Scientific knowledge plays a decisive role in the social and economic transformations of modern society. Separation of the “knowledge” concept from the “information” concept is now a necessary condition for the authenticity of social development study. The article deals with the problem of separating the notions of “knowledge” and “information” in the context of the knowledge society formation. On the basis of the analysis of works by F. Znaniecky, P. Drucker, F. Machlup, T. Umesao, M. Porat, Y. Masuda, and a number of other authors as well as on the basis of the analysis of social reality in the second half of the 20th century, socio-historical reasons of the confusion of the “knowledge” and “information” concepts have been defined. The relations of confusing these concepts and the formation of the knowledge society and the information society are shown. A methodological approach to the separation of the “knowledge” and “information” concepts as different psychosocial constructors is formulated. Examples are provided and negative effects of confusing the concepts of “knowledge” and “information” are discussed.

Wishing to become the master of nature, Man, has not yet become the master of his own passions. Today the world is balancing on the verge of ecological catastrophe and nuclear war of mutual destruction. All of this, and much more, makes the actual task of self-knowledge a very urgent one. Catching up with the self-knowledge, “I” notice that I represent for myself something unreachable, because it contents many various - economic, political, religious and cultural - components. My self-actualization can be blurred by political and ideological conjuncture. Russian national ideology can be understood as the deployment of the well-known formula of Earl Uvarov: “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality” through the Russian history. Each of the constituents of the formula experienced a strong shock by the time, but it is still actual, though in some modified form. It is known to the European consciousness from Christianity, that the sails of history are blown by the winds of Truth, Justice and Freedom. So it will be in the future, if the main of the Freedoms, the Freedom of creativity, will be guided by responsibility.

The article is an initial part of the authors’ cycle of research on developing a methodology for the formation of scenarios of social development at various levels of social stratification. The proposed methodology is based on the principle of interdisciplinary analysis, which makes it possible to examine the problem from different points of view and apply methods for studying the spectrum of related scientific disciplines, both humanitarian and natural, and also to use mathematical models, methods and necessary tools. The initial positions of the ideas on the creation of criteria and methods for the study of the Socium as a socio-economic system are grouped according to the following dimensions: the concept of approaches to the study of the socio-economic system, the concept of the principles of functioning and development, the forms and ways of transforming the society, informatization and automation. The philosophical bases of research, principles and methodology of scenario research of complex systems are considered: system-logical, structural-social, information-logical and scenario approaches. Taking into account these measurements of global social interaction allows us to formulate the main problems, principles and mechanisms of research in the modern world, and also put them into the practice of application on the basis of modern means of communication and advances in informatics. The authors give some examples of application of the proposed research methodology in applied projects for the development of systems of various classes and purposes. The purpose of the research is to create the foundations of the system of social design.

The article attempts to understand the nature of religion and spirituality in the form of a philosophical dialogue. Immersion in the depth of the phenomenon of spirituality led N.V. Shelkovaya to the understanding of its ineffability by the method of affirmations, but only the possibility of an apo-phatic delineation of its contours (it is not consciousness, not religiosity, not morality) and the identification of certain essential attributes (unio mystica with the Spirit by withdrawing from one’s ego, intent on “non-I” based on love for the entire world). M.Yu. Sergeev sets out the approach to spirituality in a different perspective - from the position of his theory of religious cycles, and considering religion as a living organism that passes through the initial, orthodox, classical, reformist and critical phases of development. He substantiates the deep unity of all religions by bringing out common ideas (mystical union with God, ideas of the moral foundation of the universe and the variability of the world). During the dialogue, discrepancies in views on the vision of the nature of the reason and its relationship with spirituality and religion were revealed. However, although Sergeev and Shelkovaya see differently the way out from the contemporary spiritual crisis of humanity (for Shelkovya - it is a mystical experience of uniting with God, for Sergeev - a new religious paradigm), both agree that the existing ratio-centrism is destructive for humankind.

The article criticizes the concept of personalism, according to which the immediate bearer of mental (psychic) phenomena is the system of perceptive-objective activity and social relations. It shows that such a carrier is the neurodynamic systems of the brain, and perceptive-objective activity serves as one of the conditions for the adequacy of sensory cognition. It also reveals the groundlessness of the concept of an extended psyche, wide-spread in Anglo-American philosophy, recognizing the presence of mental phenomena in sign systems, which are now used by people. The authors show that translational codes as systems of external signs do not contain mental components and do not transfer them, but cause the latter in subjects possessing sign values.

The article raises a problem of topicality of the question concerning designing a social reality and points out that the articulation of dominating ideas, their codification and progressive transformation into a necessary part of the cultural context happens within the framework of philosophical discourse. In particular, there is an analysis of transformations of the social reality, connected with the fact that philosophy of pragmatism became one of the main discourses of the meaning-making. The article assesses the role of creators and main supporters of pragmatism, their contribution to the conceptual transformation of philosophy of 20th century.It has been emphasized that in pragmatism: 1) an image of reality, the base of which is social practices, is being formed and substantiated; 2) the importance of linguistic dimension and impossibility to go beyond language borders has been increased; 3) de-transcendent image of reality, which was created during communicative practices of social actors, is being formed. It has been also emphasized that stated novelties fundamentally affect the features of the social reality of Modernity. These changes are of an ontological nature, they transform fundamental characteristics (attributes) of reality and also radically transform the ideological, axiological and praxeological dominants of the age of Modernity.

The article examines the subject of general system theory (systemology) as a separate science and its irreducibility to philosophy and mathematics. After philosophy and mathematics, it is the third science of the general properties and laws of existence, standing at the level of generality over all of the natural, socio-humanitarian and technical sciences. Since a large amount of material has been accumulated to date, we now have the right to talk about it as a separate science with a clearly delineated subject of research. Operations within the systemology are defined as one-to-one ratio of transformation of two or more than two general patterns that are defined by sets of specific regularities inherent in a large heterogeneous complex systems. (The complexity refers to the integrated (interconnected) diversity.) Consequently, general system theory is the science that considers operations with objects, marked in the verbal form (categories of dialectics, linguistic variables); the classic mathematical operations with variables and numbers related to the characteristics of at least several types of heterogeneous complex systems. The article presents a critical analysis of the earlier judgments on the subject of general system theory, showing their fallacy. It considers the questions of structure of general system theory, its role as a metatheory in relation to itself, to its parts - cybernetics, synergetics, etc. It also describes epistemological aspects of the inevitability of the selection of systemology as a separate science. The author reveals the epistemological aspects of the limited applicability of its research tools in theoretical and practical researches.