Call for Abstracts

10th International Seminar on Biocosmology (10ISBC)

Contemporary issues and Biocosmological perspectives for the development of Asian naturalism

October 30 –November 2, 2015

Beijing Normal University

Beijing, China


The notion of “naturalism” has currently a large number of meanings that apply as to science and philosophy, as to the arts. Consequently, modern scholar can easily become confused - in which meaning s/he ought to understand “naturalism”. Indeed, one may think about various aspects: of materialism, physicalism, empiricism, or of sociological or religious naturalism, or of naturalistic pantheism or supernaturalism, or Hinduist systems of knowledge, or the philosophy of A.N. Whitehead, or of naturalist styles in literature, visual arts, theatre, etc.

Among this great variety of different meanings, our Biocosmological (naturalist) approach essentially appeals to the original (fundamental, true) significance of naturalism. Modern science started from Aristotle’s Physics (study of nature, in Greek – φύσις phúsis) – Naturalist Organicist phusislogy. Essentially, Aristotle’s science (with reference to all modern divisions of scholarly knowledge: natural, human and social, ethical and philosophical, formal, applied) have the common (Naturalist) principles and laws of their organization, which ultimately are reduced to the same fundamental principles of his Physics (naturalist knowledge). At the same time, essentially, Aristotle's Hylomorphism and Organicist aetiology is cognate with Asian naturalism that treats all the phenomena (natural, social, cultural, ways of life) as the constituents of the one whole real Organicist world (Cosmos). 

Famous British Sinologist Joseph Needham characterized Chinese worldview as “organic naturalism”, wherein “the harmonious cooperation of all beings arose, not from the orders of a superior authority external to themselves, but from the fact that they were all parts in a hierarchy of wholes forming a cosmic pattern, and what they obeyed were the internal dictates of their own nature” [Needham, 1991]. In the similar vein, renown American Sinologist Frederick Mote emphasized that “the basic point which outsiders have found so hard to detect is that the Chinese, among all peoples ancient and recent, primitive and modern, are apparently unique in having no creation myth; that is, they have regarded the world and man as uncreated, as constituting the central features of a spontaneous self-generating cosmos having no creator, god, ultimate cause or will external to itself” [Mote, 1971].

In general, Asian naturalism is characterized as “Pan-naturalism” [Kwang Myung Kim, 2015]. Another Korean scholar, Hee-Sung Keel supports this thesis and complements that “Naturalism is a pan-Asian view of the world and way of life,” [2012] and which embraces all the constituents of the real world: natural, social, cultural, religious, scientific, way of life, etc. Prof. H.-S. Keel states that Asian naturalism “goes beyond the traditional Western antithesis of naturalism and supernaturalism,” and that Asian naturalism (“an old vision”) must be rehabilitated “for a new world”, for “the ecological-environmental crisis of our age cannot be overcome without a fundamental change in our attitude toward nature” [Ibid.] Similarly, Japanese outstanding bioethicist Prof. Hyakudai Sakamoto, raised (in 2004) the issue of exploration the essential nature of Asian humanism and (in general) Asian naturalism, because “the Asian view of Nature is historically heterogeneous from the European” and is essentially different from Euro-American mindset that is basically “Human-centric”. According to Sakamoto, “Fundamental naturalism is pervasive in all Asian thought…. the essence of the Asian ethos is... ‘a holistic harmony’ in contrast to the modern European inclination to dualistic individualism.” [1999] 

Biocosmology fully supports afore stated standpoints and, moreover, endeavors to actualize the potentials of Asian naturalism in the area of scholarly activity. Substantiating and developing the contemporary (neo)Aristotelian scientific Organicism (that is based on the cosmological principle of Hylomorphism and Four-causal aetiology, with the leading role of intrinsic teleodriven causes) – Biocosmology presents a clear perspective of scholarly execution and, thus, of a contemporary update and globalization of Asian naturalism potentials. Substantially, the Biocosmological Association (BCA) relates to Aristotle’s (Father of science) philosophical (super)system as the  unified whole of scholarly knowledge – of Naturalist (scientific) Organicism; and which is autonomic, serving in all times as the Type of cognitive activity (Organicist type of rationality). Thus, the latter is essentially active and efficient in all eras of scholarly endeavors and all spheres of philosophy and science (all its sections), and which any and all are reduced to one the same fundamentals of aetiology, gnoseology, methodology, anthropology, as well as the principles of socioculturology, global and evolutionary studies.

A key point is that the Biocosmological (neo-Aristotelian) approach perceives the natural world as it really is – essentially Organicist (Biocosmist): Heterogeneous, Hierarchic and inherently Changeable – Dynamic, Cyclic, Bipolar and Triadic (and with the natural change in domination of the cycles of Potentiality and Actuality). Likewise, the Biocosmist naturalism is teleological, while modern Western ‘naturalism’ (which is synonymous with materialism) rejects “purpose” and intentional realities, in principle.

Thereby, applying the Triadologic approach (firstly, with reference to Pitirim Sorokin’s dynamic cyclic theory) and attracting the actual potentials of Asian naturalism (mainly inherent in the powerful Eastern philosophies of Daoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism) – we aim at positive results in substantiation true (effective) methodologies, on this basis – turning to the appropriate use of modern enormous (objective scientific) knowledge. A cornerstone is that in full accordance with the viewpoints of aforementioned professors (Needham, Mote, Keel, Sakamoto) – which treat Asian naturalism as the autonomic holistic cognitive potential - our endeavor (Biocosmological approach) aims at the substantiation and rendering the main forms of Asian naturalism as the paradigms of Integral knowledge (Integral T_SCSS – Type of SocioCultural SuperSystem, in terms of P.Sorokin’s theory), and which (Integral T_SCSS) is intermediate - in-between - other two autonomic polar T_SCSS and, accordingly – two poles of scholarly knowledge: modern dominating Positivism (with its mathematical-physicalist essence); and, which still is out of due concern and use – the Aristotelian scientific Organicism. The latter, in the Biocosmological approach, is basically taken and viewed as the comprehensive, top-to-bottom supersystem and Type of knowledge, i.e. which is reduced to its own autonomic Naturalist, of Biocosmist essence principles: the Four-causal aetiology (with the main or equal significance of inherent teleodriven causes), Integral gnoseology (with central or equal value of scholarly intuition), Functionalist telic methodology; bio-socio-Cosmist anthropology and socioculturology, and universalizing Bio-metaphysics and Bio-physics (Bio-sciences - of all classes - natural, human and social, formal, applied) which follow or recognize the Naturalist (Organicist) principles of Heterogeneity, Hierarchical order and Changeability of the real world-cosmos (with the basic principles of Dynamicity, Bipolarity, Triadicity, and Cyclicity).

In general, our main endeavor – assigned to the 10ISBC and conceived primarily to the implementation of Asian naturalism potentials - is to introduce and substantiate a new global (Naturalist, Biocosmological) perspective of cultural (scholarly, first of all) explorations, aimed at the resolution of topical sociocultural issues in the course of on-going  (local and global) safe and prosperous development.



Deadline for Abstract Submission (to the addresses below) – June 30, 2015

The abstracts should not exceed 2 pages, and must include:

1.    Title of the contribution;

2. Names, academic titles, affiliation (departments, institutes/universities, and cities of authors), email address of corresponding author;

3. Key words (3-5);

4. Text (Font - Times New Roman, single spaced, size - 14, margins - 2 cm).

5. Language (of the whole Seminar) is English.

Full papers of presentations (in the form of scholarly essays) are kindly invited to be prepared and sent to Dr. Konstantin Khroutski, editor of the journal “Biocosmology – neo-Aristotelism” – until August 15, 2015 - for their reviewing and the further publication.

With kindest regards,


Xiaoting LIU, Ph. D.

President, the Biocosmological Association -

Professor, College of Philosophy and Sociology, Beijing Normal University / Center for Science and Humanity Studies, Beijing 100875, China


Konstantin S. Khroutski, Ph.D.

Secretary of the Biocosmological Association -

Editor, “Biocosmology – neo-Aristotelism”

Docent at the Novgorod State University after Yaroslav-the-Wise

Veliky Novgorod, Russia

















在众多不同含义之间,有机宇宙论(自然主义)路径从本质上诉诸于自然主义的始源(基础的、真正的)意义。现代科学始于亚里士多德物理学(study of nature, in Greek – φύσις phúsis– Naturalist Organicist phusislogy)。根本上说,亚里士多德的科学(关涉所有现代学科知识的分类:自然、人与社会,伦理和哲学,基础和应用的科学)有着普遍的(自然主义的)原理和组织法则,并最终被还原为他的物理学(自然知识)的同一的基本原则。与此同时,实质上亚里士多德哲学中的形质说(质型说)、机体病理学与那种把一切现象(自然的、社会的、文化的和生活方式等)看作完整和真实的有机世界组成部分的亚洲自然主义是同源的。

著名的英国汉学家李约瑟把中国的世界观特征描述为“有机自然主义”,万物和谐运作并非来自一种超越的权威秩序,而是基于它们都是形成宇宙整体样态的各个层次的一部分这个事实,进而遵从它们自身内在的自然法则而已(Needham, 1991)。与约瑟夫持有类似观点的还有知名的美国汉学家弗雷德里克•莫特,他强调“一个令局外人很难理解的基本观点是,无论是古代还是当代的、早先的还是当代的中国人,在没有创造神话这一事情上显然是独一无二的,即,他们把世界和人看成非创造物,作为没有造物主、上帝、终极因或者外在意志的自发和自我产生着的宇宙核心功能(Mote, 1971)。

一般来说,亚洲的自然主义往往被称作“泛自然主义” Kwang Myung Kim, 2015)。另外一位韩国学者,Hee-Sung Keel 支持这个论点并补充说:“自然主义是一个‘泛亚洲’的世界观和生活方式” 2012),这种世界观和生活方式包含了现实世界(自然、社会、宗教、科学和生活方式,等等)的所有组成部分。Keel教授认为亚洲的自然主义“超越了传统西方的自然主义和超自然主义的对立面”,且为了一个新世界,也因为没有对待自然态度的根本转变我们这个时代的生态环境危机就无法克服,亚洲自然主义(“一种古老的视角”)必须被重新展示(同上)。无独有偶,日本著名的伦理学家Hyakudai Sakamoto教授于2004年提出了探索亚洲的人文主义和(一般意义上的)自然主义的本质的问题,因为“亚洲的自然观自古便与欧洲的自然观不同”,“本质上也不同于欧美基于人类中心主义的倾向”。根据Sakamoto教授的说法,“在亚洲思想中,基本的自然主义盛行……与当代欧洲个人主义的二元论倾向比照而言,亚洲民族精神的本质是……‘一种整体主义和谐’” 1999)。

有机宇宙论完全支持上述提到的观点,还致力于在学术活动领域去实现亚洲的自然主义。证实且发展当代新亚里士多德主义科学的有机论(这基于伴随起主导作用的目的动力因的亚里士多德的形式质料说和四因说的宇宙论原理)——有机宇宙论呈现出一个清晰的学术视角,即,当代更新的视域,以及亚洲自然主义潜能的全球化视域。大体上,有机宇宙论学会 (BCA)涉及亚里士多德(科学之父)的哲学(超级)体系,该体系作为自然主义(科学)的有机论的学术知识的统一整体,它是自治的,作为认知活动类型(有机论的理性类型)服务于所有时代。因此,在学术努力的所有时代、全部哲学与科学领域(所有分支),以及它们的任何一个分支和全部领域被还原到一个相同的病理学(原因论)、认知论、方法论、人类学、社会文化学、全球与进化学的基础上,因此后者实质上是能动的和有效的。


因此,运用三元论的进路(首当其冲的是关于Pitirim Sorokin的动态循环理论),并诱发亚洲自然主义(主要根植于极具思想性的东方哲学,如道家、儒家、印度教、佛教)的现实潜能。我们旨在实证上真实有效的方法论中寻找积极有意义的成果,在这个基础上,转向恰当运用现代大量(客观的科学的)知识。上述教授们(Needham, Mote, Keel, Sakamoto)得出一致观点的重要基石是,他们都将亚洲自然主义作为一种自治的整体的认知潜能来看待。而我们(有机宇宙论的路径)则致力于实证,并提出作为整合认知范式的亚洲自然主义的主要形式(整合的T-SCSS,即 整合社会-文化的超级系统类型,就P.Sorokin的理论术语而言),而它(整合的社会-文化超级系统)在另外两个自治的“整合的社会-文化超级系统”理论之间起到了中间媒介作用:一极是现代占据主导地位的实证主义(拥有数理本质),另一极是依旧没有得到应有关注和使用的亚里士多德的科学有机论。后者在有机宇宙论的路径中被看作可理解的从上至下的超级知识体系和知识型,即,它被还原为自己自主的自然主义的、有机宇宙的根本原则:四因说(与目的-动力因具有同等重要的意义)、整体认知论(与学术直觉具有同等的价值)、功能主义有目的的方法论。有机社会宇宙的人类学与社会文化学,以及普遍化的有机的形而上学、有机的物理学(有机的科学——关于自然、人类、社会、学术和应用的所有分类),它们都追随或承认自然主义(有机论)的现实世界-宇宙(拥有动态性、两极性、三重性和循环性的基本原理)的异质性、多层次性秩序以及可变性的自然主义(有机论)原理。







2、作者的姓名、学术头衔、隶属(院系、机构、大学,作者所在的城市),及email 地址;













北京 100875




康斯坦丁 S. 克罗斯基博士