*1.2. Forms of Thought*

Human thought, its codification in knowledge and its evolution are highly non-linear processes. A key concept in our approach is that the dynamic structure of this non-linearity and in fact all non-linear phenomena have not been adequately captured by available dialectical, logical or semiotic paradigms, ancient, modern or contemporary. (A brief discussion of non-linearity is provided below). Our critique of the role of logic and dialectics per se can be summarized as follows:

• Logic has moved from being a science of nature to that of formalism for its abstract structures, exemplified in the work of George Boole [4]. The term logic is also applied in a generalized, non-scientific way to obvious regularities in the macroscopic world. Only limited relations are established to the microscopic world and its underlying quantum structure, and quantum logic remains limited to the quantum world.


In this paper, we will attempt to maintain a balance between the form and content of thought, in order to give proper ontological status to the former in its obvious dialectic relationship to the latter.

## *1.3. Objective and Outline of Paper*

We are thus very much concerned in this paper with the "thinking behind the thinking". It can be seen also as a metaphilosophical contribution to knowledge, as will be clear from the reference below to the philosophy of information as a metaphilosophy. We therefore begin, in the next Section 2, with a discussion of dialectics, with the intention of showing its clear applicability to current philosophy and science. We discuss the nature and role of dialectics in knowledge and the society and recover it from reductionist interpretations. In Section 3, we present our concept of a new logic as necessary for the success of our project and an approach to a new paradigm. In particular, we propose the replacement of linguistic logics of objects and static forms by a dynamic logic of real physical-mental processes designated by Brenner as the logic of and in reality or Logic in Reality (LIR) [1]. We show that LIR has clear methodological links to dialectics and implies a metalogic that is an expression of the fundamental recursive properties of existence.

The field of information and its philosophy are having a major current impact on thought, as information involves both meaning and the physical transmission and reception of meaning. In the context of our *dialectical realism* [6], we establish in Section 4 a new set of working relations between the concepts of meaning and semiotics, a dialectics of meaning. As we will see elsewhere below, LIR provides a *naturalization* (bringing into science) of Adorno's concept. We deconstruct the concept of semiotics as an *antithesis*, an anti-dialectical system considered as one of the most general but partly misguided and misleading horizons for knowledge. We reposition prior work of Igamberdiev as a semiosis in which links to physical phenomena are stated explicitly, joining the concept of Logic in Reality as a *kind* of semiosis. We continue in this vein in Section 5, where we propose a picture of meaning in relation to the physical and cognitive phenomenon of information that is a semiosis, dialectical and logical, in our dynamic logical terms. The role of the philosophy of information as a metaphilosophy in the conception of Wu Kun is related to our new vision of semiosis.

In Section 6 we approach all four major themes—dialectics, logic, semiosis and information in terms of a new concept of the dynamic parts of existence, ontological and epistemological, for which we propose the neologisms of 'ontolon' and 'epistemon' respectively. In our Summary Conclusion Section 7, we further position our approach in relation to natural philosophy, but also make a statement of principle about the role of our project in the information society. We plan to extend these ideas to address broader aspects of the dynamics of the growth of civilizations and their potential implications for the common good.

#### *1.4. The Scope of Philosophy in Reality*

We should first state we do not presume to o ffer a definition of reality that would be either provable in some way or acceptable to all or most people. We refer the interested reader to the book of Colin McGinn [7] on the 'basic structures' of reality and the earlier concept of D'Espagnat of a 'veiled reality'. Perhaps the least incorrect thing one can say is that reality is something like what one thinks it is. We insist only on the existence of the dialectic between reality and appearance and the operation of the mind moving from one to the other according to the Principle of Dynamic Opposition.

To paraphrase a well-known statement in scientific theory, our philosophy of/in reality is not and is not intended to be a 'philosophy of everything'. It would be fatuous and presumptive to say that our theory covers, for example, transcendental philosophy or philosophy based on beliefs about the origin or a possible purpose of the universe. What characterizes such positions in general is their reference to an inaccessible *un-*reality, sometimes expressed by the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, alpha and omega.

We limit the scope of our Philosophy in Reality to what is also the content of *natural* philosophy as it is currently being redefined by Schroeder and Dodig-Crnkovic [8] as well as Brenner and others. The potentially useful criterion which Brenner has proposed for delimiting natural philosophy from philosophy as a whole is its logic [9], the Logic in Reality which will be the subject of Section 3. For the prolegomenon to an integral paradigm of natural philosophy written by Igamberdiev see [10].
