IN MEMORIAM

Academician Alexandru BORZA

Academician Stefan-Marius MILCU

Prof. Dr. Doc. Edmond NICOLAU

Prof. Dr. Doc. Victor SAHLEANU

2.   The I^st FRAME

"Original" rationale addressing a conjecture upon the MULTILEVEL_CIRCULAR relation: KNOWLEDGE_1 <=> BRAIN <=> MIND <=> GENOME <=> SOCIETY <=> KNOWLEDGE_2

(Quasi) Definition_1: An Integronic Mode of Thinking (Imt) means a ‘subtle near-ness’ to the Holistic Mode of Thinking (Hmt). I.e. a HUMAN, as much as possible, attains Imt if HE/SHE USES one (at least) from the operators from the open set: {COMPARISON OPERATOR; BELONGING OPERATOR; INCLUSION OPERATOR; ...} – within a ‘problem solving’ saturated environment.

This USAGE is revealed by "engaging" related subtle expressions of gnosis and/or episteme, as well, alongside his/her explanations and/or understanding attempts and/or embedded sentiments and/or intuitions – as attempts within our World. [3-10].

Proposition 1: A subtle near-ness to the Hmt, so, an expression of Imt has a necessary and sufficient communication condition within the evolutionary creative Human's appearance of communication.

This condition is implemented by/from/with an issue of communication which contains at least a related subtle expression of gnosis and/or episteme responsible on his/her explanations and/or understanding attempts and/or embedded sentiments and/or intuitions attempts [11-17].

Proposition 2: If a Human, as much as possible, attains Imt, then he/she is, has and uses one element (at least) from the set of  a bio-support for the acting within the probabilistic/statistic, fuzzy, and subtle approaching on our World within a

MULTILEVEL_CIRCULAR relation:

KNOWLEDGE_1 <=> BRAIN <=> MIND <=> GENOME <=> SOCIETY <=> KNOWLEDGE_2

This above stated relation is embedded within a General Humankind System // Living Support Entities (and their Existence-Reflection) [as an Anticipatory / Incursion (computing) system] [18-33] (K1-K2).

Proposition 3: A subtle near-ness to the Hmt, so, an expression of Imt, has a necessary and sufficient communication condition within the innate cultural Human's appearance of communication: “HUMAN COMPLEX”. This condition is implemented by/from/with an issue of communication which contains at least a related subtle expression of gnosis and/or episteme responsible on his/her FLOW through the MULTILEVEL-CIRCULAR relation K1-K2 / [34-39].

Proposition 4: If a Human, as much as possible, attains Imt, then he/she is, has and uses one element (at least) from the set of bio-support as Individual - but - meantime, he/she does all these as an element of a set of Individuals (i.e. PAIR/e-DIALOGUE COUPLE, TRIAD, FAMILY, COMMUNITY/e-COMMUNITY, SMALL/MIDDLE/LARGE SCALE COMMUNITARIAN ENTITY, HUMANKIND) and, so, is acting within the probabilistic/statistic, fuzzy and subtle (re-)approaching on our World.

Enlarged MULTILEVEL_CIRCULAR relation:

KNOWLEDGE_1 <=> “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” <=> BRAIN <=> MIND <=> GENOME <=> (e-)SOCIETY <=> “HUMAN (e-)COMPLEX” <=> KNOWLEDGE-2 (Enl K1_K2),

Then this USAGE [of any element from the set of bio-support as Individual] means that that set of Individuals (as above) attains Imt – pointing HUMAN GENOMIC and HUMAN (e-)COMPLEX.

Remark 1: This attainment (as Proposition 4 states it) does not directly means that both that Individual or that set of Individuals recognize(s)/communicate(s) that attainment of Imt, generally addressing, toward another element of a set of Individuals (again: as above into Proposition 4).

Proposition 5: The reciprocal stance of the Proposition 4 does not stand meantime there is/are severe constrain(s) [as Microcosm, neural, biological, environmental, societal, Macrocosm constrain(s)] related to the obvious emittance of a gnosis and/or episteme subtle expression by/from/with an Individual toward a set ofIndividuals (e.g. cases from: SATURATED PROBLEMS FROM SCHOOLS, JAILS / ANY FORM OF CONSTRAINED LIBERTY, HARD LABOUR CAMP, STRESS-ZONE FROM RESEARCH LABORATORIES, MILITARY UNITS, SECRET INFORMATION UNITS, EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS - much more addressing, here, a General Humankind System // Living Support Entities (and their Existence Reflection) [as an Anticipatory / Incursion (computing) system]. [40-52]

A recovery of the Remark 1 / (but) as an [explicit] Inquiry: Which is the COMPARATIVE RELATION - as pointing from the associations of more than one mode of thinking to the Imt?  (It could be as a step by step "jumping" from a neuronal image to another neuronal image by/from/with an Individual and/or a set of Individuals)

Proposition 6: The SUPPOSED probabilistic/statistic, fuzzy, subtle type of the Enl K1_K2 MULTILEVEL_CIRCULAR  relation would remain a per se unproven type/unknown type meantime there are/will be yet NOT significant discoveries related to the meta-relations between the elements of the relation KNOWLEDGE_1 <=> “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” <=> BRAIN <=> MIND <=> GENOME <=> (e-)SOCIETY <=> “HUMAN (e-)COMPLEX” <=> KNOWLEDGE_2. Also, equivalent significant discoveries and inventions are foreseen/foresight/prospected within the ontic multi-open string {..., MICROCOSM, HUMAN BEING, NEURAL ENTITIES, BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTITIES, SOCIETAL ENTITIES  [INDIVIDUAL, (E-)PAIR/(E-)DIALOGUE COUPLE, “Science/Culture/Religion” TRIAD, (E-)FAMILY, COMMUNITY/E-COMMUNITY, SMALL/MIDDLE/LARGE SCALE (E-)COMMUNITARIAN ENTITY; (E-)LEARN TO (E-)LIVE TOGETHER STANCE], HUMANKIND, BIOCOSM; ECOCOSM; MACROCOSM, ...}.

Remark 2:  As, here, an Inquiry, is there an increasing stance of the Enl K1_K2 MULTILEVEL_CIRCULAR relation if an Individual has an increasing (even unproven/unknown) stance of the attaining Imt? [Which are the "individual" sources toward "fixing/prompting/sustaining/attaining" an increasing stance of the Imt STANCE?] [3,10,53-66].

NOTE-1: These "original" rationale are to be presented, also, as a result of (at least...) some scientific meetings with three Professors and a Director who the author of this current study had met, thus stimulating (in)directly this edition of this I^st FRAME:

Richard L. Amoroso, Director of Noetic Advanced Studies Institute, CA, US. [67].

Mariano L. Bianca Ph.D., Professor, Siena University, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Dip. di Scienze storico-sociali, filosofiche e della formazione, Italy[38].

Radu J. Bogdan Ph.D., Professor, Tulane University, US; Regular Guest Professor, University of Bucharest, Romania [64].

Niels Henrik Gregersen PhD, Professor of Systematic Theology, Department of Systematic Theology, Faculty of Theology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark [68]

There was an attempt to realize a kind of methodological-dialogue between the above ‘four scientifically types’ of meetings. There is the affirmation that the current study inquiries upon the diversity of these ‘four scientifically fragmented types’;  one result is revealed by the consonant diversity within the TABLE-contents entitled “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” stance of approaches / see these TABLE-consonant-contents into the downward Section I of the III^rd FRAME.

The next quotation, here, tries to lexicographical represent the above text [only and only within a metaphor]:

"As giving, it starts as giving from what you have to HAVE, then - from a moment, it follows as giving from what you are to BE." (The Father ARSENIE BOCA, Christian Theologian b.1910 - d.1989) / "Cand dai, la inceput dai din ceea ce ai, apoi, de la un moment dat, dai din ceea ce esti." / In Romanian language.

NOTE-2: The HOLISTIC mode of thinking (Hmt) [‘highly and possible firstly’ focalised by Plato] is defined ‘together’ and within the diversity/fragmentation of our human thinking. This diversity/fragmentation comprises also the following three other modes of thinking: ANALYTIC [‘highly’ focalised by Descartes], EXPERIMENTAL [‘highly’ focalised by Fr. Bacon], and EXPERIENTIAL [‘highly’ focalised by Bergson] [8,55,60,69-85].

NOTE-3: An INTEGRONIC mode of thinking (Imt) BEYOND its subtle near-ness to the HOLISTIC mode of thinking (Hmt) would have to inquiry on (at least a ‘fragment’ of) the open string {... <=> BRAIN / HEART <=> MIND <=> CONSCIENCE <=> CONSCIOUSNESS <=>  ...}. The next graphic is intended to represent the above integer text as an image, for the initial (by the contexts before the Proposition 4) frame, and then the enlarged (by the context of Proposition 4) frame – i.e. Figure 1.

3.  The II^nd FRAME

Toward a Possible Turning Point between Transdisciplinary Research, Integrative Science Prospect, and Theology. A Possible Turning Point as Facing “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” within a possible “Science/Culture/Religion” triad.  Possible pavement in order to LEARN TO LIVE AND TO PROGRESS TOGETHER. A NETWORK OF (the contemporary) NETWORKS implementing these new constructs.

How could the ‘first stage’ assumption onto our Cosmos by Transdisciplinarity, Integrative Science, and Theology fit in the worldview made by the globalization / regionalization realities and postmodern aspirations?

There is here a “possible turning point” proposal to take account on the state of art at least in the related arena to Cognitive Science, regarding the comprehension on consciousness. So, there is a significant term, here taken as a creative metaphor within an epiphoric tension ‘qualia’ (at plural; singular ‘quale’, in Latin) to refer to the introspectively phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. The actual usage of the term bears the disagreement on how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the human, beyond which mental states have qualia, and, also, the disagreement on mind-body problem. This “nominated” disagreement, through qualia term, support and elicit the comprehension on consciousness and beyond. The subjective sensory qualities like "the redness of red" (those accompany our perception) are per se qualia. The explanatory gap (that exists between the subjective qualities of our perception and the physical system that we call the brain) is symbolized per se by qualia. So, it may be a proper turning point to approach subjective-objective gap of ourselves. As above presented, as related to our gap, qualia term is used starting from Now, on another part, a new insight “subject-object reversal” is elicited by aiming out of: conventional understanding (“what else is true?”) and constraining explanation (“what is science?”). These “out of” are equivalent to prolong qualia beyond “our gap” / and so, to face toward the construction of a “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX”.

Here it is proposed an extended usage of qualia term to comprehend the multiple approaches onto our Cosmos by contemporary thinkers beyond strictly Philosophy, Biology and Physics, and beyond actual state of our economic and political shaped [post-crisis] Planet. This multiple approach refers the deepest and profound reality, research for the convergent points of existence and reflection; it is beyond the complexity of "a" categorized academic science and the long-term tribulation of the “hard” XX century. From the contemporary thinkers beyond all these, here, the proposed focalization is on Transdisciplinarity Integrative Science prospect [45,47,87,88] these types of research being the one part into the Science-Theology dialogue. And into the “Centrum” of this dialogue it is proposed a Qualia role for the subjective-objective gap of ourselves inward the Cosmos, as “nominated” disagreement, just to support and elicit the comprehension on fragmentised deep knowledge, on the act of contemporary individual and collective consciousness [and Universal Consciousness], onto the complex relation consciousness-data-information-knowledge - a visible section into the Science-Theology dialogue.All these support a generalized subjective-objective gap. So, a “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” would support the analysis and to elicit the usage of Qualia term that would grant "any" overwhelmed gap, by "any" part, seen in any section regarding Science-Theology dialogue [89-92].

A new/innovative ‘second stage’ assumption stance is expected within the research and implementing labor toward a ‘subtle possible’ and/or an ‘acting probabilistic/fuzzy/subtle’ “Science/Culture/Religion” triad. This triad is foreseen to take up a ‘subtle possible’ dialogue-and-negotiation toward a new stance of education, administration, (re-)construction of our freedom, (re-)construction of our (meta-)juridical ‘probabilistic/fuzzy/subtle’ societal pavement of prosecution and reward. All these would be in order to LEARN TO LIVE AND TO PROGRESS TOGETHER. Could a NETWORK OF (the contemporary) NETWORKS implement these new constructs?  I.e. a “Prospective subtle” YES within a responsible respond alongside this complex text on.

4. The III^rd FRAME

 Is it possible to really be a way toward the Innovative Social Relations and Creative Partnership issue vs. the Interactive Modelling / “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” stance (IM/HGC)?

Section I: The STRUCTURAL section of the III^rd FRAME: There are the following proposed principles (PP) focusing the proposal within the IM/HGC stance - also, to form the background for the structural construction of this study:

PP1: The affirmation upon a per se COMPLEXITY - within the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the Innovative Social Relations and Creative Partnership (ISR and CP) objectives and a primal-dual conceptual stage vs. the IM/HGC stance [93].

PP2: On INNOVATION AND EDUCATION regarding the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the ISR and CP demands vs. the IM/HGC stance.

PP3: The PERCEPTION of the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes -toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance.

PP4: A STRATEGY to enable world-wide professional and scientific societies related and consequent - within the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes -toward the ISR and CP research, education and innovation.

PP5: A core of LOCAL-GLOBAL CRITERIA.

PP6: The IM/HGC stance approach on the KNOWLEDGE versus the societal FRAME.

If the previous tasks of survey (PP1-6) would be successful, then a possible conceptual orientation may be assured according to the following TABLE, as an initial contribution from the “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” stance of approaches – i.e. Table 1.

So, if there is an agreement upon the fact that the enquired <> quasi exists, then there is a possibility to be reflected within a Subtle (Non) System-as nearly delimited by the above table. Then, this possible conceptual orientation would be a necessary support with the tracks of the: task-1: providing an analytical list of professional and scientific societies - on related world-wide backgrounds; task-2: developing a questionnaire on the present and next future issues on the matter; task-3: organizing a large scale Workshop to consult on future options-as the generative core of a Humankind approach on - all the PP1-4 key interdisciplinary research themes according to the related recognized scientific entities - for a Periodical Study-Report on “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” .

Section II: The FUNCTIONAL section of the of the IV^th FRAME: There are the following dually proposed principles (DPP), correlated and concordant to the above Proposed Principles (PP) - just to form the background for the structural-functional construction of this study:

DPP1: The re-affirmation upon the COMPLEXITY of the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance objectives and the expandation of a DUAL CONCEPTUAL STAGE.

DPP2. Proposing the ANALYSIS of the professional and scientific TRENDS on the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance.

DPP3. A brief survey on Interactive Modelling stance; SOCIETAL KNOWLEDGE.

DPP4. A brief survey on the CONSEQUENCES of the societal knowledge: Qualia[Planetron, Sociotron] - as constructs toward the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance, and possible domain.

DPP5. Notes upon an INFORMATION-KNOWLEDGE JOURNEY.

DPP6. SOURCES OF SUBTLENESS - proposed through the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes - toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance, and possible domain.

DPP7. Describing author’s current and POSSIBLE RESEARCH INTERESTS.

DPP8. An ordered LIST OF INQUIRIES and their details related to the two FRAMES, above, as key interdisciplinary research themes toward the ISR and CP issue vs. the IM/HGC stance, and possible domain - according to the content of the DPP1, 2, 4, 6.

The inter/trans/co/cross-disciplinary approaches upon the 3rd millennium are challenges to reduce the societal gap between humankind aspiration and limitation. Focusing on the globalization / regionalization turning point, the contemporary societal gap is a complex reality; nature, society, and thinking are the reverted parts of this non-systemic entity: societal gap. All these emulate the thinking upon the brain/heart, mind, conscience, consciousness, Existence Reflection profoundness, and Universal Consciousness re-approaches. Let be the following “new” description of a perceived problem within our humankind – i.e. Figure 2.

Problem: After 2.5 millennia (proved within the structural science) of life learning across the unknown environment, eliciting innate profoundness, and transmitting information among the parts of the group and to the next group of living support systems, at the beginning of the III^rd millennium, with the discover of own humankind genome, the society is facing with its own increasing complexity. There is a profound societal gap between aspiration and limitation within an indirect scientific responsibility.

If there is a constituted problem, then Humankind includes its solution, or there is a collapse. The current humankind tends to resolve the constituted problems (also the above represented Problem too) [95]. Also, there is a dilution of the tension between material and spiritual keen approaches over our worlds; but, thus, the entire responsibility is relatively not increased.

Now and here, a possibility consists in an aggregation of the concepts related to:

*1. The connected problems of the Planet (poverty/welfare, culture, religion, ideology, science, environment, individual/societal becoming/evolution, survival within the becoming/evolution).

*2. The worth or/and worthless Knowledge Transfer as a basis for the future decisions and actions; the turning point of the individual and societal tensions.

*3. The today necessary transition-net: Universal ==> Particular ==> Planetary.

As a becoming of a solution for the above represented Problem, the Rational Subject minds upon the individual and collective flows of the cycle: *1-*2-*3-*1, according to the synergy of the increasing knowledge. It would stand between / across / around / besides an understanding and an explanation inside / during self-"lost / hidden / unseen" humankind vs. the above presented challenges and metaphors.

* Holistic capacity (an instant insight and correct representation of an entire context); here it is metaphorical associated with the FIRE symbol – regarding the existence vs. HGC.

* Eco-consciousness (at least, a harmonic decision versus the contrary tendencies of all the parts); here it is metaphorically associated with the WATER symbol -and reflection vs. HGC / [33,35,65,86,96-115].

Onto our current space-time period, it may be a proper turning point, within our contemporary tension(s), to re-approach on the subjective-objective gap of ourselves. As above presented, as related to our gap, qualia term is used starting from ourselves (… BRAIN/HEART <=> MIND <=> GENOME <=> (e-)SOCIETY <=> “HUMAN (e-)COMPLEX” …). Now, on another part, a new insight “subject-object reversal” is elicited by aiming out of: conventional understanding (“what else is true?”) and constraining explanation (“what is science?”). These “out of” are equivalent to prolong qualia beyond “our gap” and so, to face toward the construction and/or re-construction of a “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX”. Is this construct a new term within a possible “Science/Culture/Religion” triad?  Is this triad a possible pavement in order to LEARN TO LIVE AND TO PROGRESS TOGETHER? Could a NETWORK OF (the contemporary) NETWORKS implement these new constructs?  Are these inquiries, at this text-stage, elicited within a virtual or within a (hypothetical) real ontic multi-open string {..., MICROCOSM, HUMAN BEING, NEURAL ENTITIES, BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL ENTITIES, SOCIETAL ENTITIES  [INDIVIDUAL, (E-)PAIR/(E-)DIALOGUE COUPLE, “Science/Culture/Religion” TRIAD, (E-)FAMILY, COMMUNITY/E-COMMUNITY, SMALL/MIDDLE/LARGE SCALE (E-)COMMUNITARIAN ENTITY; (E-)LEARN TO (E-)LIVE TOGETHER STANCE], HUMANKIND, BIOCOSM; ECOCOSM; MACROCOSM, ...}? This text tries to reserve both the subtle outcomes:

I.e. a “Prospective subtle” YES within any human intentionality (e-)basement and responsible respond alongside the humankind (e-)complex – prospected within this complex text on.

A “prospective subtle” NO would exist only and only if ‘any’ human intentionality (e-)based act would collapse, and any kind of re-iterated responsible respond would be cracked within the {increased exponential technological advance (mostly on the realms of the ‘bio computing’ and ‘quantum computing’) –probabilistic/fuzzy/subtle aggregated with- non-exponential human (e-)complex advance (mostly on the realms of the ‘bio-Real_Virtuality’ and ‘neuro-augmented-Virtual_Realities’   and  expended Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life innovative intrusions within the near stages of the human being) [but ‘these constructs and concepts’ are  fuzzy-outside and subtle-alongside the complexity of this text].

Figure 1: Multilevel Circular Relation: KNOWLEDGE_1 <=> “HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” <=>BRAIN <=>MIND<=>GENOME<=> (E-)SOCIETY <=> “HUMAN (E-)COMPLEX” <=>KNOWLEDGE_2.

Figure 2: The connections between, “intro/extro” Input and Output (I and O) within the representation of the Living Support Entities, Eco-consciousness, Holistic capacity, HUMAN GENOMIC COMPLEX” (HGC) [94].

1.       Searle J (2000) The Three Gaps. From the Classical Theory of Rationality toward Consciousness Approach. Analytical Philosophy Insight-Conference, The New Europe College, Bucharest.

2.       Marcus S (1974) Linguistics as a pilot science Current Trends in Linguistic Hague: Mouton.

3.       Gödel K (1931) Uber formal unentscheidhareSätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandterSysteme I, MonatsheftefürMathematik und Physik 38: 173-198.

4.       Buckminster FR (1969) Utopia or Oblivion: The Prospect for Humanity. Bantam Books.

5.       Irtem A (1977) Simulation of consciousness. Modern trends in cybernetics and systems 729-734.

6.       DeTombe DJ, Dijkum CV (1996) Analyzing Complex Societal Problems A Methodological Approach.

7.       Stoica M (2003) "Subtle sets in Economics", in Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research.

8.       Bulz N (2009) Systemic and cybernetic knowingness: relating “(a)symmetry” and “subtleness”? Project onto the contemporary complexity versus the information-knowledge dynamics. Kybernetes 38: 1121-1161.

9.       Gaukroger St (2012) Objectivity a Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

10.    Bulz N (2017) How Does Change Come About? About Societal Interactive Change. Lambert Academic Publishing

11.    Simon HA (1957) Administrative Behaviour New York: Free Press.

12.    Thomas RS (1993) Collected Poems 1945-1990.

13.    Galeriu CP (1992) Le Péchécontre le Saint Esprit, StudiiTeologice. 143-150.

14.    Vallée R (1995) Cognition et Système / Essaid'Epistémo-Praxéologye, Limonest: L'Interdisciplinaire / Système.

15.    Sanders I (1998) Strategic Thinking and the New Science / Planning in the Midst of Chaos, Complexity, and Change. Free Press.

16.    Piaget J (1999) The Psychology of Intelligence. Taylor & Francis Group.

17.    Acharya A (2009) Constructing a Security Community in South Eastern Asia: ASEAN and the problem of regional order.

18.    Smuts JC (1926) Holism and Evolution. Macmillan and Company, London and New York.

19.    Wiener N (1948) Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann, Paris.

20.    Shannon C (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379-423.

21.    Neumann JV and Morgenstern O (1953) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press Princeton.

22.    Simon HA (1965) The logic rational decision. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

23.    Simon HA (1988) Methodological Foundations of Economics.In Methods of Economics.

24.    Bertalanffy LV (1968) General System Theory/Foundation Development Application, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

25.    Klir GJ (1969) An Approach to General Systems Theory. Van Nostrand Reinhold.

26.    Tabak D (1970) Theory of Hierarchical Multilevel Systems. Academic Press.

27.    Mesarovic M, Pestel E (1974) Mankind at the Turning Point, E.P. Dutton & Co., New York, NY.

28.    Roth AE, Oliveira SMA (1990) Two-sided matching: A study in game-theoretic modelling and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 8: 510-514.

29.    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30.    Nicolescu B (1996) La Transdisciplinarité Manifeste. Paris: Editions du Rocher.

31.    Nicolescu B, Stavinschi M (2006) Program: Science and Orthodoxy, a necessary dialogue CurteaVeche, Bucuresti.

32.    Lasker G (1998) Synergistic effects of local and global developments on our lives and our future. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Cybernetics 587-664.

33.    Grigore D (2015) Semiotics and Physics co-disciplinary attempts. Journal of Economics and Technologies Knowledge Publisher 40-47.

34.    Blaga L (1920) Kultur und Erkenntnis. University of Vienna.

35.    Dumitriu A (1944) Science’s Paradoxes Paradoxelestiintelor Imp. Nationala.

36.    Chomsky N (1964) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax Cambridge MA. MIT Press.

37.    Kauffman S (1993) The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press.

38.    Bianca ML (2007) Semiotica visuale e immaginimentali, Work in progress 10, Arezzo, Università di Siena - Dipartimento di studistorico-sociali e filosofici.

39.    Tarnita CE, Hisashi O, Antal T, Fu F, Nowak MA (2009) Strategy selection in structured populations. J TheorBiology 259: 570-581.

40.    Benedict S (1687) The Rule of Saint Benedict [Chapter IV the Instruments of Good Work].About the continuity principle”, in G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Works as a part of a letter.

41.    Rousseau JJ (1751) Discourse upon Science and Arts. Academy of Dijon.

42.    Goguen JA (1969) The logic of inexact concepts. Synthase D Reidler Publishing Co 19: 325-373.

43.    Myrdal G (1970) The Challenge of World Poverty / A World Anti-Poverty Program in Outline.Guilford Press 35: 227-231.

44.    Negoita CV, Ralescu DA (1975) Application of Fuzzy Sets to Systems Analysis.  Berlin: Birkhäuser Verlag.

45.    Heidegger M (1977) The Question concerning Technology and other Essays. New York: Garland.

46.    Teodorescu HN, Jain LCK, Kandel A, Kacprzyk J (2001) Hardware Implementation of Intelligent Systems, Berlin: Springer Verlag.

47.    Bostrom N (2002) Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy. Routledge, New York.

48.    Carter R (2002) Consciousness. Weindenfeld& Nicholson London.

49.    Amoroso R, Biase FD (2004) A Revolução da Consciência. NovasDescobertassobre a Mente no Século.

50.    Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A (2008) “The Hidden Promise: Liberty Renewed”. In Boli John; Lechner, Frank, J. The Globalization Reader Third Edition Blackwell Publishing New York.

51.    Kilgour R, Bulz N (2014) 'What Is Truth?' An Inter/Trans-Disciplinary, Intercultural and Ecumenical Attempt within the Contemporary 'Science-Religion Dialogue'.New York Academy of Sciences.

52.    Arrow KJ (1963) Social Choice and Individual Value. New York.

53.    Balaceanu C (1972) [Human Personality a Cybernetical Interpretation] Personalitatea umana / interpretare cibernetica. Iasi: Editura Junimea.

54.    Pãun G (1995) Artificial Life: Grammatical Models, Bucuresti. Black Sea University Press.

55.    Bunge M (1977) Philosophical richness of technology. Philosophy and Social Action 2, Eds: F. Suppe, P.D. Asquith.

56.    Belis M, Snow P (2002) Comment cerner le hasard. Paris Edition Supinfo Press.

57.    Bloch E (1988) The Utopian Function of Art and Literature: Selected Essays.  Cambridge, Mass MIT Press.

58.    Albus JS (1991) Outline for a theory of intelligence. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics 21: 473-501.

59.    Sahleanu V (1996) From the Unknown Human towards the Cognoscible Human.

60.    Nowak MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560-1563.

61.    Ravetz JR (2006) The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford: New Internationalist, United Kingdom.

62.    Bogdan RJ (2010) Our Own Minds: Sociocultural Grounds for Self-Consciousness. MIT Press.

63.    Bulz N, Stapleton L, Lewoc JB, Karvalics LZ, Buia T, et al. (2012) Inquiry on the global (post) crisis versus humankind wisdom as a turning point: Does the generosity-creativity-solidarity triad matter.  International Research Journal of Police Science 1: 7-44.

64.    Livingstone DN (2013) Putting Science in its Place / Geographies of Scientific Knowledge. The University of Chicago Press.

65.    Amoroso RL(1999) A Brief Introduction to Noetic Field Theory. The quantization of mind brain and consciousness.

66.    Gregersen NH (2003) From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning. Oxford University Press.

67.    Juilland A, Juilland I (1965) Frequency Dictionary of Rumanian Words. Mouton & Co.

68.    Croce B (1966) Philosophy, Poetry, History: An Anthology of Essays. Oxford University Press.

69.    Eysenck HJ (1972) Facts and Fiction in Psychology. Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth.

70.    Derrida J (1978) Writings and Difference. London.

71.    Braudel F (1985) La dinamique du capitalisme. Paris: Les Editions Arthaud.

72.    Marcus S (1990) [Controverses inside the Science and Engineering] Controverse in stiintasiinginerie. EdituraTehnicaBucuresti.

73.    Smith M (1995) The prospects for machine consciousness. Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Cybernetics 306-311.

74.    Katzenstein PJ, Jepperson RL, Wendt A (1996) ‘Norms, Identity and Culture in National Security’.

75.    Friedrichs J, Kecskes R (1996) Gentrification: Theorie und Forschungsergebnisse. Opladen: LeskeBudrich.

76.    Geyer F (1998) “The increasing convergence of social science and cybernetics”. Proceedings of the International Congress of World Organization of System and Cybernetics, Sociocybernetics, Bren, Bucharest 2: 211-6.

77.    Morãrescu J, Bulz N (2000) Toward extended-mathematical approach of the paradoxes and limitations. Pentru abordarea extins-matematica a paradoxurilor si limitarilor”.

78.    Sveiby KE (2001) What is Knowledge Management. Sveiby Knowledge Associates.

79.    Tschang T (2002) “Knowledge creation at sub-economy levels: a new framework for innovative problem-solving processes”, China’s Future in the Knowledge Economy. Engaging the New World, Tsinghua University Press, Beijing.

80.    Pana L (2006) Intellectics and Inventicsin Kybernetes. The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics 35:1147-1164.

81.    Pana L (2008) The Preferential Sense as a Source of Natural and Artificial Evolution.

82.    Bulz N (2015)The International Consortium Generosity-Creativity-Solidarity.

83.  Bulz AC, Stapleton A, Lewoc B, Bulz N (2015)“On a Master-plan Towards a Cognitive Science Networking Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding and Technology, Culture and International Stability”. IFAC-Papers Online 48: 183-188.

84.    Malitza M (2000) Ten Thousand Cultures, One Single Civilisation. International Political Science Review 21: 1.

85.    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8: 338-353.

86.    Vulcănescu M (1997) Original Graphics Artwork, Elisabeta and Sofroniu Bulz’s small collection of comparative art and Ethnology/Anthropology / part of the donations from the artist’s father, Bucuresti.

87.    Vulcănescu R (1985) [Romanian Mythology] Mitologiaromana, EdituraAcademieiRomane, Bucuresti.

88.    Berger PL, Berger B, Kellner H (1973) The Homeless Mind. Modernization and Consciousness, New York: Random House.

89.    Draganescu M (1984) [Science and Civilization] Stiinta si Civilizatie, Bucuresti: Editura Stiintifica si Enciclopedica.

90.    Bonting SL (2001) Need and Usefulness of a Revised Creation Theology: Chaos Theology. Science and religion Antagonism or Complementarity? / Science and Spiritual Quest International Symposium, Bucharest, Romania/ A programme of the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, Berkeley.

91.    Wierbicki AP, Nakamori Y (2007) Creative Space. Models of Creative Processes for the Knowledge Civilization Age, Springer.

92.    Pfeiffer T, Rutte C, Killingback T, Taborsky M, Bonhoeffer S (2005) Evolution of cooperation by generalized reciprocity. Proceedings Biological Sciences272: 1115-1120.

93.    Bulz N (2004) Aspects of Interactive Modelling toward Society, Nature, Mind within the Progress of Automatic World of Artifacts, Orinda, CA. & Bucuresti: The Noetic Press, CA &EdituraAisteda.

94.    Bulz N (2005) Aspects of a theory of systemic construction. Kybernetes 34: 1598-1632.

95.    Rudall BH (2007) International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics and management science. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 36: 1598-1632.

96.    Bulz N (1989) The Decision inside the Operative Problem Solving Decizia in Rezolvarea Problemelor Operative, Editura Militara, Bucuresti, Library of Congress Catalog Record LC classification.

97.    Jacobs J (1961) The Death and Life of great American Cities. New York: Random House.

98.    Popper KR (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

99.    Hayek FA (1967) Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

100. Friedman M (1968) The Role of the Monetary Policy. The American Economic Review.

101. Roegen NG (1979) Entropy Law and the Economic Process Legea entropiei si procesul economic. Editura Politica, Bucuresti.

102. Tainter J (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge Mass, MIT Press.

103. Hess Ch, Ostrom E (2003) Ideas, Artifacts, and Facilities, Information as a Common- Pool Resource. Law and Contemporary Problems 66: 111-146.

104. Hess Ch, Ostrom E (2007) Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory to Practice Cambridge Mass MIT Press.

105. May RM, Bonhoefer S, Nowak MA (1995) Spatial games and evolution.European Conference on Artificial Life929: 747-759.

106. Galbraith JK (1996) The Good Society: The Human Agenda. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

107. Nicolau D, Phillimore J (1998) Mechanism of knowledge transfer: relevance for science & technology parks’ policies.Paper presented at IASP, Perth.

108. Dubois D (1998) Modelling of anticipatory systems with incursion and hyperincursion. in Ramaekers. J Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Cybernetics 306-311.

109. Smith S (1999) Reflectivist and Constructivist Approaches in International Theory.In: Baylis, John /Smith, Steve (eds.), The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford 224-253.

110. Wendt A (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press United Kingdom.

111. Crane A, Matten D (2010) Business ethics / Managing Corporate / Citizenship and Sustainability in the age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.

112. James O (2014) Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks.

113. Hameroff S, Penrose R (2014) Consciousness in the universe - A review of the 'Orch OR' theory.Physics of Life Reviews 11: 39-78.

114. Bulz N (2014) Spirituality-Biodiversity' versus ‘Indifference-Engagement'. Heritage, Contemporary Challenge, Perspective Qvo Vadis Homine-2050-? Creative Partnership,Publisher: International Journal of Sociology Study belongs to the 'Science and Engineering Publishing Company' (SEP) 10-25

115. Conlin J (2016) Adam Smith, Reaction Books, London. Also it could be e-seen at https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/A/bo23359374.html and https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/book-review-adam-smith-by-jonathan-conlin-reaktion-books-2016.