.V. B. Okorokov

Monograph. – Dniepropetrovsk: 
Publication of Dniepropetrovsk University, 2000. – 264 p.


     All totality of non-linear processes of modern thinking, which can’t be placed to the frameworks of traditional idea, shows the lack of ability of old classic (metaphysic) theory of thinking to make description of linear processes. Otherwise, there is no any theory, which could include all known deflections, although some efforts of thinkers of destructive and communicative branches of philosophy have took place. Attempt of united investigation of basic philosophic theories, which determine modern consciousness (thinking) in order to find it’s general regularities, that was made in this research, has shown, that dialectic game of gnoseology and ontology, which worked well in classic thinking, can’t solve problems of modern thinking no more. New theory of thinking is necessary. Thus new theory we called «noseology» (like Husserl’s noeses and noems) could be only ontological. Ontology, like gnoseology, «sees» inner structure of thinking without gaps and pleats, using absolute space of being (or cognition) as abstract persistent continuum.
     Being opposition to ontology, topology builds structure of thinking not in the same way. It «sees» not only classic (ontological) field of thinking, but all it’s inner bends, including gaps, pleats, cracks and fundamental homogennesses as well, which were discovered recently in theories of Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Apel, Habermas etc. This is the main difference between topology and classic ontological (or gnoseological) theories of thinking.
     Historic-philosophical analysis of specialities of modern thinking (and cognition) in «sciences of spirit» 
(or, according to conventional usage - in system of humanitarian cycle of sciences) strictly determines historic frameworks of this investigation. They form epoch, which hiddenly actualized itself in Modern time (in the 
works of M. Luter, R. Descartes etc.)
     This epoch clearly displayed in discoveries of I. Kant and F. Hegel, which are known as the last representatives of classic philosophy and founders of modern type of thinking as well. Epoch does not end even now, when representatives of deconstructive and communicative branches of philosophy began process of creating theory of topologic processes of thinking. In other words, this idea we can express in such a way: these frameworks designate boundaries of last historic period of philosophy, which cause begin and, possibly, the end of epoch of transcendental thinking.
     Perhaps, theory of topological phenomena proclaimed the end of transcendentalism and entered the «science of thinking» absolutely suddenly and now it did not leave stage of theoretic (we can say descriptive) observing. M. Foucault included external forces of authority that are working on surface of «body» of thinking, into structure of consciousness. It let to find first topologic element. Derrida’s investigation of crisis of logocentrism had led him to another fundamental topological phenomenon – to distortion of surface of thinking in temporal field, which was perceived in form of fundamental ontology by Heidegger as absolute phenomenon, but by French deconstructivism (in zone of «present») was described by means of proto-functions.
     The most important non-linear parameters of modern consciousness, which point to it’s topological character, are broadcasts of «forms» of thinking (motion as itself – is unknown to classics, indicates non-classicness) and internal in relation to thinking spaces (where are situated stratums of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology and other possible «humanitarian» sciences). Moreover, on basis of analysis of «surface effects» of thinking in theory of J. Deleuze, G. Derrida and other deconstructivists we can make conclusion that being, language, writing and text as well are situated in field of «surface stratification» of thinking, that confirms it’s topological character. That’s why M. Heidegger did not managed to leave borders of fundamental ontology, because he had not make this conclusion. In other words, we can say that all these «surface effects», which European philosophy did not managed to mount into classic field of thinking till Foucault’s attempts, in reality «surface effects» proved to be found with topology and it’s effects (in consciousness). In field of topologic thinking it becomes clear role of sociology and psychology; in this field essence of communicative philosophy and pragmatics, hermeneutics and linguistics is disclosed which managed to distinguish and to register within the frameworks of field of classic philosophy broadcast of «knowledge» or it’s different deflections.
     It becomes clear why modern logicists and mathematicians pay attention to effects of topological theory (in formal field). Using this logico-mathematic researches modern thinking discloses itself in new quality, in the form of «pure topologic forms», which are invisible to «classic eye» (to classic mathematics and formal logic). That’s why philosophic thinking, which has get orientation in metaphysic field, first of all to «formal (pure structures) and essences», which logic and mathematics were finding on surface of thinking, it always followed «course», indicated by them. 
     These sciences in field of «pure forms» only intuitionally discover they work on surface of thinking on which, according to Deleuze, «threshold of formalization» coincides with «threshold of appearing of expression» that, what already appeared on «surface» as distinguishable, but it has not explicated by thinking for itself and for it’s requirements (that’s why all discovered here is being sent by thinking into field of «pure forms» i.e. into field of activity of mathematics and logic). Modern mathematics researches on topology of points, tangent differentiation’s; on commensurablenness of linear and non-linear spaces, on their broadcast and relations – generally speaking, modern mathematics works on investigation of topologic effects (in field of «pure forms»). This topologic «forms» notwithstanding they were discovered in mathematics already, in theory of thinking they appeared recently and were perceived by almost all of thinkers as space of «blind (and even infant) game» with words, expressions and sciences, which does not have ground beneath.
     Such notion of deconstructivism philosophers have, as it could destroy reasonable field of thinking, and as consequence, it leaves field of thinking without any process in future. The obvious question in this situation: how to think outside of space of thinking – has not answer in classic sphere. Deconstructivism is one of attempts to answer this question, because in this philosophic system not classic (linear) thinking is being analysed, but modern (non-linear topologic) one, which sees only «shape», but it’s tangent differentiation as well. 
     New theory of thinking shows why mathematics (and logic in relation with it) always has expressed «effects» of stratum of being, which could not be articulated as «commutation of thinking with reality» (on the surface of thinking) in any way of it’s carrying out (in linear, non-linear or broadcasting way). Mathematics can’t leave borders which are seen by thinking in itself. Ultimately world borders on thinking. And only when external world is crossing «surface of thinking», it becomes inner «data» of thinking (even being superficial or formal); thinking in first time finds this «data» by means of mathematical (or logic) laws or forms. When thinking starts «to speak» or pronounce «seen» (on surface) and to express it in terms already known «forms» (which thinking contains).
     But in this domain meeting with one another quality of thinking is possible: it leaves it’s borders only in space-time dimension, because only in this continuum (it contains the essence of trancendentalness discovered by I. Kant) it still knows and keeps it’s structureness and formality invariant («data inside in itself»), it can transpose and circulate on the whole volume of space-time. Inside of it it does not lose ability to think. Thus, space and time most exactly reflect the quality of thinking to be identical (better to say – invariant) to themselves or to project permanently relations of future and previous it’s conditions. Out of space-time continuum harmony of thought and clarity of forms are being lost (there is no precision of thinking in this case). Write this was proved by Husserl in his phenomenology. This is was the base for Heidegger’s search for fundamental ontology. 
     In it’s turn, mathematics looks like universal one, because it is situated on the verge between form (formal) and external, between ontology and topology, that’s why it is invariant in relation with ontological (i. e. ideal) and topological (i. e. space-time) transformations.
     Deleuze says, that mathematics appears in «gap» of thinking, i. e. on it’s surface, touching it’s inner (ontology) and external (topology). Mathematics in this form was form of topology in the very beginning, it is performing external in internal – more exactly – it is situated on their verge (i. e. it is «formal formation»). That’s why not a single metaphysic change has not took place in mathematics; on the contrary, metaphysic always followed mathematics.

     In the same time mathematics collided with topological effects only in modern time (sharper, in transcendental cognition). Classic space was always formal. It’s «forms» were over-conprendable by means of «essences» and, as a consequence united image of world of any type of classic thinking always could be performed in shape of absolute (or linear) ontologies.
     Till middle of XXth century only «humanitarian system of sciences», which includes philosophy, metaphysics, religion, history, had not known topological effects and had been absolutely certained, that it’s authority in thinking had been steady.
     But numerous non-conformities and divergences, which are taken into system of humanitarian knowledge by theories of non-consciousness and social activity (which already knew or, contained topological effects) led to: 1. Formation of sciences, which tried to legalise breaks of classic consciousness; 2. Stratification of classic «body» of philosophy.
     Forces, as we know from classical mechanics, are always working  on surface of body are making diagram. Outcome of this forces indicate a single point. When phenomenons of authority, which are concentrated in social space displayed themselves obviously in classic system of knowledge and values - then was found «game of forces» (of authority), which fixes common point of their applying. That is discovery of first topologic effect in space of thinking. By analogy with tangent action forces (of authority) in new theory of thinking sociology and psychoanalysis (in phenomenological system – psychology) are situated in touching stratification of philosophy (and classic system of knowledge), but these sciences let solve many problems of classic  thinking. In particular, pragmatics and communicative philosophy, acting from touching dimension, not from the «body» of philosophy directly, let remove  (or led out of verges of discourse) the «idol» of epoch of classic thinking – gnoseological subject (and transcendental as well). Right in tangent social space J. Deleuze (on the basis of Foucault’s «materials») found on surface of «body» of classical thinking gaps, which were caused by game of social and psychoanalytic forces (which are situated in stratification layers). Derrida extended phenomenological-existentialistic techniques of Husserl-Heidegger when he analyzed of space-time stratification of thinking. Derrida’s ontology becomes stratificated in field of «present», Deleuze’ ontology – in zone of working of tangent forces of authority, which are changing permanently and changing topology as well. 
     Thus, any stable form of thinking corresponds to ontology, which describes classic process of cognition (stratification and earache of knowledge), but it avoids it’s different specialties. On the contrary, if we must take into consideration specialties (external as usual), we have to apply topology, which sees not only smooth classic structure, but also «gaps» in body of thinking (caused by authority, sexuality, desire and other affects).
     That’s why in all previous circulates of classic forces a human being had fallen out of ontologies, Foucault has supposed that human being is recent discovery, which has appeared in the time of politic consciousness and it is able to disappear in horizon of «game» of permanently changing external forces.
     Only in context of topologic «effects» human being found non-linearity of his thinking. In united theory of thinking, which takes into consideration it’s modern specialties, all classic types become only particular (absolute) forms, moments («image of world») of more wide spectrum of topologic thinking.
     In such a manner specialty of creation of this theory (perhaps, the only possible «means» to save dying classic culture) lies in the fact that to make «revaluation» of classic values (if it is possible) in context of modern notions (by analogy with mathematics and natural history) and include consciousness, which used to think classically into all existing schemes and forms it’s own broadcast (motion) and non-linear manifestations.
     Deconstructivism in field of topologic thinking ceases to be only game of damage and deconstructive forces and manifests itself more likely as a quality; we can even consider as a new method, which discloses contents of traditional and modern forms of knowledge as well (of texts and parameters of thinking) and in consequence of this essence of language and being not only from inside, but from outside as well. Consideration forms of thinking in such a way led to discover the «creases» of thinking in that places where ontological consciousness has not found them.
     Thus, while thinking rested on absolute or invariant relatively of linear broadcasts of essence, it’s general structure was describable by means of ontologies, wherein manner of presetting of being let design all remaining «»essences». The situation changed in XXth century, when thinking became so unstable (non-linear) as it ceased to obey any linear descriptions. In this case ontology, which describes only inner structure of being, did not let to reflect external manners of it’s data. Radically new approaches and decisions – topological are necessary here.




                  OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY



     § 1. To modern situation in motion philosophy …… 
     § 2. Metaphysical limits of phenomenological ontology (relativational criticism and analysis concept of being) 
     § 3. The problem of deviation of foundation of being in classical and unclassical fields of existence 
     § 4. Rationality and destruction (problem of singulational gap of metaphysical mind or identity of being and 

     § 1. The communicative ontology (project of communicative reconstruction of transcendental mind) 
     § 2. To ontology of perception of democracy and unclassical philosophy (or about Rorty’s and Habermas’s 
             thesis about superiority democracy over philosophy)


      § 1. Phenomenology of motion sciences (metaphysics and horizon of classical existence)
      § 2. Metaphysics and deconstruction

      § 1. The topology of deconstructinal thinking and flexure
      § 2. To description relativity of motion philosophy (G. Deleuze and K. Apel about non-linearity of modern 
             form of thinking