Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management

and IT Business

Maxim Polyakov

1 a

, Igor Khanin

2 b

, Nikolai Bormatenko

3 c

and Sergiy Kosenchuk

3 d

Managing Partner, Noosphere Ventures Inc., 1906 El Camino Real, Suite 201, Menlo Park, U.S.A.

Department of International Economic Affairs, National University of Water Management and Nature Resources Use,

Rivne, Ukraine

Researcher, Noosphere Ventures Inc., 103A, Gagarina, Dnipro, Ukraine

Keywords: Integration of Objects and Subjects of Activity, Vertical and Horizontal Integration of Knowledge, Quasi-

Physical Approach to Conscious Phenomena, Paradigmatic Innovative Development of Cognition and

Economy, Paradigm of Ontology of Sign Constructions.

Abstract: The problem of integration of finance, economics, management and IT business is the problem of activities’

integration, digitalized with application of IT. Digitization leaves unsolved questions of cognitive activities

objects’ integration. This disintegration is partially compensated on the humanitarian level by optimization

of subjects’ behaviour. But integration on level of physical and informational objects of activity stays

insufficient. The experience convinces that its strengthening is impossible without vertical integration of

knowledge about conscious phenomena, and horizontal integration of conscious and natural sciences

knowledge. Products of conscious activity are programs and databases. The understanding of their essence

led to building of bilateral development models of cognition and economy. On this basis, the vertical of

knowledge for spheres of sign phenomena, is built. It contains in its core the paradigm of sign constructions

ontology. It is received with method of immersion from concrete to abstract. The result is used for

ascending from abstract to concrete. On the way to data infrastructures as flexible “junctions” between

fragments of activity, paradigms of data and computer programs are received. Their essence which is called

quasi-physical is defined by analogy with computer programs, where signifier and signified have no

physical connection but have correspondence.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7896-2486

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4221-2314

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4750-6290

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-3938

1 INTRODUCTION

The economy includes interrelated heterogeneous

objects. It is people, money, power sources,

materials, documents, etc. The integrity of such

complexes is ensured by people. Their activities are

difficult to be technologized, despite undoubtedly

high IT potential. Starting from a certain level of

semantic diversity of data, IT face the difficulties

even in the case of the trivial processing of diverse

data. Particularly, it happens if the data have a

variable structure.

Such complexes as economic and information

ones, where their essence is still uncertain, are now

commonly referred to as systems. In combination

with the emergence, the concept of the system,

associated in natural sciences with order, actually

became an implicit synonym of disorder.

However, even with such a logical basis,

addressing the challenges of integration of IT,

business, finances and management is also possible,

while being empirical and heuristic, i.e.

preparadigmatic. These solutions intended not so

much for the integrated objects, but rather for the

personnel, who should ensure the integration.

Fundamental solution to the problems of

technologization and integration of information and

economic processes, that this paper focuses on, is

Polyakov, M., Khanin, I., Bormatenko, N. and Kosenchuk, S.

Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business.

DOI: 10.5220/0007757000700077

In International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business (FEMIB 2019), pages 70-77

ISBN: 978-989-758-370-4

possible by forming the knowledge basis including,

along with technologies and practices, deep levels of

cognition – philosophy, methodology, math,

fundamental and applied scientific paradigms and

theories. We called the innovations, covering such

levels of cognition, paradigm innovations.

In order to implement the integration “in the

world”, it should first take place “in the minds”. The

approach, used therein, is related to the concept of

noosphere. This concept arose in the 1920s in Paris

in the social circle, including Edouard Le Roy,

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Chardin 1987) and

Vladimir Vernadsky (Vernadsky 2004). This

concept was significantly ahead of time. Only a few

comprehended the idea of noosphere as it was

understood by Vladimir Vernadsky. The latter,

primarily, meant continuity of social historical

evolvement with regard to natural history.

Noosphere should comprise biosphere and

physiosphere and, at the same time, it should have

its own nature and consist of the bodies of the same

nature. In our opinion, such bodies are signs.

Actually, Vladimir Vernadsky pointed out that in

cognition of conscious phenomena it is possible to

be guided by approach, applied in cognition of

natural phenomena. As distinct from physicalism,

which tries to disseminate the results of physics

beyond physiosphere, the objects of quasi-physical

approach are not the conscious phenomena

themselves, but the quasi-physical effects, created

by these phenomena. In our case, these objects are

represented by computer programs, databases and

knowledge bases, economic organizations.

Until the vertical of knowledge is formed, at

least, in general terms, delineation of the spheres and

levels of cognition (subject specialization) here will

be premature. All basic levels of cognition, from

practical to philosophical, are represented in this

paper. It is not an accident and it is not eclecticism.

According to PIDev and VIK models (see below)

such integration bears principal meaning, being, in

our view, a prerequisite for fundamental solution of

the problem of FEMIB integration. In order to have

“normal science” and to make specialization

possible, we need to develop a vertical of

knowledge, which is formed as a whole. Here the

specific problems like integration of FEMIB play the

role of the goal as well as means.

2 BASIC CONCEPTS

Traditionally, knowledge is divided into natural and

humanitarian. The specific nature of cognition

consists in the fact that consciousness produces just

one of two parts of sign body. It is a signifying part,

that should correspond to the second – the signified

part. The signifiers (for instance, text, photo, and

movie) eventually point to the natural bodies,

provided that the scope of the concept of sign body

will also include dynamic (temporal) and multiple

formations. The signifying parts of the sign

represent the result of the processes, similar to

programming, even if it is not about computer

programs. Their application consists in performance

(interpretation), which is implemented by human or

special devices (computers). We can say that any

sign is a program segment in the broad sense of the

word.

Vladimir Vernadsky focused on the issues of

cognition. His concept of noosphere gives a new

insight into the processes of cognition and structure

of knowledge. He did not live to see the emergence

of computer technologies. Having no experience,

brought by these technologies, it was not always that

he formulated his views explicitly. It creates grounds

for trivial interpretation of these views, when the

issues of noosphere are equated with ecological

issues of biosphere or issues of digitization of

information practices. The utter nonsense that

Vladimir Vernadsky has given no reason for, is a

mystification of the concept of noosphere.

The thoughts of Vladimir Vernadsky about the

nature of knowledge and cognition become more

coherent, if we view them, like Thomas Kuhn, in

terms of scientific revolutions (Kuhn 2012). The key

distinction of Vladimir Vernadsky is that he uses

larger spatial (geosphere, biosphere, noosphere) and,

accordingly, temporary categories. Moreover, he

builds a bridge between the spheres of natural and

conscious phenomena. It enabled him, using the

concept of noosphere, to foresee inevitability of the

new scientific revolution. This is the second

revolution of that magnitude after the revolution in

natural science of XVII century. Its prelude is the

current technological revolution, taking place in the

sphere of physical processes of data handling and

called the information revolution. We believe that

the events of such revolution are still ahead. It will

affect not only circulation of information, but also

the entire sphere of conscious phenomena.

Therefore, the title “noospheric” would be the most

appropriate for such revolution.

Its main content, able to accelerate dramatically

and, at the same time, to stabilize scientific and

technological development, will be not so much the

technological advances, but rather “destruction and

reconstruction of understanding” what is happening

Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

in reality (Mamardashvili 1997). Destruction-

reconstruction of understanding assumes revision

and extension of the system of concepts, acting in

the studied sphere. Therefore, developing the ideas

of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Vladimir

Vernadsky, related to noosphere and continuity

between the natural and social history (Chardin

1987, Vernadsky 2004), ideas of Thomas Kuhn,

related to scientific revolutions and paradigms

(Kuhn 2012), and ideas of Merab Mamardashvili,

related to quasi-physical effects of non-physical

phenomena (Mamardashvili 2011), we believe that,

for today, the most relevant challenge is to form the

language, applicable for raising and addressing the

issues of developing the cognition and economic

management as the spheres of non-physical

(conscious) phenomena, producing quasi-physical

effects.

2.1 Ontology

For some time, the term “ontology”, which came

from the philosophy, has been widely disseminated

in IT sphere. Ontology in philosophy is a teaching

on being, essence and existence. We consider the

ontology in science as a synonym of fundamental

science, i.e. knowledge of the essence and existence

of the objects of study. The ontology is also an

object of a certain scientific discipline, an

abstraction, determining its internal structure and

external relations. Thus, philosopher Gustav Shpet,

calls physics to be a science of the ontology of

physical bodies, biology – a science of the ontology

of living organisms. According to Gustav Shpet,

semiotics should become a science of the ontology

of signs (Shpet 1996). So, the fundamental science is

a science of the ontology of objects, which cannot be

reduced to other objects.

A little bit different understanding of the

ontology was developed in the sphere of information

technologies. We can say that it is thesaurus,

describing the subject area of computer program. At

the same time, the subject area can be the area of

interests of program user, although, more often it is

the existing source domain of data processing, being

a subject to digitization and modernization. Under

this arrangement, the major ontological issue of the

information development of economy and society,

consisting in ensuring the maximum correspondence

between syntax and semantics of the sign, becomes

optional.

2.2 Spheres of Phenomena

Sphere of phenomena is a set of phenomena,

deriving from a certain entity, which is not reduced

to any other entity. The examples of such objective

scientifically grounded entities can be represented

by physical bodies and living organisms. The signs

are hypothetic entities, and their objectivity needs

theoretical and empirical justification. The use of the

concept “sphere of phenomena” in science about

science and knowledge economy leads to

understanding of the relativity of dividing the

sciences into the natural ones and the humanities as

well as an opportunity to discover new spheres of

phenomena and extend nomenclature of fundamental

sciences.

Infosphere is a sphere of information (produced

by messages and data) phenomena. Information is a

multiple-meaning term, where the scientific meaning

is still controversial. Synonym of the words:

a)message, data; b)one of the measures of message

impact on the recipient. Econosphere is the sphere of

economic phenomena. Scientific cognition is one of

the parts of the process of cognition as a whole.

Economy is not only a consumer, but also a source

of new knowledge. Natural sciences function within

the framework of the developed verticals of

knowledge, relating to famous spheres of well-

known phenomena. Development of the vertical of

knowledge requires paradigm innovations, which

start from empirical material and end with practical

results.

Innovative Development of Economy (IDE) is a

systematic introduction of progressive changes,

resulting from new knowledge, into products, means

and ways of their production and distribution,

organization and management of economic

processes. It is in need of continuous inflow of new

knowledge, produced not only by science, but also

by practical activity. Consequently, IDE – is a

mutual development of cognition and economic

management. Noosphere is a sphere of phenomena

(anthropological, economic, social, cultural), where

the signs play the key role. Noosphere contains

biosphere almost similarly as biosphere contains

physiosphere. At the same time, the larger sphere is

not reduced to the smaller one.

2.3 Paradigms

Paradigm is a scientific achievement, a foundation, a

core of methodology, model or theory, playing a

fundamental role within the framework of scientific

discipline or its subdiscipline. Until the paradigm is

FEMIB 2019 - International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

recognized, the respective methodology, model or

theory is of trial nature. Paradigm innovation is such

innovative changes, which cover major part of the

vertical of knowledge, starting from the depth of

fundamental science and philosophy, and ending with

practices.

Model of Paradigm Innovative Development

(PIDev) is a three-tier model of mutual development

of economy and cognition, where development of a

certain sphere of phenomena starts from prescientific

(in respect of a specific sphere) phase of empirical

and heuristic innovations. Based on the experience,

accumulated herewith, in the course of paradigm

innovations there is a transition to the third phase –

scientifically grounded innovations. According to the

model of PIDev, the sphere of conscious, primarily,

information phenomena, is in the empirical and

heuristic (pre-paradigm) phase of development. The

invention of computer became one of the

technological revolutions in physiosphere. It had

aggravated and exposed the problems of infosphere

development, bringing it closer to the beginning of

paradigm phase.

2.4 Vertical and Parabola of

Knowledge

Figure 1 shows the Model of Vertical Integration of

Knowledge (VIK) and parabola of knowledge in

graphical form.

The model includes five levels of cognition, from

practical to philosophical. It divides cognition into

the area of practices, including economy (zero

level), and cognition area, consisting of five levels,

as well as analysis area, where the problems and

their causes are identified, and the area of synthesis,

where the search of solutions to the problems takes

place. Natural sciences are developed in compliance

with the existing parabolas of knowledge. Similar

verticals (parabolas) of knowledge should be

developed for sciences of infosphere, econosphere

and sociosphere.

In the figure 1 the Vertical of Knowledge

Integration reflects the view on the structure of

knowledge, which, in our opinion, is relevant for the

current stage of cognitive development. The vertical

integrates practical knowledge (upper semisphere)

with the applied fundamental and philosophic

knowledge (lower semisphere), and it also integrates

subjective knowledge, gained by heuristic and

empiric way (left semisphere) with logically verified

and tested in practice knowledge (right semisphere).

The parabola of knowledge symbolizes the

process of solving the problems (“ontogeny”) in the

Figure 1: Model VIK and Parabola of Knowledge.

Integration of knowledge for integration of objects and

means of conscious activity (Polyakov 2017).

infosphere. The left branch corresponds to

immersion from the concrete (practice) to the

abstract (paradigms), and the right one – to Hegel’s

ascending from the abstract to the concrete.

Considering the sphere of conscious, in particular,

information and economic phenomena through the

prism of the vertical and parabola of knowledge, it

can be noted that in this spheres there is an

accumulation of experience, required for paradigm

development. It takes place, among other things,

using the modeling methods. In terms of the model

of VIK, the modelling is also a transition from

abstraction of the high level (philosophic,

mathematical, semiotic, etc.) to practical concrete.

The specific feature of such transition consists in

absence intermediate steps in the form of the

fundamental and applied theories with ontological

focus. As a result, instead of gradual “ascending”,

there are risky “jumps”.

3 PROBLEMS OF TECHNOLOGY

AND INTEGRATION OF FEMIB

In fact, finances, economy, management and IT

business cannot function, being not closely related

between each other. It is an objective reality. Their

mutual functioning is ensured, amongst other things,

manually, owing to human factor. An increase of the

level of their integration is impeded by the

subjective factor. IT is not able to overcome the

Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

barrier of semantic diversity of data, although it is

not high. The cause of the barrier is of psychological

nature, and it consists in the fact that a human, in

particular, a programmer, is able simultaneously to

control a limited number of elements and their

relationship. At the same time, he needs to reflect in

the program a correspondence between data,

operation of computer, actions of user (for instance,

manager) and an area of user’s interests (subject

area).

As a result, processing of data, related even to

one natural gender of objects, can be a serious

problem. Data have to be fragmented, thereby losing

their integrity and informativeness. Complexity

depends on objective and subjective reasons. We

have already indicated the objective reason

(semantic diversity). The subjective reason is an

inability to simplify data structures by the way of its

decomposition, unification and application of

flexible connections, damping the mutual impact of

the contiguously-allocated structures of signs. This

situation also has its cause. It is called digitalization

and is also of subjective nature. Digitalization is

embedded in IT paradigm. Thus, if we look closely,

IT are indeed the technologies, but rather physical

than information technologies of data processing.

From the information side, IT include information

practices but not technologies.

Using this approach, there is no need to think

about the nature of data and programs. Evolutionary

developed data forms and structures are adapted to

machine-readable media. As a result, a considerable

part of the capability of computer technology

remains unused. Thus, the root of all problems is the

problem of understanding the essence (ontology) of

data, programs and economic entities. Even at first

sight, it is evident that the sciences, having a direct

relation to the phenomenon of sign – semiotics and

linguistics, should be closer to addressing such

challenges.

4 FROM SPECIFICS OF

PHENOMENA IN FEMIB

SPHERE TO ABSTRACT OF

SIGN

4.1 The Theory of Sign Constructions

Instead of Semiotics

More than a half of century, on the signs basis, the

school of organizational semiotics is working

towards the problems, close to the ones raised in our

paper (Gazendam 2005). Just as we do, they suggest

their view on the nature of signs. The monography

of Kumiko Tanaka-Ishii “Semiotics of

programming” is also worth attention (Tanaka

2010). The author uses a slightly eclectic mix of the

paradigms of sign of Ch.Peirce (2009) and F. de

Saussure (2017). The different paradigms of sign are

used for different types of programs. Each one

claims to be the universal paradigm.

According to our quasi-physical approach,

scientific cognition is going in the way of ascending

from abstract to concrete. Although to do this, we

should have an appropriate abstract of sign. The

usage of a universal paradigm of sign does not allow

the exit beyond the limits of philosophy.

Our paradigm of sign is the product of the

immersion from concrete to abstract. As a concrete

we use not any sign bodies but just the outcomes,

obtained in the process of the development of

strongly formalized signs bodies of a specific kind.

These are databases, programs, organizations. As for

our version of knowledge about signs, we called it

the theory and practice of sign constructions. We

would like to emphasize the high degree of our

objects formalization and the application to them of

the methods of development which are close to the

methods of physics development. We were delighted

to discover some convergence of our views on signs,

programs and organizations with results of the

observations of Peter Brödner, who saw the

similarity in such objects as organizations and

programs (Brödner 2005).

4.2 The Paradigm of Ontology of

Economic Sign

The problem of the integration of FEMIB elements

can be solved by gradual changes in the existing

structures (programs and data) of every element and

interfaces between them. But as a consequence of

high data and programs fragmentation, and their

alterability, there is a low level of the unification and

standardization. This forces to search for an

alternative. Appealing to IT, in this case, looks

absolutely natural. This improves productivity but

not the flexibility of the data processing. The latter

becomes worse due to the increasing costs of

changes.

There are persistent attempts to solve the

problem fundamentally by the development of the

flexible IT, which have to prevent the fragmentation

of data and programs, support their unification, and

also quick and simple changes. Although, these

attempts end with the integration on the level of

FEMIB 2019 - International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

personnel instead of the integration on the level of

the objects of activity. The fails of these attempts are

natural. They are unavoidable and necessary for the

accumulation of experience of empirical and

heuristic innovations. As a result, the vertical of

knowledge from philosophy to practices is forming.

This is the scheme under which natural sciences,

particularly, physics have been developing.

However, it is widely thought that programs and

data are an absolutely different matter, relative to

which can be used notions such as “intangible

assets”. Nevertheless, artefacts are also the result of

conscious activity. This fact does not bother the

application of the apparatus of physics to them.

Programs and data are signs, and the specific feature

of signs is that they are programs in a broad sense.

A sign is a signifier and a signified together, but

they are not connected to each other directly. The

signifier should correspond to the signified. The

latter can be a static, dynamic (temporal) or multiple

body. In the case of the temporal body, the

maximum overlapping with metaphor, where sign is

compared with computer program, is achieved.

Cognitive activity creates physical artefacts, which

are signifiers of signs. Although they cannot be

considered without signified parts. The latter are

also physical bodies, but not connected directly to

the signifiers. Quasi-physical effects of cognitive

activity appear and require special treatment, when

signs become the products of cognitive activity.

As long as signs exist in the form of, at least, two

physically disconnected parts, which connect to each

other in the social consciousness in the form of the

relation of the correspondence, they cannot be

presented as static objects. Space and time (causal)

relations between the signifier and signified parts of

sign are realized in the process of its functioning by

means of human or technical devices. Thus, the

ontology of sign can be presented as

substantivisation of the actions of sign and with sign,

i.e. in the form of the temporal (dynamic) body. The

appropriate principal scheme of the structure (the

paradigm of ontology) of the economic sign is

shown in figure 2.

According to figure 2, the sign is a quasi-

physical object, consisting of the signifier (sign

syntax), and signified (sign semantics) parts. The

connection between parts of sign has been supported

by people (design or programming, the execution of

a project) or automatic devices (the execution of a

program). This definition is the ontological one. The

example of functional (pragmatic) definition: “Sign

is everything that is a potential producer of response

on something different from itself” (Ackoff and

Figure 2: The paradigm of economic sign (Polyakov

2018).

Emery 1974). We are going to call weakly

formalized, and therefore, allowing multiple

treatments sign formations, the texts. The sign

construction is, oppositely, strongly formalized

(appropriate for mechanical processing both as an

object and as a mean) sign formation. For example,

signs with tables, texts of programs etc. as signifiers.

Data is the signifier part of sign construction.

Usually data is understood as just objects of

processing. This does not allow seeing the text of

program as the same object of processing, and

program, in general, as a sign construction similar to

the one signified by data. Therefore, computer

program is a sign construction with “text of

program” (data) in the role of signifier part, and

signified part represented with the dynamic object,

which realizes the process of handling the other data.

The latter has the area of users’ interests as the

signified part.

Obviously, the processing of signs as integral

units is impossible. Just signified part can be

processed (data). For that purpose, it is separated

from signifier (disassembling), and after the

processing, it again connects to signifier

(assembling). The pragmatics of sign is a set of

properties of signs as the objects of manipulations or

tools, which allow the impact on the area of interests

of signs’ users. The pragmatics of sign reveals itself

in the process of its disassembling- assembling,

processing and application in the management or

cognition.

Semantic syntax – the part of syntax, reflecting

the architecture of semantics (signifier part) of sign.

“Syntactic” syntax – the part of syntax reflecting a

state of the signified part (semantics) of a sign.

Pragmatic syntax is a part of syntax, reflecting its

forms and structures, which are used in the process

of disassembling- assembling and processing.

Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

Observations show that the processing of signs

depends on the forms and structures of data and does

not depend on their semantics.

5 FROM ABSTRACTION OF

SIGN TO SPECIFICS OF FEMIB

INTEGRATION

Figure 3 shows the schematic diagram of integration

of the objects and subjects of different types of

conscious activity, including FEMIB, targeted at

common object.

It is based on the obtained abstraction of sign in

the form of paradigm of its ontology (Figure 3).

The result is sign construction. The common for

different types of activity (for instance, FEMIB) is

its signifying part (semantics). It is the area of

interests, common for all users from FEMIB. Before

we move to the signifier, i.e. data or syntax, which

create highly formalized language for describing the

Area of Users’ Interests (AUI), it should be

considered using unformalized language of the actor

of integration. The result is a presentation of AUI as

a network of objects, belonging to substantive

classes. This result can serve as an example of how a

change in signifying capacities can have impact on

the signified.

The existing systems of classification, like a

fragmentation of the areas of user’s interests and

objects of activity, is a tool for reduction of semantic

variety and, as a result, a complexity of development

and processing of data structures. Computer

processing enables to be satisfied with a limited

number of basic substantive classes (for instance,

people, materials, machines, power sources, etc.),

using a system of filters in all other cases. They can

be prepared in advance or specified in the course of

processing. Every substantive class corresponds to a

basic form of semantic syntax (BFSS). Basic forms

are interrelated (i), creating the extending network.

Pragmatic syntax enables to describe information

capacities of users by filling of database, and their

information needs - in terms of semantic syntax.

Before processing the data is transformed in

compliance with requirements of one or another

processing tool. The paradigm of the ontology of

sign construction, in combination with quasi-

physical logical-conceptual framework, allow

presenting formulas of sign construction as an

invention. Such work is carries out in respect of the

existing versions of BFSS.

Figure 3: Principle of FEMIB integration based on

integration of the objects of activity.

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1. The problem of FEMIB integration based on IT

is a result of our confidence that the potential of

these technologies is capable of ensuring the higher

level of integration of the parts of FEMIB complex.

6.2. For today, there are trials to compensate the

disintegration by improving the integration of

personnel’s efforts. However, such integration

should correspond to the integration of objects of

activities. There is a growing confidence that the

integration of these objects is impossible without the

integration of the levels of their cognition. A central

place in the vertical of knowledge should be

occupied by knowledge about ontology of signs. The

attempts to use the existing humanitarian semiotics

in this place led to its discrediting as a basis for

technologies. There is a necessity to develop the

science of signs of other type. However, its place is

still vacant.

6.3.Our solution to this problem is based on the

appropriate interpretation of noospheric philosophic

views of Vladimir Vernadsky and Pierre Teilhard de

Chardin, papers of Thomas Kuhn, the teaching of

Merab Mamardashvili on quasi-physical effects of

conscious phenomena.

6.4. Formation of the vertical of knowledge,

which is necessary to derive the paradigm of the

ontology of sign, required an understanding of the

specifics of cognition in a paradigm phase of

development that the sphere of conscious is in. As a

result, the Model of Paradigm Innovative

Development, Vertical and Parabola of Knowledge

have emerged at the confluence of philosophy,

science about cognition and knowledge economy.

The model of PIDev establishes basic patterns of

innovative development of the sphere of phenomena

FEMIB 2019 - International Conference on Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business

as a whole. VIK model defines the structure of the

Vertically Integrated Unit of Knowledge (VIUK).

Vertical links between them are established using

the parabola of knowledge.

6.5. Through substantivization of the basic

functional diagram of communication process, the

developed basis of knowledge enabled us to obtain

quasi-physical paradigm of sign. In these sign

constructions, the signifier and the signified are

integral, but, at the same time, are not linked

directly. The integrity consists in maintaining the

correspondence between them.

6.6. Development of such structures is carried

out. The quasi-physical approach and logical-

conceptual framework, created on its basis, build the

background for development of patent claims and

patenting of the obtained sign constructions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are thankful to Yuliya Davydova for her

significant assistance with the translation of the

paper into English.

REFERENCES

Ackoff, R., Emery F. 1974. O celeustremlyonnych

sistyemach [On Purposeful Systems]. Moscow:

Sovetskoye radio.

Brödner, P. 2005. Software is Orgware – A Semiotic

Perspective on Computer Artifacts. Proceedings of the

International Conference on User-driven IT Design

and Quality Assurance (UITQ 05), Stockholm: KTH

https://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/contextuse/

ht08/Brodner1.pdf.

Chardin de, P. T. 1987. Phenomen cheloveka [The

Phenomenon of Man]. Moscow: Nauka.

Gazendam, H. W. M., Liu, K. 2005. The evolution of

organisational semiotics: A brief review of the

contribution of Ronald Stamper. In Filipe, J., & Liu,

K. (Eds.), Studies in organisational semiotics,

Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

50th Anniversary Edition, 4th ed..

Mamardashvili, Merab. 1997. Strela poznaniya: Nabrosok

estestvennoistoricheskoy gnoseologii [The Arrow of

Cognition: Sketch of Naturally-Historical

Gnosiology]. Moscow: School “The languages of

Russian culture.”

Mamardashvili, Merab. 2011. Vilnusskiye lekcii po

socialnoi philosophii [Vilnius lectures on social

philosophy]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo «Azbuka».

Mamardashvili, Merab. 2016. Psihologiya topologii puti

[Psychological Topology of Way]. Moscow: АST.

Peirce, Ch. 2009. Chto takoye znak [What is a sign?]. In

Vestnik Tomsk State University. Philosophy.

Sociology. Politology #3(7)

Polyakov, M, Khanin I., Bormatenko N. 2017. Quasi-

Physical Approach to Forming the Methodological

and Theoretical Base of Infosphere Development. In

International Conference on Information Society (i-

Society-2017), Dublin, July 17–19, pp. 44–47.

Polyakov, M., Khanin, I., Bormatenko, N., Kosenchuk, S.

2018. Ontology of Sign: A Key to Information and

Technological Advancement of the Knowledge

Society. In The International Journal of Technology,

Knowledge, and Society 14 (3): 27-45.

Shpet G.G. 1996. Yavlenie i smysl. [Phenomenon and

essense]. Tomsk : Vodoley.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 2017. Kurs obschei lingvisitiki

[The course of general linguistics]. Accessed

November 16, 2017.

http://genhis.philol.msu.ru/article_184.shtml

Tanaka-Ishii, K., 2010. Semiotics of Programming. NY.

Cambridge University Press.

Vernadsky, Vladimir. 2004. Biosphera i Noosphera [The

biosphere and the noosphere]. Moscow: Ajris-press.

Knowledge Basis for Integration of Finance, Economics, Management and IT Business