Scientific achievements mainly of 20-21 centuries have significantly enriched our knowledge regarding the fundamental laws of nature which define living conditions on Earth and, particularly, the behaviour of social systems. Now it is known that the world, thinking process and mental models of the world are a single whole (not ''Mind and Nature'', but ''Mind in Nature'' ). Today it is also known about the fundamental origin of an uncertainty within quantum probabilities of events . And it is known that the human thinking process developed from forms which were close to form of "thinking process of an animal" in accordance to archaeological, paleontological, anthropological, psychological (psychology of the person and animals) researches and other modern practical sciences . Also we have practical knowledge even about such notions that directly don't influence behavior of social systems (elementary particles of ultrahigh energy and midget sizes; prospective dark energy and infringements of fundamental symmetry and causality...).
So it's justified to voice following positions. In «thinking system» of cells and animals takes place the developed technology of reproducible reaction to internal and external excitations as the reflexive «mental technology». Let us call this reaction the «first global cogitative technology». The thinking system of a man possesses developed «second global cogitative technology» or «mental technology» of knowledge exchange (exchange of representations about the world), like of knowledge formalization technology. Other position that “second cogitative technology” (technology of knowledge formalization or of knowledge exchange) is additional to "first global cogitative technology" in human thinking process (or in human thinking system). I.e. «second cogitative technology» is additional to technology of a reproducible reaction to internal and external excitations in content of human thinking system. One more position - the ''thinking'' system of cell or animal possess the only developed «mental technology» as reflexive «first global cogitative technology».
Generalized concept of reproducibility of reaction of an actor (a cell, an animal, the person, a social system...) assumes that there is ability of actor to reproduce «analysis and synthesis of representations». So reproducibility of a reaction of actors is the «ability of actors in reproducing of representation of a whole in form of combination of known privates, and his possibility of testing (experience approbation) of a principally unknown whole with the subsequent transformation of this unknown whole into a known new private, like result of a gaining process of new knowledge». Possibility of the approbation of an essentially unknown whole with its transformation in new known privates can be interpreted like a coincidence of this possibility with an «ability of the actor to represent a whole as a combination of known privates after gaining by the actor of a new knowledge like of a new known private».
Activity of any social system is defined first of all (in general) by a set of technologies which the system reproduces like integrated and open system (as interrelated system which is interacting with environment). Technologies are as ways and means which receive and apply knowledge. There are technologies as industrial, organizational, political, informational, cognitive and other ways and means. Cognitive technologies are technologies of studying of process of knowledge (of thinking) and of application of knowledge about this process . Methodological basis of any technology is provided in many respects by possibility of exchange of formal knowledge.
It is right to consider mental technologies as separate technologies in «the general class» of cognitive technologies according to told above about mental technologies as about technologies of reactions to excitations and of formalizations of knowledge. As technologies which are acting at thinking level, but not at a level of exchange by formal knowledge. In these notions the methodology of mental technologies, as a rule, is formalized in a lesser degree, than methodologies of all other technologies, and usually mental technologies are more uncertain (are less determinate).
It could be so that development of mental technology of knowledge exchange (of mental technology of knowledge formalization) has been initiated not only because of occurrence or existence of some objective possibilities for such exchange but also because of occurrence of «a severe need of struggle against complexities of those periods», - because of occurrence of a very vital need in an exchange of understanding of the world among humans.
There was assumption by Godel about the «developed enough rich language» (axiomatic system rich enough to include all of number theory) when he was deriving a theorem about «incompleteness of consistent representations» . This assumption about enough rich language corresponds to the developed mental technology of a knowledge exchange. While reproducibility of reaction to excitations essentially distinguishes thinking of the human from "thinking" of the computer  then presence developed «enough rich» language essentially distinguishes thinking of the human from "thinking" of cells and animals.
Self-organizing processes, and mechanisms of its destruction. Natural selection and self-organization among actors in the course of gaining of resource occurs due to their elaborated (developed) reproducible reaction to disturbance (to excitations). This elaborated reproducible reaction is main distinctive quality of actors medium. And it's main reason which provides significant qualitative difference between the self-organizing process (the process of creating order from chaos) in actors medium and the process of "creating order from chaos" (synergy) in nonlinear lifeless physical medium.
Presence at a human intellect of the mental technology of a knowledge exchange was, most likely, a principal cause of high progress of a human society, a principal cause of intensive development of social systems, including prevalence of an artificial resource and of its manufacture (of its production). This mental technology can promote "natural selection" and self-organizing, improve self-organizing, and simply reduce time of approbation (of experience testing) of new knowledge. Vivid example of improvement of self-organizing of social systems by means of developed mental technology of exchange of knowledge is 300 year's success of free market in economy.
But besides such "improvements" the mental technology of knowledge exchange can be as a destroying technology of effective self-organizing (can destroy self-organizing). For instance this mental technology can "artificially" develop such existing technologies of market and-or generate new ones which are uncontrollable by norms and by institutions. Uncontrollable technologies of market can considerably extort (as pumping out technologies) resource out of real sector of market, state and private budgets. It is similar to how, like in the successful comparison of Klaus Mainzer, natural cancer cells can be destroying favorable self-organizing of organism, and even can be killing organism. In this qualitative analogy there is essential difference of concepts "the naturally developed destructive technology" and «the artificially developed destructive technology or created ones». The difference is that the first concept concerns activity of cell-animal actors, and both, the first and the second, are inherent into the activity of social systems.
Such destructive technologies of activity of market can not only devastate stocks of resources of real sector of economy, but also can become critical barriers to market development, and to economy development as a whole. Destructive technology becomes barrier, for instance, by the rising of common expenses in market .
Samples of such destroying technologies: Technologies of redistribution of resource by possibilities of monopolized business, or possibilities of business of big capital. And there are technologies of diversification or of combining of infrastructural business and of risk business. Like for example, technologies of financial investment risk tools not provided by real resource in activity of private banks or stock markets. There are also corruption technologies that are provided by state system, for example, by totalitarian system or by other clan system, for example, by clan of big capital. We have to differentiate the last "state" corruption technologies from "traditional" corruption technologies which take place historically individualistically, «like technology of reaction to excitations» under the scheme «we can take that thing that is possible to take». Commonly "traditional" corruption technologies officially aren't provided by the state system and, therefore, essentially they can be regulated by norms. And there are many other such destroying technologies. Considerable influence on economics of such destructive technologies one can observe in a crisis situation of 2008-2011 .
These destroying technologies demand a management of their activity, for example, demand a perfection of old and, probably, constructions of new "public" institutions (or of technologies) of management, and not just regulation by norms and regulation institutions. For example this destroying can demand of new state institutions of management of economics.
Except this artificial creation and development of such market destroying technologies the activity of mental technology of knowledge exchange is capable be complicating in essential degree the activity of society. In such degree when influence of «mental restriction» of the person in its natural possibility to operate on a social systems activity (to control and manage an activity) can become factor defining this activity.
This situation can lead to essential increase in errors in representations (in theories and models) of experts, and errors in decisions of leaders. As consequence it can cause effectiveness falling of even usual regulation norms of free market with possible perspective of chaos that not is leading to new order. It can takes place because of the fact that human is not located to simplify his activity in "struggle" with complexities or to refuse from technologies of his activity for such aim. Such "not simplification" and "not refusal" is the result of presence of developed mental technology of knowledge formalization.
Essential influence of mental restrictions of management on activity of social systems demands creation of cognitive technologies of the management that are able to remove such restrictions. On the other hand, as to both these sources of destructing of self-organizing in social systems, both these reasons are interconnected. At least institutions of "public" management of activity of social systems will face inevitably influence of mental restrictions of management in modern high information-technological saturation of activity of society.
The limited possibilities of technologies of an exchange of formal knowledge. At first we will specify that we understand as technologies of management and technologies of maintenance of management (or maintenance-oriented technologies of management) . The first technologies are managing (as, for example, technologies of milling are milling), and the second — are creating something that it is possible to use in technology of management. Presence or absence of the person at structure of technology isn't essential to this understanding (as well as degree of participation of the milling-machine operator in technology of milling).
Modern intellectual technologies, first of all IT, allow to control basically any entirely determinate (certain) complex system and to operate any formalizable information and to solve systems of equations of any complexity and to operate successfully with other formalizable complexities. Therefore today complexity of management is determined and restricted by possibility of management of such technologies of system's activity which are not completely defined.
Mental restriction of management as mental restriction of man in his natural possibility to operate system consists in man's ability to operate effectively no more than 5-7 subordinates, or no more than 5-7 «extracted main» technologies of social system activity. It accords with «the nature and character» of development of human intellect or of development of man thinking process in management.
To increase number of effectively operated activity technologies and thereby to reduce influence of mental restriction of management on activity of social systems is possible by creating special technologies of management for that. As collective management doesn't solve this problem of influence of mental restriction because conditionally speaking, a collective of 10 directors will operates effectively not 50-70 subordinates but the same 5-7 subordinates, practically. In spite of the fact, that collective management can essentially reduce time of construction of well-done representation and perfect decision-making. And at the same time traditional formal information technologies (IT, DSS, network IT...) also can't make lower such influence of mental restriction of management as they are "artificial" technologies of exchange of formal knowledge . As well as any intellectual technologies of only an exchange of formal knowledge or any technologies of only formalization of knowledge can't increase mental possibilities of management in sense that such technologies can't reduce influence of mental restrictions on management of social systems. Within the limits of such technologies the thinking process (the reproducible reaction to excitations; the formalization of knowledge) occurs within mental resource of only one person. This effect ''of management thinking process within resource of only one person'' takes place in case of collective management also.
On the other hand, modern academic sciences about complex systems basically investigate general laws of self-organizing without frequently separating quality of self-organizing in medium of social systems from quality of self-organizing in physical medium and in medium of «actors with only reproduced reaction to excitations» (with a reflexive reaction of cells-animals) [1-9]. Partly as a result of this circumstance, formal theories and models of applied sciences (an economy, a policy...) that are used by experts and leaders in management of economic processes don't correspond to fundamental reasons of up-to-date complex crisis. For example such applied sciences as a rule don't consider mechanisms of destruction of self-organizing that were told above about. So such applied sciences also can't decide problem of reduction of influence of mental restrictions on management of social systems. Such the state of affairs is not simply defects of sciences or results of influence on sciences from the side of "politicized" activities or clans values, but now-days it is a consequence of modern complexity of a society mainly [6-10].
We can note some tendencies in development of modern sciences which indirectly confirm essential influence of mental restrictions of management on activity of social systems, including field of scientific activity. The first tendency is that modern scientists in forecasts even more often not resort to existing formal theories. As a rule, they build the forecasts in form of trends of social systems behavior. Their representations of reality are not completely determined representations in a lot of cases. And the other tendency — qualitative growths of the pseudo-scientific theories which usually aren't leaning against fundamental knowledges and even contradict them in favor of explanations of taken place events. Especially in social and economic and political sphere.
For management of the most complex social systems (like large hi-tech corporations and Programs, markets, or at power's management of economic processes etc.) the management technologies which increase mental abilities of person in management are necessary today. In other words, in conditions of modern complexity the «third global cognitive technology» which is able to unite mental resource of persons is necessary to society. However it is impossible to force or to train somebody in uniting mental resource of persons only by means of exchange of formal knowledge (or of understanding). It is necessary to create special conditions corresponding to such uniting.
Cognitive co-management technology. We have elaborated the co-management technology (or the technology of co-management) for qualitative (essential) decrease of influence on social systems activity of mental restrictions of management, and for creation of efficient management of activity technologies which are unregulated by norms and by institutions. Сo-management technology is based on dividing of management functions at level of thinking. This allows uniting mental resource of two CEO «equal in rights at level of relations» (or of those that are equal at level of formal knowledge exchange). Creation methodology of co-management technology is based on analysis of components of process of thinking at management [17, 18]. Rights equality of CEOs at formal level provides relevant knowledge integration for both. It is dictated by known circumstance that «CEO should integrate all knowledges (technologies) necessary for management by concrete system, in greater degree, than someone another», including experts. And this circumstance should be correct also in cases if CEO understands not so deep like specialists separate technologies of activity of system.
One of set of basic requirements to realization of co-management technology is the dividing of responsibilities: responsibility for made decisions (variants of decisions; designing of development of system) and responsibility for ''provided'' formal representations of activity of system . This requirement proceeds from necessity of creation of conditions that must focus thinking process of each of both CEO on cogitative functions defined by his responsibility. I.e. the performance of such requirement will provide implementation of necessary conditions (but not of sufficient) for union of mental resources of two CEO through division of functions of management at thinking level at identical functions at dialogue level.
''The provided'' representations of activity of any system are considered as integrated open system models of activity and models adequate to reality . Let's specify the made definition of "the provided representation": «integrated representations» - means consideration and account of all technologies of system and of other actual factors in models of a system; «an open model» - means consideration of an influence on system of environments and account of this influence in modeling; «system representations» - means an establishing of mutual communications and dependencies. And «models adequate to reality» - means the conformity of model to practical knowledge and non-contradiction with fundamental concepts. To achieve such ''provided'' representation of system it is necessary to form integrated concrete individual model of activity (but not «universal interdisciplinary science») by convergence of many sciences (and of technologies of activity of the system). Therefore co-management technology demands much from level of knowledge of second CEO and also from his abilities and skills in interdisciplinary integration of sciences.
Second of the basic requirements concerns quality of ''provided'' representation. This requirement consists in absence of values (of interests) in ''provided'' representations so that such representations can provide dividing of mental functions of CEO management in framework of co-management technology. It is main sufficient condition for union of mental resources of two CEO. And this requirement regulates choice of models of activity of social system among set of possible representations, as they are representations of a not completely determined system. Formal representation of an uncertain system (of a not completely determined system), unlike completely defined system (the entirely automated line, the robot...), can have not only one variant of its whole model. For instance formal model of uncertain system can depend from chosen concepts about representation of system. By the way, for the same reason any social system has two complete but relatively independent representations, which are both relevant for management — formal representation (formal models, plans, orders...) and understanding of CEO .
As a matter of fact second basic requirement means that «intuitive integration of knowledge» isn't used at construction of models for co-management technology, and that "priority of phenomenological concepts" also isn't used. And this requirement is guarantee of sustainable conformity of understanding of CEO and of formal ''provided'' representations of activity of social system. ''Conformity of understanding of CEO and formal model'' means that understanding and model are coincide completely or in parts, or there is acceptable improvement of understanding . The acceptable improvement of understanding is possible to interpret as «coincidence of understanding and model after gaining of new knowledge».
Question of organizational and legal realization of co-management technology has concrete character . But main stimulus consists not in "correct" realization of co-management technology or in "possibility" of this realization, but in great necessity of such realization. It's true because cognitive management technologies which allow uniting mental resource of humans are necessary for management of modern complexity. And co-management technology, as shown above, can act in role of such technology. Other qualitative real ability of effective management of real very complex social systems is absent today. But there is uncertain undefined and destructive prospect (perspective) like alternative to development of such technologies of union of mental resource as it was told above. Such prospect is impossible to supervise only by technologies of exchange of knowledge as by both "artificial" and mental technologies of exchange of formal knowledge in conditions of modern complexity.
About distinctive quality of cognitive technologies of management. Let's consider basic qualitative distinctions between traditional «maintenance-oriented technologies of management» and «cognitive technologies of management». And first of all it is necessary to pay attention to circumstance that for traditional technologies of maintenance of management including decision support systems (DSS, PLM or ERP guide modules, Network&Multi-agent systems...) the requirement of "absence of values in provided models» isn't critical unlike for cognitive co-management technology.
Moreover on the contrary the interdisciplinary modeling of social systems and situations with «priorities of interests of actors» is considered as perspective concept and methodological basis for technologies of maintenance of management [8, 19, 20]. Such of actors like of enterprises, institutions, regulators, the CEO, structures of the power [8, 20]. For that the construction of «intersubjective situational» theories and models on basis of phenomenological concepts and values is offered [8, 19]. There is suggested «priority of phenomenological social sciences» such as a policy, the psychology, and “the politicized” economy etc [8, 20]. They suggest «priority of rhetoric which is supported by power» and they suggest «priority of already accepted decisions» [19, 20].
In a lot of cases such «intersubjective prospect» of development of intellectual support of management is successful and is practical [8, 19, 20]. But it takes place for social systems and social situations until influence of mental restrictions of management is not essential or is negligible in activity of social systems. And it takes place until influence of non-controllable activities is not essential. Of such non-controllable activities for example like market technologies which are pumping out resource from real economics and which were mentioned above. In other words, while conditions of effective self-organizing of social systems are applicable, and while destruction of self-organizing isn't essential yet.
I.e. «intersubjective concept» of technologies of management maintenance is effective for social systems and situations which are principally operated (which are controllable). But in a case when mentioned conditions of self-organizing aren't carried out, it is possible to speak about uncontrollable social systems. For such uncontrollable social systems the traditional management maintenance which is based on exchange by formal knowledge doesn't work. And in this case it is possible to speak about management crisis (as about loss of possibility of forecasting and control) .
About practicality of cognitive technologies of management. Generally cognitive technology of management as «worthy alternative» can be used at management maintenance in any social systems, even not very complex or in their networks (a completely automated factory of Toyota, a network of bakeries...). But for such principally operated social systems cognitive technology is more expensive, than traditional technologies of maintenance of management. And cognitive technology is more unsustainable as tool for CEO. CEO of such «concerning simple social system» actively uses cognitive technology of management till the moment of some complete intuitive comprehension of this technology as it was demonstrated by our ten years old experience of construction of cognitive technologies of management [17, 18]. In further management the information from traditional technologies of maintenance of management suffices him. Such traditional technologies of maintenance of management with which his assistants and experts operate as direct functional users. And also abilities of his intuitive integration of knowledge suffice him in management of such a "simple social system". For management of such «simple system» it is not critical that not always formal models correspond steadily to understanding of CEO. Not completely formalized understanding of CEO and his intuitive integration of knowledge in case of such "simple" management «run ahead» of formal representations. But for uncontrollable social systems cognitive technologies can operate like the sustainable tool for CEO.
About financial and economic crises 2008-2011. Most vivid example of such uncontrollable social systems and of uncontrollable situations is presented at management of economic processes in USA and in Europe in summer and autumn of 2011 (''uncontrollable'' means ''traditionally, commonly uncontrollable i. e. uncontrollable by traditional technologies of maintenance of management such as IT, DSS, Network, regulation norms institutions, collective technologies, and including ways and means of intuitive integration of knowledge etc.'' according to stated above). At a management of economic processes by governments, regulators and funds of separate countries, by all-European and world structures, by summits. Here authorities and experts not successfully try to manage economy, not simply to regulate the markets by norms, without having effective tools for such management. They have not such tools which correspond to up-to-date complexity. And here the management, as a matter of fact, is of common political character.
It is known that any concrete CEO has political and others his interests. There are interests of social classes, of clans; there are collective and personal interests, as well as interests of the power or the capital. There are concrete financial and economic, social and political problems of concrete social systems. There are formal theories and models, and there is intuitive integration of knowledge of experts and leaders. There is collective exchange of knowledge and a knowledge coordination. And any management decisions, as a rule, can be coordinated and accepted in spectrum of many interests, including decisions by power. And decisions can be coordinated and accepted in field of formal and intuitive models. But quality of modern complexity demands new tools of adequate forecasting and control, which have to be added to coordination or concealing of interests and which influence on decision-making. It means tools for controllable and manageable existence and development of social systems. Traditional technologies of maintenance of management aren't such tools today. It is so because of fact that traditional technologies are based on construction of formal models and on exchange by formal knowledge as it was already told above. Also intuitive integration of knowledge of leaders and of experts is not capable for playing role of such toolkit now-days because of the big and the growing influence of mental restrictions of management.
In absence of adequate forecasting and control the modern complexity can threaten with chaos as mentioned earlier or with destroying of economy and social atmosphere by durable «approbation and testing of essentially new knowledge». And already it threatens with general falling of volumes of resources, and with crisis of values which is inclined to "revolutions" (as loss of possibilities of coordination of interests).
In modern concepts and theories the current crisis is treated as consequence of complication and of variety of financial tools . Or like result of inertness of growth of demands in situation of delay of innovative development of economy . Or like consequence of growth of dis-balance between demands and offers and credit-debt loads in some sectors of market . And like consequences of other financial, economic, social, political mechanisms. And consequence of economy problems accumulated by activity of these mechanisms during a long time [21-27].
Clear that such financial and economic problems or "bubbles" have become aggravated today because of poor control and management of economy under the growth of economy complexity [21, 24-26]. Main problem is that financial, economical and political steps which are undertaken today are basically of tactical character. These steps are like measures to support the liquidity of banks and of ill budgets of states and other steps of authorities and regulators. These steps practically do not influence the basis of modern financial and economic crisis; - do not address the influence of modern complexity upon the crisis of control and management. As these steps, as a matter of fact, don't eliminate influence of such technologies of market that are uncontrollable by norms and don't eliminate influence of mental restrictions of management. Such steps can even strengthen this influence.
For example, policy of full (further) privatization which is accepted by a number of countries for improvement of markets, can not only raise competitiveness, but also create soil for strengthening an activity uncontrollable by norms and also increase barriers to development of market of real sector [10,21]. Measures of injection of finance into problem banks or into problem state budgets, even by economy of budgetary expenses, can promote development of uncontrollable financial tools . Or it is possible to add to the arsenal in struggle against crisis any attractive model or the concept, for example, «in economy now a little not liquidity, but competition» . This concept (model), however, is not the provided representation, and first of all is poor, as open representation. And then "the universal" development of tools of market initiated by this concept, at uncontrollable market activity can increase uncontrolled development of technologies extorting resource from real sector of economy.
Concept of «simultaneous decrease in budgetary expenses and development of mechanisms of stimulation of the markets» can also become not a provided concept. Its full-scale introduction into real sector can considerably complicate market, especially financial tools. It can strengthen development of technologies poorly-supervised by norms in the market. And it can sufficiently depress the adequacy of forecasts of economic and even social processes.
Certainly, all these and other concepts (models) deserve their concrete open analysis. Also made decisions and rhetoric of authorities are worthy of their deep analysis. But in conditions of modern complexity it is necessary that base models (presentations) and CEO decisions were formed in field of provided representations. And it's desired that models and decisions were formed not just from coordination of interests. I.e. technologies (institutions) of management of economic processes are necessary. This "the provided formation of representations and of decisions" is main functional destination of co-management technology offered in present work.
С onclusion. Modern complexity of management consists in essential decay of possibilities to supervise and to foretell behavior of social systems. First of all, it implies the behavior of financial and economic processes like processes defining reception (production) and distribution of resources. In this notion, it is one of the main processes defining existence and development of society.
One of the principal reasons of complexity of management consists in fast development and an essential influence on activity of society of such technologies of activity which are rather difficult to regulate by norms and institutions of regulation. This reason demands the development of institutions of flexible management of activity of social systems in addition to the regulation by norms. Another reason is defined by fact that the activity of the most complex social systems is considerably influenced today by mental restrictions of personal possibilities of management, the restrictions not overcome by human during the evolution of his mind. This second reason demands the development of cognitive technologies of management which are able to reduce the influence of mental restrictions of management (or compensate them for the most part). For both of these reasons the repletion of modern activity with high-volume information exchange will inevitably expose the institutions of management to the influence of mental restrictions and force the necessity in development of cognitive technologies of management.
We can say that the reasons of modern complexity of management are generated by activity of mental technology of exchange of knowledge, like the mental technology of formalization of knowledge.
Given reasons show that the mental technology of exchange of knowledge can not only improve self-organization of social systems, but can also destroy it. This circumstance distinguishes self-organization of social systems from self-organization in lifeless nonlinear physical medium and in medium of cells or animals where there is no such phenomenon as destruction forming chaos not leading to new order. And where there is not a sophisticated mental technology of exchange of knowledge.
Thus such complexity of management is not simply a result of mysterious thinking process of human. The level of modern complexity of management leads today to obvious need for adequate management of complex social processes. And not simply by granting to social systems possibilities and freedom to glide over self-organizing flow of events, in ambience of self-organizing systems and in the framework of regulatory institutions and norms. This modern rise of the need for management consists mainly in necessity to operate effectively not every social system but rather the most complex ones. And this starving need for management consists not simply in the generalized management of social processes and systems, but it demands intelligent use of interdisciplinary cognitive technologies.
Prigogine I.: Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes, Wiley: New York (1961); // Prigogine I., George C., Henin F., Rosenfeld L. A Unified Formulation of Dynamics and Thermodynamics. Chemica Scripta, (1973), vol. 4, pp. 5—32.; // Prigogine, I. Order through fluctuation: self-organization and social system. In E. Jantsch and C.H. Waddington (eds), Evolution and Consciousness: Human Systems in Transition, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp 93-133. (1976).;// Nicolis G., Prigogine I. Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems. — N. Y.: John Wiley & Sons, (1977).; // Мisrа В., Prigogine I., Courbage М. From Deterministic Dynamics to Probabilistic Description.—Physica, (1979), vol 98A, p. 1—26. ;// Prigogine I., Stengers I.. ORDER OUT OF CHAOS. Man's new dialogue with nature. Heinemann. London. р. 432. ( 1984).
Haken H. Synergetics: An introduction. Nonequilibrium phase transitions and self-organization in physics, chemistry and biology, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1977.
Shannon C.E. “A mathematical theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal. 27 , pp. 379-423, 623-656,1948.
Ross-Ashby W., An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall (London), 1956; // Ross-Ashby W., "Principles of the Self-Organizing Dynamic System". In: Journal of General Psychology (1947). volume 37, pages 125–128.
Einstein A., Podolsky B. and Rosen N. Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete? Physical Review , 47 , pp. 777–780, 1935.
Князева Е.Н., Курдюмов С.П. Основания синергетики. Человек, конструирующий себя и свое будущее. Серия: Синергетика. М.: КомКнига; URSS. 2010. 232 с.
Малинецкий Г.Г., Маненков С.К., Митин Н.А., Шишов В.В. Когнитивный вызов и информационные технологии. Экономические стратегии. №9. 2011. http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/malmatmit.htm
Johnson J. The Future of the Social Sciences and Humanities in the Science of Complex Systems. The European Journal of Social Science Research Vol. 23, No. 2, 2010, 115 _ 134
Mainzer K. Challenges of Complexity in the 21st Century. An Interdisciplinary Introduction. European Review , Vol. 17, No. 2, 219–236 r 2009. // Mainzer K.: Thinking in Complexity. The Computational Dynamics of Matter, Mind, and Mankind, Springer, New York. 5th edition 2007. 381 pp. ISBN 3-540-72227-4
Пунда Д.И. Когнитивная природа современной сложности управления. В журнале: Труды СПИИРАН. 2011. Вып. 18. С. 320–335. // Пунда Д.И. Юсупов Р.М. Когнитивная природа современной сложности управления. В журнале: Экономические стратегии. №12. 2011. http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/puuunnndd.htm
Рассел Б. История западной философии. М., 1993. 540 с.
G o del K . F . "U ber formal unentscheidbare S a tze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme , I ." Monatshefte f u r Mathematik und Physik 38: 173–98, 1931. // Успенский В. А. Теорема Гёделя о неполноте. М .: Наука , 1982. 110 с .
Nagarjuna G. Tracing the Biological Roots of Knowledge. 2006. http://cogprints.org/4896/.
Gell-Mann M. “Simplicity and Complexity in the Description of Nature”, Engineering and Science, a publication of the California Institute of Technology, vol. LI, no.3 (Spring 1988), pp. 3-9.
Марков А.В., "Эволюция человека", два тома. Кн. 1. Обезьяны, кости и гены Кн. 2. Обезьяны, нейроны и душа. Издательство Corpus, 2011 г.
Penrose Roger.The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. xxviii + 1099 pp., ISBN 0-224-04447-8. Alfred Knopf, 2004 .
Пунда Д.И. «Инструмент для руководителя» и современная потребность в обеспеченных представлениях деятельности организационных систем. // В трудах « XIII Международной конференции «Проблемы управления и моделирования в сложных системах» (июнь 2011 г., Самара, Россия), «Офорт», Самара, 2011, стр. 524-538/ http://www.wsni2003.narod.ru/Programs/Punda1.pdf
Пунда Д.И. Две формы представления деятельности, и когнитивная природа происхождения современного понятия «управление сложностью» // В трудах « XIII Международной конференции «Проблемы управления и моделирования в сложных системах», «Офорт», Самара, 2011, стр. 512-523/ http://www.wsni2003.narod.ru/Programs/Punda2.pdf
Виттих В. А. Проблемы управления и моделирования в сложных искусственных системах. Мехатроника, Автоматизация, Управление. №12, 2010. Стр. 17 – 23.// Vittikh V . A . Complex Artificial Systems : Control and Modeling Problems . In: Mechatronics, Automation, Control, ISSN 1684-6427. №12, 2010. pp. 17 – 23.
Ржевский Г. А. Теория сложных систем и мультиагентные технологии: методология для практического использования. Мехатроника, Автоматизация, Управление. №12, 2010. Стр. 23 – 32. // Rzevski G. A. Complexity Science and Agent Technology: Methodology for Practical Applications. In: Mechatronics, Automation, Control, ISSN 1684-6427. №12, 2010. pp. 23 – 32.; // Rzevski, G. Using Tools of Complexity Science to Diagnose Current Financial Crises. ISSN 8756-6990, Optoelectronics, Instrumentation and Data Processing, 2010, Vol.46, No. 2.; // Rzevski, G., Investigating Current Social, Economic and Educational Issues using Framework and Tools of Complexity Science. Journal of the World University Forum, Vol. 1, № 2, 2008, pp. 1-13.
Stiglitz J. Markets Can't Rule Themselves. Newsweek, December 31. (2008). http://www.newsweek.com/id/177447
Полтерович В.М. "Механизм глобального экономического кризиса и проблемы технологической модернизации"., Электронный ресурс, сайт С.П. Курдюмова, http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/polterovich.htm // Полтерович В.М. (Под редакцией) "Стратегия модернизации Российской экономики." М.: Алетейя, 2010. - 424 с.
Кобяков А.Б., Хазин М.Л "Закат империи доллара и конец Pax Americana", М., Издательство "Вече", 2003. 368 с. // Хазин М.Л. Теория кризиса., в журнале: Экономика и бизнес, №33(588), 08.09.2008, http://www.profile.ru/items/?item=26923.
Mainzer K: Der kreative Zufall. Wie das Neue in die Welt kommt. Munchen: C.H. Beck Verlag. ISBN 978-3-406-55428-5. 2007. - 293 pp .
Krugman P. R. The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. — ISBN 978-0-393-07101-6; W. W. Norton. 2008. — 224 pp .
Roubini N., Mihm St. Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. Penguin Press HC . ISBN 1594202508; 2010 . - 368 pp.
Chinn M. D. Frieden Jeff. A. Lost Decades. The Making of America's Debt Crisis and the Long Recovery. Hardcover, Sept. 2011, ISBN 978-0-393-07650-9. 284 p p.