Omissions of the civilization, how to light upon and fill in them

Posted as Lecture 14 at Free School for Panoramic Thinking 

Part I: Such omissions do exist

I do not know what I may
appear to the world, but to myself
I seem to have been only like
a boy playing on the sea-shore,
and diverting myself in now
and then finding a smoother pebble
or a prettier shell than ordinary,
whilst the great ocean of truth
                                                      lay all undiscovered before me.                                                                 -Isaac Newton.

Humankind taken as a whole has, of course, any horizon of vision / understanding what is seen from the tops of the scientific knowledge achieved by the civilization. It doesn’t exclude a possibility to heighten the point of view using any new argument or new technique, and then from this point may get visible those achievements of the science what might be, at that just large, great achievements, as such ones may only be seen behind the civilization horizon. And only such ones may be named omissions of the civilization.

Omissions there are, this assumption is justified

It is hardly possible to object that in the science, there are ideas what may be discovered by many, be they having in their disposition the necessary factual material together with appropriate theoretical background. Facts of the history of the science about simultaneous discoveries are not only a direct confirmation of this, but as well indirect, as a many bigger number of “differ-time” discoveries that stand behind them done “after”, are usually out of interest for the history of the science.

 It is natural to presuppose that all the way to any idea of the biggest complexity, between-disciplinary one, changing the paradigms of human thinking, may have only gone any separate, selected representative of the human race.

 (A remark in brackets: Obviously, there is a great unlikeness of demands appealed to genius creators, i.e. writers, composers, painters — from one side, and to genius discoverers, i.e. scientists — from other, but for all that we can say: exactly how “Othello” play wouldn’t exist without Shakespeare, so there would not be “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” without Newton.
I am forced at once correct myself saying that “would not be” has not to be understood absolutely, as a like that and this might appear in the literature and in the science in during of the time. But only “in during of the time”, because after Newton “Principia” so called exact sciences — physics and mathematics — had got impetus for development of great force, — and it means without him, i.e. without this impetus, these sciences would turn out belated for decades, if not more).

We may imagine then that any person begot to accomplish a great discovery (the person’s bright giftedness said about it clearly) dies of an illness / perishes in a catastrophe / selects merely a life path having no intersection with the science. And humankind may then only wait when another mighty mind will appear and highlight that earlier not discovered truth. As the birth of the very great minds happens even not each century, then the waiting may take a long time.

An argument for confirmation: the evolution backwardness of the thinking

Why ideas of great scale and common significance —defining development of civilization and its dominating worldviews — appear so rarely? It may be explained from evolution-biological considerations. Evolution of the animal world, which the human arose from and has to do with it hitherto, had been characterized rather high press of the selection. This pre-defined morphologic and physiological features of animals’ governing apparatus, the brain. I mean here that wide fields of the cortex were “given” the analytic areas (visual, olfactory, aural), whereas operative field of the consciousness —controlling both the behavior and processing the information—appeared comparatively narrow. Moreover, this narrowness in the wild nature is till now even an advantage in survival as giving possibility to react operatively on extreme situations.

This narrowness of consciousness’ field had been inherited by the human from the highest animals. It appears itself in that our logics is binary, i.e. “black—white”: “ours—not ours”, “dangerous—not dangerous”, “edible—inedible”, “profit—nonprofit”, “comfortably—not comfortably”. We are rather analysts and method-creators than synthesizing ideas and elaborating new methodologies. In other words, we appeared hopeless in the face of enormously raised complexity of the world we live in, and what had been once advantage in the survival —i.e. an ability to react in accelerated way to extreme situations, being only possible at narrow field of the consciousness— is getting more and more a threatening factor. Civilization had liberated enormous energetic and demolishing resources but had not been able to conduct adequate actions in order to overcome jeopardizes lurking in them and not only in them.

Not specialists confirm: a search of civilization omissions justified

Not specialists here – conventionally – are named those who made weigh tributes in the science being not educated in those scientific fields where they shown themselves. It means they were or self-taught persons or going out behind their specialties to “invade” into alien scientific territories.

Here are some successful examples of such “invasions”:

self-taught Michael Faraday who changed all the technical sphere  of the 20th century’s civilization;

self-taught Norbert Wiener who created new science, the cybernetics;

self-taught Konstantin Tsiolkovsky who brought nearer both the cosmos to Earth and departure of people into there;

legal expert Pierre Fermat who put a problem making mathematicians deal with it more than 3 centuries;

self-taught Evariste Galois who laid out a ground of the modern algebras;

physician Robert Meier who discovered the law of conservation of the energy;

physicist Dmitry Mendeleyev who composed the table of all known then chemical elements and made predictions (later justified) about existence of others, then unknown;

technician and patent-lawyer Albert Einstein who created special and general theories of the relativity.

Let’s deem: what are features distinguishing a dilettante (D) from a specialist (S)?
- 1st, D has less of special knowledge than S;
- 2nd, D may not know any taboos what seem to be immutable for S;
- 3rd, that background what is necessary for a discovery was got by a D belatedly (as he doesn’t attend at scientific conferences, doesn’t take a part at the work of scientific seminars and councils, as a rule, doesn’t read special literature, using only accessible popular writings about the science).

Now we can describe the structure of temporal lag L what didn’t admit a great idea to get the common wealth at the proper time:

L = L1 + L2 + L3 + L4,

where L1, in connection with the first remark, may be for S many more than for D.

Really, an idea of the generalizing character is arisen in result of elucidation which laws, notions, concepts, and dependences are to be taken into consideration, and because of this S should have for this generalizing acts-attempts many more time than D, so probability that any concrete happy combinatory idea enters just into his consciousness is evaluated to be less. Saying merely: gears of a specialist’s imagination may get stuck in the massive of knowledge, and correspondingly, in contradistinction to gears of a dilettante’s imagination, for whom this massive is narrower (see Aristotle’s dictum given as an epigraph);

Lag L2 is connected with the second remark (taboo) by dint of the mechanism of paradigms resistance to ideas of wide and generalizing character. This resistance appears first thing, however oddly it is, in heads of the very pioneers-discoverers; for not specialists, L2 practically equals zero;

Lag L3 is conditioned by getting knowledge of second hands. However L3 is hardly essential in comparison with L1 and L2. For example, the law of bodies’ falling because of the paradigms resistance (Aristotle’s authority) had been opened (by Galileo Galilei) only in 16th century;

L4 is the lag what should be taken into account as a correction on a chance. Really, genius not specialists among the human societies may not appear long, and L4 is just that time what will be needed to have waited new Faradays and Galileis.

Thus, great not specialists (i.e. self-taught persons and dilettantes) by the very their existence confirm that lags of appearance of great ideas were, are and will be; they got less possible because of transformation of the science into a popular profession, but the stage of different sciences’ linear development is coming to the end or has ended, and components Lk of the temporary lag at least should not diminish. It means that filling up of civilization’s omissions will never be not topical problem.

Delusions of the civilization, how to disclose and correct them

Civilization delusions are obviously a kind of civilization omissions, the kind being especially hard for correction. Why so? For time of some human generations people had adopted some assertions, became closely linked with them, and “to change the minds” may not be easy process. A bearer of the new knowledge is getting a destroyer of both habit thoughts and mental comfort of overwhelming mass of people, and his scientific recognition is occurring only as a exclusion in during his lifetime.

For an omission being not delusion, it is easier: then a new knowledge fills any breach in the picture of the world, and it may enter in the science even approved by the discoverer’s colleagues. Though such interrelation of a new with the old – after the principle of addictiveness – is rather exclusion than a rule. A novelty, moreover radical one, is used to enter in contradiction with conceptions become fixed. Thus, for example, long centuries had been needed in order to get across biblical concept about creation of the world to scientific picture of evolving Solar system, then to the evolution of our galaxy Milky Way, other galaxies and meta-galaxies. It is quite plausible that significant part of the human population till now like more not Darwin’s (simianological) version of creation of human race, but biblical one that appears them more both convictive and pleasant.

Recently, it was in Russia a fresh casus of something similar: Russian Orthodoxy Church blesses writing a manual for secondary schools The General Biology where the evolutionary processes of species-creation were refuted as impossible, and the very evolutionism was claimed as vulgar. Biologist S. Mamontov, Full Member, the Russian Academy of Sciences, counted that his intervention had been here absolutely necessary, and wrote the crushing review, showing in concrete way awfully ignorance of the author. In the review is said as well that the Church posted as an aim to create a whole complex of manuals being able to represent knowledge for secondary school avoiding all what was created by other authors having materialistic, liberal or humane ideological “blinkers”.

Since ancient times is known the thought: “Errare humanum est”. Really, to be in mistake was, is and will seemingly be characteristic for human beings. But the question is here about “long mistakes”, i.e. delusions of big mass of people. In Roman times, the experience gained was yet insignificant, the human history in essence was at the beginning, and then in principle may not be found any ancient Roman or Greek Stanislaw Jerzy Lec who would have said: “People have the belated reflex: they apperceived in next generations”.

Just so, in during of several centuries more and more facts got known what gave evidence of not only that “to err is human”; it appeared that a human might all the life to live and even dying, didn’t have known (because of e.g. there was nobody near who might him elucidate) about his delusion.

Let’s explain Aristotle his delusion

The next might be a good training among FSPT participants: if Galilei wanted to throw bodies from Piza’s tower, maybe he had thought already up how to refute Aristotle’s assertion  —velocity of a body is proportional to a force what acting to it? What he might think up?

It is known the wisdom integrating experience gathered by some generations of experimenting scientists: if you haven’t made a discovery in the mind, you won’t have hardly made it in the experience. So, Galilei might have any train of thoughts when he, almost 5 centuries ago, was about to start experiences with throwing bodies from Piza’s tower.

In last 1980s, I had been literally flabbergasted when understood that anyone being able read and write might on any day in during of long 2 thousand years after Aristotle and until Galilei, refute Aristotle’s assertion for a pair of minutes -- how did I using only all-known logic arguing. True, that anyone should have a scientific bravery (to go against the very Aristotle!) and want to accomplish a simple mental experiment.

Here is possible restoring Galilei’s train of thoughts:

Let us suppose there are two bodies of the same mass m. When we let at once both bodies fall they fall as if tied and reach the land simultaneously. 

Let’s take now another pair of bodies of equal mass m and tie them with light thread, then let fall first the tied pair of bodies and then separated bodies. After Aristotle, the tied pair, as having mass 2m, should fall twice as quicker. But common sense prompts: it is impossible! 2m body (two masses m tied) and 2 masses m (as if tied) should all have fell simultaneously! If otherwise how to explain might effect of  tat light and flimsy thread appearing able twice as much to increase the velocity of falling?!

Now I propose to be astonished: how people had been in waiting some centuries if whoever logically thinking might come and explain Aristotle’s mistake, explained in such simple way? It was possible because of nothing another as the resistance of paradigm creating temporary lag L being here about 2 millennia.

A propos, there is even any dictum said out by a known scientist (sorry, I don’t remember his name nor exact formulation, so I transmit only the very thought): Greatness of a scientist is defined by that how much years he has managed to delay development of the science.

Thus, we can ascertain that great belated ideas as if forth-exist – though if as denials of generally accepted concepts and regularities. Because of taboo hanging over a heretic, to prove truth of such anti-delusions is a scientific exploit not less than to open a new to be unknown for anybody. It is said that a physicist who revealed a mistake done by “the very Leo Landau”, was awarded PhD in Physics without any procrastination.

Part II:

My own ideas that look like scientific omissions revealed

Preface. Now, though fearing to be accused of bragging I launch laying out my own ideas what may be considered as any direct confirmation of the said above, i.e. that in our epoch of the human history as in any foregoing there are hidden great, as if forth-existing scientific discoveries what might be done at the scientific background available. The point is my own ideas what were and are the main part of my worldview.

I am going to differ between omissions of the civilization meaning first of all its scientific omissions what being overcome might drastically move Humankind in development, and civilization(al) omissions, the very important case of the former, meaning these what might get already factors overcoming imperfectness of  the world’s arrangement but even hitherto still not recognized .    
My announce to give you STRIGHTFORWARD evidences that any omissions of the civilization were revealed owing to my considerations is likely to make you think your lecturer is slightly (or even not slightly) crazy. I ask you to postpone your ending inference not until reading all in this part II for you to be familiarized with my “justifications”.

Well, I follow simply now which ideas were forming my worldview. You may take active role to elucidate may that or this idea be considered as essential for the science or for radical societal rebuilding.

Possibly, my long moderations following ancient recommendation “Cognize yourself!” were just because I was unsatisfied my own thinking. I was “wise after the event”, omitting something time and again. I knew as well assertions done by psychologists that the knowledge about the human is always insufficient.

And a success came: I realized…


It was in early 1970s. I reformulated all-known:
Nature is tolerant to distinctions and diversity
in such the way:

Nature gives a tolerance for the life.

This thought told already not only about diversity of species but as well about there are diversity within a species -- males and females, together young, adult and old individuals, healthy and ill, high and low, fat and thin, and admits mass of other distinctions between individuals.

But tolerance is a term of engineering (“admissible inaccuracy”) and mathematical (“rough equality”), and the next step in understanding the Principle of Tolerance (PT) was not hard:

At any level of the evolution and for any existing species, phase volume of its properties’ space is not zero value.

In Lecture 9 [on the base of [4] published in Russian in 1990], it was shown why PT has all-biological character, why the recommendations done there were based on a hopeful ground and why they might be called recommendations of Nature.

It would be of quite evidence if who might explain why theoretical biologist went past this principle absorbing in itself all the essence of the evolution theory and at that opening possibility for its mathematization.


In 1970s, as the head of an editorial group, Belarusian Soviet Encyclopedia, being not a member of the CPSU, I should be even if to go through the learning at Minsk University of Marxism-Leninism. I used this some months under duress to prepare the diploma work on philosophy of the mathematics[1]. It gave me later possibility to find my own approach to mathematical ground after I had realized that

human science is many more anthropomorphic than used to be considered [4].

I hope to turn back to this subject and write one of the next lectures to prove the mathematics of the earthly world (i.e. mathematic with tolerance relations) needs new ground to be more adequate to reality, another lecture being to demonstrate new understanding of physical laws with taking into account inherent tolerance relations of the world, and even to predicate in which areas of physics new physical discoveries have to be revealed.

In my then reports (1970s—1980s) to be done at both mathematical and physical institutes and chairs I described features of “the mathematics with tolerance” and tried to vindicate that if mathematics, this universal language of the science, had used this principle in sequel way, then the known its inadequacy when applied to biology and medicine would be overcome.

And what about physical reality? I couldn’t pass this question as I was a scientific researcher just of Institute of Physics. I presupposed at first that tolerant relation (intrinsic uncertainty) is a common property of physical systems, and in order to prove this hypothesis I gave in [5] seven arguments (experimental irrefutable, theoretically information, statistical, quantum mechanical et al.) why the world might not be “governed by equality”. After that I turned out able to have done this generalization below. Its name is

Generalized principle of tolerance:

Whichever object / aggregated objects, either alive or not alive might be, its / their current state(s) and behavior are such that parameters characterizing them have intervals of tolerance, within which alive objects  (species, population, organism, …)  may exist as alive, and not alive ones (micro-object, ensemble of micro-objects, physical body, systems of physical bodies, …)  show regular links between physical values, in result providing reproduction of measuring procedures.

At utmost simplification:

Nature – alive and not alive – is tolerant to differences.

The human mind is as well submitted to GPT. Be otherwise, i.e. if the human might not ignore differences, all the world would be before him absolutely unordered: with no animals, no plants, no men, no women – as all essential features to be necessary for classifications and creating the notions, would be stuck in unordered masse of common, not repeated signs. Nothing to say, without tolerance to distinction would be possible no verbal nor written intercourse between people.

Mathematics with tolerance that I tried to develop (links to the publications [2] and [5], both in Russian) was then apprehended by physicists with hard (“Why this inexact mathematics if there is exact? Why you foist on physics which mathematics it should use?”) but at last was adopted by mathematicians. That is why a scientific parable “Do I speak clearly?” [3] being written later I devoted to my friends-mathematicians.

The point of that “inverted” story is that a self-taught scientist living within any civilization of plasmoids proposes a new mathematics being absolutely absurd for them as having points-numbers (!?) and concept of equality (??!!), and we may guess that this novelty is… merely our, earthy mathematics! This publication helped me to promote (truly a little) this novelty into physical areas. 

One of planned lecture at the School I want to devote to this mathematics with tolerance and prove that counting mathematical truths absolute may beget awful “bestial” of kind of Big Bang in the cosmology. 

The next idea I want to present is a generalized concept uniting all kinds of thinking to be not characteristic for people in mass. It means the question is about…

Panoramic thinking what was entered (1995, [7]) as a manner of thinking overcoming  narrow field of consciousness being the evolutionary conditioned backwardness of human mentality and named as shortage of panoramic thinking (SPT).

In Lecture 1, grounds were given to recognize that these notions were necessary and justified. Owing to understanding the evolutionary root causes of SPT, was worked out the concept how to counteract the ageing based on all-biological principle of tolerance (see [8] and Lecture 9), was proposed principles of pedagogy of the highest efficiency ([6]) giving possibilities to restore giftedness even if knocked down foregoing inadequate education, and had been “mined” the secret of the humor from evolution depths (see [16] and Lecture 2). 


Shortage of panoramic thinking (SPT), as its signs were seen everywhere (see lecture 5 and [16]), gave me a sureness that anthropomorphic distortions of the scientific truths quite possible.

At that, such the train of the thought: there is no difficulty to have seen anthropomorphic tendency in development of the technical devices and mechanisms as the artificial world built by people is created with taking into account human organs’ sizes and humans’ possibilities. Then question I put to myself: and what about the science? The answer is given in Lecture 4 and report [4]: there is full likeness as the all artificial “intellectual surrounding”, in particular the human science, in similar way has been adapted to properties of the human, at that case of the human reason. I wrote there so: “In other words, we, peering at Nature’s mirror for Nature to cognize it, see at the mirror not only (not so much) Nature, but as well (as) our own reflection of our mental peculiarities.” This inference btw gave me bravery to look for omitted ideas of big generalization and assisted at forming the subject given this Lecture’s title. 

Thus I had got an insight: the human being is a product of earthy evolution, his science is “saturated” with evolutionary conditioned properties and peculiarities of his earthy mentality which in turn are conditioned by the circumstances of the millennia Homo sapiens evolution.

It means a science what may be named after the said the modern anthropology is waiting its Newtons and Darwins. That is why I said out as you know such paradoxical idea that any National Academy of science that will take the name National Academy of anthropology [17] (the same, modern!) enormously WIDENS area of its activity. The ground is that any human science has a concealed content predefined by the earthy evolutionary origin of its creators. So, this human-earthy-evolution subjectivism should be studied and possibly used, and objective content of each science is waiting to be revealed.

Another evolution approach to notions and techniques of the earthy science is to have analyzed in details both pre-evolution and evolution of the human and apprehend how all this is connected with his mental and physiological properties and peculiarities, both known and to be discovered, and possibly to understand how the ancient mechanisms of delusion had been formed to pre-determinate (for many people, if not for overwhelming majority) primate of the interest (very widely understood) over the truth.

What about to know any root causes why our reason is such imperfect? This direction of the study being a priori interesting for psychologists, physiologists, psychiatrists, evolution biologists, anthropologists would be important as intending to clear the science of delusions honored by the traditions, as well of all kinds of subjectivism including earthy one.

All this means that

may and should be worked out a strategy of searching both omissions and delusions of the civilization.

Well, great not opened ideas as if pre-exist, the task of their search is enormous but real, and first stage of it is just working out the strategies, general one and concerning separate scientific disciplines.

 “Careful” transfer of delusions from one generation to the next – from parents to children, from teachers to pupils, from heads of scientific schools to co-workers –  may serve as an orienteer where there are “weak” places in social inheritance of the knowledge. Here is one of evident orientations: when some theories or interpretations exist for the same circle of phenomena. Really, two scientific school may even ignore each other scientific works having different interpretations of the same experimental facts.


There is a transfer to another subject what is showing a great omission of possibility for humanity to develop progressively. The subject is may be named…

Panoramic thinking as a research problem, an educational project and the main imperative of humanity survival.   

This subject, taking into account the direction of the School, will possibly be the main lecture of all the lectures course.

For the conclusion:


I mean here a principal possibility to tackle dealing with global problems in threatening way hanging over the world and launch any preparation of the long process of moving in the opposite direction from where all humanity goes, i.e. to get extinct or self-extinct. Doing nothing for this is the very dangerous civilization omission.
This principal possibility to cope with global problems is described in Creating a system of civilization security in the 3rd Millennium ( and presented (5 years ago) in form of a report destined for the UN Leadership. Giving here some theses able to help in realizing this omission I want additionally to bring to new arguments for doable of this plan, though hard as demanding purposeful efforts of some generations. 

*The human had appeared simultaneously with appearance of the Reason being distinctive feature of Homo Sapiens species.

*The animals equipped with the reason proved to be soon the champion of the animal world: their numbers grew impetuously as being reasonable they might rationally organize their existing for them to survive by groups (tribes). 

*Tribal existence put practically the end of individual selection by the reason. The human evolution went ahead after that in form of selection within groups.

*Owing to groups existence, the social inheritance of the gained experience arose, and these people being more able to learn and to be taught got biological preferences to proceed the human race.

* People went out of the evolution with narrow field of consciousness (NFC), what formerly, in pre-historic times, was an advantage for surviving as accelerating our ancestors’ dealing with hardness of life amongst wild nature.

Towards intentional evolution
*For  modern people, living at many more safety conditions (our average duration of life is now 3-4 times as long as that 3-5 thousand years ago), NFC has got any shortage, as not corresponding to complexity of the civilization world, just the shortage of panoramic thinking (SPT).

*We may ascertain that our civilization might not hitherto cope with global problems to be more and more aggravated. To realize their systemic character and look for any systemic solutions would be adequate response to the civilization challenges.

*As all human civilization had been created owing to creative activity of human reason, all its virtues and imperfections have as the consequences corresponding qualities of this mighty creature. It gives a prompting: the level of systemic change should be applied to human reason.

*The question: To which reason, individual or collective? – should be answered: Obviously to both. To individual reason, as our minds had come out of the evolution being “tuned” to provide for individuals to survive in the wild nature, not in the modern artificial world; to collective one, as the complexity of the global problems should have equivalent systemic complexity of collective intellect to be for solving them.

*It may be argued that one mastered with panoramic thinking has to get more possibilities to realize one’s abilities and gifts, in other words to open one’s new dimension of human rights [11].

*So, to cope with global problems may only a collective reason of global scale with individual solvers mastered with thinking free of the evolutionary backwardness, i.e. of the shortage of panoramic thinking.

*The parallel may be advanced here:  just how individual reason had been the savior of humans in times of Big Ice centuries, so a future global reason should save the humanity from going extinct.

*How showed the report’s estimation, to form global collective of people mastered with panoramic thinking, needs time not less than 6 to 8 decades. It means we may admit that all Humankind have been fooled [18] as not having such the time for creating both a drastically renewed world education system and the world-wide intelligent resource.   

*To get more time to act, some additional conveying actions should be proposed:

- at organizing role of the UN, that is more alive uniting activity of international NGOs of different directions, especially scientific NGOs and intellectual tanks, what might get [13];
- the UN might adopt a version of the Universal Declaration of Human Responsibility (see one of them [18]) what is argued to render benevolent influence onto observance of human rights in the world and postpone approaching global catastrophes;
- within the UN Security Council might be created any (Sub)Committee on Civilization Security [13] aiming to work out, in perpetual contacts with volunteers of international NGOs, strategies of long-term development for discussing and adopting.
- a significant role might be played by these NGOs if they took how necessary affair organizing many-language Internet discussion forum Towards happy life on Earth [9]. To discuss how to live better, to help others with advices how to overcome unhappy situations, to elucidate needs and opinions of different people – all this would mean much for pacification in the world;
- another uniting common affair for activists of different religions might be the global discussion about the common ethical base for the sake of any consensus [20]. It might be of essential significance as inter-religious relations were and are frequently aggravated by conflicts, and the clash of civilizations is going without ceasing.

Now you know my thoughts. What are then your opinions? Well, I ask you, anyone reading this, to be an expert and try answering – publically, at the forum! – 4 questions concerning each of ideas:

Q1 - Is a concrete one not trivial?
Q2 - Does it have the world novelty (i.e. was unknown earlier)?
Q3 - Is it able to play a key role in scientific renewal?
Q4 – Does it deserve to be considered as overcoming a “civilization omission”?

[1] On philosophical problems of the mathematics (1978, script);
[2] Pseudo-congruence on universal algebras. – Moscow, USRIPI, 1983; (in Russian).  
[3] Do I speak clearly? (A scientific parable). – Scientific and popular magazine “The Chemistry and Life” (USSR Academy of Sciences), 1983, #6, pp. 90—92, in Russian); (in English). 
[4] Evolutionary sense of concepts and techniques of the earthy science, in: Proc. All-USSR Conference «Non-traditional scientific ideas on the Nature and its phenomena». – Homel (Belarus), 1990, Vol. I, pp. 3—9 (in Russian); (in English); 
[5] Hypothesis on the inherent tolerance (intrinsic uncertainty) as common property of physical systems. – Loc. cit., Vol. II, pp. 213--220; (in Russian).
[6] For outsiders of Europe, the pedagogic technologies of the highest efficiency, in Proc. Intern. Conf. “Eastern Europe: political and socio-cultural choose”, Minsk, 1994, pp. 143—145; (in Russian).
[7] Criminal diagnosis: narrow-mindedness, Minsk newspaper “Stalitsa”, 1995, Jan. 20 (in Russian);
[8] Principle of tolerance and the concept how to counteract the ageing. – Intellectual Property in Belarus, 2000, # 2, pp. 51—56;; see as well Lecture 9 here.
[9] Earth as the common home. – Loc. cit., 2001, #2, pp. 14—17 (in Russian); Towards happy life on Earth:
[10] Creating the civilization security system in 3rd millennium (proposal for DPI/UN, 2007);
[11] A new dimension of human rights (proposal for DPI/UN, 2008);
[12] Commenting the Universal Declaration of Human Right from point of view the new dimension of human rights (proposal for DPI/UN, 2008);
[13] Proposal to create the UN Civilization Security Committee (Proposal for the UN, 2011); (see as well presented as a WiserEarth Solution (2012) here).
[14] Shortage of panoramic thinking: signs seen everywhere (2011):
[15] Humane ethical panorama of thinking (2011):
[16] Secret of humor from the evolution depths. – Intellectual Property in Belarus, 2005, # 4; (in Russian). 
[17] National Academy of Anthropology. Why not? – News of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences, 1994/ 06/15;  [18] All Humankind must have been fooled:
[19] Universal Declaration of Planetary Human Responsibility (draft):
[20] A project proposal for Elijah Interfaith Institute: