The article by R.P. Selegin General Theory of Logic and its Reflections in Religions and Sciences, published in Akademiya Trinitarizma (“The Academy of Trinitarianism”) interdisciplinary electronic journal on March 12, 2019[1], briefly describes the results of research on the reconstruction of the most ancient general theory of logic and its comparative analysis with the well-known religious, natural-philosophical and scientific logics, from the ancient world to the modern state of the development of civilization. The research suggests the possibility of existence of a general theory of logic in the prehistoric period, as the core of the most ancient scientific paradigm of pre-civilization; and comparison of the most common logic with selected logics of the historical period suggests that the selected logics are but fragments of general logic. Thus, the re-created general logic is unique not only for the scientific novelty of its content, but also for the possible extensive spectrum of its use. General logic goes beyond the paradigm of Western materialistic science, thus creating a certain problem for representatives of this paradigm in the matter of objective scientific assessment of general logic. This circumstance is the basis for a public appeal to the leading representatives of the official Russian science in the field of philosophy, represented by the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University.
Dear Andrey Vadimovich Smirnov!
Dear Vladimir Vasilievich Mironov!
The scientific institutions headed by you possess sufficient completeness of knowledge on the history of philosophy, from the worldviews of the Ancient world to modern philosophical views. The high level of your research staff in this amount of knowledge is a necessary condition for making a reasonable competent judgement concerning the comparative analysis of the general theory of logic with the logic of ancient Egyptian mythology, traditional logic, the logic of Taoism, the logic of the Christian and Hindu trinity, the logic of modern European metaphysics and dialectical logic. However, the existing scientific potential is a necessary, but, unfortunately, insufficient condition for a scientific conclusion. The administrative will and power are also necessary to start such work in the scientific institutions entrusted to you. I understand that such a will and power may or may not be there.
The presence of positive will can be determined by the desire to develop Russian fundamental science, especially in the present conditions, when the Western European paradigm of the development of science has come to a deep dead end; the presence of negative will can be determined by the reluctance of such development. Here, the fundamental science means the science that studies the fundamental laws of the development of nature as a whole, and not its individual specific components, which, for example, modern cosmology and particle physics are concerned with. Obviously, the desire to develop fundamental science must be based on the main reason, which is not even the search for truth, but the need to overcome the emerging general cultural crisis, which cannot be overcome only by the development of technical science and the most advanced biotechnologies. And the reason for the reluctance to develop is usually the fear of the new i.e. neophobia. In this case, it is the fear of even an attempt to discuss the possibility of going beyond the current scientific paradigm, which in the course of almost half a thousand years has become not only very familiar and habitual, but also hopelessly outdated. And the problem consists not only in spiritual rejection of the need to go beyond the usual ideas, but also in an even more serious fear of the old paradigm leading representatives: the fear of losing their social significance, as well as a comfortable existence. This fear can be so deep in character that even a well-founded convincement in the long-term transition process to a new paradigm, which will take more than one generation, and by no means aims to deny the already obtained scientific information, but, on the contrary, strives to preserve it, cannot beat it. Of course, it can be assumed that the Head of the Institute of Philosophy and the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy have the will to produce a bona fide expert opinion, but the execution of their will can be hampered by public or tacit instructions of higher authorities. Anyway, in the heyday of the consumption cult, it is utterly unimaginable that in case of such fundamental disagreements with the leadership, someone would resign.
Despite the above circumstances, the highest authority in determining the needs of society is society itself, i.e. the reading public. And since the present appeal is made publicly, then the response to the appeal should be public as well, whilst its absence will indicate the absence of willingness to support the development of science in the society itself, or, rather, in its particular superstructure because of its mercantile considerations. This said, let the public decide whether this state of affairs suits it or not. Publicity of the answer is also important to eliminate irresponsible statements of opponents.
With appreciation for your attention,
Roman Pavlovich Selegin,
physicist (RSU / SFedU-1980).
April 25, 2019, Taganrog
P.S. Since representatives of official academic science may not visit the Academy of Trinitarianism website, this appeal is also forwarded to their addresses.