102
be serviced by an increasing number of scientific workers united by the common
task of improving human nature (or improving the combat capabilities of the
soldier): each according to its direction.
And here it is possible to introduce a distinction between the two types of PTM,
based on two ways of its formation:
natural, or marginal, created spontaneously
in the course of economic activity, practices of social adaptation in the
environment and the traditions that have come from a distance; and
system-
scientific, or labor, formed consciously, on the basis of a preliminary model of the
surrounding world, which is a systematized set of its samples and possibilities,
that is, its ontology. Such sets of the primary level are
the basis for the production
of fundamental knowledge, sets of patterns of current reproduction – also
combinatorial, but not yet massed. It is important that
the maximum formation of
PTM in the second type (scientific collection) occurs when all four aspects of its
causality (Aristotle) are involved, that is, the consciousness of such a formation
can always mean the arbitrariness and validity of the goal, and hence the
conditionality of the function of the prognostic action.
Indeed, in a well-known historical retrospective this difference appears in the
case of the Rudolphins, but the novelty (and, at the same time, the next
hypothesis introduced here) is that each of these two methods of PTM can be
replaced by another in the course of the historical process. I believe that
examples of this can be found, and it would be very interesting to dig a subject
thoroughly. This point is important not only for clarifying the optimistic position
of V. Easterley regarding knowledge as an economic factor that has emerged,
from the very beginning of European capitalism, but also for the search for highly
efficient and low-cost alternatives to technological development.
In the course of the historical process, a collection of rarities leads to a collection
of samples and standards that become part of a naturally reproduced PTM. That
is, a set of copies of the PTM, for which the main significant properties are the
labor costs for their reproduction and functionality. Thus, the gradual
development of collections is carried out, and museum business emerges as a
special cultural practice of standardizing fundamental science.
Neither the scientists of the "new university" (the source of science "fresh look")
nor the Rudolphins (the source of the science of "applied solutions") initially did
103
not represent the science of Protestant capitalism, and were in the framework of
purely Catholic traditions that tried to solve certain common tasks with scholastic
and ancient means , overcoming, however, the rigorism of these means; It is
important that both sources of science were oriented toward the tasks of the
state, although in fact the source of its existence, one of them was purely state,
and the other – commercial-state.
And in this connection – another important conclusion: the rare personalities of
the imperial scholars, personally complementing the collection of rare things,
proved to be an excellent means of replacing the Catholic ecclesiastical clergy,
oriented towards the Pope. It seems that it was precisely here that the caste of
the coryphaean academics, such a bishop of the scientific bureaucracy, who was
ready to speak from the standpoint of science as a new religion, which is old and
struggling with obscurantism and pseudoscience, formed, in the course of its
existence, in the Institute of the Academy of Sciences and much later, in the
system of these traditions in the post-war Khrushchev Soviet Union, there was a
split into the university's – "cadre", and academic – "industrial," science, which is
a cultural-discursive settlement of the ancient institution national split of
European elites). It is noteworthy that in both cases the later forms of the "First
University" and the "First Academy" of Russia, being state institutions, demanded
status and economic autonomy, each of them in different ways, and the second –
more than the first (curious , someone in general thinks of the Russian Academy
of Science in the .XX – n. XXI centuries
as a museum, rather than an office?).
So, in the framework of the two sources of scientific directions that are not far
from each other, the primary reasons for scientific competition are revealed: on
the basis of the novelty of scientific discovery – conditionally speaking, for the
first source, and on the basis of scientific work – conditionally speaking, for the
second source. "Conditionally speaking" – insofar as these details still require
their historical study. However, one can immediately say that for the tradition of
the "imperial science", where, as I assumed, the scientific bureaucracy began to
arise, the question of the criteria for scientific competences (and, accordingly,
claims on the share of the state scientific budget of various participants in the
scientific community) was more relevant, rather than the novelty with which a
specific (subsequently applied) result began to be associated – a new sample in
the collection. I would venture to assume that it was precisely from the Rudolphin