Most determining influence on utopian phenomenon was surely its etimological eqivocation. Historiographicaly, that 'lexic ambiguity' has burdened the scientific debate on the nature of utopia in such a manner that even the polemics concerning the definition of phenomenon as a fundamental concept in the academic community, to this day remain uncompleted. It seems perhaps, that the very fact of uncompletenes, acamedic as well as nonacademic is the fate of utopian as such; utopian per se. On one hand, in the sense and meaning of utopian as a progressing, advancing processuality, which itself, in every here and now is being completed and uncompleted; in the same sense, as an anticipation of the future utopian processuality as being envisaged and un-envisaged; then as a critique of the dominant unhumane relations in society utopian is rooting in the realm and in imagination. In a certain way, at the same time it implicates and explicates seemengly contrary actions and that is her metaphysical frame. On the other hand that polarization is reflecting the very nature of utopian processuality as such. Although the phenomenon was named rather late, during the first years of the 16th century (Thomas More), processuality in-time and on-the-way, in the end, exceeds every temporaly-spacial punctuality, having in mind the fact that phenomenon can not be halted in one point and proclaimed finished, done, ended. Conclusion about the end of utopian processuality, in itself witholds, although not explicitly formulated, proposition about the end of man as a being of possibility. Namely, ontological picture of homo utopicus is the most intimate, primordial, perenial strive and yearning toward a, as perfect as possible forms of actualization and selfactualization. Therefore, as much as the term itself is subject to semantic ambiguity the more so does its activity unambiguously call itself into existence as a wishing, hope content. It is a sort of a paradox of the utopian name – though definitory 'undefined' it is still considered a coveted realm. Its un-envisaged content is envisaged because through critique aimed toward socialy undesirable normatives, that un-envisaged content is being introduced as a negation of the given relations within the society. That which is anticipated is perceived as more valuable than that which is present. Shaping, transforming the place, human being is presenting itself as the subject, the bearer of change, the bringer of utopian processuality, considering utopia and human being are alike, open and uncompleted. In a way, utopia mirrors a man's ontological default, his permanent be-ing in a place of ruling. There lies the root of utopian openness and dystopian confidment. That very place of ruling is what, so to speak, forces a human being to act in every occasion. Unless the external conditions determine otherwise a person always selects contents which one, for-me of course, percieves abundently. Simply such is the law of volition. Utopian materialisation is directed at a certain place, though it is not determened by the place in a temporaly-spacial sense. A man's givenness is also his direction of being, so to speak. As a biological (instinctive) condition utopia is forwarded towards more complexing forms, ones that are percieved as advancingly progressional. As opposed to that processuality, the inteligent one sets upon a person a choice, a possibility. Insofar are its outcomes more valuable, considering it demands an intimite consent. Biological utopia follows forms of processuality imanent to development of life itself as physiologicaly determined phenomenon. On the other hand, inteligent utopia with its place of ruling determines its own forms of action and thus is being exposed to envisaged uncertanity which a person fills with anticipating content. In that very topos of completed and uncompleted is a person placed, as in a potential place of advancing utopian processuality, which only a human being is invited to upgrade. Processuality being upgraded and constructed as a result of ontological place of ruling is in fact a confrontation of one with oneself and the surrounding world. To exist in a community, in-communion, implies an affirmation of self, a selfactualisation that comes into existance through orientation toward the other and that is the breaking point of utopia. Namely, society and individual are actively oriented on that which is perceived as good. Societie’s duty is to cultivate personal freedom on its way to more perfect forms of selfactualisation that at the same time imply more humane community forms, uncompromising, coexisting collectiveness. Good around which society strives abstracts its value norm from human possibility to transcend its own existing conditioning.