DEAR VISITORS WELCOME,
I am Kalistrat Sandjakoski Ph.D., born in 1990, in Struga. In 2009, I graduated from high school in my hometown. In 2012, I graduated from the prestigious Theological Academy in St. Petersburg. In 2018, I successfully defended my master’s thesis at the Orthodox Theological Faculty “St. Clement of Ohrid” titled: “Two Opposing Aspects of Power – The Nihilistic and the Hesychastic”. After that, I enrolled in the School of Doctoral Studies at the University “St. Cyril and Methodius” in Skopje, at the “Institute of Sociological and Legal-Political Research”. In 2025 I defended my doctoral thesis “Genesis of social systems”.
PHILOSOPHICAL MANIFESTO
The necessity to print generic works has become more pressing than ever before. Predetermined forms are embellished with new stylistic perspectives, the interpreters of the interpreter are interpreted. Heuristic manipulation of statistical data is a golden calf that replaces the physical side of experimental endeavors. A system of inputs and outputs has been created that blocks all fresh initiatives due to the mania for checking with the previous, comparing with the current, sterilizing the exciting, normalizing the unusual, mutilating the extraordinary. Every original, which is to say, self-sufficient, categorical and sublime, complex of ideas is rejected if it is not confirmed by scientists who should, but do not want to, evaluate it on the basis of the intuitive ability to recognize a priori values, that is, values that become visible through an analytical effort independent of any regulatory maps and instructional registers. They want to equate what is new in principio with what is outdated and stuff it into its form. How can something be super-new if it has to fit perfectly into the old? Obviously, we are best at perfecting absurdities. Some aspects of the academic writing models are applicable, but not entirely and not all. Infinite binaries and empirical relationships are established that are chewed over a hundred times and torment the mind. Everything that does not have a rigorous natural-scientific approach and affinity is called into question. Deep, experimental-speculative, and abstract thinking is especially ridiculed, as if the empirical hypothesis were not some arbitrary axiom-in-the-making that may predetermine the development of an entire field.
For all this and for many other things that lurk in the interspace, it is necessary for original studioli to sprout like rare, expensive and juicy mushrooms. They should oppose the dangerous tendency in the social and humanistic sciences to reject all avant-garde endeavors that have no immediate, or dominant, analogies in current science. We should not blindly appropriate natural scientific approaches that succeed because they naturally belong to their own sphere. Evidence in our sphere is confirmed in a purely contemplative manner, through semantic analysis, through the knowledge of the system of essential relations that is the only and solipsistic proof of the value and reliability of what is written; through understanding with the spirit, and not through the constant harmonization of empirical theory and material results; the meaning of the content, or if you like, its internal logic, should confirm its value, not related by-products. There are things that arise from the personality and grow into the product, become its characteristics and make it anthropomorphic. Brave undertakings in the laboratory of thought are recognized in this way. But they are neglected for some absolute objectivity and conventional freedom of expression that is overbearing and comical. Unfortunately, the lazy, dull and manneristic spirit most strongly promotes exactly that. Today, we are flooded with “phobic outbursts against Sturm und Drang” by all those who swear by the New and carry its flag. They want to silence every seismic vibration of cosmic proportions with various subversive operations. Philosophical metaphysics, which plays a similar role to mathematics but in its own sphere, is a thorn in their side and an object of ridicule. Every monumental product of the gift is ground in the filter of stereotypical understandings, schemes and frames. It is wasted by boring and variable recycling. The noise of unified actualities oppresses the signals of the inimitable sublimity that ignite and spread like the stars with the night. The serial production of fragmented knowledge is a parody of the continuations, paragraphs and enumerations contained in the sublime work. Methodological and structural patterns are to blame for the unification that varies limitedly and incoherently. The former usurp the space of rich comprehensiveness and holistic breadth. Books are pillars and silos of unattainable wisdom from which all instrumental, material and spiritual goods spring. They have become second-rate manuals, a faint echo of works that cannot be compared to them, a grandiose signal that bothers the “melody” of noises. Formal criteria and a rigid system of feedback make it absurd for a magical intellectual flower to grow at all, to break into the sphere of narrow mindfulness and manifest its virtues. It should, at least in some ideal world, nourish generations and save them from drowning in imposed and artificially nurtured atavisms. Reviews are the fatal seals of technocratic constellations of academia. The taste of reviewers is an advocatus diaboli, like a rabid dog that tears apart excellent content if it does not like its smell. Instead of intuitive breadth, gentle curiosity, uncompromising openness and a thirst for the irreducible prevailing, taste turns into a frustrated castrator of everything that its spirit cannot digest. Spontaneous, objective and “impartial” censorship is nothing but the product of a sophisticated lottery, outcome of the communication between two incompatible spirits. Thus, the representative ethos of the intellectual object is bound by a thousand frayed ropes called formal instructions and blind affinities, just as the Lilliputians neutralized the overpowering Gulliver. Sterile laws and suffocating frames are imposed on the precious text that captivates with its structured versatility, original systematicity and harmonious diversity, as if it were a luxuriant seed whose unstoppable force must be stifled and suppressed at all cost. Fortunately, the “unstoppable force” has an absolute meaning. Its course is unchangeable, its “victorious disinhibition” a matter of time, its magnificent emergence a reality that will echo forever in eternity.
This is not a ruthless revolutionary proclamation, but a call to sober up. Many critics first attack the system of reciprocal financing supported by such mechanisms. I am not interested in that part of things at all, as does every person who naturally belongs to “intelligentsia”. Blindness is a sin. I am not attacking the mechanics of academic progress and exchange as such, but the sectarian mentality of the authorized promoters, the mechanical core that functions with chillingly regular dynamics in times of critical autopoietic crisis. The rigid sarcasm of the authorities and collectives towards the non-standard approaches and discoveries that provide the living and research space of science is condemnable. Equally condemnable is the playing with creative freedom that is stifled in the thorns of short-sighted formalisms, predictable taxonomies and standardized components. They ignore ideas that cannot be placed in the mold of schematized trajectories. They make them victims of the regular expectations for the content to be ignotum per notius (something unknown that needs to be presented through the known). I myself use original and useful academic papers without which my creative continuity would be unthinkable. This deprives me of the right to be extremely rigorous. The existence of outstanding works, many of which are hidden in the fog of relative quantity, is the reason which compels me to say that the academic system is not fundamentally broken. Prudence must balance critical reviews, and generosity – the unyielding virtues. In any case, it is necessary to form a new class of papers that jump out of rigorous schemes and are not contained in the expert map; papers that captivate the simple expectation with a penetrating vision, papers that, precisely because of the latter, establish impeccable standards. Only in this way will fresh air enter the scientific universe that is drowning in the suffocating atmosphere of stereotypical filters, repetitive systems of entry and exit, and regressive habits. The system for selecting and highlighting intellectual property needs to overcome its high opinion of itself and its imperfect modus operandi, so that it can clearly see what it is that ensures its autopoietic survival, resistance to various entropies and structural development.
Welcome to the world of my thoughts. This website is kind of a studiolo. It restores the power of deep thought and brings back interest in philosophical metaphysics in a lavish interdisciplinary way. The sound (supported by AI) and textual materials that I exhibit unite aspects of christian theology, neuroscience, neuropsychology, psychology, psychopathology, social systems theory, general systems theory, computer science, semantics, theory of information, cybernetics, etc. I believe that the environment of this “world” will justify my honest criticisms and offer tempting “recipes” on which the survival of scientific ideals depends in part.
I hope not to disappoint you.
E-mail address: kalistrat_s@hotmail.com
Spirit and Society 