International Research Journal of Police Science, Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 1(1) pp. 7-44, September 2012
Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/IRJPSCLC
Copyright ©2012 International Research Journals
Review
Inquiry on the global (post)crisis versus humankind
wisdom as a turning point: Does the generositycreativity-solidarity triad matter?
Nicolae Bulz1*, Larry Stapleton2, Jozef B. Lewoc3, Laszlo Z. Karvalics4 , Mihaela Buia5,
Ana Bazac6
1
National Defence College, Sos. Panduri no. 68-72, s.5, Bucharest, Romania, World Economy Institute / NERI/
Romanian Academy, Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia, Interdisciplinary
Research Group / Romanian Academy structures.
2
Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Republic of Ireland.
3
BPBiT Leader, Wroclaw, Poland.
4
University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
5
Ecological University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
6
Politechnica University Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
*Corresponding Authors E-mail: nbulz@yahoo.com; Tel. +4021-6675321
Accepted 31 June, 2012
The humankind wisdom is supposed to be a related and open-deeper turning point. An equivalent type of
statement may be referred to generosity, creativity, solidarity. Homo Sapiens, as a species, is
distinguished clearly from other species by their socio-cultural nature, drawing on a deep inner universe
of cultural meanings and values which inform both individual and group behaviours - within wisdom
turning point. These meanings are created phenomenologically in the gestalt of consciousness, framed
in the context of deep value-systems which shift as a result of psychological, biological (and existential)
realities. Recent research has begun to uncover the complex waves and patterns associated with these
shifts. They indicate a dynamically stable system which underpins human activity at the level of both the
individual and the civilisation. In this context, the technology is an intercourse of the cultural
materialisation of our civilisation and its material nature as a cultural meaning needs interactive and
iterative exploration: explanation and understanding. This study presents at least six concordant
directions - in order to proof, at least, the utility of both explanation and understanding: socialnetworking and virtual space; Eastern European “power of people” and behaviour of technology
providers; innovative knowledge and knowledge management; generosity in knowledge; complex
process of better organizing diversity; subtle outlook upon the network of sciences vs. systemic and
cybernetic knowingness; toward Consciousness Society and future prospect for the e-World. On in this
way, can we really begin to understand the trajectory (or multiple trajectories) of our current civilisation,
of a deeper humankind wisdom, with all its new connectivities and disconnectivities mediated as they are
through information and other technologies?
Keywords: Complex process of better organizing diversity, cyclical and rhythm processes, generosity in
knowledge, Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity triad, deeper humankind wisdom, Eastern European “power of
people” and behaviour of technology providers, innovative knowledge and knowledge management, network of
sciences vs. systemic and cybernetic knowingness, possibilities to (re)form possibilities, (re)structured complex
entities, social-networking and virtual space, toward Consciousness Society and future prospect for the e-World.
INTRODUCTION
Today’s society is experiencing a revolution through the
advent of the Web environment as a platform for
collaboration and user-created content. Technologicallymediated social space has both the potential to create
8 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
new connections and the possibility to remove physicality
from human relationships, desensitizing us towards each
other and reducing a sense of other as human.
As forms of mediated communication continue to
diversify and users continue to engage and appropriate
currently developed technologies, the number of
outstanding problems in understanding how mediated
social interaction supports and/or hinders user social
needs for connectedness, self respect and creative selfexpression is increasing rather than diminishing.
The concept of Generosity and Solidarity in the
Creative process highlights a critical tension in the
worldwide social and cultural world. It is just the cause to
propose a co-ordinating action to be implemented
alongside a worldwide (re)adaptation area. Have we
responsibility to relate and care – an-other we value?
Within this interrogative context, there is an objective
To gain positive acting answers to the following two
questions
Is there a possibility to differentiate an initial knot of
complex Global (Post)Crisis problems, sustained by a
2050 horizon, to gain a desirable nexus of solutions
focused
on
the
GENEROSITY-CREATIVITYSOLIDARITY Triad?
Inquiry on the Global (Post) Crisis versus Human
kind Wisdom as a Turning Point
Does the Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity
Matter? (GPC-GCS project)
Triad
Generosity is not "giving" to the others / but generosity is
the presence of yourself (as a generous being) to the
otherness.
The community genesis would be backed on subtle
traces of generosity.
The community (as an entity related to at least one
common item to the entireness) has an innate becoming
according to "not to have more than you can eat and use"
so resulting a direct generous attempt for the entireness
(by the way of the Climate Change - pollution and
industrial activities on an increased profit base).
Generosity is to change the business sense of the
profit - business entity is also a community - the common
interest of the producer and of a consumer to continue
the money-product-money cycle.
Has all these an initial spring on generosity
background? Is there an indirect generosity?
Generosity means the willingness to share our very
best with those who can offer us nothing in exchange.
Creativity enables us to find those solutions that will
always turn us into winners, or at least into survivors.
Solidarity represents the manifestation of our
availability to support peers and causes we consider
worth defending, helping and promoting. It is also a
proactive involvement against loneliness, because
human beings are meant to live within communities.
The GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY triad
may and ought to become one of our driving forces
capable to aggregate the positive potential of the daring
riders of the hardly predictable future - in order to enlarge
the possibilities to (re)form possibilities. It may also
enhance our chances to better know our own world, both
its authentic values and the main causes of failures that
have to be temporary if we are determined to survive - as
would be a (post) crisis knot of problems - on a larger
horizon co-eliciting deeper humankind wisdom and
(re)structured complex entities.
In order to deepen our interactive and iterative
exploration: explanation and understanding of the
technology impact on the social needs for
connectedness, self respect and creative self-expression,
expertise must be brought together from different areas
of science and humanities, such as sociology,
anthropology, psychology, economy, human computer
interaction and software engineering to address the
issues of problem analysis together with the design and
evaluation of simulations and interventions aimed to
specifically support such social needs.
This GPC-GCS project proposes to establish a
network of researchers working on the limitations of
current technologies for supporting such social needs
and the design and evaluation of alternative interventions
addressing them. The network (now, within its 18 nodes)
seeks to build on existing strong research groups and
facilitate transfer of knowledge between East-European
groups initially based in Romania, Poland and Hungary,
and West-European ones initially based in the UK,
Ireland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and - from the
Southern Hemisphere: Philippines. By creating a
community of practice to share information and
collaborate, we seek to ensure a steady and strong flow
of information between the proposed network nodes. This
will have an impact beyond the initially proposed
membership: throughout the lifespan of the network we
intend to work towards its expansion, and seek to form an
inclusive community to creatively bridge the gap between
disciplines.
So, the next four parts belonging to the GPC-GCS
project are only and only initial "four parts" within an open
interactive and iterative exploration addressed to the
contemporary society just in order to continue this and/or
other type of exploration about its future and its deep
identity. So, "to gain positive acting answers to the above
two questions" is just a proposed type of exploration - but
it is one type only - any other type of exploration would be
aggregated according to an expected plurality of
advance.
Bulz et al. 9
Part A: Generosity and solidarity in the creative
process/a project versus an interdisciplinary
consortium
Systemic aspects of
technological change
a
merged
societal
and
General remark
Inward, the generosity is supposed to be a related turning
point. Homo Sapiens, as a species, are distinguished
clearly from other species by their socio-cultural nature,
drawing on a deep inner universe of cultural meanings
and values which inform both individual and group
behaviours.These
meanings
are
created
phenomenological in the gestalt of consciousness,
framed in the context of deep value-systems which shift
as a result of psychological, biological (and existential)
realities. Recent research has begun to uncover the
complex waves and patterns associated with these shifts
They indicate a dynamically stable system which
underpins human activity at the level of both the
individual and the civilisation. In this context, technology
is a materialisation of the culture of our civilisation and its
material nature as a cultural meaning needs subtle
exploration as explanation and understanding. On this
way can we really begin to understand the trajectory (or
multiple trajectories) of our current civilisation, with all its
new connectivities and disconnectivities mediated as they
are through information and other technologies.
A Response to the Science of Generosity Project – A
Pioneering Stage on Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity
This paper (re)presents a project, Inquiry on the Global
(Post)Crisis versus Humankind Wisdom as a Turning
Point: Does the Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity Triad
Matter? (GPC-GCS project) – as a response to the
respective Notre Dame University Science of Generosity
project. This GPC-GCS project must therefore be
inter/trans/co-displinary in that it proposes the outline of
an analytic-synthetic model of creative-interactive
functioning and re-structuring of a society based on
partnership within a generosity turning point. It has been
draw up as the result of each co-investigator’s long term
research on functions and structures of societies and of
literature in the field of modelling and acting of/on socioeconomic-techno-cultural processes and products. The
underlying basis for this work is the innovative
aggregation of the previous deep research of the coinvestigators, so, resulting the (re)formulation of the
creative partnership versus generosity construct. We
focus especially on the analysis and synthesis of an
elementary cycle
and rhythm of development
of a creative partnership nucleus (Bulz, 2006) within a
generosity track open system. This system exposes and
incorporates
commonly-hidden
functions
in
human-technology
societies according to our deep neurologic structures,
high technology versatilities/constraints and emerging
communities. Relying on a systemic / sociocybernetic /
mathematical / human-techno-cultural model of cyclical,
rhythmic and network development, we show the most
important stages of the elementary cycles, sequences
and
recursive
micro-structures,
their
dynamic
characteristics as well as social phenomena appearing
during these stages and their (meta-)logical mechanisms
eliciting both huge planetary structures and deep, internal
structures which expound key dimensions of evolutionary
human nature and conditioning. Our work facilitates the
identification of the stages of the complex development of
a real social system and their creativity, partnership and
generosity characteristics; that is a condition and initial
point to set out an appropriate guiding system in a
contemporary society based on the “(Post)Crisis Society
and Economy” prospective. Ultimately, this systematic
approach can inform policy, leadership, regulation, socialenterprise and socio-political debate, amongst others.
Aspects of some contemporary problems
The global economic crisis made as aware that any real
deterministic equilibrium points can’t exist in the
humankind evolution, but there are equilibrating forces
that manage to ultimately keep negative events under
control. These forces need the strength and stamina of a
large number of already aware individuals in order to
decrease the danger of indifference. Indifference is
malefic and destructive, it means disrespect for
humankind.
The global economic crisis research in itself is both
possible and legitimate. This means to decipher the way
in which people know, resulting in:
a) A culture acquired through reason, through critique;
b) Exceeding preconceptions and false knowledge – in
relation to which people start to play with sophisms about
things or in relation to which nothing is learnt thoroughly
out of the desire to learn fast new ideas and opinions;
c) The capacity to think and act morally. Knowledge and
specifically scientific (critical) knowledge is again the first
method of (intellectual) generosity. Such knowledge
brings advantages “to the general human interests”,
disadvantaging only the “monopoly of the schools” (which
we could amount to the bureaucratic way of the
administration of knowledge, research and university).
*The global economic crisis demonstrates how
disconnected
(in
seeming
connectivity)
a
globalised/localised system can become. It also
highlights
the
extraordinary
complexities
and
uncertainties with which our human understanding must
now wrestle.
10 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
*The humankind wisdom is supposed to be a related
deeper turning point. An equivalent type of statement
may be referred to generosity, creativity, solidarity. Homo
Sapiens, as a species, are distinguished clearly from
other species by their socio-cultural nature, drawing on a
deep inner universe of cultural meanings and values
which inform both individual and group behaviours.
These meanings are created phenomenological in the
gestalt of consciousness, framed in the context of deep
value-systems which shift as a result of psychological,
biological (and existential) realities. Recent research has
begun to uncover the complex waves and patterns
associated with these shifts. They indicate a dynamically
stable system which underpins human activity at the level
of both the individual and the civilisation. In this context,
technology is a materialisation of the culture of our
civilisation and its material nature as a cultural meaning
needs exploration and understanding. On in this way can
we really begin to understand the trajectory (or multiple
trajectories) of our current civilisation, with all its new
connectivities and disconnectivities mediated as they are
through information and other technologies.
*Today’s society is experiencing a revolution through the
advent of the Web environment as a platform for
collaboration and user-created content.
So,
technologically-mediated social space has both the
potential to create new connections and the possibility to
remove
physicality
from
human
relationships,
desensitizing us towards each other and reducing a
sense of other as human.
*It is eminently reasonable to hypothesize an effect of
public opinion on the generosity of social programs in rich
democratic countries. By examining data covering the
late 1980s and the 1990s some studies sustain that
public opinion has had a strong impact. But a closer look
at the evidence invites scepticism. The empirical case for
public opinion’s influence remains to be made. This is
only one issue of the Generosity worldwide problem.
There is a lack of studies on 2000s cases.
*The concept of Generosity and Solidarity in the Creative
social and cultural processes highlights a today
worldwide critical tension. Have we responsibility to
relate and care – an-other we value?
*There is an advent of the SCIENCE OF GENEROSITY
PROJECT- proposed and developed by the Notre Dame
University (Notre Dame University, Indiana, US, 2009) seems to be a pioneering stance in that it specifically
examines, formally, philosophically and scientifically, the
role of generosity in creative processes associated with
the very technologies we now use routinely to frame (and
decontextualise/recontextualise) human relations, and
notions of community.
The main approach is interdisciplinary, but there is a
Social Psychology background - and a bordering within
the Generosity concept. Thus, GPC-GCS project
must/can/will therefore be inter/trans/co-displinary in that
it proposes the outline of an analytic-synthetic model of
creative-interactive functioning and re-structuring of a
society based on a generosity turning point partnership –
- explicitly stating beyond strictly Social Psychology
background - and a crisp bordering within the Generosity
concept.
*It appears, we are at a nexus where we must return to
an analysis of deep seated human values and cultural
meanings in order to provide frameworks for exploring
and rationalising the ever-expanding complexities of our
human-technologically-mediated world (Dimirovski et al,
2006). There is a major need to understand the dynamics
of the natural process of society’s development, where
the periodicity, sequences and step-by-step societal
learning are by far the most basic and powerful traits. It is
the result of the widely evident characteristic that the
most important rule of functioning of the Universe
(macrocosm, humankind, microcosms) is a circular and
rhythmic movement of its varied elements, which strongly
affects relatively smaller elements such as human
beings, interactive human made technique and societies.
*It is therefore that it is not acceptable, and moreover it
would be impossible, to ignore/eliminate the periodicity,
rhythm and step by step evolution from any social
processes. However, there are ample possibilities to
(re)form cyclical and rhythmic processes and/or to
(re)structure complex entities, and hence, the positive
and negative social phenomena strongly connected with
some stages of the society evolution (e.g. genesis/selforganizing huge events, impulse innovative changes,
development, relative stagnation, failure by crisis,
impulse catastrophic involvement, collapse) can be
maximalised and minimised.
Aspects of benefits
Inquiry on the Global (Post)Crisis versus Humankind
Wisdom as a Turning Point: Does the GenerosityCreativity-Solidarity Triad Matter? GPC-GCS project
would be an interdisciplinary action, really synergetic,
non-entropic and efficient - emerging to a Strategic
outlook.
Worldwide benefit would be contemporary meta-strategy
based on generosity. It could innovatively and beneficially
be involved within the complex process of better
organizing diversity. It may also be implied in the attempt
to take advantage of the challenges by offering
everybody enough chances to create, to innovate, to
share.
The worst element within our World and e-World is the
lack of a permanently updated Code of Responsibilities,
somehow complementary to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Such a Code may contribute to
preventing,
alleviating
and
even
solutioning
discontentment, troubles, dangers, risks and conflicting
contexts. GPC-GCS project would be a Worldwide
contemporary acting approach on responsibilities.
Bulz et al. 11
The
comprehension
upon
the
deterministic
unpredictability status of the outlook for the
theoretical/descriptive worldwide heritage, challenges,
perspectives frames using catastrophe theory (R. Thom),
fractals (B. Mandelbrot), dissipative far from an
equilibrium state entity (I. Prigogine), deterministic chaos
theory,
neural
networks,
expert
systems,
probabilistic/statistic - fuzzy - subtle techniques. So, it is
to (re)search toward the societal provability of inner
methods of experts (and human-machine complex
systems) in order to (re)link the stability and
(dis)continuity of incursive---predictability status of the
respective inner theoretical/descriptive frames.
Generosity in knowledge and knowledge transfer,
therefore, means ensuring the conditions for a better
communication of such knowledge, and not in a
fragmented manner, but connected, integrated, coherent,
systematic. It is about
1) The fact that “the large crowd” may achieve “a higher
knowledge”, if the transfer of knowledge and education
occurs; and
2) The necessity to favour criticism, and the governments
not to support, in their own exclusive possession, the key
to the truths which they impart to the public.
The clear transmission of ideas, removing obscurity:
clarity is discursive (logical), resulting from concepts, and
there is also the intuitive (aesthetic) clarity, which results
from examples or other explanations in concreto.
Aspects of how the proposed approach fits within
actual challenges and purpose of (post) worldwide
crisis
Initial remark
The main objective is to gain a positive acting answer to
the question:
<< Is there a possibility to differentiate an initial knot of
complex Global (Post)Crisis problems, sustained by a
2050 horizon, to gain a desirable nexus of solutions and
to elicit a Worldwide adaptation and action area focused
on
the
GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY
Triad?>>
The GPC-GCS project seems to be a pioneering
stance in that it specifically examines, formally,
philosophically and scientifically, the role of generosity in
creative processes associated with the very technologies
we
now
use
routinely
to
frame
(and
decontextualise/recontextualise) human relations, and
notions of community (vs. solidarity).
Our work facilitates the identification of the stages of
the complex development of a real social system and
their creativity, partnership and generosity characteristics;
that is a condition and initial point to set out an
appropriate guiding system in a contemporary society
based on the “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”
prospective. Amongst others, this systematic approach
can inform policy, leadership, regulation, social-enterprise
and socio-political debate.
The GPC-GCS project will focalize and apply on the
following topics (and questions):
I. Comparative cross-national research on political,
economic, and techno-cultural impacts on generosity –
based on a scientific approach and utilising a range of
empirically-oriented methodologies recently developed
and validated at co-investigators’ sites as a basis for
meta-theoretical work in this space;
II. Institutional and comparative cross-national research
on generators of generosity and creative partnership –
based on a Science-Religion Dialogue approach (Kile,
2008),
Science-Philosophy-Culture-ReligionManagement
Multilevel-Dialogue,
cross-cultural
analysis and inter/trans/co/cross-disciplinary analysis
and synthesis.
So, in addressing itself to these issues / questions, the
GPC-GCS project responds to arising innovative
constructs in the worldwide society, as follows:
* Development of an original approach to social network
dynamics shaping generosity and creative partnership
(understanding / explaining how creative people learn to
be generous and to be partners by the adequacy of the
available cross-national primary data on creativity and
generosity – and by the deduced secondary/tertiary
outcome data);
* The roll out of the actual technologically-mediated world
versus generosity and creative partnership (using
inter/trans/co-displinary research approaches and
methods to identify the causal mechanisms of melting
generosity and creative partnership, as: fuzzy and subtle
emerging systems development, human-technology
corpus management and leadership paradigms);
* A vision and an elicited frame to focus possible nuclei of
human-technologically-mediated
social
networks
specifically dedicated to shaping generosity and creative
partnership (exploring the consequences of generous
creative behaviour on worldwide society).
The exploring approach of the GPC-GCS Project
The GPC-GCS project will more deeply explore, explain
and explicate the three analytical dimensions of
generosity
(its
sources,
manifestations,
and
consequences), resulting in a rich understanding of
generosity in the information / knowledge /
consciousness society as a developing humantechnologically-mediated social meta-context:
- a contribution on the sources, origins, and causes of
generosity would result in I versus *1;
- a contribution on the variety of manifestations and
expressions of generosity would result in I and II versus
*2;
- a contribution on the consequences of generosity for
12 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
both the meta-givers and meta-receivers involved would
result in II versus *3.
The six questions of the project – as a first insight
within contemporary worldwide BLACK BOX
Current “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy” processes in
the worldwide research area at least remain largely
understood in terms of the technologies we can create,
their possibilities and potentialities. However, we are also
becoming to understand certain limitations, limitations in
terms of human socio-economic structures and cultural
realities are not so easily understood. What will happen
to our connectedness as a species with each-other, what
happens in the physical connectedness to local
community, when our primary experiences of
connectedness are computer-mediated and involve
humans framed within windows and data, and whom we
can turn off. There are new possibilities, challenges and
complexities. The complexity can not be understood
without the development of a systematic model of the
interpenetration of the emerging world we describe and
experience, with the ancient internal which is our evolved
nature as a species, and the more ancient universal
systems which have shaped us and continue to shape
us. The notion of generosity is crucial in this analysis – a
key distinguishing feature of our species is to be
empathetic (even the chimpanzee cannot experience
empathy) and to reach out in creative generosity.
*But how does this dimension of our nature, which has
sustained civilisations, outwork in the “(Post)Crisis
Society and Economy”: in technologically-mediated
relations at work, in community and across cultural
borders (Q1)?
*What kinds of knowledge are exchanged (Q2)?
*What happens to embodied and tacit knowledge in a
space that reduces the physicality of social
experience, or perhaps embodies it in a new way (Q3)?
* How do we share and give of ourselves, as embodied,
social creatures (Q4)?
* How and what do we receive from the other (Q5)?
* How do we understand this receiving and giving (Q6)?
Information on the methodology and significance of
the GPC-GCS Project
These realities need a systematic, rational approach
based on a fundamentally interdisciplinary perspective
(and then: methodology) which can, at a systems level,
provide an analysis that can inform a range of processes
from governance, to technology-development, to ethics,
to culture.
The systemic complexity of the contemporary
governance, the complexity of representing and solving
local and global problems, regarding the education,
participation and globalisation, seem(s) to be dependent
on the open / closed appearance of the alternatives.
Does this alternatives background propose to enhance
understanding and explaining how creative people learn
to be generous and to be partners?
It is not a crisp appearance; it is a probabilistic, a fuzzy
and a (self-)adaptive appearance. Would a brilliant
synthesis provide “inner solutions”? It would be toward
representing and solving of the contemporary
governance
problems
by
inter/trans/co-displinary
research approaches and methods to identify the causal
mechanisms of melting generosity and creative
partnership? Would the same act within nongovernmental organizations (NGO) – mostly exploring the
consequences of generous creative behaviour
To all these questions on significance, the GPC-GCS
project responds positively connecting the „Generosity”
concept to the „Creative Partnership” construct – both
very much dependent on the Knowledge Transfer and
Technology Transfer – as a primal methodology of the
(next) action.
Also,
more,
an
inter/trans/co-displinary
(meta)methodology must be elicited / delivered (just
related / correlated to I and II) / e.g. Cross-national
etymology / etymologies regarding the topic of the project
/
informational
language
dialogue
support
//
Understanding / explanation // Science-Religion Dialogue
issues // … // Information/Knowledge dynamics according
to generosity and creative partnership // concurrent
models // Verbal and non-verbal occurrences related to
the Knowledge Society – toward Consciousness Society
and future prospect for the e-World.
This GPC-GCS project is proposing research work for
a two year and a half term on the above depicted I + II
versus *1; *2; *3 strategy . Also, this project proposes a
research sequence just on dissemination of the results of
our original research, and an other research sequence for
proposing the foundation of 1-3 structures to continue the
research during/after the end of the project: an East-East
structure; an West-East structure; an Occident-Orient
structure).
It is to presume on the accuracy of an initial statement:
the GENEROSITY concept and the CREATIVE
PARTNERSHIP
concept/construct
have
common
(intersected) areas (exploring the consequences of
generous behaviour / creative partnership efforts) and
specific areas for each of the two.
This type of relative intersection would make us
possible deeper co-investigators regarding the sources,
origins, causes, variety/expressions, consequences of
generosity, creativity, partnership, creative partnership
and all their logical, human-socio-technical and culturallysupported combinations. Mainly, on the nearly three
years track, it would be possible to to explore:
*GENEROSITY and PARTNERSHIP relevance and
innovation;
*GENEROSITY and CREATIVITY relevance
and
Bulz et al. 13
innovation;
*GENEROSITY,
SOLIDARITY
and
CREATIVE
PARTNERSHIP innovation.
Parallel, our international team of co-investigators would
recommend/dedicate each co-investigator’s efforts to
survey within (inter)national case studies:
*Couchsurfing and other related relevant e-groups
focused on varieties of Generosity;
*Knowledge Transfer and Technology Transfer e-groups;
*The state of other relevant e-groups [as it is just „our”
VIEEDC Consortium: a previous application to FP7
program of European Union from our Dynamic
Consortium (VIEEDC - Virtual Institute of Knowledge
Transfer: to Eastern Europe from Developed Countries)].
This project is proposing (A) research work on the above
depicted I + II versus *1; *2; *3 strategy:
(A1) finding available data and creating and acting
according to innovative tests;
(A2) interpreting the results of these innovative tests
versus traditional bibliography and eliciting inter/transdisciplinary explicit knowledge.
Also, this GPC-GCS PROJECT proposes a (B)
research sequence and actions just on dissemination of
the results of our original research (through open
workshops; ISI publications; interactive www forms), and
an other (C) research sequence for proposing the
foundation of 1-3 structures to continue/consolidate the
research of the project: an East-East structure; an WestEast structure; an Occident-Orient structure).
The actions part for C will be exclusively on an
institutional and civil society support base. On different
scales A1/ A2/ B will have a 51% institutional support
base [51% comparing to the per research item budget of
this project – including the value of intellectual resources
available for the due course of the project, within each
co-investigator and merging their local financial findings].
Procedural remarks
Remark A: Regarding the approach of this GPC-GCS
project one can review the connectedness between
Science, Society and Development. So, there are (at
least) two fundamental and differentiated types of
approaches to the general flow(s) of the matter and
spirituality: the circular (information1; decision; action;
informational2), and the subtle rhythmic (awareness;
insight; action).
Let us name Information-Knowledge journey the
common track within both the above types of
approaches; and to comprehend this complex journey as
an attribute of the couple Rational Subject - Real
(hypothetical) World. This couple is, has and comprises
actions and problems regarding more than life. And the
life within a Rational Subject (merging initial actions and
constituted problems) is more than the consumption of
resources, the processing of resources according to
some criteria, toward the consequent emerging
objectives.
The middle of the 20th century intellectual rising of
System Theory and the induced large variety of
Automatic Systems had promoted (into that stage) the
central engagement of Information, beyond substance
and energy, within our world. The objective and
subjective becoming of Information onto our world
remains an open topic, still. But the human being is more
complex than a standard Rational Subject is [within, onto,
by Information].
After a half-century of theory and practice we have
gained the knowledge that the human elicitation of
Knowledge is a turning point, so, more than a collective
intelligent interaction inside a problematic environment.
From the inner groundings of this study, a problematic
environment may (gradually) contain local, medial and
global problems (referring individual, regional and
planetary backgrounds).
All these "more … than" are consistent but not
completely sustained by probability and fuzziness
insights ("amalgamated" or not, one with the other).
Would contemporary humankind sustain other more
insights? This project proposes a subtle approach, an
other insight too.
According to a harmonized methodology (between
very different patterns emerging from co-aimed
(re)search - it is proposed a new level to approach within,
onto, by our initial actions and constituted problems
(within risk, uncertainty, and “over-complexity”). This new
approach of the problems is co-constituted just with the
constituted problem into its (non)systemic environment
(characterized by both scientific/(hypothetical) real
dynamic, statistic, selective, heuristic and algorithmic
determinism).
The general frame, proposed here as an I/O relation,
as to supply the Information-Knowledge journey, is:
INPUT DATA <=> INFORMATION <=> KNOWLEDGE
<=> EXPERTISE <=> WISDOM <=> { HAPINESS /
ALIENATION } <=> OUTPUT DATA (1)
A minimal statement is necessary, that from some
actual
points
of
view
the
INFORMATION
concept/construct may relate the objectiveness from our
Macrocosms, biological being and Microcosms. In
parallel, a Rational Subject (individually and within a
community) is subjectively determined by the
KNOWLEDGE concept/construct, related to the
internalized information from inside and outside. The
explicit knowledge may be transferred – but the
implicit knowledge (unable to be directly transferred)
may firstly pave the ways inside any InformationKnowledge journey, as the above general frame (1)
presents. The construct
“Information-Knowledge
journey” is indebted
to the
diaphoric
metaphor:
Different shapes, same
related perfection, and
contextually to concept(s) of “(Post)Crisis Society and
Economy”.
14 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Remark B
The aim of this GPC-GCS project supports an innovative
and interactive conceptual case-study of our team. But it
refers to general phenomena in the ICT and Automation
domain, is to blow a whistle (Hersh, 2001), to warn both
actual pioneers in other countries of possible meanders
of the High-Technology transfer process that may destroy
their hopes and expectations and possible “HighTechnology providers” that making light of local expertise
and knowledge may result in waste of time and money
and in ineffective technology and knowledge transfer.
Remark C
Regarding the deep conceptual inquiries of this GPCGCS project let (re) present the following one: What is
necessary and sufficient onto a (virtual) processor from
an Anticipatory / Incursion (computing) system? The
following three conjectures are constructed regarding this
inquiry:
Conjecture 1
A sufficient frame is the aggregation of the elements of
the set (BELIEF; UNDERSTANDING; EXPLANATION;
PRAXIS ), onto the assemblage of the represented /
solved problems.
Into the Internet context, to propose to constitute a
new structure: to denominate it “Internetron”. Any
“process_products, within our world(s) (World of
Systemhood and Individualhood), would contains, at
least, a link between the entities to gather into an
Internetron.
The sufficient threshold for an Internetron is to achieve
the cognitive resources and to perform the anticipation,
within its context. (Lewoc, 2006) (Stapleton, 2008)
(Leader, 2009)
Conjecture 2
A necessary frame is the aggregation of the elements of
the set ( BELIEF-DESIRE-EMOTION (B-D-E); PRAXIS ),
onto the assemblage as a whole, and to each
represented / solved problem.
Into this context to appreciate the equivalence of the B-DE constructs with the human complexity of the reflection
(that is to touch mind) AND with the human complexity of
the reflection upon the reflection (that is to touch
consciousness) – through the possible comprehension on
the triad of triads T1 (faith; hope; will-love-sin), T2
HOLISTIC CAPACITY (prejudice; surprise; evidence), T3
ECO-COUNSCIOUSNESS (e-Concepts; expectations;
admissible time) - alongside the relation (1).
The Christian two millennial topos, for T1 would be:
T1(faith-as capability; hope-as
necessity; love-as
sufficiency).
Conjecture 3
A necessary and sufficient frame is the aggregation of the
elements of the set (human awareness; human insight;
social action (human-machine) ). (A-I-A )
Toward the implementation (Zadeh, 1965; 1996, 1999,
2002; Shafer, 1976; Dubois and Prade, 1980; Klir, 1991;
Klir and Yuan, 1995; Belis and Snow, 2002; Dimitrov,
2004; Dimirovski, 2008) of this necessary and sufficient
frame, in fact, it is needed to put in evidence the
construct of Qualia. And so, an Anticipatory / Incursive
Neural Network: as a Dual Comprehension Flow onto
Variety and Invariance would anticipatory be “to implode”
by our perceptibility (awareness), anterior to our
emergence. Yet, so supposing it, also it would be “to
explode” within an uniformization of our states, across
our innovative status, beside our emergence – and firmly
constructing it – it would be our qualia (an natural gift
within, by, and inward our e-World, here and now – at
least for us) (Florea, 2001/2003). In turn, the following
definition is introduced here.
Definition 1
Our individual qualia is and has our cultural trace, but the
social qualia (it may be societal qualia only) is and has
the aggregation of the set (BELIEF; UNDERSTANDING;
EXPLANATION; PRAXIS) through the linear flow
{humankind awareness; human insight; social action) as
complex entity.
This linear flow “make pieces” from the human circular
ring: (information1-decision-action-information2). The
construct of qualia introduces / represents the locus
(“without states”) of implosion of the entries and
explosion of the outputs of the initial conceptual network.
If the previous task of survey would be successful,
then a possible conceptual orientation may be assured
according to the following table, as an initial contribution
from the Interactive Modelling base of approaches /
versus (non)systemic risks and incertitude / according to
the inquiry:
Why and how does Humankind generate and reflect
the problems related to our global (post)crisis through
imitations, inventions, survival? This would be an inquiry
into
our
world’s
subtleness
alongside
the
probabilistic/statistic and fuzzy/statistic approaches on
sustainable, equitable and societal feasible solutions
toward and through (open and interactive) education
dissemination.
Within all these four cases (frame vs. knowledge)
there will be possible to make room for the "same" set of
Bulz et al. 15
A four-case Table 5.1 The above table presents within four cases: the relation between different
modeling approaches according to an extended System Theory to a (Non)Systemic Theory - on the
background of KNOWLEDGE vs. FRAME concepts.
KNOWLEDGE
vs. FRAME
Structured knowledge
No_structured knowledge
Symbolic frame
Numeric frame
case 1:
Expert Systems
case 4:
Subtle (No_)Systems
case 2: Probabilistic/Statistic Systems
and/or Fuzzy Systems
case 3:
Neural Systems (networks)
Table 5.2 The sufficient and necessary threshold for the existence of a Sociotron is to achieve the cognitive
resources and to perform the anticipation and incursion, within its context - alongside the relation (1).
(e-)WORLD as a (hypothetical)
real / model / ideal system
comprehension after / beyond /
in accordance to PLATO
Dimension of
“existence”
within the
(e-)World(s);
Human
Awareness
Human Insight
Social Action
(humanmachine)
dimension of “belonging” to the (e-)World(s);
connections to:
human
human
social action
awareness
insight
(human-machine)
REACTION
to
TO HAVE
(ex. judiciary)
understand
to „pass” again
QUALIA
to explain
TO BE
to
„live” again
ACTION
(ex. industrial-financial)
Connections
to:
problems, and then compare:
- the capacity of representation regarding these "same"
set of problems,
- the versatility of problem solving supported by assisted
decision makers, and
- the incursion/anticipation force of (re)adaptation of the
(non)systemic features of the problematic
backgrounds (structure, functionality, organizational
nexus).
So, one has first to delimitate the (non)systemic
context of the individual/ community/ Humankind, and
then the above stated issues should be refined: capacity
of representation, versatility of problem solving,
incursion/anticipation force of (re)adaptation.
Both FRAME and KNOWLEDGE are directions to
respond to the six questions of the project – so, two of
the possible types of insight within contemporary
worldwide BLACK BOX.
In order to associate for the structure presented by
Definition 1, at this point, to (re)present a Subtle
(No_)System,
the
denomination of
“liniarizated
Internetron” or shorter “Sociotron”, trying to comprehend
and act according to the some of the revealed
humankind's paradoxes (Gödel, 1931; Arrow, 1963).
The aggregated construct of “Sociotron” is pointed, as
presented in Table 2, focusing the QUALIA construct
(Bulz, 2009), (see AXIOM 3 within the paragraph 6.3. downward). The constructs “Sociotron” and QUALIA are
supposed to have conceptual contributions to the
inquiries of this GPC-GCS project.
The innovative construction perspective of the
research team of the GPC-GCS Project
The project aims to contribute to the real construction
sufficient and necessary threshold for the existence of a
Sociotron, supported by the effects of the expected WestEast knowledge transfer – according to the following
concentrated objectives – as interdisciplinary specialized
micro-structures (research and on-line action):
1. Laboratory for counsel, identification and architecture
of mentalities interfaces: developed countries Eastern
Europe / practical case: regarding Romania, Poland
and Hungary – developed countries represented into
this International Consortium;
2. Virtual entity for identification, promoting and counsel
of the economic (industrial, agricultural, commercial,
and financial) exchange: Romania, Poland and
Hungary - developed countries – between delimited
partners;
3. Virtual entity for identification, promoting and counsel
of the cultural and educational exchange: Romania,
Poland and Hungary - developed countries – between
delimited partners;
4. Virtual entity for identification, promoting and counsel
16 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
of the economic, cultural and educational exchange:
Romania-Romanian
communities/PolandPolish
communities/and Hungary-Hungarian communities –
so, the innovative linkage to Eastern European traced
communities from developed countries;
5. Virtual entity for identification and promoting of the
inter / transdisciplinary techniques and methodologies
- supporting Romania, Poland and Hungary developed countries links and exchanges.
All these specialized micro-structures would be real state
projected and constructed AFTER the finalizing of this
project focalizations on:
AA: A primal Knowledge Transfer support,
BB: A stabilized differentiation of the initial perceived knot
of complex Eastern European problems – starting within
some samples,
CC: A quasi-stationary identification of the desirable
nexus of representations and solutions - starting within
these BB samples,
DD: Attaining a direction toward an adaptation area.
It is like obvious that, within the desirable Society and
Economy attempt(s), here, the non-deterministic,
probabilistic / statistic, fuzzy and subtle approaches
inward the possible and potential type(s) of societal and
econometric future(s) may be followed, within inherent
self-organization and superior co-ordination, only and
only through Information Science and Technology
diffusion within Natural, Human and Technical Sciences –
expected through Western pools of knowledge to be
implied into this project.
So, the main goal of this project is to manage the
Knowledge Transfer, from developed countries toward
developing countries, just to enhance the organizers
within all partners of the Consortium to prepare, to
prospect, to plan, to organize the construction of these
five (1 – 5) micro-structures, into a consequent but
sequential locality and temporality of the “same”
International Consortium, AFTER the finalizing of this
project. These micro-structures are considered as
desirable within the actual state into Romania, Poland
and Hungary.
So, the responsibility within the Knowledge Transfer of
this project has two horizons. The first horizon of
responsibility refers the period of this project.
The second horizon of responsibility refers the period
at the end of this project, and just after this project.
These two horizons means the logical and physical
engagement of the project (through its logical and
physical resources) into the identifying and organizing
local research and (in)direct actions toward developing
governance on science-related questions.
The inner strategy of the International Consortium (a
global one, between the partners) means to plan and act
toward co-operative research processes, i.e.:
*aa: To deliver common actions (i.e. two workshops, a
Symposium, a Summer School) before the application(s)
deadline, into any open contest for grant application
*bb: to use the resulted synergy (elicited through the
previous common actions) in order to gain the selforganizing the partners of the Consortium during the
composition of the text and budget of the project;
*cc: To summarize (into the project) an action from each
partner, during the project period, and the networked
results to be analyze during an initial and local
common action: a Summer School (in Romania),
followed by a general common action (a Common
Workshop of all the partners in the Consortium –
during a visit of the foreign quests from Western and
Eastern areas in Romania);
*dd: All this triadic track, before and inward the project,
means a subtle on-line co-ordination of the
architecture of Knowledge Transfer, till the attaining
the consensus onto the architecture of the
specialized micro-structures (1 – 5; supposed to
diminish the main focused gaps: I – VIII). To
evaluate the efforts, the proximate results of the
knowledge transfer and the embedded seed-effects.
To plan the next step within a continuity of the
(adapted/evolved) Consortium;
*ee: To promote, realize and aggregate different
(inter)national applications within the same and/or
equivalent subjects to this project – regarding the
partners of the Consortium – within an increasing
networking.
*ff: To manage the continuity of the (adapted/evolved)
Consortium; to attain the level of a Virtual Institute
On the real horizon 2050 of the consortium
virtual institute
as a
The above foresighted, prospected, and organized tasks
within the project have a real horizon 2050: the
Consortium and its future till attaining the level of a Virtual
Institute, and an ideal horizon: some specialized microstructures, which would be real state projected and
constructed AFTER the finalizing of this project
focalizations, within all the partners into this Consortium,
on:
A:
The
real
conceptual
and
terminological
systematization related to the heterogeneous corpus
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”;
B: The (re)analysis on the quasi-exponential and quasi
autonomous expanding of the Information Society
Technologies and Communication – “ITC”;
C: A and B relations to social and general human
research – and societal real life;
D: "Information-Knowledge dynamic evaluation within and
across European Union enlargement and action scale"
*D1. European networking beyond geographical patterns
regarding Information-Knowledge dynamics, within all the
sample addressed by the project;
*D2. The geomodernity impact within EU-USA-Japan and
SE Asia competition and research advance on “(Post)
Bulz et al. 17
Crisis Society and Economy”;
*D3.
Analysis
and
foresight
onto
European
connectedness-communication; a case study, as a
sample: multimedia.
Points A and C would be dedicated to identify
practical solutions and to advice on research
strategy onto information systems - trying to
harmonize interest status (Western and Eastern
European).
According to all these, the Project coordinator would continue the research on some personal contributions as: (non)systemicity;
InformationKnowledge
conceptual
and
praxis
balance;
connectedness-communication bipolar reality within
ITC.
Point B would be desired as there is a "scholars'
concepts" diversity - pointing on the trends and results,
and it is beneficed to emerge within a more synergic
outlook versus the complexity of the Eastern European
area within its transition.
Point D would be desired as a trend(s) and
“variability/stationarity”
inquiry;
it
may
propose
new approaches onto Eastern and Western European
efforts on and toward “(Post)Crisis Society and
Economy”.
For all the four points, the team of the partners of this
project believes that would be possible a theoretical focus
and analysis on the data/trends. Here is, indeed, only a
brief. We hope to find a modular but common structure
and to realize a step by step co-operation within specific
convergence/divergence of the modules. As a project
team we feel complementarily responsible to the parts of
the Project and Consortium.
The
interdisciplinary
approach
on
the
architecture (systemic structure and prospected
functionality) of the specialized micro-structures
(proposed and depicted at the PROJECT OBJECTIVES),
project focalizations, inner strategy of the International Consortium and the PARTS OF THE INNER
FLOW OF THE PROJECT would be elicited just
within the Knowledge Transfer process, and the track of
the
physical
specialized
micro-structures
will
be organized and even developed by the next
future
Consortia of different European communities – initiated
within this project for Transfer of Knowledge, and into
the next steps of this Consortium enlarged during
and after the visiting period related of distinguished
guest from developed countries. We invite them to
“live again” with us, a resonant short period, but
to preserve their origin mentality; just to cooperate
within Eastern European transition deepness, and
within Romanian, Polish and Hungarian case
studies, practical too.
This is the Consortium open contribution toward a
deepened Transfer of Knowledge - according to iterative
and interactive innovation regarding both the
interdisciplinarity of Science, and the dynamics of
the Society.
Organizational status of the research team of the
GPC-GCS Project
Identification of partners and collaborators
Here, there is an order only according to the data of
replay with a completed Letter of Interest toward the
initiator *(1) Prof. dr. Nicolae Bulz – Associate Professor at
National Defence College, Bucharest, Romania /
Honorary Researcher at World Economy Institute, INCE,
Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania / Executive
President of Interdisciplinary Research Group of the
structure of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest,
Romania / Founder of the Interdisciplinary Laboratory
<<M. Eminescu - S. Haret - V. Ghika>>, 2000 - by:
*(2) Dr. Larry Stapleton - Director of INSYTE: Centre for
Information Systems and Technoculture, Waterford
Institute of Technology, Waterford, Republic of Ireland;
*(3) Dr. George Ghinea - Reader in Computing, Director
of Postgraduate Studies, NITH Programme Manager,
School of Information Systems, Computing and
Mathematics, Brunel University, London, United
Kingdom;
*(4) Dr. Jozef Bohdan Lewoc - Director of BPBiT Leader
(Leading designer: the Design, Research
and
Translation Agency), Wroclaw, Poland;
*(5) Dr. Dorien DeTombe - Chair of International
Research Society on Methodology of Societal
Complexity, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;
*(6) Dr. Laszlo Karvalics - Chair of Department of Library
and Information Science Faculty of Arts, Szeged
University, Hungary;
*(7) Prof.dr. Petre Prisecaru – Senior Researcher at
Institute of World Economy, INCE, Romanian Academy,
Bucharest, Romania // Prof.dr. Nicolae Secalis / previous
Director of Popular University „Ioan Dalles”, Bucharest,
Romania, and Ileana Boeru - Projects manager // Dr.
Florin Rotaru – General Director of Metropolitan Library,
Bucharest, Romania, and Adrina Pana - Manager in chief
for the Dimitrie Cantemir branch ML;
*(9) Dr. Cristiana Glavce – Director of Institute of
Anthropology “Francisc I. Rainer", Romanian Academy,
Bucharest, Romania;
* (10) Dr. Corina Sas – Computing Department,
Lancaster University, United Kingdom.
*(11) Prof.dr. Marcel Stoica, Prof.dr. Ana Bazac, Lect.dr.
Mihaela Buia, Dr. Dan Farcas, Assist.Prof.dr. Laura
Pana, Dumitru Mateescu – members of the
Interdisciplinary Research Group of the structure of the
Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania;
*(12) Dr. Karolin Kappler - Director of COBAWU-Institute
[COmplexity BAlanced
World United-Institute], Wuppertal, Germany [also, in
the name of Andrés Ginestet
Menke - artist and sociologist];
*(13) Dr. Iudith Ipate - Researcher of the Center for Agro-
18 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
forestry Biodiversity Study and
Research „Acad. David DAVIDESCU” / NIER - INCE /
Romanian Academy, Bucharest
[in the name of
Prof. dr. Alexandru T. Bogdan,
Correspondent Member of Romanian
Academy, Director of this Center];
*(14) Professor ssa. Marcella Pompili Pagliari - Direttrice
Laboratorio di Politiche e Strategie di
Genere /
Dipartimento di Comunicazione e Ricerca Sociale /
Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy;
*(15) Marta Donolo - researcher of Eutropia ONLUS,
Roma, Italy [also, in the name of
Professor Carlo Donolo];
*(16) Associate Professor Akbar Javadi, PhD - Head of
Computational Geomechanics
Group, College of Engineering, Mathematics and
Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter,
UK;
*(17) Professor dr. Florentin Smarandache – Chief of
Math. and Science Department,
University of New Mexico - Gallup, US;
*(18) Michel R. Nilles – Chief Executive Officer of AAA
Commercial Broker and
Consultancy Inc., Cebu, Philippines also, in the name of
Anna B. Pollok].
The entire Consortium GENEROSITY-CREATIVITYSOLIDARITY has generous
ideals, per se.
PART B
Generosity and solidarity in the creative process/a
project versus subtle items of our humankind
Aspects of how the contemporary complexity may be
reflected by the (post) worldwide crisis informationknowledge dynamics
Toward an (axiomatic) subtle approach on our
world(s)
On the networking of sciences and humankind
The representational map of sciences in the second half
of the 20th century toward the 21st century has an
abyssal form, different from the forms related to the set of
sciences during the Greek antiquity, the Renaissance
period, the Enlightenment and Ampere's classification of
sciences. The scientific disciplines had evolved
„vertically” on the profoundness of knowledge (thus the
major cause of the “abyssal form”), but there were and
are interdisciplinary challenges („horizontally” marked
between them). The result is a network of sciences
(inside an open knowledge space). Now and here, it may
be „vertically-horizontally” delimited, but it also regards
the huge advance of the humankind: inside the socially
dynamic deepness, inside the volatility of the humanmachine prospect, and inside its neural individual and
collective (non-)revealed faculties, too. So, the network of
sciences – here as a huge (but not complete) model upon
our real, but not on the (Universal) Reality. This huge
model upon our real is proper to the comprehension of
both the profoundness of knowledge and the relations
between sciences. Briefly, for this last pole, there is a
kind of a fast-forward scientific connection acting
probabilistic and fuzzy (according to the scientific stages
of representation) at the intersection between the social
background of sciences and the neural background(s) of
the actors of sciences; to mark it as social*neural
segment.
This segment (and may be other entities of similarly
and complementary types) acts as a stimulus to take a
role on the suitable evolving of the network of sciences. If
the „vertically” evolving of the profoundness of knowledge
“exceeds” the „horizontally” interdisciplinary challenges,
then the asymmetry(ies) of the respective network of
sciences may occur(s) on solving equivalent humankind
problem(s), within parallel ways and classical methods,
within different scientific domains, as prevailing their low
link – and the heterogeneity of the human dialogue
which would follow.
The interference between the contemporaneous
scientific network and the social and neural backgrounds
may be analyzed, depicted, and represented through a
lot of (classically - today) cycles (across the resources
involved: human, technical, social aggregation, neural
resources of the mind and of the consciousness). One of
these cycles is an inner one for this network of sciences.
It is a generator cycle, starting from the social*neural
segment. It acts according with the profoundness of
knowledge, and will be forever (re)turning within the
social*neural segment. The existence of this cycle elicits
the (cyclic) redefining of the social and neural
backgrounds (interdisciplinary comprehended). The
problem of an essential “optimal” period of time (and
space) proper to observe / re-observe, to forecast / reforecast upon the social*neural segment, upon its
generator cycle, is an outdated one (mainly by the reality
beyond the concepts of “wisdom” versus “expertise”, and
“satisfaction” versus “happiness” and “alienation”) it is
beyond space and time. Attaining, reaching, grasping the
entireness of an essential “optimal” period, or only trying
and trying to attempt it, the individual and/or the
community flow from this type of forecasting to the social
prevention, to social education, to social adaptation and
(re)construction. So, there are some long-termed steps,
some outstanding cycles – more or less related to the
above introduced generator cycle and the social*neural
segment.
There results the necessity of some conceptual
recovering in front of the nearly classical flow: multitheme
multidisciplinary
co-disciplinary
interdisciplinary – transdisciplinary – cross-disciplinary
Bulz et al. 19
approaches and the related status of the history and
methodology, logic, philosophy of science. This
necessary recovery recollects as entireness the holistic
necessity resulting and belonging to the dynamics of
„vertical”, „horizontal” dimensions and huge advance of
the humankind related to the network of sciences.
Despite the unbroken traditional borders of scientific
cognition, more and more links appear between:
- „Exact” sciences and „human” sciences;
- Science and technology - according with an increasing
engineering
variety,
social
assistance,
(self)employment and entertainment/leisure within e-Systems;
- Co-existence of philosophy and scientific domains [into
a wide (possible to be depicted) science-poetryphilosophy/theology-arts-management-science ring];
- Academic area and the large public area – more
interactively connected through actual e-libraries,
mass media and www/Internet facilities.
This network of sciences (together with its cycles;
dependent on the models which would tend to
comprehend it) exists through and is dedicated to
humankind. But there is a relative autonomy of this
network of sciences [as any entity/system: a
(hypothetical) reality, a model, an ideal]. Most regarding
this context of relative autonomy of this network, there is
a generator of performances; performances carried out
by individuals. “Some” individuals become or not
contextual individuals through competencies – mainly
supported by communities. But, for each person in a
harmonic relation to the global ecological system, it is
very important that the contextual competencies appear
resonant with the pre-attained performances. May it be
similarly stated within a low ecological system? Maybe
(fuzzy) no. (Zadeh, 1965), (Negoitã and Ralescu, 1975),
(Teodorescu a.o., 2001) There is a complex reciprocal
induction between neural and social cycles and
performances–competencies balance / over an
observable humankind; hard observable by itself, and by
the seekers of performances and/or competent
observers.
A possible problem and its non-balanced (conflictconsensus) representation. May the contemporary world
reflect a general-distortion status on the networking of
sciences and humankind?
The quasi-exponential scientific discoveries (on our
Macrocosms: Astrophysics; on our biological being:
Genetics; on our Microcosms: Quantum Physics) and
technological performances of a major string of
inventions (some of them based on the 5th and 6th
computer generations and future bionic and quantum
computing: expert systems involving in Artificial
Intelligence and Life and, respective, neural networks; bio
and nano-technologies; composite materials and ultrastable structures) do not generalize competence from
human-technique
innovative
systems
towards
ecological(social(economic(industrial) systems. (These
would comprise the economic versus industrial tension to
provide a harmonic outlook within and to social and
ecological systems; and to receive a monotonous
reaction versus keen social and ecological demands)
Also, reciprocal discrepancies among great human
communities (analyzed with global models of mankind
(Meadows a.o., 1972), (Mesarovic and Pestel, 1974),
(Naisbitt, 1982),) underline cultural distortions and prove
the self-generative complexity of the real (social) life.
There is a lack of a real-time global description of
mankind. There is a hardly improved state of art into
operative problem solving (in spite of the September
2000 overcome eight directions emerged through United
Nations’ approach to the new Millennium, and in spite of
a century of management for industrial macro-domain). In
these contexts, the thesis of Rousseau (Rousseau, 1751)
seems more present than ever (the societal moral is not
better improved versus sciences and arts continuous
progress).
It is possible that the huge quasi-exponential
technological performances to be hardly balanced by an
equivalent “huge” analytical accumulation of philosophical
and literary-artistic introspection - for thousands of years of mankind and, respective, sociological, ethnological,
anthropological psychological search of mankind and of
human being - for approximate last two centuries. But the
human live and (re)action, under this hardly balanced
state, may reveal an illumination through an
inter/transdisciplinary (Nicolescu, 1996), intercultural, and
ecumenical outlook upon the contemporary interaction:
Network of sciences-…-observable humankind - Within
systemic and cybernetic knowingness.
There must be a self-generative belief in the
emergence of a recursive analytical/synthetic open metamodel of the contemporary development toward our
really too complex (social) life. Also, dually, there must be
an active induction from the real life to this open metamodel. The models that overrun life and the life that
surpasses model after model are “poor” entities. Both
sides must bear a reciprocal discourse upon sciences
and arts - inwards a common language. This common
language would have two self-recursive dialects; the first
dialect is entitled as mostly receptive to action,
informational, decisional equilibria [thus resulting the
circular
triad:
(information1;
decision;
action;
informational2)] - the second dialect is entitled as mostly
emissive of responsibility [as a meta-equilibrium between
evolution and security]; thus resulting the subtle rhythmic
triad: (awareness; insight; action). Both these dialects are
disposed around and closely around profound zone(s);
these dialects are reciprocally structured like nuclei of the
metasystem characterized by that common language.
This study, from a methodological perspective,
proposes a dual Sociocybernetics and Cognitive Science
approach – modelling, simulation and (re)acting - base on
the first dialect, which is entitled as mostly receptive
toward humankind, toward arts, toward its patterns –
heritage, challenges, perspectives on the forever open
20 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
way of understanding - alongside the relation (1).
All these may enhance the scientific community with a
centennial
topic:
illumination
through
an
inter/transdisciplinary, intercultural, and ecumenical
outlook upon the contemporary interaction: network of
sciences-…-observable humankind - within systemic and
cybernetic knowingness. To comprehend this type of
“illumination” and “interaction” through/as a subtle outlook
– so, an outlook (if and only if it would exist) unable to be
analyzed, depicted, represented only and only according
to probability/statistic and/or fuzziness (Zadeh, 1965),
(Negoitã and Ralescu, 1975), (Teodorescu et al, 2001).
So, let us denominate the possible centennial topic as a
subtle outlook upon the contemporary interaction:
Network of sciences-…-Observable humankind - within
systemic and cybernetic knowingness - (soN…Osck).
The second dialect, entitled as mostly emissive, would be
prevalent within the scientific community, toward its inner
patterns - heritage, challenges, perspectives, within its
capabilities of incursion and anticipation on the for ever
open way of explanation - alongside the relation (1).
Also, all these may enhance us, the human beings,
with this centennial topic focused to the real worldwide
community - (post) worldwide crisis. The holistic-intuitive
description of this community is actually indebted to the
World Wide Web and Internet, putted in act by the
Electronics, Communication and Computer Science – as
long term theoretic and praxis acquisitions. An actor of
this putting in act is the contemporary virtual human
being within Internet search engines, hypertexts, data
and knowledge bases, e-work (beside the large fan of eactivities) and actual and prospected e-creation.
The first dialect, entitled as mostly receptive, would be
prevalent within the worldwide community, toward arts.
The second dialect, entitled as mostly emissive, would be
prevalent within the scientific community. The two
dialects, the reciprocal discourse upon sciences and arts
- inwards the common language - would support the
elicitation of some basic inquiries. Let be the the
elicitation of the following:
- It is just the major task supported by the soN…Osck to
link the nuclei of the metasystem characterized by that
common language indebted to bear a reciprocal
discourse upon sciences and arts. Is it a
symmetry/asymmetry matter?
- Also, is the contemporary interaction: network of
sciences-…-observable
humankind
within
systemic
and
cybernetic
knowingness
a
symmetry/asymmetry matter?
- Which is the difference between the responses at these
two inquiries?
This part of the study affirms that the soN…Osck would
be a possible outlook according to a systemic and
cybernetic proceeding of the proper information and
knowledge containing the following turning points:
"deeper
humankind
wisdom",
"possibilities
to
(re)form possibilities", " (re)structured complex entities".
Two sample of challenge toward a subtle approach
on our world(s)
As an initial point of view, there is the empirically
comprised hypothesis that if there are absent any basic
inquiries - as the above three basic inquiries on
symmetry/asymmetry and/or the six questions of the
GPC-GCS Project (those from the end of the paragraph
5.3.), than other types of statements would prevail.
May be that the following sequences of some texts are
on the best of analysis upon the presence of basic
inquiries on symmetry/asymmetry and the questions of
the GPC-GCS Project.
So, implicitly a problem is established: To have or not
to have basic inquiries on symmetry/asymmetry and
questions on generosity, creativity, solidarity within an
entity / To prevail other types of statements (than basic
inquiries on symmetry/asymmetry and questions on
generosity, creativity, solidarity).
It is proving that the authors of the next two
sequences (6.2.1. and 6.2.2.) act and would more act
accordingly to a subtle approach soN…Osck, on each
domain. So, it would be possible to attempt other
constructs, or the same termed but within other
semantic/praxis contents. In both cases the diaphoric
metaphor: The orchestra playing the conductor’s role,
and an interdisciplinary involvement of the disciplines
Sociocybernetics and Cognitive Science would be
stimulating on the above hypothesis, and the societal
aggregation problem - which is putted (Pãun, 1977). So,
next here are arisen two hypothesis groups, and so was
putted a basic problem, starting from both two challenges
(Irish and Polish challenges - 6.2.1. and 6.2.2.). I
suppose that this metaphor constitute a better way to turn
the approach to the huge accumulation of work linked to
and beyond the 1948 Norbert Wiener’s Cybernetics
(relating to the Greek term Kybernetes), and to the 1950
Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory.
(Wiener, 1948), (Bertalanffy, 1968)
Would all these supply, on a partial way, a subtle
outlook on the contemporary human-machine nexus –
within systemic and cybernetic knowingness, and to
fundament an (axiomatic) subtle approach onto our
anthropic world(s)? The response from this study is YES.
On social-networking and virtual space - point of
view from Dr. Larry Stapleton, Ireland
It is evident that the social-networking and virtual space
in which humans now interact involves both (and
simultaneously) absence and presence, generosity and
exploitation. The community at large have, for many
years, tried to engage in a debate around the trajectory of
technology and some have noted how technological
developments in the information space continue with little
informed reflection upon what this means for our society.
Bulz et al. 21
At a time when financial crisis, fed by greed, has brought
our society to its economic knees, there was never a
more urgent need to shine a value-based lens upon our
technologically-enabled society. (Stapleton, 2009)
(Stapleton, 2008) (Stapleton, Freeman and Byrne 2008)
(Byrne and Stapleton, 2008) What trajectory are we on?
Are there alternatives? What are the key dimensions of a
constructive “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”, which
promotes human presence, generosity and well-being?
Technologically-mediated social space has both the
potential to create new connections and the possibility to
disembody, and remove physicality from human
relationships, desensitizing us towards each other and
reducing a sense of other-as-human. Certain
technologies have tremendous ability to reach across
cultural and ethnic divides. For example, Telemedicine in
a post-conflict situations is an ideal technological
infrastructure for promoting harmony across ethnic
divides. Where the leaders of the telemedicine project
hold values associated with generosity, Telemedicine
projects in emergency and post-conflict situations can
reach across boundaries in social and cultural space, in
providing healing and support for victims of war, whoever
those victims are. It is therefore an ideal technology for
bringing community-level healing, beyond individual
physical healing. Its presence can therefore become a
signifier of a new way of being. This technology reduces
cultural and ethnic boundaries, and can reach across
these boundaries in a generous way without provocation
or threat. Other distributed technologies can accentuate
and emphasise divisions, such as certain highly
competitive global supply chain technologies. The ANX
extranet / Automotive Network Exchange home page
(ANX, 2009) in the automotive industry displays a
competitive attempt to both open up opportunities and
close of competitors and some firms, like Volkswagen,
have seen such a technology-enabled shared-space as a
threat to its very existence. In other cases large-scale
technology–enabled
enterprise
processes
can
accentuate existing organisational divides, emphasising
existing boundaries and invoking feelings of fear and
resistance amongst whole communities of users. In
school yards social networks have been used to bully,
groom vulnerable children for sexual abuse. In the case
of the recent developments of social networking, humans
can trade and sell friendship like so many other
commodities.
The presence is a fragmented, dis-embodied
presence, and the absence may be, itself, an absence
which simulates presence, such as in the use of
bootstrap to simulate human behaviour. This
conceptualisation
of
technology-enabled
human
relationship is therefore based on an absence of
embodied humans rather than a presence of embodied
humans. We are simultaneously present/absent.
This creates a new zone for human culture to develop,
for national cultures to mix and for organisational cultures
to be forged, or to struggle to become.
Human culture is fundamentally underpinned by
human values, which are shared and which provide the
basis for the shared meanings underlying culture. These
cultural meanings exist and are expressed both in terms
of behaviours and as the technologies which are part of
the materials of
human culture. The concept of
generosity is fundamental to the human species in that it
goes to the heart of our social nature. Generosity,
fundamentally and in its most complete form, involves
complete social and psychological presence. It is, itself, a
creative process, creating relationship and human
connection. But it is also an aspect of the values which
underpin human communities as cultures. Generosity (or
its lack) is part of the fabric of culture and finds its
existence expressed in ideas such as self-transcendence
and benevolence. These concepts are themselves
expressed in universal values models developed by
researchers such as Schwartz and extended by this
consortium member. This consortium member is amongst
the first to apply universal values models to the emerging
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy” and the technologies
which enable these society and economy to exist.
In the work of this consortium member we have
concentrated on how human values express
technologically-enabled culture. In this work we have
explored the nature of privacy, systems security and how
values inform success-rates amongst complex, large
scale information systems development projects. In this
way we are uniquely positioned to provide a robust,
scientific analysis of the culture(s) of the “(Post)Crisis
Society and Economy”, cultural tensions, social
interactions in cultural space and the leadership and
transformative processes which enable creativity and
innovation to flourish through the generosity of
partnerships and alliances for example, in value webs
and it enabled supply chains.
The best elements of our e-world are those which
strive to create real, negotiated connections between
commercial and non-commercial enterprises. Partner
searches, for example, within Cordis, create an
opportunity for new relationships which can be negotiated
generously. But these can be further augmented in an
informed way. The informing process must be
underpinned by cultural values which promote human
nature towards health rather than exploitation. Social
networking provides a space for those who find it difficult
to locate potential partnerships to become present. The
e-world enables virtual, asynchronous presence which
simulates a kind of continuous presence. For example,
someone who is travelling can update facebook,
providing a kind of continuous presence through time,
even if synchronous presence (such as a telephone call)
is not possible due to time-zone restrictions.
The worst elements are many: the pseudo-presences
of software-posing-as-human. The bootstrap lures people
into a sense of connection and then use this to connect
22 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
into pornographic experiences which are exploitative both
of the viewer and of the viewed. Another emerging
concern is the sale of friendship-as-online-applications as
seen in social networking sites. This kind of reductionism
eliminates generosity and reduces friendship to slave
proportions and provides the potential for enormous
exploitation of lonely and isolated people, as well as
children. It emphasises a view of humans-as-consumerproducts and devalues human existence.
Generosity conceptually addresses these elements by
providing a conceptualisation in which predatory instincts
are challenged. It is not what I take from an e-world
connection, but how I can serve an e-community. It
challenges us to transcend self without denying the
realities of myself as a human, embodied being who
chooses to interact with others through these media.
This discourse is crucial to a healthy understanding of
e-culture i.e. cultures which emerge online, in the mixing
and connections between cultures: what philosophers
have termed an emerging plurality of cultures (pluriculture). We do not wish to create a new meta-narrative
but to inform the various interactions and connections so
that all of our e-community(s) experience a place of
growth rather than exploitation. For humans, healthy
connectivity with community is a site of growth. It can be
pleasurable, self-enhancing or self-transcending and
benevolent without exploiting those with whom we are
connected. It fundamentally values the connection as a
means of meeting fundamental human needs for growth
and development. Generosity facilitates growth, through
the presence of another and the presence of myself.
Contribution of INSYTE group
Centre for Information Systems and Technoculture
(INSYTE, formerly ISOL), Waterford Institute of
Technology, Ireland, have conducted several long-term
published studies into values-based approaches to the
analysis of the “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”. The
methodology adopted is derived from a synthesis of
cultural anthropology and the study of cultural values,
with evolutional psychology and the study of human
psychical needs. This anthropological focus has been
used to investigate the values and culture of information
systems development communities, to understand the
values underlying privacy in the “(Post)Crisis Society and
Economy”, the organisational culture of information
security in organisations, the values of successful, largescale technology projects in post-conflict societies and
many others.
INSYTE will demonstrate how their tools and lenses
are used to obtain the insights afforded from studies of
distributed digital workers, the culture of online social
networks. This in turn will be formalised into a suite of
systems which can be used to operationalise generosity
as a veiled concept which informs the vision of large
corporations who are rolling out “(Post)Crisis Society and
Economy” technologies. So, for example, INSYTE will
formulate concrete proposals for integrating generosityvalue-systems which, in turn, inform corporate vision, into
balanced score cards to better integrate the generous
values of good corporate governance into an operations
management. In these practical ways, this programme of
work can generate real tools for business and public
sector governance which will provide early warning
systems for technologies that are being developed in a
direction which is opposed to the key concepts and
criteria which are associated with a generous approach to
living in an “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”.
On Generosity, Creativity and Solidarity Issues in
Information
Communication
Technology
(ICT)
Transfer in Poland - point of view from Dr. Jozef B.
Lewoc, Poland
The unexpected but very welcome political change in
Poland (the case-study country) in 1989 resulted in that
case-study country became widely opened to the process
of the High-Technology transfer, particularly in the
domains of the top significance to the whole society, i.e.
the ICT and automation. In particular, the actual Polish
pioneers in ICT and automation, the leading designers of
significant pioneering projects, who were severely used
and wronged by the so called “power of people” (fuzzily
defined collection of the power holders). The “power of
people” did not allow for any of the actual pioneers to
lead successfully more than one significant project,
except for a single one leading designer who managed to
lead successfully a dozen or so significant projects.
However, the technology transfer process has not
been carried out in a socially preferred and reasonable
way. It was disclosed soon that the technology providers
were interested in employment of the lay labour only and
not the people of the highest knowledge in the country in
the domain of ICT and automation and of the best
experience available in the domain of launching the
novel, pioneering solutions.
This resulted in very negative consequences for the
Polish leading designers of pioneering ICT and
automation projects: after the political change in the
case-study country, no one of the pioneers holds a
reasonable, well deserved technical position in the
domain.
At the same time, the consequences for the
technology providers, big Western corporations operating
in the ICT and automation domain, were also very poor:
For instance, four big corporations opened their
businesses in the domain in Wroclaw, ex-capital city in
ICT and automation in the case-study country. Due to
neglecting the most experienced local labour in the
domain of launching the novel ICT and automation
solutions, all these corporations failed and had to move
Bulz et al. 23
out from Wroclaw (in a shame, if this word means
something for big capitalistic corporations and bore rather
high financial losses).
Thus the policy of the corporations proved to be a
senseless one, of the loose-and-loose characters and it
makes no sense to cultivate such a policy where both
parties lose.
In terms of the present project, the technology
providers did not realise none of our basic aims:
- As the fates of the case-study country ICT and
automation pioneers’ fates prove, the corporations
completely ignored the professional solidarity in their
attempted technology transfer process.
- There were several proofs that the solutions developed
earlier by the case-study country pioneers were better
designed and tailored for the country and that the
corporations had major problems with customising and
launching their solutions in the local conditions. This
proves that the technology providers could not assure
the creativity characteristics being a major goal of our
project.
- The above said proves that generosity, the overall goal
of our project, is missed by the big corporations in the
technology transfer process with the negative
consequences for both parties of the process: the casestudy country ICT and automation pioneers and the
hypothetical technology providers themselves.
The references (Izworski et al, 2001), (Lewoc et al,
2008), (Lewoc et al, 2009) present the analytical material
in the form of numerous case studies supporting the
theses presented hereinabove. It seems to be very
reasonable that the project, at least in the Polish part, is
devoted with a possible self-defence against the very
negative characteristics of the technology transfer
process.
Here, the first step is to disclose the negative and notknown, in general, behaviour of the technology providers
in order that future technology recipients may protect
themselves against the negative impacts of the
technology transfer process.
Another way is to develop and present the possible
solutions of ICT and automation problems, severely
needed by the possible users. Some examples may be
the Computer Integrated Manufacturing and Management
systems (CIMMs) and e-Train-Diabetes system (for fast
training of the nurse circles in the diabetes problems).
Still another way for increasing the solidarity-creativitygenerosity is the scientific research enabling the
solutioning of the actual designers’ problems where they
are omitted in the actual research work. Some examples
here may be the performance evaluation of actual
computer systems and networks.
Thus, to increase the solidarity, creativity and
generosity in the technology transfer in ICT and
automation, it seems necessary to gather data and to
write papers on the negative behaviour of technology providers, especially in the case-study country. The
paper should be presented on prestigious events of
International Federation of Automation and Control
(IFAC),
International
Federation
of
Information
Proceeding (IFIP) or International Electric and Electronic
Engineering (IEEE) to verify and proliferate the results in
circles located on the top of the world ICT and
automation.
Another way of performing the task of solidarity,
creativity and generosity will be to do the initial design of
novel ICT and/or automation solutions, severely needed
by the society and not provided dully by the technology
providers. The design should form the basis for a paper
presented on some prestigious ICT and/automation
events on CIMMs and/or Manufacturing Systems.
Another way of increasing solidarity, creativity and
generosity should be the research work on actual ICT
and/or automation systems, first of all on performance
evaluation and/or robustness evaluation. Actual systems
should undergo evaluation and the results should be
verified and proliferated on prestigious events.
Toward an insight on our world(s) through subtle
approach soN…Osck
The above two sample of challenge, as case studies,
toward a subtle approach on our world(s) affirm,
alongside the relation (1), the first alternative of the so
called implicitly established problem (within the input part
of 6.2.): To have or not to have basic inquiries on
symmetry/asymmetry and questions on generosity,
creativity, solidarity within an entity/To prevail other types
of
statements
(than
basic
inquiries
on
symmetry/asymmetry and questions on generosity,
creativity, solidarity).
The above two sample within their analytical exposure
are bright cases of subtle approach soN…Osck, on each
domain:
* The „friendship-as-online-applications” construct into
the contemporary e-societal analysis;
* The “future technology recipients may protect
themselves” construct on the actual research of the
ICT domain.
So, backgrounded by all these it may be affirmed a
necessity for a basic frame (as larger as possible) alongside the relation (1).
Our world seems unitary and unique. But according to its
step by step increased complexity, unto its obvious nonhomogeneity, across the forever existence-reflection gap,
and supporting this gap as basically cognitive criterion,
here, it would be introduced three AXIOMs regarding the
supposed Real-Metareal-Transreal-Prereal-Real circular
world(s), focusing the general asymmetry:
Preamble at AXIOM 1
To “start” the construction of a contextual relation of
24 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
comprehension (but no explanation) through an
observation upon the social world, which becomes itself
real (social) world only through existence - reflection
connections (Searle, 2000). So, it may result from an
information / knowledge larger approach. This insight
draws out more types of mental constructs (the „visible
dynamic” peaks connected to mental concepts). Let be
the following introspection into the profoundness of our
Real World (RW): real (hypothetical) system, model
(related to a real system), ideal system/norms, rational
subject, profound zones (temporary not penetrable to
rational subject's competencies), responsibility zones
(narrow path between security and evolution of the cycle:
real system - model - ideal system - rational subject - real
system) - ... . If it is accepted that the existence of
our world is represented by a set of real entities and by a
set of conceptual entities, then a Rational Subject
delimits the observable from the non-observable real
and the theoretic concepts from the non-theoretic
concepts (The fuzziness approach is obvious possible –
beyond the probabilistic approach (implemented
through elaborated statistical
and/or
stochastic
procedures).
The RW contains any analytical exposure - if the
analytical exposure is bright, than there is a place beyond
a representation of a constituted problem - i.e. solvation
within the set of solutions, resources, objectives, criteria,
procedures involving all these, readaptation of the
procedures according to a current subtle approach
soN…Osck, on the difference between each objective
and the actual state of what is reached, restructuring the
entire entity/system within the constituted problem(s),
reviewing the entire domain and its connectionscommunications according to the problematic state on a
larger observational horizon.
* A place beyond a representation of a constituted
problem is not necessary belonging, only and only, to
the RW.
* At least Religion and Science - as basic humankind
domains from the Ancient periods - are not comprised
only and only by the RW.
* The RW does not homogenously contain the
contemporary e-World (e-W) and any Human-Machine
Systems (HMS).
AXIOM 1
There are some circular world(s) [circular Real-MetarealTransreal-Prereal-Real world(s) / RW-MW-TW-PW-RW] –
maybe there are other world(s), too.
AXIOM 2
There are common mental concepts/constructs across
the circular world(s).
AXIOM 3
There is an evolution across the circular world(s) implying "the plurality" sustained by different ways resulting an aggregated evolution (but as a "virtual unique
evolution"). So, there is the mental construct qualia as a
Centrum of the half of the apple of knowledge and of the
fruit of life (all this Biblical metaphors are used, here, as a
millennial trace of humankind thinking upon the inner and
external Equilibrium within our entities. Each of us can
use other metaphor correspondent to other sacred text
and/or wise authorship texts – including the atheistic
texts).
The content of this axiom is partially represented by the
Table 5.2.
Additional notes upon the circular world(s) RealMetareal-Transreal-Prereal-Real
* A consonance: the circular world(s) Real-MetarealTransreal-Prereal-Real versus the basic verbs to BE, to
HAVE, to COMBINE, to CONCORD, to CONDUCT.
* SCIENCE_existence would delimit the intended
scientific creation as a discovery of the existence –
being a real item (so, within RW);
* SCIENCE_reflection would delimit the intended
scientific creation as an invention of the reflection –
being a metareal or prereal item (so, within MW or
PW);
* ARTS_existence would delimit the intended artistic
creation as a discovery of the existence – being a
metareal item / so, within MW (ARTS_ reflection as an
invention belongs to a prereal world / so, within PW);
* POETRY_reflection would delimit the intended poetic
creation as an invention of the reflection – being a
prereal item / so, within PW (POETRY_ existence as a
discovery of the mental existence belongs to a
metareal world / so, within MW);
*
RELIGION
and
PHILISOPHY,
sometime
ARTS/POETRY/SCIENCE_reflection, may belong to a
Transreal world (so, within TW);
* To COMBINE: the foresight, the plan, the sudden
events - at least;
* To CONCORD: all the persons (from “me” to “they”), the
groups, the communities, the planetary background,
the cosmos - at least;
* To CONDUCT your community through its context - at
least;
* (To COMBINE, to CONCORD, to CONDUCT) as a
restricted humankind ACT / pattern, and, respective,
(Transreal World, Prereal World, the returning at the
Real World) as restricted humankind world(s);
* (To BE, to HAVE, to COMBINE, to CONCORD, to
CONDUCT) as a generalized humankind ACT / pattern,
and, respective, (Real World, Metareal World,
Transreal World, Prereal World, the returning
at the Real World) as generalized humankind world(s),
Bulz et al. 25
circular world(s);
* The restricted and the generalized humankind ACT /
pattern exist(s) into the context of these circular
world(s). Within their representation(s), within their
common
and
scientific
comprehension
(by
understanding and explanation), there is a prevalent
(cognitive, at least) outlook: the asymmetry of the
circular world(s), the asymmetry of “each to each”
world.
The asymmetry of “each to each” world may be
depicted as a multiple asymmetry, around the
generalized humankind world(s), circular world(s).
The asymmetry of the circular world(s) may be depicted
as a holistic asymmetry, around the generalized
humankind world(s).
It may be considered: ASYMMETRIC SYSTEMS –
according to their asymmetry, multiple asymmetry,
holistic asymmetry – so asymmetry on different scale.
A symmetric system has sure an obvious geometrical
and/or physical axis of symmetry. The axis (according to
which one can state the asymmetry of an entity) may be
a “less obvious” axis than a geometrical and/or physical
axis. Thus it is to comprehend on the possible utility of a
subtle relevance. A relevance on the asserting on an axis
of asymmetry. The content of the three above Axioms
tries to engage <<qualia>> as an axis of asymmetry
regarding the generalized humankind world(s).
The contemporary network of sciences seems to be
an ASYMMETRIC ENTITY (if it is difficult to prove that
this entity is a system). If this background is coherent,
then, which is its axis of asymmetry - regarding the entire
network? A (classical) approach would state that it would
be “between” the „exact” sciences and „human” sciences.
But only this approach draws up the necessity to mind on
a subtle approach, too, on the deeper subject.
It is the place to consider that a symmetric system,
according to its axis, has a “left” side and a “right” side.
To consider, according to an European type of generating
the sequence of writing (which is not the single type on
the Earth), that there is an association of the Input and
the “left” side of a system. Also, that there is an
association of the Output and the “right” side of a system.
A symmetric system would have (on general terms)
symmetric (inner) states. Would an asymmetric system
have (on general terms) asymmetric (inner) states? Also,
it draws up the necessity to mind on a subtle approach,
too, on the deeper subject.
Has coherence the above-evoked “subtle” approaches
(a subtle relevance on an axis of asymmetry, a subtle
relevance on an axis of asymmetry of the network of
sciences, and, asymmetric (inner) states)?
If this background is coherent, then, is it a suitable
cover within the contemporary interaction: network of
sciences-…-observable humankind - within systemic and
cybernetic knowingness (soN…Osck) for all the aboveevoked “subtle” approaches?
If this background is coherent and suitable covered
within soN…Osck, then, is it alongside the relation (1) for
all the above-evoked “subtle” approaches?
All these above questions - and the efforts to future
responses - try to extend the actual horizon, within the
common and academic dictionaries and encyclopaedia,
to focus the characteristics of symmetry, anti-symmetry
and asymmetry (pointing only and only on the geometric
and physic domains of the human knowledge).
Let us prolong these above questions onto the two
case studies core, as within the paragraph 6.2. by the
next question:
Has a frame of an asymmetric entity / an asymmetric
system a more suitable capacity to represent the real
problems which had draw up:
* The „friendship-as-online-applications” construct into
the contemporary e-societal analysis;
* The “future technology recipients may protect
themselves” construct on the actual research of the ICT
domain ?
If [fuzzy] “yes”, then it is the contribution of the
relevance of the generalized humankind world(s), and,
respectively, the contribution of soN…Osck. If [fuzzy]
“no”, then there is the relevance of a singular world within
us, our representation and our ideal(s) – and it may draw
up to a classical point of equilibrium.
Both [fuzzy] “yes” and [fuzzy] “no” responses could
stand alongside the relation (1) - but to bear in mind the
entire paragraph 3.5. (Procedural Remarks), and the
three AXIOMs regarding the supposed Real-MetarealTransreal-Prereal-Real circular world(s), focusing the
general asymmetry.
Toward an insight on our
Information-Knowledge journey
world(s)
through
It is evident that the above realized analysis, emerging by
prolonging with a question and with a general asymmetry
inquiry, is a heuristic procedure of explanation and
understanding onto reality - but the heuristic is used only
as a tool, to draw out what is essential within an
extraordinary variety of our human thinking and Artificial
Intelligence reasoning - within contemporary e-W and any
HMS. This heuristic tool, in a large, is necessary to
identify our basic variety of systemic thinking.
Here, and as it follows, it results that more than one
mental construct is necessary for a Rational Subject, as
one thinker to overpass „systemic” boundary, through
his/her responsibility within a problematic environment.
There is another correlated question: Is it necessary
and sufficient for a Rational Subject that more than one
mental construct will support to overpass „systemic”
boundary, through his/her responsibility within a
problematic environment? It would be another Sisyphus’
attempt within collective neural and linguistic survey on
Information and Knowledge.
Is this condition “necessary and sufficient for a Ration-
26 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
al Subject” a correlated threshold to attempt from the
background of anthropic symmetric systems to
asymmetric systems?
So, here, remaining only at the necessary assertion
for a Rational Subject insight, and connected to the
proposed Information-Knowledge journey, to re-interpret
this necessity according to the content of the Conjecture
2 from the paragraph 3.5. (Procedural Remarks), so,
alongside the relation (1) within Information-Knowledge
journey, and focusing on the constructs ( BELIEFDESIRE-EMOTION (B-D-E); PRAXIS ):
(I) The reflection (mind), T1 (faith; hope; will-love-sin), T2
HOLISTIC CAPACITY (prejudice; surprise; evidence),
as an expression of a natural gift of/in/toward/by/with
the Rational Subject. It is “to have” and to place
his/her mind in one from the two ways:
* mainly radiant re-acting within Information-Knowledge
journey, or
* Mainly absorbent re-acting within InformationKnowledge journey;
(II) The reflection upon the reflection (consciousness) ),
T1
(faith;
hope;
will-love-sin),
T3
ECOCOUNSCIOUSNESS
(e-Concepts;
expectations;
admissible time) as an expression of a personal effort of
the evolving Rational Subject. It is “to be” and to place
his/her consciousness in one from the two ways:
* Mainly continuous and monotonous acting within
Information-Knowledge journey, or
* mainly discontinuous and by variations acting within
Information-Knowledge journey.
* Here, also it is attempting the defining track that “mind”
is “a device for complex representation”, a necessary tool
within the Information-Knowledge journey.
** Rarely an isolated individual (drawing up an ideal
interactive link with his mind), but realistically an entire
(historically stated) community may deal with an ("entire")
Information-Knowledge journey. It is the turning point:
that a human community is more than its members within
an Information-Knowledge journey - and this a clear
systemic relevance. Obviously it means “to have” and “to
be”: thinking – reasoning – minding. All these would
be within the collective mind, supporting the entire
variety of the community, according to any language: to
think, to reason, to mind [to bear in mind as
representation) within the information and knowledge of a
community.)
As a consequence, to all the above, it is proposed that a
point from Information-Knowledge journey, to have / to
be:
(I) To have radiant / absorbent re-action within
Information pattern connected with, by, in the Rational
Subject.
(II) To be continuous / discontinuous acting within
Knowledge pattern connected with, by, in the Rational
Subject.
So, only and only in relation to/from the Rational Subject:
Remark D
Information draws out itself within a reaction of a
problematic environment toward (rarely “from”) the
Rational Subject.
Remark
Knowledge draws out itself within an action onto a
problematic environment from (rarely “to”) the Rational
Subject.
These two remarks, as an entity: a set of two flow
sentences, support three grammatical subjects:
Information, Knowledge, Rational Subject. To avoid this
case of “three grammatical subjects”, and stating that
above is a metaphorical pattern, but according to all
above:
(I) Rational Subject has Information (rarely “is”; may be
as an insider of that piece of Information; e.g. into our
inquiry on Climate Change onto the earthly Nature).
(II) Rational Subject is Knowledge (rarely “has”; may be
as an outsider of that piece of Knowledge; e.g. into a
transmitting act of a sacred and/or secret piece of
Knowledge from a dying predecessor to a successor
in front of a risky and an uncertain domain).
To comprehend and to explain according to these
relations (based on “To HAVE” and “To BE” axes) is the
focalization of this study.
To comprehend, only, and to explain, only, are two
other separate Sisyphus’ attempts within collective neural
and linguistic survey on Information and Knowledge. This
study supports the avoidance of any separate treatment
of Information and Knowledge. (Blaga, 1920)
“To HAVE” and “To BE” axes, above involved, would
refer, mainly: “To BE”: our world within its complexity, and
“To HAVE”: the complexity of our world representation.
The plane “To HAVE” X “To BE”, resulting from the
compound of the elements belonging to both axes, as
logical entireness, is consistent but not complete
sustained by probability and fuzziness (as scientific and
general human elements - „amalgamated” or not, one
element with the other. “To BE” upon a probabilistic
approach, and “To HAVE” upon a fuzzy approach). But
the contemporary humankind accepts and sustains more
and more elements within a complex entireness.
Referring to all above, this study proposes a subtle
approach, too – both onto the (hypothetical) existential
dimension and onto the representation dimension of our
world(s).
Considering the existence of the possibility affirmed by
the first stage of the AXIOM 3: There is an evolution
across the circular world(s) - implying different ways resulting an evolution [and reasoning to the practical
sense of Gödel’s larger discovery beyond his two
theorems on consistency and completeness within the
system
of
Arithmetic
(1931)
"toward"
the
previous “positivist” approach on Information-Knowledge
Bulz et al. 27
Dynamics] let be, at least, an observable InformationKnowledge
Dynamics.
It would support the Rational Subject’s optional
enlargement, regarding his/her theoretic and praxis
interests, selecting actual patterns:
(I) Information draws out within a reaction of a
problematic environment. [So,] Rational Subject has
Information.
(II) Knowledge draws out within an action onto a
problematic environment. [So,] Rational Subject is
Knowledge.
The above “drawn out” statement tries to focus on an
invariance, I and II, according to a harmonized
methodology (between very different patterns emerging
from co-aimed (re)search - it is proposed a new level to
approach within, onto, by our initial actions and
constituted problems (within risk, uncertainty, and “overcomplexity”). This new approach of the problems is coconstituted just with the constituted problem into its
(non)systemic
environment
(characterized
by
scientific/(hypothetical) real dynamic, statistic, selective,
heuristic and algorithmic determinism) regarding the
Real-Metareal-Transreal-Prereal circular world(s).
Just at this level of the study, a minimal statement /
remark is necessary, according to the drawn out
invariance, I and II, within, from, by (1):
within an observable track of the innovative mind of the
individual/community: capturing and eliciting / discovering
and inventing. So, the “uniqueness” of the Rational
Subject may be expressed by a Dynamics of InformationKnowledge.
Do any Dynamics of Information-Knowledge have a
non-observable track of the innovative mind of the
individual/community?
If “NO”, then our circular world(s) may be a
deterministic one. If “YES”, then our circular world(s) may
be a more complex one than a deterministic one.
This and these “another type of knowledge” is used
within the respective Knowledge Transfer (individuals,
families, schools, universities, academies, communities,
information and knowledge functionally dedicated
organizations,
mass-media,
structural
interactive
organizations), being a part of the skeleton of the
humankind evolving. Meantime, after a period of
maturation, this revised “another type of knowledge”
draws up the information about the status of the
respective humankind communities … taking part into the
windmills topoi … and so on – toward a larger
Information-Knowledge corpus,
supporting and/or
supposing the existence of an “entire” InformationKnowledge corpus.
This is a part of the expanded view regarding the
“INFORMATION
<=>
KNOWLEDGE”
from
the
Information-Knowledge journey, alongside (1).
The proposed Information-Knowledge journey is a
response to the inquiry on the complexity of the “larger”
and “entire” tensions regarding the InformationKnowledge journey, alongside (1).
Remark F
The INFORMATION concept/construct may relate the
objectiveness from our Macrocosm, humankind
communities, biological being and Microcosm – all of
these levels of (hypothetical) reality, as entireness - and
relating the “same” objectiveness within, from, by each
level of reality.
In parallel, a Rational Subject [individually and within a
community – as an actor within, from, by each level of
(hypothetical) reality, but not applying toward the
entireness] is subjectively determined by the
KNOWLEDGE concept/construct. It may be related to the
internalized information from inside and outside of an
interactive. The explicit knowledge may be transferred –
but the implicit knowledge (unable to be directly
transferred) may firstly pave the ways inside any I/O
relation, individually, within a community, onto a regional,
continental and/or planetary context of the Humankind,
as the above general frame of the relation (1) presents.
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), (Sveiby, 2001), (Tschang,
2002)
The proposed Information-Knowledge journey,
alongside (1) is cantered by a Dynamics of InformationKnowledge – long term asserted by the Rational Subject,
Aspects of how the information-knowledge dynamics
are based on sources of subtleness
If the above presentation within the Rational Subject
cantered
patterns,
within
Information-Knowledge
Dynamics, would be accepted, then one can try to find a
prospected evolution of the initial “Information-Knowledge
corpus”.
To put this prospected task in relation to the abovecomprehended contemporary concepts: “(Post)Crisis
Society and Economy”.
So, into the Information-Knowledge corpus, supposing
the prevalence of dynamic and probabilistic determinism,
the reality of our circular world(s) affirms the existence of
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”. For all working hard
into these contexts the above affirmation is obvious. But,
for an external observer (at least) it is necessary to have
not only the affirmation regarding the insight and action
within the reality, it is necessary, also, to have a model (a
set of models). A student, any learner, would use the
model – if it exists. A specialized person may realize this
model – within an interactive effort to comprehend
the reality; within the current use of Probability Theory,
28 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Information Theory, on one hand, and Fuzzy Sets on
another hand. Within the model, may be involved the use
of a contemporary stage of Epistemology (e. g. divided
into the following part: Knowledge; Perception;
Scepticism – or according to another stage) – which
means an entire track of human thinking regarding
knowledge.
The actual model(s) for “(Post)Crisis Society and
Economy” would be elemental based on probabilities and
fuzziness.
As participant to this Information-Knowledge journey,
one can claim more than actual approaches. So, let us
use a natural existing term, referring the idea of a
mathematician, Petre Osmãtescu (Osmãtescu, Stoica
and Hancu, 2000); he was revisiting into a formal manner
Spinoza’s approach to our circular world(s) and God. Let
us use the term “subtleness”, and so to imply (through a
kind of axiomatic power of a denomination) a subtle
profoundness regarding the Information-Knowledge
corpus.
But, does subtle profoundness exist beyond
probabilistic and fuzzy approaches for “(Post)Crisis
Society and Economy”? Here, it is proposed the
affirmative answer, sustained on three short-presented
arguments – as (hypothetical) sources of subtleness:
(Hypothetical) source 1 related to our variety
There is a contemporary fragmentation of human thinking
(see the final detailed note within the fifth frame of the
comparative core study).
One of the presented “fragments” may be in act; the
other “fragments” are passive versus the respective act of
human thinking.
There is a subtle evolving of this fragmentation within
the
presented
Information-Knowledge
Dynamics
(Kalman, 1969), (Klir, 1969), (Mesarovic a.o., 1970),
(Belis and Snow, 2002), and within comprehension on
the “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”.
(Hypothetical)
procedures
source 2 related
to our simple
There is an implication of circularity and rhythm as
generalized co-patterns of the humankind – not only into
the (hypothetical) real circular world(s), but into the model
world, too (so let accept, at least, two-three worlds: real
world and model world/metareal or prereal). It is a subtle
implication: the use of both heuristics and algorithms, as
two open sets of models within potential frames to be
selected by the Rational Subject. There is not a universal
selection rule. There are two connected / argumentative
facts:
* The most prevalent types of algorithms (within their
areas supporting a known convergence) seem to be
circularly linked (G.W. Flake, 1998): Complex Systems
–environmental feedback- Adaptation –self-referenceComputation –structural self-similarity- Fractals
functional self-similarity- Chaos –multiplicity and
parallelism- (and the circularly linkage toward the]
Complex Systems.
* The most known heuristics (J. Pearl, 1990) seem to be
divergent into a conceptually transformed space,
supporting a kind of rhythm and divergence.
(More, within an empirically stated comprehension: The
types of algorithms supporting a known convergence
seem to be circularly linked AND the heuristics
supporting a divergent trajectory into a conceptually
transformed space seem to be rhythmically linked,
ONTO a larger implication of circularity and rhythm as
generalized co-patterns of the humankind.
See the couples of AXIOM 1, 2, 3, and InformationKnowledge journey)
(Hypothetical) source 3 related to our complex
possibilities
A meta-model as a corpus aggregating our humankind
ways to/of action has a non-regular form of the
entireness:
* There is an embedded circular form of information1decision-action-information2;
* There is an embedded open sequential form (subtle
rhythmic) of awareness-insight-action.
The separate two forms may be imagined as prevalent
on the two imaginary opposite sides of an imaginary
subtle corpus (a geometrical shape; a quadrilateral
shape into a first stage of observation) referring our
action into our world(s) (obvious based on InformationKnowledge).
Let
denominate
this
corpus
aggregating our humankind ways to/of action as the
non-regular form corpus of the entireness – a subtle
corpus.
(“See” the topoi of multiple asymmetries within the Table
1, and Table 2)
Let shortly present the three (hypothetical) sources of
subtleness, as, 1: fragmentation of human thinking; 2:
circularity and rhythm; 3: non-regular form corpus.
REMARK 6
All these three (hypothetical) sources of subtleness
synthesize through re-collation the above three
paragraphs of this study, enriching them, and then as a
result, enriching this [fourth] paragraph, too. This
enrichment belongs, also, to the Information-Knowledge
journey – accepting, or not, a subtle approach regarding
the modelling of our world(s) – combining or not the
probabilistic and fuzzy approaches with a subtle
approach.
Bulz et al. 29
Possible extended conceptual relations regarding
information and knowledge
(Other) three
denominations:
AXIOMS
based
on
conceptual
DEP4,
"possibilities to (re)form possibilities" / AXIOM *5 and,
"(re)structured complex entities" / AXIOM *6. //
Community Being DEP5)
References to the (general knowledgeable) Truth
AXIOM *4
There is a worldwide “initial” Information-Knowledge
corpus, supporting an Information-Knowledge journey
(within the inner Rational Subject, as actor: acting and
reacting);
AXIOM *5 The Information-Knowledge corpus draws out
(within the inner / external Rational Subject, as actor:
acting and reacting / referring) the concept(s)
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”;
AXIOM *6
There is an evolving stance of any concept emerged
through the Information-Knowledge corpus. Thus, all
these contribute to enrich the initial corpus (within, from,
by the inner / external Rational Subject, as actor: acting
and reacting / referring / restructuring the initial
Information-Knowledge corpus).
These three axioms study affirm that the soN…Osck
must be a possible outlook according to the following
turning points: "deeper humankind wisdom" / AXIOM *4,
"possibilities to (re)form possibilities" / AXIOM *5,
"(re)structured complex entities" / AXIOM *6.
The above elaborated background contain some
relative doubts related to the contemporary stage of the
Information-Knowledge
journey.
Let
divide
this
background, and so, let express some findings as:
Some axiomatic dependencies (entity DEP: group of
entities)
Being DEP1: The triad (body; soul; spirit) – and its
varieties, including the materialistic (also axiomatic)
conception of the (singular) body;
Soul DEP2: (mind (representation)) => reflection;
Spirit DEP3: (consciousness (representation of
reflection));
Human Being DEP4: (mind * consciousness
(representation o representation of reflection));
Community Being DEP5: (collective mind ** collective
consciousness
(representation
oo
reflection
of
reflection)).
[Here, the signs “*”,“**”,“o” and “oo” refers supposed
complex operation of composition between the entities of
the respective group. But, this part of the study would
propose the following linkage:
"deeper humankind wisdom" / AXIOM *4 // Human Being
These references would be dedicated to some
“independent” dimensions of the Human and Community
Beings evolving and life: Truth, Value, Praxis, Moral,
Beauty, … . Logic, Axiology, Praxiology, Ethics,
Aesthetics, …, … . These “independent” dimensions are
some of the actual humankind acquisitions, re-accrediting
Ancient and old disciplines, which evolve from generation
to generation but confirming a complex stationary
thesaurus.
Into the most observable cases, the earthly beings do
not
treat
independently
the
above-enumerated
dimensions, and consequently there is not an epistemic
space generated (analytically) according to these
“independent” dimensions. Let consider a moment (into
the humankind Information-Knowledge journey) that this
type of epistemic space would be reached concordant to
the (hypothetical reality). [Let all these to be considered
only and only to make possible a prospective insight
refereeing the Information-Knowledge corpus.)
Metaphor, synthetic problem, a set of choice and
open problems – at the edge of informationknowledge journey
According to the Real-Metareal-Transreal-Prereal circular
world(s) that would support the subtle outlook
(soN…Osck) as an (axiomatic) subtle approach onto our
anthropic world(s), also, this subtle outlook (soN…Osck)
is here proposed as a human-machine nexus (so, as a
structural topoi) – and as a functional topoi to search for
the synergy of humankind production, intelligence and
morality, within systemic and cybernetic knowingness
within asymmetric systems.
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy” promotes a track
of new types of approaching – achieving an evolutionary
context to our procedures claiming “progress”, otherwise
the stationary of “better” done would saturate our
capacities and performances.
A metaphor to synthesize all the above would point on
an architecture innovative trend: from Antonio Gaudi
(1852-1926; cathedral „La Sagrada Familia” started at
Barcelona in 1883) to Frank Gehry (architect for the
Guggenheim Museum at Bilbao in 2005). The plea of
these creators draws out architectural entities that do not
sustain only a „better architectural object”, they propose a
“new architectural object” within a greater (not only
higher) religious topos (Gaudi at Barcelona), and the
surprising hosting space (not only higher) for the modern
30 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
art works (Gehry at Bilbao). This study uses this parallel
architecture innovative trend as a metaphor related to
“(Post)Crisis Society and Economy” attempts to a „better
life” and a “new life”.
The “(Pre)Crisis Society and Economy” (toward a
2007/8 horizon) sustain a „better life” respond at a
command from (that) society (for e.g. a higher cathedral
and a larger museum, within the parallel term of this
metaphor), only; within maximizing the ratio of
Information Technology and Communication (ITC) subsystems into the initial system, only.
The synthetic problem sustained by this study is
represented, here, within the following questions,
addressed to any individual, group, firm, entity related to
ITC:
The primary question: Do you want to draw out an
informational entity (related to ITC) to make better the life
from the previous similar entity from “our” nature,
Humankind and thinking? YES or NO, but within a fuzzy
interval.
The explicit YES, within a fuzzy interval, means to
belong to “(Pre)Crisis Society and Economy”. The explicit
NO, within a fuzzy interval, means to respond at:
The secondary question: Do you want to elicit an
entity to make a new life independent from the previous
entities from “our” nature, Humankind and thinking? YES
or NO, within a fuzzy interval.
The explicit YES, within a fuzzy interval, means to
belong to “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”. The
explicit NO, within a fuzzy interval, means to respond at:
The tertiary question: … (a future complete and
relatively consistent one; see the next 7.3 and 7.4
projects - addressing some "complete and relatively
consistent" open problems).
Please note again that this study proposes to draw out
the subtle profoundness existing beyond probabilistic and
fuzzy approaches and beyond previous entities from “our”
nature, Humankind and thinking.
What is therefore possible is a methodology to
separate but to refer / imply all the above approaches
and references within the following two directions (to be
comprehended as two steps):
Direction 1
The conscious choice of an individual, group, firm, entity
related to ITC along the Information-Knowledge journey,
or according to another variety. Within this choice and
adjacent praxis, one can change, adapt and/or extend the
second paragraph of this study (# Information-Knowledge
Dynamics, and actual personalized patterns); (Searle,
2000), (Bulz, 2008)
Direction 2
The pre-conscious focalization based on intuition and
acceptance of subtleness. Thus, let us to represent and
solve the most attractive open problem(s) from the
Information-Knowledge corpus, beyond the changing,
adapting and/or extending of the content of other
previous paragraphs of this study (after the second
paragraph). As an initial multiple sample, let us keep in
mind open problems, within the context of the
Information-Knowledge journey, alongside (1). (Geyer,
2009), (Luban, 2006), (Bulz, 2008)
Searching on consistence and completeness. Toward
a Wienerian view and a dually Göedelian view on a
subtle entity/system
(e-KnowledgeandInformation toward an on-line Dictionary
on the Morphology of Information and Knowledge related
to the “(Pre and Post)Crisis Society and Economy”)
This part of the study is a “proof” of the utility of
asymmetric systems. It proposes an initial focalization on
four different works, 1998-2009 – presented into the
following box:
1. Karvalics L.Z. (1998). Information Society Visions:
from the early utopias to the adequate governmentlevel strategic planning methods. Informatization et
anticipations. Information Society: Looking ahead
Proceedings, Strasbourg, pp. 63-74.
2: L. Stapleton and S. Byrne (2001). ‘The Illusion of
Knowledge: The Relationship Between Large Scale IS
Integration, Head Office Decisions and Organisational
Trauma’, Proceedings of the 19th Standing Conference
of Organisational Symbolism (SCOS), Trinity College,
Dublin.
3: N. Bulz (2005). Aspects of a Theory of Systemic
Construction. Kybernetes: International
Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, Emerald, Volume
34 Number 9/10, pp. 1598-1632.
4: Jozef B. Lewoc, Antoni Izworski, Slawomir Skowronski,
Antonina Kieleczawa, Georgi Dimirovski, Marion A.
Hersh, Nicolae Bulz and Larry Stapleton (2009).
Technology Proliferation and Transfer Ethical Aspects:
A Case Study of Wroclaw, Poland, SWIIS 2009, IFAC,
Bucharest.
These nuclei of knowledge have a prominent
completeness acquired onto very different scientific ways,
within a long-term hard work and evolving. Their
superlative aspect is obvious, and their societal utility is
high. All of them, I presume, will remain, over centuries,
into the (virtual a-temporal) nacelle of the contemporary
conceptual flow from “(Pre)” toward “(Post)Crisis Society
and Economy”.
Impressed by the completeness of these works, any
reader could inquire (into two steps) on the each text
consistence, and then, on the overlapped texts
consistence of the three works.
This may be a mental experiment, supported by
inter/transdisciplinary aims dedicated to the area of
Bulz et al. 31
Morphology of Information and Knowledge related to the
“(Pre and Post)Crisis Society and Economy”.
Any other two, three, or more works may be inquired
(into two steps), if they are very different and very high.
The intellectual source for this attempt is the famous
discovery published by Gödel Kurt (1931). Uber formal
unentscheidhare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und
verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Math. u. Physik.
Bd. 38, pp. 173-198. (Gödel, 1931)
This proposed enquiry tries to concord the complexity
of the system of Arithmetic (Gödel’s discovery domain)
with the Morphology of E-Communities domain as
systems, also, within its “Arithmetic”, de facto an
innovative Logic of e-City Evolving.
Also, the systemic and cybernetics support for the
involving of asymmetric systems is seen from the
innovative break of the book: Norbert Wiener (1948).
Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal
and the Machine, Hermann, Paris. (Wiener, 1948),
(Vallée, 1995)
The supposed result would be able to compare the
extrapolated necessity for a meta-system to approach
“both” completeness and consistency into both domains,
or to find another meta-methodological way.
Into this study, the alternative status to be proposed is
the fulfilment of an on-line Dictionary on the Consistency
of the Morphology of Information and Knowledge related
to the “(Pre and Post)Crisis Society and Economy”. This
should expect and mean that the communities of
cybercitizens and cyber/architects is link-able to
architecture and make this on-line Dictionary, too,
answering and controlling (into a deep democratic and
open scientific manner) the balance of completeness and
consistency regarding the innovative Logic of THEIR eCommunity Evolving. So, this way tries to merge the hard
analyzing tasks with the inter-adaptation of the parts into
the whole entity: the actual and future E-Communities.
A Contemporary Cyber-urban Based World within a
subtle world (expressing the inter/transdisciplinary efforts
within -at least- Architecture, Sociology, Computer
Science, Economic Sciences, Logic) must prevail
through:
* Its new logical capacity (multilevel fuzzy including
„tertium”, opposite_complementary item, variety of coordination balancing the self-organizing nuclei) [15],
(Zadeh, 1965);
* The arborescent tree of knowledge inward an entire
„forest” including different types of trees of knowledge,
decision, act, existence, ownership (Simon, 1957),
(Vallée, 1995), (Hopfield, 1985),;
* the radial tree of life embedding the individualcommunity extended links, the assisted birth and death,
the heuristic flowering, the universal-individual-planetary
trend (Wiener, 1948) , (Haret, 1910);
* The new lexical linkage (not only expressed by the
humankind, but self-recognizing the humankind) within a syntax, semantics, praxis / all overwhelmed by the
morality, intelligence, production/processing parallel
societal flows (Bonabeau et al., 1999), (Indurkhya, 1987);
* The fairness as a result of a total inclusion from
invention / discoveries to technology, to industry, to
economy, to society - none of these to be (self-)excluded
from the total inclusion (not generating „castes” of any
types: financial, banking, professional, ideological - over
the synergic part-entireness natural sense); the classes
being a synergy implementation (Haken, 1983),
(Mesarovic and Pestel, 1974), (Gulliver and Ghinea,
2004);
* The equitable world as an embedded result from the
equalizer triangle of the humankind subtleties within,
also, sustainable world and societal world; this triangle
being an anti-entropy implementation (Osmãtescu,
Stoica and Hancu, 2000);
* The social stratification being a „single face” social
stratification;
this
being
an
ephemerality
implementation. [To have ephemerality means to act
better and better with less and less resources vs.
restricted time.] (Bărbat, 2003);
* The theory and praxis regarding the Interactive
Modelling of the E-Community corpus within some new
types of neural networks (Albus, 1991), (Dimitrov,
2009), (Dubois, 1998). These neural networks would
replace the imbedded Input-Hidden strata-Output
structure with a hierarchical orientated one, and to
strengthen
the
Awareness-Insight-Action
orientation/procedure together with the Belief-DesireEmotion orientation;
* The open related structure and function of this type of
an on-line Dictionary of Consistency (onto all above
presented inter/transdisciplinary efforts). (Simon, 1965)
This study tries to engage the theoretic and praxis
approach regarding a transmodern city/region
embedded into the present and future E-Community.
Toward a transmodern city/region one would choice a
path. What possibility, from the following list, would
prevail? :
Systemic
non-consistence
(contradiction)
but
completeness for each domain, within the realization of
an „expanding” concept of matter and spirituality –
prevailing a Wienerian view on the information and
knowledge as (a)symmetric concepts/constructs toward a “(Pre and Post)Crisis Society and Economy”;
- Non-systemic consistence and completeness for each
domain (non emerging from an equivalent Gödel
theorem frame);
- Systemic fuzzy consistence and completeness for each
domain (emerging from a non-equivalent Gödel
theorem frame and a non-equivalent Arrow theorem
frame);
- Non-systemic consistence and completeness for each
domain (emerging from a non-equivalent Gödel
theorem frame (Gödel, 1931), a non-equivalent Arrow
theorem frame (Arrow, 1963) , and a non-equivalent
Pãun impossibility indicator aggregation frame (Pãun,
32 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
1977) – prevailing a dually Göedelian view on the
observability and controllability of a subtle entity/nonsystem - toward a Wisdom and/or Consciousness
Society.
This tetra-possibility for the duality InformationKnowledge would demonstrate (and then must help
us with a common evident circularity and rhythm sense)
that systemic and non-systemic entities (Bulz, 2008)
are strongly related to our observation. Also, to
our reflection (of reflection), efficient ideal, and would
make us to understand that systemic tension is related
to the General System idea as a reconstruction. Also,
there are more arguments to sustain that both
our systemic tension and ourselves (the finite [?]
set of rational subjects; living support systems;
artificial and virtual entities) are a general property
of the matter (substance; energy; informationknowledge).
Other possible subjects
Observability and controllability within the automatic
systems – and a dually Göedelian view on the
observability and controllability of a subtle entity/system.
Inter and transdisciplinary metaphors and new related
terms – in order to attain a new approach on symmetric
systems and asymmetric entities (Gödel, 1931).
The rational subject triadic face: macrocosms, self,
microcosms.
Historian and praxis stimulus semi-cycles on innovative
cognition / on harmony and monotony – as functional
indicators along the entire cycle / on structural indicators
(laws) proposed by Vilfredo Pareto and George Kingsley
Zipf – cognitive limits and challenges on innovative
cognition.
(A)symmetry versus observability and controllability
within the natural and artificial systems / a dually
Göedelian view (Gödel, 1931).
An input/output relation between: information, knowledge,
expertise, wisdom, happiness, alienation - a primal
Wienerian view on the information and knowledge as
(a)symmetric concepts/constructs (Wiener, 1948),
(Bertalanffy, 1968).
The subtle intersection of two subtle black boxes:
information and knowledge.
A proposed information and knowledge journey / inter
and transdisciplinarity on linguistic and internet patterns
evolution,
neuroscience,
neurocybernetics,
neuromanagement of information and knowledge.
The efforts of finding conceptual invariance and
conceptual relations – in order to gain the both possible
explications and comprehension on the topics of
information-knowledge corpus.
Related projects
(A)symmetry and system – theoretic and praxis. Survey a primal Wienerian view on the information and
knowledge as (a)symmetric concepts/constructs (Wiener,
1948), (Bertalanffy, 1968).
Conclusions / (a)symmetric approaches on human being
and community.
1. “to BE”: symmetric approaches on human being.
2. “to HAVE”: asymmetric approaches on community.
3. “to BE x to HAVE”: (a)symmetric approaches on human
being and community.
The evolving of systemic relevance to human being
(before and after Aristotle’s “sustema”); the (a)synchrony
relating to (a)symmetry.
The relations between the systemic symmetry, rational
subject, community, humankind – an interactive proposal:
creative partnership forum.
The relations between the ENTIT (*) asymmetry,
subtle corpus, human prospect for truth, beauty,
goodness, value, rightness, sustainability – possible
interactiveness on the Creative Partnership Forum.
The research dialogue with the Pan Systems and
Grey Systems on (a)symmetry and subtleness, mainly on
systemic methodologies.
The research dialogue with the paradigmatic approach
on (a)symmetry and subtleness, mainly on humankind
evolving to a Wisdom and/or Consciousness Society.
The research dialogue with the synergetic approach
on (a)symmetry and subtleness, mainly on the logic(s)
and philosophy(ies) related to systems - a possible new
perspective on globalization / regionalization.
The Wisdom and/or Consciousness Society versus
the Information | Knowledge Economy | Society /
revisiting: Mihailo Mesarovic (hierarchical systems coordinability) (Mesarovic a.o., 1970); John von Neumann
(utility theory within economic behaviour) (Neumann and
Morgenstern, 1953); Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen
(bioeconomy and decollation insight) (GeorgescuRoegen, 1979); Herbert Simon (administrative behaviour
and satisfaction criteria beyond optimality) (Simon, 1957).
On the composition of an (a)symmetric matter within
information | knowledge economy | society.
1. Inter and transdisciplinary metaphors and new related
terms – in order to attain the relevance of the status:
rational subject is knowledge / rational subject has
information.
2. “to BE”: “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy” has
emerged beyond space and time, within an aggregated
action onto a problematic consensual environment.
Rational subject is implicit knowledge.
3.
“to HAVE”: “(Post)Crisis Society and Economy”
has emerged in space and beyond time, within a
complex reaction of a problematic competitive
environment. Rational subject has information and
explicit knowledge.
4.“to BE x to HAVE”: (a)symmetric approaches on “(Post)
Bulz et al. 33
Crisis Society and Economy”.
5. “to BE x to HAVE”: forwarding the open definition of
subtleness and the related dialogues. (A)symmetry and
systemic thinking / revisiting Naom Chomsky and Jean
Piajet (proposed co-authorship study on holistic and
holographic features; the neuroscience and the healing
power of language). (Chomsky, 1964), (Piaget, 1976)
Inquiry on subtleness within human being, society,
thinking / revisiting [analytic] geomodernity: Peter
Sheehan, Bhajan Grewal (Tschang, 2002), Mircea
Malitza (Malitza, 2000); [holistic] transdisciplinarity:
Basarab Nicolescu (Nicolescu, 1996), Pauline Rudd
(Rudd, 2006), Marianne Belis (Belis and Snow, 2002),
Daniel
Dubois
(Dubois,
1998);
[experimental]
fuzzification: Lofty Zadeh (Zadeh, 1965), Robert Vallée
(Vallée, 1995), Constantin Virgil Negoitã (Negoitã and
Ralescu, 1975), Horia-Neculai Teodorescu (Teodorescu
a.o.,
2001); [experiential] structural-phenomenology:
Mihai Draganescu (Draganescu, 2009) / (proposed coauthorship book).
(A)symmetric flows between nature and society – and a
dually Göedelian view on the observability and
controllability of a subtle entity/system (Gödel, 1931).
1. Natural (a)symmetric patterns / science of
complexity/fractal objects – and related turning points.
2. Nuclei and borders/social and societal outlook of a
community/groups, classes, and other (a) symmetric
references within a community.
3. Inter and transdisciplinary metaphors and new related
terms
4. Two proposed terms: systemic symmetry [beyond
mathematic symmetry] and ENTIT (*) asymmetry
(beyond asymmetrically systemic approach).
5. Revisiting the triad {production, intelligence and
morality}: three types of flows between nature and
society.
Interactive modelling: focusing on (a)symmetry
1. Interactive modelling nexus / interactive modelling - a
type of reflection onto, into and by society.
2. A cybernetic model of the contemporary space-time of
our evolving.
3. Possible varieties of thinking and historically proved
cognitive modes.
4. Tabular forms of the world of systemhood and
individualhood
5. The interaction between the elements of the set {belief;
understanding; explanation; praxis}.
6. (e-)world as a (hypothetical) real/model/ideal system.
Comprehension after/beyond/in accordance to Plato.
7. Interactive modelling: connectedness-communication.
The infra and hyper-incursion is due to connectedness.
The anticipation is due to communication. Inter and
transdisciplinary metaphors and new related terms – in
order to “re-link” the virtual reality and the real virtuality of
the connectedness and communication.
Note: *) Let ENTIT to be a new term, an adjective. It is
proposed as resulting from the noun ENTITY, as the
adjective SYSTEMIC results from the noun SYSTEM.
The resulting “rule” of the adjective ENTIT from the noun
ENTITY would be equivalent to that of resulting adjective
MAJOR from the noun MAJORITY.
The necessity of this term is connected to the
“asymmetry”: SYMMETRIC SYSTEM with ASYMMETRIC
ENTITY. All this express the potentiality that the
<<system>> to be a more restrictive category than the
<<entity>>.
An example: [some] isolated resources cannot be
associated to a systemic approach (i.e. during any
transition, mainly under operative constrains); so their set
may be better cover by the term entity, than the term
system. Another example may be thought on [some]
future resources [e.g. (bio-)nanotechnology resources of
the next stage: the core of a motor based on the bioessence of the rabbit muscle; the sort of silver powder
into the next sockets].
The <<ENTIT asymmetries>>, connected to the above
items, would better express the Information-Knowledge
Dynamics on this stage / these stages – and the
“classical” systemic symmetries would remain to
dynamically express the variation of SYNERGY, NONENTROPY and EPHEMERALITY (“to do more and more
with less and less resources” - focusing on both
symmetric and asymmetric efficiency) on a deterministic,
probabilistic/statistic, fuzzy background(s) as systemic
and cybernetic representation(s).
This study aims to propose, at least, the review on
EPHEMERALITY, within both as asymmetric efficiency
or/and subtle efficiency; thus the epistemic role of
“SUBTLENESS” being expressed, here, at least through
the proposed term of “subtle efficiency”). It is to underline
that these new terms are sought on the background(s) of
systemic and cybernetic representation(s).
The construct “subtle outlook upon the contemporary
interaction:
network
of
sciences-…-observable
humankind
within
systemic
and
cybernetic
knowingness” is indebted to the diaphoric metaphor: The
orchestra playing the conductor’s role, and contextually to
the interdisciplinary disciplines Sociocybernetics and
Cognitive Science and to their stimulating concepts by,
with and into the background of World Wide Web and
Internet. Also, the introducing of the “subtleness”
characteristic regarding our world(s), and our modelling
featuring into metareal and prereal entities (may be those
Metareal and Prereal Worlds), seems to be a kind of a
dually Göedelian view – seeming to be far from a
Wienerian view.
These constructs are acting as challenges to the
actual stated approach based on “perverse effects” /
“unintended
consequences”,
and,
respective,
“asymmetric conflicts” - contextually promoted within two mono-disciplinary focused disciplines. These two
34 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
sequences seem to be only and only on a primal
Wienerian view. So, complementary (and not on a
contradiction constrain), this paper proposes a dually
Göedelian view on these two sequences
Under a condition of “harmonization beyond space
and beyond time of <<our>> time and <<our>> space”,
the supposed systems to be inquired in order to promote
a variance to the above approaches may be those
asymmetric systems. One of the possible links would be
the recent re-focus on asymmetric information /
knowledge within the econometric background.
There are some proposed projects in order to
construct a next deeper insight on Information and
Knowledge related to the “(Pre and Post)Crisis Society
and Economy” - as contemporary realities and virtual
entities, too.
PART C: Generosity and solidarity in the creative
process/versus information-knowledge dynamics
and subtleness
A CASE STUDY OF HOW THE INFORMATIONKNOWLEDGE DYNAMICS ARE BASED ON SOURCES
OF SUBTLENESS
control crisis of science means a change of pedagogical
paradigm, as well: it gives real, concrete content to
pedagogical conceptions that have been drawn up in an
abstract and normative way.
We intend to accomplish several research
projects/studies meant to strengthen the hypotheses, to
design, start and monitor – with a wide European
cooperation – pilot programs in three disciplines which
are: astronomy (as the representative of natural
sciences), environmental science (as the representative
of life sciences) and history/archaeology (as the
representative of social sciences). With the utilization of
the results of the pilot programs the institutional,
technological and other conditions of the world-wide
extension will become possible to be planned. Europe’s
initiative role can bring about the acquisition of
competitive advantage through several transmissions,
transforming simultaneously the generosity, creativity and
solidarity aspects.
An expositive paragraph related to complex process
of better organizing diversity and the answers (at
previously sent questions) - point of view from
Lecturer Mihaela Buia, PhD in Philology, Romania
Expositive paragraph
This case study is based on the following texts received
by the first co-author, resulting the drawing up of a
scheme dedicated to the GENEROSITY-CREATIVITYSOLIDARITY triad:
On Innovative knowledge producing sub-systems point of view from Prof. dr. Laszlo Karvalics, Hungary
For many of the sciences it is more and more problematic
to manage the content of their permanently swelling
background stores. The small group of researchers is not
able to follow the astoundingly grown signal production
with analyzing intelligence. The development of cyberenvironments and cyber-infrastructure do not solve the
problem. Science needs a real Copernican turn–about
with the connection of (new) brains into problem solving
research mega-machines.
A delegation of scientific tasks to the system of public
education is the only possible solution. The base of this
new learning and knowledge model is the to-be-solved
problem divided into elementary pieces, and the
“mediums” are the (hybrid) groups of millions of teachers,
researchers and students organized into various problem
solving processes, primarily based on network
communication and group work. The program of the
“knowledge producing student” does not stand alone but
is something that each of the important factors of the
pedagogical reform process can be connected to. So the
solution promising the termination of the structural and
I. On partner's possibility to design a sub-system / an esub-system focused on generosity (and/or creativity;
and/or solidarity; creativity and solidarity) within a
community previous system.
I. A subsystem focused on generosity, creativity and
solidarity can be designed, it may start from knowledge
accumulated by humankind in paroemiae (proverbs,
sayings, maxims, etc.), because that kind of knowledge is
well known by and operates within each, every and any
community (Buia, 2009). It is a sort of background
wisdom. It is up to us whether to take it into consideration
or not (Habermas, 1965).
II. On partner's focused (e-)sub-system as a case study
(referring real data).
II. Examples gathered from mass-media-reported real
cases of both successes and failures, as a
consequence of applying, appreciating and valuing, or
on the contrary, ignoring, rejecting and despising
generosity, creativity and solidarity. Smartly selected
cases may become a cases base to be used by
scientists, academics, students etc.
III.On partner's point of view on the conceptual triad
GENEROSITY-CREATIVITY-SOLIDARITY (state
of
art; www relevance, consistence/completeness;
innovativity; limitations; foreseen failures/paradoxes,
etc.)
III: Point of view on the conceptual triad GENEROSITY –
CREATIVITY – SOLIDARITY
Generosity means the willingness to share our very best
Bulz et al. 35
with those who can offer us nothing in exchange.
Creativity enables us to find those solutions
that will always turn us into winners, or at least into
survivors.
Solidarity represents the manifestation of our availability to support peers and causes we consider
worth defending, helping and promoting. It is
also a proactive involvement against loneliness,
because human beings are meant to live within
communities.
This triad may and ought to become one of our
driving forces capable to aggregate the positive
potential of the daring riders of the hardly predictable
future. It may also enhance our chances to better know
our own world, both its authentic values and the main
causes of failures that have to be temporary if we are
determined to survive.
Q/A paragraph
*1. Which is the best / worst element within our World our e-World?
*1.The best element within our World and e-World is the
immense Diversity, practically limitless, thanks to
which nothing and nobody is irreplaceable. Nor is it
useless.
The worst element within our World and e-World is the
lack of a permanently updated Code of
Responsibilities, somehow complementary to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such a Code
may contribute to preventing, alleviating and even
solutioning discontentment, troubles, dangers, risks
and conflicting contexts.
*2. Which is the equilibrium point (if it would exist)
regarding the sentence: <<To win/ to lose with
generosity vs. to be indifferent>>?
*2. Real equilibrium points can’t exist in the humankind
evolution, but there are equilibrating forces
that
manage
to
ultimately
keep
conflicts
under control. These forces need the strength
and stamina of a large number of already
aware individuals in order to decrease the
danger
of
indifference.
Indifference
is
malefic and destructive, it means disrespect for
Creation.
*3. Could a contemporary humankind meta-strategy
based on generosity to be innovatively involved/ to
efficiently phrase on *1 and/or *2?
*3:
A
contemporary
humankind
meta-strategy
based on generosity could innovatively and
beneficially be involved within the complex process of better organizing diversity. It may
also be implied in the attempt to take advantage of the challenges by offering everybody enough chances to create, to innovate, to
share.
Report on an interdisciplinary meeting (October,
2009, Bucharest, Romania)
On a "dialogue" between the ontic and respective logical
attempts toward an epistemic representation of
Humankind's (re)search
1: The relation between logic/ontic prevalence of the
axiomatic background of a theoretical attempt -versusthe analysis of the temporal differential European
scientific thinking becoming and the non-European
thinking becoming
1.a.The creative comparison of the three steps of the
becoming of the European scientific thinking: Logic /
research on the linguistic patterns / research on the
signs and symbols processes - Semiotics - versus
the three steps of the Buddhist thinking becoming:
research on the signs and symbols processes /
research on the linguistic patterns / Logic.
1.b:The nature of the axiomatic background regarding a
general theory: the prevalence of logical axiomatic
background [as are the cases for G. Frege, B.
Russell, D. Hilbert, J.v. Neumann
and logicalmathematic approach(es)] - and the the prevalence
of ontic/ontological axiomatic background (Plato, I.
Kant, L.E.J. Brouwer, K. Gödel, L. Wittgenstein).
Into this context (as largely presented into the
construction of the Letter of Application - attached here)
the primal versus dual sections of any context would be
proposed to realize an intercourse, a "dialogue"/on
dynamic efficiency criteria, between the ontic and
respective logical attempts to the core of a problematic
subject.
2. The extended temporal insight indebted to L.E.J.
Brouwer's Intuitionism (beyond its foundationalist status
for Mathematics - and onto the larger constructivist
mathematic attempt) - BUT and ALSO approaching other
basic domains of humankind knowledge (than
Mathematics) in the sense of prevailing the (re)search
toward application of internally consistent methods to
realize more complex mental constructs. Regarding these
to be found applications: the "provability" would prevail to
the
"demonstrability"
within
the
respective
representations
of
these
contexts
of
mental
constructs. The extension of a beyond temporal-spatial
insight.
3. The comprehension upon the unpredictability status
of the outlook for the theoretical/descriptive frames
using catastrophe theory (R. Thom), fractals (B.
Mandelbrot), dissipative far from an equilibrium
state entity (I. Prigogine), deterministic chaos theory. So,
it is to (re)search toward the societal provability of
inner methods of experts (and human-machine
complex systems) in order to (re)link the stability
and
(dis)continuity
of
incursive---predictability
status of the respective inner theoretical/descriptive
frames.
36 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Draft-report
on
an
interdisciplinary meeting
(November 2, 2009, Popular University "Ioan I.
Dalles", Bucharest, Romania)
On generosity a "dialogue" between the ontic and
respective logical attempts toward an epistemic
representation of Humankind's (re)search
# Larry Stapleton's statement: Generosity is not "giving"
(something to the others) / but the presence of yourself
(the generous being) to the otherness.
The community genesis would be backed on
generosity
The community (an entity having at least one common
item) has an innate becoming according to "not to have
more than you can eat and use" so resulting a generous
attempt for the entireness (by the way of the Climate
Change - pollution and industrial activities on an
increased profit base).
Generosity is to change the business sense of the profit business entity is also a community - the common
interest of the producer and of a consumer to continue
the money-product -money cycle.
Has all these an initial spring on generosity background?
The bright answer on: Are Irishmenandwomen generous?
/versus the pro-domo answer to the equivalent question:
Are Romanian menandwomen generous?
The exceptional consonance on the question on: Are
Irish-village still conservative on the old traditions?
/versus the equivalent question on: Are Romanianvillage still conservative on the old traditions?
An debate on the e-World and the youth, self-eeducation, tradition and post-modernism.
##
Is generosity a possible turning point of the
humankind?
### Asking to George Anca's question which is the root of
generosity - Christianity? Indian traces - to be baited
by a mosquito, even to die from his bite, but not to kill
it, as killing is the disaster of the world (into an
uncreated world / Jansenism, Buddhist insight).
4# Nicolae Bulz's examples: Mecenas and Bill Gates participants' consensus on possible generosity on
political and/or business interest politics. From
Ancient Roman Forum toward Bill Gates' Cultural
Centre at Dublin. The influence (in)direct to the status
of the artists and, now, scientists - from Lucretius,
Horatius, Ovidius till today.
5# Ileana Boeru's statement on: not imposing but
debate_introduction of the postmodern doubt on our
genial personalities actuality (Eminescu, Mircea
Eliade, ...). General debate on the issue, including the
state budget orientation on not acceptable directions
of teaching, culture and art versus the posterity of
national personalities.
My Cognitive Science's experiment ask on what would be
your reaction (Larry Stapleton's reaction) on somebody
saying the Saint Patrick's successors and Bernard Shaw
are out of time? Larry Stapleton's replay was adding
James Joyce - to the above.
Hospitality deploying on the new era - rural areas
greetings between everybody, including unknown
persons.
6# George Anca's
affirmation on great writers
assessment on peasantry value.
7# On Nicolae Iorga's genial activity and his dedication to
general public conferences - Valenii de Munte site /
and the introductory statement at the beginning of the
meeting regarding Popular University Traditions.
Generosity as peculiarity of knowledge: Descartes
and Kant - point of view from Professor Ana Bazac, PhD
in Philosophy, Romania Romania Besides the concept
related to the relations of giving-receiving, generosity has
become a characteristic of knowledge and a
consequence
of
knowledge.
Its
criteria
are
epistemological – knowledge, the decision, the relation to
standards – and not the volume of generosity to the
other. But this does not mean that this understanding of
generosity is less social: “true Generosity, which makes a
man esteem himself as highly as he can legitimately
esteem himself, consists only in this: partly in his
understanding that there is nothing which truly belongs to
him but this free control of his volitions, and no reason
why he ought to be praised or blamed except that he
uses it well or badly; and partly in his feeling within
himself a firm and constant resolution to use it well, that
is, never to lack the volition to undertake and execute all
the things he judges to be best – which is to follow virtue
perfectly”(Descartes, The Passions of the Soul (1649),
Translated by Stephen H. Voss, Indianapolis, Hackett
Publishing Company, 1989, Article 153, p. 104). And
“those who have this understanding and this feeling
about themselves are easily convinced that every other
man can also have them about himself”( Ibidem, Article
154, p. 104. And he continues insisting that the others
commit errors “though lack of understanding rather than
lack of good will”). Ethical Universalism(As virtues are
(spiritual) habits subjected to thought, ibidem, Article 160,
p. 107. Consequently, those who can overcome their
feelings (“disorders of the passions”), the generous
people, have the capacity to influence society for the
better – including by creating “good institutions” (ibidem,
Article 161, p. 108) – and through education (Article 162,
p. 109), because they have the role of a locomotive or of
a model (as generosity makes them “to do great things”
(ibidem, Article 156, p. p. 105). Therefore, as they being
generous and humble – i.e. they do not place themselves
before anyone else because they know the errors
committed by them “are no less than those which may be
committed by others” (ibidem, Article 155, p. 105) - there
is the possibility of a new form of social solidarity, based
Bulz et al. 37
on knowledge and on the power of example.) is based on
that of the anciently emphasized logos (Descartes, 1649).
At his turn, Kant researched “the capacity of reason in
general” – because just this is the critique of pure
reason(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781),
Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn (1855, 1900), New
York, Dover Publications, 2003, p. 14.) - whose premise
is the structural identity of reason in all human beings.
Consequently, research in itself is both possible and
legitimate. This means to decipher the way in which
people know, resulting in: a) a culture acquired through
reason, through critique, b) exceeding preconceptions
and false knowledge – in relation to which people start to
play with sophisms about things or in relation to which
nothing is learnt thoroughly out of the desire to learn fast
new ideas and opinions –, c) the capacity to think and act
morally. Knowledge and specifically scientific (critical)
knowledge is again the first method of (intellectual)
generosity. And what Kant emphasizes is very important:
such knowledge brings advantages “to the general
human interests”, disadvantaging only the “monopoly of
the schools”( Ibidem, Preface to the second edition,
1787,
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4280/pg4280.html)
(which we could amount to the bureaucratic way of the
administration of knowledge and university) / (Kant,
1781).
And this means – another method of intellectual
generosity – the clear transmission of ideas, removing
obscurity (we remember the demand of those “clear and
distinctive ideas” of Descartes from Discourse on the
method and the Third meditation, but also that of
Wittgenstein( Also see Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus
logico-philosophicus (1921), Preface, “What can be said
at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak
thereof
one
must
be
silent”,
http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/aprefen.html): clarity is
discursive (logical), resulting from concepts, and there is
also the intuitive (aesthetic) clarity, which results from
examples or other explanations in concreto(Immanuel
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Preface to the first edition,
1781,
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4280/pg4280.html).
For the first type of clarity – especially addressed to
specialists – there is no need of many examples: “For
explanations and examples, and other helps to
intelligibility, aid us in the comprehension of parts, but
they... dissipate the mental power of the reader, and
stand in the way of his forming a clear conception of the
whole”( Ibidem.).
Generosity in knowledge, therefore, means ensuring
the conditions for a better communication of such
knowledge, and not in a fragmented manner, but connec-
ted, integrated, coherent, systematic. It is about 1) the
fact that “the large crowd” may achieve “a higher
knowledge”, if the transfer of knowledge and education
occurs (Ibidem, Preface to the second edition. This is an
obvious reference to what later on became a theory: the
historical separation between physical and intellectual
labour.); and 2) the necessity to favour criticism, and the
governments not to support “the arrogant pretensions of
the schools, which would gladly retain, in their own
exclusive possession, the key to the truths which they
impart to the public”( Ibidem.) (Bazac, 2009).
On Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity - the interactively
resulting drawing up scheme as an item of the Interactive
Modelling
(Axiomatic) affirmation 1: There is a compound of
concepts/constructs regarding Humankind Wisdom.
(Axiomatic) affirmation 2: There are within HumanTechnique aggregated entities (teams, sub-systems,
systems) an Intentionality Axis and a Responsibility
Labyrinth:
This Responsibility Labyrinth comprises the general
frame, proposed here as an I/O relation, as to supply the
Information-Knowledge journey:
INPUT DATA <=> INFORMATION <=> KNOWLEDGE
<=> EXPERTISE <=> WISDOM <=> (HAPINESS /
ALIENATION ) <=> OUTPUT DATA
(1)
and the general frame, proposed here as an eternal
conceptual oscillation, as an ubiquos relation within any
Human-Technique aggregated entities:
RESPONSIBILITY <=> (EVOLUTION / SECURITY ) .
The Intentionality Axis comprises the links between
GENEROSITY and CREATIVITY.
The Intentionality Axis and the Responsibility Labyrinth,
within the next scheme, are connected by a circular
aggregation of the: EDUCATION
<=> LIBERTY /
CONSTRUCTION
<=>
ADMINISTRATION
<=>
PROSECUTION / COERCION - as, within this
conceptual context, the most correlated nuclei of human
communities toward the general human Intentionality and
Responsibility.
The Intentionality Axis and the Responsibility Labyrinth,
within the next scheme, are crossing the diagonals of the
CREATIVE
PARTNERSHIP
and
GENEROUS
SOLIDARITY - as, within this conceptual context, the
most concordant nuclei of human communities toward
the general human Intentionality and Responsibility.
A
scheme
on
Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity
(re)presenting a flow of
normative and descriptive
propositions alongside the above two (axiomatic)
affirmations follows (Prof. dr. Nicolae Bulz's scheme):
38 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Central pattern: Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity
Tricky merchants
Toxic (e-)products
A pattern
"OUTLAW"
to Damned people /
to Failed countries
"MECENA"
<=>
"NEGATIVE" CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP
(space)
Humankind /
singularities
GENEROUS SOLIDARITY "POSITIVE"
<=>
<=>
Humankind diversity/ spatial
<=>
GENEROSITY
Partnership
Solidarity
[<=>
Output
<=>]
<=>
Input
D
pattern
<=> INFORMATION /
/ KNOWLEDGE <=>
Our RESPONSIBILITY_Labyrinth:
<=> EXPERTISE <=> WISDOM <=> { HAPINESS / ALIENETION } <=>
<=>
Output
<=>
<=>
B
pattern
[<=>
Input
<=>]
Solidarity
Partnership
CREATIVITY
<=>
Humankind diversity/
temporal
<=>
"NEGATIVE" GENEROUS SOLIDARITY
<=>
Humankind /
communities
(time)
<=>
C pattern
"HUNTER"
Hacker
CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP "POSITIVE"
"ADAM AND EVE OUT
OF PARADISE"
Research entities,
Banks, Audit;
Industries
Bulz et al. 39
A; B; C; D patterns around Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity pattern
A pattern
Tricky merchants
Toxic (e-)products
"OUTLAW"
<=>
(space)
Humankind / singularities
to Damned people /
to Failed countries
"MECENA"
<=>
"NEGATIVE" CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP
GENEROUS SOLIDARITY "POSITIVE"
<<< Geographical/spatial awareness
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Spatial evolution/decay >>>
[<=> Output <=>]
EDUCATION
Circularity (Magellanity
property)
D pattern
PROSECUTION
/ COERCION
<=>
Humankind diversity/ spatial
<=>
Revolutionary iteration of
progress
Legal rhythmic regulation
GENEROSITY
Our INTENTIONALITY_Axis
beyond space
Dual Cause
<=> Input <=>
<=> INFORMATION
/ KNOWLEDGE <=>
Our RESPONSIBILITY_Labyrinth:
<=> EXPERTISE <=>
WISDOM <=> { HAPINESS / ALIENETION } <=>
interaction
interaction
<=> Output <=>
beyond time
Primal Cause
CREATIVITY
Evolutionary iteration of
solidarity / partnership
<=>
Humankind diversity/ temporal
<=>
LIBERTY /
CONSTRUCTION
B pattern
ADMINISTRATION
"Creative" Societal (des)illusion
Rhythm (Uniface/Möbius
property)
[<=> Input <=>]
< Temporal evolution/decay
<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>
Historical/temp. awareness>
"NEGATIVE" GENEROUS SOLIDARITY
<=>
Humankind / communities
(time)
<=>
CREATIVE PARTNERSHIP "POSITIVE"
C pattern
"HUNTER"
Hacker
"ADAM AND EVE OUT
OF PARADISE"
Research entities,
Banks, Audit;
Industries
40 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
PART D: Generosity and solidarity in the creative
process/versus an extended model of knowledge
governance
9. From knowledge governance issue toward knowledge
society vision - paragraphs cited from a study of Prof. dr.
Laszlo Z.Karvalics, Hungary and Prof. dr. Nikunj Dalal,
US (Karvalics and Dalal, 2009)
Knowledge Governance
Thanks to Nicolai G. Foss, the corporate economy “guru”,
the concept of knowledge governance is expanding and
gaining popularity. It is not Foss who coined and
introduced the term “knowledge governance”, but he
provided the biggest contribution to its meaningful
enrichment with his Italian colleague, Anna Grandori, to
lay the disciplinary foundation (Foss, 2009).
In Foss’s theoretical works, knowledge governance is
a distinctive approach, having many cross-connections
with knowledge management (Foss, 2007). He firstly
refers to only the cross-points of general management,
strategic issues and human resource management (Foss
and Michailova, 2009) and defines knowledge
governance as follows: “The ‘knowledge governance
approach’ is characterized as a distinctive, emerging
approach that cuts across the fields of knowledge
management, organization studies, strategy, and human
resource management. Knowledge governance is taken
up with how the deployment of governance mechanisms
influences knowledge processes, such as sharing,
retaining and creating knowledge. It insists on clear micro
(behavioural) foundations, adopts an economizing
perspective, and examines the links between knowledgebased units of analysis with diverse characteristics and
governance mechanisms with diverse capabilities of
handling these transactions.” But over the next two
years, Foss gradually broadened the scope of knowledge
governance to connect with the management of
intellectual capital, innovation theory, technology
strategy, and the international business itself (Whitley,
2000). In the most recent vocabulary of Foss, knowledge
governance “refers to choosing structures and
mechanisms that can influence the processes of sharing
and creating knowledge.
Knowledge governance has two main interpretation
levels in the early literature: the company- (micro-) and
the national (macro-)level. Knowledge governance has
been discussed as a profitability issue at the company
level and as an effectiveness issue at the government
level in the research project series of the University of
Bonn, The Center for Development Research (ZEF,
Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung) started in 2000.
Whitley (Smits and Moor, 2004) conceptually classified
knowledge governance as:
• Entrepreneurial knowledge governance based upon
knowledge codification and privatization, and the
organizational methods of generation and usage of new
corporate knowledge, and
• Associative knowledge governance, which addresses
the macro-level distribution of the complex forms of
knowledge.
They are simultaneously evolving narratives sharing
many similarities such as the inclusion of holistic
approaches and high-level planning and control
functions.
Smits and Moor (Mariussen, 2003)
composed an indicator system to measure the
affectivity of corporate knowledge management,
dubbing it the “Knowledge Governance Framework”,
while Mariussen (www.druid.dk, 2009) used it to
address the integration of the knowledge system
and managing on a nation-state level.
The
both directions are spreading: Vale and Caldeira (Vale
and Caldeira, 2007) used the knowledge governance
approach
for
proximity-centred
research
in
localized production systems such as the footwear
industry in the north region of Portugal; the latest 2009
publications reflect the research focus on macro-level
regulation dimensions such as copyright and patent
issues.
An Extended Framework
We propose a three-layer model instead of the
previous two-layer versions, adding a layer of
“global knowledge governance”. Separating the main
issues in this way, we can re-formulate the focus of
knowledge governance research and practice in all
layers.
In the Entrepreneurial layer (Table 9.1), the main
task is to exactly define the relation between
knowledge management and knowledge governance: we identify four determining directions
(dynamic relations) as shown in the table. These
pertain to performance measurement, reengineering,
design, and fusion of local practices outside its
boundaries.
On the nation-state level, the knowledge governance
approach strongly overlaps with the latest knowledgerelated narratives, refreshing some multi-contextual
traditional policy fields (Table 9.2).
There
are
few improvements
on
shaping
global information and knowledge flow since the
UN’s 1974 Declaration on New International Information
Order (NIIO). The radically changing knowledge
environment
and
information
infrastructure
arrogate concerted and scientifically substantiated
efforts
to
establish
a
systematic
knowledge
background. Knowledge governance is not only a
likely direction, but an umbrella-like promising
paradigm to synthesize and re-formulate similar
approaches (Table 9.3).
Bulz et al. 41
Table 9.1
Enterpreneurial knowledge governance: Four directions of
penetration at the company level
Designing knowledge structures
and mechanisms for
Measuring the
performance of

Knowledge
(asset)
management
Reengineering of
Inter-company, regional, or global
fusion of local KM practices
Table 9.2 Fields of knowledge governance at the nation-state level
“Traditional” policy fields
Innovation policy
Science policy
Education policy and literacy
Media and dissemination of scientific
information
Knowledge Industry Development
(Fostering attractivity and visibility)
Copyright, patent issues
New type of narratives and
interventions
Data and Knowledge asset policy,
“national crowdsourcing” models
Planning the structure and resource
map of Natural-, Life-, Technical
Sciences and Humanities
Information literacy, talent
management, lifelong learning schemes
Nation-state reactions on current Brain
Drain, Brain Gain, Brain Sharing issues
Competition in creative industries,
talent hunting
Indigenous knowledge management,
copyleft
Table 9.3 Knowledge governance at a global level
“Phenomena” to reflect
International cooperation in
the fields of education,
science, and communication
Collaborative
Research
Megaprojects
Knowledge
readiness
(knowledge
development
indicators)
Global
Conference
and
Publication Industry
Circulation of Brains
Globalized higher education,
virtual universities
Scientific
domain
Cultural and
Communication
politics
Sociology of
Science
General politics
Knowledge
Management
(Im)migration,
Demography,
Sociology
Pedagogy,
Economy
Development/ Policy/ Planning
issues
Reengineering of UNESCO-type
global coordination
New generation workflow tools,
Regulation challenges
Narrowing the gap between the
developed and under-developed
nations and regions
Re-thinking of the channels of
distribution of knowledge
Equation mechanisms,
regulation, monitoring, reducing
the digital divide
Quality management,
equivalence and interoperability
issues, learning management
42 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Linkage to knowledge society vision
In the history of knowledge management, it has always
been deemed important and useful for the public sphere
(i.e. the transaction-rich government institutions) to adapt
and implement the best corporate knowledge
management methods and solutions into their everyday
management practice. (In the vocabulary of the Open
Research and Open Knowledge Society these
standardized methods can be described as “hard
aspects” of the knowledge society.)
As the importance of the knowledge governance
paradigm grows over the years, there is no doubt that this
adaptation process will expand to many global interstakeholder policy fields. The resulting professionalization
can refresh and revolutionize international multi-agent
cooperation forms such as inter-school exchange
programmes and collaborative citizen science projects,
energizing millions of professional amateurs (ProAms) in
the process of knowledge generation and distribution.
The knowledge governance approach presents a
potentially innovative way to form radically new
knowledge producing megamachines (Karvalics, 2008)
that combine and channel the creative energies of the
scientific elite, the teachers, and the students towards a
sustainable future.
Future research issues
Based upon our analysis, we propose a few research
issues in the emerging knowledge governance approach.
One research issue that applies to all levels is: How does
an organization, nation, or global group determine what is
valid knowledge? Knowledge governance policies
address the creation and sharing of knowledge. But what
if the created knowledge is invalid or erroneous? This has
cost and reputation implications. Surely, before such
knowledge is disseminated, there must be ways to verify
and validate the knowledge. We believe that the
knowledge governance approach will be strengthened in
its normative intent if it incorporates knowledge
verification processes to ensure valid, reliable, relevant,
current and well-founded knowledge.
Other future research issues include: How can an
organization, nation, or global community support the
creation of higher forms of knowledge and related
attributes such as intelligence, sensitivity, and wisdom?
How can we deal with the inevitable politics of knowledge
governance, which is likely to be a greater issue at a
global level, but can be expected at all three levels? And
finally: what is the anatomy of trespassing and crossconnections between the three layers? How can the
global knowledge governance actors and interventions
influence the nation-state and company layers – and vice
versa? These are just a few of many issues that need
attention in the emerging field of knowledge governance.
Clearly, knowledge governance has major implications
for organizations, nations and states, and the global
society as a whole.
NOTE ON PARTS C AND D
Both Parts C and D of this study present the last stages
of research from different partners of the GenerosityCreativity-Solidarity Consortium and from different
colleagues of the partners. The next stage of research
would affirm if there is possible common nuclei - in order
to foster a new stage on Information and Knowledge
related to the “(Pre and Post)Crisis Society and
Economy” approach within the promise of the GenerosityCreativity-Solidarity triad.
The same type of affirmed convergent and/or common
nuclei would stand within the set of the paragraphs 9.4.
Future research issues and 7.2. Searching on
consistence and completeness / 7.3. Other possible
subjects / 7.4. Related projects.
The Parts C and D of this study, on a deeper stance,
may relate to an open subject: the links between the area
of the Knowledge Governance construct (multilayers,
actors and sustained interventions) and the focusing on
(a)symmetry and subtleness of the Interactive Modelling
approach.
At this stage, it is to find just the way toward a
synergic approach on convergent and/or common nuclei
within: the Global Coordination, the Evolution / Security,
and the Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity triad.
So, all the four parts of this study try (and tries) "to
gain positive acting answers to the initial two questions"
as just a proposed type of exploration - but it is one type
only - any other type of exploration would be aggregated
according to an expected plurality of advance.
This study presents at least six concordant directions in order to proof, at least, the utility of both explanation
and understanding: social-networking and virtual space;
Eastern European “power of people” and behaviour of
technology providers; innovative knowledge and
knowledge management; generosity in knowledge;
complex process of better organizing diversity; subtle
outlook upon the network of sciences vs. systemic and
cybernetic knowingness; toward Consciousness Society
and future prospect for the e-World.
On in this way, can we really begin to understand the
trajectory (or multiple trajectories) of our current
civilisation, of a deeper humankind wisdom, with all its
new connectivities and disconnectivities mediated as they
are through information and other technologies?
REFERENCES
Albus FS (1991). “Outline for a Theory of Intelligence”. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol.21, no.3. May,
June.
Arrow KJ (1963). Social Choice and Individual Value, Wiley, New York.
Bărbat BE (2003). The Avatar – “A Pseudo-Human Extending the
Bulz et al. 43
Genuine One”, The good, the bad and the irrelevant: The user and
the future of information and communication technologies (L. Haddon
e.a, Eds.), Media Lab/University of Art and Design, Helsinki, pp. 3842.
Bazac A (2009). Generozitatea în cunoaştere şi comunicare. Observaţii
de filosofie a ştiinţei” (Generosity in knowledge and communication:
observations of philosophy of science), în coord. G.G. Constandache
şi Beatrice Adriana Balgiu, Comunicarea – Sugestie şi influenţă
(Aspecte interdisciplinare şi transdisciplinare) (Communication –
Suggestion and Influence (Inter and trans-Disciplinary Aspects),
Bucureşti, Sigma, p. 84-104.
Belis M, Snow P (2002), Comment cerner le hasard. Edition Supinfo
Press, Paris.
Bertalanffy von L (1968). General System Theory / Foundation
Development Application. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
Blaga L (1920). Kultur und Erkenntnis [Culture and Knowledge], Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna.
Bonabeau E, Dorigo M, Theraulaz G (1999). Swarm intelligence: from
natural to artificial systems, Oxford University Press, New York.
Brix VH (1989). "Equilibrium in Social Sciences", Analyse de Systemes,
vol. XV, no. 1.
Buia M (2009). Abordare paremiologică a evoluţiei cunoaşterii.
Ecologica Universitaria, anul I, nr.1, Editura Pământul, Bucureşti.
Bulz N (2005). "Aspects of a Theory of Systemic Construction".
Kybernetes: International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics,
Emerald, 34 (9/10): pp. 1598-1632.
Bulz N (2008). “Aggregation and Desaggregation of Information as an
Adaptive
Task”,
Scientific
Inquiry,
June,
9(1):78-90.
http://www.iigss.net/Scientific-Inquiry.
Bulz N (2009). "Systemic and cybernetic knowingness: relating
“(a)symmetry” and “subtleness”?: Project onto the contemporary
complexity versus the information-knowledge dynamics", Kybernetes:
International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, Emerald, 38
(7):1121-1161; www.emeraldinsight.com .
Bulz N AO (2006). Parteneriat Creativ de Bunastare, Editura Paralela
45, Pitesti, [Creative Partnership on Welfare].
Byrne G, Stapleton L (2008). ‘The role of personal values in the
development of international business managers’, Proceedings of the
6th International Conference on International Strategy and Cross
Cultural Management, IESSE Business School, Barcelona, Spain.
Chomsky N (1964). Aspects of the theory of syntax. M.I.T. Press,
Cambridge.
Descartes R (1649). The Passions of the Soul, Translated by Stephen
H. Voss, 1989, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company.
Dimirovski GM (2008). Complexity versus integrity solution in adaptive
fuzzy-neural inference models. Int. J. Intelligent Systems, 23 (5): 556573.
Dimirovski GM, Dinibütün AT, Kile F, Neck R, Stahre J, Vlacic Lj (2006).
Control system approaches for sustainable development and
instability management in the globalization age. Annual Rev. in
Control, 30 (1): 103-115.
Dubois D (1998), “Modelling of anticipatory systems with incursion and
hyperincursion”, Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on
Cybernetics (Editor: J. Ramaekers), pp. 306-311.
Dubois D, Prade H (1980). Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and
Applications. Academic Press, New York.
Flake GW (1998; 2001-fourth printing), The Computational beauty of
Nature / Computer Explorations of Fractals, Chaos, Complex
Systems, and Adaptation. The MTI Press, Cambridge.
Florea AM, Kalisz E (2001, 2003). "Behaviour Anticipation Based on
Beliefs, Desires and Emotions" (2003). "Anticipatory Attributes of
Agent Behavior in MAS" (2001). In: CASYS’01, and ’03, Proceedings
of the Fifth and the Sixth International Conference on Computing
Anticipatory Systems, Liege, BE.
Foss NJ (2007). "The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach:
Challenges and Characteristics Knowledge Governance", Primer
Organization;
14:
29-52.o.
http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/02/05/knowledgegovernance-primer/ Downloaded: February 11, 2009.
Foss NJ (2009). "The Knowledge Governance Approach", Copenhagen
Business School Center for Strategic Management and Globalization
Working Paper Series / (2005). http://ssrn.com/abstract=981353
Downloaded: February,11 2009.
Foss NJ, Michailova S (Ed.). (2009). Knowledge Governance.
Processes and Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
Fuller BR (1969). Utopia or Oblivion: the Prospect for Humanity.
Toronto New York London: Bantam Books.
Georgescu-Roegen N (1979), Legea entropiei si procesul economic
[Entropy Law and the Economic Process]. Editura Politica, Bucuresti.
Gödel K (1931). “Uber formal unentscheidhare Sätze der Principia
Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I”, Monatshefte für Math. u.
Physik. Bd. 38, pp. 173-198.
Gulliver SR, Ghinea G (2004). "Stars in their eyes: what eye-tracking
reveal about multimedia perceptual quality". IEEE Transaction on
System, Man and Cybernetics, part A.
Habermas J (1965). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit.
Hermann
Luchterhand Verlag GmbH, Neuwied und Berlin.
Haken H (1983), Synergetics - an introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Haret, S.C. (1910), Mécanique sociale, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, Ch.
Göbl, I.St.Rasidescu S-r, Bucharest.
Hersh MA (2001). "Whistleblowers – Heroes or Traitors?: Individual and
Collective Responsibility for Ethical Behaviour". In: SWIIS ’01 (IFAC),
Vienna AT
Hopfield JJ (1985). ""Neural" computative of decision in optimization
problems", Biological Cyb., vol. 52.
http://members.tripod.com/cht_co, www.zulenet.com/VladimirDimitrov Dimitrov V (2009).
http://www.anx.com - The Automotive Network Exchange home page
(May 2009).
http://www.druid.dk/uploads/tx_picturedb/ds2003-832.pdf.
(February
20, 2009).
http://www.racai.ro/~dragam - Draganescu M. (2009).
http://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/webstaf/detombe - DeTombe D. (2009).
http://www.unizar.es/sociocybernetics - Geyer F. (2009).
Indurkhya B (1987) “Approximated Semantic Transference: A
Computational Theory of Metaphors and Analogies”, Cognitive
Sciences, (11).
Izworski JB, Lewoc B, Piwowar S (2001). "Some Aspects of Technology
Transfer – A Case Study", SWIIS ’01 (IFAC), Wieden.
Izworski JB, Lewoc B, Skowronski S, Kieleczawa A (2008). "A Case
Study: History of Polish Computer Applications in Power System
Control". IFIP Congress. Milano.
Kalman RE ao (1969). Topics in Mathematical System Theory.
Mc.Graw Hill, New York.
Kant I (1781). Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by J. M. D.
Meiklejohn (1855, 1900), New York, Dover Publications, 2003.
Karvalics LZ (1998), "Information Society Visions: from the early
utopias to the adequate government-level strategic planning
methods. Informatization et anticipations". Information Society:
Looking ahead Proceedings, Strasbourg, pp. 63-74.
Karvalics LZ (2008). "The Biggest Human GRID-s of the Future:
Hybridization of Science and Public Education", in Lytras, M-D.,
Carroll, Damiani JM, Tennyson E, Avison RD, Vossen E, Ordóñez
de Pablos G, (Eds.): The Open Knowledge Society. A Computer
Science and Information Systems Manifesto, First World Summit on
the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2008, Athens, Greece, September
24-26, Proceedings. Communications in Computer and Information
Science 19 Springer, pp. 53-56 (2008)
Karvalics LZ, Dalal N (2009). "An Extended Model of Knowledge
Governance", Best Practices for the Knowledge Society - Knowledge,
Learning, Development and Technology for All. Second World
Summit on the Knowledge Society, WSKS 2009, Chania, Crete,
Greece, September 16-18. / Proceedings. Series: Communications in
Computer and Information Science, Vol. 49 Lytras, , M.D.; Ordóñez
de Pablos, P.; Damiani E, Avison D, Naeve A, Horner DG (Eds.),
XXVIII, 586 p.
Kile F (2008). Christian Faith – Two Realities: A Collage of Impressions,
Iuniverse.com.
Klir GJ (1969), An Approach to General Systems Theory. Van Nostrand,
New York.
Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995). Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and
Applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
44 Int. Res. J. Police Sci. Criminal law Criminol.
Langman L (2006), RC36: Alienation Theory and Research. Session 08:
The Quality of Social Existence in a Globalizing World (Special
Session on the Congress Theme). XVI World Congress of Sociology /
Programme / ISA 2006 Congress / The Quality of Social Existence in
a Globalising World. Artworks Communications, Durban, p. 209.
Lewoc JB, Izworski A, Skowronski S, Kieleczawa A, Dimirovski G,
Marion A, Hersh MA, Bulz N, Stapleton L (2009), "Technology
Proliferation and Transfer Ethical Aspects: A Case Study of Wroclaw,
Poland", SWIIS 2009, IFAC, Bucharest.
Luban F (2006). Proiect de Grant CNCSIS / Societatea Cunoasterii
[Grant Project on Knowledge Society], CNCSIS, Bucharest.
Malitza M (2000). "Toward Geomodernity of the XXI Century".
International Political Science Review, Vol 21, N.1.
Marcus S (1974). "Linguistics as a pilot science". Current Trends in
Linguistics 12, (ed. Th.A. Sebeok),. Hague: Mouton. (1990).
Controverse in stiinta si inginerie, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti.
Mariussen A (2003). "New forms of knowledge governance. Basic
outline of a social system approach to innovation policy", DRUID
Summer Conference: Creating, Sharing and Transferring Knowledge
Copenhagen, June 12-14. (www.druid.dk, 2009).
Mark EN (2006). Harnessing Knowledge Dynamics: Principled
Organizational Knowing and Learning. IRM Press, Hershey, London,
Melbourne, Singapore.
Meadows DH, Meadows D, Randers J, Behrens W (1972). The Limits of
Growth, Universe Books, New York.
Mesarovic M, Pestel E (1974), Mankind at the Turning Point, E. P.
Dutton and Co. Inc. / Reader’s Digest Press, New York.
Mesarovic MD ao (1970). Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems.
Academic Press, New York
Møller V (2006). WG06: Social Indicators. Session 03: Subjective and
Objective Social Indicators of Life Quality: The New Science of
Happiness. XVI World Congress of Sociology / Programme / ISA
2006 Congress / The Quality of Social Existence in a Globalising
World. Artworks Communications, Durban, p. 267.
Naisbitt J. (1982). Megatrends. Ten New Directions Transforming Our
Lives, Warner Books, Inc., New York
Negoitã CV, Ralescu DA (1975), Application of Fuzzy Sets to Systems
Analysis, Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin.
Neumann J von , Morgenstern O (1953). Theory of Games and
Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Nicolau D, Phillimore J (1998). "Mechanism of knowledge transfer:
relevance for science and technology parks’ policies". XV IASP,
Perth.
Nicolescu B (1996). La Transdisciplinarité. Manifeste, Editions du
Rocher, Paris.
Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Osmãtescu P, Stoica M, Hancu D (2000). “Modelling the Knowledge
Transfer by means of subtle sets”, SIGEF Congress, Lausanne.
Parra-Luna F (1998). "The notion of system as conceptual bridge
between the sociology of organizations and organizational efficiency".
Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of World Organization
of System and Cybernetics, Vol. 2nd Sociocybernetics, 248-256,
Bucharest: Bren.
Pãun G (1977). “Generative grammars for some economic activities”,
Foundations of Control Engineering, 2(1): 15-25.
Pearl J (1990). Heuristique / Strategies de recherche intelligente pour
la resolution de problemes par ordinateur. Cepadues-Edition,
Toulouse.
Piaget J (1976), Le compotement moteur de l’évolution. Editions
Galimard, Paris. [(1978) Behavior and Evolution. Pantheon Books,
New York.]
Rousseau JJ (1751), Discourse upon Science and Arts, Academy of
Dijon, Dijon.
Rudd P (2006). “Simplicity - Complexity - Simplicity: The Perspectives
of Spirituality”, in Clayton P. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook Of Religion and
Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Ch. 25.
Searle J (2000), “The Three Gaps. From the Classical Theory of
Rationality toward Consciousness Approach – Analytical Philosophy
Insight”, Conference, The New Europe College, Bucharest, May 19.
Shafer G (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Shannon C (1948), "A mathematical theory of communication". Bell
System Tech. Journal, 27.
Simon HA (1957). Administrative Behaviour, Free Press, New York.
Simon HA (1965). "The Logic Rational Decision", The British Journal
for the Philosophy of Science, vol.XVI.
Smits M, Moor AD (2004). Measuring Knowledge Management
Effectiveness in Communities of Practice. Proceedings of the 37th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 236-244.o.
Stapleton L
(2008). “Ethical Decision Making In Technology
Development: A Case Study Of Participation In A Large-Scale
Information Systems Development Project” in Artificial Intelligence
and Society, 22(3), pp. 405-429.
Stapleton L (2009). ‘Globalisation Perspective of Trends in
Mechatronics and Advanced Technology Business Management:
Technology Transfer and Innovation in Ireland and Kosova’, Austrian
Journal of Automation, forthcoming.
Stapleton L, Freeman A, Byrne G (2008). “The Use of an Axiological
Lens to Review Globalised Automation and Control Systems
Projects”, International Federation of Automation and Control
Triennial World Congress, Seoul.
Sveiby KE (2001). What is knowledge management? Brisbane: Sveiby
Knowledge Associates.
Teodorescu HN, Jain LCK, Kandel A,Kacprzyk J (Eds.) (2001).
Hardware Implementation of Intelligent Systems. Springer Verlag.
Tschang T (2002). "Knowledge creation at sub-economy levels: A new
framework for innovative problem-solving processes". Grewal B., Xue
L, Sheehan P, Sun F (Eds.) China’s future in the knowledge
economy. Engaging the new world. Centre for Strategic Studies,
Victoria University, and Tsinghua University Press, Melbourne,
Beijing.
Vale M, Caldeira J (2007). "Proximity and knowledge governance in
localized production systems: the footwear industry in the north
region of Portugal", European Planning Studies 15/4 531-548.o.
Vallée R (1995). Cognition et Système / Essai d'Epistémo-Praxéologye,
L'Interdisciplinaire / Système (s), Limonest.
Whitley RD (2000). "The Institutional Structuring of Innovation
Strategies: Business Systems, Firm Types and Patterns of Technical
Change in Different Market Economies", Organizational Studies 21,
855-886.
Wiener N (1948). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the
Animal and the Machine, Hermann, Paris.
www.nd.
edu/research/research.../the-science-of-generosity.
Notre
Dame University, Indiana, US (2009).
Zadeh LA (1965). “Fuzzy sets”, I.E.E. Transactions of Information and
Control, 8, pp. 338-353.
Zadeh LA (1996). "Fuzzy logic – computing with words". IEEE Trans. on
Fuzzy Systems, 4 (2): 103-111.
Zadeh LA (1999). "From computing with numbers to computing with
words – From manipulation of measurements to manipulation of
perceptions". IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems - Pt I
Fundamental Theory and Applications, 45 (1):105-119.
Zadeh LA (2002). "Toward a perception based theory of probabilistic
reasoning with imprecise probabilities". J. of Statistical Planning and
Inference, 105, 233-264.