STUDIES ON SECURITY: STUDY 20. „PROCESS“, „LOGIC“ AND „ABSTRACTION“ AS PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPTS IN THE SCIENCE OF SECURITY

  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 20. „PROCESS“, „LOGIC“ AND „ABSTRACTION“ AS PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPTS IN THE SCIENCE OF SECURITY
  
  Three concepts fundamental for the Science of Security – „process“, „logic“ and „abstraction“ – are discussed, which together with the concept of „system“ represent the basis, the infrastructure of the modern Science of Security, as well as of any modern science.
  
  The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of these three paradigmal, axiomatic concepts:
  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)
  
  As stated in Study 9, modern Science of Security is built on eight paradigmal, axiomatic concepts: System, Process, Logic and Abstraction; Interest, Conflict, Power and Security [1].





  
  Figure 1. Categorical architecture of the Science of Security
  
  ⁕ The first group of concepts – System, Process, Logic and Abstraction – represent the basis, the infrastructure of the Science of Security.
  
  Explanation:
  Infrastructure – this is a group (a complex) of interrelated elements that serves as the basis for the functioning of a system.
  Note. Clarifications for which no source is explicitly indicated are based on texts and definitions for them in Wikipedia.
  
  These four paradigmal, axiomatic concepts form the basis of the Science of Security (as well as of any other modern science), since when any significant [scientific] object (phenomenon, category, model, entity) is studied and managed, four fundamental important conditions must necessarily be present:
  
  √ Firstly, it is the consideration of the phenomena and properties associated with an object as a SYSTEM.
  In this way, they will not be analyzed fragmented and chaotic, but will be understood in a unified and integrative manner.
  √ Secondly, the object must be perceived as a PROCESS.
  In this way, its development over time will be studied, and not some of an momentary state (or a limited set of states).
  √ Thirdly, in all actions, connections, influences and relationships of which the object is a function, in which it enters and which it generates, it is necessary to look for the LOGIC contained in them and inherent in them.
  In this way, it is possible to ensure optimal consideration of the interdependence of both the elements that make up the object itself and the object with other objects of the material world.
  √ Fourthly, a certain degree of ABSTRACTION is necessary, that is, a certain separation of the essential from the non-essential, a detachment from the empirical and concrete.
  In this way, it is possible to build – through symmetry, analogy, homology, homomorphism, etc. – bridges to other fields of knowledge and to use a number of useful and creative ideas from them.
  
  Explanation:
  Homology is the similarity of organs having a common structure, developing from similar embryos, but capable of performing different functions [2].
  Homomorphism is the conformity in form or external similarity, but not in the type of structure (construction) and in origin [3].
  
  Let us emphasize again – the first group of four paradigmal, axiomatic concepts:
  ‣ System
  ‣ Process
  ‣ Logic
  ‣ Abstraction
  are the foundation of any modern science (and of the Science of Security, in particular).
  
  Study 9 elaborated on the first of these four paradigmal, axiomatic concepts:
  ‣ System
  
  In this Study, we will focus on the other three paradigmal, axiomatic concepts of this group:
  ‣ Process
  ‣ Logic
  ‣ Abstraction
  
  PROCESS AS A PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPT
  
  A PROCESS can theoretically be viewed as an infinite and continuous set of successively changing states (or sets of states, i.e. sub-processes, or stages of development). In a first approximation, this set can be represented (and replaced for analysis purposes) by a discrete, i.e. finite (limited), set of concrete states. For example, normal societies move from one stable state to another stable state and give the impression that they are in a continuous process of stability and security. All other societies are constantly moving from one crisis state to another crisis state, so they give the impression that they are in a continuous process of instability and insecurity.
  
  There is often talk of a finite number of parameters: criteria (5 criteria for successful integration), levels (5 levels of security – see Study 1), kinds (4 kinds of security – see Study 2), types (3 types of interests and 3 types possible solutions in a conflict) etc.
  
  Explanation:
  5 criteria for successful integration of the state into the Collective Security System [4]:
  • Criterion 1: More security;
  • Criterion 2: More democracy;
  • Criterion 3: Higher standard of living;
  • Criterion 4: Preserving the right to vote on vital issues for the state;
  • Criterion 5: Preservation of national identity.
  
  3 types of interests in a conflict [5, 6]:
  • non-intersecting interests;
  • coinciding interests;
  • mutually exclusive interests.
  
  3 types of possible solutions in a conflict [7]:
  • symmetrical;
  • asymmetrical;
  • fundamentally new.
  
  Naturally, such a limited number of parameters does not allow the most complete and comprehensive description of the studied object or process. But here we touch on one epistemological problem, one might say, key for humanity problem – that of the fundamental knowability of the world. A whole constellation of great thinkers and scientists such as French philosopher, mathematician and physicist René Descartes (1596 – 1650), English physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher Isaac Newton (1643 – 1727), German philosopher, mathematician and diplomat Gottfried Leibniz (1646 – 1716) give the answer: „Yes, our world is knowable!“.
  
  Explanation:
  Epistemology – a general theory of knowledge that defines the foundations, the validity criteria of the scientific knowledge in relation to both the exact sciences (mathematics and logic) and the natural and experimental sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, etc.) . It is an integral part of the philosophy of science, which arose at the beginning of the twentieth century as a result of the mathematical and physical revolutions.
  
  In no small measure, the fact that our world is fundamentally knowable is due to the fact that it is structured in such a way that every single object or process in it can be reasonably accurately described by a finite and limited number of parameters. If we assume for just a moment that the opposite was true – that the description of a given object or process required not even an infinite, but a huge number of parameters, then even with modern computers it would be impossible to know it. Let's imagine that a system of 1 million equations with 1 million unknowns had to be solved to get a spacecraft to the moon! In that case, we would never reach the moon!
  The main dilemma before us is how many parameters to limit the description of the relevant object or process. If we use a larger number of parameters, we will get, accordingly, greater accuracy, but we will lose time and the ability to effectively understand the object or manage the process. If we use a smaller number of parameters, we will lose accuracy, but we will get an opportunity to more efficiently understand the object or manage the process.
  What is important in the general case is that for any object or process at a given time we can limit ourselves to the number of describing parameters, because adding new parameters (levels, kinds, criteria, types) either does not add significant new knowledge about that object or process, or the additional efforts do not justify the extra expenditure of time or resources.
For example, the parsimony principle known as Occam's Razor can be used to determine the required number of parameters. This principle is named after the 14th century English scholastic philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (c. 1288 – 1347). The principle of parsimony states: „Do not multiply essences more than necessary“ (Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate), i.e. for a theory to be good, unnecessary details must be removed from it. In other words: „The ability to explain a lot with a little – is only one of the criteria by which we judge the adequacy of theories“ [8].
  Analogies are also applicable to the already mentioned (and far more abstract) model problems from Game Theory (see Etude 18), where very often the given problem can be solved by finding a maximin or minimax, i.e. of the maximum of the minimum quantities of parameters or of the minimum of the maximum such quantities.
  
  Thinking about the object or phenomenon as a process is also inherent in humans, although perhaps to a lesser extent than the system thinking. Of course, again, this is only possible if we think about it, i.e. if we apply some intellectual effort. Because it is natural to assume that people are aware that every phenomenon has its development in the past, present and future, and this is a prerequisite for process thinking. However, we very often find ourselves locked in the present, in the specific situation, we do not bother to analyze the development of things so far, nor do we realize their further development. We live in a constant and never-ending present – unable to free ourselves from what the British mathematician and philosopher Alfred Whitehead (1861 – 1947) called the „prejudice of „simple location“ [9] and forgetting that the present is a momentary fleeting moment, the blink of Time's eyelid, that it is – as Gottfried Leibniz says – „loaded with the past, and pregnant with the future“ [10]. Imbued and woven with naivety, we imagine that everything begins with us and ends with us.
  
  For the Western culture (for the Western world, for the West, i.e. for the USA and Western Europe, for the „Euro-Atlantic community“), and for us, Bulgarians, thinking of phenomena as a Process is much easier, and this is connected with some reflections on the deep identity and cultural roots of this culture [11].
  
  Human civilization is traditionally thought to have originated as organized communities with proto-state elements of clan, tribal, or other collective solidarity far beyond the primal herd cohesiveness –
  on the one hand, along the Nile River in Ancient Egypt, or in the One River Land; and
  on the other hand, in the space between the Tigris River and the Euphrates River (in the „land between the two rivers“, i.e. Mesopotamia), or in the Two Rivers Land.
  
  Explanation:
  Of course, we can in principle speak not only of this, but also of at least two more Two Rivers Lands – the „Indian“ (between the Indus and the Ganges) and the „Chinese“ (between the Huanghe and the Yangtze) Two Rivers Lands.
  
  These two territories – of the One River Land and the Two Rivers Land; these two hotbeds of modern civilization have shared not only very common processes in terms of drama and sequence, but also very different destinies, influenced by the different temperament of their rivers, the mothers of life, the links with eternity.
  
  Life and Time in the One River Land flowed from the Past to the Future, as the Great River itself flows from the High Mountains (Upper Nile) to the plain Delta (Lower Nile). The Nile symbolized the Arrow of Time – one-way and inexorable, irresistible and spearing the spirit and body. Everything is transitory. The only thing that is eternal is the River, and it is the other name of Time.
  It is logical to assume that from Egypt, from the One River Land, there appears the idea of Time as an ARROW OF ONE DIRECTION, as an eternal duration going from the Past through the Present to the Future, which are clearly separated from each other and follow their course in a strictly defined order, according to which the Past absorbs the Present, but not before it is experienced and becomes the Past, and the Present absorbs the Future, but not before it is reached and already becomes the Present. Thus only in this single direction flows this unique, all-consuming, inducing bitter sadness with its inevitability, the triune whole Past – Present – Future. And this triune whole is Time, which is so similar to a snake crawling forward and only forward.
  
  And in Mesopotamia, in the Two Rivers Land, things were radically different. There the rivers Tigris and Euphrates are in eternal conflict with each other; they do not respect man, he is to them only some insignificant unknown in the great equation of Nature. These two rivers are unpredictable and uncertain, as if indifferent to the destinies of the peoples between them. They can come at any time and flood the crops when they least expect them [12]. If the Nile carries within itself the direction, the perspective and the movement, and life moves forward with it, then in the narrow space between the Tigris and the Euphrates, only headlong desert winds swirl, passing into sandstorms; man is a speck of dust in the sands of time, he has no space in which to rush forward, but is doomed to go round and round and repeat himself, continually repeating and repeating himself, as life repeats itself.
  In the Two Rivers Land, certain tribes conquered the fertile Plain between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and during this conquest they destroyed, plowed and ruined it, then they again ennobled it and revived it for a new life, they laid irrigation canals, they created a true paradise on Earth. And just when they should have wiped their foreheads and enjoyed the fruits of their labor, other tribes came rushing down from the Mountains to the Plain, destroying, plowing, and ruining what they had created, and subduing them to start all over again, until they too turned the blessed Plain between the Two Rivers Land into a paradise on Earth and the same fate befell them, for from the Mountains the following tribes came rushing down rapidly.
  
  If an outside Observer looks at the Two Rivers Land from afar, he will not distinguish details and will not ask himself which tribes invaded and which tribes had a sad fate after this invasion, but will see only one and the same cycle – a pattern repeated over and over again permanently, magically, irrevocably, eternally. For this Observer, naturally, inexorably Time will flow in a Circle – cyclical and repeatable. And he will say to himself: There is nowhere to hurry, you are only a part of some deep and incomprehensible plan, unknown to any of the mortals. In the Two Rivers Land the individual is doomed to realize that he „matters no more than a fallen leaf“ and the focus is irrevocably shifted from him „to the everlasting group“ [13].
  Therefore, it is logical to assume that the perception of Time as a A CIRCLE CLOSED WITHIN ITSELF originates from Mesopotamia, as a repeatable in the main and essential cyclicality, in which the Past, the Present and the Future are conditional concepts, definable and measurable from the point of view of the concrete present moment, but actually indistinguishable, alternating parts of a whole. And this whole is Time, which is so much like a snake that has bitten its tail.
  
  We will immediately emphasize that in fact humanity, our humanity, whether as a result of its own development (as taught by traditional science), or as a legacy of the previous, „Atlantic“ (from Atlantis) civilization, which died as a result of the global cataclysm „World Flood“ , has been enlightened, has been taught, directed, predisposed and educated to perceive Time as an UNVELING SPIRAL, with two constituents, the Arrow and the Circle, which interact and counteract each other gradually, so that there is both development and repetition; and directionality and cyclicality.
  
  Explanation:
  Atlantis – a legendary island, archipelago or even a continent, according to legend, was most likely in the Atlantic Ocean and sank in one day as a result of an earthquake and flood along with its inhabitants the Atlanteans. The great ancient Greek philosopher Plato (427 – 347) was the first to tell this legend in his dialogues „Timaeus“ and „Critius“.
  
  Under certain circumstances, however, or under the systemic influence of political, religious, economic, geographical and other environments, this unique, synergistic relationship symbolizing Time – the relationship between the Arrow and the Circle, between development and repetition, between directionality and cyclicity – has begun to break down. Thus, in Egypt the Arrow takes the top, and in Mesopotamia – the Circle. And the Western civilization, whose roots are in Egypt, began to predominantly look at Time as an Arrow, as a one-way process. And the Eastern civilization, whose roots are in Mesopotamia, began to look at Time above all as a Circle, as a cyclical process.
  The perception of Time is one of the most significant differences between Western and Eastern civilizations. Time is always among the most complex, sometimes shrouded in mysticism, philosophical categories, hiding mysteries, remaining hard-to-solve mysteries for humanity. The brilliant philosopher and theologian Saint Aurelius Augustine (Augustine the Blessed, 354 – 430) wrote: „What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not: yet I say boldly that I know, that if nothing passed away, time past were not; and if nothing were coming, a time to come were not; and if nothing were, time present were not“ [14].
  
  So, for the Western culture, rooted in the One River Land, Time is an ARROW – from the Past, through the Present, to the Future. That is why this culture is so dynamic, pragmatic and energetic. The Western culture is an INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURE.
  The Western, Individualistic man knows that he is only Here and only Now – a short part of the Way, a small part of Space, a fleeting part of Time. Time flows like an Arrow whose end points to the Past and whose tip points to the Future.
  The life of the Western man is but a moment in the flight of this Arrow. A moment, which is his only chance, and there will be no second, if he misses it – and it's over.
  The Western, Individualistic man is under constant stress from this. For this reason he is insanely sensitive about his health and terribly afraid of Death. He hates Death because it can take away his one chance to realize himself, to achieve something in life, to leave a mark behind him.
  The Western, Individualist man much prefers above all TO HAVE THAN TO BE, because what he has is a sign and proof that he has had it, that he has achieved something, and „greed for money, fame, and power has become the dominant theme of life“ [15].
  In the West the Man is the measure of all things. Here, you can't enter the same river twice, because the second time it will be different, along with everything else.
  
  Explanation:
  The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras (c. 490 BC - c. 420 BC): „Man is the measure of all things – of the existent, that they exist, and of the non-existent, that they do not exist“.
  Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 544 BC - c. 483 BC): „You cannot step into the same river twice“.
  
  For the Eastern culture, whose roots are in the Two Rivers land, Time is a CIRCLE – on it, Nature and people revolve repeatedly, cyclically, eternally. That is why this culture is so passive and contemplative, irrational and meditative. The Eastern culture is a COLLECTIVISTIC CULTURE.
  
  Explanation:
  Meditation – a practice in which a person seeks to achieve physical, emotional, mental and spiritual development; an essential component of Eastern religions, philosophies and spiritual teachings
  
  The Eastern, Collectivist man is calm, thinking, seeking nirvana. He knows that if in this life the chance is not on his side, then on the next rotation on the Circle of Time, he could have a better lot. That's why things can be looked at more philosophically, there is no need to rush for where, when or what, patience is needed. If you sit by the bank of a river and know how to wait long enough, cold-blooded and patient, you will live to see the corpse of your enemy pass by you on the river.
  
  The Eastern, Collectivistic man has adopted this slow, sanguine view of the things of life. He is not in a hurry, but thinks, looks for the meaning. For him, much more important than finding meaning (if that is possible!) is the very search for it.
  The Eastern, Collectivist man prefers above all TO BE THAN TO HAVE, because the fact that he was, that he is striving for the spiritual is a sign and proof that he has fulfilled his small duty in the realization of the deep and incomprehensible to himself higher design. Therefore, the German philosopher and social psychologist Erich Fromm (1900 – 1980) wrote: „Modern Man cannot understand the spirit of a society that is not centered in property and greed.“ [16].
  
  From what has been said so far, it is clear that in our world there is a global division of:
  ‣ cultures with a high degree of individualism (i.e. individualistic cultures) – these are Western societies; and
  ‣ cultures with a high degree of collectivism (i.e. collectivist cultures) – these are Eastern societies.
  
  The West, with its perception of Time as an Arrow, as a process started in the Past, flowing into the Present and continuing into the Future, much more easily develops and applies process thinking. However, the problem is that quite often lately, alas, this is done formally, superficially, in a much more elementary, first-signal way, without putting soul and responsibility, without deciphering the meaning of this process.
  And without understanding its logic.
  
  LOGIC AS A PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPT
  
  When we talk about the search for logic in the study of a given object, we mean the existence of certain regularities, principles of construction and development of this object, some meaning and purpose that determine its existence. It is important to understand that the individual subsystems and elements of the system do not self-organize spontaneously, simply as it happened, but this happens by virtue of the laws and priorities inherent in this system.
  Logic is present in every system, in every process, in everything alive and vital that surrounds us. Even the ancient Stoics knew that our world carries within itself and obeys a rational order, organized by and explicable through „the all-pervading formative reason (Logos), a kind of natural law, a universal cause and an internal necessity-predestination which connects things in the universe and gives rise to the state of universal permeability and harmony“ [17] and that „our power of reason ... is a „spark“ or fragment of the divine Logos that informs and governs the uni-
verse“ [18]. And the Roman emperor and philosopher Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180) says: „All things are implicated with one another, and the bond is holy; and there is hardly anything unconnected with any other thing. For things have been co-ordinated, and they combine to form the same universe (order). For there is one universe made up of all things, and one God who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, one common reason in all intelligent animals, and one truth“ [19].
  
  Explanation:
  Stoicism – a philosophical movement that arose at the end of the 4th century BC, according to which philosophy is a means of gaining wisdom, the ability to live, as happiness is in a life in harmony with nature, in freedom from passions, in peace of mind, in the emotionless pursuit of freedom.
  Logos – in ancient Greek philosophy, denotes the universal regularity in the world.
  
  Only by understanding and perceiving the process inherent in the system and studying and unraveling the logic built into the system can one analyze and understand the way the system functions, as well as identify the paths that the system can take, including to do as much as possible for it to take a trajectory that largely corresponds to the interests of the system and, of course, to its resources.
  Forecasting the future, and with adequate forecasting even foreseeing the future, is possible in principle, because a significant part of the seeds of what will happen in the future have been sown in the past and the present, that is why many of the roots of future events are precisely in the past and the present (the positive role of the Process!).
  A meaningfully constructed and effectively managed system is able to „quench“ the internal contradictions and external influences that could push it towards anarchy, as well as „quench“ the internal tensions and external influences that seek to push it into chaos and that (pre)determines to one degree or another potential alternatives for the optimal development of the system, which are generally not arbitrary, but reflect the inherent characteristics and regularities of this system (the positive role of Logic!)
  The behavior of individuals and communities of individuals in the present subconsciously, unconsciously or consciously „calculates“ the future, i.e. we live today and with the thought of tomorrow, we behave in such a way, we act in such a way, we make a decision in such a way as to achieve, if possible, a better or a different future than what would happen if we did nothing and allowed events to develop, to carry us like a turbulent stream with their blind force.
  
  Among the methods of strategic forecasting and scenario planning are those of alternative scenarios and alternative future states. Both methods are based precisely on the study of the process inherent in the system and on the understanding of the logic embedded in the system – they together and separately determine its functioning.
  
  ▪ In the Method of alternative scenarios (relying on the present – where do we start and which way to go) on the basis of the development of the system in the past and the present, the consideration of the resources, structure and goals of the system and the study of the external and internal environment, the possible alternative scenarios (trajectories) for the development of this system in the future are outlined, starting from a given initial state at a selected initial moment in time.
  In parallel, a set of criteria is defined by which to evaluate these alternative scenarios (paths) and to choose the optimal one, i.e. the best possible scenario (trajectory, path). If the set of criteria is chosen rationally (and this is part of the aerobatics of forecasting!), then the best-case scenario evaluated by it will lead the system at some finite point in time (e.g. after 10 or 20 years) to the best possible end state for the system. Thus, from the point of view of the initial state of the system, a forecast is made for its final state at a certain point in the future, which it will reach in the optimal possible scenario. And if the system really ends up in this final state at the final point in time (10 or 20 years from now), then a very reliable prediction has been made, finding the best scenario for the system's development! Thus, effective forecasting leads to optimal foresight.
  In other words, the inputs here are the initial state, the initial and final moments of time, the resources, the structure and the goals of the system. The trajectory that is determined by optimizing based on a set of criteria is the best case scenario. The output (unknown) quantity that results is the final state.
  
  ▪ In the Method of alternative future states (leaning on the future – where we want to go and which way to get there) on the basis of the development of the system in the past and the present, the consideration of the resources, the structure and the goals of the system and the study of the external and internal environment, alternative final (target) states are outlined in which the system, starting from a given initial state at an initial point in time, may end up at a future final point in time (e.g. after 10 or 20 years).
  Again, in parallel with this, a set of criteria is defined by which to evaluate these possible final (target) states and to select the optimal one from them. If the set of criteria is chosen rationally (and this, as said, is part of the aerobatics of forecasting!), then it will estimate the best final (target) state at the final point in time. From the possible scenarios that lead the system to the best final state at the final point in time, the best scenario is selected. Thus, from the point of view of the initial state of the system, a forecast is made for its optimal final (target) state at a certain point in the future and for the scenario by which it will reach it. And if the system does end up in that final state at the final point in time (10 or 20 years from now), then we have made a very reliable prediction, finding the best possible final state for the system! Thus, effective forecasting leads to optimal foresight.
  In other words, the inputs here are the initial state, the initial and final moments of time, the resources, the structure and the goals of the system. The quantity that is determined by optimization based on a set of criteria is the best final (target) state. The resulting (unknown) trajectory is the scenario bringing the system to the final state.
  
  As a higher phase of systems and process thinkings, logical thinking, i.e. the search for the logic that underlies the functioning of systems, is often „forgotten“, undervalued, neglected and even rejected. Each of us has at least a few grains, quantitative if not qualitative abilities for logical thinking, but their development is connected with serious intellectual efforts, with training, with education. It is not for nothing that Logic is one of the most serious scientific fields – both in the natural and social sciences. Logic is multidisciplinary and requires a constant expansion of the general culture. Man differs from other living beings in that logical thinking with him is not only „thinking“ in quotation marks (instinctive), but also thinking without quotation marks (a complex process of analyzing possible alternatives and deciding on the optimal one of them) .
  Logic evolves under the influence of changes in the system and fluctuations in the process – it is inevitable, it is „logical“. In themselves, efforts to change the logic pay off (if they are not misdirected and with wrong priorities) because they have a significant effect on the System. Logic is most closely related to building a culture of risk and security management. It can be confidently said that this culture must first of all be embedded in the logic by which the living and vital organism „System“ functions.
  
  Let's take the normal functioning of democratic processes. It is amazing how some unreasonable societies repeat the same mistakes, delusions, illusions over certain periods. This is because an indication of the lack of logical thinking in irrational societies is the constant asking of the question: WHAT is happening?, while rational societies ask the typical logical thinking question: WHY is it happening?
  
  Above we looked at some differences between the West and the East in terms of the conception of Time (i.e. in process thinking). But between the West and the East there are also significant differences in terms of leading identity specifics (i.e. in the logical construction) – memory, traditions, attitudes, complexes, culture, religion, etc. To reveal these differences, Erich Fromm starts from the logical constructions of the genius ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (about 384 BC – 322 BC), which are based on the three laws:
  ♦ Law of Identity – „A is A“.
  ♦ Law of Contradiction – „A is not non-A“.
  ♦ Law of the Excluded Middle – „A cannot be A and non-A, neither A nor non-A“ [20].
  
  The Western way of thinking is permeated by Aristotelian logic, which, as can be seen, rejects as meaningless the very proposition that X can be both A and non-A.
  In the East, however, another type of logic is accepted – the Paradoxical one, where X can be both A and non-A (a positive statement found in the philosophy of Taoism) or X can be neither A nor non-A ( a negative statement found in Indian philosophy) [21].
  
  For example, in the East (in Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism) „the ultimate aim of religion is not the right belief, but the right action“, i.e. „the religious task of man is not to think right, but to act right“, from which it follows that everyone can seek the path to God, the main thing is to merge with him in the process of meditation [22].
  We mentioned above that the man in the East is only a part of an unknown plan. And when you do not understand the deep meaning, you have no other goal, nothing else left for you, except to give yourself through meditation „to a higher personal realization, self-development or awareness, achieved through the submission of one's own life to the contact with a higher power“ [23], as well as seek a merger with the one who predetermined this meaning. By merging with him, let at least a part of his idea of the world overflow into you. This alone is left to you, since: „There is therefore nothing to be gained, either for the universe or for man, through individual originality and effort ... The first duty of the individual, consequently, is simply to play his given role. .. without resistance, without fault; and then, if possible, so to order his mind as to identify its consciousness with the inhabiting principle of the whole“ [24].
  
  The attainment of Nirvana is man's sole possibility „of escape from time, of breaking out of the iron ring of existences … [and] to abolish the human condition“ – something he strives to do in order to find a way out from this „cosmic rotation“, to escape from reality, to overcome his condition as an „existant“ and to save himself from the horror „that he will have to recommence this same transitory existence billions of times over, and endure the same sufferings without end“. For man, „deliverance from this world, and the attainment of salvation, are equivalent to deliverance from cosmic Time“ [25]. As the Buddhist monk and writer Mathieu Ricard (1946) put it: „Nirvana is the very opposite of indifference toward the world. It's infinite compassion and love toward all beings in their totality … The only thing we need to 'break with' is our childish and egocentric attachm ent to the endless fascinations of the race for pleasures, belongings, fame, and so on“ [26].
  
  Explanation:
  Brahmanism – ancient Hinduism; historical predecessor of modern Hinduism.
  
  Buddhism (Teaching of Awakening) – a religious-philosophical system of spiritual awakening encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices based on the teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, often called the Buddha. Gautama lived and preached between the 6th and 4th centuries BC. He is considered by Buddhists to be an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings free themselves from the suffering caused by ignorance.
  
  Taoism – Chinese traditional teaching with elements of religion and philosophy, which preaches harmony in everything, represented by the union between disorder and law, negative and positive, earth and heaven through the symbols Yin and Yang; it is assumed that its founder is the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu (lived in the 6th century BC).
  
  Nirvana – perception of the world, accessible to the person who has achieved enlightenment and characterized by non-attachment, tolerance and peace [27].
  
  In the West, however, as important as righteous action is, it is more important to think righteously. This leads to the creation of dogmas predetermining what righteous thinking is and anyone who deviates from this thinking is an infidel or a heretic and is shown the utmost intolerance. The most important thing in religion is „faith in God“. This does not exclude the need for a person to live righteously, but it inevitably leads to the situation where „the person who believed in God – even if he did not live God – felt himself to be superior to the one who lived God, but did not „believe“ in him“ [28].
  
  Unlike the East, where „the ideal is the quenching, not development, of ego“, in the West, with its doctrine of free will, individuals are separated from each other, from the will in nature, and from the will of God. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each individual „of coming intelligently, out of his own experience and volition, to some sort of relationship with – not identity with or extinction in – the all, the void, the suchness, the absolute, or whatever the proper term may be for that which is beyond terms“, to feel and bear personal responsibility for their decisions, to leads „not life as a good soldier, but life as a developed, unique individual“ [29].
  In the East, the aspiration of the depersonalized individual is to merge with God, and therefore his relationship with him, with God, is interpreted more as „alternative therapies“ than as „authoritative directives of a supernatural father“. In the West, however, the individual experiences the agony of his separation from God, interpreted „as a divorce from God, largely in terms of guilt, punishment, and atonement“ [30].
  In other words, in the West, personal orientation is reflected in the idea and knowledge of God as a person, and accordingly the Western hero is a tragic person, „doomed to be implicated seriously in the agony and mystery of temporality“. Whereas in the East individual life is reduced to mere error, owing to „the overpowering sense of an absolutely impersonal law suffusing and harmonizing all things“, so that the Eastern hero is „in essence without character but an image of eternity, untouched by, or else casting off successfully, the delusory involvements of the mortal sphere“ [31].
  That is why the American historian H. Byron Earhart (1935) was right when he asserted that: „In death as in life, religious perfection is attained through the group rather than through individual existence. The emphasis on group participation in religion does not mean the absence of individual religious experience, but rather that religion is organized and experienced in the context of groups“ [32]. Or as the French economist and writer Jacques Attali (1943) wrote: „Asia sets out to free man from his desires, while the West seeks to make him free to realize them. The first chooses to view the world as an illusion, the second to make it the only arena for action and happiness. One speaks of the transmigration of souls, the other of their salvation“ [33].
  
  Thus, following the paradoxical philosophy of the East leads „to tolerance and an effort toward self-transformation“, and „the love of God is an intense feeling experience of oneness, inseparably linked with the expression of this love in every act of living“. While Aristotle's philosophy leads „to dogma and science, to the Catholic Church“, and „the love of God is essentially a thought experience“ and, in principle, „the love of God is essentially the same as the belief in God, in God's existence, God's justice, God's love“ [34]. Logically later, when Christianity became the dominant religion of large areas of the West, it gave up cyclical time and imposed irreversible Time [35].
  In the East, „the idea prevails that the ultimate ground of being transcends thought, imaging, and definition. It cannot be qualified“ [36]. There, man cannot be autonomous, strive for self-expression that goes beyond his assigned role in life. As the American professor of comparative mythology Joseph Campbell (1904 – 1987) writes, „The supreme aim of Oriental mythology, consequently, is not to establish as substantial any of its divinities or associated rites, but to render by means of these an experience that goes beyond: of identity with that Being of beings which is both immanent and transcendent; yet neither is nor is not“ [37]. Man's task and right is to become part of the Diversity of Nature without violating the identity with the Being of beings. „Like a jewel, ever turning facets to the light, apparently in change but actually unchanging, this Bronze Age image of the cosmos, still intact in the Orient, renders a fixed world of fixed duties, roles, and possibilities: not a process, but a state; and the individual, whether man or god, is but a flash among the facets“ [38].
  In the West, man strives to free the man within himself, to fulfill his life to the maximum extent – with emotions, with pleasures, with self-satisfaction, with possessions and with an individual will to do what his personal morality dictates. In the East, however, man suppresses the man within himself, extinguishes his emotions, dries up his free will, leads a „modest way of life that rejects attachment to earthly riches and is devoted to morality and self-knowledge through discipline... And the goal of self-discipline is the pacification of the mind and the body by extinguishing desire“ [39].
  The West encourages the strengthening of individuality, the East considers people to be playthings in the hands of attachment to Self and therefore constantly strives to „to get rid of that illusion of a self“, uncovering the „imposture of the ego“ – that „ego that seems so powerful and causes us so much trouble while having no existence in itself... It's a freedom from the limitations imposed by attachment to a self, not at all an anaesthesia of the will“; „the West seems to find it very difficult to understand how recognizing that the self has no true existence doesn't stand in the way of determination, strength of m ind and action in the slightest. Instead, it opens our eyes wide to the causes of happiness and suffering“. Unlike the West, which is a civilization of action – „action on human history through politics, and action on the world through knowledge of the laws of nature, with all th e assurance of being able to transform it and bend it to man's needs“, for the East „the goal was never to transform the external world by acting physically upon that world, but to transform it in producing better human beings, in allowing human beings to develop an inward knowledge of themselves“ [40].
  In the West, man is not a part of the Being of beings, he is a creation of the Creator, separated and different from him, and therefore identity is not possible – „man alone, turned inward, according to this view can experience only his own creaturely soul, which may or may not be properly related to its Creator“. Thus, „the high function of Occidental myth and ritual, consequently, is to establish a means of relationship – of God to Man and Man to God“ [41]. And man preserves not only autonomy, but also responsibility for his actions, which pass through his individual decisions, which are then subject to the judgment of the Creator.
  Among the reasons for this division and difference between the West and the East, Joseph Campbell sees the formation of the European spirit based on Paleolithic hunting activities, in which individual judgment was decisive. This means that the world was not perceived as once and for all ordered according to divine laws, but as a world in which man had freedom and the right to rational behavior. The individual has accumulated authority and recognition, along with this, well-being based on his independent and independent achievements [42]. And where the main actor was the Hunter with his individual hunting skills, there „even the concept of immortality is individual, not collective. Spiritual leadership, furthermore, is exercised primarily by shamans, who are individuals endowed with spiritual power through personal spiritual experience, not socially installed priests, made members of an organization through appointment and anointment“ [43]. This is why the principle of the Ego as an enlightened, rational capacity for responsible judgment (the „Reality Principle“) has become a great foundation of the humanistic individualism of Western Man [44].
  While in the East, with the onset of the Neolithic revolution (agriculture and animal husbandry), the individual obeyed the interests of the group and was gradually reduced to its constituent part. Thus, „throughout the troubled history of the interplay of these two culture worlds in their alternating pendulations, the irresoluble conflict of the principles of the paleolithic individual and the neolithic sanctified group has created and maintained even to the present day a situation of both creative reciprocity and mutual disdain“ [45]. For the English philosopher and writer Colin Wilson (1931 – 2013), „group consciousness“ is limited in potential. It is „static by nature“ and „cannot produce Leonardos and Beethovens and Einsteins“ [46].
  The people of the West (following Joseph Campbell's writings about the ancient Greeks) „were proud, as well they might be, of being men instead of slaves; of being the ones in the world to have learned, at last, how to live as men might live, not as the servants of a god, obedient to some conjured divine law, nor as the functionaries, trimmed to size, of some wheeling, ever-wheeling, cosmic order; but as rationally judging men... A discovered cosmic order was not read as a design for the human order, but as its frame or limitation. Nor was society to be sanctified above the men within it“ [47].
  Through Egypt, and then, through the touch of prominent ancient Greek statesmen, philosophers, sages (lawgiver Solon (c. 634 – 559 BC), mathematician Pythagoras (c. 570 – 490 BC), Plato, etc.) with this ancient land and especially with its priests, through Greece and Rome, and further, through Christianity, the Renaissance and Modernity, today's West is formed – layer upon layer, value upon value, thought upon thought.
  
  Explanation:
  Renaissance (fr. Renaissance – revival) – a historical period, also called Revival, of rapid cultural development in ideas, means of expression and in general in creativity, which lasted approximately from the 14th to the 17th century. It originated in Florence in the 14th century, and in the following centuries spread to other parts of Europe. In a more general sense, the term Renaissance is also used for the historical period that is a transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age.
  Modernity (Modern Era) – The Modern Age; a historical category that designates the present time as a historical epoch lasting three centuries.
  
  ABSTRACTION AS A PARADIGMAL, AXIOMATIC CONCEPT
  
  According to various definitions of „abstraction“, it is respectively:
  • extracting the basic essence of a concept, removing any dependence on real (concrete) objects with which this concept was (or could be) connected, generalizing this concept so that it can have applications in or to characterize other abstract descriptions of equivalent phenomena;
  • a process or expression meaning some abstract, irrational concept or fiction ... a special form of knowing reality;
  • ignoring in the cognitive process the non-essential sides, properties and connections of the object in order to separate and analyze its most essential, regular signs ..., theoretical generalization, as a result of this ignoring;
  • theoretical generalization, through which the main regularities of the studied object or phenomenon are reflected and new, unknown regularities are predicted;
  • result of revealing more and more essential properties of objects and phenomena through their connections and relations;
  • creating a generalized idea of the object or phenomenon, by removing partial and lateral deviations, extracting the general properties of the studied objects or phenomena;
  • transforming the understanding of the individual elements of the system or properties of the object into a more general idea, which is based on the knowledge of these elements or properties, but distinguished from each particular element and each particular property;
  • a process in which a new (higher) concept is created on the basis of some set of literal („real“, „concrete“) objects and phenomena having certain common properties, where these common properties are present in the new concept, but do not exhaust all its content ..., a concept that appears one level or one degree higher, i.e. generalizing with respect to all concepts subordinate to it, connecting them in a common group, area or category.
  
  The advantages of abstract thinking are threefold:
  • it allows connections and analogies to be made with other systems and areas of analysis;
  • through it the results achieved in one system or area may suggest the possible results in another system or area of analysis;
  • in it the approaches, methods and technologies used for the analysis of one system or area of analysis can be applied in another system or area of analysis.
  
  Abstract thinking is inherent only to man – only he can free himself from complete dependence, from obsession with his senses and think relationally, i.e. to isolate interrelationships and interdependencies and consider them in their abstract relation [48]. Other living organisms do not have such thinking, their thinking is always literal, concrete, situational. Abstract thinking operates with images, generalizations, metaphors (i.e., abstractions) in contrast to concrete thinking, which operates with concrete facts, objects, and phenomena. The main content and the main expression of abstract thinking are symbols. It is probably for this reason that the German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874 – 1945) called symbols „abstract names“ and wrote that „instead of defining man as an animal rationale, we should define him as an animal symbolicum“ [49].
  
  Explanation:
  Relation – matching, establishing relationships or dependencies between elements, objects, sets of elements or objects.
  
  Some of the greatest minds of our world have pondered over the deep problem of abstract thinking, related to the very understanding of human nature and human intelligence. Among them, for example, is the Italian theologian and philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), who is comparable in greatness to Saint Aurelius Augustine himself. St. Thomas adopted the Peripatetic principle that „there is nothing in reason that was not previously in the senses“, for it is evident that through the senses we attain our initial, immediate knowledge. But along with this, he accepts another thesis of the Aristotelian school – „there is knowledge only of the general“, because human knowledge cannot aim only at the comprehension of the specific material content of the subject, but strives to achieve its general immaterial form, in otherwise it will remain locked in the realm of sensibility, without being able to go beyond the limits of the individually existing.
  
  Explanation:
  Peripatetics – students and followers of Aristotle, his school of philosophy and his teaching on scientific explanation of the world, whose name comes from the great philosopher's habit of walking with his students during his philosophical classes.
  
  Since, as the Bulgarian philosopher and historian Tsocho Boyadzhiev (1951) wrote, „the general does not exist in a pure form in created things ..., [and] is their inner form and this form should be extracted from them, abstracted from its individual carrier“, it is logical to assume that „the description of the cognitive process ... must present us with the concrete „mechanics“ of the transition from the sensory perception of the object to the intellectual achievement of its essence“ and it is abstraction that provides us with the mechanism of this transition, it is „the ability of the intellect to single out and notice in the thing only that which constitutes its essence, without paying attention to its individual characteristics. In the act of abstraction, the „sensible form“ provided by the senses of the mind is transformed into an intelligible, that is, essential and general“ [50]. The instrument which enables us to reach in this way from the particular things obtained through the senses to the general, and so to obtain all knowledge of it, is our intellect, and it accomplishes this chiefly by virtue of its immaterial nature [51].
  Abstract concepts (unlike concrete ones) are not tied to a specific and binding context, so they can cross the boundaries of objectivity and literalness in making sense of specific processes or situations and find their common properties and tendencies with other processes or situations.
  Along with this, however, this mobility, blurring of the boundaries of abstract concepts raises the question of how they should be related to concrete processes and situations, so that they reflect, albeit in a synthesized form, their essence, and not „hang“ detached from reality and thereby lose their functionality and applicability. For, as the American sociologist Jonathan Turner (1942) emphasizes, „the utility of an abstract concept can only be demonstrated when the concept is brought to bear on some specific empirical problem encountered by investigators; otherwise, concepts remain detached from the very processes they are supposed to help investigators understand. For this reason, abstract concepts should be accompanied by a series of statements known as operational definitions, which are sets of procedural instructions telling investigators how to go about discerning phenomena in the real world which are denoted by an abstract concept“. Therefore, according to him, abstract concepts must be accompanied by corresponding statements, known as operational definitions, which are sets of procedural instructions that tell the researcher how to analyze in the real world the phenomena denoted by the abstract concepts. Only with the help of these definitions can the problem of the relation of abstract concepts to empirical events be solved. However, in order to be able, through abstract concepts, to cover as wide a range of empirical events as possible, one must accordingly also have a maximally detailed set of operational definitions, each of which describes methods for isolating the particular situation or event that are contained in the concept. The more operational definitions applied to an abstract concept, the more likely that concept will be useful to the largest possible number of researchers trying to make sense of the complex mechanisms in the world of empirical events. In other words, abstract concepts are the building blocks of a theory, and those of them that are not tied or as weakly tied as possible to temporal and spatial frameworks have the greatest importance for this theory [52].
  
  As we said above, abstraction means detaching oneself from the concrete and the empirical. It means not limiting ourselves to literal, simulation and imitation approaches, to the use of patterns, to reliance on routine, tradition, inertia. This would allow us with the help of various intuitive, expert, mathematical and other methods, through creative thinking and through symmetry and asymmetry, through analogy, homology or homomorphism, etc. to transfer knowledge, processes, procedures, practices from other systems and organizations.
  
  When we talk about homology, we will give an example of how, say, in living matter there can be two organs with similar structures that perform different functions, e.g. the tail of the dog and the tail of the monkey.
  And if we think concretely and not abstractly, then we can decide that since the dog's tail is cut off for beauty, due to misconstrued aesthetics, it would be good to cut off the monkey's tail as well. But unlike the dog's tail, which is more or less an atavism, the monkey's tail is part of its vestibular apparatus. Therefore, by cutting it off, we will get a monkey-dog that can hop on the ground but not climb trees.
  But if we reason abstractly, not literally, and know the various functions of the „tail“ organ, then we would never cut off the monkey's tail.
  
  Explanation:
  Atavism – an organ (property, sign) in a person, animal or plant, which had an essential meaning for the ancestors, but lost its meaning for the newer generations in the process of evolution; a return to something past.
  
  A similar reasoning can be made regarding special services. In the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Sweden, let's add Finland to them) regional intelligence and counterintelligence departments can quite understandably be closed. There they are like a dog's tail, i.e. largely an atavism (therefore they can be „cut off“ – covered up or heavily minimized), because what would require, for example, Norway to spy against Denmark or Sweden to counter-spy against Finland...
  And if we, in Bulgaria, act literally and not abstractly, we can close our regional intelligence and counterintelligence departments. But the Balkan Peninsula is not the Scandinavian Peninsula! Here, the regional and counterintelligence departments are like the monkey's tail, i.e. part of the vestibular apparatus of the state. And if we cut them off, the state loses its orientation, it can only crawl, walk blindly and lose sensitivity to the real regional risks.
  Part of the weakness of the Bulgarian foreign and security and defense policy stems precisely from the neglect of regional intelligence and counter-intelligence at the expense of wasting resources and efforts in regions that have no practical significance for our national security (e.g. in Central Asia).
  
  And when we talk about homomorphism, we will give an example of how in living matter there can be two organs with different structures that perform similar functions, e.g. the lung in man and the gills in fish.
  And if we think concretely and not abstractly, then we can decide that since man breathes with lungs, the fish also breathes with lungs, and look in vain for a similar organ in it.
  But if we reason abstractly, and not literally, and know the function of „breathing“, then we would immediately discover in the fish the gills by which it performs this function.
  
  As a reasoning in this direction, we can again point to a case from reality. In some European countries, the Investigation is not under the executive power (in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Interior), but is part of the Judiciary power. When the author of this Study was a deputy in the 7th Grand National Assembly (1990 – 1991) and in the 36th Ordinary National Assembly (1991 – 1994), some European experts stated and insisted that Bulgaria would not achieve any success in the fight against crime while the Investigation is in the Ministry of the Interior. Well, the Investigation was removed from the Ministry of Interior and was transferred (as this was confirmed by the Constitution) to the Judiciary. Ten years passed, the author was already the president's national security secretary. And then other European experts stated and insisted that Bulgaria will not achieve any success in the fight against crime while the Investigation is ... in the Judiciary power! Well, but it was no longer so easy to return the Investigation to the Executive power again, for this could only be done by convening a new Grand National Assembly and thereby amending the Constitution, since only the Grand National Assembly, in accordance with Article 158, point 3 of the Constitution, „resolves the issues of changes in the form of state organization and state administration“. This necessitated the application of palliative (and dooming to paralysis or at least low efficiency of the institutions involved in the fight against crime) measures, such as the creation of an investigative apparatus in the Ministry of Interior, while exceptionally good investigators either retrained as lawyers, judges and prosecutors, or (a small part of them) are effectively inactive in a sinecure manner in the National Investigation Service.
Returning to the example of the lungs in humans and the gills in fish, we in Bulgaria did not clearly understand what the function of „breathing“ means in the fight against crime. And because somewhere in Europe, figuratively speaking, they „breathed with gills“, i.e. there the Investigation is in the Judiciary power, we also decided to „breathe with gills“. And in our country, as a tradition, practice, skills, experience, „breathing was with lungs“, i.e. the Investigation is the Executive power. We destroyed that „lung“, we couldn't learn to „breathe with gills“, now we sew on an „artificial lung“ and wonder why we are suffocating in the fight against crime, why we don't have enough air, why do we toss and turn like fish on dry land, why do we languish.
  It is so when one thinks not abstractly, but literally, when foreign models are literally applied, just because somewhere (in Europe or in the USA) it was so, it must also be absolutely and literally so here...
  
  Unfortunately, abstraction is often absent in the „set“ of knowledge and in the level of ambition of the people involved in managing the national security system in Bulgaria. Or if there is, it is related to copying or appropriating some type of know-how from partner (or competitor) systems. But here it is about something much more – about „raising head“ from routine tasks; about „dependence on the path taken“; to overcome inertia and habit, to separate the important from the unimportant; to break away from thinking that things are clear, that this is how they were done somewhere and this is exactly how they will be done in our country.
  
  It should be realized that abstract thinking is much more complex than systemic, process and logical thinkings. And if system and process thinkings are related to the form in which „existing is existing“ [53], i.e. with the form in which things, phenomena, subjects and objects in living (and vital) matter occur and flow, take place and develop, then logical and abstract thinkings relate to the content of the „origin of the existing“, i.e. to the content of the origin and flow, of the realization and development of all things, phenomena, subjects and objects in living (and vital) matter. And while the form is visible, and therefore much easier to perceive and understand, the content must not only be seen, but also comprehended, understood. This mostly makes logical and abstract thinking much more complex and far more specific.
  Logical thinking reconciles the approaches of empiricists (i.e. those philosophers who believe that the senses are the source of knowledge) with the approaches of rationalists (i.e. philosophers who believe that reason is the source of knowledge) [54] .
  At the same time, abstract thinking is entirely the intellectual realm of rationalism, prudence, and reason; it completely justifies Aristotle's statement that man is not only a political (social) animal (Zoon Politikon), but also a rational animal (Zoon Logikon).
  
  Explanation:
  Rationalism – a direction in philosophy and the theory of knowledge, according to which reason is the basis of knowledge; human knowledge is based on the activity of reason, without the aid of the senses or by attaining truths that go beyond the data of the senses.
  
  So abstract thinking is a higher form of human thinking.
  Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on the point of view), abstract thinking as an initial given is only in the bud and barely developed in the individual, rather we possess it as an inclination, as a tendency to such systematic thought activity and therefore in order to to be developed and achieved requires a lot of work, self-discipline, a significant part of the cognitive cycle „facts → information → knowledge → cognition“, continuous intellectual activity, studying various foreign models and practices and their creative application in our country, taking into account of traditions and national experience.
  Unfortunately, the marginalization of huge sections of the population on the one hand and the overload of facts, half- and pseudo-, and increasingly fake information lead to the strange and sad fact that in the age of the information society and high communication technologies a huge number of people live and experience their lives without feeling the need for abstract thinking and without developing at least a rudimentary ability to think abstractly.
  Abstract thinking is without a doubt and indeed a kind of apotheosis of thinking, it builds on system, process and logical thinkings. Not every security (personal, group, company, national) manager can manage using abstract thinking, but it would be fatal if he manages despite and even in defiance of abstract thinking and in complete opposition to it, i.e. governs on a first-signal basis, by trial-and-error intuition, in which in the morning he intends to do one thing, at noon another, the opposite of that in the morning, and in the evening a third, whereby what he declares that he intends to do in the evening is diametrically opposed both to what he declares he intends to do in the morning, and to what he declares he intends to do at noon!
  
  In the Theory of systems, there is an extremely important and fundamentally essential rule, one might even say a law – the more a system makes its decisions „by intuition“ (i.e. without taking into account the initial and boundary conditions, changes in the environment during the process itself, the resources at the disposal) or by suggestion (pressure) from the outside, the more the probability increases that the system will make a decision with destructive consequences for itself.
  
  As already mentioned, the fundamental concept System analyzed in Etude 9 and the three other fundamental concepts discussed here – Process, Logic and Abstraction – are embedded in the foundations not only of modern Science of Security, but also in principle of any modern science. In one way or another, they have become the central emphasis, the main focus of research on an extremely wide range of problems, to such an extent that it is no longer possible without them, without their practically inexhaustible cognitive power, to comprehend the secrets of our world – a world that so sparingly reveals new and amazing features of its essence and really makes us exclaim like the American philosopher Alvin Toffler (1928 – 2016): „It is necessary to realize that we are all part of a fantastic cosmic joke and yet we feel great in it“ [55].
  
  
  References:
  1. Слатински, Николай. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София.: Военно издателство, 2011, с. 35 – 118.
  Slatinski, Nikolay. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011. (in Bulgarian)
   (Slatinski, Nikolay. Security – essence, meaning and content)
  2. Речник на чуждите думи в българския език. София, Издателство на БАН, 1993, с. 969.
  Rechnik na chuzhdite dumi v bulraskia ezik. Sofia: Izdatelstvo na BAN, 1993, s. 969. (in Bulgarian)
   (Dictionary of foreign words in the Bulgarian language)
  3. Ibidem.
  4. Слатински, Николай. Петте нива на сигурността. София: Военно издателство, 2010, с. 171 – 172.
  Slatinski, Nikolay. Pette niva na sigurnostta. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2010, s. 171 – 172. (in Bulgarian)
   (Slatinski, Nikolay. The five levels of security)
  5. See mainly: Лебедева, Марина. Политическое урегулирование конфликтов. Подходы, решения, технологии. Москва: Аспект Прес, 1997, 184 – 185.
  Lebedeva, Marina. Politicheskoe uregulirovanie konfliktov. Podhody, reshenia, technologii. Moskva: Aspekt Pres, 1997, 184 – 185. (in Russian)
   (Lebedeva, Marina. Political conflict resolution. Approaches, solutions, technologies)
  6. Удалов, Вадим. Баланс сил и баланс интересов. // Международная жизнь, 1990, № 5, с. 5.
  Udalov, Vadim. Balans sil i balans interesov. // Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn, 1990, № 5, с. 5. (in Russian)
   (Udalov, Vadim. Balance of power and balance of interests)
  7. See mainly: Лебедева, Марина. Вам предстоят переговоры. Москва: Экономика, 1993, 41 – 46.
  Lebedeva, Marina. Vam predstoiat peregovory. Moskva: Ekonomika, 1993, 41 – 46. (in Russian)
   (Lebedeva, Marina. Negotiations are coming up)
  8. Nye, Jozeph S. Understanding InternationaI Conflicts. An Introduction to Theory and History. Pearson Longman, 2007, p. 37.
  9. Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man. Yale: Yale University Press, 1944, с. 50.
  10. Ibidem.
  11. See also: Слатински, Николай. Петте нива ..., ibid., 43 – 110.
   (Slatinsky, Nikolai. The five levels of security)
  12. Wilson, Colin. From Atlantis to the Sphinx. London: Virgin Books, 1996, р. 259.
  13. Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God: Oriental Mythology. London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Limited, 1962, р. 4.
  14. St. Augustine. The Confessions of Saint Augustine. URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess.html. p. 165.
  15. Fromm, Erich. To have or to be. Continuum, 2005, p. 11.
  16. Ibidem.
  17. Богданов, Богдан. Марк Аврелий – император и философ. – Във: Аврелий, Марк. Към себе си. София: Народна култура, 1986, с. 18. (in Bulgarian)
  Bogdanov, Bogdan. Mark Avrelii – imperator i filosof. – Vuv: Avrelii Mark. Kum sebe si. Sofia:Narodna kultura, 1986, s. 18.
   (Bogdanov, Bogdan. Marcus Aurelius – emperor and philosopher)
  18. Wolff, Robert Paul. About Philosophy. Pearson, Year: 2013; 2014, р. 33.
  19. Ibid., p. 24.
  20. Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2006, p. 100.
  21. Ibid., 101 – 102.
  22. Ibid., 106 – 107.
  23. Оувърмайър. Даниъл Л. Религиите на Китай. Светът като жив организъм. Във: Еърхарт, Х. Байрън (ред.). Религиозните традиции на света. Пътешествие през Африка, Мезоамерика, Северна Америка, иудаизма, християнството, исляма, будизма, Китай и Япония. София: Изток-Запад, 2006, 1483 – 1636, с. 1577.
  Ouvurmaiur, Daniul L. religiite na Kitai. Svetut kato zhiv organizum. VuvL Eurhart H. Bairun (red.) Religioznite tradicii na sveta. Pateshestvie prez Afrika, Mezoamerika, Severna Amerika, iudaizma, hristianstvoto, iliama, budizma, Kitai i Iaponia. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2006, 1483 – 1636, s. 1577. (in Bulgarian)
   (Overmyer. Daniel L. The Religions of China. The world as a living organism)
  24. Campbell, Joseph. Oriental Mythology..., ibid., 3 – 4.
  25. Eliade, Mircea. Images and Symbols. Librairie Gallimard, 1952, р. 67, 73 – 74.
  26. Revel, Jean Francois, Matthieu Ricard. The Monk and the Philosopher : A Father and Son Discuss the Meaning of Life. Schocken, 1999, p. 178.
  27. Ouvurmaiur, Daniul L. Religiite na Kitai…, ibid., s. 1634.
  28. Fromm, Erich. ibid., р. 164.
  29. Campbell, Joseph. Oriental Mythology..., ibid., р. 34.
  30. Ibid., р. 52.
  31. Ibid., р. 258.
  32. Еърхарт, Х. Байрън. Религиите на Япония. Много традиции в един свещен път. Във: Еърхарт, Х. Байрън (ред.). Религиозните традиции на света. Пътешествие през Африка, Мезоамерика, Северна Америка, иудаизма, християнството, исляма, будизма, Китай и Япония. София: Изток-Запад, 2006, 1637 – 1803, с. 1577.
  Earhart, H. Bayrun. Reliigite na Iaponia. Mnogo tradicii v edin sveshten put. Vuv: Earhart, H. Bayrun (red.). Religiozni tradicii na sveta. Puteshestvie prez Afrika, Mezoamerika, Severna Amerika, iudaizma. Hristianstvoto, islama, budizma, Kitai i Iaponia. SofiaL Iztok-Zapad, 2006, 1637 – 1803, s. 1577. (in Bulgarian)
   (Earhart, H. Byron. Religions of Japan)
  33. Attali, Jacques. A Brief History of the Future. Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2006, 2011, p. 40.
  34. Fromm, Erich. ibid., 108 – 109.
  35. Eliade, Mircea. Images …ibid., p. 170.
  36. Campbell, Joseph. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. London: Martin Seeker & Warburg Limited, 1965, p. 3.
  37. Campbell, Joseph. ibidem.
  38. Ibid., 5 – 6.
  39. Лестър, Робърт. Будизъм. Пътят към Нирвана. Във: Еърхарт, Х. Байрън (ред.). Религиозните традиции на света. Пътешествие през Африка, Мезоамерика, Северна Америка, иудаизма, християнството, исляма, будизма, Китай и Япония. София: Изток-Запад, 2006, 1299 – 1482, с. 1323.
  Lestur, Robert. Budizum. Putiat kum Nirvana. Vuv: Earhart, H. Bairun (red.). Religioznite tradicii na sveta. Puteshestvie prez Afrika, Mezoamerika, Severna Amwrika, iudaizma, hristianstvoto, isliama, budizma, Kitai i Iaponia. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2006, 1299 – 1482, s. 1323. (in Bulgarian)
   (Lester, Robert. Buddhism. The Road to Nirvana)
  40. Revel, Jean Francois, Matthieu Ricard. The Monk…, ibid., p. 35, 95, 127 – 129, 284.
  41. Campbell, Joseph. Occidental Mythology..., ibid., p. 4.
  42. Ibid., 33 – 34, 522.
  43. Ibid., 506 – 507.
  44. Ibid., р. 522.
  45. Ibid., р. 34.
  46. Wilson, Colin. From Atlantis…, ibid., р. 276.
  47. Campbell, Joseph. Occidental Mythology..., ibid., р. 179.
  48. Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man..., ibid., p. 48.
  49. Ibid., с. 26.
  50. Бояджиев, Цочо. Философията на Тома от Аквино. – Във: Аквино, Тома от. Философски трактати. София: Изток-Запад, 2011, 19 – 21.
  Boiadzhiev, Tsocho. Filosofiata na Toma ot Akvino. – Vuv: Akvino, Toma ot. Filosofski traktati. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2011, 19 – 21. (in Bulgarian)
   (Boyadzhiev, Tsocho. The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas)
  51. Аквино, Тома от. Философски трактати. София: Изток-Запад, 2011, с. 131.
Akvino, Toma ot. Filosofski traktati. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2011, s. 131. (in Bulgarian)
(Aquino, Thomas of. Philosophical treatises)
  52. Turner, Jonathan H.. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Homewood, Illinois, The Dorser Press,1974, p. 4.
  53. Йолова, Бистра. Методологическият характер на онтологията. 06.07.2008 (author's archive).
  Iolova, Bistra. Metodologicheskiat harakter na ontologiata, 07.07.2008. (in Bulgarian)
   (Yolova, Bistra. The methodological nature of ontology)
  54. Wolff, Robert Paul. About Philosophy..., ibid., p. 81.
  55. Тофлър, Алвин. Прогнози и предпоставки. София: Факултет по журналистика и масова комуникация, 1992, с. 227.
  Toflur, Alvin. Prognozi i predpostavki. Sofia: Fakultet po zhurnalistika i masova kimunikacia, 1992, s. 227 (in Bulgarian)
  (Toffler, Alvin. Forecasts and assumptions)
  
  
  08/31/2023
  
  
  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.