What we are dedicated to in practice is the selection and culti-vation (erroneously „development“) of the qualities of the potentials of people and human systems, and we operate in the domain of „education“ with the ambition to prepare people for residence, survival and prosperity in a modern environment not only in an adaptation and adjustment way, but in particular, to meaningfully co-create this environment through proactive, aware and reflective cognition, decision-making and action. Our ambition is to cultivate the natural qualities of people’s potentials in the sense of the „complex savant „, in a natural way. One path – technological and technicist (techno-official and mechano-official), the other holistic „metaphysically postbiotic“ path (development of the natural abilities of the human mind with the use of modern technologies). However, postbiotic does not mean inorganic, alive (or not), or non-living, only and purely living, however immaterial. Perhaps, in Platonic terms, we would use the term conscious living being, or phenomenolo-gically speaking, self-aware being, i.e. thinking about the living and its evolution in a different mode than we are used to Cartesian thinking about the living (in Aristotelian terms about the physical), as being, and about its being, whether with the predominance of anthropocentrism, biocentrism, sociocentrism or scientocentrism or theocentrism. Indeed, it is appropriate, among other things, to re-enter the ontological level and pay attention to the phenomenon of „being“ about itself, to the epistemological level and pay attention to what we think of as knowledge, consciousness and knowing, mind or intelligence, as well as to the axiological level and examine whether properly study the subject of values. For example, from the point of view of intelligence, be able to realistically decide: „What, when, where and why is more important, whether it is the ability to achieve a goal or whether it is the quality of the ability to solve problems?“
Therefore, we necessarily focus on the mind, thinking, ways of knowing and creating information and knowledge (their communication and sharing – communication), for meaningful decision-making and actions of specific people and human systems (with different specifics – team; enterprise = business; firm; institution, etc.). This always happens in some kind of environment, which is still evolving (changing and transforming) to varying degrees and intensity of dynamics, just like people and human systems.
The necessity of a multidimensional and multiparametric approach is shown. That is, against the complexity and dynamics of the external environment, to „build“ (get to know, cultivate, i.e. valorize and develop) the complexity and dynamics of the qualities of the whole individual (human being) and human community (team). In this sense, one can consider the nature of the claim „to know the same by the same“. The need for a multi-dimensional and multi-parametric approach is also justified with regard to the dynamics and complexity of the „internal“ environment of the individual/team, for a believable and verifiable quantification of qualities. It turned out that explanatory one- or two-dimensional ones are not enough methodologies defining (axiomatizing) „what we measure “ and converting „quality“ into data, enabling their „visibility“, whether in the form of a tensor or a graph, etc. The quality of the mind, or the nature of thinking from the point of view of cognition, can be more or less „captured“ according to our experience multidimensionally, to record its rate and intensity (level) with at least two or better three or more methods, aspiring to measure the same, or „similar“, in different „states“ of the whole system. It is thanks to multiparametrics that we study/ investigate „dimensions“ that are only verbally/ categorically differentiated (physiological – psychophysical – mental), in the entirety of the individual, with an overlap into the system that individuals (human beings) create with their existence or with an overlap into environment (conditions and circumstances of the situation). In this context, the need for a „different“ type of „environment“ than the standardization-encrusted conditions of a situation that is never repeated in reality has necessarily arisen. Thus, the fact of real discontinuity between the individual situations of the system as a whole is over-shadowed on the one hand by the influence of illusion or prejudice or the immanent assumption of causality, and on the other hand it is also overshadowed by the „continuity“ of the ego and its experience (the empirical ego in linear temporality establishing the individual’s sense of identity). Our experience at the ego (i.e. subjective) level or even at the „higher“ level, socio-cultural, manifested as belief, dogma, tradition, proven procedure, method, norm or stereotype. These are „continuities“ also involved in reducing the degree of „tension“ from uncertainty, whether arising from the meaning/sense of what we are doing here, when we are here, and something already by simply being, doing, and thereby becoming something “ happening“ even if we are not/doing anything right now and are just like that, or in the sense of a successful prediction of what „will be“, whether it is the tradition of teleological certainty from a „plan“, or teleonomic certainty from the fact that what I do, how I act and what I do is meaningful (ontological aspects), right, useful, has some meaning, worth and value (axiological aspects). This need for a specific environment results in the design of a model of the whole system (man/human system – situation/context – task/problem) which works with being, happening with the “basic situation”, and in this sense follows on from the concept of non-substantial ontology proposed by E. Bondy , in which the dominant role is played by the „situation without determination“, which is, from our point of view and point of view, a nondual holistic version with competitive potential against substantial models of ontology and subsequently epistemology, and especially against their limitations. The model is then radically pragmatic, „objective“ or, if you like, „subjective“ (it doesn’t matter whether you /is „it“/ a subjective or an objective opinion).