Meta-Paradigms: Essential Characteristics

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 independent researcher 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Transit str., 48, sq. 32 ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Smirnova Marina Mikhailovna ORCID: 0009-0003-4332-4240 independent researcher 668312, Russia, Republic of Tyva, Mezhegey village, Lenin St., 69, sq. 1 knyam2020@mail.ru Other publications by this author

dedicated to our dear and close friend Nadezhda Nikolaevna Bebrish

Introduction

Our previous research, published in Nos. 9 and 10 of the journal Philosophical Thought, allowed us to identify and describe systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms using the example of various sciences and the works of individual researchers. This article aims to summarize the results of previous research and provide a brief overview of scientific papers on similar topics.

To do this, we will adhere to the following structure. In the History of the Issue section, the origins of meta-paradigms, partially described earlier, are considered from a new perspective. The Essential Characteristics of Meta-Paradigms section is devoted to summarizing the results of previous research. The Review of Scientific Literature section analyzes the representation of meta-paradigms in the works of various scientists. The Conclusion section summarizes the results.

The subject of the study is the essential characteristics of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms.

The relevance of the research is determined by the need to analyze scientific knowledge. The accumulated array of contradictory data in several scientific disciplines requires ordering and searching for patterns. This problem has repeatedly confronted science, leading to the emergence of paradigms within a particular science. Currently, this problem is of a meta-scientific nature, requiring an analysis of not so many individual scientific facts in a specific science as of entire paradigms in several scientific disciplines.

Background of the issue

The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms originate in linguistics. In linguistics, within the framework of the theory of the sign, the plan of the sign's expression and content are distinguished. Let's assume that the plan of a sign's expression is a rigidly defined framework for the plan of content; let's assume that the plan of content is a certain essential fullness in line with which the plan of expression is implemented. Consequently, the plan of expression of the sign acquires content, becoming a semantic characteristic, and this allows you to build a particular system of signs based on formal features that have an essential meaning; therefore, the plan of content acquires expressiveness, and this allows you to create an image based on essential characteristics that acquire the meaning of expressiveness.

Let's extend the results obtained to paradigms in linguistics, and we get the following: the definition of a system by formal features is a special case of implementing a system-structural paradigm, and the manifestation of the inner essence of the content is the result of embodying the anthropocentric paradigm.

The same conclusion can be reached if we reflect on the position of V. N. Voloshinov, who objects to considering the content separately from the form ^{[1, pp. 25–26]}. However, if this is done (i.e., to analyze the essence of content in extreme isolation from form and the essence of form in extreme isolation from content) and extend the data obtained to paradigms in linguistics, then one can consistently come to the following conclusions:

1) form is understood as a framework within which the content is realized;

2) content is understood as the essential fullness in which form is realized.;

3) The form of the sign acquires the meaning of the content, becoming an essential characteristic that makes it possible to classify the sign into a particular category on formal grounds;

4) the content acquires the meaning of form, defining the external manifestation of the sign, which makes it possible to judge it from one position or another in terms of its content.;

5) thus, the limit of form manifests itself in a systemic-structural paradigm, and the limit of content is revealed as an anthropocentric paradigm.;

6) If we look more broadly, the limit of form manifests itself as a systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and the limit of content is a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm.

Consideration of the theory of the sign from this perspective and the subsequent dissemination of the data obtained into paradigms in linguistics (system-structural and anthropocentric) allow us to identify the system-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms. The systemic-structural meta-paradigm describes the world as an ordered system of signs, and the bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm describes the activity of a bio-essentially determined subject.

So, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are the limit of form and the limit of content, respectively. Then, the form/content dualism should be recognized as the source of meta-paradigms. Form/content dualism dates back to documented antiquity as an understanding of the primacy of matter or idea. This gave rise to further disputes between idealists and materialists ^{[2] [3]}. Thus, being qualitatively new, the concept of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms is, at the same time, one of the oldest in science. Being implicit, as scientific knowledge develops, this concept becomes explicit, manifesting itself in the research of several scientists from various scientific disciplines.

Essential characteristics of meta-paradigms

Systemic structuralism, as the name implies, is an empty matrix—a system of prescriptions that an element must meet to get into a certain section. Then, the opposite of systemic structuralism would be an approach that considers the inner essence of the content to give it one form or another. The essential conditionality of the content determines what the form will be. Bioessential determinism means the essence conditioned by life or the conditioning of the vital essence. Bioessential determinism is the deep conditioning of the vital essence by the forms of its manifestation. The essence sets the form. Bioessential determinism asserts the biocompatibility of scientific knowledge. As a special case, bioessentialism asserts the humanitarianism of scientific knowledge. Bioessential determinism is anthropocentrism in a broad sense.

M. Polanyi emphasizes, "As human beings, we are inevitably forced to look at the universe from the center that is inside us and talk about it in terms of human language, shaped by the urgent needs of human communication. Any attempt to completely exclude the human perspective from our picture of the world inevitably leads to nonsense" ^{[4, p. 20]}. Thus, anthropocentrism (or, more broadly, bioessential determinism) is conditioned by the very nature of the actor.

Bioessentialism is life as a phenomenon; it is a burning spirit, a living flame of the soul, an inner essence, a vital essence that passes through generations, incarnations, and distances. The very course of life is the basis of existence; life goes on, kaleidoscopically transforming with each new turn. Refracted in many ways through socio-cultural features, bioessentialism reveals itself as a life-affirming core of various ideological concepts and religious movements, which is difficult to subject to speculative disintegration.

So, the nature of the acting subject and, in general, the nature of all living things is the conditioning of life by various forms of manifestation. The very essence of life is the one thing that manifests itself in various forms. Considering the priority of the vital essence and the forms of its manifestation makes it commensurate with consciousness.

Analyzing the development of linguistics conceptually, V. M. Alpatov concludes that there are system-structural and anthropocentric approaches to linguistics, i.e., order and chaos, respectively. In different epochs, one or the other may come to the fore; currently, chaos, the anthropocentric approach, is increasing ^{[5, p. 18]}. Thus, it can be concluded that the influence of bioessential determinism on science is increasing.

Of course, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves not only in linguistics but also in several other fields of scientific knowledge: in some cases as paradigms and in others as separate trends and concepts. However, they manifest themselves most vividly and fully in linguistics. This can be explained by the specifics of linguistics as a scientific discipline, expressed in a combination of the sign system and the human factor.

So, we understand the system-structural meta-paradigm as a conceptually generalized set of ideas of a formally oriented nature and the bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm as a conceptually generalized set of ideas of an essence-oriented nature.

In Nos. 9 and 10 of the journal Philosophical Thought, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are described based on various factual material. The table below presents the essential characteristics of meta-paradigms in the form of antonymic pairs:

Thus, a conceptual understanding of the development of scientific knowledge made it possible to identify and describe the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms. It can be said that the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves as trends in the development of scientific knowledge, scientific trends. However, there are significant differences: a trend is the current vector of scientific development, while a trend is a fashionable one. Trend describes the current development at the level of the described patterns. In contrast, the meta-paradigm is timeless, reflects the exit to the supra-level, explains the reasons, and gives forecasts of a strategic nature. In addition, trends and trends are special cases of the meta-paradigm implementation. Meta-paradigms describe strategic development and are tactically implemented through trends and trends. Meta-paradigms are universal and manifest as global paradigms that guide the development of a particular science, and they are somewhere, separate concepts implemented in the form of particular theories.

A brief review of the scientific literature

Various scientists express similar ideas in various fields of scientific knowledge, such as Yu. V. Latov, who considers the development of economic thought as a competition between two meta-paradigms that replace each other in a pendulum rhythm ^{[10, p. 272]}. The researcher groups all scientific paradigms into two meta-paradigms: ethical (dirigiste) theories of regulation and liberal theories of self-development, and the criteria for distinguishing meta-paradigms are the oppositions regulation/self-development, artificial/natural, plan/market ^{[10, pp. 272–274]}. According to Latov, the meta-paradigms are semantically close to the description of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, respectively. The similarity of terminology is also noteworthy.

Thus, S. R. Bekulova describes the crisis processes in the global economy. The researcher concludes that the sources of crises are two paradigms: one has deep causes, and the other manifests itself chaotically ^{[11, p. 20]}. This conclusion correlates with Latov's ideas and is comparable to the description of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, respectively.

E. Baskell expresses similar ideas but in a different scientific field. The scientist interprets the ideas of D. Sperber and N. Claydier, conceptualizing cultural attractors. E. Baskell describes conservative and transformative approaches, understanding them as cultural attractors. The researcher identifies a significant difference between the approaches: how they understand transmission and change. E. Baskell writes: the conservative approach assumes that changes in content occur when errors or noise in the copying process introduce new variations, while the transformative approach, on the contrary, asserts that changes in content occur as a result of the intervention "as people (re)construct variants taking into account the action of some (re)designing system" ^{[12, p. 380]}. The researcher notes that the same signal or stimuli can lead to radically different consequences ^{[12, p. 380]}.

G. S. Levit, W. Hossfeld, and A. A. Lvov analyze the development of conceptual thought in German evolutionary biology, understanding its fundamental principles as a meta-paradigm ^[13]. According to Baskell, the researchers write about the similarity of meta-paradigm concepts and cultural attractors. Scientists determine the specifics of the development of German evolutionary biology, comparing it with English-speaking and Russian-speaking. Thus, the meta-paradigm is analyzed pragmatically.

M. Boone and S. Van Baalen describe two philosophical paradigms of science: physics and engineering ^[14]. Under the physical paradigm, researchers understand the traditional paradigm, while under the engineering paradigm, they understand the innovative one. According to scientists, the physical paradigm hinders interdisciplinary research, while the engineering paradigm promotes it. Thus, interdisciplinary research can be carried out within the framework of the physical paradigm of science.

In addition, Boone and Van Baalen note that a hierarchical structure and orderliness characterize the physical paradigm of science. In contrast, the engineering paradigm of science is characterized by a complex, non-hierarchical structure ^{[14, p. 16]}.

Thus, the conclusions reached by Boone and Van Baalen correlate with the results we have obtained: the physical paradigm of science is characterized by orderliness, narrow specialization, development in depth, and consideration of a specific scientific discipline as a closed system (system-structural meta-paradigm), and the engineering paradigm of science is characterized by chaos, broad interdisciplinarity, development in breadth and consideration of a specific scientific discipline as an open system (bioessentially-deterministic meta-paradigm).

Analyzing the specific features of the cerebral hemispheres, T. V. Chernihiv emphasizes that "the system of cultural and even biological development does not work to erase differences, but to increase them" ^{[15, p. 26]}. T. V. Chernihiv outlines a list of hemispheric characteristics: for example, logic, analysis, formal intelligence, and thinking in syllogisms are characteristic of the left hemisphere (that is, consistent judgments – approx. ours), theoretical knowledge about the world and its laws, and to the right – the integrity of perception, thinking in images, empirical information about the real world ^{[15, pp. 26-28]}. In many ways, these characteristics of the cerebral hemispheres echo the description of meta-paradigms: we can say that the left hemisphere embodies the action of a systemic-structural meta-paradigm. In contrast, the right hemisphere embodies a bioessential-deterministic one.

T. S. Kuhn considers the development of scientific knowledge not abstractly but in the scientific community. Above, we explained why it is in linguistics that the system-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are described most consistently and consistently. Linguistics studies language as a sign system, which determines the system–structural paradigm; this language is human and is studied by humans, which determines the action of the human factor and the anthropocentric paradigm. Let us apply this explanation to the theory of T. S. Kuhn ^[16]. If we understand the scientific paradigm and disciplinary matrix proposed by Kuhn as a sign system and the scientific community as a human factor, then the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" describes the interaction of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms. Kuhn's introduction of the scientific community and the scientific paradigm (and the disciplinary matrix in the 1969 supplement) makes Kuhn's concept combine the manifestations of both meta-paradigms.

To some extent, it can be considered that Polanyi's concept of personal knowledge describes the manifestation of a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm ^[4]. Polanyi rejected the ideal of impartiality of scientific knowledge ^{[4, p. 18]}, a characteristic of systemic structuralism. Polanyi asserts personal knowledge is a fusion of individual and objective ^{[4, p. 19]}. Polanyi speaks of inexpressible personal knowledge, thus describing the manifestation of bioessential determinism. In addition, the bioessential determinism of M. Polanyi's concept is due to its origins in the field of Gestalt psychology ^{[4, p. 18]}.

Polanyi concludes his work Personal Knowledge with the words, "For those who are capable of dedication, it provides legitimate grounds for affirming personal beliefs that are universal in their content" ^{[4, p. 338]}. In fact, by describing inexpressible personal knowledge, speaking about personal involvement in scientific knowledge, and praising dedication, Polanyi's work is an ode to passion in science.

Conclusion

The most consistent and systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are described in linguistics as systemic-structural and anthropocentric paradigms. This is due to the following factors: 1) the subject of linguistics is language as a sign system, which defines the system-structural paradigm; 2) it is understood a priori that people speak this language, which defines the anthropocentric paradigm. Anthropocentrism is a special case of bioessential determinism.

Bioessential determinism is the deep conditioning of the vital essence by its manifestation forms. It asserts the biocompensality of scientific knowledge and assumes that the priority of the vital essence and its manifestation forms is taken into account. The very essence of life manifests itself in a variety of forms.

The system-structural meta-paradigm is formally oriented, while the bioessential-deterministic one is essence-oriented. Generally, the systemic-structural meta-paradigm can be understood as a tradition to preserve traditions and the bioessential-deterministic one as a revolutionary desire for revolution.

The meta-paradigm model is universal. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are explicitly and implicitly present everywhere, asymptotically guiding the development of the world as binary oppositions of form and content.

Similar ideas have been expressed since antiquity. Thus, the concept of systemic–structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms is one of the oldest and qualitatively new at the same time. This paradox is explained by the fact that the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are expressed implicitly, which explains their concealment. The existence of these meta-paradigms is becoming more and more obvious as scientific knowledge grows. To identify and describe the essential characteristics of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, it was necessary to consider the theory of the sign from a fundamentally different perspective.

The study describes the development of scientific knowledge in an interdisciplinary aspect at the meta-scientific level. An analysis of scientific papers has shown that the topic is being developed in the scientific community, but rather at an interdisciplinary level, although some scientists describe interdisciplinary research paradigms.

Note that various scientists express the ideas of the meta-paradigm in different scientific disciplines, sometimes using similar terminology. This indicates that a certain critical point of reflection has been reached.