Our contemporary civilization increasingly relies on creative approaches and solutions. This growing dependence makes issues of control, regulation and management of the process of creation ever more important.This article finds two major current theoretical perspectives on creativity and the process of creation to be vulnerable in one important respect: their explanation of the production of disequilibrium, which plays a singularly important role in the process of creation, does not pass the test of rational justification. This article suggests that the production of disequilibrium is intimately related to equilibration -the essential operation of rational thought processes. The emphasis on the role equilibration makes a rational justification of the production of disequilibrium possible. The new theoretical perspective opens the path toward a comprehensive and objective understanding of the process of creation, which is the main condition for regulating, controlling, and managing this process.

Is there an end to our scientific quest? This question that continues to divide the scientific community between those who believe that the progress of science is infinite and those who think that we already understand how the universe works and no major discoveries are to be expected in the future. This article explores the philosophical worldview of modern science that has given rise to this question. It argues that an approach to knowledge that focuses on the process of construction of knowledge rather than its products offers a possibility of definitively answering this question and opening paths for a more rational approach in advancing and managing the scientific progress.

The current debate in social sciences show that the paradox of observing-the embeddedness of observer in the process of observing-is at the heart of the controversy about their cognitive status and future. Although the problem of observing has been addressed in numerous theoretical perspectives-some of which (Habermas, Leydesdorff, Maturana, and Luhmann) are examined in this article-the prospects for resolving this paradox remain problematic. Locating a point, which allows reflection on the process of autopoiesis in general, not just the operation of a particular autopoietic system, may be one condition for resolving this paradox. Such point will offer reflection on all autopoietic systems, including the observer. The dynamic balance between equilibrium and disequilibrium is the mechanism, which regulates the process of autopoiesis. Since the function of regulation is essentially a reflective function, this equilibrium between equilibrium and disequilibrium, which can be identified with the concept of homeorhesis introduced by Conrad Waddington, may offer a possibility to reflect on the process of observing.

Development has been the main strategy in addressing the problem of sustainability since at least the mid-1980s. The results of this strategy have been mixed, if not disappointing. In their objections to this approach, critics frequently invoke constraints imposed by physical reality of which the most important one is entropy production. They question the belief that technological innovations are capable of solving the problem of sustainability. Is development the right response to this problem and is the current course capable of attaining sustainability? The article examines closely and critiques the principal theoretical objection to sustainable development that emphasizes physical constraints, and more specifically entropy production. It also offers a critique of the current approach to sustainable development. The article advocates a systems approach as a way to anchor a broad consensus in the ongoing sustainability debates.

There is hardly anything more central to our universe than conservation. Many scientific fields and disciplines view the law of conservation as one of the most fundamental universal laws. The Darwinian model pivots the process of evolution on variability, reproduction, and natural selection. Conservation plays a marginal role in this model and is not really universal, as the model allows exceptions to conservation, i.e. non-conservation, to play an equally important role in evolution. This anomalous role of conservation in the Darwinian model raises questions: What is the reason for this anomaly? Is conservation really universal, as we tend to believe or is it not, as the Darwinian model suggests? This contribution proposes a new model of evolution that focuses on levels of organization, rather than of species, organisms, or populations. It argues that conservation is central to evolution. Not only does this new model restores the universal status of conservation but it also makes possible to resolve some outstanding problems and controversies that continue to plague the Darwinian model. The article tries to advance the broad Darwinian project that seeks to explain the process of evolution as a product of the spontaneous processes in nature.

The paper seeks to make a contribution towards a better understanding of the current global political unrest. It argues that this unrest reflects ongoing tensions between hierarchical and non-hierarchical interactions. It also argues that the opposition between hierarchical and non-hierarchical interactions is not ontological but rather is rooted in the way we approach reality and is, therefore, subject to our control. The tendency to exclude the process of construction from our frame of vision is characteristic for the view of reality that is dominant in our civilization. Contemporary theoretical perspectives that include, but are not limited to, systems theory, complexity theory, theory of self-organization, emergence theory and autopoiesis have much to offer in addressing and resolving this problem. The paper outlines some general organizing principles that should be part of this solution. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords systems theory; hierarchies; networks; horizontalists Over two decades ago, communism collapsed and the Cold War ended. Francis Fukuyama hailed this development in his book The End of History and the Last Man as the beginning of a new era in which liberal democracy and capitalism would reign supreme. All that would be left for humanity to do was to enjoy the fruits of this remarkable victory that would bring peace, freedom and prosperity to the entire world.Long gone are the days of triumphalism. Today, the prophecy that Fukuyama made in the wake of the demise of the Soviet bloc 'that liberal democracy, combined with market economics, represented the direction in which the world would inevitably evolve ' (Fukuyama, 1989) rings hollow; today, we hear a very different tune. It warns us about the retreat of democracy, the rise of authoritarian regimes, economic uncertainty and prospects of growing violence and hostility in the world (Kurlantzick, 2013).At the time of its publication, many welcomed Fukuyama's book as a prophecy and a revelation of the world to come. Now, more than two decades later, few ever mention or quote this book and even fewer hold the predictive powers of its author in high regard. The world has turned out to be very different from what Fukuyama divined. It is turbulent, dangerous and extremely uncertain. Many * Correspondence to: Gennady Shkliarevsky, History, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, Red Hook, NY, 12504, USA. E-mail: shkliare@bard.edu 1 I want to use this opportunity to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their very careful and nuanced reading of the earlier drafts of this paper. Their comments and suggestions are very valuable and accepted with gratitude.

No abstract

No abstract