Pavel Krupkin

This study develops and applies criteria for identifying the leading structural elements of Earth's next macroevolutionary stage-through analysing previous evolutionary transitions from unicellular life to modern social structures: spatial restrictions for previous leading elements, emergence of 'incomprehensible-for-them' phenomena, and novel forms of systemic constraints. The application of these criteria to contemporary global developments suggests that clusters of states coordinated by ideologically-unified movements might represent emerging carriers of next-level complexity. The paper examines historical precedents of such structures and discusses potential paths for their development, including the possibility of multiple competing clusters. This approach offers a novel perspective on both the identification of evolutionary transitions and the analysis of current global transformations.

The essay delineates a synthetic formalism aimed at the systematic integration of disparate theories of meaning within a unified conceptual field. By operationalizing Niklas Luhmann’s medium–form schema, the proposed framework reconceptualizes the medium of meaning as a pivotal evolutionary adaptation fundamental to the constitution and regulation of human Umwelten (MyWorlds) and collective OurWorlds. Characterized as an emergent social phenomenon and a complexity-reducing technique, meaning facilitates the environmental adaptation for goal-directed agency. The meaning-medium differs from the language system and likely preceded it evolutionarily; however, in human beings the two operate in close conjunction.

This essay proposes extending Niklas Luhmann’s concept of meaning beyond psychic and social systems to LLM systems by identifying an approach for formalizing them as a distinct type of Luhmannian system. In this formalization, the operations of an LLM system are transformations of sets of semantic vectors (s-vectors) performed by the LLM in the course of a conversation with a user; these transformations constitute transitions between conversational states. The sequence of such transformations constitutes an operational stream that generates its own temporality and exhibits operational closure and autopoietic self-reproduction. Drawing on Luhmann’s theory of meaning as the unity of the distinction between the actual and the possible, the essay argues that the selection of the next conversational state from a set of available alternatives (horizons) occurs in LLM systems in full accordance with Luhmann’s theory. This introduces into the applications of the theory, alongside the meanings of thinking and communication, an additional form: LLM-meaning.

The essay argues that contemporary discussions of cognitive wars, cognitive liberty, and cognitive sovereignty point to a neglected dimension of freedom that operates not over bodies or territories but over the very structures through which people think. Classical and even republican conceptions of liberty presuppose that domination is visible as external interference; yet today influence can be exercised by shaping worldviews, value hierarchies, “paths of salvation,” and public mythologies from outside, producing what the author calls “the freedom of a body with another’s head.” At the level of the state, this takes institutional form in a “cognitive subsystem” (education, media, epistemic communities) that reproduces national self-determination and legitimacy, and which therefore becomes the main target of cognitive operations. Borrowing meanings from outside is not inherently bad, but without a “sanitary cordon” it turns into cognitive colonization that erases particularity. Projected globally, this yields a world-system of meaning-production, with centers, semi-peripheries, and peripheries, currently dominated by Western doctrines and Islamic fundamentalism. This generates a tension between individual cognitive freedom and the state’s need to secure its own cognitive sovereignty for survival. By placing the problem in the broader framework of the noosphere, the author proposes “noospheric liberty” as a conceptual tool to detect and resist new, subtle forms of mental domination.

The essay addresses a specific fork in interpretations of the approaching “singularity” suggested by macroevolutionary acceleration models: either it will be absorbed within the current social stage of evolution, or it will be compensated by a transition to a post-social stage, here called the stage of the supermind. Proceeding from the second variant, the author asks how a reality structurally “above” human sociality could be made at least partially visible from within human experience. To do this, the essay proposes an analogy: the relation of the supermind to humans will, in some respects, mirror the relation of the human mind to cells. On this basis, a table of correspondences is built (cell → human, organ → social organism, organism → state, nervous system → cognitive subsystem of the state, etc.), which makes it possible to outline the likely carriers and infrastructure of a supermind — above all, clusters of states coordinated at the level of elites. The text argues that many elements of this level (its “language,” “sacred,” semantic exchange) are still indeterminate, but the very conceptual distinction already clarifies what is “falling on us from the future” and thus performs a properly philosophical task.

This essay argues that, in many versions of Marxism, the central narrative – the development of society through productive forces – has been displaced by a moralizing critique of the "evil" of private property. It contends that Karl Marx’s theory has been fulfilled through historical evolution: modern welfare states represent the realization of socialism, having resolved capitalism’s fundamental contradiction – the social character of production versus private appropriation – through institutionalized redistribution. The collapse of the USSR is interpreted not as a failure of socialism, but as a consequence of ideological rigidity that stifled productive forces – entirely consistent with Marx’s own materialist criterion. Looking forward, the essay identifies the principal contradiction of our epoch as that between rising human consumption and planetary constraints. Grounded in the concept of the “Jobless Society,” it proposes that introduction of a Universal Basic Income constitutes an evolutionary threshold, after which we may speak of genuine communism: a society where freedom from the necessity to work is institutionalized. By redefining capitalism, socialism, and communism in terms of achieved freedoms rather than ownership models, the essay offers a reinterpretation in which Marx was right, and therefore his program exhausted.

The study explores an approach to the philosophy of the sacred, tracing its presence from early recorded history to contemporary socio-political structures. The sacred is examined as a fundamental component of social organization, influencing social identities, institutions, and state legitimacy. A key hypothesis introduced is the genetically determined centre of the sacred in the human brain, which evolved 50,000–70,000 years ago and functions archetypally, shaping emotions such as reverence, indignation at desecration, and numinous experiences. The sacred extends beyond traditional religion into secular domains, including ideologies and eschatological narratives in modern societies. The study also examines the role of trust and legitimacy in state stability, challenging N. Luhmann’s theory by arguing that trust operates beyond mere communication mechanisms and requires a fourth, sacred environment to maintain political order. The collapse of modern states (e.g., USSR, Libya, Syria) is linked to failures in reproducing trust. Furthermore, the paper introduces the concept of egregores – self-reproducing sacred structures that sustain collective belief systems, vital for the autopoiesis of political entities. This work expands the philosophy of the sacred, linking it to macroevolutionary processes, the structuring of social identities, and the survival mechanisms of states.

This essay explores the distinct characteristics of Russian technical thinking within the framework of Yuk Hui’s concept of cosmotechnics. Hui’s proposal emphasizes “good technology,” which aligns with local cosmological perspectives and moral practices, as an essential component of the technosphere’s decolonization. The analysis contrasts Russian approaches to technical creativity with those of the West and China, highlighting the synthesis of collective and individual efforts through archetypal imagery such as the campfire and the reverence for “bookish wisdom.” Central to the essay is the idea that Russian technical thinking, rooted in cosmism and conciliarity, integrates multidimensional understanding and co-creation with God, fostering a sense of universal responsibility. This perspective manifests in the prioritization of theoretical knowledge, unconventional problem-solving, and the moral imperative to serve humanity. Despite similarities to Western technological practices in material aspects, Russia’s unique contributions lie in its social technologies and motivational frameworks, which remain underexplored within global perspectives. The essay argues that these features provide a valuable addition to cosmotechnics and demonstrate the potential for alternative intellectual trajectories beyond Western paradigms.

This essay delves into the potential non-Western contributions to the technosphere by exploring Russian perspectives within Yuk Hui’s framework of cosmotechnics. Hui's concept emphasizes "good technology"—aligned with local cosmologies and moral practices, integrating sustainability and ecological preservation. By drawing parallels with China's distinct cosmological underpinnings in technical creativity, the essay questions whether Russian civilization can provide similarly unique contributions. The text investigates the evolution of the technosphere, distinguishing between instrumental and bio-artificial components, while situating Russian technical thought within broader global contrasts. Despite an outward resemblance to Western technological development, Russia’s distinctiveness emerges in social technologies, state-driven innovation, and its cosmological foundation, particularly the "Russian cosmism" of the 1960s. Through a focus on co-creation with God, universal responsibility, and theoretical prioritization, the essay identifies multidimensional understanding and the moral imperative of service as hallmarks of Russian technical creativity. These features highlight a unique trajectory that complements Hui’s concept of cosmotechnics, emphasizing Russia’s potential to enrich global discussions on decolonizing technology.

This essay explores the discoved place in human noosphere called as "Cosmos-not-Here," encompassing the speculative realms of science fiction, religious eschatology, and theoretical astrophysics. The content of "Cosmos-not-Here" contrasts with the same of "Cosmos-Here," representing humanity's tangible explorations and mastery of the physical universe. The text delves into how the Cosmos-not-Here operates as a mental construct, offering humanity an imaginative escape into utopian visions and hypertextual narratives, while disregarding the constraints of established physical laws. The discussion emphasizes humanity's innate psychological drive, metaphorically expressed as "forward and upward," linking it to a sacred yearning for cosmic harmony and expansion. This drive manifests culturally in phenomena like Russian aspirations, illustrated by the "Gagarin Smile," and the global fascination with cosmic-themed speculative fiction, games, and spiritual constructs such as astrology. The essay concludes by identifying a universal "Cosmic-We" ethos, characterized by a shared attraction to the cosmos as a concept of transcendence and infinite potential, reflecting humanity's enduring pursuit of meaning beyond the utilitarian confines of terrestrial existence. The analysis reveals the philosophical resonance of this semantic cluster with ancient and medieval cosmologies, suggesting its timeless significance in human thought.

The article overviews all known approaches to formalization of a problem of Liberty / Freedom (« Liberty from », « Liberty for », « being for her/his own sake, not a other's », « absence of sovereign other », individual freeing in a context of the Master-Slave Dialectics, Social Freedom) and problems of emancipation (« restricting privileges of upper class minorities », « giving privileges to marginalized minorities – affirmative actions »). Then, the article discusses a version of formalization of level of social freedom through comparison of what is allowed for an individuals in the society with what is allowed for «a sheep in herd »: each additional degree of freedom gives unit in plus, each additional restriction gives unit in minus. The proposed model was tested for a case of the post-Soviet transit, when the level of freedom evolved from minus two for the USSR up to plus two for the contemporary Russian Federation. It also shows the ways for further emancipation of people in Russia in « politically easy version » - i.e. without essential change of its political system.

В книге представлена концепция Современности (Модерна) в ее приложении к обществоведению. Рассмотрены теоретические вопросы национального государства, нации, демократии, свободы, постиндустриальной экономики, и связанные с этим необходимые качества развитых обществ Модерна. Особое внимание уделено тщательности логической проработки используемых понятий. Полученная рамка применена к анализу текущих социальных процессов в России с использованием различного рода статистических данных и данных социологических исследований. Обсуждаются проблемы трансформации России в национальное демократическое государство, развития постиндустриальной экономики, запуска в стране цикла генерации экономических и социальных инноваций, а также проблемы российской демографии и развития человеческого капитала. Показано, что практически все проблемы в своем разрешении упираются в менталитет постсоветской элиты. Выявлен основной психо-социальный ментальный комплекс, ответственный за элитную аномию, и показаны пути его деконструкции. Книга рассчитана на широкие слои образованных читателей с рациональным складом мышления, комфортно себя чувствующих в больших коллективах.