Notes on methodology, or we start from „Adam“, and we should probably first examine what Adam is, and so the notes are directed not only to the subject, but also to the methodology, methods, and methods of science. Information theories and hypotheses work with hypostasis. The term hypothesis comes from the Greek hypothesis, meaning assumption/idea, literally background/foundation. In this sense, it is also something with which we base, establish a relationship or a difference that we attributed to something with our „thesis“ (thesis from the Greek thesei = agreement, decision, literally in the meaning of laying down), i.e. a relationship by which we put some two entities into context, and then we declared this thesis to be the objective basis of the whole matter (cognition, action, investigation, etc.). While hypotheses are conditional (hypothetical) statements inferring the validity of some phenomenal connections, hypostases are establishing (performative) returns, attributing an independent existence to a formal relationship. The term hypostasis is derived from the Greek hypostasis in the sense of subjection, personification, objectification, materialization, personifi-cation, and in the theological context it represents what literally means substratum/essence in the sense of subject/subject. However, ultimately it generally stands as what is commonly called a hypothesis. Hypostasis is a decision (decree) granting the ontological status of objective existence, i.e. recognizing and certifying some „givenness“ or „suchness“ of a phenomenon, a thing, including a relation = relationship (hence the materialization or objectification). Hypotheses can only be expressed within the framework of a certain theory (from Greek theória = spectacle, way of seeing), and are therefore „theoretical premises/ treasures“, related to a certain rational (from Latin racio = ratio) construct (usually mathematical = calculation / number/ or geometric /size – measure/ character), and are therefore relative: they can be confirmed or refuted, varied and adapted, proposed and rejected. But the very theoretical framework in which this happens is not hypothetical, but hypostatic: it provides a framework for seeing and is independent of appearances. Its existence is „otherworldly“, objective, absolute. It can be abandoned as an opinion and perspective, but not abolished. While hypotheses (according to Popper and Kuhn) serve as a tool for „saving phenomena“, hypostasis belongs, in accordance with its objective nature, to the fact itself, independent of whether or not they are accepted. They do not need recognition or advocacy and their existence is independent of know-ledge. Changes in knowledge and the ways in which they manifest and act in the world do not affect the hypostasis, since their reality is otherworldly – spiritual (god) or intellectual (objective reality). If it ceases to be associated with the „worldly“ phenomena for which it was established and for whose essence it was originally declared, it does not cease to exist, just as calculus does not cease to function (see e.g. the so-called Ohm’s law, which did not lose its respect for the fact that he pretended to submit electricity to the Euclidean metric of world space, even though no physicist considers it to be any law; likewise, for example, motion, speed or acceleration and others), when losing its „physical model“, or money, from which the „golden“ principal was first taken and which are gradually converted into information flows and data transfers, rather than a material medium in the form of a stone, a clay plate, nodules, paper, or coin.
The starting point of our considerations is the non-substantive ontology at the deepest level, with an overlap into the axiological and epistemological levels, where the concept of phenomenology dominates at the epistemological level, and at the philosophical level we can mention the organismic concept of AN Whitehead, the probabilistic functionalism of E. Brunswik, the way of thinking represented by phenomenologists, such as E Husserl, M. Heidegger, J. Patočka or A. Hogenová, philosophers such as Z. Neubauer, Z. Kratochvíl, M. Petříček or H. Blumenberg and others. Our current environment, which people create through their communities and the trends of its development, in terms of occurrence, i.e. in terms of survival and prosperity, as well as in terms of the performance of specific functions and activities by specific people and human systems, are increasingly shaped in it by characte-ristics that fall into the category of artificial. The dynamics of changes and transformations of the modern environment, as well as their com-plexity, are constantly evolving, and it seems that the importance of the RQH (Red Queen Hypothesis ) phenomenon described by the evolu-tionist Van Valen in 1973 [19], in relation to the demands of the environ-ment, to the speed „learning“ new knowledge, skills in the sense of adaptation to the development of the „world of work“, but also with regard to the increasing complexity (due to the increase in the frequency of information sources, communication channels, as well as symmetrical and asymmetrical influences due to globalization), which emphasize, in particular, the mental condition of people and human systems in terms of creating information and knowledge or acquiring it in the process of cognition for correct (meaningful) decision-making and action.
The core themes behind our efforts to think through the issues of the environment and its development are entropy (decomposition), constancy/stability and negentropy (ordering); quantification of specific qualities for their objectification (an example can be indexes, see below in the text representing specific complexes of data, metaphorically speaking, a kind of data, informational „clump“), grasping and recogni-tion, and for their further „use“ in the sense of application in decision-making and action. The area in which we operate concerns people and human systems in the environment, especially from the point of view of recognizing the potentials of natural qualities that people and the environment possess, and their cultivation, formation and transformation into meaningful and realistic decision-making for effective and useful, reflected and aware proactive action. It is therefore not „simple“ pedagogy, specifically formalized communication or applied sociology, psychology for „learning“ or education [37], [38], in the sense of conveying information or knowledge for the performance of specific functions or activities. In particular, the direct nexus or connectivity with „practice“ in the sense of the application of acquired or created knowledge in dynamically changing conditions and circumstances of the environment and various task situations, i.e. concrete acts of reflected and conscious decision-making with the actions of people and human systems require not only realistic application of a systemic approach and knowledge cybernetics, including cybernetics II. order , but naturally, flexibly and almost „spontaneously“ proactively not only to respond to changes in environmental requirements in the area of information and knowledge, but also to adapt the methods and methodology of „collaboration“ in this process. One of the dominant starting points is to focus our efforts on such a type of collaboration and environment creation that enables people and human systems to create information and knowledge in the process of solving task situations, i.e. in dynamically changing environmental conditions and circumstances, when standard models of creation, preservation and transfer information and knowledge, as well as the technologies based on them, even though they are increasingly sophisticated and complex in terms of their ability to cover or penetrate specific areas of human activities or directly and often far more effectively take over some specific functions, they cannot use their potential for various reasons.
Therefore, we are necessarily concerned with mind, thinking, cognition, creation of „knowledge“, with an overlap for decision-making and action, and since each of the mentioned terms represents not only variously vague definitions, categories, and various research efforts generate rather fuzzy sets of data than tensors reliable (valid and reliable) data, we create specific own models, methodologies and methodical procedures that enable us to valorize our experience into methods and methods of cooperation. For example, just the act of action must be understood, in the spirit of „concrete, systemic and situational dialectics, as a space in which the categories of freedom are unified in a situation without „determination“ [13], [39] (on the continuum necessity – /un-necessary/ possibility, the middle mode or median of which is oppor-tunity) [40], [41], [31]), the category of freedom (for the needs of the natural science, subject-object, deterministic and socio-culturally bound paradigm), on a continuum of two dimensions, where one is responsibility (respect for oneself as a whole and for the environment) and the second dimension is risk , in the sense of the ability to predict the results and consequences (interrelations) of conscious actions.
Quite naturally, we then arrive at the very limits, boundaries or dimensions of the imaginary „Procrustean bed“ [42] for the mind, thin-king and cognition, formed and determined/predetermined (reflectively and consciously, or unreflectively and unconsciously) by ontology, gnoseology and philosophy, and models and methodologies based on them for learning and creating knowledge by various sciences or scientific fields in the entire spectrum known to us, with an overlap into the domain of information, cognitive, decision-making and conative, whether in socio-cultural, economic or ecological dimensions. However, we realize that we are not alone in our actions, in terms of the complexity of the topics and problems that we are dedicated to solving. For example, even such a consistent physical category as „light“ is ultimately „lost“, imagined ad limitum within the given science or paradigm, i.e. beyond its boundaries, defined by the subject and methodology, in what it actually is [4], similarly it is with the category of time [5], [6], [7], or with the categories of necessity/possibility in the Aristotelian concept, or with concepts such as being, existence, fact, truth or information. The pragmatics of the effectiveness of reasoning and decision-making outputs shows that the nomothetic, based on the assumption of additivity of knowledge [27] (p. 88), deductive-constructive approach and metho-dological procedures traditional in „positive“ sciences, based on mathe-matical disciplines [23], [25], [68], [88], [252], and experimental confirmation/refutation of hypotheses [140], [212], [253], [254], [270], must necessarily be supplemented by reflection and an idiographic approach, whether it is an individual, human system or situational con-text and problem/task. In practice, we mainly base ourselves on the following concepts and theories listed below.
The holistic approach [8], [43], however difficult it is to accept for the current mechanistic and reductionist positivist mainstream of science methodology, with its ambition for accuracy, quantification, countability or geometrizability as well as for the truth of knowledge, its interpretation or interpretation, is equally justified as a functional and pragmatic model for knowing and being in reality. Holos is a prefix of Greek origin and is translated into our language in the sense of „whole“, which corresponds in meaning to the Latin salvus (whole, intact) and salus (health). The prefix „holo“ was previously commonly known especially from the tradition of thought called holistic, hence the direction of holism, which is defined as a teaching based on the statement stating that „the whole is more than the sum (sum) of its parts“ and in this context, holistic thinking is also characterized by another type of „logic“ for organizing information and knowledge, which, especially when applied to human systems, usually forms a fundamental divide between what we understand as management and what we understand as leadership (including leading oneself by oneself ), that is, whether we think of a human system (or a person in a situation) as a number (sum or summary) of parts (usually known or assumed to us), or as a whole (system, problem, process, situation, etc.). In the first case, for example, to correctly think about the potentials of a four-member team, it is true that 1+1+1+1=4, and in the second case, when thinking about the potentials of the same team, it is true that 1+1+1+1=5 or 1; it is similar when making decisions and solving problem or acting in various, dynamically changing situational contexts in a modern environment. If the potential synonym for the holistic concept is the term „cosmos“ in the original ancient Greek meaning and sense, then the potential synonym and implicit trend of mechanistic, dualistic or substance models is the Platonic one, the concept of ideas, as well as creatura and pleroma [52], [179] , [214], or Parmenidean atoms [54], [213], or even Leibniz’s intelligible monads [131]. Next to them, but not in meaningful opposition, stands Heraclitus’s „logos“ [51], [54], [273], Lao’s „Tao“ [69], [71], [72], [73], [75 ], or Buddha’s „emptiness“ [76], [77], or E. Bondy’s „situation without destination“ [13], [39], [101], or even Whitehead’s „event“ [10], [12] or Heidegger’s „nothing“ and its annihilation [256], [257], such as „nothingness“ and „inexistence“ according to J. P. Sartre [278] and others. By another type of logic or logo, we do not mean another „type“ of logic [102] falling into the spectrum of ways of thinking about things and processes in the context of substantial ontologies. This type of „logic“ represents a „turn“ in the way of thinking, a turn in the „attitude“, not a regression to the opposite (dualistic mode ), but a conscious perception and investigation of the correlations of information, things, states and processes, as well as the nature of the ways of their creation, perception and recognition. Inspirational concepts and procedures are offered, for example, by C. G. Jung [45], [46], [47], [48] or A. Hogenová [49] or M. Petříček [144] and J. Golosovker [279]. It is not about the „annihilation“ or denial of categories invented or created by analytical thinking, using yes/no logic [257], but roughly speaking in dualistic language, about their „uni-fication“ in the „higher“ meanings of their mutuality and interrela-tionship. So, it is a solution to the „paradox“ that generates a deepening and refinement of our observation, and differentiation at different levels of perception of fact/reality. The term and its definition are a „rough“ distinction. Our thinking and cognition, as well as other observations and empirics, then necessarily lead the concrete human mind „beyond“ the boundaries of the concept, definition, „beyond“ the boundaries“ of science and the field that created the definition. The validity of the category changes and its boundaries, previously „sharp“ and lexically „precise“, acquire the vagueness/indeterminacy of what is what, and where the boundaries (and what are they made of) of this and that are. That is, the „thing“ itself does not „change“, what is subject to change and transformation is the meaning and meaning of the word, the concept that represents the thing or with which we label it, think and create information or even knowledge about it. Another aspect subject to constant change and transformation is our very thinking, as an effect of the stream of consciousness and the being of an individual, as well as their current attitude and position, and also the specificity of the whole individual – situation – task/problem. And so necessarily, at a certain level of resolution, the environment, event, situation, thing or process must appear to observers and thinking minds as not/distinguishable, indifferent or „chaotic“ or, conversely, as „clare et distincte.“.
Another source environment for us is the environment of ontology models, both substantial models and especially the model of non-substantial ontology [13], [39], which for us represents a usable, pragmatic model, making available philosophical or, better said, thought systems, whether philosophy as “Western“, especially pre-Socratic [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], modern analytic and post-analytic philosophies , or continental philosophies devoted to living nature, nature and the natural world [19], [25] , [29], [30], [67], [68], or as „Eastern“, especially the original Taoist [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [ 75], or the original Buddhist [76], [77]. They are then followed by other „sources“, which are selected models of psychology, cognitive sciences, and certainly other fields of natural science or social science. For the cultivation of critical and systemic thinking in cognition, reasoning and decision-making in complex and dynamically changing contexts, with a high degree of change and asymmetry, specific load and stress, it turns out to be a meaningful application of such concepts as the cognitive continuum theory and work with cognitive (mental) models. This issue is discussed, for example, by L. Kostroň [64], or the author of the cognitive continuum theory K. R. Hammond , when he formulates a requirement for the mobility of cognitive models, i.e. the „mental mobility“ of a specific human individual or human system in relation to situational conditions when creating situational „knowledge“ to solve the problem. The environment in which we move is very fertile for the application of many mutually seemingly „unrelated“ models, theories or concepts, and so we encounter here, for example, the application of the theory of systems by L. von Bertalanffy, the theory of dissipative structures by I. Prigogine [65] , the chaos theory of E. Lorenz [66], cybernetics II. order [20], [31], and synergetics [62] , the theory of autopoiesis formulated by Maturana and Varela [44], and the subsequent theory of knowledge supplemented by the ideas of G. Bateson [32], with the probabilistic functionalism of E. Brunswik , his concept of a „lens” model, and the cognitive continuum theory of K. R. Hammond following it [63], [64]. Here we meet modern concepts based on the investigation of cognitive, psychophysical and neurophysiological topics [85], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [269], with B. Russell’s theory of logical types [109], G. Lakoff’s experiential realism (experientialism) [78], N. N. Taleb’s empirical skepticism [40], [41], [79], as well as with the psycho-logical field of K. Lewin [82], the findings of gestalt psychology and analytical psychology of C. G. Jung, especially with the concept of individuation, oriented to the cultivation of the SELF [45] , [83], [166], the process-oriented psychology of A. Mindell [87] and others.