INDUCTIVE LOGICAL CONSTRUCTIONS - CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FOUR

EARTH – MAN – REASON

1. The moral-political chaos, called society, is in fact an extremely natural phenomenon. Is it morals and politicians that turn it into chaos then? This is an interesting question indeed, but it is not my intention to discuss morals, politicians or politicking when it is a question of moral/ethics. In this chapter we will try to do something entirely different, namely to consider the coexistence of human beings as/within a reasonable community, and the relationship between Homo sapiens and its environment.

Since society is our concern, we cannot possibly fail to refer to the historical development of sociology. We will do this with an eye on the sociologists’ conclusions regarding society’s attitude (a product of human culture and economy) to the individual as well as to matter, rather than on the authors of the conclusions. As regards society’s attitude to itself, we have already stated that morals, regardless of the causes of their emergence or the way they come into being, determine society’s attitude to itself. We have decided to refer to the social processes which are the result from this self-determination as unification of society. It harmonizes social relations with the social system or the active legislation. Over the centuries a number of philosophers have analyzed the social system and society’s attitude to it, as well as the unification of public relations and the government as a regulator of this unification. Different driving forces behind the above-mentioned relations have been pointed out in accordance with the types of the examined social systems: individuals in empires; good manners in religious societies; the exchange of goods and money in liberal societies; even separate philosophical systems in states with centralized power. No one, however, has ever considered the possibility that none of the above is the driving force behind humanity. No one has posed the following questions: ‘What is man?’, ‘What is a group of men?’, and ‘What is a group of men who act like one?’ In the first case the focus of the question is the constituent unit of society; in the second case it is the relations between the constituent units; in the third case it is the result of these relations. It is indisputable that society is strongly related to its constituent unit, namely the human being (assuming that we are discussing a human society). This has made certain thinkers identify the human being as the driving force behind public relations. However, the fact that a society cannot be governed by everyone, due to the simple reason that certain social layers desire to rule the rest, has made the individual the basis of society and its development. It is equally indisputable that the survival of society’s members plays an important part in determining the relations among them. This establishes the exchange of goods and money as the most important relations within the society. However, a society which has undergone the process of unification is not always the product of the above-mentioned social basics. From their point of view, it can emerge out of the blue. A striking example of that are religious societies. Monotheistic religions quickly come into being and as a rule do not undergo any changes. What is more, if any changes occur, they are accompanied by large-scale social cataclysms. However, we cannot possibly deny that the structure of governmental institutions such has not decided the form and content of the particular society.

These three social basic constituents, be it separately or in a difficult coexistence, for they are mutually exclusive, can be found in all sociological theories. What we are going to do now (and later claim to be an entirely new approach to the study of society) is not to consider causes and effects and wander where to place social phenomena, but establish mankind as a reasonable species in its capacity as an initial cause, a subject, an object, a driving force, a law and outcome of social relations. We will define ‘human intelligence and physique as an underlying principle of society’ as a basic concept within our whole scheme of inductive logic. In other words we will follow the same procedure as in the previous chapter – an apodictic synthesis of the working concept. Naturally, the synthesis will be greatly reduced, due to the accumulated experience in the sphere of social sciences in contrast to physics. This reduction, however, will affect the clarity, rather than the validity of our conclusions.

2 Let us now develop, but in a different form, the conclusions we reached in the previous chapter of this book. Our consideration of reason as a form of matter or just as matter, allows us to apply all of its laws and interactions to it. This is no longer a surprise because we have already referred to the laws of reason and matter in our study of brain activity and consequently in the model of matter. Therefore, if we once more apply the same laws to reason, it will distort our previous conclusions – fortunately, this does not pose a problem before our current synthesis. We query whether we can apply the laws of dead matter to public relations. This is already a missing link in our reasoning. We have examined reason as such and human reason, but we have not analyzed the relations between reasonable units, such as  public relations. We can support the last statement with great ease: if we subtract reason from public relations, we will get relations within dead matter. Therefore, reason is the cause of the emergence of those relations. Without it, there cannot be any public relations, and therefore a society.

However, reason can be at different stages of its development. From this it follows that depending on the level of development of the particular reason there will be different reasonable societies. This is only natural. The specificity of the particular reason determines its manifestations, be them related to matter, other known reasonable forms, or its likes. This demonstrates that we should add reason’s specific form to reason’s level of development, in order to improve our concept of reason’s types. So far, by establishing the peculiarities of Man as a reasonable species, we did something similar to defining ‘space’ and ‘dimension’ in physics, and set the framework within which we will examine society. However, there is a danger that we might neglect something of great importance related to this framework. The human being exists on planet Earth, i.e. in a particular environment and appropriate living conditions. The cycle of the seasons, the cycle of day and night, the succession of landscapes, sounds, etc. which we perceive as everyday occurrences – as natural as the oxygen we breathe - are in fact a set of living conditions which make man’s existence possible. A minimal change in those conditions could lead to serious alterations in the public relations we are concerned with. As a rule the unfavorable conditions foster the development of society and transform it into a more organized and reasonable form of life. The disharmony between Man and the environment is always followed by a process of harmonization between them.

As regards the first basic constituent of society, it turns out that we have discovered three basic elements which define it unequivocally and determine the rest of its elements such as reason/intellect, physical shape and the environment in which the human being can exist. From the point of view of control theory (with which I have no intention to acquaint the reader, for it is rather voluminous), if we consider Man as matter, possessing certain characteristics and peculiarities (i.e. if we assume that matter is what Man’s complex system is based on), it turns out that intellect (or reason), its physical form (or its material form and organization) and its environment are factors upsetting the system. At the time we were examining matter in contradistinction to reason we found it difficult to establish the underlying principle of this system (i.e. the principle which determines its behavior), which is called a ‘directing’ by Control theory. However, now that we have four components, which are sufficiently artificially defined in addition to our conclusion regarding the primary thing in the world, we can state with certainty what the underlying principle is and what the disturbing influences are. I have already stated my position that the concepts of good and evil are irrelevant to my theory. Therefore, the disturbing influences should be taken to mean an additional principle which has an adverse effect on the system. On the basis of this interpretation we can state that the elements, which define the human being as such in his capacity as a primary constituent of social relations, have a character which distinguishes them from the basic form of matter. Therefore, society and public relations are an alternative form of matter. In other words, their base is the alternativeness of Man, and they will form and develop on this basis. This is the reason why public relations do not perfectly correlate with the laws of matter – their base, or their underlying principle is alternativeness.

So far we have placed man in the middle of what is to become a society in our synthesis. The analogy with the flow of thought in physics is pretty obvious. Thus we can already define the basic social postulate: the basis of every society is some alternative to matter. Strictly speaking, the self same thing is an alternative to reason, too. In other words, the human being (i.e. reason clothed in a material body) is not reason proper. In fact, such a complex correlation between these two elements of society’s first basic constituent adds a third one - that of the environment. The problem in this is not that reason is an alternative to matter and vice versa, but that reason, being Man’ basic characteristic, is the reason why the underlying principle of society is an alternative to matter. Therefore, not only is society matter in reverse, but it is also has a twisted attitude to matter. This obviously means that the laws of matter are the laws of society, but they manifest themselves differently. The task of finding how would be considerably less difficult if we were dealing with a society of pure reason. Unfortunately, what we are dealing with is a complex conglomeration of reason and matter. This factor makes it impossible for formal logic to conduct the research, laborious for transcendental logic and perilous for inductive logic, due to the possible risk of poor identification. In this sense, public relations appear to be an interesting u-turn within the development of matter from unreasonable to reasonable matter.

The emergence of society from an alternative to matter, even in connection with its retroactive attitude to matter, is but an insignificant trouble. Society originates from the most alternative type of independent reasonable matter. This fact poses a serious challenge to inductive logic, for the discovery of the laws governing society is a difficult and dangerous task. It is for this reason that the term ‘society’ has appeared just now in my exposition, for if I had decided to introduce it before the presentation of the models of reason and matter, it would be nothing else but a poor and partial analysis, no different from the rest. Now the study of the origin and character of public/social relations is not only a well-founded, but also a natural expansion of our whole study of matter.

3. We are not going to offer the reader the same arguments we developed in the chapter devoted to physics, but related to society. What we are going to do is use the ready conclusion we have. Society’s first basic constituent, namely man determines the second primate, namely the exchange of goods and money. The diversity of the element of reason determines the diversity of public relations. In other words, at this point our study concerns the individuals within society. Their diversity and especially their contrary character sooner or later lead to unification of these relations into an imaginary common individual, which is in fact the third primate of society, that is to say a common system of public relations. The diversity of the conditions, under which the above-mentioned public relations is achieved, leads to a diversity of the systems of society, which - like with man - have contrary interests and objectives. This difference, unification, difference between unifications and therefore, unification between differences allows us to seek out the driving force or the laws of society among the laws of dead matter, which in fact has been the very essence of our study until now.

The analogy with the laws from ‘physics’ places the mono-corpuscle, hybridization, unification and regeneration alongside our scheme of inductive logic. Society’s mono-corpuscle is the human being – the reasonable and material person in the habitat of Earth. It is the difference between the mono-corpuscle and the fist principle of society that helped us establish the first postulate as such. It comprises two types of unification: unification of matter (when society perceives itself as a conglomeration of highly organized forms of matter; and unification of man (when it is defined as a sum of individuals). As regards society, the former unification is but a hybridization of itself in which society’ first primate alternative nature is compensated by an identity with matter. However, as a rule we will consider the latter unification a unification of society (i.e. a unification whose subject is man).

In fact, this is where the differences among religious societies are rooted. On the one hand, nature and the universe are the essence of Buddhism’s system of values. That is why the former type of unification can be observed in Buddhist societies. On the other hand, in Christian and Muslim societies Man, especially when he is deified, is pushed to the front. This is how we reach the latter unification. Now you understand why I claim that Buddhism is a system of values, rather than a religion. I am not going to lead you ‘in the path of righteousness’, for, on the one hand, if I did, I would abandon my philosophical standpoint, and on the other, we are about to prove that one of the two types of unification cannot be achieved on our planet. The whole idea is that religion is not a characteristic sign of society’s morals and values, but of society’s self-determination of its own status. What sociologist would think of religion as a valuable scientific source in his/her study? Unfortunately, it cannot play the same role in ours. The reason why we cannot use religion as a source is that we start our reasoning from a different point – the human being. It has turned out that an important process in man’s public relations is his unification. We have already established the fact that it has an alternative nature, which is rooted in its genesis. In this sense, no matter whether we consider the processes flowing in society as related to matter or Man, as a random hybridization or a particular unification, we will see that society, whose creator is Man, is always alternative by nature. This alternative nature could be (it even always is) related to Man himself, as regards his dual character – matter and reason in one. The complex relationship between matter and reason in man, which in most cases he thinks of as a binary opposition, is genetically determined in the human being. Therefore, whatever society or state is created by Man, by default it will always be the one of a pair of opposites. Thus we have arrived at another fundamental social principle, namely its constant and never-ending development. We shall formulate it as the second postulate of society: Society always creates contradictions. However, it is not a question of public and, in particular, financial relations, constituting the social system which has undergone the process of unification, but of contradictions created by the very type of the social system.

The following are some practical aspects of the phenomenon:

-          Every society regenerates. In other words, it always exports his social system and form of government to its adversaries. Id does so to impose its own type of unification on the rest, in order to minimize the risk of an adverse influence of the same kind. Such relations can be analyzed within the framework of a binary system – something we have already done with you. The above-mentioned export could be achieved in different forms: it could b an export of religion, basic goods, values, education, cultural wealth, etc.

-          Regeneration in itself is a process of unification. Not only can society export, but it can also import things. This is the reason why in different periods in history there have been numerous countries sharing almost identical forms of government.

-          Thus, regeneration, presented as a complex effect of unification, can appear to be rather different from our previous notion of it. It can comprise elements, such as social stratification, which are characteristic of its two varieties. In this case we are considering the question from a theoretical point of view, and unification acquires the status of a global process.

-          According to the second postulate, unification creates its own opposite within itself. It is particularly interesting when the above-mentioned opposite lies beyond the boundaries of the particular state. In this case the internal opposite concerns the entire governmental order. The issue of internal problems, however, should be addressed in detail. The opposites created by social unification are phenomena and processes which are in contradiction with the very essence of unification. Such are brigands in feudal and pre-feudal societies, bandits in police states, marauders in times of war, international terrorists in societies possessing global security systems. The above-mentioned are not just illegal phenomena. Terrorism is not ‘a demonstration of deranged and desperate people’. It is the other face of civilization. It is the other face of your new order, gentlemen prime ministers.

Along these lines the creation of a unified global system will provoke the outbreak of a world rebellion. That is why there should be many countries on our planet and people should be able to move freely from state to state     as they please.

-          If, due to human rights or some other reason, global unification turns out to be a problem and a necessity for humanity, we must admit that the solution to this problem lies beyond this planet, where the controversy of the new world order will be transferred. If there are no extraterrestrials, we should create them ourselves by simply colonizing the Moon for a start.

From our chronological approach to the processes flowing within a society, it has become clear that a direct corollary from the second postulate of society is that society carries out its expansion  regardless of the circumstances. Regeneration is a special case of expansion, in which only a part of the characteristics of unification are exported, whereas the expansion is an increase of all aspects of the concept of society. Therefore, if we consider the expansion on a larger scale, we will reach the conclusion that it is achieved only when society undergoes total unification. If we swap the places of the cause and effect above, we can state that the expansion of the human kind in the Solar system will only begin after the introduction of a common world order. Expansions are always carried out by the more powerful ones, as regards the underlying principle of the expansion, which in the case of society is Man. It is not a question of a more modern or better social system, or a better developed technological nation. ‘Progress’, which is nothing but a euphemism for ‘expansion’ is not inherently connected with technology. In other words, not always can the products of scientific research and technologies guarantee the achievement of the expansion. There is a real and hopefully estimated possibility that technology can destroy society. If we consider ‘progress’ as such, it can be understood only as the achievement of a harmonious relationship between Man and his environment (i.e. between Man and nature, the flora and fauna, and other reasonable species Man might meet in the future, Man himself and finally, the society Man will create). I am not going to pose the question whether technology could change the human being. As we have seen ourselves, they are inevitably related to it. However, has anyone ever asked themselves if radio waves don’t have a harmful influence on their brain activity? If the brain is one of the senses, don’t radio waves dull it? If harmony turns out to be society’s objective, then technology automatically becomes the means of achieving it, rather than a separate and ill-advised goal.

As regards the guarantee of achieving social tasks, it is logical that the social system should be completely manageable, i.e. that total unification is highly desirable. However, as regards the possibility that the above-mentioned tasks can be poorly defined, it is also desirable that there as many social systems as possible. If there were a small number of social systems, a global confrontation could break out for another time in our history. It is indisputable that the balance of power between the adversary systems will exclude large-scale cataclysms. However, it will also result in arresting the development of society. If this happens, even if one of the systems expands, it will lead but to the establishment of an old social system all over the world. In this way the necessity of diversity of social systems becomes apparent, and the one which provides its people with wellbeing and harmony should be established as a world order.

‘Ladies and gentlemen, on the left-hand side you can see the legendary continent Atlantis.’ It is obvious that at the current stage of development of human civilization this is impossible, due to big capital and the people who own it – they just cannot do anything else but amass it. What we were referred to above concerned the unification of matter but a liberal society can only carry out the unification of man. Only in Asia and in the Far East, unless the Mongoloid race conquers the world (which I esteem is not impossible even without the help of a calculator) there have been and will be societies in which the unification desired by us could be observed. And if there are people who think that this could happen because of the great numbers of Asian peoples, advanced technologies, military equipment or mass migration, they are grossly mistaken. I have just estimated the cost of living increase in the Asian countries and arrived at the conclusion that The Asian states will soon demonstrate a perfect system of government. This considered, what are the prospects for Europe and the USA? The Asian civilization is much older and for this reason old animosities between Asian countries are not easily forgotten. If I were in charge of the CIA, I would first sack every executive in charge of the Prognosis department, for their predictions inevitably turn out to be wrong in 50 years, and then I would advise the Senate to pamper North Korea as a beloved child. Unfortunately, this gross negligence on the part of the western world is already a fact. Engrossed by its victory over the socialist world, the capitalist world carelessly neglected the fact that the only country in Asia capable of controlling the region, namely China, had eliminated the last possibility for provoking civil unrest – Tibet. Well, I am not the one whose job it is to spot that field operatives from different intelligence agencies mostly deal in drugs in the region...

Well, I’d rather stop at this point before I have ruined someone’s sleep and go back to our study.

4. It has already become clear that the unification carried out by a society is related to its own vision of its origin – its self-determination in the light of its system of values. We should not just speak of unification but of many instances of unification which are the result of the constant development of man. If one insists that there is no difference between the people of the remote past and the people of today, they refer to the process of evolution and nothing else. In our study of society man as society’s first primate is made up of three elements. We can ignore its material form or even its environment, for it is sufficiently stable, but we cannot ignore Man’s reason, be it only because of the idea of rebirth. It only takes a fleeting comparison between the societies today and in the antiquity to realize how great the difference is. It should be noted that the exclusion of the scientific achievements and means of communication from the concept of society cannot provide one with a counter-argument. Therefore, the successive unifications of public relations are but a reflection of the development of man’s reason as a whole. This instantly supports the analogy between the development of society and the development of reason of which we have already made serious conclusions. Thus we can use previous arguments of ours such as the individual reason - reason – higher reason axis. The highest form of reason is the one whose logical scheme comprises itself, matter and that which might appear as an alternative in their relation. Therefore, the highest form of unification of reasonable beings’ public relations will be in harmony with matter (regardless of the fact that they have a physical form), reason and the current level of development of their own reason (i.e. its highest form or not). So far we have neglected the question whether man in his current physical form can progress to a higher level of reason. However, we can claim with certainty that man ca create the perfect society for himself regardless of the current level of development of his reason. The creation of a society of a higher order in contradicting his reason (or self-determination) will take a great amount of energy, time and even sacrifices. That is why its price will be very high and its preservation – a high priority task.

However, the present human society is based on the most alternative form of reasonable matter. Despite its millennial development, the unification, which will one day engulf the whole planet, will be but the most primitive form of society of reasonable individuals, i.e. it will be a unification of the same reasonable individuals. If man were considered as a material form and his harmonious coexistence with matter, the flora and fauna of the Earth were related to that unification, there would be greater progress. However, those would still be the most primitive forms of society. This considered, from the point of view of more reasonable beings than us and the higher social systems accompanying them, our civilization would be a serious threat to them. With the help of nothing else but our society we could easily plunge them back into the very beginning of their development, forcing them to repeat a journey much longer than we could possibly imagine. A state can fall much faster than it can be built and we should not be surprised that no alien ships ask permission to land on our airports.

Since we have arrived at the conclusion that the subject of our society’s unification is man and the highest form of society, apart from that of man as a representative of a particular type of reason (we are envisaging a human society after all), is reason as such, matter and the alternative other, it follows that matter increases its balancing power with each other unification. The extraordinary similarity between the development of society and reason demonstrates that intelligence is a basic element of public relations, and no matter what the reasonable species forming a society are, its development and scheme will be the same as those of man. If this be so, what are the differences between the development of reason and its society? It would be silly if we allowed ourselves to be hindered by terminology like some old professors teaching law. In other words, it would be unnecessary to explain that society is relations among different reasonable species which have a particular subject. Well, reason’s subject remains the same. However, we are going to consider things on a wider basis as a relation between the subject and the concept of society within our scheme of inductive logic. We convinced ourselves that this is neither rationalism nor tautology a long time ago. The subject of reason and society is one and the same, namely matter. Its role in the development of reason can be traced in the model of matter which reason constructs and in reason’s relation to it. As far as society is concerned, it is the achievement of harmony between man (in this particular case) and his environment. We shall prove that such a move is natural for reason, whereas it is a common accidental feature for man. It seems I have not yet acquainted the reader with the law of common accidental feature. I haven’t, because it refers only to humanity or a similar formation which cannot have any points of contact with it. It is for this reason that this law has not found a place in our exposition so far. The law reads: The universe is relative, depending on the amount of reason in it. The extent to which a reasonable form can reach the universe is the most universal thing for that form. However, from the point of view of the universe this is a special sphere of knowledge. (From the point of view of the specific there is a common specific feature, whereas from the point of view of the common there is a common accidental feature.) It is important in this case that it is not a question of material limitations, such as the four-dimensional space we live in, but of reasonable models as the one of the various dimensions of time. Therefore, this law belongs to inductive logic – the individualization of a reason’s scheme of logic determines its common specific feature. In view of the fact that the development of reason never stops, it is natural that this common specific feature will increase its volume, and if it is a question of reason in general, it turns into a common feature. However, let us go back to society. If we exclude matter as the initial cause of society, it turns out that the physical form of man and his environment are factors upsetting reason, i.e. its common specific feature. What have we done? Now that we have excluded matter as a cause from our basic scheme of society, we see that matter is an upsetting factor and one of the laws of society. It would be more precisely put to say that matter is a regulator of public relations. In this case we have simplified our scheme by adapting it to the binary scheme of reason versus matter, but in a different shape and in a direct relation to society. We have done all this to establish the influence of matter on human society.

If we assume that the dependence on matter is weakened with the higher reasonable species (considering the relations between man and matter, and between animals and matter respectively), we can state that the process of unification of matter with the higher reasonable species should be considered irrelevant – contrary to everything that has been said so far. It is the first time in this book that I can demonstrate a conflict between two inductive logical constructions within one scheme of logic. There should be no doubt at all about the outcome of this conflict. But what is the nature of the conflict? Is it always about one and the same thing? In the first case, drawing on matter and with the help of our arguments from the chapter on physics, we established matter as the base of society and thus arrived at the conclusion that it is a legislator to and a subject of society’s development. I other words we arrived at the conclusion that the laws of matter are laws of society as well. In the second case we established intelligence as the most basic among the basic constituents of society (i.e. as its cause) and arrived at the conclusion that its development should be similar to that of reason. From this it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in the subject and therefore, it should be sought out in the interpretation of the concept. This is indisputable that the higher reasonable species are less dependent on matter (i.e. their connection with matter is weakened), but this does not mean that matter in its capacity of a balancing element in the creation of society is gradually disappearing. It is the other way round – if a higher reason than our own does not have the same form as ours, matter as a balancing element will work with increasing difficulty in tits society despite its more common accidental feature in its logical model. The contrary would entail the creation of an inferior society, dominated by its reasonable individuals, by a higher reason. In this case we can draw an analogy with the nonexistence of the particles which accompany imprecise unification – reason enhances matter in the creation of its society until a balance of public relations is achieved. Now it is already clear why society is a return of reason to matter. The physical explanation of this phenomenon is hidden in public relations. Within one and the same type of reason there are always species which are more or less reasonable than the rest. This state of affairs can be compared to the hybridizations of matter. The differences between them can be found in matter. Figuratively speaking, if we subtract one species’ reason from another, the result will equal lack of reason, i.e. matter (material nature). Using the same logic, we can arrive at e result which equals reason, but this is only an example and furthermore, we should never forget that matter is the basic substance in the universe. We, thus, arrive at the conclusion that the reasonable differentiation of the individuals within a society determines the level of public relations and of social system within the framework of the particular type of reason and its common accidental feature as a society. What an irony - this in turn means that a society of genius people is in fact the lowest form of society. If this were so, there would nor be any public relations. Some could even think that stupidity is what forms a society. On the contrary - it is never changing and what determines the level of the social system is nothing else but reason itself.

This return to matter creates really favorable conditions for man. He does not have to create matter as a regulator of his public relations, for matter is all around him and even inside him. That compensating action of matter will be minimal, but if man does not succeed in creating the highest order of society, this will only suggest that his reasonableness is small – not represented by his consciousness, his system of values or his ability to differentiate reasonably, but as the level of matter which it represents as a reasonable formation.

5. On the basis of the conclusions we have drawn so far, we can state that since the development of reason is a slow process from the point of view of reason itself, its society plays the part of a balancing tool I its relation to matter. On these grounds we an ay that society, being a slow and inert formation, can impede the development of reason. However, since reason is the cause of public relations, it follows that society can impede its own development. The development of reason will always lead to a change in the public relations, and if they, being the second basic constituent of society, do not match the third one, i.e. the social system, this will result in a conflict between them, whose only outcome could be a progress to a higher order of the system, for reason cannot reverse its own development. Thus, in practice, our study has denied the definitive role of financial relations in the development of society. It is true that they are one of the causes of society’s development, and the social system follows them without a question, but they are preceded by production, it is in turn preceded by VAT, it follows technology, and at the heart of all this is reason. It is but the development of reason, its usefulness and purposeful implementation that determine financial relations. Only joking, we are considering the world prior to the Adam and Eve’s appearance on the scene. The sense of our study of society is in establishing reason as a form of matter as the basis of all manifestations of public relations.

But let us go back to the balancing role of matter. What exactly is brought to balance by society? On the one hand, there are reasonable individuals which enter into relations due to certain reasons. These relations undergo the process of unification and become a unified social system. It is for this reason that they are called ‘social relations’. On the other hand, there is a persistently unstable (due to its being different) state of matter in the form of reason. From this it follows hard upon that society, being reason’s return to matter, balances the above-mentioned difference. However, from the point of view of the fact that reason is a copy of matter, it turns out that matter regulates or balances itself. From the point of view of matter it is indeed so, but from the point of view of reason thing look other wise. The problem lies in establishing the difference between matter and reason. We shall solve it in the following way: if we examine the highest form of reason which has constructed its own logical model, identical to the laws of matter, we will find out that a society of such forms of reason is impossible because they will in fact be one and the same reason. Since matter is one and only (as we proved in ‘physics’), the highest reason will possess one and the same logical scheme, namely the scheme of matter’s laws. Therefore, if we envisage reasonable species of a lower order, the fact that reason’s scheme of logic is identical to matter cannot be considered the reason why the social system should be brought to balance. The only thing we are left with, then, is that part of its logical scheme which is not related to the laws of matter, i.e. its alternative nature. Society is the regulator of reason’s alternative nature as related to matter. If this be so, society is not just a return, but an alternative return of reason to matter.

Within the system of dialectics this state of things is expressed by the concept of the ‘excluded third’, which is the system’s greatest weakness. Although genius minds such as Hegel have analyzed this ‘excluded third’, they could not arrive at the conclusion that it distorts the very system of dialectics into something else. In view of the fact that this problem will be dealt with in the following chapter, we will go back to our exploration of society. Along these lines, as regards society, the alternativeness of reason plays the part of the included third. That is why it is not a question of a dialectical approach to society, of including or excluding anything, but of the relations between that third element and the other two elements of the correlation. At first sight reason’s alternativeness excludes the possibility that the laws of matter are the laws of society, due to the fact that society is what balances out alternativeness. However, taking into consideration what has already been pointed out in relation to the previous clash of conclusions within our scheme of inductive logic, we can conclude that society only repeats the peculiarities of reason’s attitude towards matter, a part of which is alternativeness. We have thus arrived at another important feature of society and social relations, namely that besides the laws of mater, society comprises the logical schemes of reason. Therefore, from reason’s point of view its alternativeness is the included third in the contradictory relations between matter and itself. This is the reason why the laws of social relations are so hard to define as a concrete phenomenon. Whereas it is relatively easy to define the alternative logical constructions within a specific scheme of logic, it would be very difficult to establish the common alternativeness, and even more difficult to establish the unified common alternativeness of human reason. Figuratively speaking, it would be the same as finding out where everybody is wrong, us included. We can only reach a particular stage, and although we claim that e are in an advanced stage in our study, we can never abandon our character to discover what we cannot discover by default. This, however, can hardly be the reason why we cannot build the most developed form of human society. However, one should not forger that this process will be a long and laborious one.

It is high time that the true real reasons for the existence of society, namely matter and reason as an independent form of matter, became the basis for the social sciences. The reader might have noticed that we have not referred to politics, diplomacy, international relations, etc. The reason is that everything one needs to know about politology can be found in Isaac Asimov’s works. If the reader reads his ‘Foundation’, they will know everything on the subject.

6. The inability of human reason to reach beyond its common accidental feature puts limits on the society created by reason. If we add this consideration to the potential necessity of unification of the planet’s social systems and the accompanying it expansion into the solar system, we will conclude that this process will inevitably be hindered by the law level of development of our reason at some point in the future. I am not trying to reverse the positions of the cause and effect or the development of reason and social relations. If the process of unification is completed all over the planet in the next 500 years, but due to certain reasons humanity does not achieve its expansion into the solar system in order to export the opposite of its own unified social system, a global guerrilla war among the old social systems will break out and threaten the whole human civilization. Due to this and other less important reasons, it can be argued that the creation of artificial intelligence will be considered a real necessity in the future. However, the AI mentioned above will not be a product of the contemporary incomplete and artificial logical models and the already existing technology. That is why I this book we offer a completely new and practicable logical model of brain activity which is applicable to every type of reason. If this model is deployed in the already existing computer technology, its efficiency will equal zero because its speed will become exponentially smaller with every other logical units of memory. On the other hand, if the model of inductive logic is applicable to every type of reason, its loading into an artificial medium will be particularly advantageous to the human race. First, artificial intelligence will expand the common accidental feature of human reason, for it will be a part of it as its product. Second, it will prepare humanity for a meeting with another expanding intelligence. Third, artificial intelligence can turn out to be a valuable logical source in view of the weakening of the individualization of its scheme of inductive logic. It is this last feature that can establish it in different spheres of knowledge such as science, technology, innovative managerial decisions, e.g. in space projects, etc. In fact, discussing the applicability of artificial intelligence would be the same as discussing the applicability of electricity a hundred years ago. In a word – it is universally applicable. I am not going to argue if man will become dependent on AI, for it is irrelevant to my philosophy. The question is to what extent is man dependent on his progress. If there is some danger, it lies in the ready use of the logical scheme of AI; something we have already discoursed on in our exploration of the problems related to education.

As regards the connection between AI and the expansion of society, I must say that it will be neither direct nor obvious. As a rule, the development of human society is a consequence of the development of human intelligence, and is in close relation to the differentiation of reason of the human kind. Therefore, in the development of space projects and in collisions with other civilizations, the part of AI as a logical source and as an alternative and more widely embracing logical model, when compared to the one of humanity, will be more significant and apparent. These are, in fact, its most significant manifestations as a natural and inevitable stage in the development of human reason, which, in its capacity as a basic element of society, will exact from AI a level of intelligence which is higher than its own, for AI will not comprise the differentiation of intelligence of human reason, and for this reason it can only be used as a logical source. AI can also leave the beaten track of reason’s development, for it is not reason proper – its logical schemes will not be the outcome of the evolution of reason, but an upload in its machine memory. That is why the fine tuning of these schemes should be considered a top priority in such an experiment, in order to prevent the distortion of its logical scheme, its development and finally the universal truth it will arrive at. The result will be a random logical model rather than AI useful to humanity. On the other hand, it is senseless to create something which in turn will create only the laws of its logical scheme because this has already been achieved by evolution itself. However, we have seen firm the exposition that the scheme of inductive logic possesses an internal corrective link which will at last turn out to be the factor preventing the distortion of the development of AI, should it be uploaded successfully in an artificial carrier. If we put aside the criteria which Control theory applies to establish the properties of a system, AI’s speed could be accepted as an indicator of a successful development. As we already know, in the beginning the speed is low and unsatisfactory. With the increase of memory and the links between the memory’s elements, the number of correlations between the memory’s elements will increase, i.e. more elements will be included in the network of correlations within a single logical outcome in the scheme of logic. This means that the speed as well as the amount of memory included in a single logical outcome will increase. At this point we must point out that we are not envisaging the speed of retroactive attitude to the old logical configuration, but the speed of creating a new and easily identifiable logical element. In other words, we are examining the speed of hybridization rather than the speed of the unification of the logical scheme in relation to the new logical element within it. (It should be noted that total surveillance could be achieved if the speed of error analysis is registered, but since we are not going to offer a model of the above-mentioned action in the present work, we will concentrate on the speed of hybridization as a positive indicator, since the omissions made during surveillance can be spotted with ease. The method of error analysis is applicable in the cases when a machine monitors another machine (in a more advanced stage we could draw an analogy with pedagogy). The moment when AI achieves the common accidental feature of human reason, it will determine the differentiation of intelligence, which in turn qualitatively determines the level of development of human society. At this point film fans would probably ask if a computer will rule the world. The answer is obviously in the negative. That ‘computer’ will only be an element of the first basic constituent of society. Human society will remain human. AI cannot possibly integrate itself into social relations or impose its own system of government. Its value lies in that that it will not have the second and third elements of the basic constituent of the human being, namely the material form and the living conditions (i.e. the environment). For these reasons, despite its ‘more’ common specific feature and its impact on humanity and its interactions, AI will remain but a source of logic which has a particular practicability, i.e. it will remain AI and nothing else.


Next