How does social conscious relate to the facts
which lye beyond existing paradigms?  

      It's not a secret for science, that social conscious of the
human civilization defends itself from the facts which don't  fit
in the  frames  of  existing  world  view  ideas  and  scientific
concepts.  The transformation of scientific paradigms  was  fully
and  presented  by  T.Koun  ("The   structure    of    scientific
revolutions", M., 1975).  The example  of  science  in  the  USSR
vividly illustrates the problems of studying  the  approaches  to
new phenomena and facts - at the end of 80-s - beginning of  90-s
of the past century the whole range of  works  was  dedicated  to
this topic in periodicals  and  methodological  digests.  We  are
interested in a wider setting of this problem: to be  precise  in
what way a typological approach to the unknown, unfamiliar  facts
forms the very cognitive structure of social conscious. Following
that, we could raise an issue  about  the  necessity  of  such  a
cognitive methodology, which could allow us to rather impartially
perceive phenomenological material, that doesn't fit  in  already
existing structures.  The attitude of a regular individual to the
unknown  is  the  phenomenon  of  the  perception,    based    on
authoritarian trust.  This notion is rather vague and we wouldn't
want to define it more clearly, so we could speak more about  the
essence rather than the formal side of the phenomenon itself.
      It looks like an average  Mr.  Smith  might  not  know  the
mechanism of the refrigerator  or  a  TV,  which  daily  produces
important for its owner images.  An average Mr. Smith knows  that
somewhere there is Mr.  Smith -the constructor,  Mr.  Smith  -the
technician and similar people who created  this  phenomenon,  the
initial Mr.  Smith himself could  be  a  specialist  in  his  own
sphere.  There is a  rather  objective  informational  dependence
between them all, which  bases  on  this  functional  element  of
conscious-authoritarian trust.  And each  Mr.  Smith,  without  a
thought is positive about  the  reality  of  this  all,  that  is
directly related to all Mr. Smiths -the specialists.
      If each of these Mr. Smiths sees with his own eyes a "space
ship", a UFO which is the subject of all social  talks  and  even
writes about this case to a newspaper - subsequently it will turn
out that our hero will not  only  be  unsure  in  the  origin  of
unidentified fact, but even after  getting  the  opinion  of  Mr.
Smith whom he trusts can doubt his own perception - even  to  the
extent of doubting his own psychological  and  mental  integrity.
And there is no need to prove - the psychologists have  performed
these experiments a lot of times and they  proved,  that  if  one
strange unexplainable fact had  a  small  meaning  or,  say,  was
labeled as a regular thing, this fact would  not  be  taken  into
consideration by regular conscious. It will be "non-existent". In
science this fact might be wholly reinterpreted in the  framework
of existing paradigms, religion will be adjusting it  to  dogmas;
art would use it according to some certain methods of the feature
creativity - digesting it as the result  of  imagination.  "Don't
believe your eyes" or "this can't be because this can never be" -
these are the results of processed information about  such  facts
in the framework  of  existing  views.  And  this  happens  until
science would explain it in an authorized way or  religion  would
bring out a new revelation...  The inertness of social  conscious
is so strong  that  the  theory  of  relativity  was  exposed  to
"burning" discussions and arguments (far from professional),  the
first Christians were crucified, and Van Gouge couldn't sell  his
single painting and so on.  What are the grounds,  principles  of
such an attitude towards the world - not more and not less?
      By posing this question we  need  to  make  a  step  aside.
According to what principles would we provide the answer to  this
question? - Logic,  coming  out  of  some  particular  system  of
authoritarian trust. Each approach - scientific, religious, and
creative - has some  certain  canons,  which  in  regular  social
conscious boils down to the very trust. And by methodological way
in this phenomenon of  trust  we  could  see  only  the  simplest
components: dogmas, postulates,  axioms,  initial  ideas,  rules,
styles, which are perceived by the structure of  facts  (a  myth,
scientific contents in a certain field, states of the art, simply
obvious and having some living sense objects - a fridge, a TV,  a
hammer, a computer, an authority (the messiah, the creator of the
style, a specialist).  Let's note that social conscious  to  some
certain degree is filled with the perceived structure  of  facts,
in  general  representing  dogmas  and  using  the  services   of
authorities.
      Of course, our pattern is very superficial,  but  from  the
principle point of view we could accept  only  that.  We  proceed
from the assumption that these components would be sufficient for
building a cognitive structure.  There  will  be  naturally  some
searching vectors out of  which  the  development  of  each  such
structure occurs. Let's try to draw what comes out of it.



      1. Science.

      In science the axioms, postulates or initial ideas are  the
centers of crystallization of some certain research  (as  a  rule
there are some exceptions).  These  ideas  form  the  theoretical
core, and are performed by theoretics: this is the  fundament  of
science. Along the different sides from this fundament there grow
conclusions, consequences, which produce either new initial ideas
or simply practical results. It is clear that such structure will
be fractal to some certain degree - i.e.  on the  basis  of  more
fundamental parts there appear private  and  applied  spheres  of
science similar to them.  The personalities of authorities  don't
have any practical meaning here, it is vice versa  the  authority
of the person, formed on the basis of  the  made  discovery.  The
forming of the new almost always proceeds from  existing  initial
ideas,  dogmas;  resulting  to  the  inertness  of  the   science
structure- sometimes it can be very pathological.
      Searching factors embrace new fields in the sphere  of  the
unknown, adjusting it to the well-known amount  of  knowledge  by
direct connections or by creating some new concepts  which  don't
contradict in principle to the existing  ones.  Branches  of  the
structure appear and in the  structure  may  stay  lacunas.  When
there are too of these lacunas  in  some  particular  field,  the
structure  of  perceived  factors  becomes    unstable,    openly
contradicting to the fundamental principles.  And  the  "iceberg"
might overturn - the transformation of  paradigms  occurs,  which
often destroys the part of the mass and rebuilds the structure.

      The fact which don't fit in the structure in  any  way  may
stay tangled up with logical connections for a long time till the
new, fundamental theory,  surrounded  by  authorities  is  built,
proving its connections with the old ones; until then these facts
will not be trusted neither by science  nor  by  regular  people,
oriented  to  this  part  of  public  conscious.  UFO  will    be
unidentified.  However, they are not necessarily unidentified. To
keep the "building" safe, (  we  can  also  refer  to  it  as  an
"iceberg"), the representatives of science (usually hard core  or
"generals") classify particular facts or the argument about words
and  definitions;  attempts  to  rebuild  the  structure  without
changing its fundament take place.  This way  the  mechanisms  of
defending this organism appear.

     2. Religion

      In religion the first place belongs to the authority -  the
messiah, the prophet, who created the system  of  dogmas  on  the
whole world.  In its turn, the structure of  perceived  facts  is
built inside assigned ideas and myths.  It is noticeable that  so
subsequences might stay without any facts for a  long  period  of
time; other facts will exist because they were  assigned  in  the
zone of authority (miracles) but something might not be  embraced
from the very beginning (initially).
      As we all know religion has been fighting with these  sorts
of heresies "coming from nature" - however  after  that  it  acts
inconsistently, which seems to be interpreting the  dogmas,  i.e.
never rebuilding the whole integral system.
      The schism in religious public conscious  as  contradictory
as it may seem is not connected with  perceived  facts  -  it  is
connected only with the interpretations of the dogmas, i.e. these
are heresies which found their fundament and authority  but  i  a
different plane of its relation to it.

      Searching vectors of  religious  conscious  come  from  the
units and stems of dogmas, lately more and more often coming  out
of borders of existing perceived facts (this happens for the most
different reasons) and expanding dogma structure similar  to  the
first one ( i.e.  the factorization  goes  in  the  direction  of
enlargement).  It makes sense to note, that  besides,  this  pure
type of public  cognitive  structure,  (which  regular  conscious
often uses) claims for some science-like structure - which is the
phenomenon of ideology. The ideology might have the hypertrophied
or collective figure of authority and it doesn't have an integral
mythology; ideology  even  more  than  religion  is  targeted  at
emotions (similar to art), at  a  consumer  (it  is  typical  for
scientific products), as well as it  uses  science  like  proofs,
which subsequently works like dogmas.  In this sense of  ideology
(don't confuse it with political determination  which  is  not  a
cognitive structure!) with its claims for the cognitive character
are ephemeral and not stable.  They are conjunctions of cognitive
and managing mechanisms of public conscious.

     3. Art

      If religion considers cognition as a solved issue, the  art
sort of doesn't claim to the research functions at least  in  the
objective world.
      Let's note that art doesn't go through the  crises  of  the
fundament, dogmas, and styles.  The style might be  forgotten  or
outdated or extinct and exhausted.  The style can serve the  mass
market and turn out to be not needed with the  new  perception  o
reality. Here the fundament is the perceived structure - works of
art, which assign the perception of the  environment  very  often
through the principle similar to its own.  And the initial one is
the authority - the authority that hasn't  just  opened  the  new
principle of perception, but the authority that is recognized for
some particular reasons  or  a  person  with  a  very  strong  PR
campaign.  The initial state of the  subjective  perception  very
often allows to choose more new surfaces of the style and to form
one and the  same  actual  structure  with  absolutely  different
points of view. How does this reflect on the regular conscious?
      It gives namely subjective principles of life order to  the
prerogative of the art: the peculiarities of  culture,  technical
and ritual decor (here art in some sense merges with science  and
religion, sort of creating their regular environment), the  types
of leisure, ways of spending time for public etc.  New incredible
facts, according to the previous ideas and notions,  are  applied
in the range of types  and  styles  of  art,  even  separate  new
directions start to appear (for example science  fiction)  -  but
regular conscious clearly  separates  these  forms  of  perceived
structures from purely scientific to  the  canonically  religious
ones.
      A very interesting effect turns up: with its primary nature
of the authority, which states always  a  well-known  fact,  that
its' opinion is subjective,  art  not  only  forms  a  subjective
environment, but also gains as the result of it  any  impressions
which don't fit in existing paradigms of  positive  thinking  and
also conserves outdated paradigms if they have any esthetic value
(for example  myths  and  fairy  tales  which  served  before  as
religious principles which reflected ideas of the reality).

      Art doesn't have problems of self-defense and restructuring
- it gives right for the regular perception  to  those  who  were
able to prove the meaning  of  their  subjective  perception  (it
occurs with establishing of each style).  However, actually it  i
the regular perception which has to seek defense from  art,  even
rarely - when the  art's  free  principles  affect  the  person's
perception of the world.  The typical example in this  regard  is
the influence of romanticism on the regular mentality of  Smiths'
psychology, the spreading  of  agnostic  ideas  in  a  very  well
performed form on the character of the world  view  (H.L.  Borges
demonstrated it very vividly in his works).

      Having its own labiality it also prepares  a  psychological
breakthrough in the perception of the new: on its  basis  regular
conscious  realizes  far  countries  and  somehow  prepares   for
perceiving aliens from space.
      Have  we  touched  all  cognitive  structures?   Concerning
regular conscious - we have considered all  of  them,  of  course
there is philosophy,  which  doesn't  come  directly  neither  to
positive science nor religion and as a very reputable person from
the philosophical circle once  put  it,  and  philosophy  is  the
"feature where abstractions play the roles of the  main  heroes".
There  are  also  esoteric  sciences.  However,  these  cognitive
structures in its specifics  are  not  typical  for  the  regular
conscious.  Taking some intermediate place in every-day  reality,
philosophy and mysticism are  exaggerated  up  to  the  forms  of
science or religion and sometimes  (let's  remember  Borges  once
more) art.

      Having made  a  survey  we  realize  that  principally  new
unknown unexplainable facts like the same UFOs and even necessary
new  approaches  to  the   research    inaccessible    phenomenon
(bio-energetics, time, gravitation),  stay  unexplainable  namely
due to th reasons of inflexibility of already existing structures
of perception,  which  are  considered  objective  -  or  due  to
unserious   attitude    the    subjective    ones.    The    same
scientists-authorities - having already  become  as  such  -  are
raised and educated in the  inert  structure  of  regular  social
conscious and perception, absorbing its languages and logic.  And
to destroy the system or restructure it without having to destroy
it, is impossible - we can state with some regret  that  the  new
approach  to  new  unexplainable  facts  will  stay  to  the   TV
specialists on the level of regular listening up.
      But maybe there is an alternative of forming some  sort  of
structure of perceived facts?  Maybe  a  cognitive  approach  can
exist, maybe it bases not on static elements of the structure but
on its logical connections and searching  vectors?  Can  there  b
such a system of views, reasonable even  on  the  regular  level,
which  could  allow  the  movement  of  the  elements  and  their
connections inside the  system  without  refuting  them  and  not
bringing them down to the subjective ness?
      Taking into account  the  factors  of  performed  analyses,
let's note that this possibility is utopist.  However,  according
to the range of old historic and futurological concepts in accent
times, a similar methodological system  (though  only  within  th
chosen circle) existed - metaphysics, which combined a  religious
view of the world and almost scientific and research approach and
influence on the symbols and styles in art as well.
      By the way, the fundaments of math, medicine and psychology
take direct roots from the system  of  ancient  metaphysics.  And
only later on (rather long ago it was Aristotle who gave  it  the
very name) "metaphysics" became  just  a  variety  of  philosophy
leading to  its  redefining  into  a  static  and  dogmatic  form
(Hegel's).    That's    why    we    have    to    leave     this
not-quite-bad-in-general term to history and start  working  with
requirements for the methodological structure as such.
      The scheme of sought for methodology looks like a  network,
in which accumulated by mankind structures of  facts  with  their
dogmatic "frameworks" and authorities, historical achievements of
whose in cognition of truth are not detracted and even can gain a
new meaning,  are  preserved  and  rather  freely  transform  and
interrelate - because a view from the outside  is  possible.  And
this view, regardless whose  one  it  is,  can  fully  claim  for
objectivity - the objectivity in  searching  and  not  in  static
sense.
      It would have been more correct to compare this system  (if
it functions and constantly moves even from the  actively  showed
regular interest or doubt) not to  "network"  but  to  some  aqua
environment,  in  which  those  structures,  sticking  out  their
tentacles and pretending to be stones crawling  back  and  forth,
would be able to "swim", even unsurely.

      Let's pay attention that in this suggested system there  is
some framework of Meta postulates, on and through which searching
vectors glide.  This framework is like force fields which  create
stability  and  ground  for  particular  estimates,    hypothesis
concepts, and assumptions so that gelatinization wouldn't happen.
      And one more thing:  it  is  obvious  that  to  "smiw"  and
flexibly  re-adjust  we  need  additional  degrees  of   freedom,
increasing of the number of homogeneous dimensions of the  search
surface.  That's why "metacognitive" methodology must  be  really
multi dimensional and allow regular conscious to take a  look  at
the interested subject not just from the view points of  science,
religion, art but from some syncretic, multi  target  side.  When
will the creation of  similar  methodology  become  possible?  We
think (of course without proof - the question  is  -  from  which
point shall we prove it?), that social conscious could be able to
do this too - only some  integrating  factors  are  lacking,  the
facts which are habitually expected from the authorities.
      Of course, all common  inertness  of  regular  world  views
especially in the educational field and media sort of  stands  in
the way.  The incognizable is  being  restructured,  interpreted,
somewhat increasing  well-known  structures,  and  reality  stays
uncognized.  At this pessimistic note we would conclude  all  our
thoughts to avoid getting deeper into the fields of  a  fantastic
character.