Digitalization of society: implications and perspectives in the context of the psycho-dimensionality

The purpose of this article is to analyze the process of «digitalization» of modern society

The purpose of this article is to analyze the process of «digitalization» of modern society from the point of view of psychosynergistic approach, psycho-dimensionality of social reality as subjective association of people. The concept of «digitalization» is used mainly in scientific and philosophical publications where it is presented as a modern «world trend». The concept of «digitization» is associated with profound changes in the social life of a modern person who in the near future will be in a fully digital world where every aspect of his life will be deeply influenced by digital data: how people will communicate and relate to each other; how they will work, learn, stay healthy and participate in politics and the economy. The introduction of digital technologies promises, on the one hand, enormous benefits for better health, more efficient social mobility, more efficient use of energy, more business and more prosperous companies, etc. But it is also obvious that such a fundamental social transformation will have certain complexities of an individual, intrapsychic nature, i.e. that unexpected challenges

Introduction
The main criterion of the social level of modern society, which is defined as a «digital society», is the level of development and introduction of digital technology. It continually and each time dramatically change the social reality. A qualitatively new stage of social development is at the same time global in nature and implies the complete transformation of society through digital technologies based on networks at different levels.
Such networks, in turn, collect, process, generate and distribute information through the following levels of global telecommunications networks. Therefore, in the context of psychosynergetics and psycho-dimensional social reality «digital society» can be characterized as a network «nonhuman society», rather than simply «information society», because in most cases, the decision is made by an algorithmized electronic digital device, not by the person himself. Such a decision is devoid of emotional, personal subjectivity and other peculiarities of the person and his communication («human factor»).
The construction of the «digital society» depends mainly on the «digital economy», which is today assessed as one of the emerging concepts of the economic development of any society, including Ukrainian.
The concept of the «Digital Economy» first appeared in Japan in the 1990s., but in the West the term became known, thanks to Don Tapscott's book «The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Network Intelligence» (Tapscott, 1996). It addressed the question of how the Internet will change the conduct of business around the world, what a new «digital» civilization will be. The idea of the «digital economy» comes from a concept known since the 1960s: initially it was the theory of D. Bell about «information economy» (Bell, 1973), later transformed into the concept of «network society» or «network economy» M. Castells (Castells, 2000). In the years since the introduction of the concept of the «digital economy», many researchers have made adjustments to the definition of this category. The definition proposed in Savchuk's thesis can be taken as a basis: «The digital economy is a set of relationships that evolve in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption, and is based on online technologies and aims to meet the needs for life's benefits, which in turn, implies the formation of new ways and methods of business management and requires efficient state regulation» (Savchuk, 2021, 53).
Today «digitalization» of the economy and society as a whole has become one of the priority tasks that are being solved at the state level as well. Since 2019, we have been implementing the project «Digital State», which aims not only to create the best conditions and opportunities for online access to all public services, but also to build a deeply integrated single digital system of government (Diya, 2019). Moreover, the need to modernize Ukraine's economy and the new strategic goals and ways of developing it were elaborated in two fundamental concepts: «Ukraine-2030». The strategy of change of the future » (National Institute of Strategic Studies, 2020), which is formulated in the National Institute of Strategic Research, and «Ukraine 2030E -a country with a developed digital economy» from Ukrainian Institute of the Future (Ukrainian Institute of the Future, 2021). The last document notes, that in Ukraine it is necessary for successful future development realization of «digital society», i.e. introduction of digital technologies in all spheres of life: from interaction between people to industrial production, from household goods to children's toys, clothing, etc. This is the transition of biological and physical systems to cyberbiological and cyberphysical (physical and computational) connections. Transition of activity from real world to virtual world (online)» (Ukrainian Institute of the Future, 2021). This is a complete «digital transformation» of the entire Ukrainian society and its main spheres: digital transformation concerns economic and social consequences of digitalization. Data is at the heart of the digital transformation. Today, the capacity to receive and manage data is growing rapidly, thanks to the spread of devices, services and sensors throughout the economy of the State and society. This phenomenon has been described by such terms as Big Data and Internet of Things, IoT («Internet of things»)», Blockchain Technology, etc. Thus, the problem of «digital society» for Ukraine is dealt with through the development of «digital economy», which is aimed ultimately at economic growth, improvement of the level of well-being of the society, as well as improvement of the living conditions and self realization of the person. In other words, today it is meaningful and its sociophilosophical understanding is relevant.
In the West the process of «digitalization», from the economic sphere to the sphere of personal life of a person, is subjected to thorough research and comprehensive study by various scientists, both sociologists, psychologists and philosophers, as well as representatives of the business world and IT-technologies. The general trend of these studies is the definition of «digital» as a complex but irreversible process in which both positive and negative aspects of the large-scale introduction of «digital technologies» into the life of a person are highlighted.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the process of «digitalization» of modern society from the point of view of psychosynergistic approach, psycho-dimensionality of social reality as subjective association of people. In order to achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: 1) to identify the main meanings of the term «digital society» and its synonyms «didzhitalizatsiya», «didzhitizatsiya», «otsifrovka»; 2) to consider the main vector of development «digital» society and to define the essential approaches to its conception; 3) to identify positive and negative aspects of the influence of «digital» technologies on the mental health and psycho-social life of a person. Some negative aspects are already visible and may pose a threat to the life and health of society in the future, based on psycho-dimensionality as a determinant of the quality of the human being (personality), world view and methodology represented by the category of integrity, conception «brain-psyche(mind/consciousness ... )», conceptual model «whole-in-whole» (Yershova-Babenko, 2017; 2019a).

Theoretical basis
The main theoretical base of the research are scientific and philosophical publications devoted to the problem of «digitization» and its influence on social life in English and Ukrainian academic researches. The relevance of the topic of «digital» of modern society in the West today is not in doubt. Interest in this topic has grown gradually since the last decades of the last century, i.e. with the spread of new information technologies, the scope of which is growing steadily and this exponentially increasing development, has actually led to the creation of the term «digitalization». Meanwhile, as noted by the authors of the article «Digitization: Literature Review and Research Agenda» (Reis et al, 2020), the theoretical basis of «digitization» has not yet been sufficiently investigated (Reis et al., 2020, 452). There is not yet a «clear definition of the conceptual domain, nor a short bibliometric analysis of each term» that is used by different researchers when considering the «digital» process, because researchers from different fields of knowledge are characterized differently (Reis et al., 2020, 447-448).
In Ukraine the concept of «digitalization» appeared relatively recently in scientific and philosophical publications, normative documents and mass media as a translation of the English term «digitalization», which, however, allows also a number of synonyms («didzhitalizatsiya», «otsifrovka», «didzhitizatsiya» etc.). Therefore, it is important for domestic philosophy to distinguish them in terms of terminology because, despite their common origin, there is a marked difference between them. Moreover, the authors of the above-mentioned article admit that they used only English-language sources, excluding all others (Reis et al, 2020, 452). Therefore, our research is aimed at filling a gap on this topic regarding Ukrainian-speaking publications.
Particular attention is paid in the Western scientific literature to the analysis of the consequences of «digitalization» on the social life of the person and society, which, as today most researchers believe, are diverse and versatile (Lanier, 2013;Mejias, and Couldry, 2019;Plesner, and Husted, 2020;Zuboff, 2019), ect. Moreover, some Western authors state that there are negative trends of «digitalization», some of which are of serious concern, as they are little visible to researchers (Tritin-Ulbrich, Scherer, Munro & Whelan, 2021, 9).
The Ukrainian-language philosophical and scientific literature also addresses issues related to positive and negative influences of «digitalization», with special attention paid to the latter (Danyl'yan, 2020). For example, some researchers believe that at present «digitalization» in Ukraine is carried out by the authorities inefficiently and inconsistently, which discredits her idea as a whole (Holionko & Ivanova, 2017). Criticism of the pace and directions of «digital» in Ukraine is also devoted to the publications of I.V. Dul's'ka, N.G. Holionko, T.A. Soboleva and others (Dul's'ka 2019; Holionko, Soboleva, 2021). The researchers also pay attention to the regulatory and legal nature of the introduction of «digital technologies» (Digital and Human Rights, 2021; Petryshyn & Gilyaka, 2021). The issues of «digital education» are dealt with in the works of Victor P. Andrushenko, who proposes the term «informatization of education», referring to the introduction of e-learning, cloud technologies, etc. in the education (Andrushchenko, 2021, 416-465).
On the other hand, the philosophical analysis of «digitization», which is represented in the works of T. Burlai, A. Hrytsenko, A. Halaspis shows that the processes of introducing «digital» into all spheres of a person's life have a noticeable influence on his or her identity, mental health and development because «the person becomes a bio-techno-social being, substantially changing the parameters of life activity, creating not only previously unseen possibilities of progress, but also generating and increasing risks of instability» (Hrytsenko & Burlai, 2020, 28).
In the philosophical literature, the problems of «digital» are considered as problems of development of «digital»/ «information» culture which has qualitatively different from the previous type of culture and sets new requirements to the person (Lugovsky O, 2019;Litvinova, 2016). Also researchers turn to different aspects of understanding new characteristics and qualities necessary for a person to live in «digital culture». In this connection the concept of «digital person» appears (Goncharenko, 2019; Dz'oban', 2021). «In the Ukrainian language the word «digital person» is a neologism, synonyms, which are the concepts «information person» (homo informaticus) and «network person» (Dz'oban ', 2021, 13). The main direction of these studies is related to the formation of personality in «information/virutal culture»: «digital person»is a new stage of human development as the main object and subject of information relations in the information society in the last stages of its development» (Dz'oban ', 2021, 13).
Thus, at the present time in Ukraine there is a lack of research works that address issues of social and philosophical understanding of the consequences of «digitization» for a person, his qualities and psycho-social aspects, which is undergoing significant changes in the new environment. The appeal to psycho-synergetics, in which a new theoretical model of the psyche is presented, is therefore justified and relevant. In general, the psycho-synergistic approach is aimed at solving the problems of the human ecology, its psyche and its adaptation to modern social changes and transformations. The author of the idea of synergy as a general scientific program and the founder of the Ukrainian Synergistic Society is I. S. Dobronravova (Dobronravova, 1990;2004), the founder of psycho-synergetics and the founder of the Odessa branch of society, Scientificphilosophical and psychological synergistic school is I.V. Yershova-Babenko (Yershova-Babenko, 2020). Within the framework of psycho-synergetics, as a post-nonclassical field of research that develops at the intersection of psychology and synergetics, it is not only possible to undertake theoretical and methodological analysis related to the identification of a particular social-related phenomenon philosophical problem, but also practical recommendations to solve it.

Methodology
In the article the logical-historical approach was used to analyze the concept of «digital» and synonymous to it concepts. In addition, it presents the latest holistic approach to the analysis of human psyche as indivisible unity, natural integrity, expressed by the concept of «brain-psyche (mind/consciousness...) and the model «whole-in-whole». An integrated approach based on general scientific and philosophical methods of research (analysis, synthesis, generalization, synergis, etc.) was also used to identify the main ways of developing «digital society», its understanding and understanding from the standpoint of socialphilosophical analysis. Systemic and synergistic approaches were used to analyze various aspects of the influence of «digital» on the person and his individual personal, intrapsychic and social life. A transdisciplinary approach based on the measurement of the object of the study has also been used, which has made it possible to present the phenomenon of «digital society» as a whole process in different dimensions (intrapsychic and extrapsychic) and taking place at different levels (social and personal).

Results and Discussion
The concept of «digitalization» is associated with profound changes in the social life of a modern person who in the near future will be in a completely digital world, or «digital-society» (Yershova-Babenko, 2020) where every aspect of his life will be profoundly affected by digital data: how people will communicate and relate to each other; how they will work, learn, stay healthy and participate in politics and the economy. The introduction of digital technologies promises, on the one hand, enormous benefits for better health, more efficient social mobility, more efficient use of energy, more business and more prosperous companies, etc. But it is also obvious that such a fundamental social transformation will have certain complexities of an individual, intramental nature, i.e. that unexpected challenges and problems that did not exist before have already arisen and may arise further. For example, differences between individual social groups and individuals in access to and control over digital data (the Internet) are already evident. Also, undoubtedly, that there are problems of a general philosophical nature that are related to a new understanding of nature and qualities of man, his place in the «digital» world: what it means to be human when we share the world with complex artificial intelligence; how the human psyche can cope with a huge amount of data, how to find among them reliable and reliable knowledge and many others.
According to R. Romansky, digitalization includes the following spheres of activity of the society and the person: e-access, e-society, e-policy, e-democracy, e-voting, e-inclusion (Romansky, 2021). Thus, the introduction of digital technologies may eventually lead to a high-tech and robotic society in which artificial intelligence plays a very high role and in which many of the basic characteristics of today's society are changed. As noted in article I.V. Yershova-Babenko: «at the turn of 2021 of the 21st century... It is clear that a completely different, new scientific picture of the world is emerging. It does not question the model of nature ... A fundamentally qualitatively different component -«digital», symbolizing non-living, non-biological» (Yershova-Babenko, 2020, 53) quickly entered it. As a result, a digital «civilization» emerges as qualitatively fundamentally new and substantially different from all previous types of civilizations (Yershova-Babenko, 2020, 57). This also means that at present the process of «digitalization» of the economy, society and culture, which is proposed to be carried out both on a global scale and at the level of individual position, is still at an early stage, and its development will take place in the coming decades.
Therefore, the use of the concept of «digital» needs to be clarified and conceptualized. Today in scientific and philosophical literature there is no common understanding of such phenomenon as «digitalization», «digital transformation», and even «digital economy», but there are many interpretations of them, represented by different approaches and fields of knowledge: technological (engineering), economical, social and philosophical approaches (Rudenko, 2021, 9). Each of them presents a different understanding of the «digitalization» process and highlights its significant sides and aspects, and analyses the characteristics of the «digital society». Our study compares the understanding of the «digital» process and its consequences by analysing scientific publications on these key approaches. We end up with the following pattern.

Dia. 1. Approaches to research of concept of «digitization» in scientific publications in Ukraine for 2019-2021
Highlighting these four approaches, in which today's issues of «digitalization» are actively discussed, shows that the largest number of scientific publications are in the «economic sciences and business», in which «digital economy» is used in addition to the concept of «digital economy» and «digital transformation» (33 out of 80). Next in «engineering and computer sciences» the issues of transition to digital technologies and the technologies themselves are actively discussed, which constantly increase and expand depending on the scope of application. These sciences contain descriptions of technologies and possible ways of developing them, with an emphasis on their effectiveness and positive effects (28 out of 80). A much smaller number of publications are in the social and legal sciences (15 out of 80).
The main topic of discussion in this sphere is the consequences of «digitalization» in the legal field, since this becomes a completely new and unexplored area when legal relations, actions and subjects (including state authorities and administration) virtualization, i.e. from the realm of physical reality to the realm of virtual reality. Finally, the philosophical approach discusses anthropological consequences of «digitalization» affecting the identity, mental life and selfdevelopment of a person, which changes in the process of interaction with «non-human» devices. However, the small number of publications on this topic (7 out of 80) indicates that nowadays in Ukraine attention is focused on practical effects of «digital» rather than its influence on the psyche and health of the person.
The data in this diagram can be compared with the data given in the aforementioned survey «Digital: Literature Review and Research Agenda» (Reis et al, 2020) for English-language sources. As a result, we find that in general the distribution of the relationship between different sciences in the study is similar, except for some differences. The English-language publications present a more rigorous differentiation of the fields of knowledge that investigate «digital» problems, i.e. each area is divided into more specific and separate disciplines. However, the small number of publications on this topic (7 out of 80) indicates that nowadays in Ukraine attention is focused on practical effects of «digital» rather than its influence on the psyche and health of the person. But the sector of social knowledge in English-language publications (32%) far exceeds the number of Ukrainian-language publications (15%), which shows that in Ukraine social issues of influence of «digital technologies» are today paid little attention. With regard to the Philosophical approach, we see a difference in numbers in favor of Ukraine: English language (3%), Ukrainian language (7%), but there is an important qualitative difference in what is relevant to the field of philosophy in Ukraine and in the West. In addition, in Western sources there are disciplines which in Ukraine do not address the problems of «digital» -it is the sciences about ecology and environment. While in the West they actively investigate the problem of «digitization» (7%).
In general, in terms of the meaning of the term «digitalization», it is necessary to refer to the sections of the Gartner Glossary dictionary devoted to new technologies, it is possible to distinguish two basic terms related to «digital»: «digitalization» means the use of digital technologies to change the business model and provide new opportunities for income generation and creation of value; it is the process of transition to digital business», as well as «digitization» -«otsifrovka», the transformation of different kinds of information into «digital» form (Gartner (n/d)).
Thus, it is possible to talk about two processes that express differently the process of using «digital technologies» in recent decades, and about the lack of attention to human processes in the course of digitalization. Thus, the first of the named -«otsifrovka»/ «digitization» is the beginning of the introduction of digital technologies in wide circulation and is connected only by processing of various information, which needs to be translated into a new format for its transfer and storage. In fact, it is only a narrow field of digital application, with which experts are mostly familiar, but which, one way or another, is still evolving. The second term of named -«digitalization»/ «tsifrovizatsiya» emerged much later and envisaged initially the transition to the introduction of «digital technologies» into business and entrepreneurship. But as technology developed, it became clear that a global penetration of «digital» in all spheres of society and human life became inevitable.
In this context, we can talk about two stages of «digital transformation» of modern society: 1) emergence and implementation of «digital technologies»; 2) global «digital transformation» of society. With regard to the latter process, the term «digitalization» arises, since at the previous level it was only information processing. So to this second stage is the concept of

Approaches
English-speaking Ukrainian-speaking «digitalization» and its synonym «tsifrovizatsiya». The first term occurs mainly in Ukraine in normative documents and in mass media publications, where it is mentioned about «digitalization» as a process of transition to «digital society», etc. (about «digital transformation» of economy, public service, education, medicine, law, cultural, etc.) (Prokhorov, 2019). Once again, we see that in this process there is a lack of attention to issues that are human, human-dimensional and psychodimensional -to the impact on mental health, personal and value transformations (the value of the human rather than information-digitaltechnological, business-economic-model).
The concept of «digitalization» is used mainly in scientific and philosophical publications where it is presented as a modern «world trend» -«digitization is the cause of global social transformation... is the logical stage of development of society, which in the field of economic relations is expressed in the concept of Industry 4.0. Increasingly, the strategic plans of the countries mention the need to build a digital society, development of the digital economy, which features virtualization of all socialeconomic, educational, social and political processes» (Sokolenko, 2019, 167). Thus, speaking of «digital» it is understood that its outcome will be the construction of a new type of society which is defined as «digital society», when the lack of emphasis on actual human values, human-society (Yershova-Babenko, 2020).
In Ukrainian philosophical literature there are different positions regarding the development of this new type of society. Thus, A.V. Halaspis notes that in the new society «otsifrovka of existence» is taking place, meaning «victory over space, since «digital» is indifferent to territory» (Halaspis, 2006). Some authors consider that the digital environment itself has no significant impact on human development and psyche, it is simply a tool that expands the human functionality and effect of using this «tool» depends on the person himself -whether it will be beneficial to him or not (Bochelyuk, 2020, 104). Other authors, on the contrary, see significant challenges and risks to the biological nature of man in case he is completely immersed in «digital-social». Thus, O. Litvinov warns that it is necessary to «abstain from magic «digital», power of algorithms and regulations and understand ethics «digital», to evaluate with all responsibility digitalization not as a chance of accelerated development through immersion in virtual reality, and specifically as a challenge to the natural, biological habitat of man as the basis of possible destruction of biological and social civilization» (Litvinov, 2020, 170). His views are supported by A. Hrytsenko, T. Burlai, who note, that «the technique penetrates the human biological body not only as artificial organs, but also as a carrier of information and a key to information systems. In turn, biological processes become components of technicaltechnological processes of production» (Hrytsenko & Burlai, 2020, 28-29). Hence, in the end the question arises: «artificial intelligence will become a servant or master of man?».
Indeed, regardless of the research specifically devoted to the «digital society," different authors raise the question of the impact of technology on man and his ability: how should he change to adapt in a new society, is man ever ready to live in the «digital» world?
In this aspect there are several basic positions: first, part of the researchers believe that «digital society» creates much better conditions for selfdevelopment and self-fulfillment of a person than before. In other words, «digital person» (i.e. person immersed in the world of new technologies) is in a better position than today, because «digital technologies» open up new opportunities for him, develop new skills and abilities in him, require a new type of thinking and even a new type of identity. «The identification of the modern person takes place through its involvement in a sphere of information, virtual, social space. Even if talking about social networks, it is not necessary to consider them as something negative, as a place where a person is deprived of identity» (Goncharenko, 2019, 140).
Second, there are researchers who believe that the impact of technology on humans is manifold and multifaceted, with both positive and negative effects. Thus, D. Tapscott, creator of the theory of «digital economy», believes that due to the transition of information into digital form, a «computer consciousness» is formed in a person, in which his world outlook and world view are substantially changed (Tapscott, 1999). Information technologies are changing the outlook and moral and psychological characteristics of individuals, causing various transformations in the cognitive, motivational and emotional spheres. One of the reasons for these transformations may be a dramatic increase in the quantity of information and a change in its role and place in human life. In the «digital society», where the production of information prevails over all other social activities, networks are emerging in which information can be exchanged and transmitted between countless interacting actors: information reality becomes more important than social reality (Danyl'yan, 2020, 48-49). Finally, there is an important point related to differentiation, conventionally speaking, apples and jokes: having an apple and giving it away, we are left without an apple, and having an anecdote (information) and giving it, we save and double, and in the conditions of the Internet -reproduce many times (Yershova-Babenko, 2019b, 62).
The following risks and negative consequences for human social life in the «digital society» are distinguished: Graph 2. Risks and negative consequences for human social life in the «digital society» Thus, it is possible to speak of «computed sociality», which is based on «digital» technologies that allow to evaluate and manipulate how any social actor (social group, collective, etc.) represents itself to others in a completely «digital» society (Alaimo & Kallinikos, 2017, 177). In addition, digital technologies are increasingly being used to collect, analyze and process all kinds of data in real time. Data collection is no longer a standalone and costly process, as it used to be. But this is done as an automatic process that refers to almost any movement that a person makes, such as how and with whom they interact (e.g. communications, online contracts, credit card payments, physical transfers, etc.) (Tritin-Ulbrich, Scherer, Munro & Whelan, 2021, 13).
Moreover, «in today's world, the most important objective circumstance is the discovery of information accessibility... all people are consumers of mass media ... The consumer of information becomes a voracious absorber of information» (Danyl'yan, 2020, 58). This results in the inability of a person to manage independently and by previous methods the quality and flow of information affecting his or her psyche and consciousness. «The modern man receives and recycles information in a month as much as he received in the 17th century. Today, according to Mura's law, the information is updated for 1.5 years, which is facilitated by convenient ways of its transfer and access» (Parhomenko, & Parhomenko, 2017, 6). The constant tendency of a person to consume information, especially in the sphere of material things, creates in him the desire to own material and social goods that shape the external environment of society, leads to the stagnation of the internal spiritual sphere, makes him aggressiveness of his own interests, he starts to immerse in consumption, orientation on things.
In fact, we're talking about relying solely on the limbic system of the brain and reducing the use of the neocortex. There are many problems: a person with a material position cannot achieve internal harmony, appeasement and acceptance. Thus, «digital person» is formed as a carrier and interpreter of a huge amount of information, however, despite an increase in the level of perception and processing of information, increase of knowledge, etc., there is no related increase in level of intellectual ability. This phenomenon has received the name «digital autism» (the term A. Kurpatova): «...hyperinformation environment influences the formation of the human thinking system. The constant consumption of rapidly changing content makes critical awareness impossible. The inability to analyze information is the result of the fact that the image is not in the thoughts for a long time and quickly replaced by another (as in the case of switching channels or viewing news)... Mankind is biologically losing its skills, to learn and its learning. A common set of hedonism (enjoyment) and the inability to construct images of the future lead to people becoming intolerant to their failures, counting on easy success» (Pishchulina, 2020).
Significant changes are also taking place in other areas of human mental life: there is a certain degree of dependence on the technical means of communication (gadget, telephone, computer, etc.), even to the point where without them, the person loses stability and self-confidence; the virtualization of interpersonal communication takes place, resulting in the separation of the person and the loss of social contacts. In the cognitive sphere, human beings are set solely on the consumption of information, without critical analysis, content with a superficial level of knowledge. Finally, the identity of a person is transferred to a virtual space, which allows him to create many different self-representational representations and generally remain anonymous.
These and some other aspects of «digitalization» were covered in the article I.V. Yershova-Babenko «Problem of new scientific picture of the world. World of «digital» and «digitalsubject» (2020), in which the term «digitalsubject» is introduced: «subject is «digital», digital information embodied in some carrier (not necessarily biological) and at a certain moment becomes (became) self-contained, independent actor» (Yershova-Babenko, 2020, 43). The introduction of this term has some advantages over the term «digital person», as it allows a deeper understanding and insight into the modern process of «digital» society. The concept of «digital-subject» can refer not only to a person as a carrier and consumer of information, but to any other entity, for example, to a «carrier» having artificial intelligence. «Activity» of this «digitalsubject» is an independent form of existence which will become possible in conditions of expanding and developing «digital society» (Yershova-Babenko, 2020, 44).
Looking at the peculiarities of this new form of subjectivity it can be noted that it antagonizes the human being as a biological being, with its mental characteristics, emotional component and moral values, etc. «The digital is initially unemotional (indifferent) to both man and society and nature, i.e. in principle ... As the improvement progresses, the digital, does not assume the person in its focus, takes out the boundaries of its processes, although the digital is invented by the person, it is the product of his intellect ... . Peculiarities of modern stage of existence of a digital -in fact, today a digital builds its independent from no one and from no one «digital world» (Yershova-Babenko, 2020, 44). Thus, there is a new picture of the world -«digital world», «digital information», which is built according to its own rules, and which includes neither nature, society, nor man. It is a world of machines, robots, technological devices, gadgets, etc., in which the main place is taken by artificial «intelligence», which does not lend itself to «human consistency», but, on the contrary, «inhuman» from the point of psychosynergetics (Goncharova, 2015).
The fundamental position in psychosynergetics is the new conceptual model of the psyche that justifies its non-equilibrium, dynamic, nonlinearity and integrity (Yershova-Babenko, & Goncharova, 2015). In other words, it represents the psyche as a synergistic object of research, acting on the principles of chaotization, dissipativity and self-organization. On the basis of this, psychosynergetics introduces the concept «brain-psyche (mind/consciousness ...)», which explains the natural integrity and unity of the psyche on the basis of the newest holism, expressed by the conceptual model «whole-inwhole» (Yershova-Babenko, 2021). This concept captures the natural integrity of the human brain, consciousness and psyche, including its constituents, allowing them to be considered, on the one hand, as autonomous non-linear integrity, but, on the other hand, as inextricably linked by common unity and interacting as a separate nonlinear integrity.
These provisions of psychosynergetics show that in a «digital society» this natural integrity will be reduced to an emphasis on its individual parts, which leads to a distorted manifestation of the whole human personality. Therefore, the emergence of a whole series of existentialpsychological problems, threats and challenges is unavoidable in the new type of society, since «digital»/ «digital-social» already in its bases disturbs the harmonious natural balance peculiar to man. «The peculiarity of this new «digital civilization» is its non-human/unpsychodimensional character, manifested in that, «digital-subject» does not need a biological carrier for its existence and development ... Consequently, the «digital-subject» can become parallel to the person or completely replace it, by creating «post-human» and possibly «postnatural» -«digital» artificial world in which human continuity will have no place» (Yershova-Babenko, 2021, 406).

Conclusions
The problem of «digital» society is now one of the important political, economic and social problems for Ukraine, as a number of state normative documents state that «digital» is the main line of development of Ukrainian society in the coming decades. In this sense, it is studied from the perspective of information technology, economic, social and philosophical approaches. At the same time, this problem also has philosophical explanatory statements, since the understanding of social-philosophical perspectives and problems of the global «digital society» is now relevant for both western and domestic philosophers, psychologists and humanitarians in general. Therefore, in the philosophical thesaurus of the last decades such concepts as «digital»/ «information society», «digital culture», as well as «digital person» are actively used. In the works of Ukrainian researchers, attention is mainly paid to economic and technological aspects of «digitalization» (tab. 1). In this connection, in comparison with western researchers, there is an insufficient number of works devoted to anthropological, socio-philosophical, cultural and sociopsychological consequences of the process of «digitalization» and the construction of «digital society» on the life of an individual, its integrity and self-development.
Applying a psychosynergetics approach to the analysis of this problem showed that many of the above-mentioned characteristics of the «digital person» are rooted in the social «non-human continuity» of the «digital society». Therefore, the solution of each issue and problem separately will not bring fundamental changes in the existence and development of a person in a new society with the characteristic «human in person». In order to solve this problem the ratio of «human»/ «digital»/ «artificial», their compatibility and interaction requires a transdisciplinary approach in which the efforts of scientists from different fields of knowledge (humanities, doctors, psychologists, representatives of computer sciences, etc.) will find general recommendations and regulations, which will help to adapt the person in new social conditions «digital society». One such transdisciplinary area could be psychosynergetics, as a post-non-classical area of knowledge that implements synergistic and other ideas.