4. Relations of the domains. Open problems and prospects

Evidently, the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” can easily be related to the Greek word, but it has a priori no connection with the Byzantine theological concept and its anthropological development. The conceptual elaboration of this paradigm must produce a different concept and constitute a separate and independent line in the study of synergy. However, a posteriori we discover many links between this line and the theological-anthropological mainstream. First of all, in all its domains synergy keeps the same core, the basic structure of two energies, “inner” and “outer”, that come from different sources and have their meeting and contact characterized by coherence between them and leading to cardinal changes in the “inner” field. In the domain of theology, this structure is represented by the Divine and human energies, and their contact opens the way to the theosis, the actual ontological transcension of the human being. In the domain of anthropology, the meeting of the two energies is interpreted as the anthropological unlocking and the basic structure has a series of representations corresponding to different paradigms of human constitution; in this domain, the contact of the two energies opens the way to the formation of structures of human personality and identity. As distinct from these domains, in the domain of synergetics the dynamical mechanism of the action of outer energy is concretized as the mechanism of self-organization generating definite dynamical structures. It means that the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” is more technical and less general than both the theological and anthropological paradigms, which do not prescribe the exact mechanism of the interaction of energies of different nature (especially in such case as ontological transcension).

However, in order to understand the relations between the different domains of synergy comprehensively, we must also take into account that one can find numerous examples of the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” in anthropology. Presenting synergy as an anthropological paradigm, we did not describe the practices implementing this paradigm in detail. Now, if we consider these practices in a more detailed way, we discover in many cases synergetic mechanisms at work. Let us come back to the hesychast practice at its higher steps when synergy is achieved. In our brief description of these steps in Section 1, we have already noticed their resemblance to processes of self-organization. Now we shall characterize this resemblance more precisely. In the presence of synergy, all the process of hesychast self-transformation acquires another type of dynamics. Of course, in all its parts it is always the stepwise ascent to the theosis by the hesychast Ladder; but now the ascent becomes spontaneous to a considerable extent, and the steps are energetic configurations of a new type: they represent specific dynamic forms emerging from each other in a strictly ordered succession and they cannot be produced separately from spiritual practice, in usual regimes and practices of empiric existence. I describe briefly the principal of them. The first one is the structure “mind plus heart” obtained by means of the procedure of “bringing the mind down into the heart” and representing a certain inseparable conjugation of intellectual and emotional energies that can be established and maintained due to synergy only. As hesychasts discovered, such conjugation provides “the helm for navigating the ship of the soul”: now the ascetic can rearrange his consciousness forming up the centre called “mind-bishop” that “sets up the laws for every activity of the soul and every limb of the body” (st. Gregory Palamas). Evidently, such united controlling centre makes all man’s energetic configurations incomparably more ordered and coherent. This structure serves as a dynamical basis for all the next steps. For the most part, they are related to new forms of prayer, in which the action of outer energy becomes more and more explicit. The main hesychast term for them is “pure prayer”. In such prayer “the mind is illuminated by heavenly light” (the Light of Tabor, i.e. Divine energy) and “pours forth the prayer effortlessly as if out of some inexhaustible source”, and this prayer “can be expressed neither by sounds of a human voice nor by movements of lips nor by any combinations of words”[12] . There are obvious elements of the synergetic paradigm in this energetic configuration: the human being is driven far from its equilibrium states (it is so for all the steps of spiritual practice); the configuration is formed-up due to outer energy (“heavenly light”); and it represents a dynamical form of a new type corresponding to spontaneous dynamics with new mechanisms of mental activity. In the further steps such elements are multiplied and enhanced. One of the highest steps that can be called the “step of the open book” is described as follows: “The highest prayer of those who are perfect is some ascension of mind that approaches God, and God sees all the arrangement of heart open like a book filled up with writing and expressing its will in wordless images”[13] . In this configuration man’s consciousness or, to be more precise, the structure “mind plus heart” is transformed into the “state of an open book” which means that it is all, up to the smallest parts, open to such contact and meeting with outer energy (God’s sight, i.e. Divine energy) that does not need gradual temporal development, but is instantaneous and complete; in other words, the meeting turns into the union. In terms of theological synergy, it means that the practice advances here from synergy to theosis; in anthropological terms, the configuration in question represents a maximally articulated noetic structure; while in terms of synergetics, it means that this configuration represents a maximally ordered and differentiated dynamical structure. Finally, if we look at all the series of the higher steps we notice more of synergetic patterns.

Energetic configurations of all these steps have the same basic structural elements: the dominating orientation of the energies (towards the communion with Christ), the formation out of the two conjugated activities, attention and prayer (“ontological mover”) and so on. It means that the practice in this higher block is the spontaneous step-by-step ascent, in which the basic structural elements remain invariant and every next energetic configuration represents more differentiated and ordered dynamical form. Clearly, this description corresponds to the dynamics of self-similarity (though the dynamical structures are not spatial formations now, and the formal definition of self- similarity through scale invariance cannot be applied to them). Thus the block of the higher steps of hesychast practice reproduces closely one of principal synergetic patterns (represented, in particular, in deterministic chaos): spontaneous generation of a hierarchy of self-similar dynamical structures. It is obvious that the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” is present here.

As a result, we find that the higher steps of hesychast practice represent the overlapping or the common part of all the three domains of synergy, theological, anthropological and synergetic. On this common territory the corresponding paradigms of synergy are perfectly in accordance with each other. The synergetic paradigm can be considered here as a particular case of the anthropological paradigm concretizing the dynamical mechanism of synergy in a definite class of anthropological practices. The presence of a common territory, on which all the three paradigms of synergy essentially coincide, makes it possible to conclude that there is one universal paradigm having the theological, anthropological and synergetic paradigms of synergy as its representations or branches.

This conclusion can be supported by other examples of synergetic phenomena in anthropology. One example is provided by the initial steps of the hesychast Ladder which are conversion and repentance. Their goal is the change-over, in which a human person passes the Spiritual Gate: rejects all former regimes of his/her usual existence and begins to follow the strategy of ontological alternative striving with all his/her energies after God. Although in this initial part the practice did not yet reach synergy, the ascetic tradition basing on its rich experience states that some presence of Divine energy, even though implicit, is necessary to an adept in order to take the road directed to Divine being (in philosophical terms, the event of the ontological choice is a genuine ontological event, it is endowed with actual ontological contents). It means that repentance, at least when it is the start of spiritual practice, presupposes a kind of “pre-synergy”, a certain initial and implicit form of synergy. Let us remember now that Orthodox and especially ascetic repentance is a large set of very specific techniques cultivating a rich spectrum of sharply negative emotions and sensations: intense and insistent self-condemnation, contrition, compunction, remorse, all this taken to the extreme limits; tears and various kinds of physical self-torture… so that all these “repentance labors” were usually regarded by positivist science as a kind of madness. These two features taken together form the conceptual frame of hesychast repentance: its goal is the start of an ontologically alternative strategy and its means for reaching this goal are the concentration of many extreme, unusual and painful practices. But this combination has an obvious synergetic interpretation: the goal of repentance means radical restructuring of man’s inner reality and behavioral patterns; the “repentance labors” drive his inner reality far from its usual regimes of stability and equilibrium; and then even the implicit action of ontologically outer energy (pre-synergy) generates the desired restructuring. This restructuring is, however, not followed by the generation of all the hierarchy of new dynamical forms, i.e. the establishment of full-scale synergetic dynamics; and this fact is another manifestation of the mutual accordance of the two paradigms of synergy: the phenomenon, in which anthropological synergy is present only as a certain “pre-synergy”, in the aspect of its synergetic properties shows only some “synergetic pre-synergy”.

Similar example can be found in Zen, and we shall consider it briefly so as not to restrict our discussion by hesychasm alone. We shall see that the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” is the basic mechanism behind the famous phenomenon of satori, the culminating event of Zen practice. It is a complex event integrated into a subtle spiritual practice that has, in its turn, its doctrinal fundament in certain schools of Buddhism. Here we shall omit all the doctrinal aspects and concentrate only on dynamical mechanisms of satori as an anthropological phenomenon (the detailed exposition of the phenomenon and our interpretation of it is presented in the work[14] ). In a very simplified description, satori or “illumination” is sudden breakthrough of man’s consciousness to some new Truth or Light or Being related directly to the final goal of all the practice. What is considered as the main distinction of satori is not so much the result of the break-through (which is close to mystical experience of many other spiritual traditions) as specific strategies and techniques developed for reaching it. The way to satori is not the stepped advancement and ascent: instead of the ladder paradigm found usually in spiritual practices we see here the deadlock paradigm. Man’s consciousness must be driven to the deadlock, and this deadlock must be felt most keenly, and it is only out of such deadlock that the break-through to the illumination is possible. Specific techniques invented for producing the necessary deadlock state belong to the most striking and famous elements of Zen. Very roughly, these techniques are of two kinds: 1) the actions of the Zen master with respect to the disciple who wants to reach satori, 2) the meditation on the koans (literally, riddle or absurd situation), special paradoxical problems that have no logical solution. The actions are sudden and unexplainable, absurd, and often shocking, rude, aggressive (e.g., in one famous episode the master has broken the leg of the disciple); koans plunge adept’s mind into the protracted deadlock state that brings him to the extreme limits of exhaustion and despair.

As a result, a certain psychological scheme comes into view. Man’s consciousness is driven to an extreme state full of sharp negative affects (disorientation, despair, anxiety, helplessness…); it is excited to its very limits: it knows that it is in the deadlock, and knows that it is not able to break it.

In this state of maximal and unbearable inner strain the consciousness is ripe for any radical change – and at this moment some outer factor interferes suddenly: some action of the master or simply an unexpected disturbance, sound and so on. And the action of this outer force provokes the sudden breakthrough in the consciousness that is the long-awaited satori. This is the psychological mechanism or the pattern of satori, and we easily recognize its synergetic nature. Evidently, in the described practice the consciousness can be considered as an open system driven far from its equilibrium regimes by means of the “deadlock paradigm”, and under the conditions of this paradigm outer energy induces a radical restructuring of it. Hence we can assert that the “synergetic paradigm of synergy” is represented here. The specific feature of this representation is that outer energy acts as a momentary impulse; but similar variations of the basic synergetic mechanism are known in physical and chemical systems as well. However, like in the case of conversion and repentance in Christian practice, the event of the restructuring is not followed by the generation of the hierarchy of new structures, and we conclude that in the phenomenon of satori the synergetic dynamics is also present not in its fully developed form. In our terms, it means that it is only “synergetic pre-synergy” that is represented here. This conclusion is in accordance with the parallel between satori and the Christian conversion that has been drawn by many authors. And what matters for us, the accordance or coherence between the anthropological and synergetic paradigms of synergy is preserved too.

* * *

Now our map of the territory of synergy is outlined fully. Let us add just a few concluding remarks. First of all, one must go a bit deeper into the relation of the synergetic and anthropological domains of the territory. Synergetic and anthropological (personological, philosophical, theological) discourses are very different and distant from each other, and it was important for us to disclose the areas of their mutual closeness and accordance: it made it possible to demonstrate essential unity and universality of the paradigm of synergy. However, it is equally important not to lose sight of the fundamental difference of their epistemological nature. In no way numerous applications of synergetic discourse in the sphere of the humanities withdraw the fact that this discourse can play only an auxiliary part in this sphere. Its concepts and methods belong to natural sciences and general theory of open systems. Indisputably, they form a rich conceptual and epistemological fund, but all this fund cannot describe constitutive properties of anthropological phenomena or philosophical subjects because all phenomena and subjects related to personal being possess specific dimensions and aspects absent on other levels of reality and irreducible to the characteristics of these levels. For this reason, synergetic mechanisms can express and explain only some particular and secondary aspects of anthropological and spiritual reality, but not its constitution. The constitution of a human person cannot be described by the synergetic paradigm, and so are all phenomena which express this constitution directly. In contrast to the anthropological paradigm of synergy, the synergetic paradigm is not a personological paradigm. It means that anthropological phenomena (and, indeed, phenomena from any sphere of the humanities) can have only some not constitutive properties or aspects describable adequately by means of synergetics. For no field in the sphere of the humanities synergetic discourse can serve as the basic discourse, it can only be used as a supporting discourse, and the limits of its validity must be determined on the basis of its relation to the basic humanistic discourse. (In our examples from anthropology, synergetic elements are present exactly in this supporting and auxiliary role.) Thus any statements that some or other anthropological, religious, etc. phenomena “can be described on the basis of synergetics” are essentially incorrect. They express reductionist and scientistic bias or trend that ignores specific and irreducible nature of personal being and always accompanies the attempts to introduce new achievements of natural sciences into the sphere of the humanities. Manifestations of such trend abound in synergetic literature, and we hope that our map of the territory of synergy with clear borders between its domains may help to keep the proper relationship of synergetic, anthropological and theological discourses.

On the other hand, our map did not include some fields of lesser scale where synergy is also present. The most important of them is the field of biology. The phenomenon of life as such is based entirely on the fundamental principle of the energy and matter exchange between the living organism and surrounding milieu. Evidently, this principle presupposes the meeting and the concerted action of two energies, inner and outer, of different type and source, and so it represents a certain version of the paradigm of synergy; because of its central role in all living systems, one can even say that biology is the sphere of synergy par excellence. But what is the “biological paradigm of synergy”? It is equally evident that it should be close to the synergetic paradigm of synergy, but it has also many special features of its own: they are reflected, e.g., in such mechanisms as the diaphragms and such theories as the autopoiesis. So does it go entirely in the synergetic paradigm of synergy? This is a priori not known; and the analysis of the biological paradigm of synergy is today an interesting open problem.

Another open problem is the study of the phenomenon of so called violent synergy. It is a specific modification of synergy used in ideological/anthropological practices of totalitarian regimes. In this case outer energy is represented by the totalitarian terror machine that inculcates on man’s consciousness the basic contents of the totalitarian dogma embracing all the principal aspects of man’s existence, ideological standings, emotional reactions, behavioral patterns and so on.

Exerting all means of extreme, unbearable pressure on the consciousness, the totalitarian message performs a kind of the breaking-open the consciousness, it enters deeply into it and acts incessantly; so that eventually the consciousness starts involuntarily to respond to this message. It starts to convince itself that the message is acceptable, is good after all, and so it develops gradually the collaboration with the outer energy of the terror machine. The final result is unmistakable synergy, the coherence and collaboration of the two energies, but the way to it was the breaking-in and violence. So in what domain of the territory of synergy are we here? There is no answer yet since the phenomenon was just briefly described so far in my recent works.

The last but not least, there is one more subject that should necessarily be mentioned. Synergy is inseparable of energy, any definition or description of it goes in terms of energy, and so its conceptual analysis cannot be complete if it does not include conceptual analysis of energy.

Unfortunately, we are exactly in this situation. In both the theological and anthropological domains there is no concept of “human energy”, although this term is used abundantly (only Divine energy has got a proper conceptual elaboration in Orthodox theology of energies). Classical conceptions of energy by Aristotle and Plotinus do not fit the context of anthropological practices and activities of consciousness, and the term “energies” (or “human energies”, “psychic energies”, etc.) used in this context – in psychology, ascetics, and other discourses – is nothing but conventional name for some reality that successfully resists conceptualization so far[15] . This lacuna is in no way accidental.

Energy, like Being, is a great topos of philosophical reflection; but, in contrast to Being, it was left th out of sight in the Western philosophical tradition. It is only in the 20 c., due to the powerful effort and influence of Heidegger, that the problem of energy comes back to the forefront of philosophical thought as one of its cardinal open problems. As for the paradigm of synergy, it constitutes an ancient and important sub-topos in the great topos of energy. Studies of synergy must be coordinated with the modern advancements in this topos, and the conceptual lacuna in the synergic discourse must be reflected upon thoroughly. Surely, this brief discussion does not exhaust all open problems in the sub-topos of synergy.

As our survey shows, the situation in this sub-topos is in active development, and the ancient paradigm of synergy still has rich heuristic resources. Avoiding the use of the classical essentialist discourse, it is of fully nonclassical nature. Providing a synthesis of concepts and methods of secular and religious discourse, it can contribute to the development of modern postsecularist ideas.

And both these aspects show that it can play an important part in the formation of the new vision of reality that is emerging now.