Academic literature on the topic '970116 Expanding Knowledge through Studies of Human Society'

The article considers the process of expanding the subject and methods of research in modern environmental science. It is shown how, following the traditional biological science of ecology, new directions of ecological knowledge arise under the influence of research activities: social ecology, anthropoecology. Knowledge about a human being is achieved through the use of both natural and human sciences. A great step in expanding the subject of modern ecology was the intensive formation of human ecology in recent years, in which the need for the formation of a unity of natural science and socio-humanitarian research methods was reflected most clearly. In contrast to biological ecology, in which the main focus of research was the principles of natural science research, in social ecology, socio-humanitarian issues become dominant, and in human ecology-the synthesis of natural science and socio-humanitarian approaches. It's time to abandon the progressive illusions of the past and move on to the awareness of the specifics of sustainable civilizational development at the present stage. This sustainable development presupposes the co-evolution of society and nature, such a co-development of society and nature, in which both components of this single system do not oppose each other, do not conflict, but organically presuppose each other in their combined, harmonious development. Thus, now acting as a unified science that studies the interaction of the central coreof the system and its environment, ecology sets new guidelines for understanding the organization of scientific knowledge, the mood of the modern world picture is falling. A promising way for ecology is to grow into a modern universal organizational science. But this is a distant prospect. However, even now, such a renewed ecology can provide much for Russia’s search for its modern civilizational path, clarifying the organization of scientific knowledge, specifying the contours of the modern scientific picture of the world.

Abstract The life sciences underwent a dramatic transformation during the twentieth century, with an expansion in fundamental knowledge of the process of evolution and its molecular basis, through advances in health care that greatly extended human life, and by the combination of these advances to address the problem of conserving the many forms of life threatened by expanding human society. The essay highlights the worldwide emphasis on social welfare in the years 1945–1980 and the expanding role of international collaboration, especially in the International Biological Program and its advances in ecology and the notion of the biosphere, and in the emergence of molecular biology. This was also the era of the Cold War, yet military confrontation had fewer implications for life sciences than for the natural sciences in that era. After 1980, deregulation and neoliberalism weakened programs for social welfare, yet links among the varying strands of life sciences continued to grow, bringing the development of genomics and its many implications, expanding epidemiology to include reliance on social sciences, and deepening ecological studies as the Anthropocene became more and more prevalent. In sum, the experience of the life sciences should make it clear to world historians that scientific advance goes beyond the achievements of brilliant but isolated researchers: those same advances rely substantially on social movements, migration, and the exchange of knowledge across intellectual and physical boundaries.

Purpose Universities are expected to accelerate and optimize their role as economic growth engines. Technology transfer is a traditional way of expanding knowledge exchange, and it is typically used in hard sciences. This paper aims to discuss academic consultancy as a novel way to bring especially social sciences, humanities and arts (SSHA sciences) knowledge into the society. In addition, it seeks practical ways to combine both university’s and individual researcher’s needs in consultancy. Design/methodology/approach A case study comprising interviews at two Finnish universities was conducted. Literature on academic consulting was used as background knowledge. International benchmarking was done through interviews and desk top studies. Some background statistics was extracted from the financial database for received research funding from businesses and ministries. Findings Corporate funding is most prominent in hard sciences, and SSHA sciences seem to get their funding mainly from public sources. SSHA researchers provide services for firms, but these relationships are generally private. According to interviews, there is will to consult firms through university, but researcher’s time limitations, remuneration and academic merit related to consultancy are important factors when consultancy guidelines are drawn. The administration view is expanded from only research staff to include the entire university knowledge production ecosystem and its members. Originality/value Acknowledging the value of SSHA sciences is topical because the respect towards humanities and social studies seems to be in decline in some developed countries. However, according to this study, academic consulting could have great potential in bringing the human perspective into the digitalized society. The quantification of knowledge exchange would benefit from formal, institutionalized consultancy sales. More studies are needed to assess the impact of academic consultancy on society.

The article is devoted to the problems of transformation and phenomenon of complication of intercultural communication models. The significance of the study lies in the fact that intercultural communication through the prism of cultural and civilizational developments reflects the sociocultural changes taking place at all levels of social development. The problem of application of theoretical knowledge about the communicative paradigm of modern culture with its polylogical core for the development of a specific model of intercultural communication and effective cultural policy relates to the difficulties of achieving compliance of the research results with the real state of the sociocultural environment. Basing on the previous and current research approaches and taking into consideration a systemic and synergistic approach as well as a dialogue concept, the authors aim to investigate theoretical modeling of intercultural interaction. As a result of investigation, the authors conclude that the study of models of intercultural interaction cannot be carried out without understanding the principles and factors of the dynamics of cultural changes in the modern world which allows us to consider the transition from a dialogue model to a polylogue model as a natural stage in the dynamics of culture. Also, the methodological set of philosophical and cultural studies of the dynamics of modern culture is proved as constantly expanding due to the new tendencies, like total digitalization. It is stated that overcoming outdated models of intercultural interaction and adopting the new ones is a long process that must be tested by the human society

The purpose of this study was to determine the strategy and direction of government policies in the development of start-up startups supporting the new normal era of innovative eco-digital products. Through this research, it will be studied how the direction of Government policy in developing startup startups in Indonesia, as well as what government support is in keeping the eco-digital movement of innovative products stable in the new normal era, and what kind of startups can survive during a pandemic and new normal. This research method uses qualitative descriptive and literature studies based on primary data and secondary data from the results of data analysis from pilot business groups, groups of start-up policy makers, community policy users and startup business consumers. The results of the research show that the policy directions that must be the attention of the Indonesian government regarding the development of startups in Indonesia are as follows: Increasing Broadband access; Helping SMEs to switch to the online realm; Expanding the electronic payment system; Expanding access to finance (investment); Extending e-government services; socializing the Job Creation Law, which was recently passed to provide various impacts on the startup business ecosystem; The Creative Economy Agency (Bekraf), currently the government through the Indonesian Creative Economy Agency (Bekraf) is trying to build infrastructure to support the presence of startups in Indonesia. BEKuP (Bekraf for pre startup); In collaboration with MIKTI (IT Creative Industry Society) and Telkom Bekraf will hold intensive workshops for people who intend to build startups in 15 big cities; Making the University as a Startup Startup Incubator; Protecting MSME products from Curent Account Deficits (CAD) problems; Disseminating Government Regulation (PP) Number 74 of 2017; Prepare an electronic-based national trade road map (E-Commerce Road Map), hereinafter referred to as the 2017-2019 SPNBE Road Map; Funding programs, taxation, consumer protection, education and human resources (HR). Also communication infrastructure, logistics, cybersecurity, and the establishment of the SPNBE Roadmap implementing management; The government cuts the final PPh by 0.5% for MSMEs. Also through PMK Number 150, 2018, this digital industry can get income reduction incentives (PPh) or tax holidays; Facilitating creative ideas, innovations, originality ideas, and not end users through Grant activities and competitions in various aspects of local creative endeavors, academic research and technology; Provide liquidity, guarantee LPS Deposit insurance agency to owners of capital; Prepare financing in the technology sector. Prepare a law on the national knowledge and technology system; Evaluating educational curricula with graduate expertise, especially in tertiary and senior secondary education as well as developing research at universities.

The article clarifies the essence of the humanistic tradition in teaching foreign languages to students, substantiates the need for actualising the humanistic potential of foreign language training for the purpose of intellectual and spiritual enhancement of the individual, as a result of realizing the creative nature of language, which is an external manifestation of the spirit of the nation that enables thinking and cognition. Since each language structures objective reality and describes the familiar world in its own way, familiarization in the process of mastering a foreign language with another culture, another language system and means of interpreting reality constitutes the humanistic value of foreign language training, which takes the individual to a new level of world perception in the general cultural context, in which the highest priority is personality, humanity, dignity, freedom of choice, and the rule of law, etc. Thus, the relevance of this study lies in clarifying the regularities of foreign language training of students from the point of view of the intellectual and spiritual development of the individual in the process of his professional formation under the conditions of globalization and internationalization of modern society, whose security is ensured, first, by the professional and humanistic potential of the nation, accumulated in the context of high-quality education. In view of the demand for humanization of knowledge in the information society, the aim of this study is to highlight the need for actualizing the humanistic potential of foreign language training, which is considered through the prism of intellectual and spiritual improvement of the individual when learning foreign languages. The main tasks of the research are to clarify the essence of this potential and determine the mechanisms of its realisation, especially in the aspect of students' effective mastery of a foreign language in the process of personal and professional development, whose integral component is the improvement of cognitive-communicative and emotional-communicative spheres of personality. The methodological basis for consideration of the raised issues is the generalization of psychological-pedagogical and linguistic science about the role of language in learning and mastering socio-cultural experience, about the patterns of personality formation in the process of cognitive activity in the general cultural context. The results of the conducted research are a number of generalizations regarding the need for filling interaction in society, in particular professional communication with a humanistic meaning, which emphasizes the humanistic and therapeutic role of communicative culture, determined by certain value norms and principles, among which the priority is the principle of self-sufficiency of the individual, and the principle of tolerance, that is a friendly attitude towards dissimilar opinions and alternative beliefs. Consequently, this determines the realization of the humanistic potential of foreign language training of students, whose fundamental principle should be the humanization of knowledge, that is, turning to such a system of values and criteria, which proclaims treating a person as the highest value, protecting the individual's right to freedom, happiness, comprehensive development and manifestation of one's abilities, as well as the possibility of self-actualization and self-realization of one's nature, emphasizing, at the same time, the need for a reasonable approach to such concepts as freedom, human dignity, correct behaviour and a wide range of human rights as the basis of human existence. At the same time, highly important is the conclusion about improvement of consciousness and self-awareness of students in the process of foreign language training by means of expanding their intelligence and freedom from stereotypes and excessive restrictions to help them realize their inner essence, having the possibility of free choice, which is the main value for humanists.

Proper planning requires in-depth population studies and a broad knowledge of all aspects related to human resources in terms of their growth, distribution and characteristics. The size of the workforce in any human society is the true indicator of its economic and production potential and the power to drive it. The research dealt with the geographical distribution of the workforce in the field of primary education in Iraq according to For the latest statistics provided by the Iraqi Ministry of Education, in light of the Population Geography approach, which is concerned with analyzing and interpreting spatial differences, distribution patterns, and the factors that explain it. The study aims to analyze the geographical distribution of the workforce in the field of primary education at the governorate level, and the descriptive analytical approach has been relied on and the statistical method is used to show the variables of the characteristics of the workforce. It was found through the research that the governorate of Baghdad led the number and percentages of the educational workforce in the primary stage, which amounted to (24.8%) for the academic year 2018/2019, followed by the governorates of Dhi Qar and Basra with close proportions amounting to (7.8%) and (7.6%) respectively, then Babil Governorate. Diyala has a similar rate of (6.4%), and the proportions of the educational workforce varied in terms of gender, as it increased for females by (67.1%) compared to (32.9%) for males. As for the distribution of the educational workforce according to the environment, the urban environment came at a high rate of ( 67%) and a low rate for the rural environment amounting to (33%), which reflects the inequality of distribution according to the environment as a result of the concentration of educational services in urban areas compared to their limitations and decline in rural areas, and it became clear that the education sector suffers from a severe shortage of educational staff for some specializations at the level of education Primary. The research recommended the necessity of equitable distribution of the workforce to match the number with the population of the governorates, as well as expanding the establishment of a greater number of primary schools outside the governorates center and in rural areas. Keywords: Geographical Analysis, Primary Education, Educational Workforce.

The pandemic that transformed our lives in 2020 brought important reflections on way of seeing the world demanding new skills and behaviors to interact in an environment so common to innovation - virtual environment. In innovation processes, digital transformation that modifies, alters and creates ways of doing things, declares itself and presents itself as facilitating vehicle, also of interpersonal relationships, requiring us to learn to relate in different ways through digital world, using creativity to overcome social, institutional, political, religious, economic obstacles, among others.In science, researchers strive to understand or explain some transformational impacts and seek a perfect adaptation for transferring and exploitation of appropriate knowledge for each eminent need. However, we are still halfway there.Some relevant topics in academia also explored by IJI - International Journal Innovation, such as, innovative entrepreneurship, innovation and learning, innovation and sustainability, internationalization of innovation, innovation systems and digital transformation are now undergoing a new sieve, a new look at understanding of disruptive effects inherent to this theme on transformation and knowledge. A new window has opened in digital age, provided by new world context.In the past, a commonly observed resistance to including innovation in daily processes, and not only in organizational sphere, are now mandatory and our survival in society depends on them. So, what do we see? We can simply call it transformation, but if we broaden a perspective of events in the year 2020, we risk saying that we do live a cotransformation, that is, a rhythmic and continuous, joint and effective learning in creation of value in all global social spheres. It is no longer about transforming a process or creating a system to achieve desired performance, it is about integrating collective, learning by sharing, changing to be able to transform and, all of this, through an increasingly disruptive world.We highlight Moreira, Teixeira and Locatelli (2020) about influences of motivational goals, confirming Schwartz's (2005) theory that groups differ significantly in relative importance they attach to their values, that is, individuals and groups have priorities or axiological hierarchies different from values (Calvosa, Serra, Almeida, 2011). This understanding must support our challenges regarding how to address a co-transformation and transmission of knowledge to future generations, prioritizing care for preservation of our planet, human relations, adaptation of knowledge to current realities and, above all, ability to innovate at any time.As presented by Falaster et al. (2020) it is not for us to assign a mathematical value to life and health or to guide our research by addressing political agendas, nor to distort theory, method and argumentation to suit any situation. What should motivate us, especially in scientific research, is the understanding and strategic responses in times of crisis: our adaptation and compliance, stress with its effects on decision-making on acquisition of knowledge to co-transform and innovate. For this reason, we emphasize that we are in the middle of road because there are still notorious forces that demand permanence of more stable and static social models. Innovation takes on another level. With its disruptive character, it will continue to build future scenarios in improving performance of society's demands (Pol Ville, 2009) through process of cotransformation emphasized here.Efforts and studies aimed at innovation point to relationship networks as important channels for increasing efficiency (Pio, 2020). This is one of evidence regarding the need for a rhythmic and continuous, joint, and effective interconnection for cotransformation. We are not only pointing to innovation as a support for cotransformation, but as something inevitable in practical life of future generations.We must advance how to promote improvements that bring productivity and effectiveness to social relationships through innovation. This will facilitate our insertion in this “new normal” presented in almost all groups of society. We already know that we need to change at a fast pace, but we often get lost in timing of things, that is, the right time for change. Therefore, we must learn to work among diversity, producing new values that take our society to a new level of civility. And all of this translates into different ways of knowing and learning, transmitting, and assimilating, stretching, and making flexible.In fact, it is necessary to identify elements that determine existence of more dynamic capacities, such as, for example, set of behaviors, skills, routines, processes and mechanisms of learning and knowledge governance aimed at cotransformation. Articulation of these elements can result in varying degrees of innovation and dynamism and can manifest themselves in a more intense or more traditional way, where virtual can be more consolidated. Anyway, this is just an indication that, in a cotransformation model, all indicators are reflective (Meirelles Camargo, 2014).Innovations can lead us to co-transformation, reconfiguring activities requiring a greater evolutionary flow of existing capacities and requiring new experiences and management of these more dynamic capacities. Therefore, research must change its perspectives by establishing links between these capacities, to identify and react to innovations that are a contemporary landmark in recent history.The extent of cotransformation depends on some factors, such as perceived environmental pressure (Helfat et al., 2007) and adaptability (Madjdi Hüsig, 2011) that vary in degree, from small adaptations to major revisions or even a reconfiguration (O'Reilly Tushman, 2008). Generally, we know they are interconnected components that specify how we can survive all dynamism and disruption that exists in the world.In this context, the most important thing is not to know what will be the results of what you want, but to intensely take advantage of construction path of what you can have with appropriate use of capabilities to co-transform and innovate.We hope that in this editorial we have promoted important reflections on understanding of cotransformation, inspiring our readers about new knowledge and expanding a debate for better direction of academic and business society. The role of knowledge and transformation awakens a world of possibilities to be explored, which is why we are still halfway there.

WHY SCIENCE AND FAITH BELONG TOGETHER: Stories of Mutual Enrichment by Malcolm A. Jeeves. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021. 294 pages. Paperback; $35.00. ISBN: 9781725286191. *Many sense tension between modern science and Christian faith. Malcolm Jeeves, however, intends to show how the two are quite complementary. As Emeritus Professor (University of St. Andrews), past-President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Fellow of both the Academy of Medical Sciences and the British Psychological Society, and a prolific author in the arena of science and faith, he is supremely qualified to write this book. *The Preface reveals his motives: emails from distraught students despairing over a faith that seems incompatible with modern science, and polls showing the mass exodus of young people from faith for the same reason. The emails come from those appealing desperately to believing experts for help to hang on to faith, while the polls represent those making the opposite choice by voting with their feet. Scripture has much longer roots than modern science: the written texts go back two or three millennia, and the oral traditions underlying them another several millennia, whereas modern science is very new. So, when these two divinely inspired searches for truth seem to come into conflict, the tendency for some is to favor the tried-and-true, whereas others feel it necessary to favor what is seen as the "new-and-improved." Jeeves's goal is to show how these two books actually complement one another even when they appear to conflict. *The book is divided into three sections. The first looks at how science and cultural changes seem to keep shrinking and changing God, while introducing new alternative gods. God had long been the explanation for many previously unanswerable questions (the origin of the universe and of life, for example), but as modern science made more and more discoveries and filled in knowledge gaps, God grew smaller and smaller. At the same time, changes in societal values prompted some to re-define God to conform to more modern thinking. Essentially, we started making God in our own image using insights gleaned through science (psychology, psychoanalysis [pp. 35–38]) and theology (Augustine, Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Rahner [pp. 38–41]). A plethora of substitute gods came into view, chief of which is technology. Social media and the internet seemed to facilitate the erosion of belief. However, Jeeves closes out this section looking at how science and technology can also expand our view of God. From studies of the very small (including DNA and the genetic code) to the very large (the known universe expanding from an estimated radius of 100,000 light years in 1917 to the present day estimate of 46 billion light years), there is now greater reason to be in awe of the Creator God. *The second section explores five major questions: (1) human origins; (2) human nature; (3) miracles of nature; (4) healing miracles; and (5) the nature of faith. For each, there is a pair of chapters: one subtitled "evidence from scripture," and a complementary chapter subtitled "evidence from science." Those subtitles might be misconstrued to imply that evidence would be proffered to explain or answer the question. Sometimes, that is the case. More often, distinct lines of evidence are cited to raise thought-provoking questions, provide divergent perspectives, add a bit of color or fill gaps, and call for more careful nuancing of the data. They serve more to stimulate questions and reflection than to provide an overview or explanation. I eventually came to see that the two sources of human evidence, when brought together within the mind of the reader, become a three-dimensional stereoscopic hologram. *In chapters 4 and 5, on human origins, Jeeves opens with the challenge, voiced by other secular scientists, that genetics does not explain everything about humanity, such as the emergence of personhood and consciousness, our moral values and ethical sense, and language. Therefore, standard evolutionary theory is too limited in scope and needs a "re-think." Equally true, however, theological explanations of these also need a "re-think." The scientific data clearly shows that humans are not starkly different from other animals, and in fact that it is almost certain that we evolved from them. We humans are, though, much more than genes, tissues, and organs. *In chapters 6 and 7, on human nature, nonscholars (both believing and not) are in nearly unanimous agreement that Christianity is critically tied to substance dualism--the idea that humans comprise a material body and an immaterial soul/spirit. In contrast, many scholars, across the spectra of belief (belief/nonbelief) and knowledge (science/theology/philosophy), see major problems with such dualism. Can science explain the soul? Is the case of a child with nearly normal cognitive abilities but lacking a major proportion of brain mass, evidence for a nonmaterial soul (p. 101)? Does Libet's experiment say anything about free will (p. 102)? If humans do not exhibit categorical differences from animals, how are we created in the image of God? *In chapters 8 and 9 (on miracles of nature), Jeeves asks a number of questions. Do miracle claims constitute proof of God? Is God a divine upholder, or occasional gap filler? Do attempts to explain miracles "[explain] them away" (pp. 140–41)? What exactly do we mean by words such as "miracle" and "supernatural"? What does the Bible mean by "signs" and "wonders"? Is there merit in trying to normalize biblical phenomena that appear to be miraculous, using modern scientific explanations? Or do such attempts only raise other problems? *Chapter 10 addresses healing miracles. If someone claims an experience/event which can be shown to have a probability of one-in-a-million, is that a miracle ... given that those odds predict that roughly 7,500 such events will occur within the present global human population? Do religious people tend to live healthier or longer lives than their secular counterparts? Studies that look at cognitive variables (depression; optimism) might suggest "yes," while those that look at biological variables (cancers; cardiovascular events) say "no" (p. 171). Do prayers become cosmic-vending machines? Do miracle claims stand up to medical/scientific scrutiny? Do they need to? *Chapters 11 and 12 concern the multifaceted nature of faith. Jeeves describes faith as involving "credulity," "intellectual assent," and "the psychological processes involved in the act of believing" (p. 178), and then compares faith with belief, doubt, trust, certainty, action, and discipleship (pp. 178–82). Jeeves recounts fascinating evidence from patients suffering various forms of brain disease (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's), discussing how such biological injuries degrade their enjoyment of faith because they rob them of the ability to focus attention, feel emotion, or keep track of a sermon or a passage of scripture (which, Jeeves points out, is another argument against substance dualism). He also looks at how brain dysfunction affected many well-known people of faith, including Martin Luther, John Bunyan, John Wesley, William Cowper, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Lord Shaftesbury, and Christina Rossetti. *The third section focusses on a central theme in this book: that of God interacting with creation in general, and humans in particular. God does this by creating all things, including humans, in his image (as the divine creator), by constantly upholding that creation through natural laws which he has set in place to maintain it (as the divine sustainer), and by putting off his divinity and embodying himself within creation (divine self-emptying or kenosis). Here, Jeeves unpacks divine kenosis, as well as the evolutionary origins and emergence of kenotic behavior in his creatures (otherwise commonly known as altruism, love, compassion, and empathy). *The book concludes with a valuable resource for self-reflection and group study. For each of the thirteen chapters, he provides a few relevant scripture passages, a variety of short paragraphs to review and reflect upon, a number of specific questions for discussion, and suggestions for further readings (books, articles, web-links). *The book is written at the level of a well-read and informed lay-person. No formal training in science or religion is needed, although a keen interest in both is essential. Overall, I found the book very useful, and I highly recommend it. But actions speak louder than words. My first thought upon reading it was to suggest it to my own church pastor for a small group book study; he read the book, then promptly and convincingly made the sales pitch to our church leaders. *Reviewed by Luke Janssen, Emeritus Professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.

Обстоятельства помешали научному редактору номера – Елене Георгиевне Гребенщиковой – написать предисловие. В нашем молодом журнале есть уже своя традиция: научный редактор предваряет номер концептуальной преамбулой к статьям, посвященных обсуждению различных аспектов одной проблемы. Авторов данного номера объединяют исследовательские и организационные обстоятельства. Все мы были вовлечены в исследовательское поле биоэтики Борисом Григорьевичем Юдиным. Привлечение же методологических потенциалов семиотики для решения задач биоэтики произошло на «томской почве» как результат организации серий конференций. Эти серии стартовали с конференции «Антропологические основания биоэтики», которая, по словам Б.Г. Юдина, была первой в России научной конференцией «по биоэтике». Основные доклады этой научной встречи составили содержание номера журнала «Бюллетень сибирской медицины». Среди его публикаций были две статьи, определившее дальнейшее, – «Чтоб сказку сделать былью? (Конструирование человека)» [Юдин 2006] и «Тело страдания: философско-антропологическое истолкование» [Тищенко 2006]. Слова «Конструирование человека» дали случайным образом название ряду конференций, проводимых Томским государственным педагогическим университетом. Специализация указанного университета понятным образом привлекла к участию коллег-педагогов, интерпретировавших слово «конструирование» в качестве указания на суть образования. Было любопытно наблюдать такую стихийно складывающуюся прагматику с учетом различий русскоязычного и англоязычного названия статьи [Юдин 2006] – словами «Чтоб сказку сделать былью?», заканчивающими вопросительным знаком цитату из песни о цели рождения советского человека, и «To make a dream true?», где под вопрос ставилась возможность мечтой-иллюзией заменить действительность. Поскольку организаторы конференции испытывают некоторую зависимость от тематики заявляемых докладов, для «чистой» биоэтики была создана отдельная секция «Тело и власть», название которой стало парафразом другой упомянутой статьи [Тищенко 2006]. Параллельно с серией конференций «Конструирование человека» был организован ряд конференций «Системы и модели: границы интерпретаций», акцентировавших не столько биоэтику, сколько постнеклассическую парадигму семиотического моделирования. Слова «системы и модели» цитировали название известной в семиотике книги А.А. Шарова и Ю.А.Шрейдера; фиксировали проблему нахождения пределов применимости математических моделей в синергетике; приглашали к обсуждению системной методологии. Слова «границы интерпретаций» изначально определяли соотношение герменевтики и семиотики в методологии исследования социокультурной динамики. Замечу, что географическое образование заставляло меня трактовать понятие «границы» исключительно в семиотическом ракурсе. Доклады, представленные на первой конференции «Системы и модели: границы интерпретаций», составили номер журнала «Вестник Томского государственного педагогического университета» (2008, № 1), из содержания которого ясно, что эта научная встреча была посвящена обсуждению наследия Эрика Григорьевича Юдина и современному прочтению его версии системного подхода. В этом номере есть много заслуживающих внимания материалов, но для определения области пересечения биоэтики и семиотики, необходимо назвать статью Р.Г. Апресяна [Апресян 2008], хотя в самой статье отсутствует прямое обращение и к семиотике, и к биоэтике. В статье лаконично и предметно установлены ценностные границы локусов модели «этический квадрат», созданной Р.Г. Апресяном. Ясность изложения [Апресян 2008] позволила разглядеть сразу несколько моментов, объединяющих и разделяющих биоэтику с педагогикой. Настороженность биоэтики вызывает любое воззвание превзойти норму, а любая педагогика взывает к тому, чтобы превзойти норму. Общность биоэтики и педагогики составляет распределение символики ролей для всех своих субъектов, подчиненное коммуникативным форматам, устанавливающих пределы допустимого/отвергаемого внутри коммуникативных ареалов. Выяснение этой общности позволило увидеть, что модели биоэтики, по сути, формируют синтаксис коммуникативных ролей субъектов биомедицины. Причем, фиксируют эти роли или в индексах, или в иконических знаках, или даже в символах. Генезис биоэтики есть ответ на социальный запрос в необходимости «сторожа» (в смысле: «…пойди, поставь сторожа; пусть он сказывает, что увидит») для предотвращения моральных катаклизмов, вызываемых темпом прогресса (в чем бы он не выражался) и соблазнами прогресса. Темп трансформаций порождает неопределенность социальных сценариев, а, следовательно, технику биоэтических экспертиз диктует синхрония и абдукция, что явно служит указателем релевантности концепции семиозиса, созданной Ч.С. Пирсом. Семиотическая сущность решения задач биоэтики была увидена столь четко, что удивление вызывало только одно: почему биоэтика, потенциально обладая «ключом» методов семиотики, подбирает «отмычки» для анализа спонтанно возникающих кейсов? Подчеркну, что упомянутый «ключ» открывает «двери», не столько ведущие к анализу нарративов субъектов, нормативных дискурсов и уже случившихся кейсов, сколько к прогностике кейсов в синхронии с меняющимся контекстом. Вместе с тем представленные резоны для обоснования того, что методы семиотики обладают релевантностью для решения задач биоэтики, могут встретить вопрос: зачем биоэтике применять эти методы, если она и без них прекрасно решает свои задачи? Возможным ответом на этот вопрос будет – для того чтобы осуществить точную и опережающую диагностику социокультурных трансформаций, способных вызвать и уже вызывающих модификацию «человеческого в человеке», т.е. вызывающих скольжение границ нормы. Излишне объяснять преимущества диагностики в качестве процедуры с точным результатом, способным опередить наступление необратимых состояний. Семиотические методы устремлены к достижению точности, и их применение объединяет всё гуманитарное знание. При этом семиотика сама существует в нескольких конкурирующих направлениях, и ее исследовательские методы очень отличаются в конкретных научных областях, в том числе и тех, которые составляют «computer science», ответственных за тотальную «цифровизацию» и самоорганизацию «информационного общества». У перечисленных сущностей – точности, самоорганизации, семиотики, «computer science» и даже «цифровизации» – есть идейный общий знаменатель: философия процесса. Создатель философии процесса – А.Н. Уайтхед – видел ее результат в оригинальной концепции символизма, обладающей сущностными пересечениями с концепцией семиозиса Ч.С. Пирса. Если концепция семиозиса раскрывала микропроцессы, обеспечивающие самопроизвольный «рост символов», то концепция А.Н. Уайтхеда устанавливала направления воздействий этого «роста» и основной оператор воздействия: навык организаций «революций в символизме». А также критерии, по которым можно диагностировать событие «перекодирования» символа, т.е. отличить его от того, что событийным рождением нового символизма не является. Т.е. диагностировать дистанцию, отделяющую «событие-в-действительности» от «события-в-реальности». А, следовательно, диагностировать генезисы и цели идейных направлений «конструирования человека». Или диагностировать «семиотические аттракторы», завершающие фазовые переходы в конкуренции сценариев социокультурной динамики. В социокультурных трансформациях сила аттракторов аналогична силе мечты (вспомним слово «dream» в названии статьи [Юдин 2006]). Мечты, имеющей две стороны, – миф и утопию. Биоэтика как «сторож» социокультурных трансформаций вынуждена распознавать миф и утопию в манипуляции целями. Жизненными целями. Целями, диктующими вариативную селекцию ценностей. В феномене мечты и в его воплощениях – в мифе и в утопии – отсутствуют позитив или негатив. Всё зависит, с какой целью им придаются. Зависит от разновидности процессов: процесса рецепции символики мифа с компенсаторными целями или процесса акцептации символических асимптот с целями cамореализации [Брызгалина 2020; Бараш, Антоновский 2019; Шульман, Кутузова 2020]. Обладание представлениями о «росте символов» способно из наблюдаемых мерцаний визуального «вытянуть» то, что скрывают внешние эффекты – осуществить семиотическую диагностику на основе аналогий между симптомами и семантикой, синдромами и синтактикой, анамнезом (в сочетании с целеполаганием) и прагматикой. Такая диагностика создает область пересечения биоэтики и семиотики. Область формируют: (а) изначальные позиции биоэтики в её прагматической концентрации трансдисциплинарного знания для разрешения конкретной проблемы индивидуальности (с сочувственным принятием веера индивидуальных целей); и (б) постнеклассические преимущества семиотики, эффективно реализующие свои потенциалы в расширяющемся трансдисциплинарном поле. В завершении должна выразить благодарность Р.Г. Апресяну, П.Д. Тищенко, Б.Г.Юдину за их щедрые разъяснения существа задач биоэтики, что позволило увидеть эти задачи посредством «оптических» инструментов семиотики. И благодарность всем авторам этого номера за интерес к семиотике, проявленный на основе глубокого понимания решаемых в настоящее время биоэтикой задач и/или оригинальной постановкой этих задач. Circumstances prevented the scientific editor of the issue – Elena G. Grebenshchikova – from writing a foreword. Our young journal already has its own tradition: a scientific editor prefaces an issue with a conceptual preamble to articles discussing various aspects of one problem. The authors of this issue are united by research and organizational circumstances. We were all involved in the research field of bioethics by Boris G. Yudin. Implementation of the methodological potentials of semiotics for solving the problems of bioethics was begun on “Tomsk grounds” as a result of the organization of several conference series. These series started with the conference “Anthropological Foundations of Bioethics”, which, according to Yudin, was the first scientific conference “on bioethics” in Russia. The main reports of this scientific meeting became the content of an issue of Bulletin of Siberian Medicine journal. Among the publications in the issue, there were two articles that determined the further development – “To make a dream true? (Human engineering)” [Yudin 2006] and “The body of suffering: The philosophical and anthropological interpretation” [Tishchenko 2006]. The words “human engineering” (or “human construction”) incidentally gave a title to a number of conferences held by Tomsk State Pedagogical University. The specialization of this university understandably attracted the participation of fellow educators, who interpreted the word “construction” as an indication of the essence of education. It was curious to observe such a spontaneously emerging pragmatism, taking into account the differences between the Russian and English versions of the article title [Yudin 2006] – i.e. between the words “To make a fairy tale come true?” ending with a question mark a quote from a song about the purpose of the Soviet person’s birth and “To make a dream true?” calling the possibility to replace the reality by a dream-illusion into question. Since conference organizers experience some dependence on the subject of submitted reports, a separate section “Body and Power” was created for “pure” bioethics, and the title of the section became a paraphrase of another mentioned article [Tishchenko 2006]. In parallel with the series of conferences “Human Construction”, a number of conferences “Systems and Models: Limits of Interpretation” were organized, which emphasized the post-nonclassical paradigm of semiotic modeling rather than bioethics itself. The words “systems and models” quoted the title of the well-known book in semiotics by A. A. Sharov and Yu. A. Shreider; fixed the problem of finding the limits of applicability of mathematical models in synergetics; invited to discuss the system methodology. The words “limits of interpretation” initially determined the relationship between hermeneutics and semiotics in the methodology of sociocultural dynamics study. I note that the geographical education background forced me to interpret the concept “limit”, or “border”, exclusively from a semiotic perspective. The reports presented at the first conference “Systems and Models: Limits of Interpretation” made up an issue of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin journal (2008, No. 1). From the content of the issue it is clear that this scientific meeting was devoted to the discussion of the legacy of Eric G. Yudin and the modern interpretation of his version of the systems approach. The issue contains many noteworthy materials; however, in order to define the area of the intersection of bioethics and semiotics, it is necessary to highlight the article by Ruben G. Apressyan [Apressyan 2008], although the article itself lacks a direct reference to either semiotics or bioethics. The article laconically and substantively establishes the value boundaries of the loci of the “ethical square” model that Apressyan created. The clarity of presentation [Apressyan 2008] made it possible to discern simultaneously several points that unite and separate bioethics and pedagogy. The alertness of bioethics evokes any appeal to surpass the norm, while any pedagogy calls to surpass the norm. The commonality of bioethics and pedagogy is the distribution of the symbolism of roles for all their subjects, subordinated to communicative formats which set the limits of what is permissible/rejected within communicative areas. The elucidation of this commonality made it possible to see that the models of bioethics, in fact, form the syntax of the communicative roles of the subjects of biomedicine. Moreover, these models define the roles either in indices, or in iconic signs, or even in symbols. The genesis of bioethics is a response to the social demand for a “watchman” (in the sense: “Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth”) to prevent moral cataclysms caused by the pace of progress (whatever it is expressed in) and the temptations of progress. The pace of transformations gives rise to the uncertainty of social scenarios, and, consequently, the technique of bioethical examinations is dictated by synchrony and abduction, which clearly serves as an indicator of the relevance of the concept of semiosis created by Charles Sanders Peirce. The semiotic essence of solving the problems of bioethics was seen so clearly that only one thing aroused surprise: why does bioethics, potentially possessing the “key” of semiotics methods, select “lock-picking tools” for the analysis of spontaneously arising cases? Let me emphasize that the mentioned “key” opens “doors” that do not lead to the analysis of narratives of subjects, normative discourses and cases that have already happened, but to the forecasting of cases in synchrony with the changing context. At the same time, the presented reasons for substantiating the fact that the methods of semiotics are relevant for solving the problems of bioethics may face the question: why should bioethics apply these methods if it perfectly solves its problems without them? A possible answer to this question would be – in order to carry out accurate and advanced diagnostics of sociocultural transformations that can cause and are already causing a modification of the “human in a human being”, i.e. causing the sliding of norm boundaries. It is unnecessary to explain the advantages of diagnostics as a procedure with an accurate result that can anticipate the onset of irreversible conditions. Semiotic methods are aimed at achieving accuracy, and their application unites all humanitarian knowledge. At that, semiotics itself exists in several competing directions, and its research methods are very different in specific scientific fields, including those that make up “computer science” which is responsible for the total “digitalization” and self-organization of an “information society”. The listed entities – accuracy, self-organization, semiotics, “computer science”, and even “digitalization” – have an ideological common denominator: process philosophy. The creator of process philosophy – Alfred North Whitehead – saw its result in the original concept of symbolism, which has essential intersections with Peirce’s concept of semiosis. While the concept of semiosis revealed microprocesses that ensured the spontaneous “growth of symbols”, Whitehead’s concept established the directions of the impact of this “growth” and the main operator of the impact: the skill of organizing “revolutions in symbolism” as well as the criteria by which one can diagnose the occasion of “re-coding” of a symbol, i.e. distinguish the occasion from the fact that is not the eventual birth of a new symbolism, or diagnose the distance separating the “occasion-in-actuality” from the “occasion-in-reality”, and, consequently, diagnose the geneses and goals of the ideological directions of “human construction”, or “semiotic attractors” that complete phase transitions in the competition of sociocultural dynamics scenarios. In sociocultural transformations, the power of attractors is similar to the power of a dream (recalling the word “dream” from the article title [Yudin 2006]), a dream that has two sides – myth and utopia. Bioethics as a “watchman” of sociocultural transformations is forced to recognize myth and utopia in the manipulation of goals: life goals, goals dictating variable selection of values. There is neither the positive nor the negative in the phenomenon of dreams and its incarnations – myth and utopia. It all depends on what goals are being pursued. It depends on the variety of processes: process of the reception of the symbolics of a myth with compensatory goals, or of the acceptance of symbolic asymptotes with the goals of self-realization [Bryzgalina 2020; Barash, Antonovskiy 2019; Schulman, Kutuzova 2020]. Possession of ideas about the “growth of symbols” is capable to reveal what external effects hide, extracting it from the observed flickers of the visual – to carry out semiotic diagnostics based on analogies between symptoms and semantics, syndromes and syntactics, anamnesis (in combination with goal-setting) and pragmatics. Such diagnostics create an area of intersection of bioethics and semiotics. The area is formed by: (a) the initial position of bioethics in its pragmatic concentration of transdisciplinary knowledge for solving a specific problem of individuality (with a sympathetic acceptance of a set of individual goals); and (b) the post-nonclassical advantages of semiotics which effectively realize their potentials in the expanding transdisciplinary field. In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to Ruben G. Apressyan, Pavel D. Tishchenko, Boris G. Yudin for their generous explanations of the essence of the tasks of bioethics, which made it possible to see these tasks through the “optical” instruments of semiotics. I thank all the authors of this issue for their interest in semiotics demonstrated through the deep understanding of the problems currently being solved by bioethics and/or the original formulation of these problems.

This thesis analyses the ways in which recent changes in the global field of work have resonated in the lives of one group of retrenched workers. In order to conceptualise the relationships between changing conditions and changes in individual lives, the author has drawn from the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Of particular importance to the study are his notions of the ‘habitus’, the ‘field’ and the ’disposition’. The research focuses on workers leaving the textile industry, in which a diversity of individual ‘dispositions’ once flourished as part of another system or work ‘habitus’. This allows examination of how changing conditions of work have generated specific transformative possibilities for workers at the lower end of the economy. The author asks what transformations were undergone in the lives of seventeen retrenched textile workers and how adequately their learning process was supported by vocational education and training.