THE COMPLEX NONLINEAR THINKING: EDGAR MORIN'S DEMAND OF A REFORM OF THINKING AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF SYNERGETICS

Main principles of the complex nonlinear thinking which are based on the notions of the modern theory of evolution and self-organization of complex systems called also synergetics are under discussion in this article. The principles are transdisciplinary, holistic, and oriented to a human being. The notions of system complexity, nonlinearity of evolution, creative chaos, space-time definiteness of structure-attractors of evolution, resonant influences, nonlinear and soft management are here of great importance. In this connection, a prominent contribution made to system analysis and to a necessary reform of education and thinking by Edgar Morin is considered.     

INTERPRETATION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

We offer a general definition of interpretation based on a naturalized teleology. The definition tests and extends the biosemiotic paradigm by seeking to provide a philosophically robust resource for investigating the possible role of semiosis (processes of representation and interpretation) in biological systems. We show that our definition provides a way of understanding various possible kinds of misinterpretation, illustrate the definition using examples at the cellular and subcellular level, and test the definition by applying it to a potential counterexample. We explain how we propose to use the definition as a way of asking new questions about what distinguishes life from non‐life and of formulating testable hypotheses within the field of origin‐of‐life research. If the definition leads to fruitful new empirical approaches to the scientific problem of the origin of life, it will help to establish biosemiotics as a legitimate philosophical approach in theoretical biology and will thereby support a theological appropriation of the biosemiotic perspective as the basis of a new theology of nature.     

TWO IMAGES OF MAN: CONFUCIAN AND KANTIAN

The main point of this paper is that the two images of man (Kantian and Confucian) are radically different from each other. The mainstream Con-fucianists (Confucius- cum -Mencius and their followers) and Kant have different foci and address different concerns and problems. Further, their manners of presentation are different, and the manners are reflections of the substantive issues they address respectively.