific character, of correspondence to the objective world.

Prediction — see prognostication.

Prehistory of humankind — all spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, i.e. all the way, which has been gone by humankind till the present moment; in other words, the prologue of history.

Priesthood — an egressive-degressive social complex of exchange society, in other words, historically developed in the sphere of ideology, «the peacefully-organizing estate», which uses its position of mediator between people and deity for assimilation of surplus social energy, and at that its catagenity depends directly on quantity of this assimilation, which quite often surpasses the normal needs, connected with maintenance of its bioactivity. In the phase of spontaneous sociogenesis priests are not only «the peaceful organizers, the keepers of experience, which are necessary for society», but also «production directors in all that falls outside the limits of separate economies or the limits of knowledge of their managers» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 350]. As sociogenesis turns into the conscious phase, priests degenerate increasingly and, regressing, change into social vampires.

Primacy of methods over purposes — a law, traceable during all the history of humankind and expressing the domination of methods over purposes: «at their discrepancy purposes are transformed, adapting to present methods, but not conversely». It happens because a purpose is connected with the future, and a method – with the past and the present, and its alteration demands conscious-planned creativity, from which humankind, being in the spontaneous stage of sociogenesis, is moved away for the present moment. Such methodological domination, being a special case of predominance of instruments over man, will continue until the creativity becomes conscious-planned in the field of a method [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries, p. 136].

Primitive collectivism (protocollectivism) — the first historically arisen form of cooperation, in other words, the primary «organizational principle of economics», developed in that distant epoch, «when gregariously-tribal human groups had just separated from animal world, but were still far from formation of person as special center of interests and aspirations», when each man was «a living organ of the whole, connected with this whole conservatively, unconsciously, spontaneously, by blood, and not by connections based on estimation, choice, agreement» [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, pp. 274, 279]. Under the brevity the term of «protocollectivism» is more preferable than the generally accepted one of «primitive collectivism».

Primitive tribal society — social «complex of homogeneous units», in which a man is «an integral and stereotypic being», in other words, it is «the world of stereotypic people, repeating one another with insignificant variations». The forms of life of such a society «are simple, elementary, monotonous; everything, what is available in experience to one member of a tribal group, all that is also available to another; what someone makes and can that anyone makes and can; what someone knows that anyone knows also»: in such a society «there is no person» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 32, 31]. Being alien to division into classes and in general not differentiated socially because of the absence of technical progress, primitive society represents one «small and closely-knit» vital whole, which degree of unity «is similar to that what is inherent to a living organism, of course not to an organism of the highest type, but to some of the lower Metazoa, like Coelenterata or Actinomyces» [Empiriomonism, pp. 294-295].

Principle — the basic organizing instrument of human doing, or, that is more exact, the major instrument of self-organizing of humankind, i.e. in terms of tectology it is one of forms of social degression. A principle is developed and checked by practice, it does not dictate a behaviour to man, does not control his doing, and it demands only an agreement with itself during a solution of some or other tasks by man, since it indicates a way of the most optimal, the most effective solution of them. For example, in struggle of man against the nature or in struggle inside of society such an important tectological principle as the principle of minimum cannot dictate neither offensive nor defence in itself: «it only demands in a struggle of forces to take into account each side in each point and “dictates” in case of offensive – a choice of the weakest place at enemy, in case of defence – a strengthening of the own weak places» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 319].

Principle of acceleration of social selection — a consequence of the positive feed-back, operating in the system of «social process – social environment», the essence of which is in that social process, developing, widens and diversifies the social environment, social selection from the direction of which intensifies, accelerating by that the course of social process, as a result of which the cycle repeats on qualitatively new round of development, – finally during all the historical period of time there is occurred the continuous speeding-up of social selection, observable at the present moment as «colossal increase of speed of progress» [Empiriomonism, p. 246].

Principle of adaptation — a consequence of the principle of selection, according to which everything, that exists (is observed), exists (is observed) because it is by some way adapted to its environment (at least for the period of observation). And on the contrary: all unadapted are destroyed, completely or partially; at that it concerns equally to all systems – to plants, animals, people, societies, ideas: «an organism, unadapted to getting food, perishes», «a cell, unadapted to surrounding tissues of organism, perishes; a society, unadapted to getting vital means from the external nature, to struggle against other, hostile societies», is destroyed. If the unadapted ones survive, for example, chronic invalids and weak-headed persons in asylums, and the adapted ones perish, for example, strong, intelligent workers at unemployment, then «it is an inexactitude, depending on a way of expression: idiots and invalids are kept because they have been placed in a particularly favourable environment, to which they, at their small biopotential, are adapted enough nevertheless; but men, healthy and energetic, quite biopotential, can find themselves in such an adverse, hostile environment, to which even they will not adapt» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 282]. In addition to its universality the principle possesses the great heuristic potential, since all organizational processes without exception can be considered as adaptable, and any changes in complexes – from the point of view of their adaptation to an environment. In «Tabula Smaragdina» of Hermes Trismegistus the essence of the principle is expressed by the aphorism: «omnes res natae fuerunt ab una re, adaptatione» (all things descended from one through adjustment).

Principle of adequacy — a consequence of the principle of selection, which says that the greatest possibilities of survival are possessed by such a system, at which internal relations correspond to external ones, since at inadequacy «external relations destroy internal ones» [Basic Elements, p. 98]. The optimal degree of adequacy is expressed by the principle of organizational symmetry.

Principle of adversity — an important empirical generalization, the essence of which is in that any changes of environment, occurring independently of a complex, «are immeasurably more often unfavourable for it; since, as all experience of humankind testifies, the number of unfavourable possibilities is incomparably greater than of favourable ones; it can be explained by the probability of that a ship, which has lost rudder and sail, will be brought by storms and currents where it is necessary for it» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 200-201].

Principle of analytical sum — a rule of organizational analysis, which says that «addition of homogeneous activities gives a practically smaller quantity than their simple, abstract sum», i.e. «a+a1 of organizational analysis is less than a+a1 of arithmetic» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 226]. «In extreme, but only in an ideal case this sum will be exactly corresponding to arithmetic one, in all others it will be less than it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 147].

Principle of authoritarianism — the first basic cultural principle, uniting human doing at the first stage of the prologue of history and in the sequel operating in combinations with two others. The essence of such cooperation is in that «it is required that some would possess the authority, permitting to order, and others would submit to this authority» [the Great Vampire of Our Time, p. 69].

Principle of biostability («dynamic equilibrium of a life») — the necessary condition of stability, formulated for biosystems, the essence of which is in that in any changing environment «the simple conservation of a life to be such as it is turns out insufficient in substance and passes to its destruction inevitably», therefore «preponderance of assimilation is just the condition of growth, development, progress of a life and hence of its preservation in a changing environment as well». As applied to social systems this principle, being a special case of the principle of energy, says: «a society, which cannot expand and strengthen its labour action on the nature, since assimilation of energy does not preponderate over its expenses, is doomed to decline and decomposition» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 205].

Principle of biregulation — the principle of coordinated interdependence of direct connections and feed-backs, which confirms a possibility of mutual correction of two complexes by means of system of direct connections and feed-backs. If a regulator is «an adapter, which serves for maintaining some process at a certain level», then a biregulator as double regulator is «such a combination, in which two complexes regulate each other mutually». In other words, it is such a system, which regulates itself, and there is necessary no regulator from the outside for it. A typical natural biregulator is «the system of equilibrium of “water – ice” at 0° С. If water heats up above zero, then adjoining ice takes away the surplus of heat, absorbing it at the thawing; if there is a cooling, a part of water freezes, releasing the heat, which does not then allow the temperature of ice to lower below zero. In a social organization biregulator is widespread in the form of systems of “mutual control” of persons or institutions, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 96-97].

Principle of broadening of horizon of development — an empirical generalization, which fixes the circular dependency, more exactly, the double positive feed-back, between growth of differentiation of a system and growth of its adaptable possibilities: in process of adaptation of a system there is increased a diversity of forms of its elements, which, in turn, increases the chances of adaptation of all system in whole, i.e. increases its biopotential. For example, a great diversity of bioforms on the Earth increases adaptable possibilities of biosphere, as a result its horizon of development broadens: all sphere of struggle of vital forms for existence broadens, and «solar radiant energy is assimilated by area of life in still greater sizes». Moreover, the evolutionary corridor of biosphere is not hampered by albedo of the Earth (more exactly by its nigredo): the quantity of solar energy, absorbed by biosphere, is not its Procrustean bed. But then what should happen when «this assimilation reaches the physical limit, when all energy, flowing into the Earth, are in one or another form absorbed by life – the question, about which it is difficult to speak for the present and which can be put only by distant future all the same, – if it will be put by life at all. It seems to be most probable that it is the humankind that can be able to resolve this question, having broadened the area of adaptation beyond the bounds of the Earth, – that the border of life, which is represented by the quantity of solar energy received by the Earth, is not the ultimate and absolute border» [Basic Elements, p. 103].

Principle of casting form — a consequence of convergence of forms, which essence is that «identical or similar environment», influencing on different complexes, «changes them in a definite way», in consequence of what their organizational forms get a definite similarity. Thus, similarity of forms of different complexes «is determined not by their own communication, but by their relations to environment», more precisely speaking, it is «the result of similarly directed selection from the direction of similar environment», which at that plays the role of casting form. However it is worth noting that «for this purpose there is necessary some complexes organizational homogeneity, present in advance: the more different is their organization, the less probable is the identical relation to environment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 89-91]. Casting of metal or plaster forms in the same casting form, getting of education in the same educational institution are examples of action of the given principle.

Principle of causality — a universal empirical generalization, expressed by the idea that «each fact has its sufficient and necessary cause, which lies in some facts, previous to it». Therefore the main task of any research is «finding of such causal relationships between facts», which explain facts and give support for scientific predictions. The heuristic potential of the principle «consists just in that it opens common causes of homogeneous facts». With development of knowledge the principle of causality developed also. Formerly the understanding of causality was entirely «reduced to that if there were present certain conditions, then there was necessarily come caused thing», i.e. their consequence. For example: «if there are two pieces of a tree and friction between them, then it is the sufficient cause, by virtue of which heating of both pieces takes place». At the present stage of development of scientific thinking there has been formed «the new, deeper understanding of causality. It is assumed that each phenomenon do not only necessarily follow the cause, but that the phenomenon was generated by it, turned out from it and presents its contained energy in a transformed kind». For example: «heat of heating of two pieces of a tree at friction is a new form, taken by spent energy of friction, and by quantity it corresponds to this disappeared mechanical work». Thus, now the «energy» idea of causal relationship dominates in science. It is necessary to note that unlike natural sciences, in which there are ways of measurement of energy, in social sciences the principle of energy «is used indirectly, being the basis for many important deductions». For example: if «it is admitted that ideological processes make some expense of society energy», then it is obvious that this energy should be taken by society from the external nature. Just therefore «ideology developed with the greatest slowness in those times, when almost all sum of society efforts in its work were spent on simple maintenance of its life», and for the same reason ideology grew and become complicated «far quickly when society had begun to have considerable mass of “surplus labour”, i.e. to take far greater energy from the external nature than it spent for labour struggle against the nature» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 280-281]. In the most developed form the «energy» idea of causal relationship is expressed by the law of conservation of energy, which at the present moment is a universal method of scientific research.

Principle of chain coevolution — the scheme of horizontal and vertical chain connection of mutually arogenic complexes, which reveals the mechanism of their joint adaptation on the basis of optimal interaction. Each link of such connection represents mutual adjustment both of elements, forming a separate complex, and of complexes, in the system of which this complex is included as a component. See the principle of organizational symmetry.

Principle of circular causality — the principle, which reflects interinfluence of a complex and an environment, into which it is plunged: «every complex is included in its environment at the same time both as a casting material, and as a forming model, being determined by this environment in the first sense and determining it partially in the second one» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 95]. In «Tabula Smaragdina» of Hermes Trismegistus this principle is expressed by the aphorism: «quod est inferius, est sicut (id) quod est superius, et quod est superius, est sicut (id) quod est inferius» (what is below corresponds to that stays above, and what stays above corresponds to that is below).

Principle of coevolution — the principle of mutually optimal organizational development of several complexes, which says: the most optimal combination of their total activities is arogenically complementary, giving the maximum of evolutionary advantages to each complex and to all their system as a whole.

Principle of collectivism — the principle of cumulation and optimization of social development, the basis for which is «conscious-organized association of all forces of humankind for struggle against the nature, for infinite development of labour power over it» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 470]. Historically it is the third basic cultural principle.

Principle of common third (rule of «connecter») — a methodological approach, applied in the tectological analysis, the essence of which is in that «in every connection of two complexes» there is always possible «to recognize “a connecter” as a special, third link between them». This analytical rule is universal and good-quality by virtue of that «ingression is universal form of chain connection» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 161].

Principle of compensation of deflections — an important empirical generalization, according to which «at general changeableness of objects of cognition it is impossible to speak about any constant interrelations between them, if compared objects have no common tempo of changes and if it is not supposed that unsuspected changes, which always exist, are enough compensated in their “casual” combinations». The statistical law of large numbers, expressing this compensation, «is the precondition of all kinetic theories of matter, theories of distribution of energy and so forth». This principle exists quite for a long time and is constantly used in practice, since «without it there is and there can be no exact measurement and comparison. We can precisely weigh by analytical balance only because the weight of scales and parts of the lever, to which they are hung up, is accepted from both sides equal and equally changing from different complicating conditions, for example, from air density – at variations of barometer. A balance, correct on a Pole, is also correct at the equator, because weight of all parts of a system changes equally; but if an object of small specific density is balanced by platinum weights, a mistake turns out from difference in weight of displacable air, etc. The same, with other complications and in other terms, can be related to measurements of distances and to any other», at that it is necessary to note that the principle of compensation, applied at this, is «not only more ancient, but also more general than the principle of relativity». So, for example, if a certain observer C is on equal and equally changing distance from two other observers A and B, then his positional subjectivism in relation to both of them is counterbalanced, neutralized, therefore the observer C can objectively for them establish the simultaneity of two events, which order mutually overturns at them, since «the concept of “simultaneity” should be determined not by subjective conditions of cinematographic images, but by objective fact of meeting of “signals” under symmetrically-equal conditions of signaling, i.e. transference of energy from A to B and inversely». Moreover, calculating the mutual positions of A and B, the observer C, naturally, will use the simple addition of speeds instead of as that is demanded by «the special theory of relativity», since «this point of view is the most expedient, and, consequently, objectively correct», in all cases when the matter concerns not a particular bisubjective communication, but «the questions of a wider physical and cosmic scale». And such questions, as is known, take up more place in scientific cognition, having at that more significance than which are put by the observers A and B «one in relation to another, forgetting all other world» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, pp. 153-154].

Principle of complementarity — see the principle of complementary interrelations.

Principle of complementary interrelations — a principle, reflecting the quite certain tendency of systems evolution to formation of exchange connection, when stability of a system increases by that one its part assimilates what is «disassimilated» by another, and conversely [Tectology, v. 2, p. 18]. Thus, this principle is the direct consequence of tectological selection, by virtue of which «there are developed such differences, which increase connexity and stability of system, its strength under external actions, in a word, its organizationality» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 14]. As a result of such tendency of systemogenesis the complementary interrelations, having arisen in a system, are characterized by two moments: firstly, they «are never quite perfect, the exchange of activities doesn’t come up to the end», and secondly, they are always irreversible, since «assimilation of one part of system corresponds to disassimilation of another». Regarding system stability it is necessary to note that «where in a system the principle of complementary interrelation is not sustained, there are lain its points of decreased resistance» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 19, 23]. In the scientific literature there are quite often used the briefer names of this principle – the principle of intercomplementarity and the principle of complementarity.

Principle of complication of organizational forms — a tectological regularity, reflecting the dependence of complexity and plasticity of systems on a level of their organization: «the higher is organization, the more complex and more plastic it is», in its turn, development of plasticity again «results in complication of organizational forms», at that «an increase of organizationality in some directions is achieved at the expense of its decrease on others» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 125-126].

Principle of consecutive development — an empirical generalization, which essence is expressed by the matryoshka scheme of system adaptation: «external environment changes, then there is taken shape a new form of adjustment, first of all in the field of the direct relations of the form to the nature in the struggle for life, which are touched by this change; further, depending on the first, there are successively taken shape still other forms of adjustment, which do not have such direct relation to the struggle for life»; some of these forms of adaptation are more basic, i.e. primary, others – more derivative, secondary. Or the same scheme in the other formulation: «during development there are primarily changed those internal relations of a form, which are more closely and more directly connected with the struggle for existence; then there are correspondingly changed the other internal relations – at that their adjustments are made so much the later than the further they are distant from the direct struggle against the external world and than the more indirectly they are connected with it» [Basic Elements, pp. 116-117].

Principle of conservation of energy — «the contemporary form, in which the continuity of existences of any activities-resistances is expressed, the continuity of their regular action, in other words, it is the contemporary form of causality». Unlike the other laws of «conservation» this principle is not reduced entirely to the scheme of selection [Tectology, v. 2, p. 203]. «Energy cannot be created or destroyed» – that is a traditional formulation of the principle [Basic Elements, p. 36], which does not except a fetishistic understanding of the universal causal relationship of observable phenomena. There are many fetishistic interpretations of the principle, but all of them come to the two: according to one «energy is the basis and substance of phenomena, which must occupy in new scientific world view the place that has been given to matter»; according to another «it is only a pure symbol in human thinking, conditionally applied to the connection of phenomena». Both treatments «are equally far from the correct point of view», deviating from it, more precisely, not reaching it «for one and the same reason. If energy forms the basis for all things and phenomena, then it exists in the nature absolutely independently of humankind and of its labour activity. If energy is only a symbol, then it exists in human thinking independently of the nature, as the measure of resistances, with which society struggles in the labour. In both cases it is understood separately from any of two sides of the one, objectively unseparable reality; in both cases it gets absolute character»: «either as absolute real thing or as absolute ideal one». Meanwhile energy «is actually nothing but the practical relation of society to the nature». In other words, «to see “energy” in processes of the nature means to view them from the standpoint of their possible labour exploitation by humankind» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 211-212]. Only in the tectological interpretation the principle of conservation of energy becomes a universal form of thinking (see the third law of Bogdanov).

Principle of conservation of equilibrium — a universal empirical generalization, which says: «being in certain equilibrium, systems show tendencies to keep it, offer internal counteraction to the forces, which change it». For example, if to heat up a vessel with water and ice at 0°C and normal pressure, «then a part of ice thaws, absorbing heat and in that way continuing to maintain the former temperature of the mix», if «to increase external pressure, then a part of ice turns into water again, which occupies lesser volume, that weakens the increasing pressure». Or examples from the other areas of knowledge: «a human body responds to external cooling by strengthening the internal oxidizing and other processes, which produces its heat; to overheating – by increasing the processes of evaporation, which take away the heat. A normal psychics, when by virtue of external conditions the quantity of sensations decreases for it, for example when a man gets in prison, as though compensates this lack, strengthening the work of fantasy and also developing attention to trifles; on the contrary, at overload with impressions there is decreased the attention, directed to particulars, there is weakened the activity of fantasy, etc.». Covering all available system of experience by the universality, the principle allows in the most different cases to foresee a change of any system, being in equilibrium [Tectology, v. 1, p. 139].

Principle of conservation of organized system — the law of stability of this system, formulated for it within the limits of the principle of energy, according to which any organized system «is preserved in so far as its expenses and wastes of energy are equilibrated by assimilation of energy from outside; and it can grow and develop, naturally, only in so far as the first ones are outweighed by the second» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 260]. As we see, the necessary condition of stability has formulated explicitly, while the sufficient condition is implicitly contained in the concept of «organized system», – thus, it is really the law of stability of an organized system.

Principle of continuity (world ingression) — «at sufficient research between any two complexes of the universe there are determined intermediate links, inserting them into one chain of ingression». A. Poincare has given the following formulation of this principle: «continuity is the series, in which between two already different links there is always the third one, indistinguishable neither from that, nor from another (or mathematically: А=В, В=С, С>А)», that agree with the tectological scheme of ingression, in which B as «indistinguishable intermediate link is a connecter, merging with both extremes and uniting them» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 188].

Principle of convergence — a universal empirical generalization fixing the fact of structural convergence of genetically heterogeneous systems as a result of their similar relation to similar environment, or, that is the same, as a «result of similarly directed selection from the side of similar environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 90].

Principle of cooperation — a major tectological generalization fixing the phenomenon of positive social non-additivity, which formula says: «in process of cooperation the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts», or in a simpler formulation: «from a joint work there is born a new collective force» [Falling of Great Fetishism, p. 20]. This principle is a major condition of progressive sociogenesis. One or another dominating form of cooperation has determined one or another cultural-historical type and has specified a general tendency of culturogenesis. See cultural-historical types of Bogdanov.

Principle of coordinated contradictions — the third law of Heraclitus, according to which the world develops through agreement of opposing organizational forms. The principle was first formulated by Heraclitus: «controversy is father of everything and agreement is mother».

Principle of crowdization (the principle of following the example of the lowest) — a special case of the law of least operating in society in conditions extremely adverse for it, on which it resonates by activities of the lowest degree of sociality. The essence of the law is in that any social grouping consists of individua, each of which, taken separately, whether he is even a highly cultured man, «is not a homogeneous whole»: his psychomotor system includes «gradation of layers – from the lowest up to the highest, from savage instincts of cave ancestor up to pure social idealism in its different forms»; in consequence of what at «external influence of sufficient force, directed on the lowest complexes of psychomotor system», two men of absolutely different cultural level «can prove by identical spontaneous destruction, though in the psychics of one the lowest group of reactions forms, maybe, one tenth, while in the psychics of another – nine tenth». Such a principle of following the example of the lowest especially clearly acts in gregarious actions and emotions of crowd. During the periods of military crises, especially of huge scales, «many-millioned flocks of people, belonging to the most cultural nations and to their most advanced classes», furiously «rushed to exterminate each other with the same zoological hardheartedness, as their faraway beast-like ancestors», at that «not only the priests of obsolete religions, but also the highest intellectuals, poets, artists, even the people of science went proudly at the head of general brutality, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 242, 241].

Principle of development — the first law of Heraclitus, according to which there are no absolutely stable organizational forms in the world, since the world itself is not static, but develops continuously. Any static character is either conditional or relative. In the most general form this principle was first formulated by Heraclitus: «all flows, all changes»; but only tectology, having added the principle of selection to it, has revealed its scientific content already in the sufficiently concrete form. From the tectological point of view all the dynamics of world development is completely covered by two schemes of progressive selection: «positive selection, complicating the forms and enlarging the heterogeneity of existence, gives it more and more increasing material; negative selection, simplifying this material, removing all unstable, disharmonious, contradictory from it, bringing homogeneity and coordination in its connections, puts this material in order, brings systematization in it». Thus, «being mutually complementary, both of processes organize the world spontaneously» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 215-216].

Principle of differences — an important empirical generalization, which formulates «the necessary condition of any experience, both physical and psychical», according to which «where such activities resist one to another, to which a relative measure of possible actions is identical, i.e. which are capable to make them with identical intensity, there is turned out no action; and it can come about only at difference of this intensity» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 176-177].

Principle of divergence — a universal empirical generalization fixing the fact of structural divergence of genetically homogeneous systems which develop in unequal environment. Such their natural divergence is a result of selection which is dissimilar for them and is directed differently from one and other environment; and differently changed systems, in their turn, already by itself come into more and more different relations to the environment, by virtue of what a tempo of divergence increases continuously and grows until a series of inevitable conjugations weakens the tendency of divergence. From the point of view of adaptation a divergence is more often useful for conservation of each of diverged systems because it increases their possibilities for further development, enabling to get correspondingly different activities from expanded external environment, for example, for diverged bioforms – different food.

Principle of divergency — a fundamental empirical generalization, which covers all system of experience and the essence of which is in the following: «when two parts of a system have got a sufficient separateness and differ between itself in an organizational level, then their divergence increases, while environment is equally favourable for them or equally unfavourable; in order to change interrelations of their levels in other direction, there are required special actions from outside, as they are required to stop any other divergence» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 145-146]. In the absence of such special actions the tectological difference of system parts will increase: «dissimilar changes add to initial differences», and differences will increase, by virtue of what «further changes should prove to be even more dissimilar, and the increase of new differences will grow still more, etc.». Consequently, divergence of system parts «goes “avalanche-like”, as quantities increase in geometrical progressions, – generally of the type of progressively ascending series» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 6]. See system divergence.

Principle of dynamic equilibrium — an important tectological position about relative stability of any organizational forms, according to which «there can be no question about simple and pure “conservation” of forms, about such one, which would be the true absence of changes», since «conservation is always only the result of that each of arising changes is counterbalanced right now by another, opposite to it, – it is dynamic equilibrium of changes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 197]. Being in such rather stable state, a system loses it sooner or later in process of the development and, passing a series of organizational crises, turns into in a new equilibrium state at a new organizational level. Thus, only speed of intrasystem changes distinguishes limiting states of a system from intermediate: morphogenesis is continuous, but its current is alternately accelerated and slowed down, therefore stability of any tectological form in continuously changing environment is always relative too.

Principle of dynamism — the starting point of tectological research, the essence of which is in that reality is understood dynamically, and therefore any its fragment is regarded as a dynamic system, elements of which are considered to be activities-resistances. At such «dynamically-evolutionary» approach the observable «conservatism of things» is thought only «in the form of dynamic equilibrium of two flows of opposite changes» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 172-173].

Principle of «economy of forces» — a tectological principle, by means of which the continuously accumulated experience is organized in science or, more precisely, in separate sciences: all volume of specialized knowledge «is organized in such a way as to spend as few work as possible for its mastering and memorization» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 85]. Universality of this principle is in that the economy of creative forces is the content of any scientific principle.

Principle of economy of thinking — a principle of information compression of the system of experience, the essence of which is simple: «to remove from cognition all “unnecessary” in order to cover the experience with least expense of forces» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 152]. This principle reflects the cognitive tendency of humankind to monism of scientific consciousness, to creation of such unified cognitive system of notions, the essence of which is «reduction of complexes of practical vital content». Attainable by means of this principle, the scientific «monism is the cognitive reflection of increasing organizationality of life» [Empiriomonism, p. 336], moreover, of the world tectophany, the most complete expression of which for the present day is tectology.

Principle of energy — one of the most important principles of tectology, according to which the necessary condition of further development of a complex, of its tectological progress, is increase of its internal energy at the expense of environment. Thus, this principle represents the energy formulation of the necessary condition of stability. It is necessary to notice that energy has no «absolute character»: it is not the essence of phenomena, i.e. not «absolutely real thing», it is not a symbol of thinking, i.e. not «absolutely ideal» thing; it «is nothing but the practical relation of society to the nature. To see “energy” in processes of the nature, it means to look at them from the point of view of their possible labour exploitation by humankind. To recognize that such-and-such a phenomenon, for example, a sea flow or a piece of coal, contains such-and-such sum of energy – it means to suppose that if it will be possible to take complete possession of this phenomenon and to use it successfully in labour purposes, then it can serve in order to overcome at its expense such-and-such certain sum of spontaneous resistances of the nature. The principle of energy is the ideal of power of society over the nature», it is «the program and the plan of the conquest of the world: to take possession step by step of the phenomena and things in such a way as to get expediently some from others and by means of some to overcome others» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 212-213].

Principle of entropy — the restrictive principle of energy exchange, according to which «transformations of energy are quite reversible, because at all of them the quantity of thermal energy increases at the expense of its other forms», easier speaking, any transformation of energy is accompanied by its partial waste. From the point of view of tectology «entropic process is inevitable as result of selection of arising movements: under selection in all forms and at all steps there is occurred the squandering of energy, transition to its lower organized sorts, and entropy is the special case of such squandering. It is a kind of the price of selection, which is made at transition of energy from one system to other» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 203-204]. Thus, the principle of entropy is the tectological regularity, which reflects the tendency of «transition of the world content to more stable, more equilibrated groupings» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Principle of equivalence — the direct consequence of the third law of Bogdanov, which says that «any complex in the nature, practically separate or at least only distinguished mentally, is equivalent to an environment, i.e. to all other universe: to all its actions on the complex there are corresponded equal and opposite counteractions. It is mechanical equivalence. Energetics expands it in general physical equivalence: any change of quantity of environment energy in relation to a given complex corresponds to equal and opposite change of energy of this complex in relation to it; if it loses some quantity of energy, then the complex gets exactly as many, and inversely» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 125]. In the essence, this equivalence «is nothing but identity of fact taken only from two different points of view: action – transition of energy – one instead of two: the sign minus or plus is here the symbol of the cognitive relation, of the cognitive activity, which places this action into the system of experience and has different direction according to one or another of two opposite positions of a cognizer» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 139].

Principle of evolutionary prospect — one of the principles of tectological morphogenesis, the basis for which is the conjugational scheme of increasing potentialities of development, according to which «at every conjugation there is increased the sum of conditions of potential development, or quantity of potentialities of development», that «guarantees the forward course of development» without reiterations of the same tectological forms, since it «breaks off cyclic isolation of organizational processes» within each of conjugates [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52].

Principle of exocausality — a law, expressing the dependence of internal changes in a system on external changes in its environment, which just says: «the starting point of any change of forms is finally always in their environment» [Empiriomonism, p. 246]. In spite of its seeming simplicity, the law is actually not so simple: in it there is reflected not only vectorial, but also structural character of causal relationship. Since an environment for a system is only a complex of external actions, «taken exactly in relation to it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 110], then, naturally, for this complex exists other environment, for which – the third one, etc., and this points to that the structure of causal relationships has rhizomic character and all changes, corresponding with them, follow under the scheme of chain egression.

Principle of feed-back — the principle of self-regulation of a system, the essence of which is in action of results of its development on the character of this development. If this action strengthens it, the feed-back is called positive, if weakens – negative. See the principle of Polzunov.

Principle of harmony — the tectologically rethought Pythagorean principle of «harmony of spheres», the essence of which is in that there are stably developed only those systems, which internal processes are not merely functionally complementary, but also fit cyclically into process of change of environment, i.e. when they are coordinated by tempo of their development. From the energy point of view all processes, coordinated in such a way, resonate with processes of environment, getting at that necessary energy for their further development, while uncoordinated processes, lacking in such mechanism of energy inflow, are damped out. Operating in that way, selection proves itself as the tuner of the universe, continuously and precisely forming up all world processes into united consonance, as a result of what the world environment, being called cosmos (literally «order», «fine organization») by Pythagoreans, was perceived by them as «harmony of spheres».

Principle of hegemony — the principle, which guarantees stable egression in society to that social group or class, whose cultural principles dominate the society, i.e. they are system-formative; simply speaking, the essence of this law consists in that a class, which accepts the cultural principles of another class, turns inevitably out under its authority. It occurs for the reason that cultural principles as methods of vital organization are own for each class, they are developed by it, corresponding to its nature and, naturally, to some extent disagree with the original nature of another class, which has adopted them, generating every possible disharmonies and contradictions. By virtue of this even though this culturally dependent class has won owing to a successful coincidence of circumstances and favorable correlation of class forces, all the same it never can take possession of the methods, alien to its nature, in that measure as the formerly dominated class, and «in the construction of life the transition of control in more prepared and skilful hands will occur with inevitability of natural processes», since «in the society there is dominated the most adapted to the needs and conditions of its vital organization» [Lines of Culture, p. 121].

Principle of historical development acceleration — a consequence of historically increasing synergy of human doing, the result of which is the continuous growth of change frequency of scientific-and-technical paradigm and, correspondingly, of technological basis relatively to constant change frequency of human generations. «At the early stages of the life of humankind its development is made with the greatest slowness, and there would be necessary the whole millenia for the changes such as proceed now for few years. New methods of labour and cognition are developed so gradually that insensibly for people go into their experience and become the undivided part of traditions, which is transmitted from fathers to children as holy precepts»; «but each step of the progress facilitates the further steps, and little by little the speed of development increases. At last it ceases to be imperceptible for each generation separately»: «progress of technics and knowledge began to go visibly for very people, for example, in the form of different practical and cognitive “discoveries”, which arise and are adopted by people already in the memory of living generation» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 31-32, 34]. As a result the social environment began to change for some years and even months in greater measure than, for example, «for the previous tens years of usual “organic” development of capitalism», not to mention that «during feudal epoch there were required centuries for its transformation at similar scale, and in early tribal one – tens and even, probably, hundreds centuries» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 157]. In the scientific literature there are also found the other names of this principle: the law of acceleration of world history, the principle of time compaction, the law of acceleration of world time, the principle of acceleration of tempo of history, etc.

Principle of historicism — a way of historical studying of a phenomenon, the essence of which is in the finding-out «from what phenomena it originates, in what forms it is made, by what laws it changes» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 45]. See the historical method.

Principle of holism — a fundamental principle of the organized complexes, which says: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. it is the known axiom of holism, reformulated in quantitative measurement. The essence of the principle is in that «a whole has practically the greater sum of activities than if its parts will exist separately», at that it occurs «not because there are created new activities in it from nothing, but because its available activities are combined more successfully than resistances, opposing to them» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 117-118].

Principle of increase of egressive difference — a general-organizational principle, which says: «if higher organized complex A and less organized parts K, L, M, N of the same system… are in an environment, identical to all of them, then the difference in their mutual influence, “egressive difference”, does not remain at one level, but increases». It happens by virtue of that higher organized complex «possesses the advantage over the less organized ones: it assimilates activities from environment better, counteracts its destructive influences better», i.e. «at positive selection it is enriched with activities faster than the others, becomes stronger at the expense of environment, at negative one it becomes poor in activities more slowly, gets behind in process of weakening», but «in both cases the egressive difference between it and other complexes increases». Moreover, the principle is obeyed also in case of asymmetrical relations between complexes and the environment when «complex A by its higher organizationality is “stronger” than the environment and gets from it more than the environment takes away from it, whereas the others, K, L, M… is “weaker” than the same environment: selection is positive for complex A, for them – negative. Then the more quickly the egressive difference grows» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 105-106].

Principle of individualism — historically the second basic cultural principle, which dominates in the final stage of the prologue of history. This principle of social organization arises in process of development of the exchange relations, coming «from cooperation of independent individual economies and bringing their spirit of private property, their spirit of competition», in the center of which there is person «with the special interests and aspirations, with the thirst for development of the individual force» [the Great Vampire of Our Time, p. 72].

Principle of inequality of positive and negative selection — the other formulation of the principle of tectological dominant, the essence of which is that in positive selection «there is always the possibility of its continuation», while negative selection «is interrupted constantly, exhausting itself», and though «quantitatively the preponderance on its side is huge», nevertheless «the sum of organizationality increases» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 206].

Principle of intercomplementarity — see the principle of complementary interrelations.

Principle of interference — the empiriomonistic principle of separateness of complexes, or of continuity of universum, which says: «if two complexes are connected by means of the third one and to this third one there is joined a complex, opposite to it, – elimination of those elements, which arise in the first one, and appearance of those, which disappear in it, – then this intermediate, connective complex “is destroyed” for experience, and connection of two others interrupts». Just in this way «discontinuities are reduced to continuity» of universum, in the infinitely developed tissue of which «the separate “cells” – complexes and their combinations – do not interflow into one continuous field» [Empiriomonism, p. 338].

Principle of interrelativity of form and environment (principle of adequacy of form to environment) — one of the positions in tectology, determining the dependence of a form of complex on environment, in which its tectological development took place. In the brief formulation the principle says: «a tectological form is interrelative to its environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 242]. «The more conservative are conditions and the longer is action of selection in the same invariable directions, the more perfect and more complete there is turned out correspondence of developed forms with this very conditions and the fuller there is attained their equilibrium with it». It is the positive side of the principle. But «the highest degree of adequacy to a given environment means inadequacy to any other environment», therefore rapid change of conditions is simply disastrous for such «perfect» forms [Tectology, v. 2, p. 157]. It is the negative side of the principle. By the way, all «mysteriousness» of the well-known anthropic principle is explained just by this: the form of life on the Earth has become so «perfect and complete» in the conditions of invariable world constants that God forbid these sphinges to move from the place!

Principle of irreversibility — the second law of Heraclitus, according to which all processes in the world are irreversible. Only in some approximation it is possible to speak about reversible and recurring processes. «Negative selection goes here, there and everywhere; and what it takes, it carries away irrevocably: destroyed forms have left from the economy of nature, and nature itself has been no longer the same, and all new is formed in new conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 207]. This principle was first formulated by Heraclitus: «it is impossible to enter into the same river twice».

Principle of isonomism — one of the major empirical generalizations in tectology, based on the idea of isomorphism of physical, biological and social laws [Tectology, v. 1, p. 21]. Isonomism – more exact and semantically more «compressed» term than isomorphism of laws, – means the identity of the laws, operating in different complexes (systems) irrespectively of the nature of the component elements. In somewhat different formulation the principle says: the laws, observable in different spheres of reality, are formally identical. Isonomism is the consequence of structural similarity of different spheres of reality. The principle of isonomism is basic in the system methodology of Bogdanov.

Principle of labour causality — all the same basic metaphor, all the same principle of sociomorphism, which are based on universal substitution of concepts of labour doing under all without exception processes in the nature, whatever observed by man; in other words, the essence of the principle is in that «to the nature there are applied the concepts, which relate to human doing by their initial meaning» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 212].

Principle of lag of form from content — «a general law of evolution», according to which «new content of life takes elements for its organizing forms from old content primarily, and only in process of passing away of these elements it develops its quite original forms on their place», or in the brief formulation: «new from old and through old». For example, «legal compulsion of censorship is overcome by legal compulsion, which protects freedom of speech, and only together with this last negative compulsion there is generally disappeared the legal form in the given area» [Questions of Socialism, p. 64].

Principle of layer-by-layer destruction — an important empirical generalization, relative to complex systems, the basis for which is the scheme of historical layers and which says: «at sufficient evenness of disorganizational influences, when they occupy all system simultaneously and parallel», process of destruction «goes as though layer-by-layer», starting with latest and more complex formations of this system and passing to earlier and more simple ones, therefore «a way of destruction repeats in abbreviated form a way of formation of system in the reverse order». For example, if some «party falls into decay under oppression of dead reaction, – then the process occupies in general its latest layers before all: there are mostly dropped out recent members of a party, there are collapsed the newest cells; at forced revision of party doctrines under other equal conditions there are most easily rejected the most recent, their least “steady-state” elements; and tactics in general finds out less solidity than a program, which lies historically more deeper than it» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 278-279].

Principle of limiting equilibrium — a certain regularity, observable in processes of formation and transformation of tectological forms, which can be formulated in the following way: «the more similar in two different cases is an aggregate of elements and an environment, in which they are, the greater is the probable degree of similarity of limiting equilibriums, towards which in both cases there are gravitated the forming and regulating processes (groupings and selection). In other words: the more identical is an organizational material and conditions, influencing on it, the greater similarity should be expected in organizational products, formed from it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 219]. To this it is necessary to add that «speed of achievement of limiting equilibrium depends on plasticity of complexes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 238]. The principle of limiting equilibrium «expresses an organizational tendency, which is always present, but is far from always embodied in final result, because it can be masked or paralysed by other tendencies, following from concrete complexity of conditions», since «for the same aggregate of elements there is quite often possible not one, but several different forms of limiting equilibrium», i.e. polymorphism [Tectology, v. 2, p. 219]. The principle of limiting equilibrium has universal significance for social practice, moreover, «productive and generally labour activity of people leans entirely upon it: this activity comes from foreseeable limiting equilibriums, just in what its “expediency” or “regularity” consists». However in this context it is necessary to emphasize mental doing particularly: processes of thinking develop by much more complex chain of crises C, but at that «limiting equilibriums, to which they come, are foreseen in advance much less often, but even then usually with smaller definiteness and accuracy than in labour practice», by virtue of what it is necessary to find that «in the present phase of development of humankind the processes of thinking are much less planned, i.e. more spontaneous, than practically-labour ones» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 234, 236].

Principle of matryoshkas — one of the basic positions of tectology, according to which the material world is considered as the hierarchical supersystem, consisting of the set of systems, or complexes, internested on matryoshka scheme, intersimilar on the structure and interconnected with each other. At that there is taken into account that «the higher degrees of organizationality, arising by complication and development of the lower ones, include the last naturally, as greater one includes lesser» [Empiriomonism, p. 103].

Principle of minimax — a fundamental empirical generalization, from the energy point of view describing the tendency of self-organizational metamorphosis, which says: of all forms of organizations, possible for a complex self-organizing system, developing in concrete conditions, it aspires to that one, which makes for absorption of external energy to maximal degree and provides its minimal internal dissipation. For example, in social systems this principle shows itself in the tendency to optimization, i.e. in «the conscious struggle for the maximal coefficient of use of all technical means and potentialities» at minimization of «multiform squandering of productive forces, squandering of energy sources in particular» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, pp. 7-8].

Principle of minimum (the law of least) — one of the important tectological generalizations, which Bogdanov calls the principle of relative resistances and which says: «stability of a whole depends on the least relative resistances of all its parts at any moment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 217]. The other formulation: «if a system consists of parts of higher and lower organizationality, then its relation to environment is determined by lower organizationality» [Questions of Socialism, p. 353]. For example, if a squadron of ships consists of vessels of different mobility, then the maximal speed of movement of such a squadron, at which «it can still keep its connection and unity of actions», is determined by the least speed of a constituent ship, which, actually, just «will be the common speed of the squadron in long voyage». Or other example: action of the cold, influencing destructively on all organism, «covers all surface of a body; but destructive effects begin with the least protected parts of a body: with what are not covered by clothes such as a face, and with that ones in which blood circulation is weaker such as foots; ears, for which there are usually combined together both conditions of lowered resistance, are easier frostbitten of all». In general, stability of an organism in relation to any concrete illness is determined by stability of its separate parts in relation to the illness. Take for example any infectious disease, caused by concrete microbes, which penetration into an organism «depends on breaking of integrity of cutaneous-epithelial covering. Let all this covering is normal and impenetrable, except for one millionth part of its surface; if agent of disease will get access to this point, all protective function of covering comes to naught, or, more exactly, to that resistance what will appear in this very point». The principle of minimum determines stability of organization of authoritative type, which «is characterized by that “organizing function”, i.e. structural adapter of all system, depends entirely on individual brain of “authority” or master, whereas the scale of organizational life is certainly collective. Therefore, a partial and even short-term individual insufficiency is reflected sometimes irreparably or even disastrously on all collective»: for example, «a leader could drive an affair correctly and expediently for the whole years, on all line sustaining sufficient stability of the organization by timely, skilled intervention; but in one question his intellectual energy has failed him or simply for a minute his attention has relaxed – and there is often turned out an irreparable damage, sometimes, as in a fighting situation, a complete collapse». According to the third law of Bogdanov, «the scheme of “the least relative resistances” of different parts of a complex is quite equivalent to the scheme of “the least relative activities” of the same parts, or of “the greatest relative actions” of environment, or of “the greatest its relative resistances”» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 218-219]. As well as any scientific law, the principle of minimum reflects «either domination of nature over people, or power of people over nature» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 222].

Principle of monocentrism — a tectological generalization, fixing the empirical law that an egressive system with one center is more effective than with two and more. Really, the experience testifies that a simple harmoniously organized egression is always «characterized by one center, and if it is complex, chain, then it has one highest, general center, and each group of its members is directly connected with the nearest one, but not of with two or several centers». Certainly, in fact such a correct form of egressive connection is observed not always: «there are systems with two or more main centers, with parallelism of connections of some lower centers, in a word – which do not correspond to the principle of monocentrism», but then «there are shown a disequilibrium, contradictions, disorganization in them», so long as «the determining influence of one center on its periphery collides with the determining influence of another and unstable interrelations turn out». In folk tectology it is expressed by the known saying: «one servant cannot serve two misters». In authoritarian forms of egression such a contradiction, reflected by the ancient wisdom, «acts especially evidently, and the ancients just did not know other forms; but the rule remains the same everywhere» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 118].

Principle of non-additivity — such a consequence of the axiom of holism, according to which all systems, except for neutral complexes, are non-additive from the practical side concerning its parts. An organized complex, or a system, is determined by Bogdanov by the rule «a whole is greater than the sum of its parts». At that the greater is the whole than the sum of the parts, the more it is organized. It is positive non-additivity. Among the systems with negative non-additivity are unorganized complexes, in which «the whole is less than the sum of its parts». And at last the systems with additive structure of elements are relate to neutral complexes, in which «the whole is equal to the sum of its parts» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 399-401; Tectology, v. 1, pp. 113-121].

Principle of normal distribution (law of Bazarov) — the law of stable equilibrium of an economic system, according to which «each element of a society, consequently, in particular, each worker should get from social product as many as it enables him to carry out normally his social function, his role in the system of production». This principle «expresses a norm of phenomena», however «reality almost never corresponds to this norm exactly, more often it varies around the norm into one and other side». For example, «it can be so that an enterprise doesn’t get a sufficient quantity of raw material, instruments and so on from the economic center or by way of buying in the market in order to carry out the production tasks; but then it just cannot carry out them, it goes to pieces itself, and at the same time there are broken the functions of other enterprises, which are connected with the first and which should use its products somehow or other: a partial destruction, disorganization goes on in the system». On the other hand, a worker «does not also quite often get a necessary quantity of means of consumption in the form of wage in order to maintain his capacity for work and the life of members of his family (reproduction of labour forces in alternation of generations is certainly also a necessary social function), but then there is a waste, a partial or full destruction of labour force, a loss of socially-labour energy, a weakening of society in its struggle against the nature» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 260-261].

Principle of optimal adaptation — an empirical generalization, fixing those necessary structural conditions, at which adaptable possibilities of a form are maximal: for a complex – «the greater is a number of recurrences, of which a form consists, the more similar reproducing elements enters into its composition, – the more considerably there is probability of adjustment for it, because at a greater mass of cases of change it is more possible to expect some number of cases of adjustment», and for a system of complexes – «in exactly the same way a great diversity of forms-elements increases chances of adjustment of a complex form: then there should also appear various the changes, among which sooner, hence, can be found favorable ones for biopotential». For example, for biosphere in whole «the possibility of adjustment is the greatest, since this general form of life represents in the known epochs the immeasurably enormous number of reproducing forms-elements and the same their diversity» [Basic Elements, p. 103].

Principle of organizational symmetry — the principle of coordinated development of elements of a system and all system as a whole, or the principle of chain coevolution, the essence of which is in codirection of development of intrasystem elements to development of all system as a whole, i.e. already in its own codirection to development of environment or of other system, in which it is included as a component, etc. Such organizational symmetry increases adaptable possibilities of a system and provides its optimal development in environment, the essence of which is easier for understanding if to introduce the concept of optimal interaction (activity of a complex, adaptively useful both for it, and for a complex, with which it interacts and vice versa) and to change the point of view constantly. As a result there is found out the picture of chain biregulation, symmetric on the character of connection: firstly, elements of system are closed by loop of biregulation, and, secondly, the very system is closed, in its turn, by the same loop of biregulation with other system, etc. It is the example of chain egression, links of which interacts with each other on the basis of the principle of biregulation. According to tectology, such scheme of conjugation possesses the great evolutionary potential. Just for this reason the principle of organizational symmetry is the fundamental principle of optimology.

Principle of organizational unity — one of the basic positions in tectology, according to which organizational methods and forms are unified for any elements of the universe without exception: «all elements of the universe, the most multifarious, the farthest some from others, qualitatively and quantitatively, can be subordinated to the same organizational methods, organizational forms» [Questions of Socialism, p. 404]. It is the other formulation of the principle of isonomism.

Principle of parallelism — one of the main principles of empiriomonism, asserting a certain correspondence between elements of heterogeneous series of experience (visual, tactile, acoustic, etc.): «where usual parallelism of such given series is broken, there is also eliminated a recognition in experience of usually perceived such a given “body” and there is come out the necessity to unite the facts of experience differently, to recognize not that “body” as ordinarily, but another, or to deny the presence of “body” absolutely». Exactly «parallelism of heterogeneous series of experience, which are united into one “body”, gives these series some homogeneity; but it is homogeneity of relations rather than of elements», which is just in essence «the basis of unity of a body» [Empiriomonism, p. 9].

Principle of Polzunov — the principle of self-regulation of a system on deflection from its certain tectological state or from a concrete quantity of some its regulable characteristic; more precisely, it is the principle of feed-back, which operates in system of «a regulator – a complex» and compensates for all deflections of complex from its well-defined state. Stable tectological state of such a self-regulated system is, in fact, the state of dynamic equilibrium. This principle was first applied by I.I. Polzunov in 1765 in the construction of the world’s first steam machine: for control of its work to a steam-boiler there was joined a regulator, which together with it formed the system of automatic regulation on deflection from a given condition of boiler power supply.

Principle of practice — a principle, which is very important for development of technosphere and expresses «practical connection of phenomena, practical unity of the nature», the essence of which is that «any phenomenon, any process of the nature is potential source of getting of any other processes for labour collective» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 210]. It means that any spontaneous process, even which is catagenic to social system at direct conjugation, is always possible to be transformed in arogenic one and to be used in production with a certain degree of efficiency. In the nature there are no spontaneous forces, absolutely hostile to humankind: a spontaneous force, which is destructive today, will become creative tomorrow. Such transformations are made by social practice on the basis of the exact sciences.

Principle of process acceleration — one of the main principles of human practice, which says: in order to increase course speed of any process, it is necessary to exacerbate its internal contradictions purposefully and sufficiently. A special case of application of this principle in social practice is the rule of effective conducting of social struggle, according to which «for acceleration of development course it is necessary to maintain, to intensify real contradictions, coming out in it, realizing them and disseminating this realization on a class collective, forming them organizationally in the collective» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 47].

Principle of prognostication — the principle, being the basis for the method of scenarios, which says: «if there are known tendencies of a crisis and those conditions, in which they are developed, then there is presented the possibility to foresee the final result of the crisis in advance – that certain equilibrium, to which it gravitates». For example, if there are «two communicating vessels with a different water level in them, then between them there is come a crisis C, for which the limiting equilibrium will present an identical water level in both vessels» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 218].

Principle of reflection — an empirical generalization, fixing the qualitative dissimilarity between “reflected” and “reflection”, the essence of which is that «“reflection” is determined just by reflective environment, by that complex, in which a given phenomenon is reflected, and already to a lesser extent – by this “reflected” phenomenon»; in other words, «if complex A is reflected in some complex B, then reflection is only functionally determined by reflected thing, being, generally speaking, qualitatively dissimilar with it. This relates to every possible complexes of experience and represents partial characteristic of causal relationship of the facts of experience». For example: «a melody, sounding near of a phonograph, is reflected in its roller in the form of several lines, absolutely not similar to it; the colossal physical complex – a planet, with all enormous variety of its construction, is reflected in retina of a man, living on the Earth, in the form of minimal chemical changes in space of several microns», i.e. «the whole world of physical complexes, including, perhaps, an enormous mass of intensive life, is reflected in psychics of a terrestrial observer as perception of a small light point with divergent short rays against a dark-blue background» [Empiriomonism, pp. 119-120].

Principle of relative resistances — see the principle of minimum.

Principle of relativity of Bogdanov — a universal principle of tectological research, according to which any organizational process in any system of reference proceeds equally. This principle «starts with two monistic ideas. The first one is the universal concept of structural unity of nature. It is reflected in possibility of identical expression of laws of nature for physically opposite positions. The second one, including already some explication of this unity, is that any movement of a body or, generally, of a physical complex (for example, of a ray of light) in its environment, is a single (or, if you wish, one-in-two) fact, instead of the sum of two facts – movement of one side and rest of another one». From the point of view of tectology limitation of the old principle of relativity «consists in that a coordination of experience of two observers is not yet the universal coordination», since «the social significance, i.e. objectivity, is not settled by what is “significant” for them»: if to take a third observer into account, then already in this case «the formulas, relating to two, are objectively insufficient». The weakness of the old formulation of the principle is in this bisubjectivity. There is the easiest to show it in the formulas of addition of speeds. Let, for example, a terrestrial observer fixes as from a radioactive body, being on the Sun, have been taken off in opposite directions two beta particles, each at the speed of 285 000 km/s, i.e. 0,95 of the speed of light. «By the formula of “the special theory of relativity” a mutual speed of two bodies cannot surpass the speed of light. But if the speed of mutual moving away of two bodies, one from another, is possible to be called their speed in relation to each other, – and it would be strange to understand speed differently, – then it is quite clear that, from the point of view of the third observers, on the Sun or on the Earth there is quite objectively fixed such mutual speed of two beta particles, equal of 570 000 km/s, i.e. 1,9 of the speed of light. While the formula of addition, expressing what seems from one or another of these particles, gives the size about 299 600 km/s» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].

Principle of relativity of disorganizational processes — an important empirical generalization in tectology, according to which all natural and social processes are organizational, therefore destructive activity is also «result of collision of different organizational processes». For example, «if societies, classes, groups collide destructively, disorganizing each other, it takes place just because each of such collectives tends to organize the world and humankind for itself, in its own way. It is the result of separateness, isolation of organizing forces, the result of that their unity, their common harmonious organization have not been achieved yet. It is struggle of organizational forms» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71]. Thus, disorganizational processes are organizational processes in a system of two and more complexes, considered from the point of view of a complex, which is losing its activities.

Principle of reverse reflection — a principle of reverse casting form, the essence of which is in that a secondary reflection, i.e. «reflection of reflection, is more similar to “reflected” than the first reflection: so a melody, reproduced by phonograph, is the second reflection of the melody, taken by it; and the melody is incomparably more similar to this last than the first reflection, – little lines and points on cylinder of phonograph» [Empiriomonism, p. 129]. As experience testifies, «any “reflection” of one complex in another is determined not only by the content and the form of “reflected”, but also by the contents and the form of “reflecting”, and by this last frequently even to the greatest degree; therefore a “reflection” is more often absolutely not similar to “reflected”, and is almost always immeasurably poorer than it by the content. For example, a sunbeam, acting on retina of a human eye, causes an imperceptibly insignificant chemical change in it, not only very little similar to Sirius, as a physical body, but also immeasurably, almost infinitely small in comparison with this gigantic world, overwhelming any imagination with the grandiosity; a blow of bullet in a head of animal is reflected by formation of a wound and by termination of vital functions – by the changes, nevertheless absolutely not having a similarity to movement of bullet» [Country of Idols, p. 240].

Principle of selection (law of Empedocles) — a universal empirical generalization, according to which among «uncountable, most diversified combinations of elements of the universe», arising in «infinitely changing interrelations» of every possible organizational processes, there are kept only those, which are arranged expediently, i.e. have increased their activities at the expense of environment [Tectology, v. 1, p. 195, 201]. In other words, it is the law, which regulates the world morphogenesis: there are disappeared less organized tectological forms and there are kept more organized ones, more adapted to environment, i.e. which unite more considerable sum of activities and in more coordinated combination. Since the reasons of conservation or destruction of forms are to be sought in their environment, then more exact and more scientific formulation of the principle will be the following: conservation and destruction of tectological forms «is in strict regular dependence on their environment» [Empiriomonism, p. 244] and occurs in every place where «with an equal expense of energy one form of life makes in an environment more changes, favorable for the preservation and useful to itself, than another» [Basic Elements, p. 94]. In connection with various mystifications and fetishization of selection it should be specially emphasized that «selection is not some real figure», but a scientific «abstraction, applied as a method of research», i.e. it is the generalization of real facts of conservation and destruction of organizational forms, «united with notion of regularity of that and other» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 159]. As the law of expediency this principle was first formulated by Empedocles by means of concepts of «love» and «strife» – two eternally struggling forces of attraction and repulsion.

Principle of Shiva — the everywhere observable law of quantitative preponderance of negative selection over positive, which expresses the fact of unusual wastefulness of the nature: «extermination of colossal majority of arising forms» at «conservation and development of their immeasurably small part». Folk tectology has reflected the essence of this principle by the aphorism: to break is not to build, in other words, «it is easier to destroy than to create»; just therefore a man «carries out the deed of negative selection incomparably with more success» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 166].

Principle of social causality — the scientific name of the philosophical principle of historical materialism, the essence of which is in that «causes of any development of social forms lie in the field of production, labour struggle of society against the nature». According to this principle ideology is determined by production conditions, though «the cause of one ideological phenomenon can lie also in other ideological phenomena». For example, «an idea arises quite often because it necessarily follows from other ideas, developed before, while those, in their turn, can be also generated by ideological conditions, etc. But, continuing this chain, a research comes necessarily to causes of already production character». As production consists of two sides, technical and economic, then «more complete and exact expression of social causality is such: economics of society is determined in the development by its technics; ideology is determined in the development by economics and technics» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 283-284].

Principle of social technics — the principle of complementary interrelations, operating in technical area of social work, the essence of which is in that «set of things in production supplements cooperation of people; at the expense of things, by means of assimilation of their energy through consumption of products, there are supported and reproduced the labour forces of people, and the expenses of labour energy of people serve for maintenance and reproduction of the complex of technical things; in this way the stability and development of the both parts of system are mutually conditioned» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 21].

Principle of sociality of cognition — «the guiding principle» of working-out of scientific monistic world view [Empiriomonism, pp. 6, 241, 334], according to which any «forms of cognition are social forms of adjustment». For example, «forms of cognition, which exists in a individual psychics, are only an element of the social form of cognition, which represents the whole complex of such elements in different psychics (at that these elements, being mutually adapted, are in correspondence between themselves)». Therefore «only such a form of cognition can be considered as “true”, which is socially conserved, which is conserved not in a individual psychics, but in the whole system of the psychics, which are connected by cooperation» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 188].

Principle of sociohistorical relativity — a rule of the tectological analysis, according to which the very understanding of organizationality should without fail be sociohistorical (for a computer is a highly organized system for a cultural man, not to mention an expert, while for a savage it is a chaotic heap of metal bits with polymeric plates) [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 127, 134].

Principle of sociomorphism — one of the principles of empiriomonism, according to which «a scheme of dialectics, which was created in one area of the social experience, can be also applied beyond its limits, to other areas of phenomena, both social and extrasocial» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 170]. This principle is a consequence of the axiom of self-similarity and a special case of the principle of isonomism.

Principle of specialization — a more effective principle of organization of experience, which replaced historically «the primitive disorderly systematization» and as the basis for which «there was served practical division of labour», while the essence of which «consists in that human doing breaks to branches, each of which has to do with the special type of objects of the nature, develops the special methods and collects the special experience» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 84].

Principle of structural intersimilarity — a consequence of the axiom of self-similarity, according to which from the organizational point of view different complexes of different spheres of reality are mutually similar, as «the nature is structurally uniform» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 126].

Principle of submission — see the principle of hegemony.

Principle of system differentiation — see principle of divergence.

Principle of systemness — a fundamental principle of tectology, expressing the organizational character of all universe, according to what «absolute absence of organization is unthinkable without contradiction»; in brief, «all is organization», or systems are there and everywhere – that is the essence of the principle [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 73-74]. Really the world, which surrounds a man, is given to him in sensations, but he can feel only what is somehow connected with him. Consequently, systemness is shown already at elementary level of reflection, since sensation is result of interaction between parts of system of «the world – an organ of sense». Perception as the next level of reflection is a complete series of concrete sensations, given from a set, i.e. it is their certain complex, which is result of interaction between parts of more complex system of «the world – a combination of organs». Consequently, everything, that man perceives, is a system, and all processes in it are tectological, i.e. are determined by its internal construction and develop in interaction with environment according to the structural laws. In other words, if a man perceives a certain body, then at the same time he perceives also not a body, i.e. a man always perceives a system of «a body – an environment».

Principle of systems openness — a consequence of the axiom of total interconnection, according to which any system interacts with an environment to some extent, in one way or another, and that is why there are no absolutely closed systems. All experience, accumulated by humankind, testifies that «there are and there can be no complexes, which are isolated in themselves: each of them is surrounded by environment, by differently organized complexes, by other activities», which «are tectologically “hostile” to it, i.e., developing in their directions, they can break its form, destroy it; and this is not the case just in so far as it represents a resistance» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 164].

Principle of tectological dominant — the principle of world progress, according to which there is gone the increase of the world organizationality due to predominance of organizational processes over disorganizational ones. Really, «any process, going in the direction of organization, increases the further organizational potentialities, whereas that one, which goes towards disorganization, on the contrary, decreases disorganizational potentialities. If owing to overweight of births over death-rate the 100-million population of a country has increased by 1 million in a year, then under the same conditions next year it will increase more – by 1 010 000, and in the other next one – by 1 020 100. If in another country there has been created the equal overweight of death-rate on the same 100 million, then in the second year at invariability of other conditions the population will decrease not by one million, but less – by 990 thousand, and in the third one – by 980 100, etc. The one progression is of rising quantities, the other – of decreasing ones. If one system, in which there is organized the sum of activities S, has been destroyed, then the question of the system has been already settled by this, it, as such, cannot be disorganized further. But if alongside another system, in the beginning equal to the first one, has gradually organized in itself the sum of activities 2S during the development, then quantitatively there has been just covered the loss of the given type of organization, but tectologically the case has not finished, and the further process of development is quite possible. So always progress is in practice greater than regress, when their quantity is identical, organizational process is greater than disorganizational one» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 196].

Principle of tectological relativity — the tectological generalization of the well-known principle of the exact sciences, which says: «an organized system is such not generally, not universally, but only in relation to some certain activities, resistances, energies; at the same time in relation to others it can be disorganized, to the third – neutral» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 125]; moreover, in relation to different specific activities it can prove in different tectological forms. For example, for the child the organism of a mother, who is pregnant with it, is «the determining condition of the life and development, egressive center, to which both are subordinated to», but at that her organism is also «protective cover separating the child from destructive influences of environment, its alive dressing, its external “skeleton”», i.e. on the one hand the organism of mother possesses higher organizationality in comparison with the organism of the child, while on the other hand – lower. In other words, in relation to some specific activities of the child the body of mother proves under the organizational scheme of egression, while in relation to the other – of degression. In the first case the egressive role of parent organism «is in the sphere of feeding, i.e. of extraction and delivery of substances and energy from environment, which are necessary for maintenance and growth of the life, in this respect the body of mother is certainly organized incomparably higher than the body of the child, which is even not capable to work independently in the given direction». In the second case the «tunicary, protective» role «is connected with plastic, forming processes of the life of the child: they go with such intensity that its body, continuously changing in the construction, would be too unstable under hostile actions of spontaneous forces, too “delicate” for them. From this side the tissues of mother are necessary to recognize lower organized than the tissues of the child: the first have already stopped in their development, only keep their forms stably; the second – develop in impetuous way. That is why the first are “rougher” and can carry out their role of covers for the second. Specially for this purpose uterus serves – a sac from muscular and connective tissue, a complex of obviously lower order compared with the body of child» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 148-149].

Principle of tectological unity — the tectological interpretation of the axiom of vseedinstvo, according to which «between the systems, which are the most distant in other respects», there is «a corresponding degree of generally structural relationship», determined by «connection of origin, but only more distant». Thus, the principle asserts that the tectological unity of different systems is the result of their «genetic unity» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 92, 95]. In «Tabula Smaragdina» of Hermes Trismegistus this idea has been formulated by the aphorism: «omnes res fuerunt ab uno» (all things descended from one).

Principle of tempominimum — a special case of manifestation of the law of least, the essence of which is in that tempo of any systemogenesis is given by its slowest process; in other words, if there is a system of interconnected processes, then just that process, which proceeds with the least speed, determines the course of all others. For example, «if in a workshop a product goes through hands of several workers or in a bureaucratic establishment a business visitor goes through hands of several officials, then the quantity of made pieces of the product and of the passed visitors will depend on the worker and the official, who carries out the least number of corresponding operations per hour» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 220].

Principle of two tendencies of tectogenesis — a consequence of the first principium of tectology, which says that organizationality of a complex increases in two directions: in the area of «increase of the sum of its elements» and in the area of «increase of strength of that connection, which unites its parts» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Principle of universal empirical substitution — the first fundamental principle of empiriomonism, expressing «the unity of cognitive method in relation to all experience from its qualitative side»: by means of it there is «ascertained the qualitative continuity of any possible direct and indirect experience, as mutually connected and interacted combinations of one and the same material at the various stages of its endlessly progressing organization». From the sociolabour point of view «the principle of universal empirical substitution is the carrying that method, which makes the essence of social connection of people in process of their common labour – the method of their mutual understanding, over all nature, over all experience of people, in the correspondingly altered form» [Country of Idols, p. 242].

Principle of universal energetics — the second fundamental principle of empiriomonism, expressing «the unity of cognitive method in relation to any experience from its quantitative side»: by means of it there is ascertained «measurability, commensurability and continuity of changes occurring in experience». From the sociolabour point of view «the principle of universal energetics is the carrying that method, which makes the basis of victory of social labour of people over the nature – the method of machine production, over all nature, over all experience, in the correspondingly altered form» [Country of Idols, p. 242].

Principle of universal relativity — in cognition all is relative, and as its basis, so to say as «the “relative” supports of cognition» there are served relative separateness and unity of processes of the nature, and as the supporting point – their relations, their universal causal relationship [Basic Elements, pp. 22, 41].

Principle of Vishnu — the everywhere observable law of qualitative preponderance of positive selection over negative, the essence of which is in that «the first one has always a possibility of its continuation», while «the second one constantly breaks, exhausting itself», and though «quantitative preponderance on its side is huge» – «the sum of organizationality increases nevertheless». The activity of Vishnu from Hindu Trinity is a figurative expression of this principle: eternally creating Brahma, «dreaming in bodies, things, realities», symbolizes positive selection, while eternally destroying Shiva, «ruining everything what is possible to ruin», symbolizes negative selection, but «between them there is Vishnu, keeping what is worthy of preservation, the expression of results of world dynamics at any given moment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 206, 195].

Principle of world progress — see the principle of tectological dominant.

Private property — «a social relation, exactly a relation of society to a given person and to given things simultaneously». It is private property that «forms individualism: it finishes and fixes separation of a person from society, – certainly, only ideologically, only in thinking of people» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 373-374].

Problem — see task.

Process — a succession of changes in a given system, i.e. change of its tectological states considered as sequence of tectological acts, or continuous series of crises: at that «different phases of process» – «different organizational forms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 227]. From the tectological point of view «each object comes to a whole mass of continuous processes, interflowing between themselves, which, in their turn, are in indissoluble connection with processes of environment, pass into them directly» [Basic Elements, p. 16]. Thus, tectology excludes such static concepts as «object», «thing», «body», replacing them by the unified term «process», for example, an atom – process, a stone – process, a man – process, etc., at that these processes differ only in tempo, i.e. in speed of change.

Produce — the total sum of the products made in a certain time interval by a separate worker, an enterprise, a branch of industry or a state in whole.

Product — «a system, organized from material elements through addition to them of elements of human labour energy» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 99]; in other words, it is a materialized result of purposeful multielement labour conjugation. In any product «there are contained atoms of labour of millions of people, joined together, as though merged into one crystal». For example: «in a piece of cotton fabric there are contained the labour not merely of those workers, who wove it on a loom, but also of those, who span yarn for it, who cultivated cotton for yarn production, who made the looms, and who extracted metals for preparation of looms and the other machines, and who made the machines, which served as instruments of preparation of these looms; further, of all transport workers, who moved these instruments and materials, and of all workers, who built the means of communication for this transport; then of the workers, who made and gave the vital means for all these participants of fabric production, etc., endlessly»; at that all these atoms of labour do not collide with each other in disingressions, but «coalesce into one organized whole» [Questions of Socialism, p. 288].

Production — from the point of view of social energetics it is «transformation of objects of the nature into “a product of human labour”» for the purpose of «progressive creation of such environment, in relation to which the energy of social system would be maximum» [Empiriomonism, p. 265], i.e. «struggle of social man with the external nature» for his existence by means of labour process [Course of Political Economy, p. 29]. It is production that «forms the basic content of sociality», since it is always socially useful labour [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 156].

Productive labour — «any labour directed to satisfaction of needs of a production system». Different and numerous needs of production «cover by themselves everything that is necessary for conservation and reproduction of labour force of society, in general for maintenance in the necessary sizes of life, health and suitability of members of its economic organization, and also everything that is necessary for creation and continuous renewal of material means of production, i.e. its instruments and materials». Absolutely clearly that «labour of workers, who make food, clothes, machines, instruments, extract coal and oil, build dwellings and factory buildings, should be recognized as productive», but in addition to this directly physical work there is also organizing one, which it is necessary to recognize as productive too, since it «satisfies one of the most indispensable needs of production – the need for technical and partly also for economic planned character» [Course of Political Economy, pp. 9-10].

Productivity of labour — productivity of industrial doing of people, characteristic of efficiency of their labour, i.e. «degree of its successfulness», which depends, firstly, on qualification of workers, secondly, on instruments (material – mechanisms and non-material – technologies), thirdly, on organization of labour, and is measured either by quantity of produce in unit of working time or by quantity of time spent for production of a unit of produce. The growth of labour productivity, observable during all history of humankind, is direct manifestation of the general tendency to optimization of all technical process, which essence is to make a maximum of a product at a minimum of labour. Each new social order wins a victory over the previous due to higher production efficiency, therefore «height of labour productivity is the truest measure of development of a society» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, pp. 16-17].

Profit — money equivalent of surplus labour of hired workers appropriated by a capitalist, simply speaking, its part in social product. For example, industrial profit «arises from surplus value, i.e. from surplus labour of hired workers», and «profit of trade capital in a house-capitalist system is also result of surplus labour of small producers independent only formally»; at that it is obvious that «the difference between both cases is insignificant» [Short Course of Economic Science, p. 148].

Prognosis — a forecast of course of events in the future with a certain degree of reliability; a probabilistic prediction of forthcoming condition of a concrete system; a probable perspective of development of any phenomenon, proved by one or another way. A scientific prognosis developed on the basis of tectology possesses the highest degree of accuracy.

Prognostication — the main purpose of science, since it «exists just to foresee». However it is impossible to foresee, «to what there hasn’t been yet an exact example», therefore the essence of scientific prognostication is the following: «if it is generally known what it is, and it is known, in what direction it is changing, then science must draw a conclusion about what will turn out from this». Scientific prognostication is necessary «in order to people in their actions could conform with it, so that they would not spend their forces fruitlessly, acting contrary to the future and hampering the development of new forms, – but so that they could consciously work for acceleration and facilitation of this development» [Questions of Socialism, p. 90]. And since the future «consists in the tendencies of the present and the past, which can be objectively determined and compared», then the procedure of prognostication is the following: «among the social reality it is necessary to recognize distinctly the basic tendencies of development; then to combine them, mentally continuing them up to that vital limit, up to which they remain to be mutually compatible» [Questions of Socialism, p. 295]. In tectology the general scientific side of prediction is expressed by the principle of prognostication and by the principle of limiting equilibrium.

Progress — «increase of organizationality of complexes», which «goes in two directions: firstly, expansion of that material, of that content, which is covered by a given complex (increase of the sum of its elements); secondly, increase of strength of that connection, which unites its parts (so that there are required more and more strong external influences for breaking-down of this connection, for “disorganization” of the complex» [Empiriomonism, p. 106]. And so long as environment, which forms a complex, is changeable, but exactly it determines a form of the complex, then «the concept of “progress” means such a character of development, which sets conditions for victories of a given form over its environment – not one particular victory, but victories in general, an increasing possibility of conquest of elements of environment»; in other words, each «systematic, stable progress is realized as conquest of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 275-276].

Progression — a continuous series of changes of a certain tendency; for example: «a continuous series of events, going to one or another side» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 202].

Progressive adapton — a system adjustment for development, i.e. the external connection of a system which increases its organizational possibilities for successful adaptation in an expanded environment. Arising of such connection points to structural progress of the system and from the organizational point of view means system expansion, i.e. «conquest of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276]. In tectology there is usually used the brief term – adapton which in its formal version is designated by А+ and is read as «adapton-plus».

Progressive selection — two series of parallel-current processes of positive and negative selection, which regulate development of structure of a system towards the most stable interrelations, since less stable are eliminated by negative selection, and more stable are fixed by positive selection. The scheme of progressive (from the word of «progression») selection is universal, since it «covers both progressive development of complexes and their relative decline», separating at that «processes of conservation and destruction into their elements». The basis for the scheme is «the idea of dynamic equilibrium and deflections from it». For example, if to consider a drop of water, which is being in saturated-damp atmosphere, then the simultaneously going processes of assimilation and disassimilation of water molecules are equal, and «there is available dynamic equilibrium». When at temperature decrease air is supersaturated by moisture, then «condensation of fume gets the preponderance: the drop increases; it is progressive selection in the positive form». At rise in temperature «evaporation prevails; it aspires to destroy the drop; it is the negative form of progressive selection». The other examples: «growth of society as the organization of human forces, when production is greater than consumption», and «decrease of the sum of social activities in the opposite case»; «increase of heat quantity in a physical body, absorbing it more than giving the environment», and «the decrease – when losses prevail», etc. [Tectology, v. 1, p. 202] It is necessary to note that in many more compound combinations of complexes, «especially biological, psychical, social», on the foreground there is stood out the «progressive» (from the word of «progress») scheme of selection, according to which «there are advanced the groupings, increasing at the expense of their environment, the groupings with specific activities, surpassing the resistances of this environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 32]. Mathematics «has the special symbol for expression of progressive selection of “quantities”, i.e. of measurable complexes; it is derivative. When it has sign plus, then it means positive selection; minus sign – negative. When it vanishes or becomes infinite, interrupts or changes its sign, then this corresponds to crises of quantities. The simplest example: at movement of a body the derivative of distance with respect to time is speed. When it is greater than zero, distance increases; when it is less than zero – distance decreases; when it is equal to zero – this is crisis of stop of the movement, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 204].

Proletarian — «a man, free of personal dependence and of means of production» [Short Course of Economic Science, p. 112], at that not only «with no property», but «opposite to a proprietor» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 3]. Without exception all «classes of proprietors – both capitalists and land owners, even peasants and handicraftsmen – by the nature either are hostile or, at least, alien to proletariat. Bourgeoisie and land owners are in constant economic struggle with it; peasants and handicraftsmen, to whom their petty property is dear, cannot understand and admit the socialist ideal of proletarians, the aspiration to unite all means of human labor into social ownership. By virtue of their interests, their predilection for property, whether it will be a capital or a plot of land, a factory or a home workshop, – by virtue of their perpetual concern about how to keep and increase it, proprietors look at the world with the absolutely other eyes than indigent, destitute proletarians, “free as a bird”, who have nothing to lose and nothing to save up, who have the other thoughts and cares. Hence it follows the deep spiritual alienation between these classes and proletariat». Proletariat is «the unique class which carries on a struggle for radical and total reorganization of social life, the unique class which is unconditionally revolutionary. Its advanced groups go to socialism quite consciously». Their each forward step is «a new threat to the old society». Proletariat «is lonely in this society, the life of which it supports by its labor», and it is also «lonely in the struggle for socialism» [Proletariat in the Struggle for Socialism, pp. 83-85].

Proletariat — «the class opposite to proprietors» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 4], which in process of development of capitalism «becomes the international comradely collective of people-cooperators, not separated neither by private property, which they do not have, nor by competition, which they eliminate in their environment, nor by exploitation, because they do not exploit, nor by class struggle, because it is conducted by them not inside, but outside and it joins them, but do not separate». In technosphere «it is the collective, which by own hands realizes the obtain power of humankind over the nature», i.e. it is ingressor [Questions of Socialism, pp. 349-350]. In the contemporary production the proletariat unites the functions of executor and organizer, in other words, its doing is reduced to «management and control over “iron thrall” – machine – by means of physical action on it». Moreover, «gradually developing into the new social type», the proletariat becomes «the organizer of universal type»: firstly, it «fulfils the deed of organization of things in its labour», secondly, it organizes «its collectively-human forces in its social struggle», and thirdly, it joins the experience of both areas «in its special ideology – the organization of ideas». Thus, in the solution of this triune organizational task the tectological point of view becomes «the natural and even necessary tendency for it» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 107-109].

Prologue of history — the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, characterized by fragmentation of man and by the primacy of methods over purposes. Till now specialization has been dividing man, and «the purposes have been transforming, adapting to existent methods»: method is stronger, since «it is in the past and the present, while purpose is in the future; its alteration would demand conscious-planned creativity, from which the humankind is still far enough». And it will proceed so until «in the field of method creativity does not become conscious-planned» [Lines of Culture of XIX and XX centuries, p. 136]. At the present time it is already observed «the symptoms of the great changes, going in depth of life, and of the changes, taking all its main areas. There is changed the correlation of forces between humankind and the spontaneous nature, against which it carries on the eternal struggle. The relations between very people change fundamentally. There is changed the connection of the ideas, illuminating for people their existence and activity. All character of being changes, because the prologue of history of humankind comes to an end, the prologue, which has been erroneously considered as its true history for a long time» [Time of the Great Changes, p. 78].

Property — a form of social degression; a purely ideological fact fixing the social relation of a private person, group of persons or society to the certain social and natural complexes. Historically the arising of such a social phenomenon occurred in the following way. Originally it was not a right, but only the fact of constant relation of a certain person or a group to a concrete object of the external nature in the sociolabour process. For example, «a given person or a group or a tribal community works a given space of land, occupying it without any “legal” grounds, simply because it is necessary to get means of living, the land is present and has been occupied by nobody. There is still nothing “ideological”, but only – the technical process, its actor – man, its object – the nature. But when, owing to reproduction of people, there is the absolute overpopulation and land narrowness, when there is already no opportunity for everyone to find an unoccupied plot, sufficient for his livelihood, then there are arisen “labour contradictions”, occupations of land already worked by other people (or communities), robbery, etc. Then as an organizing form, eliminating these contradictions, there is arisen the “right” of property of a given person or a community to a given plot of land. The socially-psychological content of this right consists in recognition by other people of the exclusive labour relation of a given person or a community to a given plot and in readiness to prevent any action of somebody standing in the contradiction with this exclusive parity» [Empiriomonism, p. 274]. Thus, property is simply an organizational interrelation of ideological character: property «does not adhere to the body of proprietors», but they «own it and hold it», since they are organized to a sufficient degree: for example, the force of private property is only «an expression of the organized class force» [World Crises (April), p. 135].

Protectionism — the system of trading-political measures directed on support of national economy. Finally protectionism does not improve, but worsens and even aggravates the economic situation. Let by means of customs tariffs the export of some country N decreases. Then import into it will be reduced too, because its purchasing power will correspondingly decrease. Even if such reduction concerns not those countries, which have taken protectionist measures against the country N, but others, «nevertheless the size of the world market will become less and will faster reach the limiting filling and then the general catastrophe. Besides, a reduction of market always goes further than an aim put by tariffs primarily, because in the international trade there is the same chain connection: some countries take out to others, others to the third, and the third again to the first, etc.». Protectionism inevitably «breaks off a part of economic relations between the countries», by what, actually, it just «weakens the forces of connection» between them. Therefore «as means of struggle against increasing weight of the world competition, protectionism can serve as a sample of spontaneously-unplanned character of the methods of capital in its world correlations» [World Crises (May), pp. 116-117].

Protocollectivism — the primary form of cooperation, which «is distinguished by homogeneity and unorganizationality». Homogeneity «consists in that there is no division of labour», inasmuch as «labour is so elementary that everyone is able to do all the same, as others». Unorganizationality is determined by that even in case of simultaneous joint actions «there is neither special leader, who would organize all work, nor preliminary common discussion and resolution, determining an order and communication of labour of participants. Efforts of people are united, when it is necessary, by direct and spontaneous way, without ideological planned character, on the basis of simply common purpose, obvious to all and equally interesting to all, and also – of imitation». Historically such a system of cooperation is characteristic for primitive-communal system and «appears in the form of tribal group, narrow on volume – no more than several tens of persons, closely united both of blood connection of origin, and of severe conditions of struggle for life». Division of labour in such a community is weakly differentiated and is at the first stage of its development, i.e. it is observed only in «the buds, which depend entirely on physiological differences of muscular force, according to sex and age (for example, children collect fruits and roots, but do not take part in hunting, etc.)» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 297-298]. A synonym is primitive collectivism.

Protocoordination (physiocoordination) — historically the first form of fixing of continuously changing empiria by means of physiological system of coordinates and measures: «top», «bottom», «step», «span», «cubit», «foot», «sazhen», «instant», «century», etc. Really, the very first, primary way of coordination «for any separate organism is reduced to the basic directions of the very body. The constancy of these directions depends on stable mutual position of body’s parts, while this stability is determined by the construction of skeleton, and in particular for man the main coordinate, the vertical line (top-bottom), corresponds to the normal position, which depends on the anatomy of backbone». Consequently, comparison of world coordinates with the last one is «not a simple metaphor: it is really the biological origin of our world coordinates of experience, their vital prototype» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 135-136]. From the tectological point of view physiocoordination is the primary form of degression of system of experience, its earliest, prescientific variant.

Proving — «organization of one or other data set» with the purpose of establishing «definitely-organizational connection» between them by means of «expediently chosen intermediate combinations inserted between them», i.e. by the method of ingression. For example, for the proof of the theorem «the angular sum of a triangle is equal to two right angles» between one mathematical complex «the sum of two right angles» and the other – «the angular sum of a triangle» there is inserted two connecting parts: «the sum of one angle of a triangle with its adjacent one» and «the same sum, but in which the external adjacent angle is divided in two parts by right line, parallel to opposite side». As the result of this double ingression the initial data of the theorem «are organized in a cognitive grouping of equality» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160].

Proving by means of texts — an unscientific method of proving which is nowadays an anachronism, a feudal vestige: «during feudal times priests were used to prove by texts» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1925), p. 307].

Proving of the external world — a socially-organized procedure, which is possible only on the basis of communication and requires the presence, firstly, of a group of people gathered with this purpose and, secondly, of coherence of their perceptions, for what there is used the coordination as the method excluding a possibility of individual illusion. In practice the essence of the proving appears in the following way: «here is a pen», – a proving man says and indicates a pen, «and this is a fly», – and he indicates a fly; and if those present agree that it is so, i.e. they see both objects, hear the fly and feel the pen, the proving has accomplished («amen», – the proving man says, and all those present go away). Similar proofs are constantly carried out by each of us: communicating at work and home, we make it many thousands of times and do not even notice it. A man of practice does not need such intellectual proofs at all, into the mind of philister it does not even come, however there is a special cohort of discoursants, for which the need in such special «brain procedures» is doubtless, – they are philosophers. It is these representatives of eidovampirism, not yet becoming obsolete till now, who as before separate persistently out «consciousness from the other – living and not living – nature as something absolutely exceptional», in consequence of what «the internal world of man – his consciousness is unconditionally opposed to the external world – to all other nature», at that the difference «between I and not-I are exaggerated up to the degree of absolute difference», as a result «there is created the impassable abyss in the nature – and the hopeless contradiction in cognition: if the external and internal worlds are in essence different, then there can be just no connection between them; hence, what the internal world can cognize about the external? Nothing. How can the first influence on the second? In no way». And nevertheless, humankind «is engaged in studying of the external world and struggle against it». It is just this contradiction that «generated an interesting question about the reality of the external world». Philosophers reasoned in this way: «directly, straight we do not have any data, except feelings, sensations, notions, – in general, except the facts of consciousness»; consciousness cannot overstep the limits and therefore it «is unable to be directly convinced of that there is something outside of it»; it only assumes the existence of the external world, but it is possible to assume erroneously as well; «as in a dream we relate those people, those objects, which are imagined to us at that time, to the external world, – however the external world of dreams exists only in the consciousness of a sleeper»; therefore it is quite probable that «all world and all nature is nothing more nor less than one gigantic dream, harmoniously-logical, vivid and interesting, but nevertheless no more than a dream, a child of free creative activity of consciousness. If to take such solution of the question, the contradiction between the internal and external world is quite eliminated, only by destruction of the external world. The baby is thrown out with the bath water». But if nevertheless «the question about the reality of the external world is put – there should be given an answer to it, though the very statement of the question can seem to be a great nonsense» [Basic Elements, p. 132]. Firstly, it is necessary to note that «all similar questions arise because of words and fall into the number of vestiges of the prescientific past». For example, what is the meaning of the words of «external world»? If «to attach the spatial meaning to them», then the external world should be considered as what is outside of our body, i.e. all other bodies. But it is not the «philosophical» meaning of the words: in fact in philosophy our body is related to the external world too. A philosopher speaks: «I am thinking, and then everything, starting from my body, is the external world». Well, let so be it, but «this means that I myself, thinking, operate with the psychical associations more or less freely, but various things, being a part of my experience, including even my body, do not obey me so easily: they possess their own regularity. Here the word of «external» has the meaning of the other regularity. It is not that regularity, which determines the process of thinking, but the other, which should be especially taken into consideration, which requires an effort from us and can make troubles. That is what it means; it has and can have no other meaning». Then the philosopher asks himself the question: whether the external world is «real»? But what is reality, materiality? – «it is things, which should be practically taken into consideration, which represent a resistance, which do not go into the associative order, for which it is necessary to spend an activity, which have their own regularity. But it is the same that the characteristic of the «external world». It turns out that the question about the reality of the external world is the question about the reality of real, about exteriority of external. At the analysis of the meaning of its terms this question stands no longer simply because it appears empty and is reduced to tautology» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), pp. 257-258]. Really all is very simple: problems do not arise, if you proceed from collective and is based on the experience coordinated by it; if you consider yourself as the reference point and are based exclusively on the own individually-organized experience, you will have problems and with them also the need in the proving of the external world.

Pseudocriticism — a kind of discoursation, the technology of which «is reduced to taking words and phrases of an opponent and to opposing them the other words and phrases» that means an «objection» supported next «with the help of associations available in memory by some more other words and phrases», representing «some, internal or even external, connection with the first ones», that means «discourse», and after all «there are joined here words and phrases taken from authoritative sources», that means quotation «substantiation» imitating «the apparatus of scientific character»; to all of this «it is required that all this would have been linked in smooth sequence and would not conclude apparent nonsenses, – the question of stylistic exercise and some care in selecting of word-combinations». All this «is considerably facilitated by incomplete or unclear understanding of object of “criticism”. Then a critic is not limited by exact sense of criticized thing» and, moreover, is not limited in the references to authorities, «who, being authoritative in some other areas, are not such in the questions under consideration», or the views of which have already become outdated [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 284-285].

Psychical — what is organized individually as «an associative combination in an associative system» and, it is significant to note, what is «not a “substance”, but only a relation», i.e. «a certain connection of phenomena, a certain regularity of experience»: when elements of experience «act for us in an objective, generally valid regularity, the complexes of these elements are referred by us to “physical bodies”, when a regularity is the other, unobjective, not valid (in particular associative), we name the complexes “psychical”. Elements have neither physical nor psychical character; they are out of these definitions» [Empiriomonism, pp. 123, 54].

Physical body — 1) from the point of view of empiriomonism it is a complex of the certain elements of experience, which act «for us in an objective, generally valid regularity» as a result of «organic merging of different series of experience – different exactly by the elements»: visual, tactile, acoustic series are united into a complex and «the basis for this union is exactly parallelism of these series, i.e. a certain correspondence between the elements of one and the elements of another, of the third series», and «distinction between the series is not quantitative, but qualitative, i.e. their elements are not reduced some to others absolutely; but on the basis of mutual parallelism all of them are united around of one (usually tactile) series into an integral complex, with which a consciousness operates» [Empiriomonism, pp. 54, 31]; 2) from the point of view of tectology it is a separate complex in space-time, at that its separateness is sufficiently conditional, because «radiation, which comes from it… and represents some part of its mass, is… a part of itself developed in space-time» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].

Psychical complex — a combination of elements of experience, which appears in an associative, but not «in an objective, generally valid regularity» [Empiriomonism, p. 54]. All these complexes are organized individually, they are subjective: my perception of any physical body «arises irrespective of experience of other people and outside of correspondence with the fact whether they have a similar perception at this moment or not; I can look at a given body when no one is seeing it and turn away just when they are paying attention to it»; as well an image of reminiscence acts «in a connection of my memory without relation to the fact whether it arises in the memory of other people and in what form»; an illusion or a hallucination is verified by means of social connection: if other people see and hear the same as a diseased man, then he deals with real bodies; if, on the contrary, they ascertain that for them there is nothing from what he sees and hears, «then it is found out that in this case his experience is only subjective, only psychical – an illusion or a hallucination» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 220-221].

Psychical connection — a stably-changeable associative connection, which arises in a psychics on the basis of memory.

Psychical correlate (Ψ-correlate) — sensory tone, inherent in all psychical facts, which, being characterized by strictly polar two-sidedness, is always present in the form of one or another «coloration of pleasure-suffering» and at that which is not only qualitative, but also quantitative characteristic of psychical life, since «the clearest quantitative character is inherent» exactly in it, by virtue of what «the most dissimilar psychical feelings can be practically commensurate from the side of concomitant pleasure or suffering». For example, comparing, people find that suffering caused by toothache or stenocardia is greater than «suffering connected with the idea of imperfection of our world, or on the contrary, and also that pleasure from consciousness of an executed duty is “greater” than one from gustatory impressions of a good dinner, etc. These at first sight mysterious comparisons are quite understandable, if pleasure and suffering express progressive selection of a psychical system – increase or decrease of its energy, which can be obviously compared as “greater” and “smaller” even for the most different cases». Thus tectology considers «sensory tone of psychical complexes as direct expression of progressive selection: of positive one – feeling of pleasure, of negative one – suffering» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 177, 180].

Psychical crisis — «any transition from consciousness to unconscious and back, any change in consciousness of one image, feeling, motive by another» [Basic Elements, p. 141].

Psychical event — such and only such an event which is stated by somebody, i.e. which «has come to a field of perception or to a field of psychics». This is also concerned with a relation of psychical events: «it is as little an event as a relation of physical ones, if they have not come to a field of psychics and have not become an object of cognition. If we have stated a known connection, it has become a psychical event. And until it has come to a field of somebody’s psychics, such an event is not present, nothing has happened» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 324].

Psychical experience — 1) from the point of view of tectology «individually organized experience»; 2) from the point of view of empiriomonism immediately felt direct experience, which itself «as the starting point of any substitution» needs no longer a substitution [Empiriomonism, pp. 238, 336].

Psychical fact (Ψ-fact) — «correlative of positive or negative selection in the central nervous complex», the essence of which from the energy point of view consists in that «any process in the central nervous apparatus, with the exception of purely ideal case of complete energy equilibrium, implies the moment of increase or decrease of energy of this apparatus», and «since increase and decrease of energy are correlatively opposite, capable mutually to weaken or destroy each other, then their psychical correlative should also represent two sides or tendencies, capable mutually to decrease or neutralize each other» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 177].

Psychical form (psychoform) — from the point of view of organizational dynamics it is «separateness and unity of existence of psychical processes»; from the point of view of adaptation it is «a form of adjustment» «developed by changeability and selection in struggle of organisms for their existence» and being an element of a psychical system, which purpose «is expressed in those motor reactions of an organism for the external world, by which the psychical system shows itself» [Basic Elements, pp. 135, 141].

Psychical phenomenon — from the positions of empiriomonism it is «reflection of the most different complexes in such of them, which is designated as “human individuum”» [Adventures of One Philosophical School, p. 52].

Psychical process — a certain complex of elements, which «have neither physical, nor psychical character» and of which there are built all phenomena both of external and internal world [Empiriomonism, p. 54]. When such a complex, experienced by one individuum, collides with a differently organized complex of another individuum, the first one makes changes in it, is reflected in it. But since the organizations of both complexes are different, then reflection differs from reflected. That physiological process, which is directly connected with act of consciousness, is just such distorted reflection of psychical process in other psychics. Experiences of another individuum are perceived not in the way, as they really proceed, but only indirectly, as changes of organism, corresponding to them, and only on the basis of individual experience psychical processes are mentally substituted on the place of these physiological processes. Thus, universal substitution is just that necessary basis of communication between individua.

Psychical reaction (Ψ-reaction) — an indissoluble combination of two basic types of psychical feelings: the passive one, representing complexes-images, and the active one – volitional complexes. For example, a man perceives a certain image (assume that it is a prey), which «entails directly a volitional impulse of the certain character» (the act of capture of the prey): «originally it is one continuous complex, and only with expansion and complication of experience it is divided into two mutually associated parts» [Empiriomonism, pp. 156-157].

Psychical selection — «the main form of embodiment of “social selection”, the most constant and usual one», by means of what «there is made the development of each psychical individual, of which the society is formed». «Even the most specifically social processes, as “imitation”, “communication” of people, their “cooperation” between themselves, are realized by means of psychical selection, proceeding in separate psychics. When a psychical organism acts as a part of social whole, at this time it does not cease to be a psychical organism, does not cease to obey all psychological laws. One or other form of cooperation supposes the mastering by each person, which participates in it, of its special role in collectively-labour complex, and this mastering is a psychical change of a given person and is worked out by psychical selection» [Empiriomonism, p. 251]. Psychical selection is based «on feeling of and suffering. In the form of suffering and pleasure a consciousness distinguishes, at least approximately, decrease and increase of biopotential of an organism. In close connection with arising in a consciousness of one or another feeling, in a psychical system then there are occurred internal changes, directed in one case so that to continue or repeat a motor reaction of an organism, which has preceded a feeling, in other case – so that to weaken or cease it, maybe, even to replace it by the opposite. Psychical selection allows one organism for its short life to reach such an increase of biopotential, which by means of only external selection of deviations in psychical system would turn out maybe not earlier than in thousands of generations» [Basic Elements, p. 143].

Psychical system — a form of adjustment, which is «developed by changeability and selection in struggle of organisms for their existence», about what there is testified «the most complete series of transitions, existing in the nature, from the simplest forms of psychical apparatus up to the most complex ones», at that «the lowest step of the series is represented by system of reflexes of amoeba», and the highest one – «psychics of man with its strikingly complex system of the facts of consciousness. In process of development of a separate human person before the eyes of everyone there is made transition of unconscious psychics to conscious one», which in general and basic outline «reproduces all past history of development of human psychics» [Basic Elements, pp. 141-142].

Psychics — 1) «the highest form of adaptation» [Basic Elements, p. 130]; 2) «the basic instrument of social development» [Empiriomonism, p. 251]. The biological essence of development of psychics consists «in making of motor reactions to environment of an organism» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 182]. «The regulator of development of psychics is psychical selection» [Basic Elements, p. 243], the direct expression of which is «sensory tone of psychical complexes»: at positive progressive selection – feeling of pleasure, at negative – of suffering. By means of the schemes of progressive selection «it is probably to research the development of a psychics in general form, to determine genetically and to explain the basic types of its construction. The data for such analysis are: 1) primary material of sensations, given by external feelings and organic processes; 2) intensity of hedonistic selection, positive and negative; 3) their quantitative interrelation (predominance of one of them or equilibrium). Mentally changing each of these data in one or other side, it is possible to determine theoretically, in what direction the construction of a psychical system, breadth and tempo of its life should change» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 180-181]. As to psychical processes properly, they, just as any others, are subject to the general law of conservation of energy; in other words, psychics is «energetic, as well as corresponding physiological processes» [Empiriomonism, p. 238]. And really, «all course of psychical processes is in the uttermost dependence on the phenomena of feeding and irritation from the direction of environment» [Basic Elements, p. 72].

Psychology — a division of tectology studying «psychical (or associative) forms of experience, which are determined by its variable content» [Empiriomonism, p. 160].

Psychomanipulation — an influence of one psychics on another with the purpose to cause some or other certain changes in it, at that as the way of influence the principle of psychical selection is used: in one variant «an “influencing” person aspires to undermine and weaken some complexes in the psychics of another, creating a direct associative connection between them and “unpleasant” complexes – the condition of negative selection, – to strengthen and reinforce others, causing their association with “pleasant” complexes – the condition of positive selection» (the method of «stick and carrot»); in the other variant «they “train” another’s psychics to something, systematically causing repetition of a certain complex in it by the influence, making this complex “habitual”» (the method of “habituation”) [Empiriomonism, pp. 190-191].

Psychomonism — unity of individually organized experience, i.e. unified organization of different psychics, or, more simply, their complete identity. As a phenomenon it is really shown only in the form of psychosynergy, but as a term it is not reduced to that by the content, since in addition to equal psychoorientation, or spiritual unity, it includes first of all identical psychogenesis, i.e. equal development of individual psychics, what is possible only in an environment, identical to all individuals, and this is absolutely unreal.

Psychomotor system — the most plastic and highly organized bioadapton, or, in a detailed formulation, a way of conservation of organisms, which is characteristic for the higher representatives of the animal kingdom and which expands potentialities of their adaptation continuously, «existing in mass of forms, which are different by the complexity and represent all transitive steps of development, starting from the elementary adapter for reflexes and ending with very complex and perfect psychical system of man». At that reflex, as well as instinct, are not in themselves adapters for development, but just «from them there is originated psychical motor system of the higher animals», which is actually such an adapter for the most part. For external manifestations of psychomotor system there is characteristic a huge variety of reactions, which «have less direct character», since «an external reaction can be distant in time relatively very far from the irritation, which have caused it», and «in many cases the connection between these two facts escapes an observation absolutely»; at that the very «reactions are characterized by great changeability, inconstancy, relatively very strong instability of the form». In whole «all this system is represented as a combination of the whole millions of separate adapters for reflex, which are various, changeable, mutually connected by various and changeable connections, and owing to this which respond to various external irritations by quite various, changeable and complex reactions. This huge variety and changeability, grandiose wealth of vital manifestations presents such a material for development that it is impossible to wish better» [Basic Elements, pp. 121-124]. See central nervous system.

Psychophysical dualism — dualism of psychical and physical experience, which «is a remnant of authoritarian differentiation of spiritual and corporal nature» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 168].

Psychophysical parallelism — «a doctrine about parallelism of phenomena of consciousness and unconscious in the nature», according to which «the law of causality is strictly applicable to physical facts separately», and «psychical phenomena are connected in their turn by the known lawfulness», at that «both connections of the phenomena are quite parallel between itself, i.e. changes in the field of physical and psychical world are made simultaneously and in complete correspondence, but some cannot be recognized as a cause of others and inversely; their interdependence is not causality, but parallelism; as well as two parallel lines are not crossed, but keep constantly the connection of direction between themselves – so physical phenomena cannot transit to psychical and inversely, though the changes of both are mutually corresponding». This doctrine contradicts the law of energy and is in essence «a remainder of the static theory of “internal freedom”» [Basic Elements, p. 140].

Psychorhea (from Greek ψυχή – soul and ρέος – stream) — a so-called «stream of consciousness», i.e. a continuous change of psychical complexes in a consciousness, when arising «notions, psychical images, recollections with their derivative complexes, being grouped in masses, sometimes directly incalculable, in associations “by similarity”, mutually influencing on each other and mixing, have in themselves a tendency to diffuse in psychical environment. Emerging among others again and again, they are reproduced each time incompletely, with variations; their chains are incessantly intertwined; as a result an accumulation of them would give, at last, an absolutely mixed, chaotic tissue, if they were not connected and were not kept in separate groups by stable, strong complexes: words and other symbols, as for instance, scientific signs and schemes, images of art and so forth» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 131].

Psychosynergy — social psychocoordination, arising in harmoniously arranged society with homogeneous organization of individual experience and uniform social orientation of component individua. In folk tectology this social phenomenon has got the name «unanimity», or «common spirituality».

Public opinion — a form of social degression, representing the system of judgements and estimations, which reflect narrow-minded experience. In the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis public opinion is the means of its control and the instrument of manipulation on social consciousness.

Punishment — an influence on psychics of a punishable one with the purpose to create «a close association between a known complex, “undesirable” for a punishing one, and another – an intensively “unpleasant” complex. By this way it is achieved that the first complex, as a part of a given association, also gets negative affectional and becomes removed by negative selection». It is quite «obvious that the desirable result may not turn out first of all because negative selection is not all-powerful, because its action has the borders in its objective conditions». Really, it is impossible by any punishments to make a man stop satisfying of his basic needs, unless by destruction of his psychics. «And in general, strength and stability of one or another psychical form can be so great that it is impossible to eliminate it by means of that system of punishments which is available at the disposal of a punishing one, or even by means of any system of punishments. At that, certainly, positive affectional of an eliminated complex and the degree of its “habitualness”, and breadth of the associative connections, interlacing it with the rest of the psychics, have also enormous importance. By no punishments it is possible to undermine in psychics of a believer his belief that God exists, or in psychics of a true idealist – his aspiration to realize his ideal». Moreover, punishments not only can not lead to expected results, but quite often they lead to absolutely opposite results: for example, at «people with spontaneously-impetuous will an act of lawful “punishment” can cause volitional reactions, which simply and directly stop this act: a resistance to a punishing one, his murder, etc.». Liberation political struggle «gives mass of cases when retributions for political crimes make true, professional revolutionaries from such people who have only quite casually drawn upon themselves these retributions». The principle of «punishment», in spite of its historical necessity and relative social utility, is very unreliable method having in addition the essential disadvantage, – «excessive spending of energy of psychical system», by virtue of what «progressive development of conditions of human life should lead to limitation and exclusion of the principle of “punishment” from the sphere of influence of man on man» [Empiriomonism, pp. 191-198].

Purpose — an objective orientation of activity. In particular, if it is a question of human activity, then subjective notion of purpose, i.e. subjective notion of a man about the orientation of his own doing, can diverge with the objective tendency of his efforts. Even in a collective, which members notion of the purpose can be «identical to the smallest particulars, but nevertheless there will be no cooperation and organizationality, since there is not present the general orientation of activities: people then pursue the identical purpose “independently” from each other, but the cumulative result of their actions will appear no more than the simple sum of individually achieved results (and often even less than this sum)» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 150]. In a collective the synergy can be generated only by a common purpose, i.e. not a simply objective, but a common orientation of efforts.

Purpose of labour — «individual consumption (more exactly, conservation of society represented by individuals)». By all the content any socially-useful labour is reduced only to transforming of elements of the external nature into means of consumption by some changes made in these elements [Basic Elements, p. 186].

Purpose of tectology — «to organize the life in whole scientifically» by means of universal methodology [Tectology, v. 1, p. 297].

Qualitative analogy — incomplete structural similarity of heterogeneous systems, which «far from all descriptive elements can be exactly measured and strictly quantitatively expressed». At mathematical schematization the course of change of such systems is expressed not by identical, but only by sufficiently similar type of graphs. For example, qualitative analogy «is very significant for every possible periodic and rhythmic processes», it is sufficiently appreciable «during such two phenomena as progressive magnetization of a strip of iron and at one-molecular chemical reaction an accumulation of the product of this reaction: in both cases the respective quantity – intensity of magnetization and a number of the product – starts from zero, grows firstly rather quickly, then more and more slowly and gravitates to the limiting constant quantity» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 282-283]. See quantitative analogy.

Quality — «what is not reduced at present to quantity», i.e. a certain «uncertainty of quantitative distinction». According to the law of universal causality there are only the quantitative distinctions, and the qualitative distinctions are only «complex combinations of quantitative distinctions», which «at comparison of the heterogeneous phenomena, far from always easily give in to calculation, – and quite often even after the whole centuries of research the mutual relation of two facts cannot be still expressed mathematically». Therefore that «uncertainty of distinction», which in such cases acted in the place of certain «more», «easier», «higher» etc., began to be expressed by the word «quality»; and next, «when the concept had been denoted by the certain word, then the symbol began to be substituted in place of what was expressed by it, and there was begun to seem to people that “quality” was something quite certain, that it was the independent concept, and not the simple expression of failure in comparison of two facts». Moreover, during the epoch of statics «the inability of people to find out quantitative character of qualitative distinctions led to that there was disappeared the very aspiration to reduce the first to the second, – as was expressed in the statement that such a task was impossible to perform, that distinction of both was absolute». The law of universal change has destroyed the static picture of the world, and the organizational-dynamic point of view, being originated on its basis, in turn, has destroyed the verbal fetishism: gradually undermining «the authority of words», the new style of thinking has began to appeal to their content – to concepts, and the real connection of quantity and quality has began to be found out more and more distinctly. The good example of such connection is represented by acoustics: «if two tuning forks each give an identical number of vibrations per second, but vibrations of one are stronger at present moment, a consciousness directly establishes a purely quantitative difference – a difference of sound intensity»; but «if one tuning fork gives more frequent vibrations than another, for hearing this is a distinction of pitch of sounds» – the distinction is considered as qualitative, but it is quantitative, because it is possible to determine how much one tone is higher than another; and when the basic tone is joined by «the additional high tones with a various number of vibrations (overtones)», then a hearing perceives it as a timbre of sounds, i.e. «quality», in which as though «the last shade of quantitative comparison disappears». Or other example: «the articulate sounds of human speech represent the combinations of various tones with various overtones; and the very thought of quantitative character of their dissimilarity had came to some minds only, until it was proved by Helmholtz» [Basic Elements, pp. 207-209].

Quantitative analogy — complete structural similarity of heterogeneous systems, which «all descriptive elements can be exactly measured and strictly quantitatively expressed», and their mathematical schematization is expressed by identical type of graphs [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 282-283]. The synonym is mathematical analogy.

Quantitative relation — «a special type of structural» relations [Tectology, v. 2, p. 310], which is reduced by tectology to «dominance of one of them or to equilibrium» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 181].

Quantitative stability — 1) tectological quantity, which describes the ability of a complex to resist external actions «in the direct quantitative sense» and is equal to a number of available activities-resistances (for example, a number of soldiers in army, the coefficients of «mass» and «energy»); 2) tectological concept, expressing an organizational stability of a complex in any environment at the expense of «a number of the activities-resistances, concentrated in it». Any «two complexes of the same type, made from homogeneous elements-activities, are possible to be directly compared on their quantitative stability, except for concrete influences of environment: if in the complex A the sum of elements is greater than in B, at any case its stability is correspondingly greater at the same influences, whatever they may be. For example, inasmuch as an organism grows, so its resistance to poisonous effect of toxic substances increases at any case; whatever a poison may be used, there is required greater of it for disorganization of a greater number of the tissues». When there is analyzed a stability of a complex in relation to concrete influences of environment, then it is a question of structural stability [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 207-208].

Quantity — a definiteness of any concrete change, which is expressed by a number in relation to other definiteness of analogous change, which is taken as a standard; i.e. it is «the result of a measurement; and a measurement means a consecutive applying to a measured object of some measure and, obviously, starts with the premise, that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. Measuring a phenomenon or considering it as a quantity, i.e. mathematically, means that is what to take it as the whole, equal to the sum of the parts, as a neutral complex», in which «organizing and disorganizing processes are mutually equilibrated» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124]. According to the law of universal causality there are only quantitative relations between any natural and social processes, in regard to such relations, as quality, it is only «not clearly distinguished, complex quantitative relation» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 108].

Quasiequilibrium system — a complex system, in which complexes of equilibrated type predominate over complexes of unequilibrated type. At times such a system shows itself as equilibrium one and at other times – as nonequilibrium system, however in total sum of reactions to external actions the overweight is on the side of passive reactions nevertheless. For example: «in the type of reactions a turtle is a system of equilibrium; but each single motor reaction is disequilibrium of the neuromuscular apparatus», at that some of them, such as retraction of head and extremities in the shell, relate to the passive type, while others – overcoming of obstacles, eating of herbs, etc. – to the active type of reactions [Tectology, v. 1, p. 255].

Quasireality — nonexistent world, having appearance «as though of physical reality» and thinkable «only verbally» on the basis of extraexperienced concepts, since «we are unable to think them really» because of absolutely unremovable reason: «neither real perception nor, hence, real notion of similar sort are present in our experience; while concepts can have only existing perceptions and notions as the material». For example, every possible «analytical conceptions of imaginary geometries»: four-dimensional, etc. [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 346]

Queen — egressive center in organization of social insects – bees, ants, termites. In contrast to a patriarch a queen is «only the center of tribal life and blood connection of community, instead of manager of labour» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 104].

Racology — tectology of racogenesis and racial conjugations which in contrast to racism, an ideology of separation of people, is an organizational science studying the racial processes in anthroposphere with the purpose of joining of people into the single synergic humankind, into one global collective.

Radical reorganization — such a conjugation, as a result of which a transformation of a complex or a system is «so deep that observation no longer “identifies” the former complexes, recognizes them as the same», for example: «a conjugation of oxygen and hydrogen with formation of water, a conjugation of two mechanical impulses, giving movement by resultant, etc.». Unlike the general case for conjugation, when after connection of complexes they are conserved, i.e. they «continue to exist, only in a changed form», radical reorganization is the extreme case of conjugation, which, nevertheless, at sufficient tectological research is reduced to the general one: «retracing the elements of former complexes in new combinations, the scientific thinking as though restores for itself these former complexes, under the changed forms it finds their “indestructible” matter or energy, those activities-resistances, of which they had been composed». If, for example, oxygen and hydrogen after their connection «are not recognized» in the form of water, then chemistry continues cognitively to find their elements-atoms in its molecules «and gives the ways to separate and group them in the former systems again». Consequently, from the tectological point of view the result of any conjugation «is a system of transformed conjugated complexes», which «either can remain in mutual connection», as in the case of connection of oxygen with hydrogen, «or can be again separated in the very course of changes generated by conjugation» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 148-149].

Randomness — «a complex coupling of various imperceptible or unexplored circumstances». If there is observed some chance phenomenon, for example, «“random” internal change of a form», it should be understood «by no means in the sense that the phenomenon has not been conditioned by external causes, but only that these causes are unknown, are not investigated and have particular character». Moreover, «among huge number of forms and their greatest variety some, insignificant minority, are selected for preservation and reproduction, others – the greatest mass – for destruction and annihilation. Who decides a question, who makes a choice? In particular as though randomness, in general – causal order of things, for which randomness is only a particular manifestation» [Basic Elements, pp. 97, 79, 98].

Ratomir — the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis, or the society of the lower type with internal contradictions. All history of humankind, known and unknown to the present moment, is only its prologue: «man has not come yet». All way of its wandering in darkness of what is agreed to call «the history of mankind» is Brownian motion of the anthropoid corpuscle devoid of mind. This period, overfilled with discords, strifes, wars, the period of adelphophagy and cannibalism, i.e., to put it scientifically, the period of spontaneous sociogenesis, is the agonizing phase of birth of man, of his assembling from the teeming anthropolysis mass, from what is agreed to call «humankind». The prologue of «human history» is the history of struggle of man against man, i.e. the history of struggle inside of society. The world, in which man has been coming into being and assembling, is the world of incessant military orgies, of heca-, mega- and gigatomb sacrifices to Moloch, it is the military world, or shortly, Ratomir.

Realism — not a complete cognitive system, but «a certain way to systematic cognition of everything that experience gives. And first of all it is a labour way: for realism cognition is living, direct struggle against the nature for its secrets, the struggle, in which the matter is about real domination of man over the world. Realism does not trust in the inherent right of the human mind to give the laws to the nature, – it recognizes only an acquired right, only a right won by struggle». In cognition, as well as in life, real struggle is severe: «the enemy is terrible in the spontaneous greatness, it knows no quarter», and only «a weak one avoids direct meeting it», taking cover in “castles in the air” of metaphysics. Realism tends only to pure truth, «however severe it may be»; moreover, being alien to a compromise and hostile to eclecticism, realism «carries on the struggle for monistic ideal of cognition». The conception of realism «is the only true for the contemporary world. The time will come – it will be changed by a new, a higher point of view, – but the last will arise just from it, as its own child, as a new, more complete and perfect realization of the same vital tendencies. Cognition wins a victory over the nature on the way of realism and it will not turn off this way. The true way to the victory over the nature – that is the truth. The realism is one, as truth, but at the same time it is multilateral, as truth» [Essays of Realistic World View, pp. 4-6].

Realistic art — a figurative microhistory, i.e. a figurative chronicle and memory of humankind; from the organizational point of view it is «tectology in visual images instead of abstract schemes» [Tectology (1917), p. 71].

Reality — objectively and subjectively existing world, that means «physical and psychical world» in Bogdanov’s terminology, or in more explicated formulation – «continuous chain of development, the lowest links of which are lost in “chaos of elements”, and the highest, known links represent the experience of people, “psychical”, and – higher – “physical experience”». A synonym is «universum» [Empiriomonism, p. 221].

Reclusion — a passive reaction of a man to adverse actions of an environment, expressed by stable «tendency to self-restriction» in the form of reduction of «relations with other people» and characteristic for natures of passive psychotype [Tectology, v. 1, p. 255].

Recurrence — frequency of cycles, i.e. quantity of iterative tectological acts in a unit of time.

Reduction — a way of «adaptation to a narrowed situation» that means structural regress. Really, reducing development adapt a system «to some temporary and particular conditions, instead of to typical changes», by that predetermining, in general, its «inadaptability to an expanding, typically-changeable environment». For example: «fishes, which live in an underground lake, are subjected to atrophy of organs of vision», – it is quite natural that such an adjustment to narrowed environment «should be considered as structural regress, because it leads to reduction of organizational potentialities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276].

Reeducation — a change of basis of selection in process of socialization, which takes place «with greater resistances than simply education» [the World War and the Revolution, p. 107].

Reflection — «result of influence of one complex on another». As process a reflection occurs in full accordance to the universal formula of interaction of every complexes of experience [Empiriomonism, p. 77], according to which «any “reflection” of one complex in another is determined not only by content and form of “reflected”, but also by content and form of “reflecting”, and by this last frequently even to the greatest degree; therefore “reflection” is more often absolutely not similar to “reflected”, and almost always is immeasurably poorer by its content. For example, a sunbeam, acting on a piece of ice, causes melting in it – the process, which has no similarity with a very beam; the stellar-planetary world of Sirius, acting on retina of a human eye, causes an imperceptibly insignificant chemical change in it, not only very little similar to Sirius as a physical body, but also immeasurably, almost infinitesimal in comparison with this huge world, which overwhelms any imagination by its grandiosity; a blow of bullet in head of an animal is reflected by formation of wound and termination of vital functions – by the changes, which again have absolutely no similarity to movement of bullet» [Country of Idols, p. 240].

Reflex — an adapter for conservation of forms of life, but not for their development, since it is «a simple and invariably repeating series of movements, coming immediately after an external influence (an irritation of a certain character). In other words, and more exactly, reflex is reaction of an organism to external irritations, which differs by simplicity, monotony in reiteration», and also by «speed (comparatively with more complex reactions), and at last, by expediency», which «is caused by process of development – selection should keep useful reflexes for an organism and eliminate harmful ones». Reflexes are characteristic not only for the higher representatives of the animal kingdom, but also for the lower, including the elementary – monocytes, – which have no isolated psychomotor system, since «such an apparatus is all cell» [Basic Elements, pp. 121-122].

Regeneration — «recovery of a form at crises D», i.e. process, reverse to destruction, under which there is understood either recovery by system of its complex from its element, or recovery of all system from its part. Regeneration «never be complete and exact», since «it is always accompanied by partial destruction, at least sometimes by very small one»; at that this incompleteness is also characteristic to destruction, which always stops on those complexes of a disintegrating system, which further damage is already overcome by opposite process of recovery [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 244, 248]. Being a crisis D, regeneration keeps completely within its phase D and finally represents one of possible outcomes of dividing crisis, since in the field of breaking of tectological border mobility and plasticity of system has huge significance. Inasmuch as «activities of environment rush into where they have had no access, generating a series of partial crises C with generally destructive tendency for vital form», therefore «it is necessary that reorganization should have time to occur, and new stable borders with environment – to be formed before destruction comes too far». At sufficiently small «plasticity a recovery of form could prove to be impossible, and instead of biological limiting equilibrium there would turn out the other, inorganic one» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 239]. In technics regeneration is used everywhere, beginning at transformation of spent products of manufacture into initial products of technological process and ending, for example, with regeneration of caoutchouc, with recovery of worn rubber products (of automotive tire-covers, etc.). In the world of organic forms regeneration of the whole is observed at many lower multicellular organisms: Rotifera are especially distinguished by this – ciliary worms, at which «a segment on length of body in its tenth – fifteenth part turns still into a whole small worm. Recovery goes, beginning with area of cut, as would be expected, since it is starting point of new processes of selection. There are quickly formed missing organs according to the place of cut, anterior ones from its anterior side, posterior ones – from posterior, so at short segment in the beginning there is turned out a very short-cut form, which then becomes longer in usual proportion» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 238]. Among higher multicellular organisms there is usually observed regeneration of a part: the most known examples to this – recovery of «broken tail of a lizard, of cut leg of some tadpoles, of other, less significant and complex organs, for example, of parts of skin and epithelium of the most of higher organisms». At that, firstly, there is observed «one-sided and very limited regeneration: a lizard will restore the tail to itself, a tadpole – the paw, but a torn tail or a paw restores nothing, but is simply destroyed further», and secondly, «if there is removed more than some minimum, then there is made incomplete regeneration, for example, on the place of wound there is reproduced only protective layer; or regeneration isn’t made at all, and all organism perishes. In the plant world both complete recovery, and partial regeneration are spread wider than in the animal kingdom: differentiation of tissues is generally less; while plasticity, although it is rather not greater, but less too, turns out to be relatively sufficient, because tissues of plants are vitally steadier and are destroyed not so quickly in the area of cuts and breakages, so more often regenerative processes have time to carry out their work». In the inorganic world, for example, at recovery of crystals «differentiation is incomparably less, and at presence of some conditions each separated particle is capable to reproduce the specific form of the whole» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 239-240].

Regress — decrease of organizationality of a complex, connected with loss of one or another activity in process of the adaptation to a narrowed environment. Regress should not be confused with degradation, since it creates a certain adapter of a complex to environment nevertheless, while degradation doesn’t do, moreover, increasing inadaptability of a complex to continuously changing environment finally destroys it and can bring to ruin [From Psychology of Society, p. 51].

Regressive adapton — an adjustment to conditions of a narrowed environment that predetermines a reduced development of the system in the sequel. In tectology there is also used the more brief term – subadapton which in its formal version is designated by А- and is read as «adapton-minus».

Regroupings — «changes and replacements of connections», i.e. secondary disingressions with secondary ingressions, which «mean formation, – together with former or instead of former ones, – of new connections as well» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 194].

Regularly-changeable environment — a variety of definitely-changing environment, when there is known a tendency of change of set of its actions on a concrete system, i.e. a law of change of the conditions of environment.

Regulating mechanism — a combination of organizational processes in complexes, which essence is in preservation, strengthening, distribution or destruction of arising new forms, and the basic content is opened in the concepts of «conservative selection», «progressive selection», «dynamic equilibrium», «biregulation», «assimilation» and «disassimilation». It is the second universal tectological mechanism, being responsible for destiny of generated forms and operating under the scheme: preservation or destruction [Tectology, v. 1, p. 189].

Regulations — a type of degression of some social systems in the form of a certain complex of conditionally-compulsory norms, which perform in these systems the role of sieve, i.e. of a way of organizational selection [Tectology, v. 1, p. 193].

Regulator — «an adapter, which serves to maintain some process at a certain level». For example, a regulator of course speed: «if it is put, let us assume, on 1000 revolutions of fly-wheel per minute, then at each transition of speed over this level it slows down the motion; and when, on the contrary, speed does not reach this size, it operates in accelerating way». It is an example of bilateral regulator, but there is also unilateral type: for example, «at steam-boiler they do not suppose excessive steam pressure, which could blow it up». Thus, «regulator is a sort of “casting” form», since «by means of it there is caused “convergence” of different phases of a given process to a certain quantity» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 96].

Relation — the only one fulcrum of cognition in the world of continuous change of forms of changes. What «is really unchangeable, on what it could stop», by what it could be guided and make a start in its development, this is «not in things in themselves», which are process, continuous change, «but in their relations» [Basic Elements, p. 41]. The terminological synonym is connection.

Relative — «it means interrelative to a certain complex of conditions» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 322].

Relative resistance — a tectological quantity which characterizes a stability of system to a certain external action and is equal to ratio of limiting quantity of such an action, which the system is capable to overcome, to a given quantity of present action of the same kind. The system is stable in relation to a certain activity of environment, if its relative resistance is greater than one. Let us suppose that «in a mechanism called a complex block at lifting of weights one rope should bear, for example, 1000 kg, meanwhile as the other one – only 500, the third one – 250, the fourth – 125 kg, etc. If first of them is capable to resist to the tension in 1500 kg, then its relative resistance will be 1500:1000, i.e. 1,5; if for the second one the tension in 600 is limiting, then its relative resistance will be 1,2; if for the third one it is only 250, then the relative resistance will be 1; there will be a complete disingression between cohesion of its particles and action of weight», – and the rope will be broken. It would be broken all the more, if in its any part the relative resistance has turned out less than 1. Consequently, «if there is changed a quantity of external influences or a structural state of the very system, then it is sufficient that in its any part at any short space of time the relative resistance is established below one, and the destructive process will occur; how much significant and deep it would be, this, certainly, depends on all the sum of organizational conditions. A bogatyr who has fallen asleep for a minute can be killed by a paltry dwarf. It is sufficient that on a surface of a man’s body the epidermis has been injured by a small wound in 0,1 millimeters of length and width, that makes up less than one hundred-millionth part of his surface, and that pathogenic microbes had a real access to this small wound only for one second, – and the organism is infected, perhaps, mortally». Stability of a system depends on the least relative resistance of all its parts at any moment – the law of huge vital and scientific significance which covers all organizational and disorganizational experience relating to ingressive complexes. In any struggle it is used as a principle both of attack and defence: «in a war, in a simple fight, fencing, chess game, hunting, etc. A whole number of the most complicated maneuvers, absolutely incomprehensible for uninitiated man, is often directed so that to get a relative resistance below one in some point at some foreseen moment», and, on the contrary, tactics of defence aspires «to support a quantity of relative resistance not below one in any threatened point at any moment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 217].

Relative truth — always limited, but however «the real truth, and the best truth in a given system of conditions». The relativity of truth means that «within the limits of this system of conditions, within the limits of this environment, of this situation it is truth nevertheless, and there is no reason to dispute against it»: if to change or extend a situation, «it will turn out to be insufficient» [Speech at Session of Communist Academy (1924), p. 322]. No cognition can give unconditional, i.e. absolute truth: in cognition there is absolute only negation and there is constant only change. Any «truth is changed. The history of development of human mind is continuous process of transformation of an old truth into delusion and arising of a new truth from it. And the development of cognition will sooner or later turn every new truth into a delusion». It occurs so because «cognition only reflects the reality, while a reflection can never completely correspond to the reflected thing». However with improvement of reflecting apparatus a very reflection becomes more perfect and reproduces the reality already more precisely. So «at the cost destruction of an old true there is bought a new one», which is fuller and more perfect than the former. Humankind «needs truth for an activity; and since a human activity is limited at any given time, then a limited, i.e. relative truth of cognition can be quite sufficient for it»; but it is also obvious that «with expansion of activity a former truth becomes insufficient and should be changed» [Basic Elements, pp. 8-9].

Relativistic effects — widely known from the formulas of the special theory of relativity, such phenomena as «shortening of measures», «deceleration of time», «addition of speeds», which «are quite objective optically (projectively) and subjective, when they are assigned to reality». These effects can be compared to mirage, which is «quite objective optically, but subjective, when and since this image mixs up with an object» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 341].

Relativity — «optical mutuality» as a methodological principle of «the special theory of relativity», i.e. preservation of laws with change of optical coordinate systems; or, that is the same, it is bisubjective coherence, i.e. «correspondence of observations of two observers, which take correlatively-opposite positions» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 345].

Religion — as ideology of authoritarian type it is a kind of social degression, i.e. «an instrument of preservation of authoritarian organization» [Questions of Socialism, p. 431]. Religious world views were the first way of monistic explanation for the world. They «arose and got domination during the epoch of still weak division of labour in society, – owing to this, they did not include some significant specialization, was remarkable for simplicity and wholeness. All material of experience was grouped around of chain of authorities, as their precepts or directions; methods were undifferentiated and came in essence to authoritarian causality; the unity of construction was achieved in the developed religions by means of centralization of authority in image of supreme deity» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243]. At the present time teaching of religion at schools is related to the vestiges of authoritarian-conservative pedagogics, since «a religion teaches to think about life as to the order established by the higher authority, where everyone performs the predetermined destination humbly and submissively, i.e. without initiative and without criticism» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 236].

Religiousness — «authoritarian world-understanding and world-feeling» [Questions of Socialism, p. 336].

Religious fetish — an authoritarian fetish, which «united people and disciplined them for social life. For example, god was in essence only expression of patrimonial, tribal, national unity, expression of people’s connection; and god’s commandments, dictates expressed the order of life of collective». Thus, under religious fetishes «there was hidden collectively-labour connection; it was their real basis» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 89].

Religious thinking — a type of thinking, «inseparably linked with authoritative labour relations (leadership – execution or authority – submission)», which «has arisen from them and reflects them also». Of such thinking there is characteristic «creation of imperious fetishes and demand humility, obedience from people». These eidogenes, sociomorphous by origin, are «idealized images, generated by fantasy on the basis of real domination of “authorities” over people in their social life. In a word, religious thinking is authoritarian, and nothing more» [Belief and Science, p. 40].

Religious world view — «the first historically known form of cognitive monism»; or, more precisely, «authoritarian system of thinking, in the purest kind characteristic to authoritarian-tribal and feudal society». As its basis, i.e. the main «principle of all classifications and any regularity», there is the «scheme of command – execution, with its applied variants as authority – submission, qualitatively higher – lower, spiritual – corporeal, sacred – ordinary, heavenly – earthly, etc.». The religious world view «implies as though automatically-polarizing mechanism, which divides into two by one type both actions and objects; even the very cognition acts in the same scheme, revelations from above – passive learning from below». From the sociolabour point of view such «a polar scheme is simple transference of practical polarity of authoritarian relation of production – between organizing and executing labour to the sphere of thinking», i.e. the basic at the given historical stage form of cooperation became the basic form of thinking, having crystallized in the universal cognitive scheme. In the terms of tectology it is formulated briefly: oikospheric organom determines eidospheric one. However «it itself is not yet the primary principle of social life», since «the basic relation of production between people has its origin in the basic technical relation – between man and instrument. Only when the development of instruments had led to organic, stable connection between a given instrument and a given individuum in collective, only then also between people there could be developed such organic connection, when man became the constant instrument of another individuum in collective». Therefore in reality tectological connection is the following: «the single organizational principle, moving from technics to economics and then ideologically crystallizing in cognition», or briefly, technospheric organom determines oikospheric one, and then eidospheric too [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 330-331].

Renegade — a person, who has changed his beliefs, an apostate, an ideological traitor. At that it is necessary to note that «who has honestly changed the beliefs, he is certainly not a renegade; this name relates to those who bears malice to yesterday’s friends after change of beliefs, who takes upon himself their persecution specially and with particular desire» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 341].

Renegation — «transformed form of vengeance» in relation to former like-minded persons, shown usually as «bearing malice to yesterday’s friends», persecution of them in every possible way, under which «there is hidden vengeance for own mistakes, transferred to others». Renegation «sullies a person and humiliates a collective» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 341].

Rent — regularly collected revenue from a property, capital or land, which doesn’t demand an enterprise activity from the collectors. The historically primary form of rent was absolute rent, in which all surplus labour was embodied at feudal exploitation. With coming of capitalism, which transformed the ways of exploitation radically, «the basic embodiment of surplus labour became profit». However capitalism «didn’t destroyed up to the end that monopolistic attitude to land and forces of the nature, which served as the basis of rent; on the contrary, capitalism developed it in the finished forms of private property. Therefore rent should also remain, but in the transformed kind of capitalist rent» [Course of Political Economy, p. 45].

Rentier — a social parasite, «living by percents from capitals and by dividends from shares, finally lost organizing and in general productive functions» [Questions of Socialism, p. 290].

Reorganization of system — such inevitable transformation of a system at every conjugation, the essence of which is in selection of elements of a system, their connections, groupings, at that it is in negative selection first of all, because for each of former complexes, being a part of the system, a conjugation «means inclusion in its composition of a number of new combinations, which are alien by the origin and are adapted not to this composition and construction». Therefore any reorganization «cannot be made without a waste of activities». However both «a waste can be more or less», and «advantages of a connection are also various by degree, as well as in their character», by virtue of what «an overall result of reorganization can be both plus and minus», i.e. either an increase of adaptable ability of system, or its decrease [Tectology, v. 2, p. 47].

Repentance — «fruitless waste of psychical forces, which are necessary for work», or «vengeance, directed on self», more known as remorse [About Proletarian Culture, p. 341].

Representative selection — not direct selection, but «indirect, by means of one element – of a characteristic, acting as a kind of representative of others, “representing” them». In a different way «man cannot work in general, just because there is limited his knowledge of things and there are limited his practical methods in relation to them»: «at any given level of his technics objects are available to him only by some their sides only to some degree, although with development of technics this availability increases». For example, «getting of gold from alluvial deposits comes to different methods of selection»: in the first stage – cleaning by water – «all properties of gold are “represented” by its high specific gravity», in the second stage – processing by mercury – «properties of gold are presented by dissolubility in mercury», in the third stage – action of nitric acid – on the contrary, already by insolubility in this acid. All three representations are basis of selection, and as it expands the results of selection become more and more exact [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 167-168]. To use of representative selection on successively extending basis there is reduced process of discernment of illness by a doctor: «there is determined symptom A, it is characteristic of a whole series of diseases», which are represented by it, «but symptom B is connected with it; it is also characteristic, maybe, of many illnesses; but a known part of this first series is not characterized by it and can consequently be rejected; there is remained narrower circle», of which symptom C «permits to reject some more others, etc. – until there will be only one kind of diseases, being gone through all these acts of selection». However «it can happen that selection will eliminate all known complexes of a given sort, since representation is always based on previous experience, which is sometimes insufficient; then a doctor ascertains a new, unknown disease for him» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 171].

Reproduction — the way of preservation of organizational forms: 1) in the inorganic world – simple increase of number of similar complexes, for example, reproduction of crystals in an oversaturated solution or «of a dew drop on a grass leaf in atmosphere, supersaturated with vapor»; reproduction by fission and copulation (merging in pairs) of so-called «fluid crystals» (of the type of Lemann’s «living crystals») [Tectology, v. 1, p. 72]; reproduction in technics: stamping, copying, duplicating, multiplication, etc.; 2) in the organic world it is the way of «propagation of self-similar», peculiar to living organisms, which gives material for selection and provides changeability, succession and continuity of development of forms of life; for example, asexual, vegetative and sexual. At that biological reproduction is «creativity of new forms», but not simply a «multiplied reiteration of old ones»: since any formation of new forms is based on joining of former complexes, and each such joining leads to formation of new forms. Biological reproduction can be mainly described in the following way: «in process of change of a vital form, in some its elements there is repeatedly reproduced one of former stages of existence of the form; each such reproducing is a separate form of life; it can pass again in series all changes of the parental form, including the reproducing of self-similar». Being «the most perfect way of preservation of forms of life», biological reproduction «is at the same time something greater, than simple preservation, and something smaller»: greater – «because into the place of one form there is become a few», and smaller – «because descendants are not quite the same than parents» [Basic Elements, pp. 81, 83]. Particularly it is necessary to note reproduction of higher organisms, which demonstrates the unique capability to reproduce mature form from one cell. As to reproduction of all living organisms, it «tends to increase the number of biological forms ad infinitum; but the area of those conditions, at which conservation of life is possible, is limited». The basic limitation «depends on the fact that the life on the earth relates to the number of transformations of radiant energy of the sun, while the quantity of this energy, got by the earth, is finite and strictly determinate». Therefore «from the number of arising forms there are kept only some, the selected minority; the others – the huge majority – are destroyed» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 70].

Reproduction of higher organisms — the self-preservation of highly developed forms of life by means of extremely developed regeneration, when only «one cell, having separated from a highly differentiated whole, consisting of millions, milliards or even trillions of cells, “regenerates” the specific form of the whole step by step in full measure. Really, such a property belongs only to one type of cells, only to ovum; even milliards and trillions of the other cells, separated from a whole, do not give the similar recovery» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 241].

Repulsion — the «separating, disorganizing» tendency, elementary for simplest systems [Tectology, v. 2, p. 197].

Research — a cognitive plastic plus a purpose. Every research accomplishes a purpose only in generalization, in «finding out of similarities», without what «both limits of distinctions, and their significance remain unknown» [Questions of Socialism, p. 393]. A pattern of research is called a method and represents «a type, a general form of cognitive plastics», moreover, «the laws of science are the laws of research, developed, constant forms of cognitive processing of a certain sort of notions» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 203].

Resistance — an activity, which is opposed to another activity and as tectological quantity measured «by that sum of energy, which is spent on its overcoming». In tectology this concept is not independent, since it comes to the basic term «activity», which is considered from the other point of view: for example, activity of one of two fighters is resistance for another, and inversely. «When any activity, decomposing or combining, is directed towards certain complexes, it inevitably meets in them a resistance, more significant or weak. This resistance is measured by that sum of efforts or in general by that sum of energy, which is spent on its overcoming. It gives us a certain characteristic of the very complexes: it depends on their composition, i.e. on the elements, of which they have been formed, and on construction, i.e. on interrelation between these elements. So, a resistance, which the organism of an animal or a plant renders to our action, is determined both by properties of its organs, tissues, and by that connection, which exists between them» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 118-119].

Resolution of system contradictions (counterdifferentiation) — 1) conjugational processes between those parts of a system, as the result of tectological divergence of which there have arisen disorganizing contradictions in the system; 2) a result of such conjugational processes, which can be either positive – transformation of system, dismissing it from contradictions, or negative – destruction of system.

Rest — a fictitious term, which by its real-practical content is «symbolically-abstract representation of the basic vital tendency – self-preservation», but at present time it is «an obsolete symbol, already useless by its static character, since then for humankind the preservation of a life goes not through its conservatism, but through its development». Nevertheless, until now «it is had to ascertain the erroneous, confused use of the term “rest”, which have still kept at relativists. Usually they speak: “of two mutually-moving systems either can be accepted as being at rest, considering then another as moving”. It is incorrect: none of both systems can be accepted as “being at rest”: both of them are at movement, which is relative and mutual. And the possibility, of which it is the question, is in practice not in the least that: coordinate system – our instrument of research – is possible to be attached (really or mentally) to either of two complexes (a body and an environment or two bodies, of which either symbolizes environment for another in that case). Only the coordinate system will be “at rest” in relation to the complex, chosen for it, because it would be connected with it, as its real or thinkable part» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 338-339].

Restrictedly-changeable environment — a sort of definitely-changing environment, from the direction of which a complex undergoes certain changing actions in some known range. For example, «all environment of life on the earth, all environment, in which humankind acts and develops, with its usual vibrational amplitude of its various conditions in astronomical, atmospheric and other cycles can be considered as restrictedly-changeable». Changes of such a type of environment «are previously taken into consideration scientifically – either in their aggregate or in broad total combinations» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 209].

Reverse casting form — a form, which is produced from a casting form and reproduces it, i.e. a cast, which casts its own casting form. Usually in technics such an intermediate «casting form is prepared by model of what should be cast», for example, «by its covering with a plastic, hardening, refractory substance». The method of reverse casting form is used in holo-, photo- and phonography. Human speech and its understanding are constructed in the same way, and «through all complications the same scheme can be discerned in any other symbolics too – of script, art, science» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 94].

Reversible connection — a connection between complexes of one level of organizationality, when an influence of one complex on another is equal to a reverse one [Tectology, v. 2, p. 105].

Revolution — as sharp change of a tectological form it is either organizational crisis, which represents «breakage of tectological border between two complexes», or on the contrary, disorganizational crisis, which is «formation of tectological border» between them. From two tectological separatenesses the first type of crisis, crisis C, forms «some new system, with further transformations, with arising of connecters, of partial or complete disingressions», etc., while the second one, crisis D, on the contrary, «creates new separatenesses from a given system». All crises without exception, observable in life and nature (catastrophes, overturns, revolutions), pertains to these two types: for example, a social revolution represents «breakage of social border between different classes», boiling of water – «breakage of physical border between liquid and atmosphere», reproduction of a living cell – «formation of vital border between its parts, which get independence», death – «breakage of vital connection of organism», etc. [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176].

Revolution-omega (revolution Ω) — «that great, last revolution, which changes the very type of social development, which puts harmonious development in the system of general cooperation on the place of contradictory development in the struggle of classes» [From Psychology of Society, p. 271].

Revolutionary sociogenesis — a series of revolutions, accompanying all the spontaneous stage of sociogenesis, beginning from neolithic and finishing with socialist revolution. Revolution is born from contradictions of social development, the basis and essence of which «are reduced to discrepancy between the labour content of social life and the frameworks, in which it is put, – between development of “productive forces” of society and its “ideological forms”». Motive force of revolution is «deep, continuously sharpening contradictions of social being of people»; organizing force of revolution is «social consciousness directed on these contradictions». When after long and agonizing development both of this factors reach the maturity, then there is occurred a revolution, sweeping away «everything that stands in the way of growing life, that has became the fetters and chains for it and that generates contradictions intolerable for it. Impetuous creativity of revolution creates different, new cover for social process – new forms organically corresponding to its new vital conditions. The social whole rises to a next, higher step of the organization. A new cycle of historical movement begins. An accelerated progress of life, at first rather harmonious, begins then to bring contradictions again. The social body outgrows the clothes again», intrasocial struggle becomes again sharpened, – and again «social overturn is about to happen», and so it proceeds up to the latest revolution, which changes the type of social development – up to the revolution Ω. In the essence «revolution is social criticism and social creativity, reaching simultaneously the highest intensity in the impulse of ecstasy covering the society. Its practical work – elimination of the general contradictions of social being and consciousness – and its creative work – creation of new forms of collective life – have one and the same sense, one and the same purpose. It is harmonization of human existence. But not a small, daily “harmonization”, eliminating small particular contradictions of life and creating small particular adapters within the limits of all the same general forms; no, it is harmonization of the very general forms with their general content. Such is the work of revolution, such is its fundamental difference with “evolution” within the limits of ordinary life of society» [From Psychology of Society, pp. 269-271].

Rhizome — asymmetric chain connection of two types: chain egression and chain degression, or, if to unite them under single briefer name, vertical chain connection. For example, construction of army relates to the first type, while system of multilevel protection – to the second one. There are regular rhizomes, if their construction is homogeneous, i.e. all elements of rhizome are identical, and irregular ones, if their structure is heterogeneous. In addition to structure, rhizomes differ in tempo, subdividing into relatively stable rhizomes-persistents (for example, structure of church, university or army) and into developing rhizomes-processes, which, in their turn, depending on direction of their development, are subdivided into divergent and convergent rhizomes-processes (for example, nuclear reaction and correspondingly nucleation).

Rhythm — periodicity of processes, which as the universal way of conservation of their form is infinitely reproduced in the universe at all its levels in the form of every possible waves or vibrations. For example: «waves of electricity or of light in ether, waves of sound in air and in other bodies, sea waves, etc.; even astronomical movements of stars represent periodic complex vibrations around the common centers of gravity. In the live of an organism not only pulse and breathing, but almost all organic processes are subordinated to oscillating rhythm: sleep and wakefulness, work and rest, waves of attention and so forth. Alternation of generations can be considered as a series of waves of growth and decline of life, which superpose one on another. There is well-known the role of rhythm in collective labour, in music, poetry, in all kinds of human creativity» [Questions of Socialism, p. 396].

Rigid system — a nonplastic system, which speed of adaptation lags behind tempo of changes of environment. Such system is doomed to destruction, since it always «keeps adapted to that moment, to those conditions, which go away into the past increasingly further, but not into new time with its new relations». A striking example of rigid systems is represented by religious sects, which biopotential decreases in consequence of conservatism of their dogmas [Tectology, v. 2, p. 160]. See complex of conservative type.

Rigidity — incapacity of a system to adapt to quickly changing conditions of environment. A synonym is nonplasticity.

Robbery — an organizational method which is widespread in the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis. During this period, especially in the epoch of individualism, «everyone acts by virtue of his interests» which «go through the way of his understanding», i.e. they «are understood through the organizational form», which has became the way of thinking – mentality. For example: «bourgeoisie grown in the certain economic conditions, in the struggle of competitors and monopolists», is unable to understand «its interests in the form of friendly cooperation of people, it can understand them only in the form of robbery. This is its organizational method» [Paper at the session of Socialist Academy of Social Sciences on September 14, pp. 147-148].

Rule of concentrated action — a consequence of the law of least, which at solution of organizational tasks to overcoming of definitely-changing actions or resistances requires «concentration of activities on the limited field of application» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 223, 229].

Rule of «connecter» — see the principle of common third.

Rule of degeneration — a consequence of the law of divergence, which says that a system, being organized with a definite purpose, gets inevitably its own purposes, different from original.

Rule of dynamic equilibrium — a rule of tectological analysis, which says: «where there are no visible changes, there is accepted presence of two equal and opposite tendencies, mutually masking each other» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 122].

Rule of directed tectogenesis — a consequence of the law of struggle of organizational forms, which says: «an increase of organizationality in some directions is achieved at the expense of its decrease on others» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 126].

Rule of double analysis — in tectological research obligatory requirement «to consider complexes not only in their internal construction, but also in their relations to environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 162].

Rule of hierarchy of laws — a consequence of structural hierarchy of complex and simple systems (see the principle of matryoshkas), which says that «laws of simple structures… are always and completely obligatory for more complex and dominate over them» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 131].

Rule of identity — a rule applied in tectological research allowing transition from the energy point of view to the point of view of selection and inversely by virtue of their identity. Such a method is acceptable in consequence of that in tectology positive selection «is determined as overweight of assimilation over disassimilation, i.e. as increase of the sum of elements of complex», and its twin – negative selection – «oppositely to this»; more simply, the first one is identical to increase of energy of system, and the second – to decrease [Tectology, v. 1, p. 207].

Rule of ingression — a rule of tectological analysis, which says: «two complexes, of which either has common elements with the third one, are ingressively connected by it between themselves» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160].

Rule of maximum — an organizational rule, which is effective for solution of tasks, concerning an indefinitely-changeable environment, which says: the maximum of relative stability «is achieved by uniform distribution of activities-resistances between all threatened links of a whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 229]. At solution of tasks, concerning a definitely-changing environment, the rule of concentrated action is used.

Rule of offensive — the known «rule of military tactics: “an attacker has the advantage”». This is one of particular applications of the principle of relative resistances, the essence of which in this case is in the following: «who strikes a blow first, he chooses its place and the moment», «concentrating his forces on them», and «when the first thrust has been made, a relative resistance in the given point turns out to be already lowered», and at continuation of the attack «its chances are certainly increased». As a particular conclusion of the universal principle the rule of offensive is applicable «to any struggle – economic, political and ideological. And meanwhile very often, as the experience shows, who, creating something new in these areas, would foresee inevitability of struggle for it, nevertheless they learn all practical importance of offensive as soon as having experienced a sufficient number of blows» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 227].

Rule of practical sum — one of the rules of organizational analysis, which says that practical sum of an action can turn out to be «greater than the result of arithmetic addition of former actions, – it occurs when resistances are added with even greater waste than given activities or are not in the least added» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 147].

Rule of presence of environment — an obligatory requirement to consider environment at studying of a complex, since «environment is always available», and empty space does not simply exist [Tectology, v. 1, p. 165].

Rule of prime cause — one of the important rules of tectological analysis, according to which «the initial point of every change of forms lies finally always in their environment» [Empiriomonism, p. 246]. This rule is a consequence of the principle of selection – «the most expedient method of cognition», the essence of which is in considering each system «as quite caused by its environment in its changes, conservation and destruction» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 74].

Rule of relativity — a widely used rule in tectology, according to which an organizationality of a system is always determined in relation to quite concrete activities or resistances. For example, from technical side an army subdivision can be a highly organized system, but from ideological – an extremely disorganized. This rule is a consequence of the principle of tectological relativity.

Rule of selection — «the practical and theoretical principle in application of selection: the wider is the basis of processes of selection, the more definite, stricter are its results» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 168].

Rule of stability — the purely tectological rule of stable development of a system, according to which a system is stable only when its organizationality outweighs intrasystem contradictions. At that internal contradictions can be significant enough, but nevertheless «can make no hindrance for a system to exist and even to progress» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 122].

Rule of vital balance — the necessary condition of development of any organism, if in vital activity of which «the expenses of energy are greater and more complicated – than its compensation should be greater and more complicated». This rule is one of particular applications of the principle of energy [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 266-267].

Russian idea — to construct Ladomir on the Earth.

Sacculina — extreme degeneration of catagenic egressor into the total vampire-parasite. For example, the international financial oligarchy, parasitizing in the organism of all humankind.

Sacculinism — the limiting form of social parasitism, when connection of catagenic egressor with social system develops into polyrhizome. For example, global parasitism of the contemporary transnational financial capital.

Scheme of increasing possibilities of adaptation — see the principle of broadening of horizon of development.

Scheme of historical layers — an important empirical generalization, fixing relative stability of complexes of a complex system, which have arisen in different phases of its systemogenesis, at that complexes of earlier origin «on other equal conditions» are firmer «in relation to destroying influences than those which formed later». It is explained by that development of any constituent complex of a system is regulated by the mechanism of selection, which operates continuously during all time of its existence, i.e. in a complex there is continuously gone on «the process of elimination of less stable connections», of the elements less strongly connected with it, and of «fixing of more stable combinations». Therefore if a complex is kept and supported in a system, then it should become still more stable and still stronger [Tectology, v. 2, p. 278].

Scheme of organizational tendency — see the principle of limiting equilibrium.

Scholasticism — a form of discoursation, historically arisen on the basis of «poverty of experience and domination of authority» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132]; in other words, a philosophizing cut off from reality, which argumentation is not the empirical facts, but a reference to authority. For example, the known medieval epoch of scholasticism was the epoch of «historically forced discoursation», which development owed to the same two causes: «firstly, the experience was terrifically poor, there was almost no exact knowledge, the base of experience was very narrow; secondly, in addition, authority reigned in the life, there were obligatory recognized positions, to which it was necessary to reduce all». Naturally, in the conditions, when there is few data and there is required a reference to authority, «it is not necessary to reason scientifically» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 261].

Science — «the organized system, which covers some sum of collective experience» [Socially-technical Foundations of Geometry, p. 122], or, more precisely, «the system of norms of expediency, which organize the technical experience of people in planned way» [Questions of Socialism, p. 63]. In a brief formulation «the science is the organized socially-labour experience», or more shorter, it is simply «the collectivism of experience» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 361, 410]. «The practical sense of science» consists in that it is «the organizing instrument of all practice of humankind» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, p. 16]. Just for this reason the science «lives only in solutions of its tasks, instead of in the general concepts, definitions, delimitations: they are, certainly, its necessary instruments; but while there are available only they, the science is not yet present», because only by practice and «not by reasoning about its general concepts there is determined its biopotential and value» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 309-310]. The main destination of science is in prediction: it, essentially, «exists just only to predict». Clearly, it cannot exactly foresee what has had no exact example. But «if there has been known in general what is, and there has been known in what direction it is changing, then science must draw a conclusion what will turn out from that. It must draw this conclusion in order to people could be conformed to it in their actions, in order to them not to spend their forces fruitlessly, acting contrary to the future, retarding the development of new forms, – but so as to they could knowingly work for acceleration and lightening of this development» [Questions of Socialism, p. 90]. The egressive center of science as a whole is tectology.

Scientific analogy — structural similarity of studied complexes, which is proven by practice and is got on the basis of the tectological idea of «the unity of construction of the most various objects of existence», in other words, reasoning from the notions «about the universal types and laws of construction, about the structural unity of the universe». At that it is necessary to note, that «any scientific analogy arises in a researching consciousness originally only in the form of prescientific comparison, collation, conjecture, and already then it develops up to the highest cognitive type» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 291, 290].

Scientific character of a method — «its cognitive utility», which «is revealed only by practice of its application» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 42].

Scientific cognition — «creation of norms of expediency for practical doing of people» [Questions of Socialism, p. 63].

Scientific concepts — not «narrow-minded terms» with «uncountable number of meanings» and concepts «not philosophical, but developed over the centuries with constant testing on experience». Scientific concepts are «the most exact», but it does not mean that they have a single meaning: «the multimeaning of words cannot and should not be destroyed; without it there is and there can be no movement; there is necessary the stability of meanings for each given discourse; but without that plurality of meanings, which creates the opportunity of development, a word would turn into an obstacle to development». Scientific concepts «are differentiated on experience, in observation, in experiment», moreover, they develop with growth of observations and development of experimental technics. For example, the concept of matter has developed in this way: from 5-6 scientific concepts of matter, which exist today, there are most accepted now the atomic, electronic and field ones, at that all «these concepts of matter are quite scientific, and none of them can be thrown out» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), pp. 253, 258, 251, 289].

Scientific fact — «what is determined by an experiment», what «permits to predict a result exactly at realization of the same conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 286].

Scientific form — a specific structure of systematization of experience, which «is characterized by methodicalness and logic connection in processing and arrangement of a material: by striving for consecutive application of certain, exactly determined methods, for joining up of that what is most similar, and for separation of that what is most different» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 85].

Scientific history — reconstruction of the past of humankind on the basis of the doctrine of historical monism, which allows to find out how on the basis of a certain mode of production «there is developed all life of nations, their customs, institutions, ideas and at the same time important cultural events too» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 7], in other words, how with development of technosphere there are developed oiko-and eidosphere.

Scientific monism — created by «sequential-organizational thinking» and verified by practice, the unified cognitive system of the scientific notions, which have got as the result of series of gradual empirical generalizations – «from particular analogies to universal, from universal analogies to the general laws of world construction» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 291].

Scientific paradigm — a social degression of the second order; easier speaking, a general significant system of scientific concepts, i.e. some complex of settled cognitive forms, generally accepted in science at a certain stage of its development.

Scientific philosophy — «the instrument of the general leadership of human practice». It is based «on completeness of collective experience and is controlled by collectively-developed methods» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 15-16].

Scientific prognosis — a tectologically grounded description of probable development of a certain system or its degradation.

Scientific reasoning — a powerful means of cognition by the heuristic potential which represents a grammatically and logically normalized process of organization of words and scientific concepts into a system of conclusions where elements are «concepts with their covers – words», instruments are words, and «cognitive connections are established after a number of intermediate links» checked by practice [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 131].

Scientifically-organizational estimate — a result of tectological analysis of organizationality of any system from the point of view of its quantitative and structural stability, from the position of its interrelativity to environment and further progressive or regressive development. Being scientifically-objective, such an estimate represents the most exact measurement of organizationality of a system [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

Scientifically-organizational point of view — see tectological point of view.

Scientifically-planned system of production — «triune harmoniously proportional organization of the most heterogeneous elements: things, people and ideas. The instrument of its realization can be only the unified organizational science», i.e. tectology [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 116].

Scylla of bioprogress — amount of radiant energy of the Sun, in which borders there is possible bioprogress and which is determined by difference between solar energy falling to the Earth and reflected by it. Reproduction of bioforms «leads to that one disappeared form is replaced by several new ones. At a known stage of the existence each of them is capable to make, in its turn, some new, similar ones, etc. Thus, there is turned out what is called “geometrical progression of reproduction”: if during the period a the number of forms of such a kind is doubled, then during 2a it should be quadrupled, during 3a – to increase in 8 times, during 4a – to increase in 16 times, etc. Under this law reproduction tends to increase a number of forms of each given group to infinity. Actually such infinite increase does not happen. And if a certain increase is just observed in some cases, then quite often there are also the opposite phenomena: in spite of reproduction, a given group of forms decreases or even disappears. There are some conditions, which in the enormous majority of cases do not allow the law of geometrical progression to be shown. In the nearest way these conditions consist in the fact that from a number of arising forms far not each has time to be conserved till the moment of reproduction, that from children only some, and for the most part, a very few, have an opportunity to become parents, in their turn. It is a considerably important fact, which forms the basis for the contemporary biological theory». As is known, all arising bioforms are changed and destroyed by force of external influences: «receiving a matter from an external environment and assimilating it in the certain forms, an organism compensates that loss of tissues, which occurs inevitably in process of its interaction with external environment and which destroys a very organism quickly» [Basic Elements, p. 89]. But the area, within the limits of which a bioform carries on struggle for existence, is controlled by biogeolimit, which, figuratively speaking, is Scylla of bioprogress.

Second law of Bogdanov — a fundamental empirical generalization, which says: «the identical forms of processes under the identical influences undergo the identical changes» [Basic Elements, p. 31].

Second principium of tectology — the second precondition of universal organizational science, the essence of which is that all processes in the world are considered as organizational, and all objects in the world – as systems, reduced to several types according to the method of organization [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 69-73].

Selection — the universal regulating mechanism, causing natural conservation or destruction of organizational forms; in other words, the term «selection» is taken to mean the basic dependence of any organizational form on its environment, at that tectology applies this concept «to all and every complexes, their systems, connections, borders» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 189]. From the tectological point of view «no question of structural development, from universal one up to atomic and still lower, can be in the slightest degree exactly solved apart from this universal application of the idea of selection, passing through all steps of existence». Thus, «any event, any change can be considered from the point of view of selection as preservation or multiplication of some activities, consolidation and strengthening of some connections, elimination, reduction, weakening, breakage of others in this or that complex, in this or that system». The factor of selection always is environment [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 153, 152]. From the energy point of view any act of selection represents an increase or decrease of energy of a complex: in the first case selection is called positive, in the second one – negative. As a whole the mechanism of selection is complex: even «the most elementary acts of selection separate into various processes of conjugation and disingression». For example, as it has already been noted, positive selection of some system «means an increase of the sum of its energies by way of their assimilation from an environment», but an act of assimilation, on the one hand, is a conjugation, and on the other one, – a disingression, inasmuch as «assimilable activities should be torn away for this purpose from those complexes of environment, to which they have belonged»; consequently, the regulating mechanism of selection «is not something separate from the forming tectological mechanisms, but only their certain combination» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 206].

Self-contained (closed) system — see isolated complex.

Self-organization — a world-wide organizational process and nothing more, since in the scientific status this term can be used only in the most general sense, only in the meaning of the highest generalization, namely of tectophany. World tectogenesis is just the strictly scientific essence of the term, since in any assigned fragment of the universe an increase of organizationality is already secondary process in relation to world environment and is entirely regulated by selection. As to not strict scientific use of the term, then in such cases self-organization is usually understood as process of adaptation of more or less plastic systems to changing conditions of environment on the basis of internal regroupings, some combinations of which increase inflow of energy and decrease its entropic waste. For example, the self-organization of humankind is struggle against the internal biological and social spontaneity, which weakens its struggle against the external nature. From the energy point of view the tendency of such process is expressed by the principle of minimax. Any observable self-organization is always consequence of tectophany, i.e. of general «increase of organizationality» [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

Self-organizing system — a complex plastic system. For example, a living cell, a living organism, a biological population, biogeocenose, a human collective, etc.

Self-similarity — a tectological characteristic of a complex, when in the structural relation its parts are similar to it as to the whole. According to the principle of matryoshkas such structural identity is characteristic to all spheres of reality.

Senescence — one of the major crises in life of an organism, corresponding «to that imperceptible moment, not differing noticeably by anything, when ascending line of the life changes into descending: overweight of vital assimilation over disassimilation stops, so that to give place to their inverse ratio then» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 214]; in other words, tectology considers senescence «as a result of unfavorable external relations for an organism, or, that is the same, of unfavorable environment: if the sum of its activities decreases, consequently, the environment takes much away from it and does not give a sufficient material for assimilation». Proceeding from such an understanding of the problem there is quite naturally arisen the task: «to create an environment, which is sufficiently favorable for a gerontal organism, or, that is reduced to the same, to change this organism so that it was possible to create such an environment for it by our usual means. It is an unsolved problem; but there are no other reasons to consider it unsolvable except for conservatism of thinking. Partially under known conditions even our medicine solves it nevertheless. And the nature has fundamentally solved it for the organizations higher and lower than our organism – for unicellular beings and for collectives: their senility is not final, it can change into renovation» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 110-111].

Senility — «generally organizational illness of an organism», which «is a special case of the general organizational fact – of contradictions of system divergence», i.e. «by the nature it is not a partial injury of an organism and even not a simple sum of partial injuries, even of a great many», but this illness is exactly «tectological one, covering all construction of an organism» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 89, 78-79]. In other words, senility is general structural illness of an organism, when a breaking of organizationality of its functions is a result of temporal divergence of its parts, which essence is in that different organs and tissues during the life of an organism begin to develop at different tempos, in consequence of what the vital divergence increases between them. For example, in a human organism, consisting of hundred trillions of cells, as a result of their vital struggle of many years some part of tissues and organs degrades, since their organizational ratios and conditions of the internal environment become worse; in compliance with the principle of minimum this undermines the biopotential of all colony of cells, that means «progressive lowering of energy» which «leads for an organism little by little to the most unprofitable simplification of its construction: the most differentiated tissues undergo dying out of their cells, the least differentiated – cells of connective tissue – are reproduced instead of them, but, certainly, cannot carry out their special functions, and the organism finally dies» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 210-211].

Sensation — 1) an element of psychical experience [Empiriomonism, p. 7]; 2) elementary interaction between complexes of complex system of «a man – world environment». From the energy point of view a sensation is both a process, and a result of action of external and internal environment on organs of sense, arising «only where there is a difference of tensions of energy between the sentient apparatus and its environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176].

«Sense of property» — a «psychophysiological “coalescence” of an organism with the stably-close objects: clothes, which is a necessary complement of covers of a body, an instrument, which is thousand and thousand times merged with the hand in operation, – they are almost organs of a body, they “belong” under it, more precisely, perhaps even not “under it”, but “to it”, as its skin and a hand. But together with it they “belong” to its collective. Only real disintegration of the primary connections of collective can make the right of property from that – the socially-economic and socially-ideological fact, – the sacred private property with the right of use and misuse» [Historical Materialism and Questions of Primitive Life, pp. 20-21].

Separate complex — a complex, containing activities, which are not present in adjacent complexes to it or which are also present there, but are not found out in boundary area with it, i.e. which interrupt somehow or other at transition from them to this complex [Tectology, v. 1, p. 171].

Separateness — the final result of breakage of connection. Tectologically this concept means «an interruption of some activities (resistances)», when, for example, a resistance, equal and opposite to an activity, makes up the complete disingression with it [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 169-171]. However «in our experience, which all is united by world ingression», there is and there can be no «complete breakage of a connection», i.e. «complete, absolute separateness does not exist». And since any separateness exists and develops according to the law of divergence, moreover, «between separate complexes there is actually probable not only pure divergence, but also a convergence», then existing «degrees of separateness are quite various». Therefore for solution of a concrete tectological task «at times it is enough to take separateness into consideration, at other times it is necessary to consider also a connection together with that» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 7, 12].

Separateness of bioform — complete disingression, lack of organizational connection between one form of life and others, the basic criterion of which distinction is «difference in direction of processes of struggle for life»; on the other hand, the lack of this difference is found out, «or, that is the same, some unity in direction of vital struggle», there is established lack of separateness of bioforms. Take, for example, man and wolf: whether it is possible to speak here «about separate forms of life, about different direction of struggle for life?». It is possible, «because an expense of energy of man is directed to preservation of “form” of man and by no means of wolf, and vice versa. Actions of man are not directed to preservation of life of wolf, whereas actions of wolf are directed to this part. The direction of struggle for life is different, the struggle is separate, and the forms of life are discrete. There is especially sharply acted separateness of struggle and separateness of forms, when difference in direction of struggle comes up to a degree of a direct contradiction, when energy of man is spent for destruction of the vital form of wolf and vice versa. For a man and another man a direction of struggle for life proves to be different in the mass of observations, sometimes different up to a direct contradiction. Therefore two men – two separate forms of life. However in some cases the expenses of energy of one man lead to conservation not only of himself, but also of another one, and vice versa. In these cases it is possible to speak about similarity of directions of struggle (man A struggles for life of A and B; man B struggles also for life of A and B); in these cases both of men present as mutually connected inseparable elements of one higher vital form – society». Thus, difference and similarity in direction of struggle for existence, in other words, separateness and jointness of this struggle – that is the basic criterion, by means of which relative separateness or inseparability of bioforms is established [Basic Elements, p. 67].

Separateness of objects — a relative support of cognition, with which disappearance «complete chaos would reign in the world, and there would be no place to any cognition». Separateness of an object «is admitted on the basis of difference between it and its external environment», and also «on the basis of similarity and mutual connection between its constituent elements», i.e. in separateness of an object «there is also meant its internal inseparability during any given moment – inseparability, certainly, relative». According to the principle of matryoshkas «any separateness together with others is united into some higher separateness and itself breaks up into particular separatenesses» that just actually expresses the relative character of separateness of objects: «human body is undoubtedly a special object; but its each organ, each cell, a particle can be also considered as a special object, i.e. as a separate and single process to a certain extent»; but, on the other hand, «it is necessary to recognize humankind as an object too, in relation to which a man is a part; in its turn, it serves as an element of the more extensive object – the planet of the earth», while «the earth is an element of the new separateness – solar system», which «with twenty millions of similar others make the single separateness of a higher order – the star system of the Milky Way», and, at last, «the whole thousands of the same systems are discovered by telescope in the form of insignificant vague spots on the firmament» [Basic Elements, pp. 22-23].

Sexual reproduction — such a way of conservation of vital forms, which creates new potentialities for their development continuously. The mechanism of this most complex, but at the same time also the most effective, form of adjustment is carried out under the scheme: conjugation – selection – counterdifferentiation. Conjugation of two sexual cells «gives a new material for regroupings and their selection», however «the significant majority of this rich material of new combinations will be always unfavorable. But life is not without reason recurred by reproduction in countless copies. Let only very few combinations will prove to be successful – so they will remain and will be maintained by further reproduction» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 44]. Meanwhile «it is necessary to notice that in sexual reproduction the work of negative selection acts in general particularly visually. When there are crossed considerably diverged kinds of one species, for example, the various breeds of house pigeon, developed by artificial selection, then there is resulted the return to the initial, undifferentiated type – to the type of wild pigeon, from which these breeds originated», in consequence of what there is rejected «a whole number of elements and groupings, which were got in the process of divergence and fixed at each breed by heredity; an acquirement of one conjugant is not suited for construction of another and collapses under this contradiction, and also inversely. Here the “counterdifferentiating” role of sexual reproduction is especially clear. As is seen, it not only increases biopotential weakened by divergence, but in addition it counteracts an unchecked divergence in general; and it is necessary, because such a divergence, narrowing the life of each form, would sooner or later lead it to ruin on the basis of one-sided development, of adjustment to limited, special conditions and of impossibility to adapt at their change». Just for this reason «sexual reproduction is particularly necessary for higher organisms and less important for the lower: the more complex are the forms, the more easily there is occurred and the more considerably there is developed the divergence in posterity» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 49-50].

Sexual separateness — «a way of making of new combinations of vital properties» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 77].

Shout — an acoustic form of direct communication, which serves for coordination of actions.

Siege communism — a special case of communism of extremity, arising in conditions of economic or military blockade of a city or a state, when «authorities are forced to organize even distribution of products and confiscate private reserves», in this case individual labour force can «be considered as the property, which is necessary for requisitioning for the common rescue: there are introduced forced labour for all citizens, general labour service». Such a system of economic relations is not collectivism, since it «comes not from new comradely form of cooperation, but from external necessity», therefore «the organizational form can remain strictly authoritarian». However the cases of introduction of general labour service show that «siege communism, coming from the sphere of distribution, can pass also into the sphere of production», where the role of such a communism «is mainly reduced to regulation of remains of production process, to putting its going decline into the frameworks of the greatest planned character and to adapting it for the task of as far as possible long maintenance of the life» of a city or a state. Such an attribute of collectivism as «planned organization in the sense of initiatively creative process is possible just only as a quite partial phenomenon, – but on the whole it is excluded by the basic state of things, by the lack of surplus social energy, at the expense of which the development proceeds» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, p. 84].

Sieve — as «the typical instrument of selection» it is its model [Tectology, v. 2, p. 167].

Sign — a certain degressive complex, which shows itself as a representative of some other complex.

Signaling — «transference of energy from A to B and inversely» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 154].

Similarity — along with distinction it is «the primary form of relations between facts. More complex relations are made up of distinctions and similarities». Recurring «combinations of similarities and distinctions generate the concept about continuous connection of the phenomena», and the very «process of determining of distinctions and similarities, taken in its whole, forms cognition» [Basic Elements, p. 148].

Simple crisis — a fictitious concept in tectology or, at least, a sufficiently conditional, since «there are no simple crises: each crisis in reality represents the chain of elementary crises» of two basic types. For example, a junction of two droplets of water is seemingly a simplest crisis C. However «even such unimportant mechanical process does not go without waste of activities: without destruction of some, even insignificant, number of atoms or, at least, without energy radiation. But this loss of activities means their separation from the forming whole», i.e. this means a crisis D, which supposes arising of complete disingressions. Moreover, not only a given crisis C, but also any other comes to the end with creation of new system with new border, and last one «can turn out only by such a way that new complete disingressions appear where they have not been. Consequently, the final moment for any crisis is D». For example, disintegration of a drop of water into two – it is seemingly an elementary crisis D. However «the drop could not come apart “by itself”; this is the consequence either of its growth, for example, at the expense of moisture-supersaturated atmosphere, or of intervention of any else outside force, which breaks off the connection between the parts of the drop. But both cases represents nothing but an addition of activity from outside; for this purpose they should get through the former border of the complex that supposes breakage of the complete disingressions, being there. Consequently, moment D is preceded with moment C as its condition». Thus, the tectological formula of any crisis, both of connecting and of dividing, is the same: CD, but at that under each of two signs there is meant «not a single elementary crisis, but the whole intertwining series of them» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 215].

Simple form — such a form, which is not further analyzed in scientific research. Since there are no absolutely simple, perfectly indecomposable forms, therefore this concept is conditional. In other words, «“simple” forms are those, to what the cognition has not still managed to apply the historical point of view fully, for which it has not yet found their internal history, and so far it deals only with their external history» [Basic Elements, p. 48].

Simplest socioform — primary sociogenerating form, which comes to «simple, almost unconscious aspiration of individuals to keep closer to each other» [Basic Elements, p. 159].

Simplest systems — electronic, atomic and molecular systems [Tectology, v. 2, p. 197].

Simplification — a tectological act, proceeding under the sign of negative selection, as a result of which action on «internal relations of a system there is arisen an increase of its organizational strength and stability»; simpler speaking, it is harmonization of a system [Tectology, v. 1, p. 210].

Skeletal complex — see degressive complex.

«Skeletal» connection — see degression.

Skeleton — «a means of preservation, fixation of a system form». The organizational meaning of any skeleton «is based exactly on its smaller flexibility, plasticity in comparison with the main part of the system» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 247].

Skin — a highly elastic degressive system of animal organisms which has a complex construction and carries out different physiological functions. The main role of skin – protective one, which «consists in that, taking (“assimilating”) the energy of external influences, skin partly absorbs it, partly transforms it by the elasticity and transmits (“disassimilates”) it to other tissues in such a form, in which this energy can be got by them, not destroying their construction, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 145].

Skull — a two-complex degressive system, into which composition there are entered: cerebral cranium – a degressive complex protecting the brain and organs of sight, of smell, of hearing and of equilibrium from damages, – and visceral cranium – a degressive complex protecting the initial part of respiratory and digestive systems formed by it. Being the skeleton of head of vertebrates, skull determines its form and has a sufficiently complex construction, for example, the skull of an adult man consists of twenty three bones. Complete ossification of a skull (when the constituent bones harden thoroughly) fixes a volume of brain finally, which plastic tissues are hampered in the development, and «it occurs already in narrow limits, next after reaching of them it stops absolutely. Brain, for example, contained from all sides in cranium, which has ossified to a considerable part rather early, increases in the mass more slowly than other plastic tissues, though it is higher than all of them by the organizationality, and it develops mainly towards complication. Skull of a gorilla ossifies still much earlier and differs in huge strength: it is considerably thicker than our skull, and where we have “sutures”, which increase plasticity at least slightly, a gorilla has thick high bone crests. Depending on this a gorilla’s growth of brain ends in very early age, and the size of brain is considerably less than at man, several times» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 137].

Slaveholding society — a mixed type of social organization: «half exchange, half authoritarian» since «slaveholding economy was organized inside as wholly authoritarian», while «between economies exchange connections dominated» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 389-390].

Sleep — from the point of view of adaptation it is a protective «adjustment, which is colossally widespread in the animal world», solving, firstly, the task of survival of living organisms in the time of day unfavourable for them, since it directly «decreases the threatening dangers», and secondly, the task of economy of energy, so long as it «stops not only visible movements of organism, but also perceptions of external feelings and work of consciousness» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 163-164]; from the organizational point of view it is «a border area of psychical chaos and psychical experience», which represents a fragmentary organized stream of the vague feelings, being in the uncertain and changeable relation to the system of experience: «fluctuating images, unstable combinations – origination of the order among the shapeless material of life and intrusion of the shapeless life into the order of experience». A dream minimizes the contact of an organism with the environment: «the external impressions are eliminated, the displays of life are reduced to vegetative processes, nutrition of tissues of the organism prevails over its expenses, reactions to the external world are absent, except for few reflexes»; during a sleep the system of experience «is temporarily as though curled and disorganized», however it is enough for a sleeper to wake up so that he may again «find himself in the world of experience, in the sphere of conscious life» [Empiriomonism, pp. 37-38].

Smoothing of contradiction — the second type of overcoming of contradiction, related to the neutral way of structural optimization, at which there is taken place either unilateral or bilateral change of the different functions or parts of a complex, which are in mutually contradictory interrelation.

Social — what «is within the limits of “human”, but not of what is outside of man». For example, means of production and its products are not social, since they are «objects of the external nature, an environment transformed by social labour», but not a social environment, «being made up of social forms, which are really inseparable from social beings» – of people [Empiriomonism, p. 265].

Social activity — an organized complex of individual activities. Common orientation of individual activities, i.e. synergy, increases a social activity.

Social adelphophagy (from Greek αδελφος – brother and φαγος – devouring) — the limiting form of waste of social energy; in other words, extremely catagenic variant of struggle inside of society, characteristic for all prehistory of humankind and directly or indirectly proving in the form of war and terror, or of reduction of reproduction; in short, it is regress of social system in the form of direct and indirect depopulation. Social adelphophagy of open type is a clear and indubitable evidence of the obvious fact that «man has not come yet» [Questions of Socialism, p. 46], what is impossible to tell about its more latent forms, which already less clearly testify to predatory or extremely uneconomical squandering of social energy: take for example such a known and sufficiently widespread case, when «creative workers fight in heavy struggle for existence at the minimal earnings, and even without work at all, but nevertheless they do their work» and quite often perish, working at full stretch, while «anyone lucky person such as Goethe, during the long life working at favorable conditions», creates much «more than tens of needy geniuses and talents, some of which, maybe, were not less gifted by nature» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 272].

Social being — «construction of society, the basic forms of its life» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 280].

Social causality — a special case of the principle of adaptation, expressing «the chain of successive adjustment, going from the very basis of social life, from technically-labour interaction with the nature, to more and more far of it, as though higher and higher laying areas of social process»; as a result such a form of social degression as ideology «is finally determined by production conditions» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 285, 283].

Social complex — interconnected «set of various social adapters, partly quite developed, partly outlived themselves, partly underdeveloped; it can be, for example, a whole society or a whole class of society, or a whole ideological area of life of a certain class, etc.». Social complexes are made in «different kind and composition, but their usual common feature is absence of spatial continuity. The bearer of social life is a human organism; and elements of the same social form are usually a part of different human individuals as their psychophysiological adapters or coincide with these individuals directly. A social complex – whether a “technical adapter” or a “norm”, or an “idea”, or a “class”, or a “group” – is spatially scattered and disconnected at all its vital unity». Conservation, development and destruction of a social complex depends on social environment, and this dependence is expressed by social selection [Empiriomonism, pp. 255-256, 261].

Social connection — connection between people, the basis for which is «unity of labour process as social struggle for existence» [Empiriomonism, p. 311]. From the point of view of tectology «the basis of social connection» is represented by labour ingression [Tectology, v. 1, p. 187], while from the point of view of empiriomonism – by «positive affectional, which is possessed by a notion about one man in psychics of another: when people become “unpleasant” one to another, then preponderance is got by such reactions, which separate them and move away mutually» [Empiriomonism, p. 194].

Social consciousness — ideological system of all «forms of organization of experience», in short, ideology. But «ideology is expression and understanding of life», and life in society «is fragmented, it is not the same for different classes. Depending on different position of people in production or about production their vital conditions, their interests, aspirations, their point of view on world around are different», what, naturally, «finds to itself different expression, generates different ways of understanding», and as the consequence «there is turned out not one social, but several class consciousnesses». Moreover, «even the separate groups of big classes, differing between each other not in basic and main conditions of life, but in more particular and secondary, work out to themselves a partly special ideology – a “social-group” one» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 265-267]. Thus, social consciousness of complex social system represents a differentiated enough social degression.

Social counterdifferentiation — elimination of class differentiation, which is carried out in the phase of conscious sociogenesis at realization of the collectivist ideal. Since «the present class differentiation with its contradictions is a phenomenon of world scale», then social counterdifferentiation is also a process of the same scale [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 73, 77].

Social degradation — a disorganization of a society, during which its social energy decreases and its structure becomes simpler. The history of the ancient world demonstrates visually as «human societies can go sometimes back, fall into decline, decay». The contemporary society is also not proof against decline. However «for degradation the sufficient reasons are necessary», while «in the life of the contemporary society it is impossible to specify them». A radical degradation could be caused by its internal contradictions, but only «in the event if there would present no sufficient forces and elements for the development; but they are present, and the same social contradictions have developed them and multiplied till now. Productive forces of society grow continuously, the enormous class of society grows and is organized, aspiring to realize new forms. Therefore there are no serious data to expect reverse movement, degradation of society; there are immeasurably more grounds to think that it will continue the way and will create new forms» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 90-91].

Social degression — sphere of ideological forms, which after technical and economic forms «make the third layer, “superstructure”», and at that «in the development they are determined by the first and second groups of forms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 154]. Simply speaking, social degression is ideology. Historically it is possible to recognize four dominant types of social degression: primitive, authoritarian, individualistic and collectivistic [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 291]. As system of certain organizing adapters social degression according to their basic types is made in the first, second and third order.

Social development — see sociogenesis.

Social differentiation — «fragmentation of society» into social groups and classes in consequence of historically developed division of labour, at that «the typical relation of social groups» is specialization, while «the typical relation of classes – domination and submission». It is necessary to note that «of itself division of labour in society is still far from equivalent to its fragmentation into groups and classes»: really, the beginning of social differentiation is in technical process, however groups and classes «get the properties of defined and stable social complexes, when they have definitely-different ideologies, by what there is just caused stable-different direction of social selection in the environment of these collectivities»; in other words, «true separateness of social groups and classes begins where from division of labour there is born mutual misunderstanding of people. Thus, the basis of these social divisions is in technical process, in “production”; but their forming moment is ideology or, more exact, “ideologies”» [Empiriomonism, pp. 296, 327, 297].

Social dipole — extremely polarized two-complex egressive-degressive social system, in which in addition to degression, which protects system from harmful activities of environment, there is also internal degression, which protects central complex from activities of peripheric complex, harmful to it. Such dipole is similar to condenser, in which the role of insulator is carried out by internal degression. The tectological mechanism of arising of extremely polarized social system is the following: «each system divergence means, certainly, disappearance of intermediate groupings: selection, being favourable for extreme divergent tendencies, is naturally unfavourable for middle groupings: and it either destroys or “polarizes” them, i.e. supports and strengthens the same tendencies inside of them, in consequence of what their elements are distributed between extreme groupings» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 73].

Social doing — see human doing.

Social egression — a special asymmetric connection in society which concentrates human activities and is realized in the form of power or real control. Such is the connection of a patriarch with the members of tribal community, a commander with the subordinates, a leader with the people, a conductor with the orchestra and, in general, any chief or authority with people involved in the sphere of their influence.

Social energy — the sum of energy of a certain social system relative to its environment, accumulated by «“adoption” of energy of environment in technical sociolabour process», at that «social labour of people, changing the external nature, transform it in such a sense that energy of social system in relation to its environment increases, energy of environment in relation to it decreases». Such «relative change is just quantity of vital plus of social system, of its “adoption”». In this sense also all production in whole represents continuous «creation of such environment» that energy of social system in relation to it would be maximal [Empiriomonism, pp. 264-265].

Social environment — set of external for an individuum or social system social activities, under action of which they are, i.e. which are taken in relation to them [Tectology, v. 2, p. 110].

Social fetish (sociofetish) — a specific deformation of the form of cognition reflecting the social relations domination over people «interpreted as constant active intervention of some impersonal forces in their life, which are imperceptible in their real form, but insuperable for any attempt of resistance». In contrast to all other deformed forms of cognition a sociofetish has the social character of origin and appears at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis. For example, «exchange value» arisen during the epoch of individualism «is the first and most typical of these “social fetishes”; it dominates over people in the market, often ruins them mercilessly; but what is it – this cannot be understood by a fetishist of the market, its labour essence is hidden from him by impenetrable cover; This is the cover of contradictions and struggle, cloaking by itself the real cooperation of people in the social whole. Such social fetish by virtue of imperceptibility of the content looks like an empty abstraction; and at the same time, as a uniting moment of a huge number of phenomena, it serves as their “organizing” cognitive form, as their “explanation”. “Goods are sold and bought in such-and-such ratios because such is their value”– that is the formula of socially-fetishistic understanding of the facts» [Empiriomonism, p. 317].

Social fetishism — a perverted form of cognition, which is «adapted to internal contradictions of collective existence» and «expresses the general disorganizationality of social system of production». Social fetishism «develops initially in the sphere of exchange and competition, where it is directly sufficient to organize the contradictory content of experience cognitively», and in the sequel in process of its development it gets the form of «metaphysically painted world view with abstract-empty highest generalizations» such as «essence», «substance», «force», «absolute», etc. Social fetishism is characteristic for disharmonious social systems at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis [Empiriomonism, p. 324].

Social form (socioform) — «separateness and continuity of existence of particular social processes. Such is its wholeness. In the analysis it acts as a system of interconnected individually-psychical forms, which correspond to socially-useful labour actions of an individual. Any separateness is relative, and consequently social forms can be of various degrees of complexity: the same form decomposes into a number of simple ones (social forms too), and enters, as an element, into the composition of more complex one. The most complex social form is that which characterizes by itself all social process in its whole; it coincides not completely with that form of life, which is usually called society: society is understand as set of people connected in social process; but in a separate individual not each psychical form is shown in socially-useful actions, not each enters, as an element, in a social form. Consequently, the widest social form is “society” minus its asocial individually-psychical elements». But «since the basic content of social processes consists in joint labour struggle of group of people for their existence, then social forms cannot be something other than forms of social labour». All set of social forms represents the unified complex of three interconnected groups: technical, socially-production and ideological forms [Basic Elements, pp. 158-159, 156, 162]. All of them are subject to selection, the ways of which «are various and are not limited to reproduction or death of individuals, because the very social forms are supraindividual». For example, such social forms, as a social group or a class, can undergo both negative and positive selection, «irrespective of life or death of component individuals», since a social group and a class «represent not so much an aggregate of persons as a system of relations between people, at that these relations exist, clearly, not in the air and not in a scientific abstraction, but are embodied in certain, mutually connected, psychophysiological adapters of people. This system of relations can come to ruin, and corresponding adapters of people can atrophy», and then a social group or a class disappear, though the people, being a part of their composition, continue to live. Selection of social forms «occurs depending on all their environment, both social, and extrasocial (on social nature and external nature). But an influence of extrasocial environment is extremely slow and turns almost to a constant comparatively with quickness of development of social processes: it is that “natural selection”, to which tens and hundreds thousand years are necessary in order to develop some significant change of vital forms. As to social development passes large stages in hundreds and even in tens years; such quickness of selection depends, evidently, on the other part of environment, on social nature». In primitive tribal society, in which «social environment was relatively insignificant, its role in human development was also negligible, and speed of development was little different from that which corresponds to “natural selection”. And that colossal increase of speed of the progress, which turned out since then», – the merit of social selection [Empiriomonism, pp. 245-246]. And if «during primitive times social man was in thralldom of the external nature», then, owing to the progress, he «got on with the nature and learned to adapt to its direct actions»; but «having gone out of authority of the nature, man was brought to a heavy hand of contradictory social relations», and «until he gets on with them, they are the cruel necessity for him, the source of internal contradictions, the invisible external enemy». But in addition to that they are the basic and necessary condition of life of man: «the power of social forms over man has the limit in time», but «the dependence of his existence and destiny on them will not stop until there will be no society» [Basic Elements, pp. 203-204].

Social group — social differentiation of the first sort, «arising because of development of specialization» [Empiriomonism, p. 327] «and representing not so much a set of persons as a system of relations between people». These relations «are embodied in certain, mutually connected, psychophysiological adapters of people». If a system of relations has collapsed, and the corresponding adapters have atrophied, then the social group disappears, though the people, being included in its composition, continue to live [Empiriomonism, pp. 327, 245].

Social history — history of global or any local social process.

Social ideal — ultimate information compression of social ideology, its logic end and «its highest characteristic» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 256].

Social instinct — from the tectological point of view it is a way of intraspecific coadaptation of people, increasing activity and adaptable possibilities of any human association; in other words, it is quite «certain organizing adapter», the essence of which «consists in aspiration of a man to keep together with other men and to do together with them and equally with them». This aspiration forms «the psychical basis of any sociality». The direct predecessors of social instinct «are gregarious and family instincts, so widespread in vital kingdom», and «in its initial manifestations» it «meets also in quite a number of other social animals. But man has the greatest development of this instinct, both in the sense of breadth – today it unites all humankind to a certain extent, – and in the sense of complexity and variety of manifestations – in different measure it colors the most diverse elements of socially-labour process» [From Psychology of Society, pp. 66-67].

Social norm — social degression of the third order, having no «separate physical existence», since it «represents the system of psychical groupings in a number of human persons, belonging to a given society. But it does not in the least hinder to that, on the one hand, it forms a certain vital unity – “social form”, on the other hand, it is sometimes “adapted” or “not adapted” to its environment». In other words, it undergoes positive or negative selection, i.e. either conservation, or destruction, at that «it occurs in no way only by feeling or early destruction of those persons, in which it is embodied»: a social norm «can be consolidated or be weakened and disappear at preservation of all its bearers; their psychical world – the considerable part of that environment, on which destiny of a given form depends, a contradiction with this psychical world – with the system of “experience” of these people – leads mostly to destruction of only the very norm, and people, in whom it has lived, continue to exist without it» [Empiriomonism, p. 245].

Social parasite — a catagenic complex with zero sociolabour function [Tectology, v. 2, p. 112]. Social parasites «live not in the sphere of socially useful work, but almost exclusively in the sphere of consumption», at that, «accumulating energy at the expense of labour of other people, they look for outcome to it not in creativity, but in lechery, perversions, in refinements of consumption», that «leads to weakening of psychics, to decay» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 97-98].

Social parasitizing — a form of adaptation to social environment of catagenic complex with minimal sociolabour function and with maximal consumer one [Tectology, v. 2, p. 112].

Social plasticity — easiness of change of forms of social adaptation. For example, under collectivism by virtue of development of general technical methods «transition from one speciality to another becomes more and more easy affair», since «the content of labour of workers becomes increasingly similar, psychology of their work – more and more homogeneous» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 243-244].

Social practice — purposeful collective labour doing, all sense of which «is possible to be expressed in this way: to organize human activities in order to organize the world for humankind further and further, winning a victory over spontaneous forces» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 113]. The basic tectological task of social practice is «organization of external forces of the nature, organization of human forces, organization of experience» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71]. A synonym is labour.

Social process — 1) «a process of cooperation of people», i.e. combined organizing human doing [Empiriomonism, p. 263]; 2) «the process of social adjustment of people to external nature and to own mutual relations» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 213]. Social process «has three sides: technical, economic, ideological. In technical one the society struggles against the nature and subjugates it, i.e. organizes the external world in the interests of the life and development. In economic one – in the relations of cooperation and distribution between people – it is by itself organized for this struggle against the nature. In ideological one it organizes its experience, its feelings, creating from this the organizational instruments for all its life and development. Consequently, every task in technics, in economics, in the sphere of spiritual culture is an organizational task, and at that a social one» [Questions of Socialism, p. 429]. The role of colossal accelerator of social process is acted by social selection [Empiriomonism, p. 246].

Social progress (socioprogress) — increase of organizationality of society, directly dependent «on breadth of communication between people»; therefore «the greatest speed and energy of progress, the greatest its versatility and harmonicity can be reached only in such a society, which will have comradely cooperation as its social form, and as its frameworks – the borders of humankind». Such a society will arise in the stage of conscious sociogenesis, when «the basic engine of progress» will be not «intrasocial struggle», which «wastes forces and dissipates creative attention of man», but «direct struggle of man against the nature», connected with accelerated maximization of social synergy, when «the forces of development will become unbounded» [Questions of Socialism, p. 76].

Social revolution — a typical crisis C, since from the tectological point of view it represents «breakage of social border between different classes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 176]. The essence of revolutionary crisis is in the following: «activities of rising classes are restrained, squeezed by force of dominating classes», i.e. activity of suppression is greater for the time being; however «growth of the first and degeneration of the second into parasitism change continuously the correlation», and «there comes the moment, when both quantities are equalized», then «social whole loses the stability; and then there is begun breach of lower classes through those frameworks, in which the pressure of the rulers has kept them», i.e. there is taken place a social revolution, or a breakdown of social dipole [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 213-214]. If just to consider already the very process of breakdown with «tectological microscope», then tectological picture of social revolution will be the following: old system of social equilibrium becomes unstable, in it «there are observed spontaneous movements of elements and tissues of the social whole and their “chaotic mixing”»; «in social environment there are destroyed or blurred the less biopotential parts, for example, the groups and classes, which have degenerated in the direction of parasitism»; simultaneously «there are become stronger and relatively increased more biopotential ones; and eventually from all of this there is formed a new system of social equilibrium». Moreover, «if an observer of such a revolution has wished to determine scientifically its final result a priori with the greatest probability», then he should use one of the tectological ways of research – the method of limiting equilibrium: «firstly to decompose mentally a social whole into its elements – classes, groups and to ascertain exactly “the nature” of each of them, i.e. its real functions in the life of the whole and historical education in the previous phases of its existence and struggle»; as the result «it will be found out which elements are objectively less biopotential, which ones are more, elimination of which and strengthening of which can be expected in the catastrophe»; then the solution of the task «will consist in that outlined final set of elements is mentally allocated in the system of equilibrium, where each of them would take that position and would carry out that function, which correspond to its social nature, taking as far as possible into consideration also that additional historical education, which it is capable of getting from revolution». And as to reliability of such a prediction, it «will depend on accuracy of socially-organizational analysis put in its basis» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 222].

Social selection — such «selection of social forms by action of their social environment», which accelerates social process [Empiriomonism, p. 246] and represents «a special, social form of causality». As «the most particular sort of selection» [Empiriomonism, p. 251] it expresses «the dependence of preservation, development and destruction of social complexes on their social environment», by virtue of what «it has no specific manifestations, peculiar only to it, and acts sometimes in the form of “natural” selection – of physiological preservation, growth and destruction, sometimes in the form of “psychical” selection», at that the last is «its the most usual form». Energetically each act of social selection proves «in the form of increase of energy of a social complex (positive social selection) or its decrease (negative selection)». In process of sociogenesis «tendency of positive selection is dual: growth of content of a life and of its latent contradictions at the same time»; and on the contrary, «tendency of negative selection – narrowing of a life, but at the same time its harmonization, showing up and elimination of its internal contradictions». These two tendencies «supplement each other mutually, causing jointly the movement to harmonious maximum of life»: the first one is «spontaneous creativity of a life», the second – its «spontaneous regulator». But inasmuch as sociogenesis is a special case of tectogenesis, it «supposes the known degree of predominance of positive selection over negative», at that «if this predominance is too considerable, positive selection as though blocks up a life with excessive wealth of arising and developing forms, and a life becomes disharmonious; if this prevalence is not present absolutely – the growth of a life gets impossible, and it comes to stagnation». Therefore positive and negative selection are unequal, and the essence of their distinction «is possible to be expressed so: positive selection is the very life, negative selection – the controlling mechanism of its movement» [Empiriomonism, p. 261]. Social selection as «the basic vital dependence of social forms on their social environment» can be expressed by the general formula F_s = f (E_s), where F_s – social form, E_s – its social environment. It is necessary to note that the very society «as a whole, as a vital unit» is not subject to social selection, because «it is that very environment, which sets conditions for this selection, it is the environment taken in all its volume. While environment, on which society as a whole depends on in its development and degradation and before which it presents as an object of selection, is what lies outside of selection, – the external nature» [Empiriomonism, p. 262]. Since this is formally expressed as E_s = Ψ (N), where N – nature, then the final formula of the dependence of a social form on its environment, i.e. on social and natural one, will be the following: F_o = f {Ψ (N)}.

Social survivability — fitness of an individuum to a concrete social environment, different from his general vital organizationality [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 191-192].

Social synergy — conjugation of human activities on the basis of a common purpose. The brief variant of the term is sociosynergy.

Social system — plastic egressive-degressive «system of higher order» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 130], in which egression is realized either in the form of power, or in the form of real guidance, and degression – either in the form of justice, or in the form of tradition [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 104, 142]. The unity of social system is made of various internal connections, among which relations of ingression are the basic and prevalent [Tectology, v. 1, p. 185].

Social system of experience (social experience) — from the tectological point of view it is egressive center in the system of experience, which coordinates the set of peripheric complexes, i.e. the set of individual experiences.

Social utopia — a model of perfect social system, giving «an ideal of the future, a preimage of the future, to which it is necessary to aspire; and it is easier for people to go to this future. It is a great value, but not a scientific value» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 260].

Social vampire — see catagenic individual.

Social zoology — «science about psychology of joint struggle of organisms for their existence» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 205].

Social-group differentiation — social differentiation of the first sort, the beginning of which is in ingressive division of labour, when «because of development of specialization» there are arisen social groups, and the end – in technical revolution, when specialization «moves from people to machines», in consequence of what there is occurred not only convergence of specialities «by the basic content of their technical experience», but there is also weakened connection between them and a specialist: «transitions from one occupation to another become easier. In this way social development undermines social-group division eventually, and for society there is outlined the way to new, higher wholeness» [Empiriomonism, pp. 327, 298]. Really, by its degree social-group isolation represents function of two variable tendencies – «differentiating the technics, sharpening differences of specialities, and integrating, creating similarity and unity in special functions of production. Historically in the development of technics there is observed initially – up to the epoch of machine production – prevalence of the first of these tendencies; the frameworks of social groups become stronger and reach that high degree of firmness, which characterizes professional differentiations, for example. Then, accumulation and organization of socially-technical experience leads to that the overbalance inclines to the direction of the integrating tendency: there are developed general methods of struggle against the nature in the most various fields – methods of machine production mainly, – and the frameworks of specialities are blurred, ideologies of social groups draw closer and merge until in the unity of labour methods the social-group fragmentation of society disappear completely» [Empiriomonism, p. 327].

Socialism — from the tectological point of view it is harmonious social system of global scale, the main organizational principle of which is the principle of chain coevolution; or more concrete, it is «world comradely cooperation of the people, who are not separated by private property, competition, exploitation, class struggle, who dominate over the nature, create their mutual relations and their kingdom of ideas, their organization of life and experience consciously and plannedly» [Questions of Socialism, p. 349]. From the technical point of view socialism is the system of «real power of society over the nature, which develops boundlessly on the basis of scientifically-organized technics» [Questions of Socialism, p. 92]. From the economic point of view «socialist society is such one, in which all production is organized on consciously-comradely basis», from what all other features follow as well: «and social ownership of means of labour, and liquidation of classes, and such distribution of products, at which everyone could develop his productive energy in full measure, following his labour calling» [Questions of Socialism, p. 99]. From the ideological point of view socialism is «a society, in which mutual relations of people, as well as their relations to the nature and experience, are determined by norms of expediency» [Questions of Socialism, p. 66]. From the historical point of view socialism signifies the beginning of human history, i.e. the end of the epoch of fragmentation of man and the transition of development of humankind from the spontaneous phase of sociogenesis to the conscious one: «man has not come yet, but he is not so far, and his silhouette is appearing on horizon clearly» [Questions of Socialism, p. 46]. In the brief tectological formulation socialism is conjugation of collectivism and communism. In the most general prognostic formulation socialism is considered according to tectology as the humanity’s highest «step of power over nature, of organizationality, of sociality, of freedom and progressiveness» [Questions of Socialism, p. 99].

Socialist culture — collectivist type of culture, which signifies the beginning of human history and is characterized by four basic moments: «labour, collectivism, liberation from fetishes, unity of the point of view and methods». The new culture uncovers the true content of life – its collectively-labour sense, which «has been disguised, hidden from people by visible fragmentation of collective and by visible struggle». Freedom from fetishes of the past is the direct consequence of labour and collective character of the new culture exactly. This coming universal culture is determined in its basis «not by struggle, but by labour, not by destruction, but by creativity», and its method, as well as the point of view, is single – tectology [Elements of Proletarian Culture, pp. 88-91].

Socialist ideal — all-conquering, all-around developed «life, which is imbued with collectivism, with labour released from fetishes and which is single in the purposes and in the methods» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 91].

Socialist revolution — not simply «a revolution of property, a change of the owner in society», i.e. «an affair of class interest and material force of masses», but it is «the creative revolution of world culture, the change of spontaneous formation and struggle of social forms by their conscious creation», i.e. «the affair of new class logic, new methods of connection of the forces, new ways to think» [Questions of Socialism, p. 349]. Only within the depth of culturally independent class, perfectly using all complex of its organizational instruments, there is «the affair of the most radical organizational reorganization on global scale, unprecedentedly complex and difficult in all history». And when it «does not use its organizational instruments, but, on the contrary, they use it», it «cannot and should not make an attempt at the direct solution of the world organizational task, an attempt to carry out socialism. It would be an adventure without the least chance of success, an attempt to construct world palace without knowledge of laws of architecture» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 331-332]. Socialism «is not an affair of won fight or of mood, of an impulse, of mass aspiration of will. Certainly, all this is present in it; but moods and impulses, not crystallized by strong ideology, aspirations, not organized in steady class will – in a firmly conscious ideal and clearly determined way to it, never can solve the task: class spontaneity cannot create all-social regularity. Socialism is an affair of method». For global reorganization of the world there are necessary new methods in essence, there is necessary the ideological turn of the class-reorganizer to new culture, because socialism will be carried out only «when to the old cultural world, with its experience of millenia and quite developed methods, there will be opposed not only political force and “economic plan”, but new world of culture, with new, higher methods». As for material conditions, then «if cultural conditions have been created, then, consequently, the material ones are already present», since «organizing forms cannot arise before that content, for organization of which they will serve» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 333-335].

Socialist society — harmonious social system of stable type, in which «all production is organized on the conscious-comradely principles», whence, actually, all other attributes just follows: firstly, «social ownership of means of production», secondly, classless character, and thirdly, «planned distribution of social product», at that such one that «everyone could develop his productive energy in full measure, following his labour calling». In such a society there are no social parasites: «all are workers in it», who in the sphere of labour «satisfy the thirst for creativity, following from surplus of energy», at that improving «technics and cognition, – and so, the own nature too. The new forces of development, which are born from labour experience of people, act the more strongly and more quickly, the wider, more complex, more versatile this experience is». Therefore in such «a society, with its colossal breadth and complexity of system of labour, with its enormous connectivity, bringing together and uniting experience of most various (at equal level of development) human persons, these forces of development should create such impetuous progress, about which we cannot even make an exact concept for ourselves. Harmonious progress of the future society is immeasurably more intensive than semispontaneous progress of our epoch, fluctuating among the contradictions» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 99, 98].

Sociality — cooperation as «the highest result of psychical development in the animal kingdom», i.e. «labour jointness of individuals in the struggle against the nature» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 68, 160].

Socialization of science — «remaking of contemporary science in the form and the content from the collectively-labour point of view» and transmission of it to all society in such transformed kind. The main purpose of such common enlightenment is obvious – to bring all strata of society «to the complete possession of the scientific methods and the highest accomplishments of science» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 238].

Socially useful labour — «labour, useful to the life not only of the very working individual, but also to others, similar to it», in other words, it is production of material and non-material products. It is necessary to note that «there is and can be no certain, sharp difference between socially useful labour and labour, useful only individually. It is possible to recognize both sorts of labour with full exactness only when they turn out in the mutual contradiction», more precisely, when individually-useful one is catagenic to social. Furthermore «the social character of that purpose, at which labour activity is aimed, can be shown not only directly, but also indirectly. For example, if a man makes an axe for himself, but he needs this axe for socially useful work (to chop firewood for all the family), then the making of the axe is certainly an act of socially useful labour». The forms of socially useful labour are the various forms of cooperation, the most first of which – protocollectivism – originates in the epoch of gregarious instinct and develops by means of imitation, when an act of imitation joins with notion of a purpose. For example, «when one man, following the example of another, rushes together with him to a dangerous animal, being conscious at the same time what he does it for, then such action has directly socially-labour character». From the historical point of view «socially-labour struggle for existence or process of production is that basis, on which cognition arises and develops» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 156-157].

Socially-organized experience — objective experience, i.e. any set of things and images, which are ordered, coordinated by collective efforts and by virtue of this which are generally accessible for observation; in other words, it is any generally valid fragment of the system of experience. It is necessary to notice that «terms “socially-organized”, “individually-organized” mean just a way of organization, so they are far from identical with the concepts “social experience”, “individual experience”, expressing the belonging of experience to a collective or a person, but not the ways of organization». Let, for example, «any astronomer discloses a new comet, calculates its position in space, the way, the size, determines the form, the composition, etc., – but he has not yet had time to publish all this, so, except for him, nobody has seen the comet and has known about it. Therefore, for the time being it belongs only to his individual, but not to the social experience. But it has been found, determined, measured, investigated by scientific methods, which are collectively developed by humankind in order to organize the experience. Consequently, it has already come into the socially-organized experience, has taken its place in the number of the objective, physical phenomena», since «each other observer will find the comet just there and such as it is for the first one, who has disclosed it» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 221].

Socially-production forms — the economic forms, representing «separateness and unity of those processes, which are expressed by external way in mutual relations of people at direct struggle of society against the nature. It is the basic group of social forms, the basic in the sense that all other forms – technical and ideological – can be recognized as social only so far as they are inseparably linked with the socially-production forms and include their elements. Because the very social whole is a socially-production form for the most part» [Basic Elements, p. 180], i.e., simply speaking, it is one or other form of cooperation.

Socially-technical process — one of three components of social process, the organizational content of which is in that «social labour of people, changing the external nature, transform it in such a sense that energy of social system in relation to its environment increases, energy of environment in relation to it decreases». It is a process of assimilation. «But in itself social labour is expenditure of energy, decrease of energy of social system in relation to its environment». It is a process of disassimilation. Difference of uptake and expenditure «represents vital balance of socially-technical process», at the expense of which «there is run all other extratechnical life of social whole» [Empiriomonism, p. 265].

Society — 1) «a group of organisms of one species, connected by means of consciousness with known jointness in struggle for life», or more shorter, «a set of people, connected with cooperation» in the struggle against the nature [Basic Elements, pp. 150, 155]; 2) «the form of adjustment of the species to external conditions of struggle for life» [Basic Elements, p. 150]; 3) a plastic, highly differentiated egressive-degressive system, which as the organized whole is the complex of human activities, developable in natural environment in continuous interaction with it. Easier speaking, «the society represents the system of human activities in natural environment in the struggle against the resistances of it» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 274]. Thus, «separate people, even taken in aggregate, do not make up a society yet»: for its arising and existence the presence of such «organizing adapter», as social instinct, is necessary [From Psychology of Society, p. 66-67]; in other words, the term «society» is applicable only to that group of people, which «is really united by cooperation», therefore in the briefest formulation the society is the certain «system of cooperation» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 216]. On degree of complexity and scale of its evolutionary potential «the society is the most complex form of life, known to us, and even in the earliest phases of its existence it possesses the colossal wealth of elements of development, the greatest one in all the biological world» [Empiriomonism, p. 278]. From the point of view of organizational typology the society as a whole belongs to the type of active systems: if at the stage of spontaneous sociogenesis there are predominated the passive reactions in the total sum of reactions of the society to actions of environment, and on the basis of such overweight the society would be still numbered with the type of systems of Le Chatelier, i.e. to the equilibrium systems, then at the stage of conscious sociogenesis the overweight is already on the side of the active reactions, and the society develops basically as a nonequilibrium system, at that the nonlinear growth of its cumulative activity strengthens also the nonequilibrium character of its further development to the same degree.

Socioadapton — a social adjustment for development, for example, language, cooperation, science, culture.

Sociofetish — a shorter variant of the term of «social fetish».

Socioform — «a system of mutually-adapted psychical forms of different individuals» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 160], which represents «a particular kind of biological forms of adjustment», which initial point of development «is necessary to be considered an individual psychical form of adjustment», since they «break down completely into psychical elements of separate individuals». Dynamic conservatism of socioforms, in its turn, sets tendencies to development of society, which change and conservation is «a result of mutual relation of two opposite processes – assimilation of external energy and disassimilation of internal one by society». Crises of socioforms «proceed with comparatively great slowness»: «their duration is measured not by seconds, minutes, but by days, years… », that is connected with their enormous complexity. New socioforms arise in process of interaction of psychoforms of separate individuals: «an individual psychical form, having developed under various external influences and being shown in actions of individual, acts in turn as an external influence for other elements of society», at that «in psychical apparatuses of other people it causes various changes, which can become the initial point of development of new psychical forms»; then by selection «there is created a system of new individually-psychical elements interconnected already by their origin», and «if labour actions, being a part of this system, are directed to conservation of the social whole, to maintenance and increase of its biopotential, – then we are faced with a new developed social form, a new element of complex social form of life, which struggles for the existence. Hundreds and thousands of centuries selection has been operating in such a direction before society has reached that high unity in the struggle against the external world, which is observed at present» [Basic Elements, pp. 163, 165-166, 168-169].

Sociogenesis — adaptation of society to natural environment, historically observable as transition from the spontaneous phase of its development to the conscious one, that in human measurement means transition from the stage of fragmentation of man to the stage of collecting of man. The basic tendencies of such global social process, or more briefly, historical megatrends, observable at that, are increase of tempo (see the principle of historical development acceleration), complication and growth of organizationality of society, growth of cooperation and all-round liberation of human doing. All these directions of social development go into one general, into one main omega-tendency, tended to uniform and «common ultimate purpose», which is terminologically designated as omega of sociogenesis.

Sociomonism — identity of social consciousness with social being. Really, «in the struggle for existence people cannot be united differently than by means of consciousness: without consciousness there is no communication, therefore social life in al its manifestations is consciously-psychical. This thought requires a special proof: sufficiently that it is simply impossible to imagine such a social fact which would occur without a participation of consciousness. Though there are used separate expressions which as if contradict this, – for example, “physical labour”, “unconscious actions of crowd”, etc., but it is easy to see that such expressions should not be understood literally: and physical labour is made up of perceptible, i.e. cognizable motions directed to a represented purpose, i.e. to a conscious one; it only differs in making of “physical” changes in environment; and unconscious actions of crowd do not occur outside the consciousness of acting people, but they do not only find a clear motivation in this consciousness. In general, sociality is inseparable with consciousness. Social being and social consciousness are identical in the strict sense of these words» [From Psychology of Society, p. 57].

Sociomorphism — «the notion of the world in the image and likeness of social environment», beginning from the basic metaphor and ending with the contemporary scientific picture of the world. From the tectological point of view «sociomorphism is the necessary and general law of organization of experience», which «is formulated in the following way: thinking takes its forms, in the final analysis, from social practice; – or otherwise: in cognition the connection of elements of experience has interrelations of elements of social activity in labour process as the basis» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 88, 229].

Socioprogress — a short form of the term of «social progress».

Sociosynergy — the highest form of cooperation, at which the hierarchy of all external and internal relations of any collective has been built according to the principle of organizational symmetry.

Sociosystem vampire (impersonal vampire) — any obsolete, unnecessary, fruitless element of a social whole, impeding its development. Such impersonal vampires can be groups, classes, institutions, ideas, principles, at that of all ever existed and existing «vampires the people, taken as separate persons, are only the smallest and the least harmful». Is it really possible to compare even those several hundred of barrels of living blood, which any Menshikov or Azef would have time to suck for maintenance of the sepulchral existence, with that its sea, which was taken up, for example, by the Spanish Inquisition and which cannot be even approximately expressed in figures, – because if this Inquisition burned down 340 thousand men, then it ruined indirectly many millions of them and for some centuries weakened the brain and body of a great nation». All the Catholic idea in whole, one of the many manifestations of which was the very Inquisition, came to humankind in even more grandiose victims during the epoch of its dying off. Thus, the impersonal vampires are much more harmful than personal, therefore, «investigating their gloomy empire, it is necessary to distinguish them constantly on degree of their significance, on width of their influence. On the other hand, since the becoming obsolete of various elements of the social whole, their infection with death goes on not at once, but gradually, it is necessary to distinguish also degrees of vampirism in the sense of its depth and completeness. These degrees are infinitely various, and there are intermediate forms, in which alive and dead is mixed so that frequently it is very difficult to determine, to which of two areas they belong mainly». But there are also indisputable vampires – «the most hopelessly dead, the most decay-impregnated», of which in all hierarchy of the world of vampires the highest place belongs to those, which influence on the life of humankind has undoubtedly deadening character. Such great vampires are not among human persons, but «among the mighty social forces, which movement carries along human atoms, as particles of dust. The greatest social forces are those, which are laid in the very construction of society, in its basic organization». These are cultural principles, the action of which reaches all areas of the social whole and tells on activity and on destiny of its all elements. From all their triad the principle of authoritarianism and the principle of individualism are «the great vampires of our time». During the historical «struggle of authority against individualism there was the deep turn for XIX century, – when on the arena of history the third cultural principle came out – collectivism» [the Great Vampire of Our Time, pp. 68-69, 75].

Sociotectogenesis — increase of organizationality of society, which is raised quantitatively when there is united a more significant sum of activities in its limits at a given structure, i.e. the social energy grows, and which is raised structurally when its activities are joined with smaller disingressions, when intrasocial struggle decreases and the coefficient of effective use of social energy increases, i.e. its useless expenses become less. These are the elementary attributes of social progress, its alpha and beta.

Sociotectological triad — three cultural principles, to which combination there are reduced «all wealth of labour human connections in a society». Experience shows that «in the life there are prevailed the combinations exactly, the mixed relations, instead of pure types. So, for example, a worker, acting on labour-market as seller of his labour force, is in individualistic combinations with a capitalist, buying it: two formally equal and independent contractors, but objectively necessary for each other. But next, having come in a workshop, the same worker turns out in authoritative-subordinate position before a businessman and has to do what would be indicated to him. With companions on the workshop, on the contrary, he has the comradely connection tinted in a different measure with authoritative and also with individualistic shades: he asks for instructions and advices of more skilled, in some of them he sees mainly competitors resisting him on personal interests, and so forth». On the same elements from this universal triad there are easily decomposed all without exception practical connections between people in any area of the life. Take, for example, relations between a reader and a writer: when a reader gets a book of an author, which he has written, bearing in mind nobody personally, – this is a connection on the basis of the second cultural principle, since both of the contractors are objectively necessary for each other, but each one, pursuing the personal purposes, operates independently; when a reader at reading of a book goes after the author’s thought, ears to the voice of the author, seeking advice and guide at him, – this is a connection on the basis of the first cultural principle; and when a reader enters into correspondence with the author, sharing the impressions with him, criticizing or advising, – this is a connection on the basis of the third cultural principle. The sociotectological triad is «the greatest social force, which rules people and their destiny», moreover, «the greatest one of all what are known to us» [the Great Vampire of Our Time, pp. 69-70].

Sociovampirism — a catagenic social connection when an individual, a social group or a class consume more social energy than they create, i.e. they live more for themselves than for society. A social parasite is the limiting form of sociovampirism.

Solar wind — the continuous flow of heliogenic plasma spreading radially from the Sun on all heliosphere down to the plasma tectological border inclusive, i.e. approximately at the distance of 100 astronomical units. In other words, solar wind is the pulsing plasma shell of heliosphere which is formed at gas-dynamic expansion of solar corona and takes away its magnetic field in interplanetary space. A combination of this expansion with rotation of the Sun freezes the magnetic lines of force in the plasma flow by the curve similar to the Archimedean spiral. Apart from electrons and protons, the composition of solar wind includes ions of helium, oxygen, sulfur, silicon, iron, argon and neon moving with supersonic speed in relation to the Sun. The expanding solar wind with magnetic field freezed in it interferes with penetration of cosmic radiation into Solar system.

Solid body — «the most compound complex of molecular vibratory movements, which are very fast and in usual state of a body are limited by mutual resistances of the particles» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 203].

Solipsism — a special type of psychical substitution, when «for explanation of the world as a whole a thinker substitutes his individual psychical experience for its place» by the most simple formula: «external objects, in effect, are nothing but my notions; other men are only my notions too; all world – nothing but my notion». Thus, because of impossibility to look into another’s psychics solipsism «draws a conclusion that the very reality of another’s consciousness, as asserted without proof, has to be rejected». And though such a psychical substitution is incontestable in theory, nevertheless it is constantly refuted by practice. Being «a characteristic example of abstract fetishism», solipsism «represents theory as thinkable irrespectively of any practice, as existing absolutely in the special, logic world. Only an “absolute” theoretician, i.e. a man released from any real labour and struggle, which are peculiar in full measure also to exchange society, would be capable of coming to solipsism; any practical work, colliding him with other men and things and tangibly convincing him of that they do not go into connection and regularity of simple “notions”, would not allow him to stop at their such understanding» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 90, 77, 91].

Solipsist — absolute egocomplex, which is extremely closed on itself and rejects the reality of existence of other egocomplexes, simply speaking which «does not recognize the presence of psychics at other men». Since «thinking is inseparable with the notion about proving of true and about refutation of false; while both mean social communication of people», then every time when a solipsist «explains his views to other men», he falls not only in practical, but «also in theoretical contradiction, when he considers his views as “true”, i.e. provable, i.e. significant not for him alone» [Empiriomonism, p. 112].

Solution — such a purposeful «organization of one or another block of data» in order by the method of ingression to bring to their new combination, satisfactory to a task in view [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160].

Song — a means of social organization of people, for example: a love song – «a means of organization of family, marriage»; a labour song – «an instrument of organization of work»; a fighting song – «a means to weld a fighting collective in the unity of mood» [Questions of Socialism, p. 420].

Sophism (from Greek σόφισμα – artful conclusion) — purposely incorrect discourse based on knowingly wrong selection of starting statements, on false arguments, on polysemy of words and substitution of concepts.

Sophist — a specialist in pseudo-logic; a verbal manipulator; a representative of individualistic eidopluralism, which doctrine is constructed by two schemes: by «the teaching about relativity of all existing», i.e. relativism, and by «negation of objectivity in cognition», i.e. scepticism. The formula of relativism – «all things are correlative to man», and the formula of scepticism – «there is no general obligatory (or “generally valid”) truth for people» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 95]; in other words, «there is asserted that each man perceives things in his own way and understands them in his own way, so people cannot convince each other of something in the real way», owing to what it is possible to prove «opposite thing with equal right and with equal success, – this is affair of verbal art» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 378].

Sophistry (from Greek σοφιστική – skill to conduct a dispute artfully) — pseudo-logic; imaginary wisdom; manipulation on concepts based on polysemy of words; art of knowingly false discourse, i.e. system of methods of construction of sophisms.

Sophistry of movement — contradictoriness of mechanical movement within the limits of formal dialectics. The essence of the contradiction consists in that a moving «body is staying and is not staying in a given place». Exactly this actually imaginary contradiction just underlay the known sophism of Zeno, by means of which who «wished to prove real impossibility and illusoriness of movement». In fact «Zeno found out only the contradiction of two concepts used to movement, of the concepts “to be staying” and “not to be staying” in some place, – instead of the contradiction of real forces or tendencies», but «a contradiction of two concepts is only an ideal contradiction, which exists only in thinking, to reduce the physical fact – movement – to this it means to go to the point of view of idealism» torn off from empiria. The essence of the sophism is in that «the concept “to be staying” applied to a moving body incorrectly. It is necessary to remember that concepts arise from experience and relate to experience, but they do not live in themselves». When it is said that «a body is staying in a certain place», then the following facts are expressed by this: either such a case when it is impossible «to state any movement for the given body», or «the moving is not seeming significant to us, is not attracting our attention. The second meaning of the word is the most usual. For example, if it is asserted that the Pope is staying in Rome, it is not in the least wished to tell by this that he is motionless, but it is only noted the limitation of his movements and the possibility to find him in the known spatial frameworks. Here the concept of “to be staying” gives a reason to no dialectic contradiction: the Pope could be strenuously moving on his room, on his palace or even around all Rome, and nevertheless it would be impossible to speak that he is staying in Rome and is not staying there, – he “is staying” and only». But Zeno «took the word not in this meaning, but in such one, when it expresses the absence of movement, the immobility: a body “is staying” in a certain place, and nowhere more; no movement is present or, more exactly, it is not possible to be observed. But the word “to be staying” taken in this sense is obviously inapplicable to a moving body, for it corresponds not in the least to those facts of experience, which are designated by the term of “movement”; then it is necessary to say so: a body is not staying in some certain place, but it is moving», i.e. there is no contradiction. But in order «to get it, the same word should be used initially in the first meaning considered by us, then in the second one» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 190-191].

Sorrow — a negative affectional, physiologically connected «with overbalance of expenses of energy of brain above its assimilation» and psychologically expressed by emotion of suffering, which «reduces quantity of pleasant emotion». If just to eliminate sorrow, for example, a forthcoming parting or separation by certainty of near meeting, the psychical condition becomes immediately more joyful [Empiriomonism, p. 212].

«Soul» — «the organizing, or guiding» side of a man, unlike a «body», which represents «the performing, or passive» his side [Tectology, v. 1, p. 81]. Such opposition of «soul» and «body» is «the simple transference of the concept of a certain form of cooperation to a man or to other objects» – in this case the idea of «the authoritative labour connection». Just in it there is «the real solution of the question of how the idea of “soul” originated» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 93].

Space — from the tectological point of view «universal world degression» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. Just as time, it is «the basic form, in which the social organizationality of experience is expressed» [Empiriomonism, p. 21]. «Space and time “in itself” can be arbitrarily absolute for a philosopher; but in scientific cognition their frameworks are undoubtedly the instruments of the certain function» – the cognitively fixing function: «things and events, for which there is established a connection with the certain links of these degressions, will not blur for cognition in chaos of fluid shapeless material, they are fixed in the system of experience» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 126]. Tridimentionality of space is not primary, since «the number of directions, on which it is possible to measure, are infinite», and «the reduction of them to three, further not reducible, is the result of experience. Real addition of differently directed efforts (or of displacements caused by them) shows the equivalent replacement of two directions by one (direction of resultant force), and consequently, the inverse replacement also. Only through such replacement the countless directions are reduced to three, each of which cannot be replaced by combination of two others». Homogeneity of space is even less primary: «in effect it just could not be fixed in thinking until sphericity of the Earth and gravitation to its center was practically found out». Infinity of space is also not primary: «even for Aristotle the universe was limited and space – finite». And at last, «the thinking of infinite divisibility of space, as well as of quantity in general, has developed on the basis of technics, demanded accuracy and forced to take account of imperceptible small» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 122-123].

Space-time — «four measurements of experience». The mathematical formulation «four-dimensional space» is inexact, since «at a mathematician the irreversibility of time escapes from the formulas, – but it is objective» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 129].

Spatial crisis — ingressive connecter, if there is a crisis of type C, and tectological border, if there is a crisis of type D [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256].

Special sciences — «a collected, shaped and socialized, in a word, – specially organized experience of humankind in a certain field of phenomena» [Questions of Socialism, p. 311].

Specialist — a functional differential of a social system, a subject of specialization, a «man-fraction», or an individuum adapted to a limited social environment; as a widespread social type during the epoch of division of labour, he shows an unusual variety of individualities: from a «professional-genius», in perfection possessing all complex of knowledge and methods of his specialty, up to a «professional-numskull» with extraordinary «narrow, unilateral experience, routine methods, full misunderstanding of the nature and the life in whole», which excessive isolation in his field, more exactly, «professional dullness», generated quite often the paradoxical situation: «the greatest discoveries of the last centuries met the largest resistance usually from the side of the official representatives of the same branch of knowledge» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 244-245].

Specialization — formation of complementary irreversible connection between complexes as a result of system divergence; simply speaking, such «division of functions», when «the parts cannot be rearranged». For example, skin protects the other fabrics, while they themselves cannot serve as protection for skin, «a peasant feeds a craftsman, but a craftsman does not feed a peasant, but renders to him just those services, which are outside of this function, and forms the other part of the circle of needs, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. As a social phenomenon specialization is the necessary stage in progress of forms of the organizational experience, connected with division of labour and, correspondingly, with fragmentation of experience, that finally leads to fragmentation of man. «Narrowing the field of work for a separate person», specialization «make it possible to master this field much better and fuller», but, «as every vital adaptation, it implies also elements of inadaptability»: narrow, one-sided experience leads an expert «to complete misunderstanding of the nature and life as a whole», transforming him in the most unadapted and limited person. As a process of differentiation of social practice specialization «stands in the contradiction with the tendency to unity of cognition», as it «tears the experience to the parts, each of which is organized independently. As a result there are turned out two negative phenomena of huge importance, characteristic for contemporary science: excessive heap of material and heterogeneity of methods of cognition» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 244]. Thus, specialization, as well as any social tendency, has the positive side – «owing to it a huge quantity of material was collected in each branch of labour and cognition and the methods were improved incomparably more quickly than it was formerly», – and the negative one, which «leads to divergence of methods» and to social uncoupling [Tectology, v. 1, p. 94].

Species — a complex relatively-stable biosystem of two interconnected persistent complexes: at genetic level it is genome and plasmon, i.e. a complex-persistent, representing a certain totality of chromosomal and nonchromosomal genes, and at phylogenetic level it is another complex-persistent, representing a certain totality of properties of biosystem in the form of the basic set of morpho-physiological characters. Thus, a species is a bipersistent, i.e. a double persistent system (genetic and phylogenetic one), characterized by continuous fluidity of substratum (separate biological individuals) and by relative constancy of structure at genetic and phylogenetic levels. In the context of the foregoing there is possible more dynamical and more compressed another formulation: a species is a biospheric complex-process of sufficiently great extent of complexity and of high level of organization. In comparison with temporality of bioactivity of organisms the speed of its development is practically zero, but in comparison with temporality of geospheric processes it is a quickly proceeding process.

Speech — «primary tectological method, developed by life of humankind; therefore, it is living proof of possibility of tectology». From the tectological point of view «speech is organizational process in essence, and at that of universal character. By means of it there is organized any practice of people in their cooperation: by means of word there are established common purposes and common means, there are determined place and function of each associate, there is planned sequence of operations, etc.». Moreover, «by means of speech there is also organized all cognition, all thinking of people: with the help of words experience is transmitted, collected, concentrated between people». Thus, speech is «an organizational instrument» of social life of people, of their combined labour and struggle. Even the very «tectological tendency arose together with speech, i.e. from the time that man became intellectual being» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 110-111]. «Human speech and its understanding are constructed in the type of reverse casting form, so to speak, in fluid state. If to compare with a phonograph, sounds of words represent an indirect trace of nervously-brain vibrations of one man, as it were cut into the air; this trace carries immediately out the inversely forming role for similar vibrations in another organism» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 94]. As social phenomenon «the first and basic ideology – speech – originated from common labour of people, from production»; as biological one – in consequence of nervous irradiation [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 299].

«Spiritual connection» — «a community of interests and a mutual understanding». «A coordination of forces and a practical organization depend on just this connection»; if «a spiritual connection» weakens, an internal disorganization takes place [Tectology, v. 2, p. 117].

Stability — from the point of view of tectology it is a «static illusion» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 198], since according to the principle of development there are no absolutely stable tectological forms in the world. And really, as Heraclitus stated once, «all flows, all changes»; but some forms change very slowly – the so-called «false», or nonequilibrium stability, – and some of them are kept only as a result of «that each of arising changes is immediately equilibrated by other, opposite to it», i.e. as a result of dynamic equilibrium of changes, – the so-called «true», or equilibrium stability [Tectology, v. 1, p. 197]. But so long as environment also changes, then «the real, practical stability of a complex depends»: firstly, «on quantity of activities-resistances concentrated in it», – the so-called quantitative stability, – and, secondly, «on a way of their combination, on a character of their organizational connection», – the so-called structural stability [Tectology, v. 1, p. 207]. As a tectological quantity a stability of any tectological form is numerically equaled to the period of life of this form, during which either it slowly disappears, being replaced by a new (the «false» stability), or it is constantly supported by a series of recurrent tectological acts, following one after another, i.e. of cycles, (the «true» stability). For example, such, it would seem, stable forms of matter as atoms, are gradually destroyed all without exception, but differently: if for some isotopes of radon the period of life is measured by minutes, seconds and fractions of a second, i.e. the degree of stability is obviously small, then «for radium the average continuance of life of atoms is about 2500 years», while «for thorium – about 40 milliards years» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 208] that in comparison with continuance of life of man testifies about sufficiently high degree of stability. Nevertheless, from the tectological point of view it is an example of «false» stability, since in the scientific analysis a fast destruction and slow destruction differ only by the coefficients [Tectology, v. 1, p. 200]. An example of the «true» stability can be both a dew drop in atmosphere supersaturated with vapor; and the very atmosphere with «circulation of the gases, in which its chemical composition» is maintained; and hydrosphere with the «circulation of water, which is given to atmosphere in the form of vapor» and «is got just from it in the form of precipitations, and also in the form of the falling rivers and streams, carrying water precipitations from a land» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 198].

Stability of systemogenesis — development of a certain system according to the principle of organizational symmetry, the optimal correspondence to which provides the necessary and sufficient realization of the known conditions of stability, required for system progress, within the limits of already accomplished system expansion, that, in turn, minimizes temporal divergence of development of system and development of its environment. As far as an environment, covered by system expansion, is only a part of an external environment, in which there is developed a given systemogenesis, then the question can certainly go only about relative stability of systemogenesis, which is just determined by degree of coverage of external and internal system relations by processes of harmonization, that specifically means a quantity of links of chain egression, covered by the principle of organizational symmetry. Figuratively expressing, relative stability of systemogenesis depends on quantity of external and internal «nested dolls» of an environment, which is covered by this principle.

Stable form — «a result of relative equilibrium of opposite streams of energy in material or non-material form», i.e. it is either «a change of substance», or «an exchange of “energies” proper» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 206].

Stages of sociogenesis — in historical scale sociogenesis passes two stages: the spontaneous and conscious. From the sociolabour point of view the spontaneous phase includes protocollectivism, authoritarianism and individualism, and the conscious one – collectivism.

Standard — a collectively agreed measure.

Starvation — a state of an organism in conditions of sharp deficiency of essential nutrients, or of sharp disturbance of their composition or assimilation of them; from the energy point of view it is sharp inversion of metabolism, leading to significant preponderance of disassimilation over assimilation. At starvation of an organism there is a competition between its cells: «some take means of living away from others and are conserved, whereas others perish; and bodies of dead are devoured (the expression is certainly metaphorical) by some other cells – wandering ones, leukocytes» [Basic Elements, p. 69]. Starvation can be absolute (at complete absence of food and without intake of water), complete (without getting of food, but with intake of water), incomplete (insufficient nutrition in relation to the general energy expense, i.e. malnutrition), partial or poor-quality (defective or one-sided nutrition, i.e. insufficient intake with food of one or several substances). Old organisms, having a lower level of exchange, sustain a longer period of starvation than young ones, and females live longer than males. At complete starvation bioactivity of an organism is supported at the expense of internal energy resources (mainly of fat), and also of the products, which become free at gradual atrophy of less biopotential parts of own tissues of an organism. In contrast to complete starvation, coming to an end by destruction of organism, incomplete starvation can proceed long both in conditions of insufficient intake of food (at spontaneous and social disasters, for example) and at the certain pathologies of digestive tract. It is necessary to note that besides pathological form of starvation there is also its natural form in the nature – physiological one: winter (sometimes also summer) hibernations of some mammals (bear, badger, marmot, suslik, hedgehog, etc.); cold numbness at amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, etc.; metamorphic starvation at butterflies during pupation; migratory starvation of some saltwater fishes during movement to a place of spawning.

State — «the organization of class domination» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 346-347], and at that: 1) as the organization of power of a ruling class it is an egressive system (the variant of narrow interpretation of the term, the content of which shows only the moment of cooperation); 2) as the organization of violence of one class over another it is degressive system (the other variant of narrow interpretation of the term, in the content of which is expressed only the moment of compulsion); 3) as the organization of control over all society it is egressive-degressive system, because the class society is social dipole, in which the necessary stability of polarization of egressor and ingressor is provided with sufficient strength of degression (the variant of the fullest interpretation of the term, considering both of the moments of class domination: compulsion and cooperation). But, governing, a state «does not dominate over a society, but only expresses and fixes the domination of one elements over others»: the ruling class «dominates over the lowest classes really; but a state with its legal norms just put this domination into stable shape, – it represents something similar to a system of reins and harness for control over the lowest classes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 148].

State arocapitalism — «peace state capitalism», or from the positions of historical monism state capitalism of sufficiency, the main organizational task of which is organization of capitalism in a developing, growing system. Such a task is much more complex than the organizational task of war-state capitalism: «to arrange a system, which is reduced and simplified», i.e. «to organize deficiency and poverty». Both tasks, of both military and peace state capitalism, are solved by ruling class not on a world, but on national-state scale. The egressor of arocapitalistic system, i.e. its main organizing center, is hired tectorate, or hired-organizing intelligentsia, technical, scientific and official», since the basic tectological task can be solved neither by «financial and large-industrial bourgeoisie, which has lost alive connection with production and has achieved perfection in the exchange methods, relating to the sphere of the distribution, but not in the industrial-organizational methods», nor by «middle and petty bourgeoisie – generally not widely organizational elements». In the period of war-state capitalism hired tectorate was already «the real, business organizer of capitalist life», however it was not a class and was «only a social group separated on the structure and hesitated between the two struggling classes – in what there was the main cause of its dependence»: its upper strata joined bourgeoisie, the lower ones aspired to make the way to the top, and only the selected, revolutionary part of these lower strata joined struggling proletariat. The basic tendency of state arocapitalism is «nationalization of different branches of industries, starting from the most centralized», by virtue of what tectorate «should get the real domination in the life. Joint-stock-rentier parasitic elements of bourgeoisie, rejected by life, should themselves be dissolved in this intelligentsia, joining its ranks, getting productive role in society». As state arocapitalism develops, tectorate should gather in itself all bourgeoisie and «become a new form of its existence as ruling class». As to executing class, on the scale of historical time the stage of peace-state capitalism gives the necessary respite to proletariat, during which it «can be busy with socialist mastering of the heritage of old culture together with development of methods of its own new one, carrying out its class socialist revolution, the necessary stage on the way to the socialist revolution of society as a whole, to the reorganization all along the line» [the World War and Revolution, pp. 102-103, 106-107].

State capitalism — «system of adjustments of the newest capitalism to two special conditions of the epoch: to war-consuming communism and process of destruction of productive forces», of which «some correspond to the general line of development of capitalism; such is especially development of syndicate and trust organizations of enterprises», and «others are outside of this general line or even in the contradiction with it; such are: restriction of consumption, monopolization of products by state, state-official regulation of marketing and production». An example from history: when war communism comes back to the sizes of peace time, and destruction of productive forces stops, then «adapters of the first type will be kept and develop in general, of the second type – will be eliminated from life or be kept only partially, depending on concrete conditions - class interests and correlation of class forces» [Questions of Socialism, p. 341].

State catacapitalism — war-communistic capitalism, i.e. an economic system, arising on the basis of progressive decline of productive forces, which can be determined by origin as «siege communism in state scale» organized by ruling classes, and on the construction – as «combination of newest capitalism and war (“army”) communism». State capitalism arises and develops just in those extreme conditions, which generate communism of extremity. Historically the first state, in which such war-communistic capitalism formed, was Germany, which from the very beginning of the First World War «had proved to be cut off from the world market, i.e. in the position similar to position of a city under siege. It was followed by other countries as the course of things put them in similar conditions: underwater war, disorder of transport by its military operation, reduction of normal production by its military distortion and destructions, especially by decrease of labour force, etc. The severest dearness, profitable to capitalists and rich landowners, threatened individually the class of large proprietors, as to the whole, in each given country with such exhaustion of the mass, which would lead to loss of war; and the general organization of this class – a state – had been forced to take measures to more even distribution based on accounting of needs, i.e. more or less to realize the principle of communism». At first a state takes «distribution of products for mass consumption under the control», then it normalizes their prices and marketing, at last, it goes «to regulation of production: the quite typical sequence for communistic transformations of an economy». State control over consumption abolish the system of private appropriation of products by means of rationing regulation, «state control over marketing leads to compulsory integration of the whole branches into syndicates», and state regulation of production – to compulsory integration into trusts. An effective method of state control is state labour service, which from the organizational part «is usually reduced to authoritarian mancipation of workers and represents obvious extension of principles of military organization to labour classes». Since such economic system is organized by ruling classes, then there is kept not simply a profit of owners of enterprises and shares, but also high rates of this profit, which is guaranteed by state and «is reached partly at the expense of intensified expropriation of petty and middle bourgeoisie», and partly it «has fictitious, calculating character. This takes place so far as actual value of money and banknotes reduces». On the basic organizational features state capitalism «represents the extreme mixture of progressiveness and reactionism. The first one is expressed in its economic antianarchicity, in huge development of centralized regulation; the second – in equally sharp intensification of authoritativeness». And the last moment: development of organizational forms of social system begins in the field of production, transforming next the field of appropriation, distribution and consumption, while in the system of state capitalism «the order is directly opposite: transformation begins with sphere of consumption and distribution and through the sphere of marketing passes to relations of production». The explanation of such inversion is simple: in the first case there are observed the processes of growth, of complication, i.e. «progressive changes of social system», while in the second – «decline, destruction, regressive conditions in general. The motive action of progress of productive forces is found out first of all where they are accumulated; the pressure of regress is primarily shown where there is dissipation of social activities, in the field of consumption and extermination». Consequently, it is quite natural order of degradation: «as well as in the decline of different social systems of the past the starting point was parasitism of the rulers, exhaustion of the ruled ones – the field of consumption, or, more precisely, of social distribution» [the Newest Prototypes of Collectivistic Order, pp. 84, 87-89].

State-omega (Ω state) — the limiting form of development of state, its degeneration, since such «the state of the future», as well as any other, «is really organization of class domination, but only of that class, which aspires to eliminate classes». Such a state, abolishing itself, is the transition stage «from the economic system, which is full of contradictions and is consequently regulated by external norms, to the harmonious system of cooperation, for which such norms are not necessary»; in other words, «it assumes the vestiges of the old class ideologies, which are in the contradiction with the new organization of life and subject to legal normalization», but «when these vestiges will disappear and the psychology of all society will come to conformity with its new system of cooperation – common cooperation for common development, – then also “the state of the future”, losing the elements of compulsion, will stop to be “a state”»: it will turn into «a society, in which mutual relations of people, as well as their relations to the nature and experience, are determined by norms of expediency». Thus, «the transformation of economic order should come by means of new legal relations, i.e. by political way» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 65-66].

Static method — «research of phenomena outside of their general connection, of phenomena as independent “objects”». Such a method draws «too sharp boundary lines between sciences» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 204].

Statics — «the teaching about some or other forms taken in equilibrium». In the history of science «statics had everywhere developed before dynamics, and then itself was transformed under influence of the last». As is known, «the organizational-static point of view» is expressed by mathematics [Tectology, v. 1, p. 124]. The basis of statics was formed by «the idea about motionless, invariable, absolute in the nature» [Basic Elements, p. 11]. From the organizational-dynamic point of view this «original way of understanding of generally all phenomena of the nature» is erroneous: «The first error of statics consists in that it confused slow movement, which is barely noticeable for undeveloped cognition, with complete immobility, – insignificant and gradual changes, which are difficult for catching by our rough enough organs of sense and perceptions, – with complete absence of changes», and the second error of statics – in «overstatement of relative separateness and unity of existence of objects up to the degree of absolute» [Basic Elements, p. 22].

Stationary complex (stationary system) — see persistent.

Statistical induction — one more form of inductive research, which as a method represents «quantitative account of facts and calculation of their frequency». Quantitative account is meant in the very definition of «organizationality» and «disorganization», since «only when it is made even approximately, it is possible to tell, whether a whole is really practically greater or less in a certain relation than the simple sum of its parts, and in what measure. Calculation of that, how much often some or other combinations repeat», plays a role «mainly at the lower stages of research, while it has not yet left the limits of group of particular, concrete facts»: «it is hardly expedient to count up frequency, for example, of centralist form of organization in construction of inorganic systems, living beings and psychical complexes, social, ideological groupings, etc.» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 130].

Stereotype — such a stable system of connections between the centers of excitement and inhibition in cortex of big hemispheres of brain, which arises by repeated recurrence of a certain combination of complexes of conditional stimuli replacing each other.

Strategy — methodology of planned carrying on a long-term struggle, or, actually, a very plan of achievement of a designated purpose in the form of a number of intermediate tasks and ways of their solution.

Strength of connection — «degree of connection» of complexes, determined by quantitative and structural stability of ingressor, more simply, by development of connecter. For example, at soldering of two pieces of metal «the more extensive will be the surface of solder contact and the closer will be made the solder contact, i.e. the greater will be the sum of coincident elements, the greater will be also the connection of both complexes, if other conditions remain equal» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 153-154].

Structural laws — «the laws of equilibrium, or organizational laws», which subdivide into physical – for simple systems and biosocial – «for more complex ones, composed from the same simple», at that «laws of simple structures in this case are always and completely required for more complex ones, dominate over them» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 131].

Structural progress — such tectological changes in a complex, connected not so much with quantitative increase of activities in a complex, as with their regrouping, with change of the very way of their combination and such harmonization of their connections, which simultaneously with decrease of internal disingressions in a complex increases the sum of its interrelations with environment and their variety. Exactly such structural transformations in a complex expand the area of its further development and «make it possible to overcome destructively directed activities of resistance of environment in more significant scale» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 274].

Structural regress — «narrowing of possibilities of further tectological development» of a complex at entering in it of elements from the outside and «adaptation to a narrowed environment» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 276-277]. Tendency of such a forming is opposite to structural progress, since «under influence of environment there are decreased first of all the elements less strongly connected with the whole, which connections thereby decreased homogeneity of this whole, and decrease of a number of connections and increase of homogeneity just means simplification of structure» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 204]. There is no «pure» tectological progress: progressive moments are always mixed with regressive, «and the matter is only in the ratio of two parts, overweight of one over another to a greater or lesser extent» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 277].

Structural stability — 1) a tectological quantity, characterizing the capability of a complex to keep the tectological form under a certain external action and which «can always be expressed quantitatively» (for example, «in mechanics every possible coefficients of resistance to bending, breaking, torsion and so forth are exactly numerical expression of structural stability of different bodies in relation to certain external actions»); 2) a tectological concept, expressing organizational stability of a complex in concrete conditions, which depends not on the sum of activities-resistances concentrated in it, but from a way of their combination, from «a character of their organizational connection» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 207]. One of conditions of structural stability of a complex is formation of complementary interrelations, developing at differentiation of its parts, and the most general «expression of structural stability is the “law of equilibrium”» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 248]. «Structural stability of a whole is determined by its least partial stability», i.e. it depends on «the least relative resistances of all its parts at any moment». For example, a microscopic injury of a skin is enough for infection of a whole organism, though a size of wound can be in hundred and more millions times less than its surface [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 216-217]. «It is possible to speak about structural stability always only in relation to some or other influences, but not in relation to each in general; an organism makes a more significant resistance to one poison, to another – a weaker, etc.; the coefficient is special for each destroying influence». For example, figures of average lifetime of atoms «represent total coefficients of structural stability of given forms of matter in those usual conditions, at which we happen to observe them», while mass and energy represent the coefficients of quantitative stability. «When it will be possible to find out those influences, on which destruction of atoms depends, and to change systematically its speed for different bodies, then there will be not only solved the theoretical question about conditions of their structural stability, but also practically humankind will get an opportunity to dispose of gigantic quantities of activities of “intratomic energy”» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 208]. NB: Artificial radioactivity was disclosed by E. Fermi only in 1934, and in 1942 he carried out the first chain nuclear reaction.

Structural unity of the nature — a universal concept in tectology, reflecting «the possibility of identical expression of laws of the nature» for different complexes [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 128].

Structure — a «way of organization» of a complex, i.e. a way of connection of its elements [Tectology, v. 2, p. 193]. Tectology eliminates the division between structure and law, since «a way of organization, leading to a given structure, is just its own law» [New Phase in Understanding of Laws of the Nature, p. 131].

Struggle — a disorganizing process, because it «means the activities, which are directed oppositely and to some extent destroy each other, i.e. the presence of disingressions; though its result can be a progress, but in itself it is a disorganizational phenomenon» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 26]. Struggle is not simply a contradiction, but always «a mutual contradiction» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 19].

Struggle for existence — an activity of a bioform, which organizes the environment; in other words, a self-preserving «action of bioprocess on external world», or, from the energy point of view any «expense of energy in the outside world, directed to preservation of form of life»; more exactly, such an expense of energy, which «changes the external relations in such a way that their action does not destroy the system of internal relations of form». As «all forms change, and, finally, “are destroyed” by force of external influences», then «by making the certain, constantly repeating changes in an environment, a vital process avoids destroying action of environment on its form». For example, «getting for itself from an environment the chemical energy of nutrients and transforming it in the thermal one, a warm-blooded organism is saved from that disastrous cooling, which an environment tends to make in it by taking away the heat from it», and «taking a matter from an environment and assimilating it in a certain forms, an organism compensates that loss of tissues, which occurs inevitably during its interaction with an environment and which destroys an organism quickly». The external manifestations of struggle for life are very various: even for one and the same bioform in different cases they can bear no resemblance to each other, but, it is necessary to emphasize once again that «the concept of struggle for existence covers in general any, irrespective of character of external manifestations, expense of energy in the certain direction – exactly to preservation of a given form» [Basic Elements, pp. 66, 65, 89].

Struggle for socialism — the struggle inside of society for its transformation from a catagenic system to an arogenic one; in other words, the struggle for maximal arogenity of sociogenesis, for its transformation to all-increasing social arogenesis, which unique mover will be struggle of man against the nature. At the present moment «the terrestrial world is terribly splintered by political and national divisions, so the struggle for socialism is conducted not as uniform integral process in one spacious society, but as a number of self-dependent and original processes in separate societies, disconnected by state organization, by language and sometimes by race». And therefore «the question of social revolution becomes very uncertain: there is foreseen not one, but the set of social revolutions, in different countries in different time, and even in many respects, possibly, of unequal character, and the main thing – with a doubtful and unstable outcome. The ruling classes, basing on army and high military technology, can in some cases inflict such a destructive defeat on the revolted proletariat, which will reject the work of struggle for socialism in the whole spacious states on tens years back; and the examples of this sort have already happened in the annals of the Earth. Then the separate advanced countries, over which the socialism will triumph, will be as islands among the capitalist and partly even precapitalist world, hostile to them. Struggling for their own domination, the highest classes of nonsocialist countries will direct all their efforts to destroy these islands, will constantly organize military attacks on them and among the socialist nations they will find enough allies, ready for any treachery, from among former proprietors, big and small. The result of these conflicts is difficult for predicting. But even where the socialism will be kept and will come out the winner, its character will be deeply and for a long time distorted by many years of the state of siege, of necessary terror and soldiery». In general «it will be far from our socialism» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 183-184].

Struggle inside of a society — «the struggle of a man against people», which unlike struggle of man against the nature is «not only a mover, but partly a brake of progress», because it «squanders forces and dissipates creative attention of a man». Struggle inside of a society is «the high price, at which the spontaneous development is bought. The mass of forces is fruitlessly spent for this struggle, and only small part of them goes directly on the making a man more strongly and more perfect. With discontinuance of such waste of forces the epoch of conscious development begins» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 76, 45].

Struggle of classes — the second basic contradiction of class system, which, being a struggle inside of a society, creates a certain catagenity inside of it inevitably and thereby «eliminates organizational stability of social mechanism in essence» [Questions of Socialism, p. 317]. See class struggle.

Struggle of man against the nature — «the universal and basic mover of progress» unlike struggle inside of a society, being «not only a mover, but partly a brake of progress» [Questions of Socialism, p. 76]. As long as man is in struggle against the nature, he does not form a uniform system with it; but «winning» the nature, he «takes possession of its various activities, concentrating them as his own activities, becomes the central, determining complex for “conquered” complexes of the nature»: in this case there is formed a uniform system, and at that not a simple egressive one, but more complex – a system of chain egression [Tectology, v. 2, p. 124]. From the energy point of view the essence of relations of society to the nature is expressed by assimilation and expense of energy: «if assimilation of energy from the external nature predominates over expenses, then strength of society increases»; and on the contrary, it decreases, «if expenditure outweighs assimilation». As a complex social process the struggle of man against the nature includes the direct struggle and the indirect: the first one is represented by technical process, and the second one – by all other extratechnical processes, not related to this struggle directly. For example, «collective getting food in the form of hunting is an act of the direct struggle for life», and «collective discussion of ways to get food, making a plan of hunting, etc. – an act, being included in the system of this struggle indirectly». As to distinction between them, it is «by no means in degree of sociality of some or other functions – they are equally social and by no means in their vital value – they can be equally important for life; the distinction is only in a direction of functions: in the first case their object is external nature, in the second one – other social functions. In an act of hunting the subject of action is birds, animals, etc., in an act making a plan of hunting – ideas of people about this labour process». The functions of the first sort are designated as technical; the functions of the second sort – as economic and ideological [Empiriomonism, p. 263].

Struggle of nationalities — a sort of dissipation of social energy, in other words, its catagenic squandering, which decreases evolutionary potential of social system. In class systems struggle of nationalities «is strenuously maintained and exacerbated by ruling classes. They are induced to this partly by the competition of capital of different countries, nations and races, partly by the aspiration to direct the growing energy of the lowest classes to the channel of national struggle, instead of class one» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 469].

Subadapton — an adjustment of a regressing system «to a narrowed environment, i.e. to some temporary and particular conditions instead of to typical changes», in consequence of what «there is in general predetermined inadaptability to an expanding, typically-changeable environment». Such an adjustment means structural regress, which, «undoubtedly, is often accompanied by quantitative progress, but then only by temporary and partial. For example, a parasite with reduced organization, living at the expense of juices of a widespread species, can be reproduced more strongly than before, it can reach greater sizes of the body, in general, it can cover a great number of matter and energy by its species form. But in so far as the reduction has occurred, then the very possibility of further conquering movement is limited and narrowed in advance. A parasite has adapted to certain “hosts”, which are exploited by it, and already by that there is eliminated its area of distribution on larger sizes than distribution of the “hosts”. But also in these frameworks, if a parasite is reproduced too strongly, the new limit is put by extinction of the “hosts”; and so long as they themselves are biopotential and tectologically active, then in addition by their struggle against parasitic exploitation. For example, man will exterminate all his parasites sooner or later. There is certainly not eliminated the possibility that the borders of life of a reduced species will be nevertheless again expanded on some other and new ways of adaptation; but it will already occur not owing to loss of a part of the organs and functions by an organism, and in spite of this, for example, if not quite reduced groupings are restored again step by step». From the organizational point of view any «adjustment to a narrowed environment should be in itself considered as structural regress because it conducts to reduction of the organizational possibilities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276].

Subegressor — such a complex in an egressive system, which is structurally dependent on the egressor. A synonym – peripheric complex.

Subjective — «what does not possess general meaning, what has a meaning only for one or several individua» [Empiriomonism, p. 15].

Subjective expediency — a purely tectological concept expressing a more advanced, «more organizational», from the point of view of a subject, interrelation of elements in a system, i.e. such one, which to a greater degree corresponds to his requirement, to his «purposes» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 48].

Substance — a certain single essence, i.e. «empty metaphysical abstraction», which «loses the meaning, when in its place there is put a contensive energy generalization» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 255]. Historically the origin of this concept is connected with the metaphysical attempt to reduce parallelism to causality: so, for example, dualism of «body» and «spirit» was reconciled by metaphysical monism of «substance», since it was supposed that this single «essence» shows in two ways, creating two lines of «visions», which are strictly parallel and simultaneous just because they «are continuously generated by the same common cause», i.e. in metaphysics a substance acted as the hidden cause of parallelism [Country of Idols, p. 239].

Substitution — «the universal-wide method» of replacement of «smaller and more organized material of experience by wealthier and weaker organized one, i.e. giving a greater sum of combinations and easier accessible to processing». The origin of this method is sociolabour and its beginning joins with the beginning of speech and thinking. The starting point of substitution – «the connection between “utterance” and its “content”, i.e. first of all between a word and that action, which was denoted by it». Thus, under symbols «there is substituted something, which is usually very dissimilar to them, but “corresponding” to them, i.e. connected with them in a strictly certain and constant way. This interrelation becomes the scheme for organization of the facts: under some phenomena there are substituted others, so the first turn as though to symbols of the second, – and then instead of the first there are researched, are grouped, generally, are organized the second» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 229, 242]. See universal substitution.

Substratum — concrete composition of a system, i.e. elements of a system considered from the point of view of their nature. For example: the substratum of an ecosystem – organisms (a concrete set of certain animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms), the substratum of an organism – organs, the substratum of an organ – cells, the substratum of a cell – nucleus and cytoplasm, the substratum of a cytoplasm – organoids, etc. A simpler example: the substratum of a molecule of water – two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, the substratum of an atom of hydrogen – one proton and one electron, and of oxygen – nucleus of eight protons and eight neutrons and envelope of eight electrons. Thus, speaking about the substratum of a system, a researcher carries out a concretization of its elements, i.e. he is interested in their specificity. As an explanation: an egressive system of ten elements, let us suppose of one central and nine peripheric complexes, – it is a limiting abstraction; while a section of soldiers of one sergeant and nine private soldiers or solar system of the luminary and nine planets are already certain concretizations.

Succession — a connection between organizational states of a complex in process of its development, when its new structure keeps in itself some elements of old structures. Observable in the nature and society, the phenomenon of succession is a direct consequence of action of the law of incomplete destruction of organizational forms, which in its turn is a special case of world ingression [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160]. Along with changeability and selection the succession makes the tectological triad of development of a complex.

Suffering — predominance of negative selection over positive, which is accompanied by «lowering of energy of system, reduction of life; it is partial death». A systematic overweight of suffering over pleasure turns into «destructive force» and «leads to decline of a system, to its degradation, and then to ruin». With respect to a man such a destructive tendency tells perniciously upon only weak psychical natures, since «a suffering harmonizes a psychical life, if it is rich and powerful; not without reason on face of strong people a suffering leaves the mark of especial “nobleness”, which expresses by itself the principal unity in a direction of will» [Empiriomonism, pp. 168-169].

Sufficient condition of stability — such a tectological state of a complex, in which total activity of intercomplementary connections between its elements outweighs total activity of contradictions between them [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. A complex, being in such a state, is called organized complex.

Superoptical system — objective system of coordinates for collective coordination of every possible observations of the same real process. In such a system «addition of speeds is simple» and can exceed the constant «c», therewith «it “removes the spell” of mysticism of addition of optical, bisubjective, makes it clear. It is reached by abstraction from limited speed of light signals, by establishment of the common objective space and single objective time, which are deformed only optically owing to this limited speed, for mutually-moving systems. It would be possible to get this objective picture directly, if except the light one there was the other system of signaling, with infinitely-large speed of transference; and here this is changed by instant mental transferring from observer to observer without replacement, without simple identification of the second with the first, without naked transition to other position with its limitation; it is clear that such a transference means mental expansion of collective on all points of space and time» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, p. 343].

Superscience — the science of all-understanding, the beginning of which was made by the great Russian scientist, writer and politician Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Bogdanov (Malinovsky) and which he called tectology.

Surplus labour — «excess of labour energy» of a society over what is necessary for it for the preservation, representing «the stable basis» for its progress [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 315], i.e. «overplus of all social labour over the labour, which makes means of consumption of producers. Such is the first and direct meaning of the term», which «relates only to the system of production in its whole, but not to labour of separate persons. But if to accept commensurability of all kinds of labour, existence of a general measure for them, then there is the possibility to speak also about surplus labour of a separate producer. It is enough to represent both his own labour and labour, embodied in the means of his consumption, to be expressed in the same labour units; then an overplus of the first quantity over the second will be surplus labour of the given producer. This is the second, derivative and more abstract meaning of the term “surplus labour”» [Essays of Realistic World View, p. 289].

Survival of system — directly connected with its stability a relative preservation of tectological form under any changes of environment.

Sustainability — see stability.

Symbio-abiogenesis — the universal form of tectogenesis, observable in the universe in the form of coevolution of the biotic and abiotic worlds on the basis of chain assimilation-disassimilation. From the energy point of view all aggregate biocomplex, i.e. the organic world, increases the organizationality at the expense of the energy, being assimilated from abiocomplex, i.e. from the other, surrounding inorganic world, at that the last one at the expense of disassimilation of energy increases the organizationality too. For example, molecular systems of the inorganic world, giving away their kinetic, potential and thermal energy, thereby increase organizationality of their molecular construction, reaching the maximum level at absolute zero. Certainly, associations of living organisms, using all these sorts of energy, also increase their organizationality. Thus, uniform coevolutional tectogenesis covers both fragments of the universe, being, as empiria testifies, in relations of intercomplementarity.

Symbionts — complementary organisms of two different species, which in process of long coadaptation formed an elementary coevolutional system – a symbiotic complex, «having the greater sum of activities than if its parts existed separately» [Tectology, p. 1, p. 118]. For example, lichen represents a complex of two symbionts – of fungus and alga. Symbiotic relations can be formed by plants with plants, plants with animals, animals with animals, plants and animals with microorganisms, microorganisms with microorganisms. For example, termites and flagellates, living in their intestine, Diogenes-crab and actinia, attached to its shell, Sacculina and sea crab, Vorticella and Zoochlorella, leguminous plants and nodulating nitrogen-fixing bacteria, etc.

Symbiosis — a form of coexistence of two organisms of different species, interrelations between which fall within the broad range from mutually advantageous up to unilaterally harmful, i.e. from arogenic up to catagenic. As a result of such joint adaptation there are arisen stable symbiotic complexes, which biopotential is provided with the internal mechanism of chain assimilation-disassimilation between partners – symbionts. In the nature symbiosis is presented by three basic types of connection: 1) connection between organisms is mutually arogenic – mutualism; 2) connection is arogenic for one organism and neutral for another – commensalism; 3) connection is arogenic for one and catagenic for another – parasitism. At the same time in the nature there is also observed such a symbiosis, which includes all three types of relations, which are not rigorously differentiated and can turn one into another under certain conditions. For example, in light due to photosynthesis the cells of algae, living in organism of unicellular infusorium (Paramecium bursaria), can make sufficient quantity of food both for themselves and for their host, – phase of mutualism; in darkness the cells of algae consume own resources of nutrients, giving the host nothing and taking nothing away from it, – phase of commensalism; when resources of own nutrients are exhausted, these cells consume already those nutrients, which are got by the host from environment, – phase of parasitism. Moreover, symbiosis can be facultative, when each of symbionts can live independently at absence of a partner; and obligatory, when independent existence of both symbionts or of one of them is impossible.

Symbiotic complex — a compound complex, organized according to the principle of complementarity and consisted of two living organisms of different species, in which one of them (or both) assigns to a certain degree the task of regulation of the relations with environment to another (or to each other). For example, complex of Vorticella and Zoochlorella, i.e. of unicellular infusorian and unicellular algae which lives in it: «the first one belongs to elementary animals, consumes oxygen and discharges carbonic acid; the second one – to elementary plants, comprises green grains of chlorophyll, decomposes carbonic acid at the expense of energy of sun rays, using it as the material for the tissues, and discharges oxygen». In such complex there is worked the mechanism of mutual assimilation-disassimilation, giving stability to it: a part of activities, «being lost by one participant of symbiosis through unfitness for it, is got directly by another, and inversely» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 117-118].

Symbol — from the point of view of tectology one of the forms of degression, i.e. a stable, strong complex, organized not higher than «any of the notions, united by it», and less plastic than they are. Symbols «carry out the skeletal role for socially-psychical content», since they «fix, i.e. fasten, keep and protect a living, plastic tissue of psychical images from disintegration, absolutely similarly to as skeleton fixes the living, plastic tissue of colloidal proteins of our body» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 138, 131]. A symbol «is an instrument of social communication», which is necessary «for isolating of each element of experience» and owing to which this «separated element gains general meaning, comes into the experience of collective, is fixed in it and kept, as a part of the real experience» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 217]. For example, from words and concepts, which compose the main group of symbols, «there are formed judgements, theories, dogmas, along with rules, laws and other norms», while «from special symbols of art – artistic complexes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 138].

Symbol of world dynamics — Hindu Trimurti, i.e. trinity: Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu. Eternally creating Brahma «dreams, but he dreams in bodies, things, realities, as we, people, dream in images, reveries, ideas; at that his sleepy creativity heaps up new and new forms freely and confusedly: existence accumulates continuously, becomes complicated, diversified»; in other words, if to use the language of tectology, Brahma carries out the function of positive selection. Eternally destroying Shiva «ruins everything what is possible to destroy, what is accessible to his ruinous force, in what there are conditions for destruction», i.e. he carries out the function of negative selection. And at last Vishnu, «keeping what is worthy of preservation», is between Brahma and Shiva as «the expression of results of world dynamics at any given moment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 195].

Symmetric connection — see homogeneous connection.

Symmetric chain connection — see homogeneous chain connection.

Symmetric form of cooperation — a socially-production form, «based on similarity of roles of separate individuals in social labour» and characterized by «similarity of those individually-psychical forms, of which it is made up» [Basic Elements, p. 181]. The symmetric forms of co-operation are protocollectivism and collectivism.

Symmetry — «a structural fact», each statement of which is a next «step forward in cognition of the world structure, of the organizational form of the world». For example, any process of movement possesses bilateral symmetry [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 150].

Synergism — a tectological state of a certain system, at which interaction of its component parts is directed on achievement of optimal adaptation to concrete state of environment at present moment of time.

Synergistic system — a complex of activities, directed at a common purpose. An example of social system of such a type is comradely organization, which essence «consists in unity of purpose, put by people to themselves freely, without any compulsion and going beyond personal interests of each of them», at that their private purposes and «actions are determined by norms of expediency» according to the common purpose [Questions of Socialism, pp. 68, 67].

Synergy (from Greek συνεργία – cooperation) — such a system of functional connections between elements of organization, which increases the common result of their joint actions up to greater quantity than the sum of results of the actions made by each elements separately; easier speaking, such a combination of activities, which total effect of influence on environment exceeds the sum of influences on environment of the same activities, operating independently. «Let one person has a shortage of some specific activity, while another – its surplus; for example, one is a “theorist”, and another – a “practitioner”», then synergy as «organizational connection between them in the form of cooperation» arises only «when this activity at both has the same direction in essence, is aimed equally at common purposes. Then where an effort of one stops, it is continued with an effort of another; and there are overcome the greater resistances than if these efforts would not interflow in common orientation and would not adjoin in that common point where one of them ends and another begins» [Tectology, p. 1, p. 153]. Thus, synergy is generated by «common orientation of activities», therefore its briefest formulation will be the following: synergy is conjugation of activities on the basis of common purpose [Tectology, v. 1, p. 150]. See cumulation.

Synidea (from Greek συν – with, together with and είδος – idea) — like-mindedness, or, from the point of view of tectology, an identical form of thinking of different egocomplexes, uniting them into a single collective, i.e. carrying out the role of ideological connecter in it.

Synthetic cooperation — the highest form of organized cooperation, the basis for which is formed by monism of cognition and «general method of struggle for existence». Being «the dominant form of the future», in the present it shows up in the tendency to maximization of social synergy and plasticity [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 243-244]. In contrast to dualistic one «in synthetic cooperation an organizing activity is not separated from executive to such an extent that each of them is embodied in a special person; here both act conjointly, merge in such a way that in common process of labour an organizer and an executor change their roles constantly, controlling each other mutually. For example, when several people conduct some work together, on equal rights, then both in process of discussion and in process of execution of this work each of them acts alternately either in the role of organizer or executor. He is an organizer, when he gives others the instructions and advices how to conduct the work, when he votes for or against the certain actions, suggested by others, in general – when he has an influence on the common decisions, determining the course of work. He is an executor, when he participates in direct realization of together made decisions, when he submits to a found common will. Thus, organizing actions are separated from executive, but doings of both sorts are not segregated» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 232].

System — any aggregate of interconnected elements. It includes set of elements, their quantity and structure. According to the axiom of vseedinstvo any fragment of the universe is a certain combination of interconnected elements, i.e. a system, which interacts with it; consequently, all in the world is systems, and all the world is system too, which is represented to man «as the infinitely developable tissue of forms of different types and levels of organizationality» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73]. A system as integrity has special characteristics, which its parts do not have. For example, a system of two halves of broken cup, as well as each of them separately, cannot keep water, while a system of the same halves, but already stuck together, has such a capability. That is the tectological essence of difference of «organized and disorganized system as the whole, which is practically greater or less than the sum of its parts» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 195]. In tectology in addition to the concept «system» there is used its equivalent synonym «complex», however in word-combinations of the kind of «system of systems» and «complex of complexes» there is more generally used «system of complexes».

System analysis — the multi-aspect tectological research, including system approach and modelling.

System approach — tectological approach to study of any object, the basis for which is the principle of systemness and the principle of matryoshkas, while the method of matryoshkas serves as the algorithm. In other words, it is the scientifically-organizational approach to tasks of system equilibrium and development, including two basic positions: 1) «every organized whole is a system of activities, developable in a certain environment in continuous interaction with it»; 2) «each part of organized system is in a certain functional relation to the whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 274].

System convergence — see convergence.

System divergence (differentiation) — «growth of organizational distinctions between parts of a whole, increase of tectological difference», that is the basis of contradiction [Tectology, v. 2, p. 24]. Parts of a whole, becoming more and more different in their organization, diverge more and more both by tempo of their development and by force of their resistance to environment. System divergence has two tendencies of development: one leads to arising of complementary connections and creates conditions of stability, while the other leads to arising of system contradictions and creates conditions of instability [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 14, 24]. Process of divergence is irreversible: it is possible to connect divided parts of a complex again, but it will be formation of new unity and not reconstruction of old one [Tectology, v. 2, p. 11]. Tectology recognizes two types of system divergence: egression and degression, i.e. functional «coming out from series» of peripheric complexes of asymmetric center and «coming down» of one or group of intrasystem complexes with decrease of their plasticity and its increase in the rest of system part.

System expansion — such a form of progressive adaptation of a system to environment, which means not simply the increase of the sum of harmonized relations between them, but it is connected with such their interaction, from which there is resulted the inversion of their asymmetric connection, when now a system, for which environment, or more exactly some its part, has been egressor, itself becomes egressor in relation to it, moreover, the center of their subsequent joint coevolution; in other words, it is a tectological act, as the result of which actor and object of selection changed the places. Thus, system expansion is not simply «widening of environment», connected with «deepening, penetration into tissue of its complexes», that is «also tantamount to its complication», but namely it is such «a conquest of environment», when its «conquered elements» become a part of system» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 275-276].

System of associations — a combination of elements of psychical experience, which «forms the content of a concept» and is fixed by a word [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 141].

System of Bogdanov — a system of unequilibrated type with stable tendency to system expansion and broadening of own energosphere that is caused, firstly, by continuous growth of the sum of intrasystem activities at simultaneous harmonization of their connection and, secondly, by prevalence of active reactions over passive in the total sum of interactions of the system with environment. The terminological synonyms are nonequilibrium system, system of active type or, more briefly, active system.

System of chain egression — a rhizome with asymmetric connection between complexes of different level of organizationality, for example, army, in which «a number of central complexes of lower order – commanders of small units – is united by center of higher order, by chief of larger unit; a number of such centers – by more higher, etc.». In such system a platoon commander is an egressor of the first order, a company commander – of the second order, a colonel – of the third, a general – of the fourth and so up to supreme commander in chief – egressor of the highest order. Through these intermediate links the million living force of army «is connected together, and the main center determines its mass movements, directing hundred thousand human units to places, where there is the least relative resistance or where is required the greatest relative action. Each given complex is something limited and therefore can be directly connected also only with a limited number of complexes, similar to it; for example, at any complex work a man is in a position to maintain living and harmonious direct cooperation with no more than several tens of persons, at other kinds of work – just less than it. But if one is able to be in charge, let us assume, of even only ten, then at bidegree egression a higher supervisor, dealing with ten of lower ones, can be in charge of one hundred persons; at tridegree – of one thousand, etc.; then chain egression of 6 links unites one million, of 9 links – a milliard. So egression concentrates activities» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 114].

System of cognition — «complex of concepts, dominating over a given society», i.e. «not some individually-created philosophical or scientific system», but collectively-organized system of generally valid and useful concepts; for example, a scientific paradigm [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 216]. A synonymous word-combination – generally accepted system of concepts.

System of concepts — information compression of the system of experience with the purpose of economy and quickness of thinking. Each «concept is an organization of experience, an instrument of integration of the experience that has been lived and of regulation by it of the subsequent experience, i.e. finally of living labour», but it is possible to integrate accumulated experience «only in a shor form, for psychics is limited. The plan of a city is a very strongly reduced reproduction of its form and can be a good instructor at travel across the city; but if the plan was exact and equal reproduction of the very city, it would be absolutely useless. The system of concepts is just the “plan” of the sociolabor experience» [Empiriomonism, p. 277].

System of coordinates — degression of physical experience, which in itself is «only a mathematical fiction»: transition from one system of coordinates into another «is only paper-ink model for facts, if not to accept a real, quite physical transition under it» [the Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 158]. Being an instrument of cognition, the system of coordinates «is attached (really or mentally) to any of two complexes (a body and environment or two bodies, each of which then symbolizes environment for another)», at that it «will be “at rest” in relation to a complex chosen for it, because it will be connected with the complex as the real or thinkable part», and the attachment to the complex sets «one or another direction of our cognitive activity; the opposite of these directions is expressed by the signs “plus” and “minus”», which, in essence, are «ultimate abstractions from real interrelation of struggle between human collective and spontaneous nature, the struggle, in which activities of one side are neutralized, practically destroyed by oppositely directed activities of another». Since «cognitive methods and symbols have everywhere the really-practical relations as their last basis», then «the concept of “rest” is symbolically-abstract reflection of the basic vital tendency – self-preservation; but it is an obsolete symbol, already useless because of its static character, since for humankind preservation of life goes not by the conservatism, but by the development». As to rectangular system of coordinates, «humankind had billions times reproduced it practically in the construction of the dwellings before forming it analytically: any trihedral corner of a house or of a room is its real model. And the choice of one or another complex as the base for system of coordinates is nothing but abstract-symbolical choice of dwelling for a researching observer» [Objective Understanding of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 338-339].

System of experience — «the most extensive and at the same time the most plastic system», including «all sum of things and images, which are    accessible to labour and thought of humankind, to its organizing efforts. The content of this system changes continuously: each moment brings new combinations of activities in the field of experience, taking away some of the previous. The “environment” of this system is all inaccessible and unknown, everything that is still outside of human effort, perception, estimation, prediction; in the collective struggle against this environment, in process of its successive conquest there is grown up our “world”, our physical and psychical experience as the whole» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 134].

System of «false equilibrium» — a complex, which is in process of transformation and in which «equilibrium is continuously broken in a certain side», but «we directly do not notice this because of imperfection of our perception organs and methods of observation» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 253]. To such complexes the principle of analytical sum is not applicable, since «new influence changes there the course of already going structural transformation» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 259]. From the energy point of view every «false equilibrium is characterized by such a course of elementary crises that residual energy of one has time to dissipate practically completely up to another» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 230].

System of Le Chatelier — a structurally-stable system of equilibrium type, in the sum of which interactions with environment there are dominated passive reactions: in contrast to a system of Bogdanov, at unfavourable influence it narrows the sphere of the external contacts, directing the activity not at correction of extrasystem relations, but at correction of internal. One of the simplest systems of such a type is represented by any substance being at critical temperature in two its aggregative states at the same time, for example, «water and ice in one vessel at 0º C, i.e. at temperature of freezing and thawing. If to heat up the vessel, a part of ice absorbs the flowing thermal energy, passing into water, and by that it counteracts heating: the previous temperature of the mix is supported until all ice has thawed. And if instead of heating the same mix is subject to increased pressure, a part of ice, passing again into water, which volume is less, by that counteracts increase of pressure inside of the mix. A mix of liquid and solid mercury in case of heating reacts also by thawing which counteracts change of temperature; but to increased pressure the reaction is opposite – a part of mercury is frozen». It occurs because «mercury, as well as a large majority of bodies, occupies a smaller volume in solid state than in liquid one and consequently growth of pressure in the mix is counteracted not by thawing, but freezing of mercury; and this just occurs». The other, more complex example is represented by solutions: «if in a saturated solution of some salt there are its crystals, then, heating up the system, or cooling it, or varying the pressure, we shall get a further dissolution and sedimentation with absorption, allocation of heat, change of volume and pressure in the opposite direction to our influence». A still more complex example – biosystems: «for example, in our organism there are constantly taken place the processes which release and absorb heat, in approximate equilibrium in relation to a given environment; if it changes towards heating, the processes of heat absorption intensify, if towards cooling, then the opposite – heat-producing ones» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 248-249, 252].

System of production — organization of people, ideas and things, but from the positions of selection, which regulates energy exchange, it represents a compound two-complex system, i.e. economy, which, «being taken in whole, consists of people and things: of workers and means of production, of socially-labour activities, on the one hand, of nature energies, won by society, in the form of instruments, materials and products – on the other». Between two complexes there are mutual complementary interrelations: «the set of things in production supplements cooperation of people; at the expense of things, by means of assimilation of their energy through consumption of products, there are supported and reproduced labour forces of people; while expenditure of labour energy of people serves for maintenance and reproduction of the complex of technical things; so stability and development of both parts of system are mutually caused» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 21]. See scientifically-planned system of production.

System of reference — «orientation instrument» or «adjuster for cognitive fixation of real complexes – “things” and “events”», in other words, «degressive space-time framework» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, pp. 126, 128].

System of «true equilibrium» — «any system, keeping a given construction in a given environment». The expression of structural stability of such systems is the law of equilibrium [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 250, 248]. When «true equilibrium» is concerned, then «it signifies by no means exact, complete equilibrium, but only the tendency to it in bilateral vibrations». For example: «between thawing of ice and freezing of water there is no exact equality at any given moment; but if now the first process overbalances and deviation from the level is turned out in one side, then at the next moment the prevalence will go to the second, the vibration will be directed to the other side», i.e. inherently «the tendency of equilibrium arises from uncountable partial disturbances of equilibrium» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 253-255].

System property — a characteristic, which is possessed by all system in whole and which is not present at the constituent elements.

System selection — a selection by connection, which occurs in two variations: as positive selection by connection and as negative selection by connection. For example, psychical selection, «covering all processes of psychical development», is a special case of system selection; or «preservation of rudimentary bodies, without their organic function and consequently under those conditions, which should cause atrophy and destruction of the cells, is entirely explained by the system relation of these elements to the biopotential whole – to the organism» [Empiriomonism, p. 248].

Systemness — tectological characteristic of a complex, which is determined not by simple unity of its material basis, but by compound unity of its internal and external connections.

Systemogenesis — formation and development of a separate complex, connected with transformation of its structure, simply speaking, change of its tectological forms.

Tactics — «ways of current struggle» applied to achievement of a separate intermediate purpose on the way of advance to an ultimate purpose designated by strategy. Tactics only determines the methods of struggle, which are the most corresponding to a given moment and which in the maximal degree provide the strategic success of all struggle in the whole. Depending on a form of struggle tactics can be military-fighting, revolutionary, parliamentary, strike, terrorist, guerrilla, etc. [Tectology, v. 1, p. 296].

Task (problem) — a theoretical or practical question, requiring a solution. Any task «can and should be considered as organizational one; their general and constant sense is those». Irrespective of its specificity any task «is composed of a certain sum of elements, its “data”; its setting depends by itself on that an available combination of these elements does not satisfy that person or collective, which acts as the effective subject in this case». A solution is reduced to a new combination of elements, which meets to requirements of this subject, his purpose [Tectology, v. 1, p. 48].

Task of cognition — «to organize experience expediently», more exactly, elements of experience [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 214].

Task of tectology — to systematize all organizational experience, which has been accumulated by humankind during all history of its development, and «after unifying of separate things to determine that general organizational method, the applications of which are all variations of selection in reality and in theory» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 127, 197].

Tautology — an explanation which «repeats and asserts the same that is necessary to be explained». A tautology, for example, is the formulation of duty, which was given by an ethical fetishist Kant: «duty is duty and demands an execution, because it is duty» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 385].

Technariat — a social group, directly developing technics and natural knowledge, i.e. that technical intelligentsia, various by the sort of the activity – «engineers, technicians, doctors, professors, naturalist, etc.», which, in its turn, is «a part of the wider social group» – «organizational intelligentsia in general» – and represents its «social vanguard» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, p. 20]; in other words, it is the vanguard of tectorate, directly solving the task of «organization of external forces of the nature» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71].

Technical forms — «any forms of direct action of a social man on the external nature» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 226], in other words, «separateness and unity of those social processes, which in their current include the labour actions aimed at direct change of the nature external for society». For example, «if two men lift a stone together, their relation to the stone belongs to the sphere of “technics”, while their relation to each other at lifting the stone – their cooperation – is a “socially-production” phenomenon», and as of technology, which is used in process of their joint labour, it relates to the second basic group of ideological forms [Basic Elements, pp. 162, 161].

Technical invention — «a complex, combined practical deduction» (if a question is about scientific, instead of a casual invention), in other words, a complex of technical rules [Questions of Socialism, p. 386].

Technical process — «the area of direct struggle of society with nature» [Empiriomonism, p. 293], i.e. from the tectological point of view it represents an ingression. In other words, «technical process is the genetically primary area of social life», as «any social development can proceed only from it», since any extratechnical life of society «is possible only when a difference of assimilation and expenditure in technical process represents sufficiently positive quantity» [Empiriomonism, p. 265]. The synonym is socially-technical process.

Technical revolution — a transformation of technosphere connected with transition of machines in automatons and integration of the last in automatic productions.

Technical rule — «a practical deduction», or «a generalization of a former work applied to a new material, with new (i.e. even rather changed for elapsed time) instruments, in a new (even to some extent) situation» [Questions of Socialism, p. 386]. As normative forms technical rules relate to the norms of expediency and represent the organizing adapters of the third type [Questions of Socialism, p. 61].

Technical sciences — the system of directly-practical norms of expediency, which organize technical experience of people in a planned way and in contrast to natural sciences (to «norms of expediency of the highest order») «are stated in the form of a systematized number of practical instructions about the easiest ways to reach one or another technical purpose»; in the general system of sciences these are «applied science, i.e. not independent by their methods», since «they can solve the questions scientifically, only basing on the natural sciences and mathematics» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 63, 306].

Technical selection — a certain and purposeful manipulation on natural selection with use in the strict chronological order of a number of combinations of two its components – positive and negative selection. Intensifying sometimes one sometimes the other part of natural selection, man reduces its colossal dissipation, increasing by that its effectiveness, its coefficient of efficiency. Therefore it is possible to formulate briefly: technical selection is just the same natural selection, but with a higher coefficient of efficiency, while technosphere is correspondingly an anomalous operating zone of natural selection with an extraordinary high coefficient of efficiency.

Technics — 1) «organization of things by human efforts in the human interests» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 99]; 2) a complex of «methods of external doing», for example: «technics of production, of distribution, of cognition, etc.» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 228]; 3) «area of organization of things» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 95], i.e. technosphere, in which «there is direct adaptation of society to environment» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 285]. In consequence of general usage of the concept of «technics» it is more preferably and expediently in tectology to use the synonymous term «technosphere».

Technoadapton — a technical adjustment for development. The basic such technosphere-forming adjustment is an energy source.

Technocracy — the power of technariat, which organizing-volitional activity concentrates on solution of the following tasks: «planned organization of labour and distribution» under the direction of scientific and technical intelligentsia, which at that «creates certainly privileged conditions for itself, but also vitally-satisfactory conditions» for the other working classes too, «by that there are eliminated the basis for class struggle and there are turned out harmony of interests. For such a system there is also required a state-political form more often represented in kind of centralized republic» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 75].

Technology — a way of making of any product, presented in the form of chain connection of certain technical rules, or, more simply, a number of technical rules, the rigorous compliance with which and strict observance of their sequence in production guarantee the obtaining of product with required technical characteristics; in short, it is a chain system of technical rules.

Technosphere — within the limits of anthroposphere it is the border peripheric complex connected first of all with biosphere, geosphere and cosmos, i.e. an ingressor; within the limits of such an ingressive system as «the nature - anthroposphere» it is a connecter, representing «the basic one of two sides of production – the technical», in which «the struggle of society against the nature» proceeds directly; within the limits of the triune organizational task it is «the area, where man organizes things by means of consciousness» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 22]. In compliance with the principle of social causality it is exactly technosphere that «determines all development of society» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 284-285].

Technospheric organoms — four organizational principles of social technics, the historically first of which is «spontaneous-organic, conservative connection of instrument with collective», the second one is «spontaneous-organic and conservative connection of instrument with an individuum in collective», the third – «already not spontaneous-organic, but conscious, not conservative, but plastic, i.e. changeable, connection of instrument with an individuum in collective», and the fourth – «conscious, plastic connection of instrument with collective» [Organizational Principles of Social Technics and Economics, pp. 275-278].

Technotectogenesis — organization of things and external forces of the nature, their submission, coordination and purposeful use, i.e. that part of the triune organizational task, which solution is reduced to harmonization of technosphere [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71].

Technovampirism — catagenic form of technical process, which exists along with its arogenic forms, in consequence of what there is inefficient squandering of social energy. A prominent example of technovampirism is now widespread buying up of advanced technologies, technical inventions, patents with their subsequent «freezing», and also bribe of the very inventors or suppression of their eager activity, which are carried out by contemporary transnational corporations in the private interests.

Tectocracy — the power of tectorate, which organizing-volitional activity is directed on realization of the collectivist ideal: «total elimination of classes and the collective organization of production, transition of organizing functions and as their external expression – of property of means of production in hands of all society in its whole; at that each able-bodied person without difference of a speciality is a worker alongside with others; if he carries out a guiding role, then this is only by order of collective and under its control; in distribution non-uniformity is allowed according to increase of expenses of energy at more complex and intense work». Since «the present class differentiation with its contradictions is a phenomenon of world scale», then only the collectivist ideal can solve the task of social counterdifferentiation in the same scale: «it does not narrow, but, on the contrary, expands further that conjugation of labour activities, which was developed by capitalism and by virtue of which already now in labour value of any product there are joined atoms of work of millions and millions people», but «to this it adds the conjugation of organizing-volitional activities, which centralistically covers the world collective». By this the collectivist ideal «destroys anarchy of production – the starting point of disingressions of class system; and the expression of this anarchy – exchange of commodities – it replaces by centralized planned distribution of products, which corresponds to organization of production», at that «together with separating disingressions of anarchy there are eliminated obstacles for progressive expansion and deepening of socially-conjugational processes», which are forced actually «by functions of collective, acting through separate, mobile groupings of its members, as through its organs. This is the real social counterdifferentiation, and consequently, tectologically real solution of the task put by the epoch» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 74, 77-78].

Tectocyte (stem cell) — a tectologically universal cell capable of cytodifferentiation in a wide range, i.e. capable to turn into other special cells and to form any biotissue of organism by repeated division.

Tectogenesis — «increase of organizationality» in the world, observable as world progress [Empiriomonism, p. 106], as «infinite stream of self-organizing activity» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 240]. This empirical is a result of «inequality of positive and negative selection: in the first one there is always an opportunity of its continuation, the second one constantly stops, exhausting itself», and though «quantitative overweight on its side is huge» – «nevertheless the sum of organizationality increases» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 206].

Tectological act — an element of any process, both of organizational and of disorganizational, i.e. «any tectological transition of forms» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 262]. Thus, it is more universal generalization than organizational act, to which the formula of three phases is also applicable. According to this formula the beginning of any tectological act is always a crisis C, but «any crisis C, if to trace its results up to one or other consolidation of system relations, can be presented as the beginning of a tectological act. Thus, a tectological act is in general a crisis C with a cycle of its consequences» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 266-267].

Tectological analysis — within the limits of a given task it is sufficiently complete analysis of internal and external relations of a tectological form, which is carried out after «studying of its external and internal history» [Basic Elements, p. 49].

Tectological approach — the universal way of consideration of all observable processes in the world, namely from the organizational point of view: under a veil of set of the phenomena, accompanying a studied process, to reveal organizational connections, to determine their type and, being based on the general organizational laws, to understand the process, to find out the tendency of its development and, if it is necessary, to give recommendations for its correction.

Tectological border — all sum of contacts of a complex with its environment, which is characterized by a chain of disingressions with activities of the environment [Tectology, v. 1, p. 166]. A crossing of border, directed from a complex on environment, is nonequivalent to the opposite, since different ways of crossing are accompanied with different interactions. A tectological border between two adjacent separate complexes is «area of equilibrium of oppositely directed activities, coming into organizational connection of both complexes»; in other words, it is area of complete disingressions, through which «there is made transition from one organizational form to another in space, just as it is made through crisis in time. The parallelism, existing between the properties of time and space – of two general world degressions», allows «to consider tectological borders as spatial crises of forms», relating to crises of type D [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. At that it is necessary to remember that «a tectological border often does not coincide with spatial, but in many cases is not at all expressed geometrically, for example, when the matter goes about a psychical association, about an ideological system, etc.» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 153].

Tectological condition — a description of all organizational characteristics, necessary for tectological research, of a complex at a certain moment of time, including all set of the concentrated activities-resistances, their combination and a type of their connection; simpler speaking, it is a totality of internal and external relations of a complex as a fixed moment of its organizational development.

Tectological concepts — «scientifically-organizational concepts, strictly formal, as well as mathematical, which, actually, belong to them too». For example, conjugation is «as much formal concept, as addition of quantities, which is its special case» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 144].

Tectological deduction — the method of theoretical and practical application of tectological laws. Only on their basis «there is possible the wide tectological deduction, which will apply and combine them for new theoretical and practical conclusions. True, it can begin already at presence of simple empirical generalizations; but then, as the example of other sciences shows, it is still not very reliable. When the general laws have been just found out, then deduction gives a firm support for planned organizational activity – practical and theoretical: then there is removed the element of spontaneity, randomness, anarchical search, attempts in labour and in knowledge, which are made to the touch». Thus, under «the wide tectological deduction» there is meant all the methodological part of tectology [Tectology, v. 1, p. 133].

Tectological difference (tectological potential) — a quantitative and qualitative dissimilarity of complexes, i.e. a distinction in composition and construction of their elements [Tectology, v. 2, p. 5].

Tectological form — «totality of connections between elements» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212], or, more precisely, a result of a certain combination of activities and resistances, i.e. their complex or system. In continuous interaction, sometimes destroying each other, sometimes being combined all over again, tectological forms «change and develop. This change, this development are regulated by the law of selection: “less adapted” forms disappear, there are kept ones “more adapted” to the environment. And more adapted – it means: more organized, which connect more significant sum of activities-resistances in a more harmonious combination» [From Philosophy to Organizational Science, p. 113], i.e. satisfy necessary and sufficient conditions of stability.

Tectological formator — the general organizing factor of initial phase of a forming, representing an integral part of the universal tectological mechanism; in short, it is one of the attributes of forming mechanism. To such universal formators tectology refers conjugation, ingression, connecter, disingression, tectological border, crises C and crises D.

Tectological formula of a crisis — CD, since «all crises begin with phase C and also all come to an end in phase D». If in some tectological analysis there is especially separated out a group of crises C (or crises D), then it means only that in the researched process a phase C (phase D) is of prevailing importance, i.e. exactly «it is of a special interest, comes into the foreground» of the given tectological research [Tectology, v. 2, p. 236].

Tectological generalization — a cognitive generalization of the highest degree, «giving the concept about the forms and types of organization», which is reached by tectological induction [Tectology, v. 1, p. 129]. The result of such generalizations is the universal tectological laws, i.e. those «world formulas», which will give humankind «the possibility in planned way to take possession of any totality of elements of the world process» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 255].

Tectological gnoseogenesis — the historical process of formation of the general methodology of cognition, starting from making of the primary tectological method by humankind – speech and ending with the universal organizational science. As retrospective analysis shows, the tectological tendency of this process «arose together with speech, i.e. since man became a thinking creature», and further, approximating to scientific forms, it was expressed in arising of philosophy, which, connecting the human experience into one scientifically-harmonious system, firstly explained the world, not setting before itself the real task of transformation of the world, and only starting «from the times of A. Lock, D. Hume and I. Kant philosophy began to turn to the general methodology of cognition». The first attempt of creation of universal methodology belongs to Hegel, the next approximations to it were «the universal-evolutionary schemes of H. Spencer and especially materialistic dialectics», and at last empiriomonism finished the approximation, being the direct forerunner of the universal methodology of scientific cognition [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 111-112].

Tectological imperative — the motto of tectology, its basic rule, which says: strictly following the principle of organizational symmetry, «to take possession step by step of the phenomena and things so that from some to get others expediently and by means of some to overcome others» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 212-213].

Tectological induction — the basic method of generalization of elements of experience with heuristic aim at search of «conditions and ways of organization of given elements in relation to given activities or resistances». According to this method for «passing into the area of tectology proper» it is necessary to abstract from concrete specially-scientific «character of elements, to replace them by indifferent symbols and to express their connection by abstract scheme», which should «be compared with other similarly obtained schemes and by this way to make tectological generalizations, giving the notion of forms and types of organization». Tectological induction represents «three basic forms: generalizing-descriptive, statistical and abstract-analytical» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 129].

Tectological inversion — a tectological act of transformation of an activity into a resistance, and on the contrary; for example, historical transformation of some idea from an organizing instrument into a disorganizing one or degeneration of a socially useful individual into a social parasite.

Tectological laws (organizational laws) — see structural laws.

Tectological level — a certain complexity of construction of internal and external relations of any complex, which allows to discern it in the system of other complexes surrounding it.

Tectological material — «all world of experience», accumulated by humankind for all history of its development, including all material of special sciences and «all the results obtained by them» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 134, 140].

Tectological mechanism — two general organizational mechanisms: forming and regulating, i.e. the system of tectological formators and regulators.

Tectological method — the universal method, which is based on the tectological principles and consequently is general for all spheres of human activity, which use in any special field requires «only small modifications, even more exactly – additions» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, p. 243]; or, from the point of view of selection, it is «that general organizational method, which applications are all variations of selection in reality and in theory» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 197]. For example, the energy method is general, the basis for which is the tectological principle of energy.

Tectological model of living organism — a three-complex system of «ingressor – degressor – egressor», in which the system of sense organs is ingressor, the body of a living organism – degressor, and the brain is egressor.

Tectological model of society — a classical three-complex system of «ingressor – degressor – egressor», in which the system of production is ingressor, the system of security – degressor and the system of control – egressor.

Tectological point of view — in general, the single sight of world around, the basis for which is the idea of organization; and in particular, the consideration of a studied object by means of concepts and methods of tectology, i.e. from the point of view of tectology. See the organizational point of view.

Tectological potential — see tectological difference.

Tectological progress — an adapter of a complex, expanding evolutionary potentialities, to «the most constant, repeating conditions of environment with their typical, most probable changes» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 274]. In conditions of variously changeable world environment «a systematic, stable progress is realized as a conquest of an environment; and this means a deepening, penetration into a tissue of its complexes, which increases the sum of interrelations with it and their variety, – that is expressed by terms of “expansion”, “complication” of environment» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 276]. Since any development of a complex is a compound interweaving of progressive and regressive transformations, then tectological progress means the prevalence of the first over the second [Tectology, v. 2, p. 277]. In other words, «it supposes the known degree of prevalence of positive selection over negative» [Empiriomonism, p. 261] that from the energy point of view means growth of internal energy of a complex at the expense of environment with minimization of entropy. The short formula of the term: tectological progress = quantitative progress + structural progress.

Tectological question — an organizational question, to which any task of practice and theory is reduced: «how to organize most expediently some totality of elements – real or ideal» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 142].

Tectological regularity — any recurrence of organizational forms based on any convergence [Tectology, v. 2, p. 95].

Tectological regulator — the general organizing factor of final phase of a forming, representing an integral part of the universal tectological mechanism; in short, it is one of the attributes of regulating mechanism. To such universal regulators tectology refers conservative selection, progressive selection, dynamic equilibrium, biregulation, assimilation and disassimilation.

Tectological research — the highest form of scientific research, for which there is no framework of special sciences and which, freely moving in its generalizations on all empirical field, expands the own field and own conclusions constantly. A tectological research «comes from some broad generalization, which is suggested by living experience» and «scientifically arranged; and when it gets a form of an exact scheme it appears not simply broad, but universal», since «in its basis there is found out a special point of view, which can then be used beyond all bounds in the most various fields of organizational experience, illuminating the way to solution of the most various practical and theoretical tasks» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 258].

Tectological statement of tasks — the contemporary general scientific statement of a question, which «is characterized, firstly, by that it is based on ascertainment of organizational essence of the question, secondly, by that it is in full measure universal, covering both practical and theoretical methods, both conscious human and spontaneous methods of the nature»; at that «some are elucidated and explained by others; outside of such integral statement of a question its solution is just impossible, for a part, which has been torn out from the whole, cannot be made to be the whole or to be understood apart from the whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 112]. See universal statement of tasks.

Tectological symmetry — invariance of structural laws at any spatiotemporal transformations.

Tectological tendency — the most probable development of an organizational process, the regularity of which is expressed by the principle of limiting equilibrium. Such a general tendency «is always present, but is far from always embodied in an end result, because it can be masked or paralyzed by other tendencies, which follow from concrete complexity of conditions». This occurs because «for the same totality of elements there is quite often possible not one, but several different forms of limiting equilibrium». For example, there are «substances, which at full identity of the chemical structure are capable to crystallize in different kinds or to be sometimes amorphous, sometimes crystalline»: they are sulfur, phosphorus, carbon, etc.; «many chemical reactions come to an end sometimes by one, sometimes by other combination». However transition to one or another limiting equilibrium «is by no means casual, but depends on conditions, in which the transformations of forms take place», i.e. there are no contradictions with the regularity expressed by a tectological tendency, but «difference of conditions can be often hardly taken into account and estimated here» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 219].

Tectological thinking — the most perfect form of scientific thinking, which «is characterized exactly by that it generalizes and unites all specialized, takes for itself as the material every possible elements of the nature and life in order to combine them and connect by the same methods, under the same laws» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 55].

Tectological transition — the cognitive procedure of making of a universal tectological generalization, the essence of which consists in the following: in order to pass from the field of special sciences in the field of tectology, it is necessary to abstract from concrete-specific character of elements, «to replace them by indifferent symbols and to express their connection by abstract scheme», which in comparison with other similarly obtained schemes «will give the concept about the form and type of organization» of the given elements [Tectology, v. 1, p. 129].

Tectological triad — three universal laws, observable in development of any complex: of changeability, succession and selection.

Tectological wheel — the symbol of continuously developing universal organizational science. In the figurative form tectology is the wheel, which eternally rolls on the empirical field: the part of the wheel, directing upwards, symbolizes induction, the one, directing downwards, – deduction, the point of contact with empiria symbolizes «the moment of truth», where practice checks deductive knowledge with experience and collect new empirical data for induction.

Tectologist — «a new type of scientist: a widely educated, monistically thinking, socially-living» representative of elite. A tectologist systematizes «all collective experience into uniting forms of cognition», the knowledge of which «is substituted for acquaintance with infinite details» and allows him to orientate freely and correctly in any special field, the particulars and trifles of which «are unknown to him, but all is clear for him in general, and he can easily acquaint with each of these particulars and trifles, as soon as he wishes». Moreover, at possession of the general methods of cognition and practice it is enough for a tectologist «to approach» with them «to any question, to any vital task, and he will solve this question, this task, though they are outside of his “speciality”. While at old specialization man is unable “to approach”, the general methods are not present, – for solution of a particular question, of a particular task it is necessary to take possession of a whole new speciality that can demand all human life». The old type of scientist, i.e. «a philistine-specialist» of a narrow type, «becomes not only an ugly, but also a useless figure, he is unable to create something in his field, because his methods are stereotyped» and specific, «at the best case he is still suited for collecting of the facts; but also here frequently he makes a harm instead of a use, being unable to examine these facts, senselessly heaping them up or even unconsciously distorting them according to his obsolete point of view». In contrast to this «man-fraction» in a tectologist «there is expressed consciously-systematic collecting of man» into «man-whole». With disappearance of differential man the prologue of human history comes to the end, the arrival of integral man means the beginning of history. We live in the epoch of collecting of man, and though «man has not come yet, but he is not so far, and his silhouette is appearing on horizon clearly» [Questions of Socialism, pp. 42, 44, 46].

Tectology (from Greek τεκτων – constructor, builder and λόγος – teaching, i.e. «teaching about construction») — 1) «the universal organizational science», in other words, the science with the universal point of view, i.e. with variable center of coordinates of research [Tectology, v. 1, p. 67]; 2) «the organizational dynamics» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 258], or the science, which studies the dynamics of organizational forms, reveals and systematizes all basic principles, according to which there is occurred the world organizational metamorphosis; 3) the universal methodology of solution of any scientifically-organizational tasks, cognitive, practical and prognostic; 4) the metamethodology of the single scientifically-organizational thinking for all disciplines. Tectology as generalization of all experience, available to humankind, represents an inductive science, and as the general scientific methodology – a deductive science [Tectology, v. 1, p. 112]. The main task of tectology is to overcome isolation of special sciences, binding separate particular methods by unity of the universal methodology, in which it connects experimental character of natural sciences with abstract symbolism of mathematics. In the very statement of tasks and in the very understanding of organizationality tectology stands «on the sociohistorical point of view», and as a material it covers all the world of experience. By virtue of this «it is really universal science both by the methods and by the content» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 134]. Moreover, «tectology is the sole science, which must not only directly produce its methods, but also research and explain them; therefore it just represents the completion of the cycle of sciences» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 128]. Thus, the shortest definition of this really superscience will be the following: tectology is the science of all-understanding.

Tecton (from Greek τεκτων – a builder) — an elementary structure, of which there are composed more complex ones. All structural variety observable in the world tectology reduces to the three elementary structures: they are ingression, egression and degression.

Tectonom (from Greek τεκτων – a builder, νόμος – a law) — a tectological principle, i.e. a general organizational law.

Tectonomics (from Greek τεκτων – a builder, νόμος – a law) — the system of tectological principles, i.e. the structure of world environment.

Tectophany — the phenomenon of order, concord, harmony (from Greek τεκτων – a builder and φαινω – to show), the universal process of world ordering, of harmonization (in Latin ordofication); in tectology it means «increase of organizationality» in the world development [Empiriomonism, p. 106], simpler speaking, the world organizational process.

Tectorate — «organizing intelligentsia», i.e. a social group, directly solving the triune organizational task. In addition to technariat, its «social vanguard», it is related with «political, advocatory, official, financial, accounting intelligentsia, etc.» [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge, p. 20]. The latin equivalent of this concept is cognitariat.

Tectorial principle — a universal empirical generalization, which says: «changes of boundary elements are determined by changes of environment and by construction of the whole, and can precede changes of the whole». For example, «a wild tribe enters into relations with Europeans; then the higher strata of this tribe, directly participating in the relations, can be considerably civilized, whereas the mass, standing aside from direct influence of culture, remains fully in the former state»; or, let us assume, some complexes of a system undergo a harmful external influence directly, then destroying actions can either develop without noticeable intrasystem disturbances for a long time or lead to a general-system crisis. This principle is a consequence of two other tectological generalizations: «history of internal relations of a form is determined by history of external relations» and «construction of middle elements of a form is determined by construction of the whole in process of their change» [Basic Elements, pp. 79-80].

Tectorion (from Greek τεκτων – constructor and όριον – border) — a boundary complex of a system, its tectological border; more simply, any boundary layer of elements of a system.

Tectory (from Greek τεκτων – constructor and όρος – border) — a boundary zone of a complex, i.e. «all sum of contacts of a complex with its environment» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 166]. A terminological synonym is tectological border.

Tectoscope — intellectual procedure of change of the point of view, or of «the center of coordinates of research». The universality of tectology consists in that it «is the science with arbitrary variable center of coordinates, or the universal point of view» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 67], therefore in those tectological researches, when it is necessary to make sense of organizational dynamics of some process, by means of this intellectual method a tectologist «is plunged» into its temporality, researching all changes of the form of process from the point of view of one of its elements.

Tectoscopy — an observation scale of a certain systemogenesis, its discerning in one or another tectological matryoshka and coordination of its chronotop with chronotop of an observer.

Teleological connection — a subsequent, resultant connection, which arises according to the principle of circular causality in a system of the type of «instrument – material». For example, a return influence of superstructure on the basis is a teleological connection, since it is a natural result of direct influence of basis on superstructure. Or another concrete example: a railway schedule, which is undoubtedly the superstructure over the real railway life and as an ideological thing undoubtedly reflects and expresses it, but this reflective function is imperceptible against the background of its organizational, i.e. its practical function: «a schedule controls movement of trains; change a couple of figures in it – an insignificant ideological change, – and all movement are disorganized, there comes chaos and accident. However what was earlier – a movement of trains or their schedule? It is known to everyone that Stephenson’s models, the first steam locomotives, went without a schedule; and it is clear to everyone that exactly development of railway traffic determined by itself development of schedules». Speaking the scientific language, it is «genetic connection of two phenomena», which does not prevent from «that a schedule, if it has already created, controls the trains, that it, in turn, determines the departure of such a train at such-and-such an hour»: «in fact it has just made for that: it is a subsequent, teleological or resultant connection» [Questions of Socialism, p. 327].

Teleology — a division of tectology, which on the basis of the principle of selection generalizes all observable facts of conservation and destruction with revealing of general laws of both as the final result; more simply, it is «objective teleology which is negation of teleology in the usual and philosophical meaning of the word», since where «“expediency” is observed in the nature, no “conforming” with anyone’s “purposes” is really present, But there is a result of quite spontaneous processes, which are automatically regulated by destruction of all unadapted to environment, of everything what is unstable, not strong in its given conditions» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 289].

Temperature — «expression of kinetic energy of particles of a body, directed to their separation, to breaking of connection between them», which is supported by intermolecular cohesion [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212].

Temple — such a social connection of egressive type in the epoch of authoritarianism, which «unites faithfuls between themselves and with a deity, an idealized representative of the past generations» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 382].

Tempo — speed of a crisis; quickness, precipitancy of change, process, or, that is more exact, speed of change of a form of process. For example, an explosion is a sharp increase of speed of the same process, but it «is not something new tectologically – it is continuation of that process, which went earlier; there is changed only its tempo» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 253], increased «at once» by some orders. At that it is necessary to specify that «the expressions “at once” and “long time” are not scientific, when the matter is about the spontaneous nature: they suppose that subjective measure of time, which is given to us by usual current of our psychical processes. The same second, which in labour or cognitive activity is represented as an extraordinarily small time interval, since our consciousness is capable to cover for this interval only a very small number of changes, forms a huge period of time from the point of view of molecular, atomic, subatomic, etc. processes: in a second there are taken place millions of millions of vibrations of particles of matter, ether waves, etc.; for example, for gamma rays of radium the number of vibrations per second is determined approximately by the figure 5х10²¹ (five sextillions); and each vibration represents still a complex process, passing through numerous, or more exactly, perhaps uncountable phases». And on the contrary, a second is an extraordinarily small period of time compared with geological. If as an illustration to consider the common tendency for all physical bodies towards minimization of their surfaces at a given volume, then speed of this process for liquid bodies is by far orders greater than for solid: «a liquid “at once” takes the spherical form of drop» in contrast to «the stones at the bottom of a river or in a coastal strip of a sea» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 201]. This is an example of various course of a common process for different complexes, but it is necessary to note that under different conditions the same process in the same complex proceeds with different speed too: for example, at low temperatures the joining of hydrogen with oxygen goes during milliards of years, while «at action of spark the same reaction goes by explosive order» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 233].

Tempo of systemogenesis — a speed of development of a concrete system in relation to a speed of change of environment, i.e. «tempo of life» of a system. According to the principle of harmony there are successfully adapted those systems, a tempo of development of which, firstly, is harmoniously fitted in tempo of change of environment, and a tempo of development of the parts of which, secondly, is harmoniously fitted in their own tempo of development. A breaking of any of two these conditions, i.e. any discordance in tempos of both extra- and intrasystem processes, «can and should disorganize all the system step by step. For example, kidneys serve for separation of the certain poisons, formed at the vital functions of different tissues of a body as the products of their continuous partial disintegration – disassimilation. It is enough that activity of kidneys lags behind this process, and the organism gets chronically poisoned» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 24-25].

Tempodifference — 1) a quantity of difference in speed of compared processes; 2) a degree of temporal divergence between the parts of a single whole, separate complexes or different systems. Tempodifference is an important tectological characteristic, since distinction in speed of development of parts of a system leads to growth of the intrasystem contradictions and as a result to the intrasystem crisis.

Temporal crisis — change of an organizational form of complex in time without change in space, easier speaking, change of a form localized in space. The basic difference of temporal crisis from spatial one is in its irreversibility.

Temporal divergence — consequence of system divergence, when together with «increase of organizational differences between the parts of a whole, increase of tectological difference», there is increased the divergence between them «also on the very tempo of life», that «inevitably leads to disorganization, a slower or faster one, depending on the sum of conditions». Development of disharmony in consequence of temporal divergence is convenient to be explained by the following analogy: «let a watch-maker has made a few very exact clocks and has simultaneously put them in motion»; sooner or later «under the law of divergence they will deviate from true time not equally», i.e. «some will be fast, others will be slow, and at that in different measure»; in order that the clocks should make a single whole, a watchmaker has bound their hands by strings, – «it is clear that under these conditions» sooner or later the clocks «will inevitably stop each other» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 24-25]. Temporal divergence is one of the conditions of instability.

Temporality — 1) a tectological quantity, which describes a frequency of interactions of a system with environment and numerically equal to the number of tectological acts per unit of time: in the phase of stability it is a frequency of cycles, while in the phase of instability – a frequency of crises, i.e. a frequency of change of tectological forms; 2) a tectological concept, which covers all area of changeability of a system for a certain period of its development and expressing all observable spectrum of the speeds, i.e. a range of tempos, within the limits of which there is developed a concrete systemogenesis.

Tendencies of scientific and technical development — the general directions of struggle of man against the nature, which «signify the rise of scientific technics on the step of conscious intensification of productive forces, and not just of their spontaneously stimulated development». For the given period «the most general of the basic tendencies of scientific and technical development» are 1) «the conscious struggle for the maximum coefficient of use of all means and possibilities»; 2) the tendency of automatization and computerization of all manufacturing; 3) the change of the economy paradigm: from regional, for which the tendency to autarchy is characteristic, to planetary one with the tendency to form firm intercomplementary connections between separate regional economies; 4) the tendency to «scientific organization of labour», i.e. to «the rational use of the present labour forces» («physically-executive» and «organizational») on the basis of development of «special “organizational sciences”» and of universal organizational science; 5) the change of «character of ideological stimuli of scientific work», connected with growing consciousness of «the basic practical sense of science» and with «increasing collectivization of research scientific work» aimed at «real-practical prospects»; 6) formation of the technariat – «a social group, directly developing scientific technics and natural science», i.e. of the «technical intelligentsia», which is the social vanguard of the tectorate – of the «organizational intelligentsia in general»; 7) «making by the technical intelligentsia of a new world view», which «gravitates towards monism» and is both «scientifically practical» and «consciously organizational»; 8) the striving of the technical intelligentsia «to become a class “for itself”, with a particular ideology, and to become an independent, not a subordinated organizer of the social economy»; 9) the tendency to the increasing of the tectorate’s leading role in global sociogenesis, up to now its spontaneous aspiration to become a single governing body in all spheres of human doing [Socially-scientific Significance of the Newest Tendencies of Natural Knowledge (theses), pp. 461-462].

Tendency — a structural orientation of a systemogenesis, i.e. that organizational direction, in which development of a system or its complex takes place. The prognostic function of science is based on determination of tendencies. Science cannot predict what has not had an exact example in experience, but «if in general it is known what exists, and it is known, in what direction it changes», i.e. the tendency is known, then science not only can, but also «must draw a conclusion about what will ensue from this. It should make this conclusion so that people could conform to it in their actions, so that they would not use their strength in vain, acting in spite of the future, delaying the development of new forms, – but so that they could consciously work for the acceleration and facilitation of this development» [Questions of Socialism, p. 90]. The algorithm of a scientific prediction is simple: firstly there are determined the tendencies of the crisis and «conditions, in which they are developed», and then there is determined their limit, i.e. that «certain equilibrium, to which the crisis gravitates» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 218]. From the point of view of tectology «no tendency acts quite separately, in an absolutely pure form»: «for example, the law of gravitation is not broken by that an object, thrown by a forceful way, flies upwards, or by that a balloon rises, but not falls, any regular tendency can be paralyzed by others, which are also precisely regular and in their turn are subject to studying» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 7]. Since the primary and basic condition of preservation of a complex is its «successful struggle against the external nature for the existence», then «the primary and basic tendency», which is observable in the world, is «the tendency of adaptation» [Course of Political Economy, p. 6].

Tendency of development — an organizational orientation of a systemogenesis, which is determined by correlation of positive and negative selection: the overweight of positive selection promotes progress, while the overweight of negative – regress. From the energy point of view the progressive tendency of development is connected with assimilation by system of energy from environment, while the regressive – with disassimilation.

Tendency of tectological research — a scientific extrapolation of any broad empirical generalization in the direction of further its universalization. A tectological research differs from any other by constant test for general scientific character of each to some extent broad scientific generalization: its running in all the empirical field is just the characteristic feature of such a research.

Tension of energy — «relative quantity of changes, which are possible depending on a given complex of energy». If a relative measure of possible actions from opposing activities is equal, no change will occur: it occurs only at their distinction, i.e. at presence of a certain difference of tensions of energy, that tectologically means incomplete disingression [Tectology, v. 1, p. 177].

Theogenesis — the historical process of transformation of a real authority in a deity. The tectological reconstruction of this process consists in the following. When in primitive society an old patriarch, burdened by age, was not capable to control the community any more, «for replacing him there was come up another head-organizer, which just carried out his former practical functions», i.e. one authority was replaced by another, or, using the language of tectology, «a former egression was replaced by a new». But a patriarch is not simply egressive center, since he «did not only control practically the life of his community, he was acknowledged by all to have the special right to this, he was power, his role was fixed in concepts and norms of communal ideology, in thinking of the community and in its custom or morals». Tectologically it means that a patriarch is «egression connected with degression», since «direct connection of the organization is here fixed by ideological skeleton», which «gives it the greatest strength». Therefore at change of patriarchs a former egression changes to a new one easily, but «its ideological skeleton is not so easily destroyed: it is too firm, too strengthened by tens of years of authoritarian submission». The old patriarch «remains for the relatives, even for his actual successor the central, supreme figure, the honourable head of the community», i.e. in essence «simply the symbol of unity of the community». Meanwhile, «community grows, its composition changes, its territory spreads out, the blood relations are less close with each generation», but while a patriarch is alive, «he does not cease to personify its organizational unity»: when there are contradictions inside of community, which undermine its unity, «then looks and thoughts of the relatives go to the old symbol of this unity», and then «in presence of the patriarch the impulses of hostile passions become calm, conflicts are softened, and pacificatory activity of the real organizer meets with already less resistances». Thus, «owing to conservatism of ideology an old authority is “above” a new one for all». Moreover, this ideological skeleton is kept even after the death of an old patriarch: «they continue to obey his precepts, his successor refers to his will», i.e. «his guiding power, his “authority”, is kept, and at that as the higher in comparison with authority of his successor. And when he will die too, his authority is in turn kept too as the higher in comparison with authority of the third one, which has replaced him, etc. Thus in this chain the authority of deads towers above the authority of alive and the more, the farther it leaves in the past». Just for this reason «the most remote ancestor, which precepts are still passed on living generations, grows in a huge, superhumanly authoritative figure – in a deity. So from the real authorities through conservation of ideological skeleton, shaping egression and remaining, as an empty cover, after their dying out, there are turned out imaginary symbolical authorities of religious world views» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 146-147].

Theomonism — the first stage of development of monism, connected with appearance of religious world views and characterized by three basic features: a) «all material of experience was grouped around a chain of authorities» in the form of «their precepts or revelations»; b) «the methods were undifferentiated and were in essence reduced to authoritarian causality»; c) «the unity of construction was reached in the developed religions by centralization of authority in the image of a supreme deity». Theomonism arisen and dominated over the epoch of weak division of labour, therefore it did not contain «any significant specialization», being notable for «simplicity and integrity» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243]. The synonym is monotheism.

Theopluralism — polytheism; a type of religious world view, at which all experience is concentrated around a few or great number of «imaginary symbolical authorities», historically developed from real as a result of theogenesis [Tectology, v. 2, p. 147]. The synonym is polytheism.

Theoretical deduction — theoretical «application of the results obtained by induction». This method differs from practical deduction «only by initial material», since it deals «with cognitive generalizations instead of technical rules», but in general it is carried out by the same way. For example, «the explanation of orbit of planets could be got by Newton by means of such deductive combination»: the first generalization – «free bodies fall on the ground vertically», the second one – «a lateral impulse diverts falling bodies from vertical, giving curvature to their way», and the third, «widely organizing» generalization – «a multiplied action gives a multiplied result» [Questions of Socialism, p. 386].

Theory — an organizational tool of cognition, i.e. an instrument of organization of «socially-labour experience». In other words, it is the scheme of explanation of empirical data, at that «such schemes are supposed as “heuristic constructions”, which are used temporarily as an auxiliary method for finding and definition of connections of experience» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 167].

Theory of freedom — see eleuterism.

Theory of relativity — bisubjective physics, i.e. physics of two observers, which from the tectological point of view as the «special “theory of corrections”» [Principle of Relativity from the Organizational Point of View, p. 147] represents «a great progress in physics», but, nevertheless, it is just «only a stage of its development, which leads to the physics not of one, not of two observers, but of a researching collective» [Organizational Sense of the Principle of Relativity, p. 129].

Thing (object) — a process from the dynamic point of view, while a totality of characteristics of a thing is a form of process. Studying of a concrete thing is reduced to research of a certain form of process, which is considered to be cognized only in that case, «if in the internal mutual relations of elements of a process we have found that constant, which is superficially perceived by us in similarity of the separate impressions, receivable by us from a process, and that original, which underlies at distinction of the given process from others», i.e. if «we have found both unity of existence and separateness of a process» [Basic Elements, pp. 24-25]. Tectology regards any thing as a certain system, which continuously interacts with an environment and the component elements of which are characteristics of a thing.

«Thing in itself» — a thing outside of experience, i.e. an abstraction, which is «cognitively vacuous, equal to zero» [Country of Idols, p. 228].

Thinking — «a speech minus a sound» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 186], otherwise, «internal speech»: «when a nervously-muscular reaction of a word occurs in the weakened degree, there can be turned out no sounds at all: a word is not “said”, but only is “thought”, it is inaccessible to other people» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 133]. Thinking is both a way, and a process of organization of experience, the essence of which is in «coordinating the facts of experience in harmonious groupings – thoughts and systems of thoughts, i.e. theories, doctrines, sciences and so forth» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 70]. As a historical phenomenon it has the social nature: «the organization of thinking was determined, certainly, by the organization of labour, as the means for which it served» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 81]. According to Bogdanov, «the types of thinking are shaped in the social practice from the types of its organization»: «a cognition of authoritarian collective is dualistic, and of anarchical collective – pluralistic» [Philosophy of Contemporary Naturalist, pp. 140-141], just because «a thinking, which has been trained by anarchy of social processes of capitalism, cannot be sequentially-organizational», i.e. monistic [Tectology, v. 1, p. 291]. Thinking is composed «of concepts, combined in “thoughts” or ideas», at that concepts should not be confused with «simple “notions”. Notions are living images of things and events», which are present at consciousness not only of man, but also of an animal, while concepts and thinking are «the ideological facts, peculiar only to man»: for thinking there are necessary the signs of living images or the symbols, which are the words [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 302].

Third law of Bogdanov — the third fundamental empirical generalization in tectology, which says: «any change of a form of a process is accompanied by equal and opposite changes in its environment». From the energy point of view it is the law of conservation of energy in the most general formulation, in which «equal changes» correspond to equal quantities of energy, while «opposite changes» mean that «an increase of energy of a process is at the same time a decrease of energy of its environment and vice versa». In case when «external environment» is reduced to one external process, the primary formulation of the law changes into the following: «at interaction of two processes, a change of a form of movement, peculiar to one of them, is accompanied by equal and opposite change of a form of another» [Basic Elements, p. 36].

Third principium of tectology — one more initial precondition of the universal organizational science, which essence is in that «structural relations can be generalized up to the same degree of formal purity of schemes, as the relations of quantities in mathematics; and on such a basis the organizational tasks can be solved by the ways analogous to the mathematical» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 310]. It has historically formed so that tectology of additive systems began to be developed earlier and is known in scientific society as mathematics.

Thraldom — «the least adaptedness to all possible influences». At that thraldom should not be confused with conditionality or dependence: the destiny of each man «depends to the greatest degree on social forms, and for the rest – on direct influences from the external nature», but dependence turns into thraldom only «if it is shown in the form of sufferings», when people adapt to external influences at the cost of «painful efforts and nevertheless they far from always adapt in reality, and often perish». If a thrall was always «pleased to do what the master wished, if a will of the master was never compulsion for him, i.e. unpleasant necessity – it wouldn’t be thraldom, but dependence of one will on another». All the more there would be no thraldom in his dependence «from impersonal social forms, if it did not generate heavy sufferings, if it was not cruel» [Basic Elements, pp. 203-204]. As limiting polarization of authoritarian relations thraldom «consists in blind submission to the highest individuality or in the requirement of such submission». Even a well educated and atheistically thinking man, blindly following authority, «does not in essence differ from religious followers of any prophets of the past. He is a thrall who gives a man or a part of collective what belongs to all great collective – his will and mind» [About Proletarian Culture, pp. 335-336].

Timbre — a certain «combination of tones, overtones, undertones», i.e. «a structural concept wholly» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 252].

Time — from the point of view of tectology the same «universal world degression», as well as space. There is the certain parallelism between characteristics of time and space [Tectology, v. 2, p. 256]. Both of them are «the forms of the social coordination of experience of various people» and «express the social organization of experience». On the basis of these forms and in their framework there is gone the continuous development of social experience and there is provided the general significance, i.e. objectivity [Empiriomonism, p. 20].

Total understanding — universal ingressive connecter in eidosphere, in other words, it is mutual understanding in social system, which has developed in collective, or briefly, mutual understanding in collective. Inasmuch as through mutual understanding there is occurred an integration of separate social systems into separate collectives and integration of separate collectives into united global collective, then total understanding is the highest form of development of consciousness of all humankind. Figuratively speaking, if mutual understanding is omega of collecting of man, then total understanding is omega of collecting of humankind, i.e. it is the collecting of all people in one globally integrated society.

Totem — an organizing form of social degression in primitive tribal society; simply speaking, a certain collective name which unites and organizes the members of a community. Some organizational functions of such degression «has kept in different collective names at the newest civilization, in particular, for example, in ancestral “family names”» in the form of intrafamily mutual support, observance of family honour, hereditary specialization, marriage limitation, etc. There is well-known the conservatism of marriage-limiting function: at natives of Australia to man and woman of one totem are forbidden to marry, as well as and at Europeans, if groom and bride have one surname, then the party, which marries or registers the marriage, will necessarily find out a degree of their relationship (for example, in Orthodoxy marriages between cousins are forbidden) [Tectology, v. 2, p. 300].

Trade capital — «a capital, which appropriates a surplus value by means of trade operations – buying and selling – for profit earning» [Elementary Course of Political Economy, p. 73].

Trade capitalist — a mediator between small producers and the market, who «buys in places, for resale, the products of peasants, artisans, handicraftmen, delivers materials, instruments to them, on occasion – as a usurer – money for maintenance of the economy. Difficulty to reach the market apart from him, and then – debts put them in still fuller dependence on a trade capitalist», who «has an opportunity to dictate them all the conditions of production, i.e. in practice to control their labour, though by the appearances they remain independent owners». At the next, a higher step of trade capitalism, in the stage of «household-capitalist production», a trade capitalist already «directly distributes materials and works to the subordinated small producers to be done at home and pays them for the product by the job, at a price established by him in advance», at that carrying the exploitation «to extreme degree, because a small producer can oppose nothing to his force – to the economic “enslavement”» [Science about Social Consciousness, pp. 402-403].

Transcendental — «the last residence» of absolute, where it feels in full safety, being unattainable to scientific cognition [Country of Idols, p. 219].

Transformation of quantity into quality — one of three “laws” of formal dialectics, which is a direct consequence of interaction of two oppositely directed activities: quantitative «prevalence of one gives all the process a certain character and a direction, a certain “quality”», but as soon as another activity will be equal with the first, «this “quality” comes to an end, it is destroyed or changed by a new one, simply different or opposite» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 207].

Trigger — an external action, which causes crisis of explosive type in a system of «false equilibrium»; in other words, an impulse of sufficient energy, which role is reduced to acceleration of tempo of the processes already going in a system. The avalanche-like course of explosive crises depends on «that those activities, which “become free” during it, i.e. from closed forms pass into unclosed, themselves “set free” the same activities in adjacent parts of the system». For example, «an “exploded” particle of picric acid blows up the neighboring ones; a “rebelled” member of a collective, being in social tension», stirs others to revolt. In those cases, «when the activities, becoming free in the crisis, surpass the energy of an initial push incomparably», there is observed what is called independence of force and sizes of crisis from a causing agent, as long as it is “sufficient”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 229].

Trigger minimum (operation threshold) — «a minimum of sufficient size of blowing agent», depending on tectological state of a given system of «false equilibrium». In any explosive complex under usual action of environment «there should be explosions from time to time, at least, of separate particles. At that freeing energy either has time to dissipate before the next such explosion, which would come for the same general reasons among the adjacent particles with the blowing one, or breaks equilibrium of some of them more or less deeply, or appears directly capable to blow up the others. Let one particle blows up two others by such a way; those, obviously, will immediately blow up four more, they will be followed by eight more, etc.». The crisis is developed from the first impulse – «it is clearly that such a complex cannot exist practically. If one particle does not directly blow up the others, then it breaks their equilibrium so that this breaking has not time to become smooth by the moment of the same following explosion among them, which is caused by the common conditions, then after that second one there will be more significant decrease of stability, after the third – even greater, etc. The action is accumulated and then results in that a number of partial crises increases, their intervals are reduced. But then the remaining breach of equilibrium becomes even greater, is accumulated even more quickly, etc. Obviously, this case differs from the previous one only in size of coefficient of time, and in general existence of the complex is here also so unsteadily that it can practically be considered as impossible». Thus, there is only the first of the represented cases, and it is necessary to accept that any explosive complex «is characterized by such a course of elementary crises that residual energy of one has time to dissipate before another practically completely». But if to suppose that «a similar system is affected by an agent, which is stronger than usual influence, and that it blows up immediately not one, but 10, either 100, or 1000 elementary groupings. Then the position is changed. Freeing activities spread to adjacent groupings and influence on them, sometimes more or less being composed, sometimes, maybe, just paralyzing each other. Accumulation of explosive action turns out then at once: in some points plural compositions of activities are directly sufficient to cause new explosions, in others – to create extreme instability, yielding to a smallest additional impulse; and the first derivative explosions can serve as such an impulse. It is clearly that a crisis can be developed avalanchely if only a quantity of positive compositions, about which there is the matter, has reached a known size. And this is obviously more possible at 100 initial explosions than at 10, and at 1000 than at 100. Where it is reached, there is the minimum of sufficient size of a blowing agent. Thus it is understandable, why force and character of this agent can nevertheless have in some cases an appreciable and even a great influence on the course of crisis. Many substances, quickly, but quietly burning at their lighting in one point, blow up sharply from a wave, which is generated by a priming and instantly passes through all their mass or by a similar mechanically-shock impact». Or an example from social life: «in some city, country the relations of social forces have reached a high tension, – what is called revolutionary situation»; then some «act of violence of representatives of one of the conflicting parties over the persons of the other, taking place separately, only at several eyewitnesses, will cause by itself only excitement and indignation of these eyewitnesses, meanwhile the oral or newspaper information, which has quickly extended among the mass, about the same fact, can serve as a cause to revolt» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 230, 229-230].

Trigger system (explosive complex) — see a system of «false equilibrium».

Triune organizational task — «organization of external forces of the nature, organization of human forces, organization of experience», or in a more brief formulation – organization of things, people and ideas. To solution of this triune task there is reduced «all the content of the life of humankind», human doing in whole [Tectology, v. 1, p. 71], moreover, such is «the world organizational task of socialism» [Questions of Socialism, p. 405].

Tropism — «a selective relation of plants or their organs to external influences, physical or chemical, for example, bent to grow oppositely to direction of gravity, turn of leaves to light, roots in water – against the stream, etc.» [Country of Idols, p. 235].

True cognition — the empiriomonistic cognition, which «either widens the content, imbedded in given forms of cognition, – widens its empirical material, or creates more complete and strong forms for this material, – transforms it monistically; finally realizes both one, and the other». The extraempirical cognition, i.e. the metaphysical one, «is an empty fiction», and the extramonistic cognition, i.e. lacking in unity, «means only a gap of cognition», – both of them are not true cognition [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

True equilibrium — not «exact, full equilibrium, but only the tendency to it in bilaterial vibrations» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 253].

Truth — «the organizing form of human experience» [Belief and Science, p. 61], or «socially-labour experience, crystallized in concepts» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 386], i.e. a socially significant judgement, which «in activity does not lead to a contradiction». Truth is necessary to humankind as strong and reliable basis for its doing, i.e. finally – for struggle of man against the nature. Truth is «the main and best instrument in this struggle». It «is born in activity of cognition and as the purpose it has the further activity, already not only cognitive». Just «in doing there is the beginning and the end, the source and the intrinsic meaning of truth» [Basic Elements, p. 3]. Inasmuch as the content of experience widens continuously, the content of knowledge changes also, consequently, the truth changes too: it is historical, i.e. relative. For example: «the view on the earth as on the motionless center of the universe, was a truth for one time and a mistake for the other». The criterion of truth is «selection from social environment, social selection»: to the status of truth there can be pretended «only such a form of cognition, which is socially preserved, which is preserved not in a separate psychics, but in the whole system of the psychics, connected by cooperation» [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 188-189]. The truth always «makes sense and meaning only in the human reality, in the human practice», in other words, «there is no truth in itself, and there is no truth outside of collective». Exactly for this reason the truth is always «the collective experience, it is that, on what the collective practice is based, it is the ideal instrument of collective work» [Elements of Proletarian Culture, p. 65-66]. However, what is a truth for one social group, can not be it for another. But such relativity is kept only «until society is considered as simple set of various vital processes – individual, social-group, until there isn’t taken into consideration the general law of social development, its uniting tendency», which «is that last, most objective criterion of truth». The truth is always arogenic to social development, to its uniting tendency: «there are true those forms of cognition, which are preserved and developed during social development – and by virtue of this development; and there are false those, which tend to destroy social development». But «social development is not the absolute law of the nature, but only an empirical fact», and «the question of presence of this fact is solved on the field of struggle of society against the nature», at that, if «energy of the social whole increases, it develops; if energy decreases, it degrades. Above social selection there is universal selection» – «the superior judge», which «sanctions the truth of social development». Thus, even «the last, most objective criterion of truth» – social development – is relative and historical [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 190-191].

Unconscious — unorganized by memory, external conjugational field of a psychics, which internal conjugational field is consciousness. It is natural that such differentiation is relative: «if a consciousness is in general a discerning of the external influences, acting on psychics», then unconscious is a consciousness too, but only unorganized, «separated», since mutual connection of the processes, taking place in it, is incomparably weaker than in the field of consciousness. Nevertheless it is necessary to strictly recognize unconscious as a «direct» consciousness, but weakly connected, and «organized» consciousness, with a greater connectivity, between which there is the same difference as between «chaos and system». It is clear that «an organized consciousness supposes a direct one as the material, of which it is formed: any reproducing of the former facts of consciousness, any recollection taken separately, is a phenomenon of direct consciousness. A consciousness unorganized by memory, being at a given moment as consciousness, acts after that as unconscious for cognition. If consciousness is the area of directly cognizable facts, then consciousness is unthinkable outside of memory because only memory makes any cognition possible». Unconscious as an unorganized consciousness «is immeasurably more widespread in the nature than an organized one», and only «in process of development an organized consciousness systematized by memory should arise from a direct, chaotic one». By virtue of the relative character of differentiation of psychics into two conjugational field the border area between «pure» consciousness and «pure» unconsciousness is fuzzy: the weaker, the paler, the vaguer is an image of recollection, then, generally speaking, the less conscious there is represented that directly experienced state, which is reflected in it» [Basic Elements, p. 243]. In psychics there are constantly «continuous transformations of conscious into unconscious and inversely»: images are incessantly replaced in consciousness and, disappearing from it, «are kept in the sphere of psychically-unconscious», from time to time «again emerging above the horizon of consciousness». In itself a «transition from one area into the other is quite continuous, successive, however fast it may occur. It is not always possible to catch this succession; but in many cases it acts very clear». For example, among quietly occurring change of notions you have suddenly an originally intense state and «you have a presentiment that we will now recollect something, that some bright image is going to enter your consciousness; an uncertain and weak gleam precedes it, as though a dawn. You are already feeling and can already determine, with what feeling, pleasure or suffering, the unknown image is connected. Here the dawn of recollection is becoming stronger… here it is dying away again, it is being covered by ordinary images, and as its trace, you have only a weak, slight regret. The gleam is flashing out again… it is becoming brighter, livelier… the basic features of the recalling image are beginning to show unclearly and chaotically… here you are already quite discerning it, and you can tell to yourself what it is. Intensity of the notion is increasing, it is filling little by little all field of consciousness; the other images are turning pale, are being effaced, are disappearing in that grey indifference, which has the name of unconscious… Where is the border? Consciousness and unconscious, internal and external world merge in the continuous process» [Basic Elements, pp. 133-134]. In process of arising of sensations the unconscious serves as the intermediary between environment and consciousness: «all or the most part of cells-elements of unconscious have the representatives in the elements of the centers of consciousness», therefore increase or decrease of energy in the cells of the first series through intermediate point causes a crisis in a corresponding cell of the second series; as a whole all «combination of such caused crises makes a sensation». And in the case «when the elements of the centers of consciousness, changing by force of different influences, cause crises some in others, then a combination of crises is a notion» [Basic Elements, pp. 241-242].

Understanding — substitution under spoken words of «a definite “sense”, a definite content, which has nothing in common with the very words as sounds or complexes of movements of vocal muscles» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 50].

Unequilibrated complex — see complex of unequilibrated type.

Unified economic plan — the project of scientific regulation of an economy on the basis of tectological approach and chain connection of all branches of production. According to the first thesis of the system approach «a society represents the system of human activities in environment in struggle against its resistances», and according to the second one – «in a society each branch of its economy, each enterprise, each worker carry out the certain function». Starting from these basic theses, the questions of organizational equilibrium and development are solved. The first one «concerns the regularity connecting production and distribution. Considering both as functional-necessary parts of an economic process and knowing that production gives all products for distribution, and distribution serves in its turn for maintenance of production, it is easy to determine the following condition of equilibrium: an equilibrium of a social economy is possible, when its each element will get all necessary means by distribution for performance of its socially-productive function. So, the means of consumption, sufficient for maintenance of the normal labour force, should be given to a worker, the materials, fuel, instruments in a proper quantity for the further production etc. – to an enterprise». From the organizational point of view all branches of production «are functionally connected between themselves by chain connection: ones give the necessary means of production for others, including those which make the consumer goods and by that provide the means of renewal of labour force for all others». This is not a simple linear chain, but a hypercycle, consisting of set of cycles: «if, for example, metallurgical industry gives iron, steel and so forth for machine-building and other branches, manufacturing metals, then it itself gets the machines and tools from them; coal industry feeds all others with fuel, and it itself takes the instruments and materials from many of them. Thus, the chain connection intertwines by recurrent branches more than once; but, obviously, this makes it only closer. From the chain connection there are directly ensued the certain proportionality of branches as the necessary condition of equilibrium of an economic system: all of them should be mutually sufficient, otherwise equilibrium is broken and there is occurred a disorganization of the whole in one or another ways». All system of an economy operates as «the uniform chain mechanism, the first link of which is production of the basic means of production, and the last one – the production of the articles of consumption, sustaining a life and labour energy of a society». The same proportionality determines also an objective possibility of expansion of different branches, in consequence of which the further development of economic process «obeys the law of least» as a whole, in other words, «an expansion of economic whole depends on its most retarding parts». For distribution of the productive forces there is required a scientifically-statistical calculation of proportions of different links of economic whole, which should correspond to its equilibrium»; naturally, the starting point of the calculation should be the human needs – «the final link of the chain mechanism, to which all other links should adapt». The general «methods of the scientifically-planned organization of an economy» are those [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 274-276, 278].

Unilateral conjugation — «combination of two methods, conjugational one with disorganizational (separation of a part from the whole)», when «at two homogeneous complexes only a part of one of them joins another and merges with it, generating normal effects of conjugation, i.e. changing it and accordingly changing itself; another complex does not play such a role in relation to the first», but «for this purpose it is necessary that conjugating part of the first complex has been separated from it» either at the very conjugation or even formerly. Man uses such a method in gardening and in surgery: «“inoculation” of grafts of a cultivated plant to wilding; “inoculation” of skin, cornea and other tissues from a healthy individuum to a sick one, blood transfusion or in serotherapy – infusion of blood serums» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 34].

Unity — a relatively «stable connection of parts of a complex» or of a system [Empiriomonism, p. 8].

Unity and struggle of opposites — one of three «laws» of formal dialectics, according to which the general mechanics of any development is explained by interaction of opposites hidden in things, more precisely, the source of any systemogenesis in the nature and society is indispensable presence of internal oppositely directed activities in a developing system. For example, from the positions of formal dialectics «it is quite natural to explain movement by contradiction or struggle of ideas of “staying” and “non-staying in a certain place”», while from the positions of tectology it is inadmissible, since a moving «body is not staying in some certain place, but it is shifting» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 191]. See sophistry of movement.

Unity of existence — «the continuity of a process», which «is deduced by consciousness from similarity between its successive stages». For example: «observing what is called an “object” at different moments of its existence, a man gets similar impressions; and he just describes this similarity of impression, speaking about constant properties of the object»; but «if there was no this similarity, if changes were made not gradually and successively, but they would be sharp transformations, then there would be no possibility to recognize an object to be the same during different time. Therefore, on similarity of noncontemporaneous impressions, on sequence of made changes there is based the concept of continuity, of unity of object’s existence»; at that «this unity is not absolute, but relative; because similarity of noncontemporaneous impressions has the limits» [Basic Elements, pp. 22, 21].

Universal causality — «the universal law», the supreme of all laws, which «are ordered to the nature by the human mind». In continuously changing world «cognition searches for something really constant, on what it could stop, what could serve it as the point of support in its activity. And cognition finds such point of support, and not in the things themselves, but in their relations; cognition finds it in universal causality of the phenomena» [Basic Elements, p. 41]. See causal relationship.

Universal causality of phenomena — universal «dependence, which joins non-simultaneous, joins antecedent with subsequent» and as «the support in prediction of the future» is «the center of cognitive life» [Empiriomonism, p. 115].

Universal fact — «in the nature, in the cognizable reality only one is unchangeable – the fact of change; in other words, there is nothing unchangeable, no essence. It is certainly possible to tell that in that case change is the constant essence of things; but if it is so, this is absolutely special essence, not similar to the former ones: firstly, it is quite identical with its manifestations; secondly, it is quite cognizable, because change is what is learnt in distinction, and any change can be cognized in this sense; thirdly, at last, any change is a change of the form of some process, i.e. of a form of changes; therefore cognition cannot stop at any element of change, but should go further, decompose it into new elements, which are also changes of some forms, etc., endlessly. However cognition searches for something really unchangeable, at which it could stop, which could serve it as the point of support in its activity. And cognition finds such point of support, and not in the very things, but in their relations; cognition finds it in universal causal relationship of phenomena» [Basic Elements, pp. 40-41].

Universal language — the single world language, which «could replace and oust all now existing ones», at that uniting humankind in the single world collective. Volapük, Esperanto and any other projects of universal language, including «a propagation of international agreement in favour of one or other of them», – «a typical Utopia». If «the organizational tendency of gigantic historical value is present», then «the methods, with which they think to embody it in the life, do not lead to the purposes: a group of specialists cannot create the general language», since «their efforts are objectively incommensurable with breadth, depth and variety of those conjugational processes, which should realize the world unity of language». Firstly, there is the quantitative incommensurability: «no national language goes into consciousness of a separate person or a group; consequently, inventors dispose only of very small and casual part of that material, which is required to be realized conjugationally». Secondly, there is also the qualitative incommensurability: «in the present differentiated society with many thousands of specialities, which have also a differentiated technical language, the making of the general language is assumed by a group of specialists of one or at the best of a few of this huge number of branches»; consequently, «here the basic conditions of conjugation and of consequent selection are not such as the very task requires». Thus, «the material for selection is both quantitatively and qualitatively incomparably narrower than which is supposed to be organized»: «the actor of selection is intellectual function of several inventors instead of all collective practice of humankind». The conclusion: the universal world language «will be really created only within the limits of the objective vital necessity» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 60-63].

Universal law of causality — see law of energy.

Universal method of cognition — the historical approach to study of any processes taking place in the world, which includes three basic positions: 1) «there is nothing constant in the nature, and only change exists»; 2) «any change, any transition in space and time, has relative character for cognition, so cognition can always catch both some separateness and some unity in the course of various processes of the nature – can find a form of processes»; 3) «any change of a form is permanent continuation of a change equal to it». The first position, known as one of the laws of Heraclitus, «is the negation of absolute in the nature»; in the second position «there is denied the absolute character of the changes taking place in the nature», and there is determined «final character of cognizable changes»; the third position, known as the law of universal causality, «says, that this final character is not unconditioned too: no happening changes have the absolute end or the beginning: the borders of any process are conditional and are determined by cognition». Thus, the content of all three positions comes to «the sequentially performed negation of absoluteness in the sphere of cognition». But unlike its foundations the very principle as a universal method of cognition «is absolutely true without a contradiction with itself. The other matter is all special applications of this method. All of them are undoubtedly relative and conditional. Searching for a causal relationship of the phenomena, we never find it completely and should always seek further in our cognition» [Basic Elements, pp. 205-206].

Universal methodology — the system of general scientific methods, i.e. tectology. Really, «tectology is a science, and consequently – a means of solution of practical and cognitive tasks. As a science it is characterized, firstly, by the way of statement of these tasks – they are taken as organizational (or disorganizational); secondly, by the way of their solution – its way goes through the organizational analysis to organizational synthesis. As all tasks can be set and be solved in such a way, then it is the most general science. And in consequence of what it does not have the special field: its field covers the spheres of all other sciences, so all of them together form its base, its necessary support, without which tectology would be impossible». Being the synthetic science, tectology is closely connected «with each of three basis cycles of scientific knowledge: with the mathematical, natural (more exactly – the physical-biological, because actually all sciences in general are “natural”) and social sciences». Just for this reason it represents «their developed and generalized methodology» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 283].

Universal organizational science — a «science which covers and fixes the whole organizational experience of humankind» and «derives the laws from it, under which any elements of existence – objects and forces of lifeless or living, or ideal nature are grouped into holistic unity or are separated between each others» [Questions of Socialism, p. 372]; in other words, it is «the world methodology», i.e. «the exact and completely empirical science» of universal methods, «by which the nature makes and improves its forms of organization» [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 252, 251], and at last as «the powerful tool of real organization of humankind into united collective» it is «the science common to all humankind in the highest and fullest sense of the word» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 110]. The terminological synonym – tectology.

Universal organomics — the system of universal organizational principles, i.e. tectology.

Universal statement of tasks — in any area of human doing any task of practice and theory «is considered as organizational» and reduced to the single tectological question: «how to organize most expediently some totality of elements – real or ideal» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 48, 142]. In other words, «whatever a task may be – practical, cognitive, aesthetic, it is made up of a certain sum of elements, its “data”», which present combination does not satisfy a man or a collective; therefore a solution of a task «is reduced to a new combination of elements, which “corresponds to a need” of a solving man, to his “purposes”, is accepted by him as “expedient”. The concepts of “correspondence”, “expediency” are entirely organizational», i.e. they express «some increased, improved interrelations» than which have been present before. From the organizational point of view «the life of man and collective represents a chain of statement – solution of tasks. The main, overwhelming difficulty consists here in their greatest heterogeneity». Therefore the universal statement of tasks necessarily demands «making of universally-general organizational methods». Such methods are just made by universal organizational science – tectology [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 48, 49, 51].

Universal substitution — a method of communication between people, the essence of which is in the substitution of the psychical complexes, known to a man from personal experience, under those physical changes, which he directly observes in an organism of other people or in the nature surrounding him. The scheme of action of this general cognitive method is the following: «by means of “substitution” the connection of communication between various “consciousnesses” is created, and by this communication the common types of organization of experience (time, space, causality) are developed, and a part of collective experience (existing in parts in various mentalities) gets that “social organization”, which characterizes physical experience» [Empiriomonism, p. 337]. The human thinking uses five types of substitution: 1) psychical under physical (animism, pantheism, panpsychism); 2) physical under physical (the mechanical theories of light, heat, the theories of electric and magnetic liquids); 3) physical under psychical (materialism of Democritus, Epicurus, Buchner); 4) metaphysically uncertain under physical and psychical (sensualism, Kantianism, materialism of Holbach); 5) empirically uncertain under physical unorganized (natural-science theories, purely descriptive theories) [Empiriomonism, pp. 128-129]. Substitution is applied where the explanation of observable is required; without it there is possible to describe only what happens and how.

Universe — «the infinitely developable tissue of forms of different types and levels of organizationality», which «in their mutual interlacements and mutual struggle, in their continual changes, form the world organizational process, dividing up in its parts without bound, continuous and indissoluble in the whole» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 73]; or in more brief formulation, expressing the basic tendency of world process, it is «the continuous chain of development of the forms, passing from the lower steps of organization to the higher others by struggle and interaction. The ideal beginning of this world chain of progress would be absolute disorganization, pure chaos of elements of the universe, which, however, is impossible to think really. The highest step reached until now is human collective with its objectively-regular organization of experience, which it makes in its work – the world-building» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 243]. As integrity the universe represents the united system of infinite multitude of organizational forms, the structure of which is tectological laws. In tectology the synonym world environment is more common.

University — in the primary widest sense it is «all set of educational and scientific institutions of different steps, in their common connection, in unity of their purpose»; in other words, it is a complete system of cultural and educational establishments with one center – with «higher scientific and educational institution» [About Proletarian Culture, p. 238].

Universum — the world of direct and indirect experience, which is represented as «the infinite sum of elements, identical with elements of our experience grouped in infinite series of complexes of various steps of organizationality, from the lowest up to highest ones, from the vague “chaos of elements” up to the complexes of human experience and, maybe, up to still much more perfect forms» [Empiriomonism, p. 337].

Unknown — «an enemy, which should be overcome, but not a secret of the highest intellect, before which it is necessary to bow down», since «for developing human mind there is nothing incognizable in all nature, – there are only cognized and uncognized» [From Psychology of Society, p. 182].

Unorganizationality — a relative concept, because it is meaningful only when there is estimated a condition of any complex from the point of view of other more organized complex. Complete unorganizationality is a meaningless concept at all.

Unorganized complex — a less organized groupings of elements in comparison to a more organized one.

Unprovable by reasonings — an exclusively empirical, i.e. what should be «learnt from experience and what is learned from experience»; for example, the Euclidean postulate of parallel lines [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), p. 259].

Useful labour — «consciously expedient doing», in process of which «man changes his nature towards increase of harmony and completeness of his life and changeableness of its forms». As is known, «labour means expense of energy of a psychical system», but «useful labour is characterized by that its final result is increase of system energy, so the vital plus arising from new relations of a system to its environment even exceeds the total sum of labour expenses of energy» [Empiriomonism, pp. 198, 202, 201]. The concept of useful labour is relative, since a labour, useful to a concrete individual, can prove to be useless and even harmful to society. See levels of social arogenity.

Utopia — a certain «real organizational need of society», which «represents a tectological mistake» by the method of realization. An example of typical Utopia – the various projects of universal language. In this case the aspirations of separate specialists to create the general language cannot be realized, since there are faulty both the ways of its making («to merge together everything that was “the best” in their opinion in the most developed and widespread languages of our epoch») and the ways of its distribution («propagation of international agreement» for its benefit), and the very undertaken efforts in the affair of realization of the project are incommensurable with that huge resistance, which represents the total linguistic separatism of the nations of the world [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 61, 60]. As a kind of human doing each «utopia expresses aspirations, which cannot be realized, efforts, which are lower than the resistances» [Questions of Socialism, p. 256].

Value — a social importance of a complex, which real basis is «socially directed labour of people». For example, «technical value of products, which takes the place of fetish of exchange value, is a quantity of sociolabor energy of people crystallized in them»; «cognitive value of ideas is ability to increase the sum of sociolabor energy, determining in a planned way, “organizing” methods and ways of human activity»; «the content of “moral” value of human behaviour is increase of sociolabor energy by harmonious integration and uniting of activity of people, by “organization” of it in the direction of the maximum of solidarity» [Empiriomonism, p. 324].

Vampirism — extreme form of parasitism; one of the factors of regressive tendencies in sociogenesis, which expresses «vital incompatibility of obsolete and developing». A typical example of transition of the form of social parasitism into vampirism is Spain at the times of postconquista: «while owing to monopolistic exploitation and robbery of newly discovered countries the enormous riches flowed into Spain at not especially significant expenses of social labour, until then feudal lords and monks could safely parasitize on the organism of Spanish people, not exhausting it to such an extent that it would exclude the possibility of development. But in process of loss of monopoly and forced decrease of robbery these elements of the obsolete world began to derive the same sum of energy for maintenance of the developed level of their life from their nearest social environment – from the Spanish peasants and craftsmen. It is the elementary form of vampirism» [Empiriomonism, p. 259].

Vampirogenesis — socioenergy inversion of some separate egocomplex, or social group or even a whole class as a result of long action of positive selection by connection, i.e. gradual change of their socioenergy status from donor one to recipient. For example, if to take any separate man – «a worker in any field of labour and thought. He lives for himself, as a physiological organism; he lives for society, as an actor. His energy comes into the general stream of life and strengthens it, helps to win what is hostile to it in the world. At the same time, undoubtedly, he costs something to society, lives at the expense of labour of other people and takes something away from life surrounding him. But while he gives life 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; then the brain gets tired, the memory weakens, but the heart doesn’t fail him, being full of tenderness and sympathy for young life and by the very purity and nobleness bringing in it harmony, spirit of unity, which makes it more strongly. However it happens so seldom. Much more often a man who lives too long, he outlives himself sooner or later. There comes the moment when he begins to take from life more than gives it, when he already decreases its quantity by his existence. There is arisen the enmity between him and it; it repels him, he sticks into it, makes efforts to return it back, to that past, in which he felt his connection with it. 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 vampire, a living dead man, is more harmful and dangerous if during the life he was a strong man». The same happens with obsolescent social groups and classes: when they become obsolete, «deadmen give birth to deadmen», and such social complexes become vampires-persistents [Questions of Socialism, pp. 264-265].

Verbal fetishism — a characteristic of discoursation, which «comes to two perverted notions: 1) that a given word has a meaning in itself; and 2) that this meaning is unconditional and constant» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (theses to the paper), p. 132].

Vertical chain connection — a chain connection between complexes of various levels of organization, representing either chain egression, or chain degression.

Vibration — a way of conservation of an organizational form by a complex, being in condition of dynamic equilibrium with an environment, at which equilibrium of counter-current flows of assimilation and disassimilation is periodically broken either in one or in the other side, «so the balancing takes place in time». Vibration is the unique and therefore the universal way of conservation of tectological forms, because «every dynamic equilibrium, seeming to be continuous, is able to be soon or late separated into periodically-vibrational elements» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 270]. Thus, from the point of view of tectology vibration is «as though the universal model for innumerable processes» both of the inorganic world: «waves in water, sound vibrations of air, heat vibrations in warm bodies, electric – optical and “invisible”, from hertz up to x-ray», and in the area of life: «pulse and breathing, work and rest of each organ, wake and sleep of an organism», even «alternation of generations represents a line of waves, which put one over another – the real “pulse of life” in centuries» etc. [Tectology, v. 1, p. 78].

Vibration of selection — from the energy point of view a continuous change of initial increase of energy of a complex into its subsequent decrease, and vice versa. For example: «rapid growth of productive forces of capitalist society is, undoubtedly, an increase of energy of the social whole; but disharmonious character of this process leads to that it comes to the end with a “crisis”, with enormous waste of productive forces, with sharp decrease of energy», i.e. positive selection changes into negative; then «in process of the crisis, on the contrary, by death of many weaker or disproportionately developed elements of social system there are formed healthier interrelations of its parts and there are created an opportunity of its new development, of even more significant growth of energy than before», i.e. negative selection changes into positive [Empiriomonism, p. 254].

Victory — «the purpose of each struggle» [Basic Elements, p. 1].

Virtual logonautics — a pseudoscientific form of social degression; or, in more detail, a hypothetical theorizing about the real processes occurring in society and nature, about constitution of the world, its arising; at that on the basis of real facts, by means of scientific argumentation, in the strict borders of logic and grammar there is created an unscientific picture of the world or its fragment with the purpose of conscious or unconscious virtualization of them. Such a dreaming up is some kind of original genre in creativity of widely erudite intellectuals, as a rule; moreover, the most suitable virtual forms of their fantasies are very often used by ruling classes for manipulation on social consciousness as «barrage», i.e. as an effective means to draw attention of society away from really vital problems, which solution by the very community threatens them to loss of the power.

Virus — an elementary living complex, which with another elementary form of life, cellular, is in catagenic symbiosis, since, propagating itself at the expense of internal energy resources of cell and its biosynthetic system, it is an intracellular parasite at genetic level.

Vital form (bioform) — see form of life.

Vseedinstvo (total interconnection) — from the tectological point of view «the unity of the world» as «the unity of organizational methods and forms» [Questions of Socialism, p. 409].

«Vulnerability» — a negative characteristic of plastic systems, which consists in that «mobility of elements supposes also rather easy destruction of connections between them, while complexity of internal equilibriums of system means also their comparative instability» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 126], which increases with growth of «the sum of contacts with environment», with «depth of penetration into it», i.e. with growth of «what is possible to call “vulnerable surface”» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 256].

War — «mutual disorganization of social complexes, the activities of which combine here, in general, in the type of disingression. However war is accompanied by continuous “exchange” of organizational experience, techniques, moreover, loan of ideological acquisitions, happening between enemies a little less than between allies. By objective results the mutual robbery of material elements of culture is equal to the peaceful exchange of products, though very irregular and not systematical». Thus, «war is a conjugation, the extremely painful and connected with dissipation of forces, but leading in practice to the increase of the sum of common elements and relations between the sides – to counterdifferentiation» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 40]. For collectives, involved in it, a war poses «tasks of organization and disorganization in their inseparable connection» and «on universal scale», i.e. the same way as tectology does, integrally and comprehensively, inasmuch as «elements, which are necessary for combining with the greatest planned character in every given point and in every given phase of process of a struggle, relate to all areas of existence: these are both available natural conditions, and available human forces, and technical means, put in action by them, and even ideological connection between people – what is called “spirit” of military collectives. All the gamut of elements of tectology is here» [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 54-56].

War communism — «the special form of public consumption», namely «authoritative- regulable organization of mass parasitism and extermination» [Questions of Socialism, p. 342].

Ways of conservation of forms — universal ways of achievement and maintenance of dynamic equilibrium of systems with environment. From the tectological point of view there are two such ways: intensive and extensive, at that both are finally reduced to one vibratory. In the basis of intensive way of conservation there are laid temporal crisis of organizational form, which development is determined by two tendencies: growth of activities of complex at the expense of environment with achievement of necessary overweight of assimilation over disassimilation and growth of intercomplementary connections in a complex with achievement of sufficient overweight of synergy over contradictions. In tectology these two tendencies are reflected as necessary and sufficient conditions of stability. The basis of extensive way of conservation is made by spatial crisis of organizational form, which essence is in that its quantity increases, compensating destructive action of negative selection with surplus, as a result there are formed a relatively stable complex of homogeneous organizational forms, which, having undergone a series of tectological acts, can achieve and next also maintain dynamic equilibrium with environment on the conditions of already intensive way of conservation. The most complex and highly plastic organizational forms combine both ways of conservation, which alternation allows them to achieve high degree of adaptability: after each act of reproduction, i.e. extensive way of conservation, there is occurred struggle for survival by intensive way, and then each survived form tries again to keep itself extensively, i.e. by a next reproduction. So in the world step by step there is expanded the rhizome of organizational forms of different types and degrees of organizationality.

Ways of organization of experience — «the ways, by which there is occurred a grouping of elements into a system»; by virtue of distinction of psychical and physical phenomena there are two such ways – individual and social, – generating respectively individually-organized experience and socially-organized experience [Philosophy of Living Experience, pp. 219, 221].

Weapon — the instrument of purposeful destruction of technical devices and extermination of people, which «is much more perfect than their instruments of labour», since the progress of exterminatory and destructive technics in history of humankind always takes the lead over the progress of creative one [Questions of Socialism, p. 182].

Whole — from the organizational point of view «a system of activities developed in a certain environment in continuous interaction with it», and each system’s part «is in a certain functional relation to the whole», and all their functionally coordinated totality gets the properties, which are not inherent to the parts separately [Tectology, v. 1, p. 274]. In tectology the concept of whole is «the basic characteristic of organization» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 308]. Thus, a whole is always a complex form, i.e. a certain «aggregate of elementary forms in their mutual relations» [Basic Elements, p. 49].

Will — an active type of psychical experiences, to which aspirations and impulses are concerned and which are the back reactions of psychics to the actions of environment. Every «volitional complex, taken in itself, represents always an expense of energy of psychical system and is an energetically-negative quantity for it» [Empiriomonism, pp. 156-157].

Word — from the tectological point of view it is «a typical degression, by its stability fixing the system of associations, which form the content of concept» [Organizational Meaning of the Principle of Relativity, p. 126]; simply speaking, it is an organizational instrument. As the most typical and widespread symbol «word is a peculiar center, which unites a whole number of notions, a whole their “association”, for example, the word “man” connects together for our psychics thousands, maybe, millions of notions about the people of the present, past and future, which are taken at the most different stages of their development, under the most different conditions. It is a center, but not egressive; its uniting role is based not on its highest organizationality, but on its greater stability, strength»: «word is incomparably less changeable, less plastic» than «the notions, connected with it» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 131]. As is known, «separate notions do not remain constant in the same consciousness and can be never quite identical in two different consciousnesses», to say nothing of «the whole groups of the notions, generalized in concepts, all the more changeable in life of separate consciousness and all the more not identical in different consciousnesses». Figuratively speaking, «a changeable concept is covered by shell of a word – by hard shell, insufficiently capable of changing. Word gives strength to truth and makes it to be common property of people. Word is the instrument of conservation and distribution of truth. If words were also changeable as well as concepts, – people would not understand each other almost at all, ability of speech would be useless. But this conservatism of word, which forms such important advantage, is also its main disadvantage. Changeability of concepts along with stability in words usage leads to that people never speak, in essence, in absolutely the same language. Two representatives of one nation, one tribe, an estate, a class, even two members of one family give never quite identical sense to the same words». Moreover, in the same way it is possible «to tell also about a separate person, taken during different periods of the life. Fortunately, these distinctions in words meaning have their limits and to a certain degree people understand each other nevertheless». However, it is necessary to note that in any way in comparison with concept «a word possesses immeasurably greater conservatism, it changes much more slowly, and huge majority of usual variations in words meaning does not tell on their construction at all». Moreover, sometimes «a word gets several meanings, related between themselves to the most insignificant degree». For example, in Russian the word «cosa» means both a female hairstyle and an agricultural instrument, and small peninsula of the same form. Similar homonyms «present already an extreme of conservatism, but in effect already each word is a homonym to some extent, since in different cases it expresses not quite identical concepts» [Basic Elements, pp. 4-5].

Word-concept — «a complex of socially-ideological character», representing an element of a discourse, in which «a concept is material of reasoning, while a word is its instrument». Words-concepts are «a product of social life, and their existence is social». However in a discourse with them there is operated «an individual mechanism, brain. Therefore, the instrument is social, while it is operated by an individual actor», i.e. «on scale the operator is lower than what is operated by him». Just for this reason in order that there would be turned out no domination of instrument over that who uses it, «it is necessary to test any chain of reasonings by experience through as small as possible number of links». Even if «to test, but through many links, there is huge probability that a reasoning will be wrong», but if «to test through two-three links, and it proves to be correct, then it is possible to go further with certainty» [Limits of Scientific Character of Discourse (the paper), pp. 244-245, 262]. Within the limits of two basic methods of cognition the word-concepts are elementary induction, identical to elementary deduction; in other words, it is primary generalization, in which «the beginning of one and other methods merges absolutely, it is common up to such a degree that it is still impossible to recognize one or other in it». As elementary induction a word-concept «means a number of homogeneous actions, or events, or objects, which took place in the past, endured experience», while as elementary deduction it is applied to new actions, events, objects, which appear in experience for the first time. Without such new application the word-concepts would be absolutely useless [Questions of Socialism, p. 385].

World — «the sum of vital processes and of their environment», which separates «into numbers of unorganized (more exactly – minimally organized) complexes». In the empiriomonistic conception «world» is presented «as the infinitely developing number of groupings, which connection of elements constitutes the most various degrees of organizationality, from the lowest, peculiar to complexes of environment, up to the highest, peculiar to psychics of man» [Empiriomonism, p. 103]. At that all this empiriomonistic picture of the world is thought as the single world whole.

World-building — «the practice of the great social organism» – humankind. This already built by it and «further building world, the area of spontaneous forces, won by work and thought, the kingdom of the socially-organized elements of the universe, is the most grandiose and perfect embodiment of life in the nature, that we have known» [Philosophy of Living Experience, p. 241].

World conjugation — everywhere observable joining of fragments of the world environment – every possible systems, which «breaks off the cyclic closedness of organizational processes of the nature», that already in itself «guarantees the forward course of development, excepting simple recurrence, simple returning of the same forms constantly» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52].

World coordinates — degression of the highest order, fixing the world degression, which, in its turn, fixes all the content of the system of experience. The world coordinates are strictly scientifically established by astronomy, and in ordinary experience their function is usually carried out by «the lines of the north-south, east-west, top-bottom, the moment of “the Nativity of Christ” or another “era”» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 135].

World degression — space and time, i.e. «the system of coordinates, collectively developed by humankind» for fixing the system of experience, because «no conservation and accumulation of experience would be possible, and it all would break up in chaos, if no content was fixed in it by connection with certain points of space and moments of time, did not keep within the ready-made strong frameworks of this world skeletal tissue» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 134-136].

World egression — especially sociomorphous concept in tectology, which means the historically growing «connection of humankind with the external nature», when «the human collective in all its practice and cognition acts as the organizational center for the other nature: “subjugates” it, “rules”, “dominates” over it to the extent of the forces and experience». Precisely in the sphere of human doing there is found out «the world scale» of such a connection – precisely «in labour and thinking there is built world egression, the borders of which extend constantly». Moreover, man has managed «to make this egression to be chain, taking possession of some complexes of external activities, through the use of them he dominates over others»: «by means of the organs man operates the instruments», and «by means of the instruments – other external objects», i.e. «one more link has been added in egression». Thus, step by step extending chain egression, humankind concentrates at its disposal more and more activities of the nature, organizing the world under its power [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 124-125].

World egressive-degressive parallelism — an empirical fact, which fixes a certain connection between world egression and world degression, at which the first one «is developed in the consecutive subjecting of the nature by humankind», and the second one «fixes each step of this process, determining and stating it in space and time. The authority of society over the nature is real and strong only where all is established and allocated in space and time; this is its first and basic fixing condition. A newly discovered country is really discovered in so far as its geographical coordinates are determined, its position in space; a newly discovered planet – only when there are determined its astronomical coordinates and time of the circulation in the orbit; a car can be driven only through exact measurement and comeasurement of its parts in space and their speeds in time; any work and any cognition – egressive activities, subordinating the nature – rely on the same degressive “orientation”. In its conquering movement humankind throw the spatio-temporal network over everything that is available to it, and attaching of each link of the network is a step to new victories» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 150-151].

World environment — the self-organizing supersystem of interactive, interconnected and internested systems of various degree of complexity, elements, which are infinitely various on composition, but are reduced to finite number of types on character of their connection. The world environment as tectologically rethought «harmony of spheres» is the supersystem of chain egressive biregulation of infinitely various and uncountable cyclic processes, or, using the language of physics, the supercycle of modulated vibrations, more precisely and easier, the matryoshka system of modulations. The synonym is «universe».

World evolution — from the organizational point of view the infinite chain of tectological acts [Tectology, v. 2, p. 272].

World ingression — «the connection of all existing», the idea of which permits to present «all the universe, accessible to us, as the infinitely developed differentiated system, and all processes of levelling, going in its each point, – as the continuous counterdifferentiation» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 52]. Thus, «the idea of continuous connection of all existing» is the tectological wording of the axiom of total interconnection [Tectology, v. 1, p. 160].

World progress — in the scale of all world content it is everywhere observable «increase of organizationality of complexes», which both in the inorganic kingdom and in the kingdom of life goes in two directions: in the way of expansion of internal content of complexes, i.e. increase of the sum of their elements, and in the way of growth of strength of connection, which unites their parts, «so there are required more and more strong external influences for breaking of this connection», for disorganization of complexes [Empiriomonism, p. 106].

World understanding (world view) — from the tectological point of view «an independent organization of thoughts, a thinking as system» [Tectology, v. 1, p. 81].

World view — a certain system of thoughts about the construction of the world, about man, society, i.e. «thinking about the world, put into an order, in a system of ideas. A world view can be social, class, group and individual» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 312]. It is not quite exact synonym of world understanding [Tectology, v. 1, p. 81].

World war — «an organizational crisis on a global scale, caused by social spontaneity of humankind, by anarchy of mutual relations between the state organizations». As any similar crisis, a world war «concentrates in itself disorganizational and organizational processes inevitably», moreover, as the greatest crisis «on the sum of forces, set in motion» it puts «the dilemma» before humankind extremely sharp: «the overcoming of anarchy of social forces and interests or the dissolution of civilization». Clear, that it is «a question of life and death, calling for all-organizational solution. The ideal organization of technics can be useless, even disastrous, when the economic elements get unbridled, carrying away people in madly-destructive collisions; and it is impossible to reach an order and harmony in economics, while social consciousness, shackled with the remains of the past, moves in incompatible-contradictory interrelations. The way out is in the uniform organization of things, people and ideas, where the elements of every number and simultaneously all three numbers between themselves are dynamically-harmoniously connected. The tasks of such a scale are solved by tectology [Tectology, v. 1, pp. 56, 50].

World war crisis — «a crisis of overproduction of organized human forces, in the state form peculiar to capitalism, in the form of militarism»; from the organizational point of view it is «a spontaneous phenomenon, of the same order as well as peace crises of production», which in contrast to war ones «are based on overproduction of goods, i.e. of things organized by capitalist society». The mechanism of origin of war crises «is similar to by what peace crises are generated»: the world system of capitalism, anarchical in the whole, but «combined from the organized parts, between which there are acted variable forces of connection and forces of pressure», only «these organized parts are not enterprises, but states; and the forces of interaction are correspondingly different». As is known, a state «is organization of domination of the certain classes and groups, on the one hand, over the other classes and groups which are subject to them in the system of production; on the other hand, over the part of the world market necessary for them». Development of militarism «with its huge organizational-technical apparatus» is caused by the second function of state, and «it also plays the leading part in arising of war crises of our epoch». Between the states on their common field – the world market – there are acted «the forces following from the need of capital in sale and supply». Capitalists of one country are clients of capitalists of other countries, since they buy the goods from them, and their suppliers, since they sell the own goods. Clients and suppliers are necessary for each other. Hence there is the tendency to convergence and to maintenance of peace connection». But there is also the opposite tendency, since there are acted the forces of pressure, which primary source is «the same from which there are motive forces of peace crises of capitalism: market struggle between buyers and sellers, struggle for market between competitors, in general – the economic anarchy of the system as a whole»: if a client is just necessary for a supplier and on the contrary, then all the same «each of them directs the efforts so that to put the other in the least favourable conditions of exchange»; as for competitors, they «are not only unnecessary for each other, but directly harmful; hence – the forces of pressure, which should inevitably increase, as the world market becomes small for the gigantically-grown national capitals of different countries». However «these spontaneously-economic forces of the world market could in themselves naturally generate only crises of purely economic character. For a war world crisis there are still required the other forces, which give it the special form. These are the forces of state-militaristic organizations», i.e. the secondary, derivative forces, since it itself «is generated by pressure of economic anarchy». These «militaristic forces of pressure are not only restrained in the aggregate by forces of connection of the world market, but they also restrain each other mutually between separate parts of the system» of capitalism: «a state is nevertheless a planned organization to a certain extent; and its organized energy is normally directed at the lines only of the least resistance», therefore «the most easy there are wars between giants and pygmies, and the most difficult – wars between the great powers». Parallel growth of their armaments increases «the total sum of militaristic forces of pressure», but at the same time it prevents them from breaking loose until the total sum of forces of connection remains prevailing, – «the system of armed world» consists just in it. Thus, this system includes «three groups of forces acting between the state organizations of capital»: firstly, «forces of connection arising between capitalists of different countries from their interrelation as suppliers and clients»; secondly, «primary, purely economic forces of pressure arising between national-state groupings of capitalists on the basis of their competition, struggle for the world market», and thirdly, «exactly militaristic derivative forces of pressure». If growth of the first group of forces becomes slower, and of the second becomes faster, «then it is clear that difference between them decreases since a known moment, and besides still faster. However catastrophe should come not when they have been quite equal, but before», because the third group of forces increases «in parallel to growth of world competition between states, i.e. still faster», – and here «when these forces will be equal with the difference of the first and the second and will exceed it, then a world war crisis bursts out necessarily. By this there are immediately explained, firstly, its form: war, because its direct engine is militaristic forces; secondly, its unexpectedness for the mass of capitalists of all countries: it comes when in the field of purely economic forces the overweight still keeps on the side of connection» [World Crises (April), pp. 151-153].

World whole — «infinite series of the complexes, which are separated into elements by cognition, identical with the elements of experience, and which are on various steps of organization. The tissue, into which these series are weaved, is accepted by cognition as continuous, and its seeming breaks – as result of interference, i.e. of interdestruction of opposite complexes, which are served as connection between others» [Empiriomonism, p. 338].

Written language — degressive system of fixation of speech, thinking (soundless speech) and, finally, experience. Origin of written language was caused by two main causes: firstly, «accumulation of experience, so significant that its verbal transference from one generation to another and direct memorization became difficult», and secondly, «development of communications and relations between people, spatially distant some from others». This is testified by «the most typical monuments of the earliest written language» – «records of priests, epitaphs, edicts of feudal lords, letters and credit documents of traders». Written language arose «from painting, through a whole number of transitional forms». In the beginning «the natural way of narration and description of facts» was served by drawings, «at that there was by itself appeared the aspiration to simplify figures in order to express more with less expense of labour; for example, a man, a house, a tree were depicted by several little lines of the general contours, like children draw. Then such a figure turned to designation not so much of a very object as of sounds of its name», – so there began to arise hieroglyphs which with the course of time «began to designate separate sounds and turned to the real “letters”. Their shapes became simpler and changed up to such a degree that it was already impossible to learn initial figures in them». So long as «the function of written language is peaceful-organizational», then in the beginning «it was just in the hands of almost exclusively peace organizers – priests» [Science about Social Consciousness, p. 355].

Zero — «complete disingression of quantities», which in one case «is formed on the place of former quantity, in other – is broken» [Tectology, v. 2, p. 212]. Such arising and destruction of a quantity is a crisis, which in mathematics is expressed by that the derivative of this quantity turns into zero. Thus, zero is «a symbol of crisis» [Tectology, v. 2, pp. 211, 214]; more exactly, «a moment of crisis of mathematical quantities» [Basic Elements, p. 57].

Zooanthrop — a man of the epoch of spontaneous sociogenesis who biologically represents «an embryonic-simple, spontaneous being», still undeveloped as a species, and tectologically – a «fragmented» and «incomplete» being, i.e. «a part cut off from the whole» and consequently «disharmonically developing» one [Questions of Socialism, p. 46]. Zooanthrop is a man with the animal type of psychics, a man of the prologue of his history.

Zoos — the basic factor of historiogenesis dominating in its initial stage and representing the system of psychophysiological reactions of humankind to actions of external environment; in other words, it is the initial activity of anthroposphere being showed during all the prologue of history; in biotectology this is expressed by the term of egressor-adapton. Anthroposphere in the period of zoos is differentiated, disharmonious, dissipative in consequence of that a lot of energy is wasted on harmonization of the internal processes (on struggle inside of society) and only a part – on harmonization of the external processes (on struggle against the nature).

Zoosphere — the animal kingdom of the organized nature, i.e. a part of biosphere representing «the zoological type of development» of organisms, which basic tendency is evolution of «motor adjustments» – motoadaptons [Cognition from the Historical Point of View, pp. 75-76].

 

Bibliography

 

1.         Bogdanov A.A. The Basic elements of historical view on nature. Nature. Life. Psychics. Society. St. Petersburg: Izdatel, 1899.

2.         Bogdanov A.A. Essays of realistic world view. Collected articles on philosophy, social science and life. Second edition. St. Petersburg: Montvid’s press, 1905.

3.         Bogdanov A.A. From psychology of society. Second and enlarged edition. St. Petersburg: Delo press, 1906.

4.         Bogdanov A.A. Adventures of one philosophical school. St. Petersburg: Znanie press, 1908.

5.         Bogdanov A.A. Country of idols and philosophy of Marxism // Essays on philosophy of Marxism. Philosophical collection. St. Petersburg: Bezobrazov and Co press, 1908. PP. 215-242.

6.         Bogdanov A.A. Philosophy of contemporary naturalist // Essays of philosophy of collectivism. First collection. St. Petersburg: Znanie press, 1909.

7.         Bogdanov A.A. Falling of great fetishism (the contemporary crisis of ideology). Belief and science (about the book of «Materialism and empiriocriticism» by V. Ilyin). Moscow: Dorovatovsky and Charuchnikov press, 1910.

8.         Bogdanov A.A. World crises, peace and war ones // Letopis. 1916. № 3 (March), № 4 (April), № 5 (May), № 7 (July).

9.         Bogdanov A.A. Universal organizational science (Tectology). V. II. Mechanism of divergence and disorganization. Moscow: Book publishing of the writers in Moscow, 1917.

10.     Bogdanov A.A., Stepanov I.I. Course of political economy. V. II. Issue 4. General theory of capitalism. Collectivistic order. Moscow-Petrograd: Communist, 1918.

11.     Bogdanov A.A. Elementary course of political economy (Introduction to political economy) in the questions and answers. Fifth edition. Moscow, 1919.

12.     Bogdanov A.A. Elements of proletarian culture in the development of working class. The lections delivered in Moscow Proletcult in the spring of 1919. Moscow: State press, 1920.

13.     Bogdanov A.A. Philosophy of living experience. Popular essays. Materialism, empiriocriticism, dialectical materialism, empiriomonism, science of future. Moscow: State press, 1920.

14.     Bogdanov A.A. Paper at the session of Socialist Academy of Social Sciences on September 14 // Bulletin of Socialist Academy. 1922. № 1

15.     Bogdanov A.A. From religious monism to scientific (Appendix) // Bogdanov A.A. Philosophy of living experience. Popular essays. Materialism, empiriocriticism, dialectical materialism, empiriomonism, science of future. Third edition. Petrograd-Moscow: Kniga press, 1923.

16.     Bogdanov A.A. Historical materialism and questions of primitive life // Bulletin of Socialist Academy. 1923. № 3.

17.     Bogdanov A.A. Organizational principles of social technics and economics // Bulletin of Socialist Academy. 1923. № 4.

18.     Bogdanov A.A. About proletarian culture. 1904 – 1924. Leningrad-Moscow: Kniga press, 1924.

19.     Bogdanov A.A. Objective understanding of the principle of relativity // Bulletin of Communist Academy. 1924. № 8.

20.     Bogdanov A.A. Speech at session of Communist Academy // Bulletin of Communist Academy. 1924. № 9.

21.     Bogdanov A.A. Speech at session of Communist Academy // Bulletin of Communist Academy. 1925. № 11

22.     Bogdanov A.A. Speech at session of Communist Academy // Bulletin of Communist Academy. 1926. № 15.

23.     Bogdanov A.A. Limits of scientific character of discourse (the paper) // Bulletin of Communist Academy. 1927. № 21.

24.     Bogdanov A.A. Struggle for biopotential. Moscow: New Moscow, 1927.

25.     Bogdanov A.A. Crises of neuropsychic systems // Bogdanov A.A. Universal organizational science (Tectology). P. III. Second edition. Leningrad-Moscow: Kniga press, 1929. PP. 102-125.

26.     Bogdanov A.A. The principle of relativity from the organizational point of view // Bogdanov A.A. Universal organizational science (Tectology). P. III. Second edition. Leningrad-Moscow: Kniga press, 1929. PP. С. 139-162.

27.     Bogdanov A.A. Tectology. Universal organizational science. VV. 1-2. Moscow: Economics, 1989.

28.     Bogdanov A.A. Questions of socialism: Works of different years. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990.

29.     Bogdanov A.A. Belief and science // Voprosy Philosophii. 1991. № 12.

30.     Bogdanov A.A. The great vampire of our time // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 1.

31.     Bogdanov A.A. Lines of culture of XIX and XX centuries. Methodological and historical theses // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 1.

32.     Bogdanov A.A. The newest prototypes of collectivistic order // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 1.

33.     Bogdanov A.A. Time of the great changes // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 1.

34.     Bogdanov A.A. World war and revolution // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 1.

35.     Bogdanov A.A. Proletariat in the struggle for socialism // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 2.

36.     Bogdanov A.A. Decade of the excommunication from Marxism. Jubilee collection. 1904 – 1914 // Unknown Bogdanov. VV. 1-3. Moscow: «AIRO XX», 1995. V. 3.

37.     Bogdanov A.A. Cognition from the historical point of view. Moscow: Moscow psychological-social institute, Voronezh: NPO «MODEK», 1999.

38.     Bogdanov A.A. Science about social consciousness // Bogdanov A.A. Cognition from the historical point of view. Moscow: Moscow psychological-social institute, Voronezh: NPO «MODEK», 1999.

39.     Bogdanov A.A. Secret of laughter // Bulletin of International A. Bogdanov Institute. 2000. № 2.

40.     Bogdanov A.A. Empiriomonism: Papers on philosophy. Moscow: Republic, 2003

41.     Bogdanov A.A. From Philosophy to Organizational Science // Voprosy Philosophii. 2003. № 1.

42.     Bogdanov A.A. Limits of scientific character of discourse (theses to the paper) // Voprosy Philosophii. 2003. № 1.

43.     Bogdanov A.A. New phase in understanding of laws of the nature (theses to the lecture) // Voprosy Philosophii. 2003. № 1.

44.     Bogdanov A.A. Organizational meaning of the principle of relativity (theses) // Voprosy Philosophii. 2003. № 1.

45.     Bogdanov A.A. Socially-technical foundations of geometry (theses to the paper) // Voprosy Philosophii. 2003. № 1.

46.     Bogdanov A.A. Socially-scientific significance of the newest tendencies of natural knowledge // Bogdanov A.A. Tectology. Moscow: Finansy, 2003. PP. 461-462.

47.     Bogdanov A.A. Struggle for biopotential // Bulletin of International A. Bogdanov Institute. 2003. № 1 (13).

48.     Bogdanov A.A. About Physiological Collectivism // Bulletin of International A. Bogdanov Institute. 2003. № 2 (14).

49.     Bogdanov A.A. Socially-scientific significance of the newest tendencies of natural knowledge // Bulletin of International A. Bogdanov Institute. 2004. № 2 (18).

50.     Bogdanov A.A. Short Course of Economic Science. Moscow: ComKniga, 2007.