— abstract —
If we want to elucidate the Human Being’s relation to the Universe, we need a philosophical definition and derivation rather than physical, biological, historical or economic interpretations. The Human Being can be specified only from the point of view of the Universe as a whole, and vice versa. By approaching the issue of this relationship in its entirety, one may realize why Man, with his consciousness, beliefs, perception, innovation, art, and excellence-oriented cognitive activity, bound to instantiate the Principle of Generator, has the function of intervention of universal significance. Libraries of scientific and theological tractates have uncovered his unique qualities of this concern, but — hail to exceptions — mostly concerning their origin, and not the task, the responsibility, the active forming of this system of relations. Nevertheless, we are now on the threshold of the highest level of consciousness, the most accomplished Intellect ever achieved.
Amennyiben értelmezni akarjuk az Ember viszonyát a Mindenséghez, filozófiai meghatározásra és levezetésre van inkább szükségünk, semhogy fizikai, biológiai, történelmi, vagy közgazdasági magyarázatokra. Az Ember lényegét az egységes Univerzum felõl közelíthetjük leginkább meg, és ez a fordítottjára is áll. Teljességükben szemlélve ezt a kapcsolatukat, megérthetjük, hogyan rendelkezhet az univerzális beavatkozás jelentõségével bíró funkcióval az a Generátor-elvet megtestesíteni hivatott Ember, akit a tudatosságával, hitével, észleléseivel, innovációjával, mûvészetével, és kiválóságra orientált szellemi-kognitív tevékenységével szokás többnyire jellemezni. A tudományos és teológiai mûvek könyvtárai fedezik fel az Ember egyedülálló képességeit, de — tisztelet a kivételnek — javarészt az eredetüket, s nem pedig a feladatát, a felelõsségét, a viszonyrendszer aktív formálását firtatva. Mindazonáltal, napjainkra a valaha elért legmagasabb tudatosság, a valaha megközelített legkiválóbb Intellektus küszöbére érkeztünk.
— o —
Trying to define the essence of Human being, most theories state that the key words are Intellect as a sovereign conceptual activity and ability of abstract thinking (synonyms: wisdom, perception, insight, concept or Plato’s idea), and Technology as an ability to create (synonyms: ability to control and adapt, development, application of knowledge). I would add a third key word: Belief as a fundamental ability to feel a drive toward accomplishment, a driving personal intimate relationship with Totality and Perfection. Without Belief, neither Intellect nor Technology would ever work, I believe. This kind of definition of Human being is in most cases acceptable for related theories although such hypothetical attributes as “ideal association of living matter”, “social moral being naturally prepossessed in favour of religion”, “got higher intelligence and consciousness”, “problem-solving, tool-making, tool-using creature” etc. are also widely used.
Obviously different models can express the nature of the functioning Human being. The most popular of them are the mechanical, the chemical, and the anatomical models. Healing ourselves, we use lancets, medicine and for instance transplantation of organs accordingly. Those models do not contradict each other. They are rather supplemental. Therefore, we cannot reject this or that model just because of their dissimilarity. Various theories point to several other different models: electromagnetic (aura or fields, standing wave, nets of functional therapeutic points), flows (meridians), moistures, light and program-models are probably as useful as the ones we are accustomed to. The multitude of models, their parallel applicability and integrated usefulness push us even more urgently for philosophical answers to the questions we may have regarding the essence of Human being.
Most theories and religious statements prefer to stay away from philosophical brooding over ideas, and find it enough to trace Human being’s descent back to its origin. We usually readily accept the very traceability of the phenomenon of Human being as a sufficient proof of human abilities. If this is correct, the highest human consciousness, our ability of abstract thinking, the faculty of knowing, reasoning, and understanding is also to be taken as the subject of the same mapping out of similarities, the same obvious way of so-called verification by tracing complex to simple, higher level to lower level or vice versa. This is why modern psychology — with the exception of such psychologists as Abraham Maslow, Jean Piaget, Stanislaw Grof, Vygodski, Leontief, and Luria — uses Intellect as an umbrella term to describe a property of the mind, and regards it as a deviation from or a defence mechanism against unpleasant emotions. In contrast to this broadly accredited and therefore obvious view, Russian psychologist Vygodski ,  affirms that Human being has all the necessary functions to operate his Intellect along with his functional comprehension, except the Intellect itself. If he is right, Humanity has ultimately arrived to the end of its teenager hood. Just like a teenager, modern Man knows that he ought to get rid of self-renunciation, self-mortification, self-destruction, and self-deception, to get rid of his furious aggressiveness to become at last an intellect-regulated adult.
We will not be able to reach this highest level of human consciousness if struggle for live, race survival etc. remain the only driving force of our strategy social development reckons with. However good the theory of natural selection is said to be today, many of us are quite aware that there is apparently a gap between the spiritual-cognitive (cognition = reasoning, remembering, thinking in the process of problem-setting and problem-solving) and the physical-physiological evolution, which this theory is not capable to cover. For the time being, this gap is not taken into account by our strategy of development. If our strategy of social advance remains based on this “natural” kind of ability verification, our process of development leads directly to a global catastrophe due to the inevitable contradictions it creates by its rudimentary dualism. „The increasingly menacing environmental, religious, political, economical etc. world crises have a common denominator”. This common denominator is the psychic nature of Human being. “If we continue to stick to our old, tremendously destructive strategy, the human race will not survive till the end of this century. The only action that can save us is if a sufficiently large number of men come through a deep inner transformation” - Grof , .
If we want to model the process of development properly, we evidently should not get started from a static World. Let us start our exploration of evolution with the missing gap included into the total picture with the premise that the World is a dynamic process, as it turned out from Einstein’s equations - Barrow , [4, p.188]. (Naturally, the “total picture” means here an aspiration to grasp the “whole”). That would mean that algorithmically the change and the change of the change constitute a chain of uninterruptable continuance. What we state by this premise is that the World as an indissoluble unity that has to re-establish itself whenever its dynamic balance is jeopardised, it has to re-invent itself every moment. Since the postulate of Clausius on the deterministic propagation of heat known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we are inclined to state that the World is not an order of Aristotelian things, but rather a process, and as such – like all the processes of this World – it is finite. On the other hand, we are also aware that the World has to be simultaneously static and dynamic, finite and infinite, linear and non-linear, part and whole, regression and progression etc. We are not to prefer one side at the expenses of the other one since both are valid only in pairs.
Therefore, if our World — being a process — is generally in regression with its dynamic balance always jeopardised, it has to be restored. To restore its dynamic balance there is a need of a complementary process of progression. The only steady progression we know that contradicts the phenomenon of general regression is the intellectual activity of Human being. He or she is the one who is able to generate progressiveness in spite of the fact that — being actually the part of the Whole —, he or she is as regressive, as faulty and defective as the World he or she represents. This weak, selfish, silly, cruel and greedy creature has the power of foresight, observation, comprehension, formulation, technological invention and intervention, but first of all the power of self-development. These abilities — even if most of us prefer to close our eyes — make this contradictory creature universally responsible for the cognitive and intellectual progression, for the proper universal regression/progression ratio, the correct dynamic balance of the Word-process, and consequently for the future of Mankind.
Let us conceptualise that angle β between the linear attractors or the axles of regression and progression is opening more and more since once being instigated the hysteresis between negative and positive tendencies can only enlarge (Fig. 1). The Generator Principle would then mean that the deficiency between two streams of change has to be compensated, the Wholeness is not to be harmed, and the gap in dynamics is to be filled in by a functionally active entity that embodies both mainstreams of the Universe, while representing also its original Perfection or dynamic Equilibrium. The functional task of such an entity is barely to keep “the fire alive”, but also to intervene, to change, to correct the process of change by changing the self. Matching up the pattern of Perfection or Totality it holds to the actual regression/progression ratio it senses, the entity is to correct the self and in the course of self-development to fill the gap by its spiritual-cognitive progression. Such an entity is the representative of the World-process, i.e. it combines its spiritual-cognitive mission with the accumulation of the inevitably mounting error-percentage, the extreme modes of operation, and the widening hysteresis of activity. Despite of its unquestionable cognitive progress, it is more and more complicated for the entity to find its way from the materialistic base of operation to intellectual heights.
The Generator principle
Taking now our universal responsibility seriously, we had better ask ourselves how we should revise our egoistic strategy of development to find the way out of the trap of interminably rising error-percentage. The egoistic approach with its logic of “what?” or logic of causality always drives us to contradictions and distinction, to the world of constraints, confrontations, interactions and dichotomy we ought to overcome. This is why the strategy (stratos=army, ago=leading) means for most of us a long-term plan of winning. It is not very difficult to observe that the most common logic of “what?” is the very materialistic base, the basic "building block", the start line of our otherwise multilevel operations.
Let us now look at the logic of “what” from a higher cognitive level. Aristotle assumed that there is no such thing (a “what”) as Infinity. We use infinity for example to characterise the sum (a “what”) of numbers when we start to add them and never stop doing that. We also never really get to Cantor’s infinite continuum if we keep adding marbles to their always-finite set and some day or other just stop doing it. In addition, one more example of the logic of “what”: until the discovery of the Quantum-potential and Nonlocality, classic science rendered the notion of System to the summation (a “what”) of parts that display a certain common behaviour. These are a few examples of our understandable and easily acceptable common logic of “what”. Let us confess that when we manage to trace this or that phenomenon to a certain “what” or “who”, we usually recognise it as the cause of it and thereinafter rest satisfied with it. We are inclined to follow the way of classic logic despite the fact that — especially since the discovery of the Quantum-potential and Nonlocality — we do understand that starting from morsels, from parts we never arrive to the Whole.
Since their discovery, Part has lost its meaning outside the System. System has become a primary reality with its function that makes its parts distinguishable in a unity of action, the specific features of which are formulated on the level of the system as a whole, rather than that of its components. Take for example such functions of an organism and its inner systems like respiration or digestion – Szántó , . With its result achieved, such a system terminates its activity and, as wholeness, disintegrates itself within an acting organism. And this is already a logic different from the one we are accustomed to: the logic of “how”. No part of the unit (“what”) can be understood without its complementary counterpart, with no system (“how”) formulated. Each one is presupposed and at the same time excluded by the other. This is why altogether they form an AND/OR logic. Just like ‹statics&dynamics›, ‹scalar&operator›, ‹linearity&nonlinearity›, ‹finiteness&infiniteness›, etc.
All of these “counterparts/units” are algorithmic; the dichotomy these units represent works like a technology. Every technology has its function and its result - Szántó , . Such a unit as an event does not in fact work at all unless an Observer and a Selector name it and separate it. The dichotomy has to be in an active affiliation with a third and may be with a fourth party. In addition, it is up to the Observer whether he or she believes that the parts of such a relationship are substantive beings (logic of “what”) or this relationship is performing like a technology (logic of “how”). (“It is either something or goes somewhere” — as a popular trifling jest says). Both logics are valid; neither of them invalidates the other one. On the other hand, this is rather a hierarchy of logics than a freely used set of them. One can derive the what-logic from the how-logic but not vice versa. The how-logic overrules the what-logic but not vice versa. The principle of the unbreakable “Continuity of action” (how) corresponds to the phenomenon of “Act” or “Activity” (what) in classic causal logic. The principle of “Nonlocality” matches up with “Smearedness” in the language and the logic of “what”. The “World-process” is the “Universe”. “Either we stick with the classic logic and put up with paradoxical physics or we get rid of the paradoxes at the price of adapting a new logic… There is no room here for revision of logic — a “revised” logic would just be a “wrong” logic… It is clear that Quantum logic is not a rival to classic logic…” - Redhead , [9, p.153].
Let us look into the “how” of a single Action as it follows from the Quantum logic. Aristotle also began his investigations with the notions of potentiality and actuality taken as an action where potency means the capacity of a virtual reality to become an actuality, i.e. to fulfil or realise its function. If we want to take the event or Action as pure “correlations without correlata”, i.e. correlation free of any content, as the “how” of its realisation, we have to start from the AND/OR logic that covers the ‹statics&dynamics› totality of the process. We know that the Act as such should be determined, its outcome (what) and its realisation (how) are determined by the Observer and by the Selector. The AND/OR logic here means that the dichotomy of Action is given before its realisation has ever started. This two-dimensional formation of Action represents the event on standby, i.e. its Potential waiting to be unfolded. The process of realisation gets started when the Observer or the governing Point begins to control this Potential. The technology of this unit or │Controll&Potential> relationship produces a dichotomy of its results, divides the totality of the Action apart. (The sign │&> stands for Technology). The OR-logic instantly replaces the AND-logic: statics becomes opposite to dynamics, linearity to nonlinearity, and finiteness to infiniteness. Splitting at the Point into complementary positions without any realisation, the Whole labels at first itself on the Plane as pD and pS. The first or upper half of the Action means, therefore, that at its potential stage Activity is two-dimensional: it is principally distinct (Discreteness) and at the same time principally dispersed or dissipated (Smearedness), while the event’s realisation is still to be accomplished (Fig.1).│Smearedness&Discreteness> is the technology, with which Action keeps its wholeness unbroken during its differentiation from the given Potential. Let us say, this is a commandment or law of Diversification by complementary pairs. Therefore, the technology of integration should be │Discreteness&Smearedness>, while the │Differentiation&Integration> also belongs to the AND/OR logic of the totality of the process.
(The diversification scheme)
To be through, Action is to realise itself from its Potential by the same law of Diversification, i.e. its complementary positions of Discreteness (D) and Smearedness (S) are to differentiate into “discrete Discreteness” (d-D), “smeared Discreteness” (s-D), “discrete Smearedness” (d-S), and “smeared Smearedness” (s-S) positions.
No matter whether it is a quantum leap, a walking step, or the unfolding Universe, the law of Action, its power of analytical reasoning or discursiveness is the same.
Let us take for example the case of the Big Bang. With its smallest particle originated as an unfolding “discrete Discreteness” (d-D), we ought to calculate with all the complementary counterparts of the Universe emerging as various degrees of Smearedness. However, before the tiniest particle materializes itself, the two-dimensional virtual Potential is there prepared to unfold by 2x4 possible ways. There are four extensions — d-D; s-D; d-S; s-S — feasible as outcomes of the process of realisation of two virtual positions. It is up to the Selector which one to realise. There is no space-time, no matter and energy etc. involved yet, but we have already a three-level Point→Plane→Sphere structure of any event, a 1D››2D››4D algorithmic dimensional unfolding of the Control→Potential→Realisation succession. What we have got here is a transformation rule between discreteness and smearedness, between symmetries, between different mathematical manifestations, between the Whole and its Part, between the boundary conditions, their T = π∙a∙b scope as Potential and its unfolding. This rule of transformation is known as Shimura-Taniyama-Weil conjecture for (1-D)››(4-D) modular functions with a similar unfolding - Dermon , , Lang , . What we have got here is the three-level manifestation and its inner system of relations with maximum feasible symmetries, with a possible transformation to any direction, reflections, turnings, parts exchanged, and the manifestation still unvarying. We know also that due to the Hamilton Principle of stationary action, the variation integral of all the possible ways of unfolding should reach its extreme. Therefore, what we have here is a Lorentz-invariant: the point-symmetry transfers one action-integral into another action-integral, one Action into a further and complementary one. Action as such is a three-level substance or engine to keep transcendence (the change) going on; or vice versa, the Action manifests the transition by its algorithms. Its transcendency or continuance of the content by its periodical re-establishing makes possible the change of the change or re-invention of the content whenever its dynamic balance is jeopardised.
The common logic of “what” makes us to formulate the Action as a finite step that starts from α and ends at ω. However, the logic of “how” warns us that something is wrong with this statement, since the premise we started with clearly says that the continuance of Activity cannot be interrupted. Consequently, no Action is to be finished without continuation, the transcendency should keep going on. Therefore, no Action is allowed to reach its ω and to stop there without being extinguished totally with its α point and potential included. There can be only one solution of this controversy: the future part or position of realisation should be chopped off. Better to say, it has to remain virtual, imaginary, and irrational (Fig. 3). If the World-process is a single act — and it can be regarded as a single act —, then for the time being its dynamics is divided into its past and its future, already unfolded and to be unfolded parts, realised and virtually ready to be realised fractions. If p1-p3 positions are realised by their discreteness, position p4 remains virtual (quaternion; complex numbers). In case we are in a regressive World, the sequence of Actions will form a regressive saw-tooth procession (Fig. 3).
The logic of “how” and the Law of Transcendency also warn us that the substance of the process is rather the double Act then a single one. We had better take into consideration the dual unit of Action, the transcendency of Act “A” into the forthcoming Act “B”. This is one unbroken process of change realised simultaneously in two complementary steps or sequential Activity formations. Anyhow, Activity in its essence (logic of “what”) stands for setting up a relationship with itself; it tells apart, conceptualise (logic of “how”) the self by itself, mirrors itself by its own complementary manifestation. One of them in its manifestation should be discrete while the other one should be smeared accordingly (they do not “see” but “know” each other). Therefore, the double Act serves much more as a unifying system then their simple sequence. This System as a Totality should have one and only one result, one control and one Potential. Serving as the system’s Observer, the point of Control becomes thus double-faced. Potential “A” becomes Potential “B” being re-written, over-formulated and changed by the process of its own successful unfolding. On the level of Potentials, we have to count with one common plane. Therefore, this system has a Mobius-strip or loop to serve as a technology of “change of the change”, self-regulation, self-sustenance, and self-development by periodical re-formulation of its own Potential - Szántó , . It is a self-supporting Entity; the attractor of its dynamics is a torus. What we have here is not only the “how”, the technology, or the definition of the System; it is also a short definition of Entity.
The most interesting feature of this six-level duality is probably its Separator or teleological ability to make a functional choice between the possible outcomes of the System. While p1 and p4 positions construct a definite framework for the double-Action and thus make its common outcome determined at its extremes, p2 and p3 inner positions and their mixed operators are in fact out of direct control and that creates a chaotic and hysteric inner “behaviour” of the System (Operational Area, Fig. 2). This is a real whirlpool inside the Entity created by four comparatively free inner operators, and a great uncertainty of outcomes. In spite of this turmoil, there can be one and only one outcome of each behavioural Act, one result of the functioning.
part of Action
The concept of Functional Systems with adaptive results as endpoints of their actions was put forward by Russian neurophysiologist Piotr Anokhin as an alternative to the predominant concept of reflexes – Anokhin , [1-2]. According to his theory, Functional System is a self-organizing non-linear teleological system, very sensitive to its border conditions, and composed of selectively mobilised and periodically synchronized different organs and tissues of the entity. The starting afferentation and the contextual afferentation as the processes of its complex operation include afferent synthesis (preparation for decision-making); anticipatory outcome selection (decision-making); generation of the acceptor of the projected future result or "preceding reflection of the reality"; as well as self-correcting comparison between the actual result and its prognosis (backward afferentation). The afferent synthesis indicates decision-making by the Functional System, a reduction of redundant degrees of its own freedom and selection of one and only one particular outcome, but strongly suggests that this is already a kind of consciousness. If so, this Functional System is a problem-setting and problem-solving entity. Its progressing from phase to phase, from result to result is the way of the System’s self-correction, self-development or self-perfection. Its each phase-act is conducted by earlier phase-results (the past determines). At the same time, each phase-act actually chooses from several ways of anticipatory solutions (the virtual future undetermines, but remains the crucial leading part of the whole correlation from the beginning of the first phase-act to its prospective imaginary result at the far future). The attractor of such a dynamically progressing Functional System is a straight line in contrast to a torus of the Entity. The phenomenon of goal-setting is the result of the combined effect of such factors as the straight attractor of entity’s functioning dynamism, the active role of the anticipatory future, decision making, self-correction etc.
Matrix of Realisation
If position p1 signifies discreet discreetness (d-D) and this is Matter, its complementary matching counterpart might stand for Energy at position p4 of smeared smearedness (s-S) (Chart 1). If we count with Activity, we have to count with Inertness as its complementary counterpart. Please admit that the Matrix of Realisation demonstrates some examples of this system or network of pure correlations. The vertical lines of the Matrix give us the logic of “what”, the horizontal lines – the logic of “how” and the 3+1 (tetra-lemma) architecture of actions. Please admit also that none of these manifestations can be defined by themselves, only by or together with their complementary counterparts and/or by other three opposite positions. To conceive this or that manifested phenomenon one has to formulate the concept of its counterparts as well as the system they represent together. Anything we want to study as a phenomenon has to find its place in this Matrix together with its complementary counterparts. Positions p1 and p2, as well as positions p3 and p4 are to be strongly coupled by their common Potential and its discrete pD or smeared pS virtual manifestations on the level above. Positions of that level join each other in a single point-symmetric manifestation again one level higher (Fig. 2). (Weak and electromagnetic forces unite first into electroweak force, then into one symmetric force – Barrow, , [4, p.244-245].
The Matrix of Realisation makes it clear that Action’s selection of one and only one outcome (let us say p1 position) does not justify the negligence of its other three virtual manifestations, as well as the number of its degrees of freedom. Those manifestations play a crucial role in realisation, even if they all happen to be smeared, imaginary, or irrational. Even a stone is a three level formation realised from up to down with one position discrete and other ones smeared. The realisation of a stone or an entity in our regressive World is beyond doubt anchored first of all to materialisation (p1 position), but in case of the entity it is already a hierarchy of six levels “descending” toward their physical realisation. A camel’s six levels are realised from top to bottom and from left to right one by one in the form of at least p1 and p2 manifestations, its functioning based on 2x(p2;p3) positions. Therefore, it should be a 3x4=12 level echelon to bring into realisation not two but all the four feasible positions. It means that Totality as a Macro-Event should manifest a 12 level structure to be able to realise all the four positions. A Macro-Event indicates that it is wholeness with transcendency common for the sequence of its manifestations: physical, emotional, cognitive, and intellectual stages (Fig. 4). As far as we know, there are only two Beings that may have a 12 level structure: the Universe and Human being, despite of abecedarian, inchoative stage he or she sometimes manages “to achieve”. Being fully developed entities, people usually rest satisfied with their sixth level hierarchy and only the most diligent ones might try to reach for the ninth level in their lifelong pursuit of ever-higher intellectual summits.
To find out what the development means and how it depends on our personal determination and conscientiousness, we ought to remind ourselves again that as entities we unfold from top to bottom by the intellectual→mental-cognitive→sentimental-emotional→physical-physiological cascade of the process of realisation. Despite the fact that the unfolding of a potential, i.e. genesis of an embryo or the growth of a child can hardly be regarded a development, this is exactly the case how the notion of Development is commonly handled and understood. Arriving from the smeared complexion to discreteness, the unfolding of a Human being is anchored to materialisation on the level of realisation programmed by his or her higher levels. “Development” or self-adaptation is the program of change changed for better by the person himself or triggered by his circumstances and interactions while the process of his unfolding remains regressive. Let us say, up to this level this is the case of the natural selection. Otherwise, development always depends on our personal determination, intention, and conscientiousness.
The realisation of the regressive process of materialisation precedes the progressive intellectualisation, which being a complementary process is to run from discreteness to smearedness, starting bottom-up from p1 position toward the upper levels of the echelon. Generally, development is possible due to the self-improving Functional System, i.e. to the System’s ability to deliberately reconsider or select its outcome (the result is a part of the system) and to re-write its own potential purposefully changing the character or the quality of the routine results for innovative ones. As far as we know, Functional System is rather a contradictory mechanism or better to say an entity that is able to guide the process of differentiation toward optimal solutions despite the inner chaos. Starting from position p1 it is usually able to realise positions p2 and p3 up to position p4. Position p1 is its goal setting; position p2 is the premeditated way to its realisation; position p3 is the algorithm of its functional realisation; and position p4 is its product. Principally, this Echelon of Totality or Macro-Event may arrive at an absolute stability and entirely close upon itself with all the positions realised. However, since transcendency should keep going on, the future part or position p4 of the realisation should remain virtual (Fig. 3). Therefore, intellectualisation cannot be a result of natural selection or the regressive and materialistic process of differentiation. Progression as a process is complementary to regression but fairly depends on functioning as a mechanism of integration.
Not only each action of functioning is bound to be performed in steps, but also any sequence of such actions is confined to end. This fact indicates that in the world where operation or action is to be accompanied with built-in constrains and slowing down factors (errors), a non-linear activity cannot be anything else than periodic, slashed into events, and cyclic in its constitution. Just as the entire Universe, it is a self-governed process. In an other respect of periodic alteration, Functional System is the subject and performer of changes, a gatherer of aptness, a carrier or vehicle of capabilities, i.e. a substance in the Aristotelian sense (“the subject of all alterations and the vehicle of faculties” – Aristoteles , ). Each act of the functioning requires a specific capability to bridge the contradiction between activity and the constantly growing inactivity (inertness), between self-development and self-preservation. In each case, it has to reach an optimal Concentration, which is big enough to accomplish the alteration in spite of the inertia and error accumulated during all the previous phases and manifesting them as a new contradiction. As the percentage of error can only grow, the functional Concentration rate has to increase from phase to phase. Intellectualisation turns successful progression if the rate of development of Functional System exceeds the growth rate of inevitable error percentage. Therefore, evolution is not an outcome or property of such a Functional System. It is its criterion.
The Functional System, its non-linear totality, its feedback, its self-restoring, self-perfecting character, oscillation, cyclic, result-oriented deterministic (teleonomic rather than teleological) mode of operation is the way in which integrity tries to prevail over regressive and rather faulty diversification. To overcome the shortcomings, Functional System with its permanent statute strives to change itself further and further extending its radius of action toward its optimal range to reach and mobilise itself from those components that might be drawn in and may serve its purpose. In case of a socio-technical Functional System, it is obvious - Szántó , . Nevertheless, even a physiological Functional System is capable to replace a malfunctioning organ by another one in order to reach its goal. The law of the overstretching Range of Action exactly signifies that functioning is forced to overwhelm and counter-balance the growing error-percentage it itself inevitably creates – Szántó , . Due to the same reason, the Functional System cannot be an entirely closed system. It is rather a semi-closed periodically re-mobilising System finite in its character and phase by phase capable of specific self-alteration due to different in-puts and altered preconditions (goal, experience, outer influences, environment etc., and first of all its result). Anyhow, the system means an algorithm of change of the change with an essentially unchanged constitution of its nonlinear character in a constantly changing world.
Other systems, their out-of-action components, transmission mechanisms and stand-by instrumentality form a kind of specific functional environment around each Functional System. The interaction of the system and its environment can acquire either a co-operative or a competitive nature - Szántó , . Co-operative feedbacks from a functional environment can multiply the system's ability of self-preservation. Competitive feedbacks force Functional System to adapt itself to the environmental changes or to find an innovative way out. From the point of view of functioning, living Nature means a balanced co-operative-competitive conglomerate of self-preserving homeostatic Functional Systems with torus as their common attractor, with their interacting connections, hierarchies, as well as their functional environment. On the other hand, interaction may produce a multiplying, exciting impetus of modulation correction that can lead to uncontrollable oscillations and — in extreme cases — to catastrophe, breaking down the natural self-restoration ability. To bring a promising but — in fact — unlikely and even at its beginning alien, destabilising event of innovation into its accomplishment, the environment of a Functional System has to be much more abundant, multi-coloured and potentially rich enough to satisfy the needs any actual phase-act may have. The favourable functional environment ought to offer to each mobilising innovative system much more possibilities than it really can make use of. This is the only way in this world to overwhelm the influence of the growing percentage of error and to avoid the break or slow down of the pace of development. I would call it the law of Environmental Redundancy. It means that the drawing up capacity of potential components, their number of freedom degrees, and their value of distinction should grow faster than the range of functioning at least by an order of magnitude. The redundancy of the functional environment (abundance of the potential components plus mechanism of their fast substitution and mobilisation), which steadily grows in the course of development, deeply influences the functioning and thereby the security and the continuity of the system's evolution. (For example, the number of neurones directing the movement of the eye exceeds 25000 in the optical nerve, although under ordinary conditions only 4000 of them are used). Structural abundance is a general evolutionary security mechanism typical for all levels of functioning. Moreover, the higher evolutionary level the System achieves, the greater the diversity of its evolutionary environment is. The high rate of its self-development affects the dynamism of the avant-garde, the progression of its problem-setting and problem-solving ability. This is what we ought to recognise as a cognitive development.
Therefore, his or her own will and intention or the outer influence can hasten or delay the development of a Human being even at its adaptation phase. The Entity’s capability to control and steer its own functioning indicates the presence of a specific force of self-governing and awareness. Psychology states that an entity’s physical-physiological actions are emotionally controlled, while its sentimental-emotional actions are mentally controlled. On its lower materialistic level, this force or the form of awareness is the Concentration (p1 position) that indicates that the Action is controlled and corrected by Entity’s own upper level, i.e. by its will. Will (p2 position) as a force indicates that sentimental-emotional functioning can be overruled, suppressed by Entity’s own decision-making and by his or her Intention (p3 position). One may remark that since the Entity is anchored to its materialistic point and there is nothing to do for it just let the Echelon stream through itself persistently, its will and intention do not play any role in this process of automatic development. This is true on the lowest level of evolutionary development, the level of Concentration. On a higher level its potential or realised Will and Intention, its mental-cognitive and even intellectual guidance shall certainly play a crucial role in Entity’s development no matter on how high a stage the evolutionarily developed Entity has managed to climb up. Intention and cognition led development extends the Entity’s range of action further and further unfolding his or her abilities one by one, evolving by a logarithmic spiral from position to position, rendering to this progression a predestined pn position or action horizon of the highest potentially attainable and feasible intellectual stage. This preordained pn position or action horizon guides evolution merely by its potentiality. Quantum physics calls an event horizon a boundary of space-time, outside which (or inside, in case of a black hole) events cannot affect an observer (cannot be observed), but inside which he cannot get rid of its influence. A three level object taken as an event may have a given and fixed action horizon. If a six or more level self-supporting entity is unfolding itself by a p1→p2→p3 logarithmic spiral, its action horizon is usually more or less predetermined and thus a p4 intellectual position is formulated and predestined. Only that Entity is able to accomplish these macro-Action given feasibilities that is capable to ascend itself not merely to an apprehension altitude, but to the heights of a sovereign intellectual activity opening the route toward a hypothetical pn transintellectual position.
The Assembly of Action Totality
The Echelon as an assembly of an action’s totality (Fig.4) or a universal system of correlation clearly has a hierarchical disposition. As a totality this Echelon realises its properties descending from α to ω. Realisation as a process means diversification, setting apart notions, appearances, concluded completenesses (deliberate tautology), forces, abilities, faculties, modes of description, logics, stages, and phases. Algebra (p1), geometry (p2), topology (p3), and matrix-mathematics (p4) implicitly provide its mathematical description - Szántó , . Positions p1, p2, and p3 are partial manifestations of Totality (T), while position p4 with its result quality of “smeared Smearedness” (s-S) wholly manifests totality (t). Consequently, there are two manifestations of the Totality we have to count with: a (T) true or perfect primeval one, and (t) partial but infinite primordial one. The first one manifests itself per se, the other one as a wrapping up or result of an unfolding course of action.
The mapping out of similarities, tracing complex to simple, higher level to lower level or vice versa is correct for the portion cone or segment pine tree of the hierarchy of diversification, if we want to find out the correlation between any two manifested entities. Since diversification is anchored to the point of materialisation, the cone of hierarchy gradually grows up from left to right during the history of a given period. Actually, the (horizontal) statement that entity “A” has evolved from entity “B” would be rather conditional in the view of the steady change of the fraction cone of hierarchy and its self-programmed unfolding. The (vertical) notion of creation of an entity “A” by a higher-level entity “B” does not come through in the same way. However being alive, being repeatedly formed anew as a functioning entity by conceptualisation of its potential (Life) or being able to conceptualise if active (Intellect) would certainly fit the notion of Creation. Please admit that this kind of Creation presumes being free of contradictions and errors; only the Right Way conceptualisation works both ways. Please admit also that since neither Life nor Intellect can really be created ex nihilo — both can be only manifested —, this kind of Creation is the way the Word-process introduces the change of the change into its algorithm of constant change. Let us say, this is its way of self-healing.
Setting apart of Activity connotes the algorithm of definition or conceptualisation of one part by another (anthropomorphism). Hence, the basic “how” of constantly changing or active Activity (deliberate tautology) is mirroring, its counterpart (change of the change) and their relationship may express a part of Activity (change). One part is a concept created by the other part being both inseparable whole. Please admit that this is a one-way diversification performed by two │T&t> and │t&T> technologies, because the product of the first technology is totality (t) as a “part” (dominant result) of a process of unfolding, while the product of the other one is Totality (T) re-established in its absolute and perfect wholeness again and again, each time repeatedly conceptualising totality (t). This is why entities do not evolve from one discreteness to another one. They are rather periodically re-embodied. Diversification or falling apart, when started, indicates on the other hand not only explicit discreteness but also contradiction between its different manifestations. The periodically re-established dominancy of Sovereignty delegates its principle of being free from the control to its subordinated (contradiction!) manifestations performed as a functional ability of focusing on its personal role, its importance and self-control, on being concerned that it has an influence if needed, i.e. on self-awareness. Its stages are Concentration, Will, and Intention (Chart 1).
The basic algorithm that makes Universe and Human being self-governed and let their system of relations unfold and develop is mirroring or conceptualising, as we have found it out already. This makes possible their differentiation and re-integration, the process of self-governed separation of the self from its environment followed by its integration into a functional unit. Everything that is manifested — even a three level pebble — is self-governed to be periodically re-embodied. The manifestation of anything diversified from Totality is to be governed at its lowest level by its elementary Consciousness, a self-directed relationship that separates the self-reproducing entity from everything and everybody to open its way toward a complexity of functional integrations. Consequently, the elementary Consciousness or self-governing has to be a property of every manifested object and subject no matter if it is discrete or smeared, finite or infinite. A Functional System’s consciousness is also elementary but on the entity level, since functioning is nothing else than bringing in equilibrium or self-governing an inner chaotic relationship amidst regressive and progressive tendencies. From the point of view of regression, equilibrium can be achieved by the power of Intellect. Judging from the side of progression, it should be its materialistic determination that makes self-support and purposeful action achievable. The connotation of functioning may be given or conceptualised both from upper and from lower levels with a balanced concept of the System’s autonomy as well as its function formulated within it. As a result, a Functional System should have at least two modes of self-governing beyond its elementary self-awareness: its consciousness is multileveled. Our Universe is clearly more regressive than progressive. An entity as a conglomerate of its functional systems can be self-supporting for a while, manifesting self-sufficiency with its processes of regression and progression balanced amid certain limits of tolerance. Its “life term” or better to say its term of equilibrium is finite; the entity is to re-embody itself periodically “moving” from a stage of equilibrium to another one. There are principally twelve levels of equilibrium in an Echelon, three upper levels of which are “chopped away” representing an imaginary, irrational (s-S) manifestation. Therefore, theoretically there can only be nine periods of self-sufficient equilibrium in the row of unfolding. The history of the Universe is presumably subdivided into nine “aeons” of exponentially decreasing length, the last three (d-S) of which gave persistence to the discrete manifestations of Homo Sapiens Sapiens as the most intelligent creature. As we know, intellectual activity has to counterbalance the phenomenon of general regression. During the earlier six discrete (d-D and s-D) aeons, Human being has had to fulfil this task being most likely totally or partially in his smeared appearances.
The evolution of human consciousness means a self-governed determined process of development, a programmed self-perfection, the universal functional task of which is to keep regression and progression in a dynamic balance. Being in his or her discrete manifestation, i.e. being part of the regressive materialistic World, it is up to the intellectual power and self-perfection of Human being whether progression finally overcomes regression and turns out a success. The evolution of human consciousness consequently is a process with an immense stake of universal importance. The universal task of Human being is to make use of the power of consciousness, to develop an appropriate strategy and to fulfil his mission.
Let us recapitulate the main stages of our own, otherwise multileveled consciousness we have to calculate with so far:
Ego (position p1): the most inert (d-D) form of personal self-governing of separated Activity; an elementary vegetative function of self-observation and self-operation. Ego separates one animated being from the other one, being able to enter duality, to form a complementary pair with another ego, though their interaction is in most cases based on pure aggression. Ego’s philosophy is as primitive as the philosophy of a cockroach, but it is the power of Ego that sets the goal and mobilises, integrates the self into a powerful operational unit.
Collective Ego (position p2): collective unconsciousness - Jung ,  - is complementary to Ego. It is to a certain extent functional consciousness (s-D) that further on - but in smeared way - separates one race from the other, one group from another one, integrating them into an outwards mostly aggressive but inward rather fraternal social operational unit. This is a clan, gang or tribe consciousness referring to the common moral attitudes, shared beliefs, mutual likeness, common origin, counterfeit solidarity, hatred etc. One is willing to submit the self to a more powerful feeling of conjoint orientation. Even at its lowest level it is a real unifying force within a society; it integrates the crowd into a self-governed operational cohort. Its philosophy starts with confrontation for the sake of confrontation, fight, aggression, and triumph. “Sooner or later, the collective (ego) will come into conflict with other collectives, because it unconsciously seeks conflict and it needs opposition to define its boundary and thus its identity” - Tolle , . On the other hand, at its highest level, its philosophy may arrive to mutual affection and dedication of brotherhood, association, partnership and liaison. An energetic personality with a strong Ego may come to be embraced by some people and may force its negative or positive characteristics upon its legion, which therefore contracts a low level or a high level Collective Ego, becomes a goon squad, a criminal gang or a philanthropic association accordingly.
Comprehension (position p3): mind, brain, wit, nous, cleverness, human common sense or innovative Functional Consciousness (d-S) that affords Human being to differentiate not only between different components but also between diversifying partial processes, and to distinguish between horizons of activity. Functional Consciousness benefits from the power of Ego and from aggressiveness and social affinity of the Collective Ego since position p2 and p3 both play an active role in a Functional System. This is how we try to domesticate the Collective Ego and to ennoble it to the functional engine of social activity. In case Functional Consciousness fails to bring Collective Ego under control, the later may even turn against its master, the common sense.
Essentially Functional Consciousness works unceasingly governing physiological and emotional processes. Usually at this stage, we can hardly name it “comprehension”, but the decision-making of each periodically mobilised functional system — let it be the functioning of the DNA or a cell, respiration or nourishment, learning at school, working in a smithy or at a drawing board — is a real problem-solving process. Therefore, there should be a great scale of different decision-making processes and capabilities, a broad variety or degrees of Functional Consciousness, diverseness of levels of comprehension.
It was Functional Consciousness that elevated Human being’s cognitive functioning up to spiritual heights and brought human activity into a complex socio-technical functional operational assembly. The philosophy of socio-technical functioning is the forced problem-setting and problem-solving that makes education, co-operation, gaining skill and knowledge, grasping the meaning and understanding through functional interaction, experience and the creation primary keys of personal, corporative, national and regional development strategies. The highest levels of comprehension provide proficiency to form, interpret and extrapolate the context as well as discern the consequences of long range planning.
It is Functional Consciousness that differentiates contextual meanings looking for the Truth. Our individual comprehension on its highest level of development turns out to be strongly connected to the objective universal Truth. This is not the right answer of problem solving or correct reasoning of a dissertation. The Truth is within us. It is one for all of us. Therefore, this kind of Truth is not a fact or an argument. It is an inner state or quality of Human Mind, a feeling or belief that developing comprehension makes him or her capable of approaching the universal Truth.
It is clearly not a worldwide brain-teasing quiz we are participating in. Nowadays we witness that the paradigm of education is switching visibly and globally from an assimilative faculty or gradual knowledge absorption to unwrapping of the personality’s unique potential. The headache is that the gap between the different levels is growing and the society usually is not prepared to take care of high-level personalities. One may look at him/herself as a personality if he/she is eager to find out the mission he/she is supposed to have in this world and the way he/she is going to realise it. It is certainly a sign that Human being has at last arrived to the threshold of the fourth phase of his/her evolution: the accomplishment of the power of Intellect or World-consciousness.
Intellect (position p4): the Consciousness of Personality makes the person of rank (s-S) to differentiate between potential horizons of Activity bringing the whole Universe into a functional unit. Its philosophy is perfection as such, despite the fact that one never can reach it. The exception is the intellect for the sake of intellect, which is as offensive as its counterpart the Ego is. The highest level of consciousness, i.e. World-consciousness, the most comprehensive Intellect ever achieved in harmony with all of other forms of consciousness is capable to understand not only the laws, the “how” of the World-process but also the “why”, its meaning and content.
What we usually call “consciousness” is our power of self-taming and the point where this power can be applied for the sake of the World and the self.
This is, briefly, the story of the self-taming of Human being — the story of bringing ourselves under self-control by self-perfection with the purpose of fulfilling our universal mission. As a closing moment, let us consider the whole World-history a single process. If there ever was at all any strategy Human being applied to realise his universal mission, it was as a rule — with few exceptions — an aggressive subjugation of other beings, taming ourselves by breaking in, domesticating others. The strategy of the conquest was slightly amended at its latest stage by adding functional adaptation, i.e. change forced by deliberately transformed circumstances. However disgraceful it is, untill now the moral fibre of this antagonistic and strained strategy of our “natural integration against somebody” remained unaffected. Mutual affection is also in vast minority. The Intellect is not yet a common feature of the Human being. The Fourth Type Man is still to come. The ethical essence of our startegy of self-development is still to be altered to the “integration in favor of everybody”.
Nevertheless, we are certainly already standing on the very verge of the new age.
 Anokhin, P.K. (1979): Izbrannye trudy. Sistemnye mehanizmy vysshej nervnoj deiatelnosti (Selected Works. System Mechanisms of the Highest Nervous Activity). In Russian. Nauka, Moscow.
 Anokhin, P.K. (1980): Uzlovye voprosy teorii funkcionalnoj sistemy. (The Key Questions of the Theory of Functional System). In Russian. Nauka, Moscow.
 Aristoteles (1992): Physica. Hatágú Síp Alapítvány, Budapest.
 Barrow, John, D. (2005): A semmi könyve. Akkord Kiadó, Budapest. (The Book of Nothing. Jonathan Cape, 2000, London).
 Dermon, Henry (Dec. 1999): A Proof of the Full Shimura-Taniyama-Weil
Conjecture is Announced. /Notions of the AMS/, v. 46, no. 11, pp. 1397-1401, USA.
 Jung, Carl G. (1960): The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. Collected Works, VIII. Tr. Hull, R.F.C., Collins and Routledge, London.
 Grof, Stanislaw (2007): Людьми управляют матрицы. (Matrixes Govern the People) /Pravda/, 1.12.2007, Interview in Russian. Moscow. http://www.pravda.ru/science/mysterious/human/12-01-2007/209514-grof-
 Lang, Serge (Nov. 1995): Some History of the Shimura-Taniyama Conjecture. /Notions of the AMS/, v. 46, no. 11, pp. 1301-1307, USA.
 Redhead, Michael (1989): Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism. A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
 Stern, August (1988): Matrix Logic. Elsevier Science Publishers, North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 215.
 Szánto, Borisz (1990): A teremtõ technologia. A társadalmi-technikai evolució elmélete (Creative Technology. The Theory of Socio-technical Evolution), in Hungarian. Közgazdasagi és jogi könyvkiadó, Budapest, pp. 461.
 Szántó, Borisz (1998): Socio-technical Functioning and Anthropogenic crises. /Systems Research and Behavioural Science/, John Wiley & Sons, v.15: 297-313, UK.
 Szántó, Borisz (2001): The Paradigm of Globalism, /Technovation/, 2001, v.21/10, pp. 673-687, Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
 Szántó, Borisz (2005): The Unconventional Challenges of Info Tech. /Technovation/, 2005, v.25/5, pp. 469-476, Elsevier, Oxford, UK
 Szántó, Borisz (2006): Lélek — az önépítés elve és az önfenntartás szubsztanciája. (The Soul as Principle of Self-construction and Substance of Self-sustenance). In Hungarian. /INCO/, 12 sz. http://www.inco.hu/inco12/fooldal.ht
 Szántó, Borisz (2008): Az egyesített technológiaelmélet. Kézirat. (The United Theory of Technology). In Hungarian. /INCO/13, http://www.inco.hu/inco13/innova/cikk0h.htm
 Tolle, Eckhart (2006): A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose. Ed. Plume. (On the Collective Ego: http://cliffordshackforum.blogspot.com/2008/01/eckhart-tolle-on-collective-ego.htm)
 Выгодский Л.С. (1982): Собрание сочинений. Наука. Москва.