These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
  
  STUDY 6. TYPES AND KINDS OF GOODS
  
  Two systematizations of goods are given – the first systematization divides them into goods of the first type (these are the values) and goods of the second type (usually called that way – goods); and the second systematization divides them into goods of the first kind (the divisible goods), goods of the second kind (the indivisible goods) and goods of the third kind (the synergetic or multiplying goods).
  
  The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of the two systematizations of goods:
  Николай Слатински. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София: Военно издателство, 2011.
  [Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011].
  Nikolay Slatinski. Security – essence, meaning and content. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2011 (in Bulgarian)
  
  The Bulgarian scientist Vasil Prodanov writes: „National security is the basic moral and political right of every state, the highest good and goal, one of the most important categories in political decision-making“ [1]. As can be seen, he defines national security as the highest good.
  Our scientific analyzes have also invariably been guided by the understanding of security as a valuable, or more precisely, as a priceless good. In fact, it would be impossible to think about security in any other way.
  
  Let us first clarify what is „good“ in our understanding.
  About the good, the great Aristotle (c. 384 BC – 322 BC), following his brilliant teacher Plato (c. 427 BC – 347 BC), says: „Good is what everything strives for“ (Bonum est, quod omnia optant), i.e. he understands the good as the goal of the movement of striving [2]. And the Roman philosopher, theologian and statesman Anicius Boethius (c. 480 - c. 524) wrote: „The good is properly thought of as the essence, core and cause of everything desired. It seems that the cause of what one strives for is most desired... We must admit that the end of all things is the good“ [3].
  However, as the German historian and writer Albert Zimmermann (1928 – 2017) explains, according to the remarkable Italian Catholic theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), the good should not be considered only as an end, what meaningful content it undoubtedly possesses, but also as a reason, „because whenever we try to understand a movement, we ask about its purpose... The relation between good and aspiration must be clearly thought out: something is a good, not because it is an object of aspiration, but it is an object of aspiration, because it is a good“ [4]. Zimmermann also cites the thought of one of the most important philosophers of all time, Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), that the good „has a relation to the ability for desire“, i.e. for Kant, analogous to the understanding of St. Thomas, „something is a good insofar as it is the object of the ability of aspiration“ [5].
  
  In other words, the understanding underlying the reasoning in our research is that goods are both the deep causes for generating the aspirations of the individual and society; and the innermost goals of those aspirations.
  
  As we have repeatedly analyzed and clarified in our publications, values play an extremely important role in the effective functioning of a system. They are the glue, the sticking substance. Their essence is synergetic (synergistic), i.e. for clarity, it can be said that their essence is multiplied; this means that (of course, conditionally) when values are shared between the elements of one system or between two systems, then, as a rule, they are not „added“ ( 3 + 3 = 6), but as if they are „multiplied“ (3 x 3 = 9).
  
  One of the most characteristic trends in the national, corporate and international security is the growing contradictions between hierarchical and network structures. Increasingly frequent and undoubtedly inevitable conflicts between them are among leading conflicts of recent decades (for a detailed analysis of these problems, see our monograph [6]). Here, however, in the context of the issue of values, we will only note that while hierarchies rely on vertical coercion, networks rely on horizontal cooperation – and it can be effective, above all if it is synergetic (synergistic), in other words – if it is based on common values and, through them, on common interests. Values are part of the goods (it will be discussed a little below) that determine the essence of a system, that give meaning to its existence and predetermine the goals and priorities of its development.
  
  We will present here two systematizations of goods:
  ⁕ Systematization 1: Types of goods.
  ⁕ Systematization 2: Kinds of goods.
  
  ⁕ Systematization 1: Types of goods.
  According to this Systematization, goods are mainly of two types:
  
  • Goods of the first type – the goods that are built into the system (and preserve it).
  • Good of the second type – the goods that the system produces (and reproduces).
  
  This division of goods into two types is not static and determined once and for all.
  The system can produce one good, i.e. a good of the second type and gradually build it into itself so that this good becomes a part of it and therefore becomes a good of the first type.
  For example, security is a good of the second type, which the system produces in its functioning in order to guarantee its survival and development. By defining security as existential to its existence, and as a result striving for greater and more complete security, the system could begin to produce for itself (as a holistic whole) and for its individual elements (as its reductionist constituents) more security – in as large a quantity as possible and in as optimal a quality as possible. Then, from a certain moment on, the system is able to embed a significant part of the security it produces in its integrative complex of values, i.e. in itself, in its essence, and in this way to turn security into a good of the first type.
  Similarly, the system may come to the conclusion that one basic and integrative good embedded in it, i.e. a good of the first type is so fundamental to its functioning that it gradually begins to produce it, and thus this good becomes a good of the second type.
  For example, solidarity is a good of the first type, which is invariably related to the essence and structure of the system. By defining solidarity as existential to its existence, and striving as a result for ever greater and ever more fulfilling solidarity, the system could mobilize its efforts to the maximum and begin to produce for itself (as a holistic whole) and for its individual elements (as its reductionist constituents) even more solidarity – in as large a quantity as possible and in as optimal a quality as possible, thus turning solidarity into a good of the second type.
  
  We can summarize the above reasoning as follows:
  Successfully and sustainably developing is precisely the system that, producing goods of the second type, gradually builds them into its integrative complex of values, thus turning them into goods of the first type; and at the same time, the system begins to produce goods of the first type built into its integrative set of values, thus turning them into goods of the second type. As a result, both the goods of the first type, which bind and „glue“ the system even more firmly together, and the goods of the second type, for the production of which, for the sake of which the system exists, survives and develops, are strengthened.
  
  To further illustrate these considerations, let us take as a system a close-knit, unconditionally connected, mutually supportive, and purposeful family. Let us assume that the good of the first type, i.e. the bonding and unifying value for family members is their love for each other; and that the good of the second type, namely that which the family produces in its existence and development, is well-being (standard of living).
  Then, when this family achieves greater well-being, for example, a higher income, it may not want to „eat up“ all this higher income (on things, clothes, cars, restaurants, entertainment, excursions), but decide, so to speak, to build them, invest them in their living conditions, in children's education, in health care, in attending cultural events, etc. and thereby ensure a better quality of life and a better environment, a wider horizon of goals and ambitions and higher demands towards each family member individually and to the family as a whole. Thus, in practice, well-being from a good of the second type, i.e. a the good that the family produces in the process of its existence and development, it begins to turn into a value that sticks together, glues, makes the family more united and solidary, i.e. it begins to become a good of the first type as well.
  And vice versa, love in the family, which is a good of the first type and binds and sticks together this family into a united and common whole, can grow in the family, thanks to their joint priorities, aspirations, desires and efforts, thus in its existence and development, the family actually produces even greater and stronger love among themselves, and in this way this multiplied and devoted love of theirs begins to turn as well into a good of the second type.
  In short, love creates cohesion, mutual respect and support that allow greater family well-being to be „produced“. In turn, greater well-being is built into the value system and into the existence and development of that family. In this way love grows in it, which strengthens its solidarity, and it is able to produce even more successfully and cooperatively even more well-being, so that the children in the family find themselves on a higher level of welfare and, accordingly, in the prospects before them.
  This is how this growth cycle goes on and on:
  
  love --> well-being --> more love --> more well-being --> even more love --> even more well-being…
  
  In all cases, however, goods of the first type are more static, stable, durable and serving to some, and usually very substantial, degree as raw material for the production process of the system – the process for the production of goods, but also of goals, rules, meanings and capabilities. On the other hand, goods of the second type are more dynamic, developing, enriching and appearing to some, and usually very substantial, degree as a direct product of the production process of the system.
  
  We have already said that values are a part of goods, but we did not clarify yet – which part more precisely.
  Now we can clarify that, in their essence and content, values are goods of the first type, i.e. the goods that are built into the system (and preserve it). And as was explained in the two examples above – about solidarity (in the system) and about love (in the family), – a certain value may turn out to be of such fundamental importance to the system that the system begins to produce it, and then this good will begin to become at the same time a good of the second kind.
  Values are goods, but they do not exhaust all goods. As was said, the goods are of two types – those that are built into the system (and preserve it); and those that the system produces (and reproduces). And again, using the same two examples above – about security (of the system) and well-being (of the family), it was explained that the good of the second type can be so fundamentally important for the system that the system will begin to build it into its integrative complex of values, and then this good will begin to become and good of the first type.
  
  There is no doubt that the use of the terms „goods of the first type“ and „goods of the second type“ makes it somewhat difficult to read, perceive, think and comprehend. It is for this reason that goods of the first type are usually called „values“ (which they are), and goods of the second type are simply called „goods“. Both values („goods of the first type“) and goods („goods of the second type“) are, as a rule, synergetic (synergistic) concepts, quantities, and features.
  Returning to the two examples given (for the system and for the family), we will clarify that in them solidarity and love are values, and security and well-being are goods.
  
  So, since the main goal of the existence and functioning of any system (individual, community, society, state) is security, then naturally security as a good cannot be anything other than a synergetic (synergistic) good. That is why we will pay attention to security precisely in this SYNERGETIC (synergistic) sense of it: in its sense as a GOOD.
  
  ⁕ Systematization 2: Kinds of goods.
  In this amazing world of ours, whether by chance, whether by some still unsolved regularity, whether by a design of some cosmic civilization or whether by a will of some higher being, there are three kinds of goods.
  
  • Goods of the first kind are divisible (when shared) goods;
  When they are shared, these goods decrease. Material objects are goods of this kind – if we cut someone a slice of our bread, there will be less left for us. If a man has two tunics and gives one to the one who has none, then he will have one tunics left [John the Baptist: „Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none“ (Luke 3:11). )]. Money is also such a good.
  It is precisely because the overwhelming number of goods in our world are divisible that it is so difficult and beautiful to live in it – after all, when we share a good, it decreases for us. If you want to give to the other, you have to take away a part of what you have, and therefore a part of yourself – and realize that if you give, then what you have will decrease.
  Goods of the first kind are limited, exhaustible, destructible. With them, one could not give away or consume endlessly and with impunity as much as he wants and for as long as he wants.
  
  • Goods of the second kind are indivisible (when shared) goods.
  When they are shared, these goods do not change. Such goods are the non-material (intangible) goods that are distributed on (through) material carriers. This kind includes goods from the cognitive cycle – goods associated with information, knowledge, cognition, wisdom. In the process of their sharing, they invariably remain the same (they do not change).
  When a person shares information or knowledge with someone, then the information or knowledge that he owns remain the same. This is extremely important for humanity! No matter how many facts, information, knowledge, wisdom a professor shares with his students, he does not risk anything, because he will still know as much as he knew before the lecture. He can „cut off“ huge portions of his own knowledge to the students, but his knowledge will not suffer from this.
  Our world is designed in such a way that communication is possible. Let's just imagine for a moment that if we share our knowledge with someone, then we will begin to know less. How much more difficult would be the exchange of information, experience, technologies, discoveries between people!
  According to the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998), social systems as a whole do not consist of people, but of communications; they consist „of meaningful communications – only of communications and of all communications“. „In its simplest terms a communication is a synthesis of information, utterance and understanding. Through communication, information is transmitted in a form which makes it understandable“, and „systems deal with uncertainty by creating from their own communications structures which make uncertainty appear certain, or at least more certain“ [7].
  If information were a good of the first kind and not of the second kind, then the communication between people, between communities of people and between societies would be only superficial, involving the exchange of unnecessary facts, information or knowledge that those who shared them would like to forget.
  
  • Goods of the third kind are multiplied (when shared) goods.
  When they are shared, these goods are multiply. „Multiply“, as we explained, is figuratively speaking – to emphasize that when they are shared, they are not „added“ (3 + 3 = 6), but as if they are „multiplied“ (3 x 3 = 9), i.e. a new quantity (value) is obtained which is much larger than the mechanical („arithmetic“) sum of the two constituents. That is why the goods of the third kind are synergetic (synergistic) goods. Such goods are the non-material (intangible) goods that are distributed on (through) non-material (intangible) carriers.
  A third good is security. If you share your security with someone else, it increases.
  
  ▪ With goods of the first kind, one hungry person plus another one hungry person will make two hungry persons.
  ▪ With goods of the second kind, one poorly informed person plus another poorly informed person will make two slightly better, but still poorly informed persons.
  ▪ With goods of the third kind, one person in a state of insecurity plus another person in a state of insecurity could make two persons in a state of security.
  
  In international relations, security sharing is called integration. That is why whether an integration process achieves its goals and whether it ensures maximally complete and optimally equal membership is determined not by the formal increase in the number of integrating states, but actually by whether the security space is expanding, i.e. whether as a result of this process the security of the collective security system and of the individual national security systems of the Member States is increased.
  
  The goods of the third kind, the multiplied goods, as it was said, are synergetic (synergistic) goods – with them the effect of their sharing is much more than their mechanical („arithmetic“) sum. In other words, we are talking about multiplicity, about the synergy of security.
  That is why it is clear how great the role of synergetic (synergistic) goods is – those goods that practically fuse, merge, connect the elements of the system into a dynamic, complex and integrative whole and optimize its existence and development as a goal-setting and goal-setting organism.
  When the elements of one system (or of two systems) exchange a synergetic (synergistic) good with each other, even if nothing changes externally (visibly) for the system (for both systems), inside the system (between the two systems) additional value is produced, which not only enhances the cohesion between the elements of the system (between two systems), but strengthens the production process of goods in this system (in these two systems).
  An example (for illustration only) is the distribution of resources within a group. Let's take two people in one group. Let one of them first give the other 100 BGN (levas) to meet some urgent need. Later, let the second returns 100 BGN (levas) to the first and (perhaps) thus helping him to meet some urgent need. The net effect of this within the group is as it were, equal to zero – the total amount of money has not changed. But it is not so, the effect is not zero at all, because the trust between people in the group is strengthened, their sense of cohesion, as well as of reliability in relationships, of conviction that in the group they can rely on each other in difficult times is growing. We have a positive macro-effect from internal micro-interactions! This is actually one form of reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism does not change the total amount of values exchanged, but it creates strong micro-effects that transform into a significant macro-effect of cohesion, solidarity and the creation of additional opportunities for the group survival and development.
  
  
  In conclusion, one personal and lyrical digression:
  Once upon a time, under socialism, when the vertical growth of people of my generation was possible above all by „joining the Party“, and for many this was either impossible to achieve, even if they wanted it, or impossible to achieve because they they didn't want it. That is why we were left with horizontal growth – everyone „spilled“ in some direction that satisfied and suited him – one wrote poetry, another conquered the hearts of girls, the third built a cottage, the fourth had a „plot“ where he grew potatoes or cooked raki, the fifth collected something.
  I was fascinated by science fiction, I even have a published short story called „Instead of an interview“, with which I participated in a competition „2001“ of the „Narodna Mladezh“ newspaper („People's Youth“) [8]. I mention this only in connection with the systematization of goods considered in this Study. Because then I had conceived a fantasy story. The action took place on a planet where the creatures were like clouds of some kind of matter with informational content. And the information there was good of the first kind, i.e. when it was shared with someone, it decreased. That's why the creatures on this planet did not communicate with each other – if you share something with someone, it will mean that the shared information will irreversibly pass from you to them! The only exchange of information on this planet was between the „mothers“ creatures and the „children“ creatures. The „mother“ shared all her available information with her „child“ and this was her vital function – as soon as she shared all the information, she „died“, completely losing her information content.
  However, at one fine moment (after all, I was then 23 years old), two young and in love creatures on the planet made an amazing discovery – if they are ALWAYS together and share information with each other, they will not lose any information, but at the same time will know two times more! The one creature (let's call it conditionally) „She“ will know everything that (let's call it conditionally) „He“ tells „Her“, and „He“ will know everything that „She“ tells „Him“. Yes, one of them will forget what one shared with the other, but what was shared will pass to the other of them! And nothing of what they know as a couple will go away and disappear! They discovered the phenomenon of sharing, of communicating, of exchange. The important thing was that they were ALWAYS together and never separated – in terms of communication, first of all, of course. Gradually, the two of them were joined by other creatures. United, unified, cohesive, and mutually supportive, they could share any information with each other without fear that after sharing it, they would know less. Thus came the day when on this planet the previously non-communicative creatures began to communicate with each other. The important thing was to be united, unified, cohesive and mutually supportive!
  Solidarity and unity, cohesion and togetherness have finally won!
  
  
  References:
  1. Проданов, Васил. Вътрешната сигурност и националната държава. // Военен журнал, 1995, №. 2, с. 9.
  , Vasil. Vutreshnata sigurnost i natsionalnata durzhava. // Voenen zhurnal, 1995, №. 2, s. 9. (in Bulgarian)
  (Prodanov, Vasil. Homeland Security and the Nation State).
  2. Цимерман, Алберт. Тома от Аквино. София: Изток-Запад, 2004, с. 131.
  , Albert. Toma ot Akvino. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2004, s. 131. (in Bulgarian)
  (Zimmermann, Albert. Thomas Aquinas)
  3. Боеций. Утешението на философията. С.: Изток-Запад, 2005, с. 82, 87.
  . Boecii. Uteshenieto na filosofiata. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2005, s. 82, 87. (in Bulgarian)
  (Boethius. The consolation of philosophy).
  4. Zimmermann, Albert. Ibid., p. 132.
  5. Ibidem, p. 135.
  6. Слатински, Николай. Сигурността – животът на Мрежата. София: Военно издателство, 2014.
  Slatinski, Nikolay. Sigurnostta – zhivotut na Mrezhata. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2014. (in Bulgarian)
  (Slatinski, Nikolay. Security – the Life of the Network)
  7. King, Michael, Chris Thornhill. Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Politics and Law. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN, 2003, p. 11, 12, 31.
  8. See: http://nslatinski.org/?q=en/node/3458.
  
  
  17.12.2022
  
  
  Brief explanation:
  The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.