No Comments


Beslan Ozdoev, PhD.

“THE PHILOSOPHY OF INGUSH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE”  The eighth page of monograph refers to “linguasophy” in the phrase : “…We could say that the ancestors of Ingush, as conscious native-speakers of present language-philosophy, or linguasophy, were the authors not only of Ingush, but of many other cultures and civilizations of the ancient world “. On the sixth page it is said also about the philosophical and communicative nature of the Ingush language. Originally we were planning to call the monograph “LINGUASOPHY OF INGUSH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE”. Now, they suggest to use the term “metasophy” instead of “linguasophy”. All monograph was actually written as metosophy. But it was decided not to hurry with the application of a new branch of knowledge and to present everything under the term of philosophy. It was clear that metosophy may include sciences, that philosophy does not cover, and in this sense it is wider. So the philosophy can be taken as a part of metosophy, along with other sciences. Met – language, place, view (“mettar”- he thought, imagined), were presented (meta d), reset on a place(met ot), in the Ingush language. Sophy – wisdom in the Greek language. So phi e – is translated from the Ingush as “what am I” ? Task of wisdom is to answer the question – what am I ? For this you need to restore the initial presentation, the data in the wisdom of the language. The term “met” is consonant to the first part of the word “metaphysics” and the word “meter” – dimension. It is well known that the man is the measure of all things. Considering these meanings and more pleasing sound to the ear  instead of the term “linguasophy” we introduce the term “metosophy”. The invention,  besides the communicative and philosophical nature of language, has demanded the change of opinion on almost all branches of human knowledge.

All sciences need mind and language, and to make the synthesis of mind and language, “science of science” – is a daunting task. Metosophy is a wisdom both of synthesis of mind, both of language.

THE ORIGIN OF PHILOSOPHY FROM METOSOPHY Mind in the eternity of past knew “I spirit” (Az) and “I soul” (So) and will know it in the eternity of future. About a million years ago there were changes in the psyche, and between spirit and soul a barrier appeared. Languages with one I or one pronoun of the 1st person singular began to appear. In the future, the barrier between the spirit and the soul will become thinner and mind will discover again the “I spirit” and “I soul”, or Atman and Akhamkara of Indian philosophy, or Atma and Boddhi in the philosophy of buddhism, or Az vozdam (I will render the spirit ) and vengeance to me( I revenge by soul ) of christianity. To repair the link between the “I spirit” and “I soul” and to return the lost metasophy,mysteries and philosophies were installed, prophets and revelations were sent. The eternity of the past belonged to metasophy, the eternity of the future will belong to it.

When the barrier between the spirit and the soul will become thinner, people will not study, but will have all the knowledge in itself, and babies will have a tongue in the wombs of mothers and in the cradle, as it was in the beginning and at the age of metasophy. The possession of tongue before the birth and the child’s communication with his mother, was natural at that time. People will be born without the participation of seminal substance, in which the conditionality of five senses and five elements, and with the help of verb – of a flame (al) from “I spirit” and with the light of  soul (sa) from “I soul”. Jesus was conceived as a spirit and word of Allah and spoke from the cradle, according to the teachings of Islam. Spirit (verb-flame) and the word (light-soul)of the sage with the “I spirit” (Az) and “I soul” (So) could also engender children, who spoke in the cradle, and even from the womb of substance. Language-the tongue of the spirit and language- representation of the soul are older than body, physiology and organs of speech. In ancient times it was customary to start discussing in the spirit of wisdom with any questions or affirmations.   Aristotle believed that philosophy begins with the question why ? Kant reduced philosophy to the three questions : what can I know , what I can hope for, and that is man . At the same time he believed that the first two questions can be reduced to the last one about the man. Phil\ Fel – oversensuality in Ingush. So Phi, v, so phi e, so phi d, so phy b – four phrases, which means what am i? So phi ya… (Venav)? – what to acquire i came (Venav). Phil so phi v al san? in the state of oversensuality (Phil), that I am like a tsar or a will. Phil so phi v al san – “what am I, like the heavens or the consciousness in a state of oversensuality. Phil so phi d dini san? what am i as the world or the feeling of life in the form of oversensuality. Phil so phi b malkh san? “what am I like the sun or emotions in a form of oversensuality. The Greeks gave their own explanation of the term “philosophy”,  raising a history to Pythagoras, who, allegedly,has offered modestly to call themselves not the sages, but the lovers of wisdom (Philo – love, Sophy – wisdom), and their classes – the love of wisdom. As far as we know, this combination can not be made from the Greek language. Phila is love or a lover? Sophy is wisdom, or sagasity? How this whole form arose from the point of view of Greek language grammar? Most likely the Greeks just explained the term in their own way, the origin of which was lost in the mist of the past, and having jumped over all the wise men, they had to rise to the Pythagoras. The personal So(I) in the state of oversensuality has no nature of the tsar nor of the will, heaven nor of consciousness of the world or taste of life, sun, or emotions. There is “I” without an underlined, highlighted “me” from universal. There I look like the spark in the bosom of  “I” fire ” and “We” sparks. Philosophy began as an echo of metasophy.

METASOPHY AND THEORIES OF SCIENCES                                                                 ECONOMY The term “boakham” meant agriculture, and the economy as a subsistence. Az boakh Bo – I make a subsistence. So boakh Bo – Me makes a subsistence. So Malkh b – I am the sun. The economy like the subsistence of sun, is in the relationship between “I spirit” and “I soul”. Same thing regarding the economy of logos, heaven and world. Four phrases – voakh vo, yoakh yo, doakh do, boaakh bo – designate economies of four types of existence, as a subsistence system.  Suns and worlds do not live by themselves, but in the relationship of spirit and soul. These phrases indicate the subsistence of body, psyche, and social organization. In fact, there are three economies: a) the economy of bio – organization, in which the predominant initiative comes from flocking, b) economy of psycho – organization, in which the predominant initiative comes from predation, and b) the economy of social organization, in which the predominant initiative comes from nobility. The concept of economy as agriculture and science about this agriculture, meets only a third our system – the economy of social organization. This is just a sketch of how a new economic theory can be developed based on metasophy. And metasophy could not only be able to cover all known subject areas, but also could help to remove new sciences from the mind, to broaden and deepen existing ones. The potency of the mind hid a lot of new sciences, but for their actualization or awakening it needs to have a new philosophical science like metasophy. But the most important thing is the unifying force of metasophy, and of all subject areas and all ancient civilizations and teachings of the world. They are- beads-shapes, the Ingush metasophy is – thread-contents. That’s why the ancient history of the world belonged also(even to say mostly ?!)to Ingush or Vainakh race. History is not simply as a past existence that belongs to all things and beings, but history, as acts of will and mind and influences through them on the course of civilization. So why the future could not belong to the Ingush metasophy, once it has already come from the eternity past?


No Comments

Subetto A.I. , Shanti P. Jayasekara, Lukoyanov V.V.

 International University of Fundamental Studies (IUFS) – the World University – the Institute for research and education, aimed at higher qualification specialists training – Grand-doctors and Doctors of philosophy in various fields of science, culture, law, study of state, public health, ecology, etc.

Used as the basis of training programs and research projects of the fundamental component, the criteria base of fundamental component is based on a unique theory of knowledge and education fundamental nature[1] (TKEF).

The TKEF key category is the category of knowledge. Much has been written about knowledge, but there is still no complete theory of knowledge, and all the more fundamental nature of knowledge.

The category of “knowledge” is defined through the system of judgements-determinants, where the contradictions that allow understanding the sources of knowledge evolution as a category, are put.

So, the KNOWLEDGE is:

  1. Reflected reality;
  2. A model (image) of objective reality, allowing carrying out its explication and prediction of reality development.
  3. A model (image) of subjective reality, a reflection of the inner world of a man.
  4. The information, which passed the procedure of recognition, classification, understanding (comprehension).
  5. The result of knowledge. In accordance with the principle of object-process dualism two supplemental aspects in the theory of knowledge are defined: KNOWLEDGE-PROCESS and KNOWLEDGE-RESULT. In the evolution of knowledge is a continual cycle of transformation of a “knowledge-process” in a “knowledge-result”, and a “knowledge-result” re-creates a new “knowledge-process”.
  6. The result of experience, human activities. An elementary cycle of knowledge as a unity of a “knowledge-process” and a “knowledge-result” permeates any activity of man. This allows us to state the position of a stratification of any activities by their knowledge-capacity.
  7. The substrate or substance of intelligence, if we bear in mind an evolutionary definition of «intelligence» as «management of the future» on the part of the system that this «intelligence» represents. One can assert that the measure of people’s minds is their ability to foresee, which is eventually materialized as management (management activities). Knowledge, serving as a substrate or substance of intelligence, connects individual intelligence of people in group or collective intelligent, and the last – in the public intelligent, or the aggregate intelligence community. In the basis of functioning of social intelligence is the social circuit of knowledge. And as such «knowledge become a force of social

evolution»[2]. The law of the growth of the ideal determination in history as the law of growth the role of social intelligence acts. This law determines, in its turn, the growth of a socio-genetic function of knowledge and respectively a role of social intelligence in socio-genetics mechanisms.

  1. Consciousness as a form of self-aware knowledge. Knowing as «consciousness», is knowledge reflected itself. It is the consciousness which differs a man from other creatures of the animal world. Public Intelligence, in one of its characteristics is presented as a unity of knowledge and consciousness, turning in the development of public administration.
  2. Knowledge of ignorance, reflection on ignorance. On this side of the paradoxical sense of the category of «knowledge» V.V. Nalimov paid his attention, who emphasized that «with the growth of science our lack of knowledge is growing», and «not vulgar, ignorant, but refined, scientifically revealed»[3]. Scientific «knowledge of ignorance» – the basis of scientific relativism, which is revealed through «its expression in a variety of equal, but inconsistent hypotheses», «continually expanding the range of our ignorance»[4]. This definition by V.V. Nalimov is expanded through the theory of the fundamental contradictions of a human by A.I. Subetto, particularly the fourth contradiction of unity movement of rational and irrational in human knowledge, forming a kind of «progressive wave» of rational and irrational» in the development of intelligence. The movement of the fourth fundamental contradiction of human determines the regularity of growth of the sphere of irrational – and «knowledge of ignorance» – along with the growth of scientific and rational knowledge volume[5].

Thus, the category of knowledge can be formally defined as a tuple of judgments-definitions:

Kn< A, B, C, D, E, F, G , H, I >   (1)

We stress that the above explication of knowledge has an anthropomorphic content. But it is easily throws off the «anthropomorphic shell» as they move into the category of artificial intelligence. In this case, there is a category of «knowledge of a system».

The forerunner of this category is a thesaurus of a system, introduced in the systemology  by V.V. Druzhinin and D.S. Kontorov in 1976[6]. According to their definition «thesaurus is a useful internal information system about yourself and the environment and determines the ability of the system to recognize the situation and to control itself»[7]. In fact, there is a kind of «doubling» of human knowledge, it is alienated from the man and goes into the system, created by him (robots, artificial intelligence, future intelligent macro-systems).

Scientific knowledge – is the most important part of a single body of knowledge, which is owned by the humanity.

All science is a system of scientific knowledge, not just knowledge – results, but also knowledge-processes. Science is developing, evolving system of knowledge, based on the production of new scientific knowledge.

With the help of science the most important law of higher education is provided – «the law of advancing by alive knowledge, broadcasted in the educational process, embodied knowledge of already applied in practice technologies and structures of social, economic and technological reality»[8].

Identification of scientific knowledge, or in another language – definition of scientific knowledge, is realized by using scientific criteria, analysis and discussion of which define the deep tradition of the world philosophy of the past centuries. These include criteria for verifiability (Schlick, Wittgenstein), falsification (K. Popper), scientific empirical generalization (Vernadsky). The introduction by V.I. Vernadsky the concept of «scientific empirical generalization» allows to transcend boundaries of narrow scientific rationalism, to approach a new qualitative leap in the treatment of rationalism in the XXI century, associated with overcoming the barrier of complexity, with the principle of handling complicated having homeostatic mechanisms, systems. In this expanded interpretation of rationalism the intuition is legitimized, which even Albert Einstein was pointing out.

The evolution of scientific criteria in the XXI century is associated with the category of Non- classical behavior. The ideas of the total Non-classicality future of mankind Genesis is put forward, which is associated not only with the expansion of arsenals of the Principles of Complementarity or Addition, the Anthropic Principles, but what is most important, – with the Management Principle.

Truth is checked by the quality of management of the future of the society as a whole, which requires a new type of management, under the circumstances, of the Global Ecological Crisis, perhaps even – already occurred the first phase of the Global Ecological Catastrophe, – the management of socio-natural evolution on the basis of public intelligence and the educational community. It is a new quality of the Earth’s Biosphere – Noosphere, where collective human Mind – the public intelligence – begins to control the social and natural evolution (harmony), observing the laws-restrictions of the homeostatic mechanisms of the Earth Planet and its Biosphere as «super-organisms».

To ensure this, in the very logic of scientific perception becomes effective the principle of the Unity of Truth, Good and Beauty, with its extension to all the «field» of the production of scientific knowledge. At the same time, «the Beauty», as an expression of the Law of Harmony, serves as a mechanism for correcting the Truth, from the standpoint of conservation of the Whole, and the «Good» – provides the principle of «do no harm», addressed to the preservation of the whole System of Life on Earth. Knowledge can not be called scientific, if it kills life on Earth and doomed humanity to ecological suicide.

This is where the attitude of complementarity of scientific knowledge with the artistic knowledge of the world «lies», which is implemented the International University of Fundamental Studies (IUFS).

The theory of knowledge and education fundamental nature (TKEF) includes in its criterial base the criterial base of scientific knowledge, but it is not limited by it.

A system of principles and criteria of fundamental nature of knowledge is introduced[9].

The first principle. The fundamental nature of knowledge is not reducible to the fundamental nature of scientific knowledge.

The second principle. The fundamental nature of knowledge is not reducible to the fundamental nature of natural-scientific knowledge.

The third principle. Awareness of fundamental knowledge occurs in different forms throughout a person’s life in accordance with the laws of the creative life of the person, in particular – with the law of «long» right-left hemisphere wave» (on dominant of right-brain forms of consciousness of the fundamental knowledge through tales, myths, games, arts – to the dominant of left hemisphere forms of consciousness of the fundamental knowledge through logic, mathematics, classifications, categories and concepts of systemic mechanisms of cognition, etc.).

The fifth principle. The fundamental nature of scientific knowledge is not reducible to scientific and rational knowledge, it also includes scientific intuition.

The fifth principle – the principle of the primacy of fundamental research in higher and post-graduate education.

The sixth principle. Fundamental knowledge is knowledge that is addressed to the laws by which the world works outside person («macrocosm», «overworld») and the world inside the human («microcosm», «underworld»).

The seventh principle. The core of fundamental knowledge is reflexive knowledge, meta-knowledge, knowledge about knowledge. Therefore fundamental nature of education as fundamental nature of knowledge translation, consciousness, knowledge (understanding), includes the formation of reflective culture, including the implementation of the imperatives of fundamental learning – teaching to learn, learning to produce new knowledge, own culture of synthesis of diverse knowledge, etc.

As disclosure of the seventh principle, the sub-processes of ​​fundamental nature of education are marked out:

  • systemologization of knowledge;
  • taxonomization of knowledge;
  • qualitativization of knowledge;
  • formation of the cyclic paradigm in the organization of knowledge;
  • metodologization of knowledge;
  • mathematization of knowledge;
  • cybernetization of knowledge;
  • problematization of knowledge.


The eighth principle. Fundamental nature of knowledge means its universality, focus on the perception of the world as a whole.

Holistics of knowledge system – a key fundamental criterion of fundamental nature. Therefore fundamental nature of  knowledge involves the synthesis of knowledge in the fundamental learning through the establishment of «the pictures of the world» – the scientific picture of the world, the physical picture of the world, the biological picture of the world, systemic picture of the world, etc. – periodically updated through a paradigmatic development cycles of fields of knowledge (sciences).

The ninth principle. The fundamental nature of knowledge in the XXI century means its space-noosphere (cosmo-planet) orientation and interactivity. The implementation of this principle in the educational process is the formation of cosmo-planet consciousness of studying personality or personality conducting the study as a component of a fundamental-knowledge framework of personality.

The tenth principle. The criterion of fundamental nature of knowledge and education – their Non-classicality, expanded spectrum of Principles of Additions and Anthropic principles, including the principle of the Big Ecological and Anthropic Addition, according to which the environmental problems created by the man in the twentieth century, are principally unsolvable as long as there is no secured outstripping pace of human self-knowledge – study of human nature – and the rapid pace of solving social problems of the man.

Non-classical science generates a non-classical methodology of scientific knowledge related to the development of the «theory of the Observer and the Super-Observer», where any procedure of cognition involves introspection on the Observer, carrying out the act of cognition, including introspection about its  «unconscious» («archetype of unconscious» as a special case).

Noosphere of the Future as a managed social and natural evolution – the only model of sustainable development – will demand reflexive control and respectively, reflextion as a moment of cognitive processes.

The eleventh principle. The criterion of the fundamental nature of knowledge is it’s problematic. It should be remembered that the problem concentrates reflection of the constantly ongoing process of integration of interdisciplinary knowledge.

The twelfth principle. The duality of the world in the form of the interaction of «object» and «reflexive» worlds goes into the duality of fundamental science.

The thirteenth principle. The criterion of fundamental nature of knowledge is philosophical self-reflection about this knowledge, execution control function of regulator of knowledge integration, philosophical «core making» for science according to B. M. Kedrov.

TKEF is revealed as a system of theoretical modules and laws.

The first theoretical module is formation of fundamental and knowledge framework of a personality, which refers to the system, including a world outlook and categorical, spiritual and moral motivational subsystems, including taking into account the thirteen principles mentioned above.

The second theoretical module is understanding of fundamental nature of education as a process of fundamental nature of social intelligence, displaying it on a high level of quality control of the evolution of social and natural evolution (sustainable development).

The third theoretical block is systemologization of educational process. It appears the new paradigm of the fundamental nature of the process of education, as training, systemic, synthetic process, including cyclic methodology of continuous education, covering all cognitive ontogeny of the personality.

The fourth theoretical block is the spiritual dimension of fundamental education, the principle of the primacy of the spiritual principle over the pragmatic principle.

In this case we are talking about a new paradigm of spirituality – the noosphere spirituality, saving the mankind from the danger of possible environmental destruction in the XXI century. This is possible when all forms of spirituality, including any religious systems will be tested by cosmo-planet responsibility of a human, nations, organizations for preservation of life on Earth, to create the conditions for the progressive development of the entire system of global human health, unthinkable outside of a global social and natural harmony, the world without wars and violence on the basis of planetary cooperation of ethnic groups and nations in the world.

The fifth theoretical unita synthesis and interpenetration of the natural sciences and social and humanitarian sciences, and on the basis of this synthesis, the formation of cosmo-noospheric education.

The sixth theoretical block – creatization of education, when creativity permeates the learning process and serves as the basis of advancing knowledge over embodied knowledge.

The mechanisms of education creatization – a kind of «therapy» against excessive stereotyping and excessive bureaucratization of education, which lead it to a crisis, to the inadequacy of requests of the epoch of the beginning of the XXI century, which is the Epoch of the Great Evolutionary Fracture.

Higher qualification specialists training in IUFS is carried out in this new paradigm of fundamental nature of education.

In this capacity, IUFS becomes the mechanism of a «construction» of a new image of a unified science, facing the formation of a system of education that can solve the problem of formation of a «man XXI», carrying with him the highest humanistic ideal of Noospheric Harmony, synthesis of high knowledge – the Truth, the spiritual and moral principles – the Good – and the aesthetic principle – the Beauty.

Now is the time of the New Humanism Qualities – the Humanism, raising the Man to a height of Love to all Living things on Earth and in Space, the height of Creativity for the sake of Harmony and World Peace!

[1] Subetto AI The problems of fundamental nature and sources of the content of higher education. – Kostroma – Moscow: KSPU named after N.A. Nekrasov, Research Center, 1995 – 332pp.; Subetto A.I. The Theory of fundamental nature of education and universal jurisdictions (Noospheric paradigm of universalism) / Scientific monograph trilogy – St. Petersburg.: Asterion, 2013. – 556 p.

[2] Subetto A.I. The Theory of fundamental nature of education and universal jurisdictions (Noospheric paradigm of universalism) / Scientific monograph trilogy – St. Petersburg.: Asterion, 2013. – 556 p.

[3] Nalimov V.V. In search of other meanings. – M.​​: Publish. group «Progress», 1993. – 280 p., pp. 26, 27.

[4] Ibidem

[5] Subetto A.I. The Theory of fundamental nature of education and universal jurisdictions (Noospheric paradigm of universalism) / Scientific monograph trilogy. – St. Petersburg.: Asterion, 2010. – 556 p., pp. 38, 39.

[6] Druginyn V.V., Kontorov D.S., The systemology problems. – Moscow: Soviet Radio, 1976. – 296 p.

[7] Ibidem, p. 104, 105.

[8] Subetto A.I. Theory of fundamental nature of education and universal jurisdictions (Noospheric paradigm of universality). – St. Petersburg., 2010, p. 40.

[9] Ibidem, pp. 86-93.


No Comments

Prof. Izueitov A.

In recent years “Alzheimer’s disease” (autism, dementia) has acquired truly catastrophic proportions. It affects more than 35 million people on the planet, and the number of patients is growing steadily. The fact is that not all people, especially older people, are able to withstand the enormous and diverse spiritual burden falling to their lot. This leads these people to “Alzheimer’s disease”, stimulating untimely death, distressful to themselves and others around them.

In April 2013 the U.S. President Barack Obama officially announced the start of a U.S. special mega-project BRAIN (Research through advancing innovative neurotechnologies). The U.S. government has already allocated the first advance – $ 100 million for this mega-project, designed for 15 years.

Of course, any new technologies, including new neurotechnologies, in order to be truly successful and effective, can and should be based on the new philosophical and ideological concept, really revealing and explaining the nature of various phenomena, including the brain, as a special phenomenon, and the causes of the disease, connected with the failure of the normal activity of the brain. It is “Alzheimer’s disease”, still having no fundamentally new explanations, and therefore not receiving complex and effective treatment.

In fact, the generally accepted point of view on “Alzheimer’s disease”, which is given from the materialist points of view, in its essence, one-sidedly constrained.

When “Alzheimer’s disease” occurs, nerve cells (neurons) in brain tissue atrophy. In the intervals between them (“fissures”) “plaques” of beta amyloid protein are formed. These “plaques” gradually “stick together” into insoluble clumps and block the passage through neurons, pressing them in from different sides, and thereby breaking the structure of neurons, impulses, coming from the brain, regulating the activity of the human mind and ensuring its normal state and development. In fact, it is just a statement of the phenomenon, moreover, one-sided, but not its real explanation. Currently, “Alzheimer’s disease” is considered incurable. Medical and natural remedies can only slightly weaken it and slow down its development.

There are known the symptoms of “Alzheimer’s disease” as follows: sustainable forgetfulness, short memory weakening, sudden irritability, unmotivated aggression, hallucinations. As we can see, they all have a spiritual nature. They are based on violation of the “spiritual norm” for human consciousness and behavior.

It has been observed that people as follows are more often exposed to “Alzheimer’s disease” – “introverts”, in their essence, individualists and egotists, internally oriented in its material and spiritual activities exclusively on themselves, essentially their own interests and needs, both material and spiritual. People – “extroverts”, social activists, internally focused on their very different interaction, material and spiritual, with other people, much less to some extent are exposed to “Alzheimer’s disease”.

“The philosophy of interaction” (“bialism”), a fundamentally new philosophy of the 21st century, created by A.N. Iezuitov in 1992 and received international recognition, puts forward and justifies its own explanation of “Alzheimer’s disease”, corresponding to its special nature, and offers its own recipes for treatment.

“The philosophy of interaction” (“PI”) comes from the fact that the whole reality, existing beyond and independently of its perception, represents the interaction at a very different level and in different events (living and non-living) of various principles, ultimately the material and spiritual, as their complementarity, mutual enrichment and partial mutual transition of one principle to another under certain conditions. Only one of the principles may also dominate in the interaction. Material beginning is perceived directly-sensually and directly-measurably. The spiritual sense is perceived by internal feeling and is directly-immeasurable. It is measurable by its real result. Being in principle in by its nature sovereign, material and spiritual principles, in reality do not exist one without and beyond another. Thus a measure of the presence of one principle in another may be very different. A spiritual principle by its nature has no space-time and speed limit, it is pervasive. At the same time, the spiritual principle is always in a certain degree materially “burdened”, which affects its real manifestation. Spirituality represents the internal purpose (predisposition, readiness), peculiar to all real events (living and non-living) and focused on its financial expression.

Any internal disease means disturbance in an organism by various reasons and at different levels of interaction peculiar to the organism material and spiritual principles. Cure of an organism is restoration in it of disturbed interaction of material and spiritual principles. In the structure of a brain (macro and micro) as interaction of the material and spiritual principles the spiritual principle is dominating, at all levels and in all structures. In order to understand and explain the nature of “Alzheimer’s disease”, a living brain absolutely does not need to be opened and examined directly, especially at the cell (neuron level). Such a dissection still will not work really. A dominant one in the brain is the spiritual principle, which is not directly observable and measurable. We will see only the actual material structure of the brain and will not comprehend its spiritual and meaningful essence at any micro level.

More specifically, in “Alzheimer’s disease” in the brain happens a real violation of natural “binary interaction” between the material and the spiritual principles, inherent in each neuron, when it conducts a nerve impulse as the interaction of the material and the spiritual principles. The material principle becomes weaker of a neuron, too, and beta amyloid protein by its material principle in the “plaque”, overcoming the resistance of the material principle of the neuron, as the interaction of the material and spiritual principles, “sticks together” with the material principle of another “plaque”, appearing in the “fissure”, materially blocking the neuron. This happens from different sides of the neuron. It is compressed, thereby breaking the interaction between the material and spiritual principles in the neuron.

Furthermore, neurons may themselves by their individual nature be “introverts” and “extraverts”, which really affects the nature of the interaction between them.

It is also reasonable that with age (aging of the organism) the interaction in the brain between neurons and in neurons decreases, and a real opportunity for the emergence of “Alzheimer’s disease” in a man increases.

In order for neuron to become again a “conductor” it is necessary to stir up the spiritual principle of the neuron, which, partly turned in its material principle, will materially strengthen the neuron and it will create a material and real barrier for “plaques sticking”, which by their material principle from different sides materially influence through the “fissures” on the neuron, extending the “fissure” and materially affecting the neighboring neurons, disrupting their structure and material and spiritual interaction between the neurons and within the neurons.

The spiritual principle of the neuron really succumbs itself to strengthening under the influence on it (inside and outside), which restores the disturbed “binary interaction” in the neuron and between the neurons and ultimately – in the whole brain system controlling consciousness (from micro – to macro).

A man is capable by his spiritual and volitional action to strengthen the spiritual principle in his own organism, including the neuron, and thus result in a natural interaction the spiritual principle of the neuron with its substantive principle, significantly strengthening the neuron in a material respect. The spiritual principle of the neuron at the same time turns in the material principle, in its turn, complementing and reinforcing it.

A person can and should first of all by himself and with outer help spiritually overcome “Alzheimer’s disease” and spiritually resist it. Strengthening and development of human spiritual strength and increasing his spiritual positive can be done in various ways and means: spiritual self-empowerment, spiritual makeup from communicating with spiritually-resonance-saturated people, with rising-up-spirit art and spiritually saturated and spirited nature by the man himself – all this actually contributes to strengthening of the spiritual principle in a man at all levels, and thus may actually prevent the emergence and development in a person “Alzheimer’s disease”, contribute to real getting over it.

The inner purpose in a human is not self-isolation, but the most diverse spiritual interaction with everything, that is quite real, is effective prevention of the occurrence in a human of “Alzheimer’s disease” and of its effective treatment.

It is possible to experimentally, by its real result, set measure of a spiritual effect on neurons, which really restores the impaired actual material and spiritual interaction between neurons and in neurons, and thus, identify a real and specific measure of curing a person from “Alzheimer’s disease” or, in any case, it is significant and vitally important attenuation.

These are the principal recommendations, which are offered by the “PI” for the prevention and treatment of “Alzheimer’s disease”. They are organically included in the “spiritual therapy” (including the “velvet-therapy”), proposed and developed by the “PI”. There are reasons to say that velvet really belongs to a particular role in prevention and treatment of “Alzheimer’s disease”. Elderly people, regularly wearing headgear on the head of black (dark) velvet, as a rule, have not suffer and do not suffer from autism and dementia. This is very significant. There is a real confirmation of the effectiveness of the “velvet-therapy” in the treatment of dementia.

If the proposed by the “PI” ways and means of prevention and treatment of “Alzheimer’s disease” are not absolutely guaranteed and the only effective, then they are applied completely voluntary for a patient, and, no doubt, in any way will not harm the organism in its complex treatment.

In case of acceptance of the U.S. leadership, the “Philosophy of Interaction” under IHAC could join to the implementation of the mega project BRAIN.



Grand-Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of philological sciences, professor, academician, A.N. Iezuitov (Russia, Saint-Petersburg, IUFS). – Founder of the program.


No Comments


Emeritus Prof. Dr. Deric N. Bircham
MBA, Ph.D, D.Sc, LL.D, GD.Sc, GD. JP, FRSA


Organisational and Management theories have tended to go towards simplified and generalized conceptions of human motivation. Research has consistently found some support for the simple generalised conception, but only some. Consequently, the major impact of research over a long period has been to vastly complicate our models of human nature and how to manage people.

Not only do people have many needs and potentials, but the patterning of those changes in roles, with situations, and with changes in interpersonal relationships where assumptions can be stated which simply do not do justice to this complexity.

Let us begin with the issue of complex assumptions.

 Complex Assumptions

  1. a)    Human needs fall into many categories and vary according to stage of development and total life situations. These needs and motives will assume varying degrees of importance to each person, creating some sort of hierarchy, but this hierarchy is in itself variable from person to person, from situation to situation, and from one time to another.
  2. b)    Because needs and motives interact and combine into complex motive patterns, values, and goals, one must decide at what level a person wants to understand human motivation.

For example, money can satisfy many different needs, even the need for self-actualisation for some people, on the other hand, social motives or self-

-actualisation needs can be met in a wide variety of ways, and in different ways, and also at different stages of development.

  1. c)    Employees are capable of learning new motives through organisational experiences. This implies that the overall pattern of motives and goals at a given career or life stage as reflected in the person’s psychological contract with the Organisation is the result of a complex sequence of interactions between initial needs and organisational experiences.
  2. d)    A person may display different needs in different Organisations or in different subparts of the same Organisation, to the person who is alienated in the formal Organisation may find fulfilment of his or her social and self-actualisation needs in the union or in an informal work group. If the job itself consists of a variety of
  3. e)    skills, numerous motives may be operative at different times and for different tasks.
  4. e)    People can become productively involved with Organisations on the basis of many different kinds of motives. Ultimate satisfaction for the individual and ultimate effectiveness for the Organisation depends only in part on the nature of such motivation.

The nature of the task to be performed, the worker’s abilities and experience, and the atmosphere created by one’s co-workers all interact to produce a certain pattern of work and feelings.

For example, a highly skilled but poorly motivated worker may be as effective and satisfied as a very unskilled but highly motivated worker.

  1. f)     Employees can respond to many different kinds of managerial strategies, depending on their own motives and abilities and the nature of the task. In other words, there is no one correct managerial strategy that will work for all people at all times.


Implications for Management and Contingency Theories


If assumptions such as those just listed come closest to reality, what are the implications for Managerial strategy?

Perhaps the most important implication is that Managers should be good diagnosticians and should value a spirit of inquiry.

If the abilities and motives of the people under them are so variable, Managers should have the sensitivity and diagnostic ability to be able to sense and appreciate differences, rather than regarding the existence of individual differences as a painful truth to be wished away.


Managers should learn to value differences and to value the diagnostic process, which reveals differences. To take advantage of diagnostic insights,

Managers should be flexible enough and have the interpersonal skills necessary to vary their own behaviour. If the needs and motives of subordinates are different, they should be treated differently.

It is important to recognise that these points do not contradict any managerial strategies. I am not saying that adhering to rational-economic, social, or self-actualisation assumptions about sub-ordinates is totally wrong. What I am saying is that any of these assumptions may be wrong in some situations and with some people.


Where we have erred is in over-simplifying and over-generalising; if managers adopt a more scientific attitude toward human behaviour, they will test their assumptions and seek a better diagnosis, and if they do that they will act more appropriately to what-ever the demands of the situation turns out to be. They may decide to be highly directive at one time and with one employee.

They may use pure engineering criteria in the design of some jobs, but let workers structure another set of jobs themselves. In other words, they will be flexible, and will be prepared to accept a variety of interpersonal relationships, patterns of authority, and psychological contracts.

Variable or flexible behaviour based on situational realities has come to be called a “contingency theory” signalling the fact that what is a correct way to organise, manage, or lead in any given situation is contingent upon a large number of  factors.

Contingency theories have become very popular in this field in recent years because of the recognition of the inherent complexity of human nature, tasks, situations, and the leadership of the Management process itself.

Evidence for Complex Assumptions

In a sense, research supports the assumptions stated, but it will be helpful to cite a few additional studies, which highlight human complexity and human differences.

Different responses to a variety of motives has pointed out that even economic rewards can and do have vastly different meanings to different people. For some people, money represents basic security and love; for others, it represents power; for still others, it is a measure of their achievement in society; and for still others; it represents merely the means to the end of comfortable and sumptuous living.

This is difficult to judge, even in the case of a given reward, what all of its symbolic meanings are to the person and how it connects to other motives.

Pay incentives must ultimately be individualised in the sense of being fitted to the particular needs of the Organisation and the people within that Organisation. No generalisations about the “right” way to use money as an incentive have yet been found.

Additional evidence comes from studies of changes in motivation as a result of organisation experience. It has been difficult to determine whether alienated workers lacked motives towards achievement and self-actualisation when they first joined an organisation, or whether they became that way as a result of chronically frustrating work experiences. This point is critical, because if motives are not capable of being elicited or stimulated, more emphasis should be placed on selecting those workers who initially display the patterns of motivation required by the organisation; if, on the other hand by changing organisational arrangements and managerial strategies, it is possible to arouse the kinds of motives desired, more emphasis should be given to helping organisations change.

Conclusion: Motivation and the Psychological Contract in Perspective

The emphasis has so far been on motivation, particularly the motivation of the employee; but motivation is, of course, not the only determinant of effective performance. The ability of the person, the nature of the work setting, the tools and materials available to do the work, the nature of the job itself, and the ability of Management to coordinate employee, group, and departmental efforts – all enter into organisational effectiveness.

The reason for the focus on motivation and extensive exploration of it rests on the fact that in the motivational area there has been too many myths and misconceptions, It has been particularly difficult to resist the temptation to infer motives from observed organisational circumstances as a given explanation and has relied upon explained behavioural variations as a function of different motives.

The good worker could be assumed to have a high achievement need while the poor worker or alienated worker could be assumed to lack ambition.

In some cases, this assumption might have been correct, but in other situations it would have been more correct to see the good worker as having a boss who provided challenging work while the poor worker had a boss who provided fragmented and often meaningless assignments, or in some other way was insensitive to the worker’s needs, goals, interests, career anchors, job values, or degree of job involvement.

By way of conclusion, I would like to underline the importance of the psychological contract as a major variable of analysis. It is my central hypothesis that whether people work effectively, whether they generate

commitment, loyalty, and enthusiasm for the organisation and its goals, and whether they obtain satisfaction from their work depends to a large measure on two conditions:

1)    The degree to which their own expectations of what the organisation will provide to them and what they owe the organization in return, matches what the organisation’s expectations are of what it will give and get in return.

2)    The nature of what us actually to be exchanged (assuming      there is some agreement) – money in exchange for time at work; social need satisfaction and security in exchange for hard work and loyalty. Opportunities for self-actualisation and challenging work in exchange for high productivity, high quality work, and creative effort in the service of organisational goals; or various combinations of these and other things.

Ultimately the relationship between the individual and the organisation is interactive, unfolding through mutual influence and mutual bargaining to establish and re-establish a workable psychological contract.

We cannot understand the psychological dynamics if we look only to the individual’s motivations or only to organisational conditions and practices. The two interact in a complex fashion that demands a systems approach capable of handling interdependent phenomena.

Furthermore, our concepts must reflect the fact that the psychological contract is constantly re-negotiated throughout the organisational career. Both the individual’s and the organization’s needs change over time, requiring repeated episodes of organisational socialisation as organisational norms change.

Some of these norms can be thought of as pivotal, in the sense that adherence to them is a requirement of continued membership in the organisation. For examples Managers are socialised to believe in the validity of the free enterprise system; Professors must accept the canons of research and scholarship; Engineers must believe in product safety and so on.


Other organisational norms are peripheral in the sense that it is desirable but not essential for members to adhere to them. For example, it may be desirable from the point of view of the organisation that Managers be men, have certain political views, wear the right kind of clothes, buy only Company brands, and so on.

For Professors, it may be desirable that they like to teach, be willing to help in the administration of the University, spend most of their time on Campus rather than on consulting trips, and so on. Violation of these norms does not cause loss of membership, if the pivotal norms continue to be adhered to.

The adjustment of the individual to the Organisation can then be conceived in terms of acceptance or rejection of pivotal or peripheral norms. Acceptance of both pivotal or peripheral norms can be thought of as “conformity”, or the tendency to try to fit in completely and to take a custodial orientation toward how things have been done in the past, becoming the loyal but uncreative “Organisational person”.

Acceptance of peripheral norms combined with rejection of pivotal ones is “subversive rebellion” in that, by rejecting the Organisation’s basic premises but adhering to its peripheral norms, the person is concealing his or her rebellion. In contrast rejecting both sets of norms is open rebellion or revolutionary behaviour, usually leading to voluntary or involuntary loss of membership.

If an Organisation is concerned about its own capacity to grow and innovate in the face of a complex and changing environment.

The ideal individual response might be what I have termed “creative individualism”, which is based on accepting pivotal norms but rejecting peripheral ones.

The creative individual is strongly concerned both about basic organisational goals and about retaining his or her sense of identity, and is willing to exercise creatively to help the Organisation achieve its basic goals.

Creativity on behalf of the Organisation can be thought of in two ways.

1)    One can focus one’s energies on creating new products or services, the kind creatively traditionally identified in most organisations as research and development.

Creatively can be conceived of as “role innovation”, the development of new ways of doing a job or fulfilling a role to make the organisation more effective, efficient, or adaptable.

A Manager can invent a new product or can focus his or her creative energies on new ways of integrating the efforts of two departments, new ways of establishing effective financial controls, new ways of supervising people to maximize their productivity, and so on.

Example.       A Professor can derive a new scientific law or publish a new theory or can invent new ways of teaching more effectively, making better use of other’s skills, or involving them in social causes.

One might hypothesize that people’s needs to be conformist, rebellious, or innovative are tied in complex ways to their underlying motive system, and also that such needs change over the course of their career.

For example:

At the beginning of their career as apprentices, people are probably most likely conformist. Upon obtaining Organisational “tenure” and reasonable security, they embark on a period of maximum creativity, sometimes involving rebellion.

Later stages of the career probably produce more of a tendency to become either role innovative or conformist depending upon the degree to which the individual remains work involved.

How the Organisation manages people’s transitions from one organisational segment to another across functional, hierarchical, or inclusion boundaries probably strongly affects whether the person will become more custodial and conformist or more innovative.

For individuals, for Organisation Managers, and for members of social institutions who are concerned about social policy, the most important conclusion to be drawn from this entire discussion is that human motivation and career development are highly complex and not yet fully understood.
Therefore, a continued spirit of inquiry and a commitment to diagnosing situations before leaping into action appears to be the only safe course.

It is not clear whether the “best” kind of psychological contract is one that maximizes creative individualism, for it is easy to imagine conditions under which both the individual and the organisation would be happier with a conformist response.

However, one must diagnose the potential consequences of whatever course one embarks on, using whatever analytical tools are available, and one must be aware that personal assumptions and biases can operate as powerful filters to make the world look simpler that it actually is.