Addressing the scientific community – the Biocosmology Initiative

Addressing the scientific community – the Biocosmology Initiative

(Accepted at the 22nd International Symposium on Biocosmology; as part of the 7th International Conference on Globalism, Moscow State University, 15–18 June 2021)


A century ago, Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863–1945) raised the issue of introducing new cosmological foundations into science. He argued as follows: “It took many years before I realized (in the mid-30’s) the backwardness of philosophy (in its global scope) at the historical moment we are experiencing in the life of mankind… It stands in essence on grounds of the 17th century, unaware of the impossibility to grasp new phenomena with ‘old bellows’ …” (taken from the scientist’s book Philosophical Thoughts of a Naturalist (Filosofskie mysli naturalista) [M., 1988. P. 237]). There is no doubt (in view of the current global crisis) : the time has actually come for the scientific community to reconsider the supremacy of the 17th century’s cosmological (basic scientific and cultural) foundations; but instead to take as a basis the new foundational principles for the scientific and cultural activities produced by the Anthropocene, man and society in the 21st century.

At the 22nd International Symposium on Biocosmology (22ISBC), held as part of the 7th International Conference on Global Studies (organized at MSU, June 2021); and by virtue of consistent preparatory efforts and contributions of the Biocosmological Association’s (BCA) scholars – into the realization of the needed scientific basis and the sought-for (Biocosmological) path of scientific evolvement : the conditions have matured here for launching the Biocosmology Initiative (through Addressing the scientific community). The main challenge for the Biocosmology Initiative is about undertaking the decisive U-turn shift with regard to contemporary (of the 21st century) scientific knowledge, based on the recognition and actualizing (in scientific theory and practice) the universal Triadic (Triune – Triadological) nature and essence of scientific and philosophical (rational) pursuits and results (successes).


Basic Principles of the Biocosmological Approach. The Biocosmological approach first argues that the real world is a Single (one whole) natural Dynamic Living Biocosmos. In this world every physical (from physis – Greek Φύσις; and the title of Aristotle’s work Physica) : every physical subject[1], from physical fields and energies, to a particle, atom, molecule, bacterium, subject of plant, animal and sociocultural (human) worlds; in Vernadsky’s approach: the stratums of Geo-, Bio-, Socio– and Noosphere – wherein every physical subject is naturally subordinated (subject to) and follows the single (universal, timeless and omnipresent) laws (fundamental principles):

-the Dynamic (Hylemorphist and Entelechist) coherent oneness of a subject : its Organicist active-evolutionary Selfexistence and Selfchangeability – in the ontogenetic process of the subject’s Selfascending evolvement (in the complexity of organization – within the surrounding Biocosmos); which is realized through the inherent (to any natural-cosmist subject) inner entelechist powers-potentials;

-Bipolarity : unchanging existence of two opposing centers (poles) of the integral life organization in a subject;

-Triadicity – in the Triune: the poles are united into an integral life organization through an essential and unchanging (homeostatic) center, the only one capable of interacting synchronously with both poles;

-Circular Cyclicism : dynamic natural alternating dominance (poles and center) in the organization of a subject’s holistic life a subject’s coherent life;

-Quaternity (Four-sidedness) : essential (necessary) simultaneous activity of both poles; and, under the influence of their dominant organization – two cycles in the subject’s circadian life activity (as in a physiological analogy – with the circadian cycles of “sleep” and “wakefulness”);

-Pentavalence : the inherent importance of the Center – in the existence of a subject’s life poles and the circular realization of all its life cycles (thus, of all five essential and independent in their organization elements);

-The ontogenetic finitude (of a subject’s life course);

-Functionalist inherent Heterogeneity and the dynamic Hierarchy – in the general order of the wholesome, naturally coherent Selfascending (in the complexity of organization) evolutionary (ontogenetic) life organization of a subject.

On the national (civilizational) nature of science. 150 years ago (with an outline in the work “Russia and Europe” published in 1871): N.Ya. Danilevsky, in his theory of the world civilizational evolvement – here the scientist substantiated the essential self-consistent importance (for the world) of the Russian civilization; and proclaimed its rapid phenomenal evolvement in the cultural and social sphere, with reliance primarily on scientific development. The great scientist’s prediction was fully justified : the Organicist civilizational essence of the Russian social organism was formed both in terms of social and economic development, and in terms of the formation of the inherent scientific (naturalistic – Organicist) tradition : with its schools of “Russian” cosmism, Organicism, cyclism, pulsationism, functionalism; and, as substantiated in BCnA[2]-publications [2020 – DOI: 10.24411/2225-1820-2020-00006] – with the highlighted ‘Russian school of civilization studies’; wherein the importance of the ‘big five’ of outstanding scholars (N.Y. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, V.I. Vernadsky, P.A. Sorokin, L.N. Gumilev)[3] is emphasized.

First of all, as Danilevsky established a century and a half ago: the sociocultural (therefore – including scientific) world cannot be monolithic, uniform and homogeneous (unified for all); but is naturally heterogeneous (non-uniform), and which ultimately has a purely national (civilizational) essence; because it possesses its own (natural) cultural-historical type,   and the latter (in each individual instance) – leads the civilizational subject to realizing and actualizing its inherent mission and place in the world evolvement. The fact that Anglo-Saxon (dominant, in general – in the West) civilization has succeeded (since the 17th century) both in imposing on the entire global world an exclusive commitment to Transcendentalist (Dualist) cosmology, and in forcing scientists to unquestioningly adhere to it – is a striking confirmation of this.

In other words, the results of one-nation (civilization) dominance have manifested themselves in a sharp (radical) adherence to a unified Transcendentalist cosmology that enables the ideal-abstract (mathematical) conditions and possibilities of human consciousness’s successful confrontation with the external (admittedly Chaotic) material world-cosmos (that, following Plato, is taken in the modern academic community to mean an essentially aimless “physicalist” world); and which exists both for its anthropocentric idealistic “re-creation” and (primarily) for the subordination of its natural forces (potencies) to human consciousness. Radically – all this is possible exclusively on conditions of unquestioning obedience of scientific thought to appropriate (Transcendentalist cosmological) scientific foundational principles of (objective and positive, mathematical-physicalist) knowledge of the real world; while these fundamental scientific principles (and “scientific method” in general) were put forward and accepted as back as in the seventeenth (17th – !) century.

The Bipolar nature of scientific knowledge. In turn, as far back as Ecclesiastes stated : there is “a time to scatter stones, and a time to gather stones – everything in its own time”. There is no doubt that the age of analytical (the mathematical-physicalist) knowledge was (and still is) absolutely essential. But, due to the natural cyclicality in the evolvement of the world : presently, in the twenty-first century, when the Integralist sociocultural era is inescapable, and which naturally comes into its own (as Pitirim Sorokin justified this, 80 years ago, with the publication of his four-volume Social and Cultural Dynamics, in 1941,[4] which promulgated his Triadological civilization theory) – Integralism equally requires an understanding of both poles of scientific knowledge; because it equally uses (integrates) their powers and means to produce true Integralist cultural knowledge. In this light, the biocosmological ideas expressed by Alfred N. Whitehead, in his book Process and Reality (and who was a colleague of Sorokin at Harvard University, but worked at the philosophy department), are also important.

The gist is that scientific knowledge is naturally Bipolar : i.e. scientific knowledge always contains two polar (and incompatible with each other directly) – opposing (to each other) scientific approaches; but which are equally essential for integral (Triune – comprehensive) true rational (scientific and philosophical) knowledge. However, each of the three types of scientific knowledge (Transcendentalist, Organicist, and Integralist) is able to cognizing the real world only in the realm of its potential capabilities. Thus, the modern dominant (or even dictating) Dualistic (of objective, mathematical-physicalist cognition) science, that is enrooted in the Transcendentalist (opposition of human consciousness to the physical world) pole of worldview – this science establishes grounds and conditions that completely remove (exclude, cross out) from scientific inquiry the natural-scientific significance of the (Bio)cosmic telic-driven (purpose-oriented) causes and acting (in a subject – from within) forces.

As a result, within the Transcendentalist science : here, the subject’s (internal Dynamic) telic causes-forces of the subject are removed and are not allowed (forbidden) to be studied, and banned from application; but only objective (positivist) external data and analytical (and of artificial construction) knowledge are allowed to be studied and applied, ultimately demanded for their use by human consciousness (and which, on a fundamental level – is recognized in Western science as a homogeneous and uniform substance) – for their mathematical-physicalist and constructive applications (of the gained objective knowledge). In turn, what is essential : here (in Transcendentalism) the natural purposeful behavior of natural subjects is not denied, but is taken for granted (without proof; as a given; as a matter of course). Similarly, and herein lies the key point : the polar (opposite to Transcendentalist) – Organicist science, but already in relation to objective data (empirically revealed and reliable, after their experimental and mathematical-analytical processing) : the latter uses these objective data with necessity (although they are mined precisely by modern global – Dualist positive science).

Organicist pole of scientific activity – of the Dynamic Entelechist Naturalism. Thus, Organicist science does exactly the same thing as Transcendentalist Science, however with the opposite meaning : addressing these (objective) data as to the reliable information required for any naturalistic research; but taking them for granted (as a matter of course) in already “a given”– in a ready valid empirical meaning (originally existing, though recently discovered in Dualist studies) : essentially ready for carrying out a direct full (without the artificial framework of experimentation) mode of understanding the subject’s life activity, in the natural environment and its living conditions. In other words, in the Organicist approach, the subject under study initially (and without ceasing) cosmologically belongs originally to the Biocosmist real world : and all the subjects of this (living and Selfevolving) world naturally possess the inherent properties of natural Dynamism – Telos[5]-(Teleo –directed at the purpose-result)-moveability of a subject, aimed at achieving the essential (inalienable) life results-achievements, and (in general) – realizing the subject’s inherent route of ontogenetic Selfevolvement (and which is integrated into the coherent evolving world around the subject); and what a scholar-Organicist (basing on all relevant empirical and objective facts) necessarily and definitely elucidates on his or her way to knowing the Entelechist and Hylemorphist physical essence of the studied subject; and, hence – of all its/her/his related inherent qualities and features.

Altogether, the Organicist approach essentially uses objective data (of a mathematical-physicalist essence, derived through Dualist experiments and mathematical procedures), but which is already perceived as “a given” – the natural inherent properties of a subject under study : already in the mode of the direct (immediate, immanent, synchronistic) study of the natural subject that belongs to the one whole Dynamic Bipolar Cyclic-Triadic (Triune) Selfevolving natural (Kosmic) real world.

In this light the key point concerning the Organicist Type of scientific activity becomes clear: the latter (Organicist naturalistic science) equates in rights all the Three Types of scientific knowledge. That is to say, Organicism disclaims the priority of using only the Dualist approach (thus, the disapproval-nonrecognition of the other Two Types of knowledge) : that is where (in Dualism) the position of a scientist (observer) is fundamentally Without – in opposition to Nature-Physis); and when the artificial (unnatural), abstract (Anthropocentristic) idealistic mathematical methods of analysis have absolute priority in understanding and the scientific knowledge. Furthermore, Organicism takes into account that objective (experimental) data is purely Static in nature (and that excludes the natural dynamics of natural subjects). The reason for the latter is obvious : the whole point is that the physical subject under study (in the course of experiment) is alienated from its own dynamics (nature) – for, all the objective (external) data about it are obtained by an artificial experiment; i.e. by man-made separation of the subject from its/her/his natural ingenerate (essential to life) environment, integrated into a coherent world evolutionary movement (EvoProcess). Therefore, in spite of phenomenal successes in in-depth scientific knowledge of the material world and outstanding technological progress : but the Transcendentalist science of-today (with its foundations in mathematical physicalism) – this Type of science disallows and excludes from scientific search (and cannot but exclude), in principle, the work of purposeful-telic (upon telos – for inherent and useful for EvoProcess results) natural inherent causes-forces, in each subject of real world.

The latter directly implements the prohibition (in modern science; and what makes a huge blockade and imbalance in its natural evolvement) – the taboo on the study of natural forces that operate from within; and which determine the effective wholesome – AnthropoKosmist results of activity in every subject of living Nature (and when all this is going on the basis of the natural-scientific laws). Stated differently, the Transcendentalist Type of science (in its, as of today, achieved dominance in the sphere of rational knowledge – in fact, which is of the extreme superiority, in its utter domination and monopolistic authoritarianism) : the current state of world science makes it fundamentally impossible (for any Dualist scholar; i.e. any modern Western scientist) – to investigate and discover in any subject of the natural world (primarily, in man and society) its/her/his inherent naturalistic (natural-scientific) ontogenetic Dynamics of life activity. As a matter of fact, the latest Transcendentalism (in science) completely deprives a scientist of the ability to understand the Organicist approaches, as well of the opportunity to rise naturalistic issues to the study. In other words, now, under the Dualist conditions in science, so crucially prevalent in the present world culture – all the Organicist (of Dynamic naturalism) scopes, aims and topics (for exploration) – all this as inevitably elude the attention of a scholar-dualist, as is directly inaccessible to him.

Paradoxically, the same thing was asserted by Francis Bacon, in 1620, in his famous Novum Organum : but in exactly the opposite direction; precisely on the promotion of a new Transcendentalism – mathematical physicalism in modern science; and that, on a cosmological scale, and in line with the historical formation of the New Age – which then required the overthrow of Aristotle and his OrganonCosmology. In any case, the conclusion of the genius of science was: “For truth is rightly called the daughter of time and not of authority. Therefore, it is no wonder if the spell of antiquity, of authors and of consent has so shackled men’s courage that (as if bewitched) they have been unable to get close to things themselves.” [Bacon, 2000, p.69] In turn, the main law of history is its cyclicality….

With that, as becomes clear from the position of Biocosmology (and what is of cornerstone importance) : both polar scientific approaches (Transcendentalist and Organicist) are equally essential for the integral success of rational knowledge (scientific and philosophical). However, the latter becomes possible only through the recognizing and applying an autonomic Third (but First, in importance) – the Integralist Type of scientific knowledge that relies on its own cosmological foundations, but which studies subjects in their full integral (wholesome) scope, as the Systemic, of Complex knowledge, Holistic and Biocosmological approaches do (in the latter respect, since Biocosmology – Bio-logically – naturally covers all the Three Types of rational-scientific knowledge).

Type of Integralist basis that realizes the (Triadological) synergy of both polar types of scholarly activity. No less essential, as far as the Integralist knowledge is concerned, is that the latter, and since it does not have its own polarity – consequently, Integralism is incapable, in principle, of possessing and using its own primary (comprehensive) conceptual matrix foundation (which is the case with polar cosmologies; as, for instance, in Platonism or Aristotelism). Consequently, in a significant way – all manifold cosmologies of the Integralism (and their conceptual foundations and conceptual systems, and any scientific Integralist knowledge) are capable of knowing and explaining the real (natural) world solely through the essential integration of the grounds and means from both polar Types of knowledge (as, for example, the realization of systemic knowledge is impossible without recognizing the purposefulness (teleology) in each of the constituent elements-organs of a system).

In turn, each Integralist approach finds itself compelled to obtain its main (among the Two Poles – cosmological comprehensive) contemporary conceptual matrix basis – corresponding to one of the two polar Types of knowledge: either Dualist-binary – Static; or Organicist-ternary – of the Dynamic naturalism. The latter is essential – to gain the cosmologically basic conceptual structures and terminological resources for building and the scientific expression of one’s own comprehensive (Integralist) conceptual system. Thus, the aforementioned systems approach, which describes natural systems as already established integrated entities (i.e. no longer possessing the inner potential for Selfevolvement) – this scientific approach is inevitably based on the foundations of Transcendentalist (Anthropocentrist) cosmology and its fundamental principles and terminologies (aetiological, epistemological, methodological, anthropological, etc.), which currently are inherent precisely to the global (Anglo-Saxon) worldview and world-attitude (Type of mentality-mindset) and scientific practice.

The essence of the Biocosmology Initiative. Then, summarizing the above, and what is the essence of the Biocosmological Initiative – this Address reveals that scientists around the world can (and should) generate and maintain an equal awareness of both poles of rational (scientific) knowledge : as of the currently dominating Transcendentalist (Dualist – Static, mathematical-physicalist) – acting Top-Down and against Nature (Platonic, in terms of cosmology); as of the forgotten Organicist – of Selfascending (Bottom-Up and together with Nature) – physical (naturalist) evolutionary organization of the world, in this correlating with the Aristotelian Dynamic naturalism. In the light of the above it becomes clear the crucial significance of the intermediate (medial, and interconnecting the poles) but autonomous, basic and pivotal Integralist knowledge (that unites the poles). Essentially, Integralist knowledge itself is organized into the 2 types : and which, in relation to the chosen (at one pole) cosmological conceptual matrix basis (thereby, each, generating its inherent polar cosmological orientation vector) – they naturally become oppositely directed in relation to each other. Then the first (of the Two) fundamental (polar) course immediately is represented by a modern systemic and complex knowledge, which have the main vector facing the pole of Transcendentalism (Dualism, Anthropocentrism, and Mathematical physicalism); and wherein the world is basically seen as eternally Static (organized in Top-Down order), but continuously monolinearly progressive; i.e. as the eternal world of Western (Platonism-based) social order; respectively, with the domination of the Anthropocentrist scientific-cultural foundations ‘from the 17th century on’.

On the contrary, opting for the opposite – the Organicist conceptual matrix basis; i.e. the second fundamental course of Integralism : this is precisely the AnthropoKosmist vector; essentially of the Biocosmological evolvement and knowledge. The latter, first of all relies on the naturalist viewing of a Selfevolving wholesome world : that is Purpose-Result-oriented (of the Dynamic Functionalist essence) – Organicist (of life world – Biocosmos subjects’) Bottom-Up Selfmovement towards the goals of a new (of higher complexity) wholesome, mutually beneficial organization; in the natural process of evolutionary Selfgrowth and becoming (emergence) of the real world. It is essential that this intentionality and Selfascendance of the living world subjects fully corresponds as to tradition (such as Lao Tzu’s idea of “Three gives birth to all things”), as to the contemporary great Chinese cultural project for the 21st century. The essence of this project is the building of a peaceful Community of Common Destiny and achieving the co-evolutionary unity of man and natural life for the Whole of mankind.

The main thing in the Biocosmology Initiative is the reorientation of the main vector of scientific activity – to the pole of Organicism (Dynamic Entelechist naturalism, AnthropoKosmism, the Noosphere coherent organization of natural, world evolutionary processes). The basis of the Biocosmological Initiative relies on the recognition of the universal (physical) reality of the living (natural living) subject world. The concept of Biocosmos is deeply consonant with both the Indian Upanishads and the ancient Chinese classical “Book of Changes”. The latter states that “the essence of change lies in the intergenerational succession of life” : both of Nature and the Kosmos as a whole; and of each subject of this Biocosmos – from a free microparticle to a free (autonomic) man and society-civilization, and humanity as a whole. This is where each free (ready for effective activity) physical subject is a functional organ (Organon)[6] of the one whole Selfmovable world-Biocosmos (EvoProcess) : and which universally realizes itself on the foundations of natural Bipolarity and dynamic Triadicity (and other laws of the Biocosmos). In the end, in this Biocosmos : each subject realizes its own (autonomous) telic (Entelechist) ontogenesis (its life path) of inherent Selfascending (in complexity of organization) evolvement – with the ultimate exercise of a unique Functionalist (wholesome) contribution to the common EvoProcess.

Scientific knowledge, in the Biocosmological approach, is naturally considered in its integral unity – the Triunity (consequently, Triadology). In concrete terms then : the essence of the Initiative is to promote (with urgency) the Biocosmological approach as a new form of Integralist knowledge, which undertakes a complete vector Integralist reversal (U-turn) towards the pole and foundations of the Organicist Type of rational (scientific and philosophical) knowledge. In analogy (an essential metaphor) : like this corresponds to the awakening of a subject (a man, for example); his transition from the processes (cycle) of Sleep – to the cycle (processes) of Wakefulness.

Therefore, the main thing in the Biocosmological Initiative (for realizing the Biocosmological scientific approach) : the most important thing here is its orientation in a purely Organicist vector (in contrast, for example, to the established System Approach) – i.e. this is the new vector, in principle, that organizes itself directly on the Organicist (naturalistic) foundations and conceptual constructs; and where, fundamentally and crucially, it is already using for the work its own adequate contemporary scientific-terminological apparatus – that of the Organicist Type of scientific knowledge. Naturally, in this general (Organicist, in demand) vector of the Biocosmological scientific development : the mathematical support of the necessary scientific efforts (but which is now substantively neo-AristotelianTelic-Result-organized) – plays an essential role. Modern sprouts of the “new” mathematics, for example, are found in the works of L.A. Rastrigin, N.N. Moiseev, A.N. Kolmogorov, V.V. Nalimov, V.A. Uspensky, N. P. Brusentsov, and others.

In turn, with respect to the latter (the fundamentally Organicist vector of movement and evolvement) : the availability (and use) of an effective referential conceptual basis is here of key importance; i.e. that which is already existing and recognized (and which comprehensively reveals and explains the real world) – a conceptual referential basis (of the all-encompassing cosmological significance), regarding (relatively to) which any scholar could present (in a comparative way) his own Integralist (or Organicist) scientific conceptual approach, thereby making it understandable to colleagues; hence – for later interaction and practical use.

The essential significance of the Aristotelian OrganonKosmology. The rational system of Aristotle, the universally recognized “Father of Science”, is distinctively recognized in the BCA as a required (all-encompassing) referential framework; and which is referred to here as OrganonKosmology. The BCA recognizes the vital basis that Aristotle’s coherent OrganonKosmology can effectively serve as a basic concept – the referential framework – for relating and achieving the necessary mutual understanding and interaction between scholars. It is of paramount importance that the modern scientific naturalistic theories of Danilevsky, Sorokin and Vernadsky are highly complementary to Stagirite’s Organicism. In its turn, the main problem here is the misinterpretation (radical Platonization of Stagirite’s doctrine)[7] made during the last centuries; and that a profound misunderstanding of Aristotle’s coherent system of Organicist knowledge (his entire edifice of naturalistic foundations and conceptual elements) has occurred and become established in the ongoing Modern history. In this respect, see BCnA-publications (2021)[8] for more details.


Thus the essence of the Address to the academic (scientific and philosophical) community and the Biocosmological Initiative being put forward is a call for the consideration and recognition of the urgent return (restoration, in natural cyclical rotation-evolvement) of the true Triadic (the Three Types, but only possible in the Triune) essence of authentic scientific knowledge.

In carrying out this grand task : the recognition of the naturalist Bipolarity and dynamic Triadicity of scientific knowledge, and in the structure of the latter – the significance of the pole of Organicist, teleo-(aimed at a wholesome result)-moveable integrating and organizing knowledge (that is equal in importance, for History – to the Dualist-(Anglo-Saxon) analytical knowledge; and whose foundations were established in the 17th century); and that in this connection a decisive U-turn, already on the bases of the contemporary (21st century) Integralism : from the Transcendentalist (the Southern, Anthropocentrist and Dualist) pole – to the Northern (of AnthropoKosmism and Noosphericism) pole of the Organicist Type of rational (scientific and philosophical) knowledge : all this is urgently needed; preferably in the course of Biocosmological (Integralist – North-Eastern) evolvement.

[1] Here, the subject means, universally, the physical (natural, cosmic, natural-scientific) autonomous whole : both the world (Nature, Cosmos) as a whole; and each subject of this Biocosmos, from a free microparticle to a free (autonomic) man and society-civilization, and humanity as a whole; and where the primary quality-virtue of a natural subject is its inherent purposeoriented (telic – Entelechist) lifelong Selfevolvement (throughout the subject’s ontogenesis) – with the eventual achievement and exercise of its unique Functionalist (effector) abilities; and that everything is carried out on the basis of constant Selfmaintenance and Selfcontrolling, on the homeostatic level, of all its vital functions.

[2] BCnA : the journal “Biocosmology – neo-Aristotelism”, an electronic scientific periodical – the official organ of the Biocosmological Association; URL:

[3] However, the integral (united as a whole) significance of the world scientific (in civilization theory) contribution of Russian scholars – such a significance has not yet become a subject of actualization in the scientific and philosophical community : because of the ‘dissociation’ of the achievements of these five great scholars from each other in the thorns of the historical process that had taken place (and for other reasons).

[4] However, the first Russian-language publications (initially, fragments of the outstanding scientific work) have appeared in Russia only since 1995.

[5] From the Greek – τέλος; in transliteration – telos; meaning “purpose” as the “final destination” of the subject’s efforts, i.e., the final “result” of his actions; introduced into science and used by Aristotle to denote the ultimate actualization of the inherent physical potential in a man (individual subject) – thus realizing his purpose or goal of existence and activity; and that acts as the key element in a compound concept, the original and essential in Aristotle’s scientific system – entelecheia (as explained by Will Duran: “… having (echo) its purpose (telos) within (entos) …” [1926]).

[6] Here, “Organon” – from the Greek Ὄργανον – directly has the original meaning of ‘instrument’ (‘tool’ and ‘means’ to achieve ‘an end’, i.e. the needed result of activity); and what is, ultimately, the natural telic-(for the needed result)-function of a subject (thing, organ).

[7] But what is natural to (Platonism-based) modern global (Anglo-Saxon) civilization and its science.

[8] DOI: 10.24411/2225-1820-2021-00004