Often people have to compromise their important and not very desires - for a variety of reasons ... Of course, we are accustomed to dominate desires, and not serve them ... But if this happens constantly, it is exhausting and really is as harmful as they say psychologists and just fabulous fairies, what depends in such a situation on you personally - the person reading these lines?
We live in a time of all kinds of contradictions and paradoxes. And perhaps one of the most significant for each of us is the gap between the amount of information around us and its actual implementation. This is a truly colossal problem! On the one hand, the information wave tends to the size of the tsunami, and the term "information" is used in ever larger spheres ("information revolution", "information war", "information blockade"). On the other hand, more and more outraged voices are heard claiming that we are living in the "era of amateurs." Perhaps each of us can cite many examples of unskilled service in any area of life - from a loader who does not know how to approach the refrigerator, and ending with a teacher who speaks surzhik. Why is this happening? There are many reasons. Let's consider those of them that we are able to influence.
Information and energy
First of all, for many modern people there is no difference between the words "information" and "knowledge." That is why very often you can hear “I know how to do it” from people who have never done what they advise others to do. This is especially typical for advisers "from the humanities". There is even the phrase "theoretical knowledge", as opposed to the term "skills", that is, the ability to do something. And the situation when a specialist comes to production after a university, sometimes even with a red diploma (that is, it is assumed that he has a very large store of knowledge), and practical skills are equal or tend to zero - has become the talk of the town. This is one aspect that sages and teachers say the following: knowledge- this is information confirmed by personal experience.
There is a deeper meaning in this story, which few people guess about, but which each of us has encountered at least once in our lives, knowing but not doing ... Agree, your plans when you are preparing to do something useful for the first time for yourself - at least sign up for the pool, or start doing exercises - often remain just plans. Especially if you are going to do it alone or without friendly control, support of a person who is significant to you. And the point here is not only and not so much about laziness or habits. Behind the notorious laziness is very often a lack, sometimes catastrophic, of free personal energy. However, in order to overcome a habit that has become unnecessary and form a new one, free personal energy is also required. Moreover, in such a situation, it is needed even more than to overcome laziness!
Energy sources
What does the term "free personal energy" mean? According to Eastern wisdom and modern adherents of various esoteric schools confirm, a person has at his disposal several sources of energy = life force both for his daily activity and for everything new in his life. Moreover, most of these sources are irreplaceable. And besides the fact that we are not only unable to replenish stocks, we also receive this life force in fact one-time, at a time when we ourselves cannot dispose of it in any way. Namely: we gain the bulk of vital energy at the moment of conception, and some more - somewhere in the 12th week of pregnancy. And only after our birth do we have the opportunity to accumulate energy already in a renewable source. It is these reserves that are considered "free personal energy." And the accumulation is due to the sources listed below.
Nutrition - the more natural and properly prepared food products, the more energy they contain, which we can turn into our life force. And the less free personal energy is needed to digest food. Nutritionists have long known that for processing, for example, even dietary meat itself, more energy is needed than we get in the end! And the initial value of meat is not in its energy reserves, but in the content of essential amino acids.
Breathing - and not in the sense of gas exchange, but in the sense of receiving at your disposal the energy spilled in space, known to us as prana.
Physical work on the ground, or just a walk in nature - especially if we can afford the luxury of walking barefoot!
The sun is in fact its stellar essence!
Admiring something or someone. At such moments, we become open to receive not only the energy put into the work by its author, but also to better absorb prana.
Free personal energy of people. And first of all the people to whom we are dear! Any other person can become an energy donor. How is not the point. But it is precisely this path that ultimately leads to energy vampirism.
Dream. It's not for nothing that when we get sick, we start sleeping more than usual.
These, in general, are all the most significant ways to replenish free personal energy. I arrange them in an arbitrary order so that everyone can choose the most available sources for conscious use at their discretion.
Wasted
Where does free personal energy go if there are so many sources of it?
- First of all, this is our everyday life. After all, even when we just think, we spend more than when we sleep.
- Communication with people, especially those who are not very pleasant to us. Sometimes such communication drains us to complete powerlessness. Hence, an easy way to save your own personal energy is not to associate with people who are unpleasant. Is it difficult, you don't want to spoil the relationship? Then think: do they make you happier? Does such communication give you strength for your personal life, for activity aimed at achieving your own well-being and the well-being of the beings around you?
- Empty chatter. Moreover, this is a more expensive "item of expenditure" than most people imagine! It is not for nothing that the practice of conscious silence is considered one of the most powerful techniques on the path of self-awareness and personal growth.
- Excessive emotionality. It has long been known that excessively manifested emotions simply devour our free personal energy. In this case, we are not talking about conscious emotional coldness - this is just as harmful as splashing emotions left and right for the slightest reason. It is important to exercise them in an appropriate and appropriate way.
- Sex. More precisely - sex that does not bring mutual pleasure. Here, I think, nothing can be explained. Most likely, each of us more than once experienced moments when, instead of fullness and the feeling that you can move mountains, the body was filled with disgusting emptiness ...
Forming a new habit
And finally - the simplest and most accessible opportunity for everyone not to waste free personal energy. This method is to live, being aware of yourself and every minute of your life.
What does it do?
We stop wasting energy.
What happens when we live "out of habit"?
Very imperceptibly, but irreversibly, we squander free personal energy!
How exactly?
Each in its own way, but roughly as follows.
- In the morning, you choose between a checked shirt and a turtleneck. Having made a choice, then for half a day, or even until the evening, you continue to argue with yourself whether you made the right choice. So, all this time you are presenting your “not chosen” clothes with your free personal energy! A trifle? We remember our day further ...
- On the way to work in the shop window, you notice an appetizing and inexpensive, but very high-calorie cake. But your waist is dearer to you, and therefore the cake remains in the store. And nevertheless, you savor the delicacy that has not been eaten for half a day. And again, give him free personal energy ...
- At lunchtime, you run into the nearest shoe boutique. What a blessing - there is a sale! And those boots over there - just your favorite style, and what a gorgeous rich color! And on the leg - well, just super! And then you notice the numbers on the price tag. Oh God! This is at a discount - and a whole month's salary ?! And the boots are sadly put back on the shelf, while remaining in your memory and sensations for some rather long time. This is how you spend your free personal energy again.
- And also during the day - not bought, but a very interesting book; a handbag purchased yesterday by a colleague; a young man in the subway, who caused warmth in his soul, but did not come up to ask for a phone number ... And so on and so forth!
Everyone has their own, but everyone, in fact, is the same - a lot of unfulfilled desires during the day, the memories of which take up more time in your memory than is necessary for their fulfillment. This is where we drain our free personal energy.
Sometimes this leads us to complete exhaustion in the evening. And the strength is already enough only to get to your favorite chair and collapse exhausted into it, for some minutes. And then - dinner, TV or magazine, or sleep. After all, tomorrow is a new day - and again a million opportunities to deprive yourself of the chance to do something new, to take the first step towards something hitherto unknown, which may be very important in your life, but never realized.
Or you will still find the strength to turn information into knowledge - and you will take the first step towards your dream!
Practice "How to release the energy of desires"
The purpose of the exercise- to find under the pile of desires one or two completely forgotten unfulfilled desires that block the free flow of energy.
Get a Wishlist (your name). You can create such a file on your computer. Once a day, take the time to gradually remembering to write on this sheet all desires that have not been realized, starting from early childhood. You can make a sign, you can write in a line - as you like.
Recording format:
- unfulfilled desire itself;
- the approximate age when it appeared;
- the situation in which it appeared;
- physical body sensations that you track when you remember this desire.
It is important to carry out the process day after day without interruption, without stretching it for more than a week. Usually, “that very” memory of a thoroughly forgotten desire occurs in people on the 3-4th day.
Usually people write out from 50 to 150 unfulfilled desires. In your case, there may be a unique number, you should not tune in to any specific task.
Remembering your unfulfilled desires and letting them go through writing out the physical sensations of the present moment, you can create in yourself (in your body) the feeling that you are gradually freeing from something. Step by step you move deep into yourself, slowly, slower and more powerful, without fuss, you plunge into the hidden corners of your inner universe. Each time in one writing session, you reach a state of complete devastation at the moment of practice. And on some day, an insight may arise. Suddenly, you will find something, perhaps long forgotten. Forgotten so much that you have never remembered this event, situation, desire in your life. Move like a gold digger. You do not know where this "forgotten thing", pulling back with a backpack, hid. You don't even know if it exists at all.
You just sink slowly and powerfully deeper and deeper ... And at some point this insight can happen by itself.
It is necessary to deprive yourself of expectations of immediate results. You don't need to do anything with the desires written out, you just need to remember the main goal - to free yourself from the burden of unfulfilled desires that accumulate and interfere with the free flow of energy from the inside out, from dream to realization?
Among the questions people ask, there is one that causes particular concern and a satisfactory answer to which they find with great difficulty - the question about the meaning of the existence of evil: why does evil exist? ... The answer, in essence, is very simple.
I'll give you an example. Often in the past, when they wanted to get water from a well, they used a large wheel, which was set in rotation with the help of bulls, horses or even people. The one who watched them saw how some of them seemed to approach the wheel, while others at the same time seemed to move away from it, and one could come to the conclusion that they were moving in two opposite directions. But if a person could observe this process from a height, then he would clearly see that both are going in the same direction and doing the same work.
This example shows us that good and evil, which look like opposite manifestations, are actually two forces harnessed to one work, but since they are not looked at from a height, that is, from a spiritual, consecrated point of view, they say that they are two forces that oppose each other. All those who look at facts and events from below, that is, at the level where they occur, are mistaken. If they tried to rise up to observe them from the point of view of wisdom, from the point of view of the spirit, then they would have the right vision. They would see a circle, a wheel ... and they would understand that good and evil are two forces harnessed together to turn the wheel of life.
If we want to destroy evil, then good will also be destroyed. Of course, this does not mean that we must nourish and enhance evil, no, it is strong enough without our help, but we should not also try to get rid of it - however, this does not succeed. What you need to do is use it and determine what attitude you need to develop towards it. Yes, now is the time to give humanity a new philosophy.
If you were in the sun, you probably would not know darkness, but you came out of the sun, you came to earth, and since the earth revolves around the sun, light alternates with darkness on it. Since you are outside the sun, you need to recognize this alternation of day and night, light and darkness, good and evil, and not only recognize, but also be able to use it. If darkness were evil, how is it that it is in the darkness - the darkness of the earth or the subconscious - that the greatest achievements begin to emerge? In reality, darkness is a condition for births or future rebirths. Why child, why does the grain begin to grow in the dark? ... And you, how do you use the night? It's wonderful, isn't it, you are asleep, and when you wake up the next morning, you have recovered all your strength to start working again.
You say, "Yes, but what is the origin of evil?" There is an eternal Principle
LECTURE 2.
PERSON AS A SUBJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY.
The object of pedagogical anthropology is the person-person relationship, and the object is the child. In order to understand this object and penetrate into this object, it is necessary first of all to understand what a person is, what is his nature. That is why for pedagogical anthropology “man” is one of the basic concepts. It is important for her to have the most complete picture of a person, as this will give an adequate idea of the child and the upbringing corresponding to his nature.
Man has been the subject of study in many sciences for many centuries. The information accumulated about him during this time is colossal. But it not only does not reduce the number of questions related to penetration into the essence of human nature, but also multiplies these questions. It does not lead to a single, satisfying everyone, concept of a person. And as before, various sciences, including those that have just arisen, find in a person their "field of activity", their aspect, discover in him something that was hitherto unknown, in their own way determine what a person is.
Man is so diverse, "polyphonic" that various sciences reveal in him directly opposite human properties and focus on them. So, if for economics he is a rationally thinking creature, then for psychology he is in many respects irrational. History considers him as an "author", a subject of certain historical events, and pedagogy - as an object of care, help, support. Sociology is interested in him as a creature with invariant behavior, and for genetics - as a programmed creature. For cybernetics, he is a universal robot, for chemistry - a set of certain chemical compounds.
The options for aspects of studying a person are endless, they are multiplying all the time. But at the same time today it is becoming more and more obvious: a person is a supercomplex, inexhaustible, in many ways a mysterious subject of knowledge; full comprehension of it (a task posed at the dawn of the existence of anthropology) is, in principle, impossible.
A number of explanations are given for this. For example, this: the study of a person is carried out by the person himself, and therefore already cannot be either complete or objective. Another explanation is based on the fact that a collective concept of a person cannot be formed, as if from pieces, from observation materials, studies of individual specific people. Even if there are many of them. They also say that that part of a person's life that lends itself to study does not exhaust the whole person. “Man is not reducible to the empirical being of an empirical subject. A person is always greater than himself, for he is a part of something larger, a wider whole, a transcendental world ”(GP Shchedrovitsky). They also point out that information received about a person in different centuries cannot be combined into one whole, because humanity is different in different epochs, just like each person is largely different in different periods of his life.
And yet, the image of a person, the depth and volume of the idea of him have been improving from time to time.
Let's try to sketch the contour of the modern concept of a person, which develops in the analysis of data obtained by various sciences. In this case, the very term "man" will be used by us as a collective one, that is, denoting not some specific, single person, but a generalized representative of Homo sapiens.
Like all living things, a person is active, that is, he is able to selectively reflect, perceive, react to any irritations and influences, has, in the words of F. Engels, "an independent force of reaction."
It is plastic, that is, it has high adaptive abilities to changing living conditions while maintaining species characteristics.
He is a dynamic, evolving being: certain changes occur in organs, systems, the human brain, and over the centuries, and in the process of every person's life. Moreover, according to modern science, the development process of Homo sapiens is not complete, a person's possibilities for change are not exhausted.
Like all living things, a person organically belongs to the nature of the Earth and the Cosmos, with which he is constantly exchanging substances and energies. It is obvious that man is an integral part of the biosphere, flora and fauna of the Earth, reveals in himself the signs of animal and plant life. For example, the latest discoveries of paleontology and molecular biology indicate that the genetic codes of humans and monkeys differ only by 1-2% (while the anatomical differences are about 70%). The closeness of man to the animal world is especially evident. That is why a person often identifies himself with certain animals in myths and fairy tales. That is why philosophers sometimes regard man as an animal: poetic (Aristotle), laughing (Rabelais), tragic (Schopenhauer), making tools, deceitful ...
And yet man is not just the highest animal, not just the crown of the development of the nature of the Earth. He, according to the definition of the Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin, is “all nature”. "He organized, includes, concentrates and concentrates everything that is contained in the most distant nebulae and in the nearest microorganisms, embracing all this with his spirit in cognition and perception."
The organic belonging of man to the Cosmos is confirmed by the data of such seemingly distant sciences as coke chemistry, astrophysics, etc. In this regard, the statement of NA Berdyaev is recalled: "Man understands the Universe because they have the same nature."
Man is the main "geological-forming factor of the biosphere" (according to VI Vernadsky). He is not just one of the fragments of the Universe, one of the ordinary elements of the plant and animal world. He is the most significant element of this world. With its appearance, the nature of the Earth has changed in many ways, and today man determines the state of the Cosmos as well. At the same time, a person is always a being, largely dependent on cosmic and natural phenomena and conditions. Modern man understands: the nature disfigured by him threatens the existence of mankind, destroys it, and understanding nature, establishing a dynamic balance with it, makes it easier and beautifies the life of mankind, makes man a more complete and productive being.
SOCIALITY AND REASONABLE HUMAN BEING
Man is not only a cosmic, natural being. He is a socio-historical being. Sociality is one of its most important characteristics. Consider this statement.
As organically as to the Cosmos and the nature of the Earth, a person belongs to society, to the human community. The very emergence of Homo sapiens, according to modern science, is due to the transformation of the herd of anthropoids, where biological laws ruled, into a human society, where moral laws were in effect. The specific features of a person as a species have developed under the influence of a social way of life. The most important conditions for the preservation and development of both the species of Homo sapiens and the individual was the observance of moral taboos and adherence to the socio-cultural experience of previous generations.
Also, society is of great importance for each individual person, since it is not a mechanical addition of separate individuals, but the integration of people into a single social organism. “The first of the first conditions in a person's life is another person. Other people are the centers around which the human world is organized. The attitude towards another person, towards people is the main fabric of human life, its core, ”wrote S. L. Rubinstein. I cannot be revealed only through an attitude towards oneself (it is no coincidence that Narcissus in the ancient myth is an unhappy creature). A person develops only "looking" (K. Marx) into another person.
Any person is impossible without society, without joint activities and communication with other people. Each person (and many generations of people) is ideally represented in other people and takes an ideal part in them (V.A.Petrovsky). Even without having a real opportunity to live among people, a person manifests himself as a member of “his”, referent for him, community. He is guided (not always consciously) by his values, beliefs, norms and rules. He uses speech, knowledge, skills, habitual forms of behavior that arose in society long before his appearance in it and were transferred to him. His memories and dreams are also filled with pictures that have social meaning.
It was in society that a person was able to realize the potential opportunities given to him by the Cosmos and earthly nature. Thus, the activity of man as a living being has turned into a socially significant ability for productive activity, for the preservation and creation of culture. Dynamism and plasticity - in the ability to focus on another, to change in his presence, to experience empathy. Readiness for the perception of human speech - in sociability, in the ability to constructive dialogue, to exchange ideas, values, experience, knowledge, etc.
It was the socio-historical way of being that made the pre-man a rational being.
By rationality, pedagogical anthropology, following KD Ushinsky, understands what is characteristic only of a person - the ability to be aware of not only the world, but also oneself in it:
Your being in time and space;
The ability to fix your awareness of the world and yourself;
The desire for introspection, self-criticism, self-esteem, goal-setting and planning of one's life, that is, self-awareness, reflection.
Intelligence is innate in humans. Thanks to her, he is able to carry out goal-setting, philosophize, seek the meaning of life, strive for happiness. Thanks to her, he is able to improve himself, educate himself and change the world around him according to his own ideas about the valuable and ideal (being, a person, etc.). It largely determines the development of the arbitrariness of mental processes, the improvement of human will.
Reasonableness helps a person to act contrary to their organic needs, biological rhythms (suppress hunger, work actively at night, live in zero gravity, etc.). She sometimes forces a person to mask his individual properties (manifestations of temperament, gender, etc.). It gives strength to overcome the fear of death (remember, for example, infectious disease doctors who experimented on themselves). This ability to cope with instinct, to consciously go against the natural principle in oneself, against one's organism is a specific feature of a person.
HUMAN SPIRITUALITY AND CREATIVITY
A specific feature of a person is his spirituality. Spirituality is characteristic of all people as a universal human initial need for orientation towards higher values. Whether a person's spirituality is a consequence of his socio-historical existence or is it evidence of his divine origin, this question remains controversial to this day. However, the very existence of the named feature as a purely human phenomenon is undeniable.
Indeed, only a person is characterized by unsaturated needs for new knowledge, in the search for truth, in a special activity to create intangible values, in a life of conscience and justice. Only a person is able to live in an immaterial, unreal world: in the world of art, in an imaginary past or future. Only a person is able to work for pleasure and enjoy hard work, if it is free, has a personal or socially significant meaning. Only a person tends to experience such conditions that are difficult to define at the rational level, such as shame, responsibility, self-esteem, repentance, etc. Only a person is able to believe in ideals, in himself, in a better future, in goodness, in God. Only a person is able to love, and not be limited only to sex. Only a person is capable of self-sacrifice and self-restraint.
Being rational and spiritual, living in society, a person could not help but become a creative being. Human creativity is also found in his ability to create something new in all spheres of his life, including in art, and in his sensitivity to it. It manifests itself on a daily basis in what V. A. Petrovsky calls "the ability to freely and responsibly go beyond the boundaries of the predetermined" (starting from curiosity and ending with social innovations). It manifests itself in the unpredictability of the behavior of not only individuals, but also social groups and entire nations.
It is the socio-historical way of being, spirituality and creativity that make a person a real force, the most significant component of not only society, but also the Universe.
HUMAN INTEGRITY AND CONTRADICTIONS
Another global characteristic of a person is his integrity. As L. Feuerbach noted, man is "a living creature characterized by the unity of material, sensual, spiritual and rational-effective being." Modern researchers emphasize such a feature of human integrity as "holography": in any manifestation of a person, each of his properties, organ and system, the whole person is represented in volume. For example, in any emotional manifestation of a person, the state of his physical and mental health, the development of will and intellect, genetic characteristics and adherence to certain values and meanings, etc., are revealed.
The most obvious is the physical integrity of the human body (any scratch makes the whole organism react), but it does not exhaust the integrity of a person - a supercomplex creature. The integrity of a person is manifested, for example, in the fact that his physiological, anatomical, mental properties are not only adequate to each other, but interrelated, interdependent, interdependent on each other.
Man is a being, the only one of all living beings inseparably, organically linking his biological and social essences, his rationality and spirituality. And human biology, and his sociality, and rationality, and spirituality are historical: determined by the history of mankind (as well as an individual person). And the history of a species (and any person) itself is social and biological at the same time, therefore, the biological manifests itself in forms that largely depend on common human history, the type of a particular society, and the characteristics of the culture of a particular community.
As an integral being, a person is always simultaneously in the position of both subject and object (not only in any situation of social and personal life, communication, activity, but also culture, space, time, education).
In a person, mind and feeling, emotions and intellect, rational and irrational being are interconnected. He always exists both "here and now" and "there and then", his present is inextricably linked with the past and future. His ideas about the future are determined by impressions and experiences of past and present life. And the very imaginary idea of the future influences the real behavior in the present, and sometimes also the revaluation of the past. Being different in different periods of his life, a person at the same time - all his life the same representative of the human race. His conscious, unconscious and superconscious (creative intuition, according to P. Simonov) being are interdependent, adequate to each other.
In human life, the processes of integration and differentiation of the psyche, behavior, and self-awareness are interconnected. For example, it is known that the development of the ability to distinguish more and more shades of color (differentiation) is associated with an increase in the ability to recreate the image of a whole object from one seen detail (integration).
Every person reveals a deep unity of individual (common to mankind as a species), typical (characteristic of a certain group of people) and unique (characteristic only for a given person) properties. Each person always manifests himself at the same time as an organism, and as a person, and as an individuality. Indeed, a being with individuality, but completely devoid of an organism, is not only not a person, but a phantom. The idea that the organism, personality, individuality, which is a concept that fixes different levels of human development, which is very widespread in the pedagogical consciousness, is incorrect. In a person as an integral being, the named hypostases are aligned, interrelated, mutually controlled.
Each individual person as an organism is the bearer of a certain genotype, the keeper (or destroyer) of the gene pool of mankind, therefore human health is one of the universal values.
From the point of view of pedagogical anthropology, it is important to understand that the human body is fundamentally different from other living organisms. And it's not just anatomical and physiological features. And not that the human body is synergistic (unbalanced): its activity includes both chaotic and ordered processes, and the younger the body, the more chaotic it is, the more chaotic it acts. (By the way, it is important for the teacher to understand the following: the chaotic functioning of the child's body allows him to more easily adapt to changes in living conditions, adapt to the unpredictable behavior of the external environment, act in a wider range of conditions. leads to aging, destruction, disease.)
Another thing is more important: the functioning of the human body is integrally connected with spirituality, rationality, and sociality of a person. In fact, the physical state of the human body depends on the human word, on "fortitude", and at the same time, the physical state of a person affects his psychological, emotional state, functioning in society.
The human body from birth (or maybe long before it) needs a human way of life, human forms of being, communication with other people, mastering the word and is ready for them.
The physical appearance of a person reflects social processes, the state of culture and the peculiarities of a particular upbringing system.
Each individual person as a member of society is a person, i.e .:
A participant in joint and at the same time divided labor and a bearer of a certain system of relations;
An exponent and at the same time a performer of generally accepted requirements and restrictions;
The bearer of social roles and statuses that are significant for others and for himself;
A supporter of a certain way of life.
To be a person, that is, a bearer of sociality, is an inalienable property, a natural innate characteristic of a person.
In the same way, the innate property of a person to be an individual, that is, a being, unlike others. This dissimilarity is found both at the physiological and psychological levels (individual individuality) and at the level of behavior, social interaction, self-realization (personal, creative individuality). Thus, individuality integrates the characteristics of the organism and the personality of a particular person. If individual dissimilarity (eye color, type of nervous activity, etc.), as a rule, is quite obvious and depends little on the person himself and the life around him, then personal dissimilarity is always the result of his conscious efforts and interaction with the environment. Both the one and the other individuality are socially significant manifestations of a person.
The deep, organic, unique integrity of a person largely determines his super-complexity both as a real phenomenon and as a subject of scientific study, which was already discussed above. It is reflected in human art and scientific theories. In particular, in the concepts linking together I, It and from above ?; ego and aleperego; internal positions "child", "adult", "parent", etc.
A kind of expression of the integrity of a person is his inconsistency. NA Berdyaev wrote that a person can cognize himself “from above and from below,” from the divine principle and from the demonic principle in himself. “And he can do this because he is a dual and contradictory being, a being in the highest degree polarized, godlike and bestial. High and low, free and slave, capable of rising and falling, to great love and sacrifice and to great cruelty and boundless egoism "(Berdyaev N. A. On slavery and freedom of man. Experience of personalistic philosophy. - Paris, 1939. - p. . 19).
It is possible to record a number of more interesting, purely human contradictions inherent in its nature. So, being a material being, a person cannot live only in the material world. Belonging to objective reality, at any moment of his conscious being, a person is able to go beyond everything that is actually given to him, to distance himself from his real being, to immerse himself in an internal “virtual” reality that belongs only to him. The world of dreams and fantasies, memories and projects, myths and games, ideals and values is so significant for a person that he is ready to give the most precious thing for them - his life and the lives of other people. The influence of the external world is always organically combined with the full-fledged influence on a person of his internal world, created by the imagination and perceived as reality. Sometimes the interaction of the real and imaginary spaces of a person's existence is harmonious and balanced. Sometimes one prevails over the other, or there is a tragic feeling of mutual exclusion of these two sides of his life. But always both the one and the other world are necessary for a person, he always lives in both of them.
It is natural for a person to live simultaneously according to rational laws and according to the laws of conscience, goodness and beauty, and they often not only do not coincide, but directly contradict each other. Determined by social conditions and circumstances, focused on following social stereotypes and attitudes, even in complete solitude, he at the same time always retains his autonomy. In fact, never a single person is completely absorbed by society, does not "dissolve" in it. Even in the harshest social conditions, in closed societies, a person retains at least a minimum of independence of his reactions, assessments, actions, a minimum of the ability to self-regulation, to the autonomy of his existence, his inner world, a minimum of dissimilarity to others. No conditions can deprive a person of the inner freedom that he finds in imagination, creativity, dreams.
Freedom is one of the highest human values, forever associated with happiness. For her sake, a person is able to give up even his inalienable right to life. But achieving complete independence from other people, from responsibility to them and for them, from responsibilities, and makes a person lonely and unhappy.
A person realizes his "insignificance" in front of the universe, natural elements, social cataclysms, fate ... And at the same time there are no people who do not have a sense of their own dignity, the humiliation of this feeling is extremely painful for all people: children and old people, the weak and the sick , socially dependent and oppressed.
Communication is vital for a person and at the same time he strives for solitude, and it is also very important for his full development.
The development of a person obeys certain laws, but the importance of accidents is no less great, therefore, the result of the development process can never be completely predictable.
A person is both a routine and a creative being: he shows creativity and gravitates towards stereotypes, habits take a large place in his life.
Form start
He is a conservative being to a certain extent, striving to preserve the traditional world, and at the same time revolutionary, destroying foundations, remaking the world for new ideas, “for himself”. Able to adapt to changing conditions of life and at the same time to show "non-adaptive activity" (V. A. Petrovsky).
This list of contradictions inherent in humanity is certainly incomplete. But nevertheless, he shows that a person is ambivalent, that the contradictions of a person are largely due to his complex nature: simultaneously biosocial and spiritually intelligent, in them is the essence of a person. A person is strong in his contradictions, although sometimes they give him a lot of trouble. It can be assumed that the "harmonious development of man" will never lead to a complete smoothing out of essential contradictions, to the emasculation of the human essence.
CHILD AS A MAN
All of these specific features are inherent in humans from birth. Each child is integral, each is connected with the Cosmos, earthly nature and society. He is born as a biological organism, an individual individual, a member of society, a potential bearer of culture, the creator of interpersonal relations.
But children manifest their human nature in a slightly different way than adults.
Children are more sensitive to space and natural phenomena, and the possibilities of their interference in terrestrial and space nature are minimal. At the same time, children are as active as possible in mastering the environment and creating the inner world, themselves. Since the child's body is more chaotic and plastic, he has the highest level of ability to change, that is, he is the most dynamic. The predominance in childhood of those mental processes that are associated not with the cerebral cortex, but with other brain structures, provides a significantly greater impressionability, immediacy, emotionality, the child's inability to self-analysis at the beginning of life and its rapid deployment as the brain matures. Due to mental characteristics and lack of life experience, scientific knowledge, a child is more committed than an adult to an imaginary world, to play. But this does not mean that an adult is smarter than a child, or that the inner world of an adult is much poorer than a child's. Assessments in this situation are generally inappropriate, since the psyche of a child is simply different from that of an adult.
The spirituality of a child is manifested in the ability to enjoy human (moral) behavior, love loved ones, believe in goodness and justice, be guided by the ideal and follow it more or less productively; in sensitivity to art; in curiosity and cognitive activity.
The child's creativity is so diverse, its manifestations are so obvious in everyone, the power of imagination over rationality is so great that sometimes the ability to create is mistakenly attributed only to childhood and therefore does not take the child's creative manifestations seriously.
The child much more clearly demonstrates both sociality and organic interconnection of different hypostases of a person. Indeed, the behavior, personality characteristics and even the physical appearance and health of the child turn out to be dependent not only and not so much on the characteristics of his internal, innate potential, but on external conditions: on the demand for certain qualities and abilities by others; from the recognition of adults; from a favorable position in the system of relations with significant people; from the saturation of the space of his life with communication, impressions, creative activity.
A child, like an adult, can say about himself in the words of G.R.Derzhavin:
I am the connection of worlds that exist everywhere.
I am the extreme degree of substance.
I am the focus of the living
Deity's chief trait.
I decay with my body in dust,
I command the thunders with the mind.
I am a king, I am a slave
I am a worm, I am God!
Thus, we can say that "child" is a synonym for the word "person". A child is a cosmobiopsychosociocultural, plastic being in intensive development; actively assimilating and creating social and historical experience and culture; self-improving in space and time; having a relatively rich spiritual life; manifesting itself as an organic, albeit contradictory, integrity.
So, having considered the specific features of a person, we can answer the question: what is the nature of the child, which the great teachers of the past called to orientate on. It is the same as the nature of the species Homo sapiens. A child, like an adult, is organically inherent in biosociality, and rationality, and spirituality, and integrity, and inconsistency, and creativity.
Thus, the equivalence and equality of the child and the adult are objectively justified.
For pedagogical anthropology, it is important not only to know the individual characteristics of childhood, but to understand that the nature of the child makes him extremely sensitive, responsive to the effects of education and the environment.
This approach to the child allows you to consciously and systematically apply anthropological knowledge in pedagogy, to effectively solve the problems of upbringing and education of a child, based on his nature.
Man is the subject of study of both the sciences of nature (natural science) and the sciences of the spirit (humanitarian and social cognition). There is a continuous dialogue between natural and humanitarian knowledge on the human problem, the exchange of information, theoretical models, methods, etc.
Anthropology occupies a central place in the complex of natural-scientific disciplines about man, the main subject of its study is anthroposociogenesis, that is, the origin of man and society (6.2, 6.3). To solve its own problems, anthropology draws on data from embryology, primatology, geology and archeology, ethnography, linguistics, etc.
The ratio of biological, psychological and social in a person, as well as the biological foundations of social activity, are considered by sociobiology and ethology (6.8).
The study of the human psyche, the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious, the characteristics of mental functioning, etc. is a field of psychology, within which there are many independent directions and schools (6.4, 6.5).
The problem of the relationship between consciousness and the brain, which is also one of the topics of the natural-scientific study of man, is at the intersection of psychology, neurophysiology and philosophy (7.7).
Man as a part of living nature, the nature of his interactions with the biosphere is the subject of consideration of ecology and related disciplines (5.8).
Thus, it can definitely be argued that the problem of a person is of an interdisciplinary nature, and the modern natural-scientific view of a person is a complex and multidimensional knowledge obtained within the framework of various disciplines. A holistic view of man, his essence and nature is also impossible without the involvement of data from humanitarian and social knowledge and philosophy.
22. Literally translated, the term "biosphere" means the sphere of life and in this sense it was first introduced into science in 1875 by the Austrian geologist and paleontologist Eduard Suess (1831 - 1914). However, long before that, under other names, in particular "space of life", "picture of nature", "living shell of the Earth", etc., its content was considered by many other naturalists.
Initially, all these terms meant only the totality of living organisms inhabiting our planet, although sometimes their connection with geographical, geological and cosmic processes was indicated, but at the same time attention was rather drawn to the dependence of living nature on the forces and substances of inorganic nature. Even the author of the term "biosphere" E. Suess in his book "Face of the Earth", published almost thirty years after the introduction of the term (1909), did not notice the reverse effect of the biosphere and defined it as "a set of organisms, limited in space and time and dwelling on the surface of the Earth. "
The first biologist to clearly point out the enormous role of living organisms in the formation of the earth's crust was J. B. Lamarck (1744 - 1829). He emphasized that all the substances on the surface of the globe and forming its crust were formed due to the activity of living. The results of this approach immediately affected the study of general problems of the influence of biotic, or living, factors on abiotic, or physical, conditions. So, it turned out, for example, that the composition of sea water is largely determined by the activity of marine organisms. Plants living on sandy soil significantly change its structure. Living organisms even control the composition of our atmosphere. The number of such examples is easy to increase, and they all indicate the presence of a feedback between living and inanimate nature, as a result of which living matter significantly changes the face of our Earth. Thus, the biosphere cannot be considered in isolation from the inanimate nature, on which it, on the one hand, depends, and on the other hand, itself affects it. Therefore, naturalists face the task of specifically investigating how and to what extent living matter affects the physicochemical and geological processes occurring on the Earth's surface and in the earth's crust. Only such an approach can give a clear and deep understanding of the concept of the biosphere. The outstanding Russian scientist Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863 - 1945) set himself this very task.
Biosphere and man
Modern man was formed about 30-40 thousand years ago. Since that time, a new factor - anthropogenic - began to act in the evolution of the biosphere.
The first human-created culture - the Paleolithic (Stone Age) lasted for about 20-30 thousand years!?! it coincided with a long period. Today, experts at the University of Kansas have come to the conclusion that these events have extraterrestrial factors. Their idea is based on the fact that all stars both in our Galaxy and in the Universe are not at all at constant points, but move around some center, for example, the center of the galaxy. In the process of their movement, they can pass through any zones with unfavorable conditions, high radiation.
Our solar system is also no exception in this case - it also revolves around the center of the galaxy, and its period of revolution is 64 million years, that is, almost the same as the cycles of biodiversity on Earth.
Scientists say that our Milky Way galaxy has a gravitational dependence on a cluster of galaxies located 50 million light years away. According to Adrian Melotte and Mikhail Medvedev, astronomers at the University of Kansas, in the process of movement, these objects inevitably approach each other, which leads to strong gravitational disturbances, as a result of which the orbits of the planets may even change.
According to scientists, as a result of periodic encounters, gravitational deviations occur, which also act on the Earth. As a result of these changes, the radiation background increases, and as a result of the fact that the planet can slightly change its orbit on Earth, the climate can also change very significantly, which, in fact, could lead to mass extinctions of animals in the history of our planet.
Towards the noosphere
In the modern world, the concept of "biosphere" receives a different interpretation - as a planetary phenomenon of a cosmic nature.
A new understanding of the biosphere became possible thanks to the achievements of science, which proclaimed the unity of the biosphere and humanity, the unity of the human race, the planetary nature of human activity and its commensurability with geological processes. This understanding is facilitated by the unprecedented flourishing ("explosion") of science and technology, the development of democratic forms of human community and the desire for peace among the peoples of the planet.
The doctrine of the transition of the biosphere into the noosphere is the pinnacle of scientific and philosophical creativity of V. I. Vernadsky. Back in 1926, he wrote that "the biosphere, created during the entire geological time, established in its equilibria, begins to change more and more deeply under the influence of human activity." It is this biosphere of the Earth, changed and transformed in the name and for the good of mankind, he called the noosphere.
The concept of the noosphere as a modern stage, geologically experienced by the biosphere (in the translation from ancient Greek, noos - mind, that is, the sphere of reason), was introduced in 1927 by the French mathematician and philosopher E. Leroy (1870 - 1954) in his lectures in Paris ... E. Leroy emphasized that he came to such an interpretation of the biosphere together with his friend, the largest geologist and paleontologist Chardin (1881 - 1955).
What is the noosphere? In 1945, V. I. Vernadsky wrote in one of his scientific works: “Now, in the 19th and 20th centuries, a new geological era has begun in the history of the Earth. Some of the American geologists (D. Lecomte and C. Schukhert) called it the "psychozoic" era, while others, like Academician AP Pavlov, called it the "anthropogenic" geological era. These names correspond to a new large geological phenomenon: man has become a geological force, for the first time changing the face of our planet, a force that seems to be spontaneous. " And further: “For the first time, a person really understood that he is an inhabitant of the planet and can - must - think and act in a new aspect, not only in the aspect of an individual, family or clan, states or their unions, but also in the planetary aspect. He, like all living things, can think and act in the planetary aspect only in the field of life - in the biosphere, in a certain earthly shell, with which he is inextricably, naturally connected and from which he cannot leave. Its existence is its function. He carries her with him everywhere. And he inevitably, naturally, continuously changes it. "
The process of transition of the biosphere to the noosphere inevitably carries the features of a conscious, purposeful human activity, a creative approach. VI Vernadsky understood that mankind should make optimal use of the resources of the biosphere, stimulating its capabilities as a human habitat. The scientist believed that scientific thought would lead humanity along the path to the noosphere. At the same time, he paid special attention to the geochemical consequences of human activity in his environment, later called by his student, academician AE Fersman, “technogenesis”. V. I. Vernadsky wrote about the possibilities open up for man in the use of extra-biospheric energy sources - the energy of the atomic nucleus, which living organisms have never used before. The assimilation of energy flows independent of the biosphere, as well as the synthesis of amino acids - the main structural element of protein - lead to a qualitatively new ecological state. This is a matter for the future, but already now people are striving to build their relations with the “living cover” of the planet, preserving biodiversity. And in this one sees the deep optimism of Vernadsky's teaching: the environment has ceased to confront man as an unknown, mighty, but blind external force. However, by regulating the forces of nature, man takes on a huge responsibility. This is how a new biospheric, ecological ethics of the 20th century was born.
Deeply penetrating into the basic laws of the development of the surrounding nature, V. I. Vernadsky was significantly ahead of his era. That is why he is closer to us than to many of his contemporaries. In the field of view of the scientist, there were always questions of the practical application of scientific knowledge. In his understanding, science only fully fulfills its purpose when it addresses itself directly to human needs and requirements.
In 1936, V. I. Vernadsky, in a work that had a significant impact on the development of science and in many ways changed the views of his followers, "Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomenon" (never published during his lifetime) writes: "For the first time, man embraced , with their culture, the entire upper shell of the planet - in general, the entire biosphere, the entire area of the planet connected with life ”.
The modern natural-scientific picture of the world and the boundaries of scientific knowledge
The relationship between science and metaphysics (philosophy and religion) has never been simple, since the ideas about the world they generated often turned out to be not completely coincident or completely incompatible. In itself, this is not at all surprising, since each of these areas of knowledge has its own dynamics of development, its own traditions and rules of the game, its sources and criteria of truth; the consistency of these different in their nature "pictures of the world" cannot be ensured at each separate moment due to the fundamental incompleteness of any knowledge. However, the inner need of a person for consistency, integrity of the worldview is unchanged, and hence the need for awareness and reconciliation of the above contradictions, or at least for their satisfactory explanation.
At every moment in history, these contradictions in the individual and public consciousness acquire their own specificity, focus on different issues and are often politicized, becoming, for example, one of the significant points of the election campaign in the United States or attracting the attention of the press in connection with lawsuits on the content of school educational programs. Sometimes this leads to a kind of schizophrenia of public consciousness, when the humanities and "natural scientists" lose a common language and cease to understand each other. How can you characterize the current state of this perennial problem?
There are several, it seems to me, key points here. There are many new and still little-known discoveries in mathematics and natural science, which fundamentally change the natural scientific picture of the world and the approach of modern science to philosophically controversial issues.
One of these questions is the principle of causality and free will. Natural science proceeds from the fact that, firstly, the world is lawful and, secondly, the laws of its development are knowable. Science cannot work without these assumptions, because if there are no laws, then the subject of knowledge disappears; if these laws exist, but are incomprehensible, then scientific knowledge is in vain. In addition, each person perceives the freedom of their own will as an undeniable empirical fact, despite any scientific, philosophical or religious arguments that deny it. Universal causality and regularity are incompatible with true free will, and if in the scientific picture of the world there is no place for this fact, primary in our perception, then it remains either to consider this psychological fact as an illusion of perception, or to recognize such a scientific picture of the world as false or fundamentally incomplete.
It was in such a bifurcated world that the European educated society existed for about two centuries - during the period of the undivided rule of the mechanistic scientific worldview. Newton – Laplace mechanics explained the world as consisting exclusively of emptiness and particles, the interaction of which was unambiguously described by the laws of mechanics; The addition of this picture with the Boltzmann – Gibbs mechanistic theory of heat and Maxwell's electrodynamics did not in the least violate this universal determinism and only strengthened it by demonstrating the possibility of reducing other phenomena known to science to integrable equations of motion that unambiguously deduce the future from the past. There was no place for freedom of will, and hence religion and ethics, based on this freedom, in such a natural-scientific picture of the world. Religious-ethical and scientific ideas turned out to be conceptually incompatible.
This conflict between natural-scientific materialism and religious-ethical consciousness continues to poison the intellectual atmosphere and modern society, despite the fact that over the past decades science has radically revised its claims. She became convinced of the fundamental impossibility of reducing the functioning of complex systems to the laws that determine the interactions of their elements, and is much more cautious about the possibility of predicting the future world based on its current state. Laplace's determinism is now finally rejected as a false, erroneous conclusion. But how many people know which scientific revolution led to this radical revision? School physics ignores this scientific revolution, and outdated ideas about the potentialities of natural science continue to dominate the minds of an educated society.
There are objective reasons for this lag. The concepts of self-organization, nonlinear dynamics, chaos, which justify the rejection of the continuous, all-pervading causality of the universe, are mathematically difficult and at every step contradict our usual ideas. Our traditional thinking, based on everyday experience, is linear and causal; we are used to thinking that the spontaneous emergence of highly ordered complex structures from a homogeneous state is impossible, and even when it is demonstrated in extremely visual, simple and well reproducible experiments, such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, it gives the impression of some kind of trick or miracle.
It is even more difficult to realize how serious worldview conclusions follow from the recognition of the reality of spontaneous, indeterminate physical phenomena. After all, such phenomena are not located on the periphery of the physical world as some unimportant, exotic particulars that do not change the overall picture. On the contrary, they are built into the nodal points of the development of the world as a whole and determine its dynamics in a decisive way. From bifurcation points of solutions of evolutionary equations, that is, points where the unambiguity of continuation of solutions in time is lost, from fluctuations arising at these points, solutions grow, which correspond to all actually observed structures of the physical world - from galaxies and their spiral arms to stars and planetary systems. Convective instability of mantle matter gives rise to continents and oceans, determines plate tectonics, which, in turn, determines all the main forms of relief on all spatial scales: from the general pattern of the orographic network (network of rivers and mountain ranges) to characteristic forms of natural landscapes. This evolutionary dynamics is nonlinear: it not only determines the forms that are formed, but also itself depends on the historically established forms. Such feedbacks (underlying nonlinearity) lead to general laws of shaping, to progressive complication and growth of diversity. Such, one might say, genetic morphology, or morphodynamics, in contrast to descriptive morphology, is currently taking its first steps, but they are also impressive, since they paint a picture of the world that is fundamentally different from the one we are accustomed to from school.
The key word for the new picture of the world is the word "spontaneously". In fact, it means rejection of the physical principle of causality when describing the most important events in the development of complex systems. Spontaneity can be interpreted as an accident, unconditionality by physical reasons, or it can be interpreted as a manifestation of supernatural forces and principles of various kinds: God's will, Providence, Pre-established harmony, some eternal, timeless mathematical principles in the spirit of Leibniz or Spinoza. But all these interpretations already lie outside the framework of natural science, they are not imposed by science in any way, but they cannot contradict it. In other words, the new natural-scientific picture of the world does not allow one to separate physics proper from metaphysics, to make them mutually independent.
The next important worldview conclusion is the fundamental impossibility of at least a qualitative long-term forecast of the development of rather complex nonlinear systems. The concept of "forecasting horizon" arises: for example, a more or less reliable weather forecast is possible one to two weeks in advance, but fundamentally impossible for six months. The fact is that for complex systems, evolutionary trajectories are typically attracted to the boundaries in phase space, separating regions with different stability regimes, and therefore a change in regimes (with a certain characteristic residence time in a region with a certain regime). This fact makes it impossible even to make a qualitative forecast for a period exceeding the characteristic time of regime change. In principle, the same applies to forecasting climate change, only the period is longer here than for weather forecasting. We will never be able to predict climate change over a period of more than three to four decades and reliably extrapolate the statistical patterns revealed in the past further than for the period in which they were established. The chaotic dynamics of the process fundamentally excludes such a possibility.
Here science again reveals the fundamental and irreducible boundaries of its explanatory and predictive capabilities. This, of course, does not mean discrediting it as a source of objective and reliable knowledge, but it forces us to abandon the concept of scientism, that is, from philosophy that asserts the omnipotence and limitless possibilities of science. These possibilities, although great, have their limits, and it is finally necessary to show courage and admit this fact.
Biotechnology, natural science and technical sciences
The structural organization of biotechnology (including links with many areas of biology, with chemistry, physics, mathematics, with technical sciences, engineering and technological activities, with production) allows integrating natural science, scientific and technical knowledge and production and technological experience within its framework. At the same time, the forms of integration of science and production carried out within the framework of biotechnology are qualitatively different from the forms of integration implemented in the interaction of other sciences with production. Firstly, techniques are used in such areas of biology that have already resulted from integration with physics, chemistry, mathematics, cybernetics - genetic engineering, molecular biology, biophysics, bionics, etc. As a result, the formation of concepts of biotechnology, which are synthetic in nature, reflects a certain moment in the movement towards a system of general technical concepts, which, in addition to traditional ones, includes new types of technical objects and technical activities. Secondly, in the form of biotechnology, the orientation of the development of a new technological mode of production is set, in which there would be a phase aimed at restoring the disturbed natural balance. Biotechnology also shows its advantages in this ecological respect: it is capable of functioning in such a way that it is possible to use the products obtained at individual stages of synthesis in complex production cycles, i.e., it becomes possible to develop waste-free production technological processes.
The most promising area of biotechnology is genetic engineering. The manufacturability of genetic engineering is associated with the ability to use its objects and knowledge not only for production purposes, but specifically for the development of new technological processes. It is technologically advanced in terms of the content of its research activities, since it is based on the design and construction of "artificial" DNA molecules. In a methodological sense, genetic engineering has all the signs of design: a project-scheme that reflects the intention of the researcher and determines the target orientation of the future object, the artificiality of the object under study: purposeful design activity, the result of which is a new artificial object - a DNA molecule.
As you can see, genetic engineering is technologically advanced both in the external (production and technological) and in the internal (inherent content of science, its methods) relation.
Features of genetic engineering as a technology are associated with the qualitative specificity of design in it in comparison with design in engineering and technical fields. This specificity lies in the fact that the result of design is self-regulating systems, which, being biological, at the same time can be qualified as artificial (technical). It should also be emphasized that if in engineering and technical activities the design and technical implementation of new systems is associated with systemic design activities, then in biology, design is associated with the entire system of physicochemical, molecular biological methods and knowledge that are integrated in the theoretical model preceding artificial system.
"Man" as a subject of research
There are many philosophical concepts of "man". In sociology and psychology, there are no fewer different points of view on "man" and attempts to more or less detailed description of his various properties and qualities. All this knowledge, as we have already said, cannot satisfy pedagogy and, in the same way, when correlated with each other, does not stand up to mutual criticism. Analysis and classification of these concepts and points of view, as well as an explanation of why they do not and cannot provide knowledge that satisfies pedagogy is a matter of special and very extensive research, far beyond the scope of this article. We cannot enter into the discussion of this topic even in the most crude approximation and will go in a fundamentally different way: we will introduce, based on certain methodological grounds (they will become clear a little further), three polar representations, in fact, fictitious and do not correspond to any of those real concepts that were in the history of philosophy and sciences, but very convenient for the description we need to describe the current real scientific and cognitive situation.
According to the first of these concepts, "man" is an element of the social system, a "piece" of a single and integral organism of mankind, living and functioning
End of page 96
Top of page 97
according to the laws of this whole. With this approach, the “first” objective reality is not individual people, but the entire cue-theme of humanity, the entire “leviathan”; individual people can be singled out as objects and can be considered only in relation to this whole, as its "particles", its organs or "cogs".
In the extreme case, this point of view reduces humanity to a polystructure that reproduces, that is, persists and develops, despite the continuous change of human material, and individuals - to places in this structure that have only functional properties generated by intersecting connections and relationships. True, then - and this is completely natural - machines, sign systems, "second nature", etc., turn out to be the same constituent elements of mankind as people themselves; the latter act as only one type of material content of places, equal in rights with respect to the system with all others. Therefore, it is not surprising that at different times the same (or similar) places of the social structure are filled with different materials: sometimes people take the places of “animals”, as was the case with slaves in ancient Rome, then instead of “animals” and “people” put "machines" or, conversely, people - in place of "machines". And it is easy to see that for all its paradoxicality, this idea captures such generally recognized aspects of social life that are not described or explained by other ideas.
The second idea, on the contrary, considers the first objective reality of an individual person / it endows him with properties gleaned from empirical analysis, and considers it in the form of a very complex independent organism that carries all the specific properties of the “human”. Humanity as a whole then turns out to be nothing more than a multitude of people interacting with each other. In other words, each individual person with this approach is a molecule, and all of humanity resembles a gas formed from chaotically and disorganized moving particles. Naturally, the laws of human existence should be considered here as a result of the joint behavior and interaction of individuals, in the extreme case - as one or another superposition of the laws of their private life.
These two representations of "man" are opposed to each other.
End of page 97
Top of page 98
gu for one logical reason. The first is built by moving from an empirically described whole to its constituent elements, but at the same time it is not possible to obtain the elements themselves - they do not appear - and only the functional structure of the whole remains, only one "lattice" of connections and functions created by them; in particular, on this path it is never possible to explain the person himself as a person, his activity that does not obey the laws of the whole in which he seemingly lives, his opposition and opposition to this whole. The second representation is built by moving from elements already endowed with certain "external" properties, in particular, from the "personality" of an individual to a whole, which must be assembled, built from these elements, but at the same time it is never possible to obtain such a structure of the whole and such the system of organization that forms it, which would correspond to the empirically observed phenomena of social life, in particular, it is not possible to explain and deduce production, culture, social organizations and institutions of society, and because of this, the empirically described "personality" itself remains inexplicable.
Differing in the above points, these two concepts coincide in that they do not describe and explain the internal "material" structure of individuals and, at the same time, do not at all raise the question of connections and relations between 1) the "internal" structure of this material, 2 ) The "external" properties of individuals as elements of a social whole; and 3) the nature of the structure of this whole.
Since the importance of biological material in human life from an empirical point of view is indisputable, and the first two theoretical concepts do not take it into account, this quite naturally gives rise to a third concept opposing them, which sees in a person primarily a biological being, an "animal", albeit a social one, but by its origin it is still an animal, which still preserves its biological nature, which ensures its mental life and all social connections and functions.
Pointing to the existence of a third parameter that participates in the definition of "man" and its indisputable significance in explaining all the mechanisms and laws of human existence, this point of view, like the first two, cannot explain the connections and relationships between biological
End of page 98
Top of page 99
human substrate, his psyche and social human structures; it only postulates the necessity of such connections and relations, but has not yet confirmed or characterized them in any way.
So, there are three polar representations of "man". One is given by a material device, in the form of a “bioid”, the second sees in a person only an element of a rigidly organized social system of mankind, which does not possess any freedom and independence, an impersonal and impersonal “individual” (in the limit, a pure “functional place” in the system), the third depicts a person in the form of a separate and independent molecule, endowed with psyche and consciousness, the ability for certain behavior and culture, independently developing and entering into connection with other molecules of the same, in the form of a free and sovereign "personality". Each of these representations distinguishes and describes some real properties of a person, but takes only one side, outside of its connections and dependencies with other sides. Therefore, each of them turns out to be very incomplete and limited, cannot give a holistic idea of a person. Meanwhile, the requirements for "integrity" and "completeness" of theoretical ideas about man stem not so much from theoretical considerations and logical principles as from the needs of modern practice and engineering. So, in particular, each of the above ideas of a person is not enough for the purposes of pedagogical work, but at the same time, a purely mechanical combination of them with each other cannot help it, because the essence of pedagogical work consists in forming certain mental abilities of a person, which would correspond to the connections and relationships within which this person must live in society, and for this to form certain functional structures on the "bioid", that is, on the biological material of a person. In other words, the teacher should practically work at once on all knowledge, in which the correspondences between the parameters related to these three "sections" will be fixed.
But this means, as we have already said, that pedagogy requires such scientific knowledge about a person, which would unite all three ideas described above [about a person], synthesize them in one multilateral and concrete
End of page 99
Top of page 100
theoretical knowledge .: This is the task that pedagogy poses to the "academic" sciences about "man."
But today the theoretical movement cannot solve it, because there are no necessary means and methods of analysis and design for this. The problem has to be solved first at the methodological level, developing the means for the subsequent theoretical movement, in particular - at the level of the methodology of systemic-structural research.
From this position, the problems of the synthesis of polar theoretical concepts described above appear in a different form - as problems of constructing such a structural model of a person, in which there would be 1) organically linked three groups of characteristics: structural connections S,
of the enclosing system, the "external functions" f 1 of the system element and the "structural morphology" of the L element (five groups of characteristics, if we represent the structural morphology of the element in the form of a system of functional connections sqp immersed on the material mp) and at the same time 2) additional requirements were satisfied, arising from the specific nature of man, in particular the ability for the same element to occupy different "places" of the structure, as is usually the case in society, the ability to separate from the system, to exist outside it (in any case,
End of page 100
Top of page 101
outside of her certain relationships and connections), to resist her and rebuild her.
Probably it can be argued that today there are no common means and methods for solving these problems, even at the methodological level.
But the matter is further complicated by the fact that the empirical and theoretical knowledge, historically developed in the sciences about “man” and “human” - in philosophy, sociology, logic, psychology, linguistics, etc., were built according to different categorical schemes and do not correspond to pure forms. characteristics of the system-structural object; in its objective meaning, this knowledge corresponds to the content that we want to isolate and organize in the new synthetic knowledge about a person, but this content is formalized in such categorical schemes that do not correspond to the new task and the necessary form of synthesis of past knowledge in one new knowledge. Therefore, when solving the problem posed above, firstly, it will be necessary to carry out a preliminary cleaning and analysis of all special-subject knowledge in order to identify the categories according to which they were built, and correlate them with all specific and non-specific categories of sestem-structural research, and secondly, one will have to reckon with the available means and methods of these sciences, which have carried out the decomposition of the "man" not in accordance with the aspects and levels of system-structural analysis, but in accordance with the historical vicissitudes of the formation of their research subjects.
The historical development of knowledge about a person, taken both in aggregate and in individual subjects, has its own necessary logic and laws. Usually they are expressed in the formula: "From phenomenon to essence." To make this principle operational and working in specific research on the history of science, it is necessary to construct images of the corresponding knowledge and subjects of study, present them in the form of "organisms" or "machines of science" and show how these organismic systems develop, and machine-like systems are rearranged, giving rise to new knowledge about a person, new models and concepts. In this case, you will have to reconstruct and depict in special schemes; all elements of systems of sciences and scientific subjects: emp-
End of page 101
Top of page 102
the material that numerous researchers deal with, the problems and tasks they pose, the means they use (including concepts and operational systems), and the methodological prescriptions according to which they carry out "scientific analysis procedures."
One way or something like that, as Hobbes describes it, a man was once a very long time ago identified as an empirical object of observation and analysis, and so on the basis of a very complex reflective procedure, including the moment of introspection, the first knowledge about him was formed. They syncretically combined the characteristics of external manifestations of behavior (characteristics of actions) with characteristics of the contents of consciousness (goals, desires, objectively interpreted meaning of knowledge, etc.). The use of such knowledge in the practice of communication did not cause difficulties and did not create any problems. Only much later, in special situations that we are not analyzing now, the methodological and actually philosophical question was posed: "What is a man?" It is important to emphasize that this question was not raised in relation to real-life people, but in relation to the knowledge about them that existed at that time, and required the creation of such a general idea of a person or such a model of him that would explain the nature of existing knowledge and removed the contradictions that arose in them (compare this with our reasoning about the conditions for the emergence of the concepts of "change" and "development" in the seventh part of the article).
The nature and origin of such situations, which give rise to the proper philosophical, or "metaphysical", question of what the object under study is, have already been described in a number of our works.
(2). The relationship of the organism with the environment. Here the two members of the relationship are already unequal; the subject is primary and original, the environment is set in relation to him, as something that has one or another significance for the organism. In the extreme case, we can say that there is not even a relation here, but there is one whole and one object - an organism in the environment; in fact, this means that the environment, as it were, is part of the structure of the organism itself.
This scheme was not really used to explain a person, because from a methodological point of view, it
End of page 106
Top of page 107
End of page 107
Top of page 108
very complex and has not yet been sufficiently developed; this methodological complexity in fact suspended the use of this scheme in biology, where it, undoubtedly, should be one of the main ones.
(3). Actions of the actor-actor in relation to the objects around him. Here, in fact, there is no relation in the exact sense of the word, but there is one complex object - the acting subject, objects, if they are specified, are included in the schemes and structures of the actions themselves, turn out to be elements of these structures. Separately, this scheme is used very rarely, but it is often used in conjunction with other schemes as their component. It is from this scheme that they most often pass to descriptions of object transformations performed through actions, or to descriptions of operations with objects, and vice versa, from descriptions of object transformations and operations to descriptions of the subject's actions.
(4). The relationship of free partnership of one subject-personality with others. This is a variant of the subject's interaction with objects for those cases when objects are simultaneously subjects of action. Each of them is introduced at first independently of the others and is characterized by some attributive or functional properties, regardless of the system of relationships in which they will then be placed and which will be considered.
This concept of "man" is most widely used now in the sociological theory of groups and collectives.
(5) Participation of a "person" as an "organ" in the functioning of the system, of which he is an element. Here the only object will be the structure of the system, which includes the element we are considering; the element itself is introduced in a secondary way on the basis of its relationship to the whole and to other elements of the system; these relations are set by functional opposition on the already introduced structure of the whole. An element of a system, by definition, cannot exist separately from the system and, in the same way, cannot be characterized irrespective of it.
Each of these schemes requires a special methodological apparatus of system-structural analysis for its deployment. The distinction between them extends to
End of page 108
Top of page 109
basically everything - on the principles of analysis and processing of empirical data, on the order of construction of different "entities" that turn these schemes into ideal objects, on schemes of communication and combining properties related to different layers of object description, etc.
A special place among all the methodological problems arising here is occupied by the problems of determining the boundaries of the subject of study and the ideal object included in it. They contain two aspects: 1) defining the structural boundaries of an object on the graphically presented diagram itself and 2) setting the set of properties that turns this diagram into a form of expression of an ideal object and constitutes the reality of study, the laws of which we are looking for. It is easy to see that depending on how we solve these problems, we will have completely different definitions and definitions of the "person".
So, for example, if we choose the first model in which a person is considered as a subject interacting with the objects around him, then, whether we want it consciously or not, we will have to limit the person to what is depicted by the shaded circle on the corresponding interaction scheme, and this is means - only by the internal properties of this element. The very relationship of interaction and change produced by the subject in objects will inevitably be considered only as external manifestations of a person, largely random, depending on the situation and, in any case, not constituting its constituent components. The idea of the properties that characterize a person and the order of their analysis will be completely different if we choose the fifth model. Here, the main and initial process will be the process of functioning of the system, the element of which is a person, the external functional characteristics of this element - its necessary behavior or activity, will become determining, and internal properties, both functional and material, will be derived from external ones.
If we choose a model of the relationship between the organism and the environment, then the interpretation of a “person”, the nature of its defining properties and the order of their analysis will differ from both of the options we have already indicated. To set the relationship of the organism with the environment means to characterize
End of page 109
Top of page 110
We have cited these cursory considerations only in order to clarify and make more visible the thesis that each of the above models, on the one hand, presupposes its own special methodological apparatus of analysis, which still needs to be developed, and on the other hand, it sets a completely special ideal representation "Human". Each of the models has its own empirical and theoretical foundations, each captures some aspect of real human existence. The focus on all these schemes, and not on any one of them, has its justification not only in the "principle of tolerance" in relation to different models and ontological schemes, but also in the fact that a real person has a lot of different attitudes towards his environment and to humanity as a whole.
This conclusion does not remove the need to configure all of these views and models. But to make a theoretical model now, as we have already said, is practically impossible. Therefore, in order to avoid eclecticism, we have only one way left: to develop, within the framework of the methodology, schemes that determine the logical and necessary sequence of attracting these models when solving
End of page 110
Top of page 111
various practical and engineering tasks, in particular - tasks of pedagogical design.
When constructing these schemes, we must conform to three direct data and one hidden basis: firstly, with the general methodological and logical principles of the analysis of system hierarchical objects, and secondly, with the picture of the object's vision, which is set by our chosen practical or engineering work, thirdly, - with the relations between the subject contents of the models we unite and, finally, the fourth, hidden foundation - with the ability to meaningfully interpret the methodological scheme of the entire area of the object that we create when moving from one model to another (Figure 23).
The listed reasons are enough to outline a quite strict sequence of consideration of various aspects and aspects of the object.
So, in the general methodology of systemic-structural studies, there is a principle that when describing the processes of functioning of organismically or machine-represented objects, one should start the analysis with a description of the structure of the system that encompasses the selected object, from the network of its connections to the description of the functions of each individual element (one of them or the object under study is several according to the conditions of the problem), and then
End of page 111
Top of page 112
already define the "internal" (functional or morphological) structure of the elements so that it. corresponded to their functions and "external" relations (see Figure 21; in more detail and more precisely the methodological principles operating in this area are set forth in.
If there was only one structural representation of a "person", then we would act in accordance with the stated principle, "superimpose" the existing structural scheme on the empirical material accumulated by different sciences, and in this way tied it within the framework of one scheme.
But the sciences that exist now, describing "man" in one way or another, were built, as we have already said, on the basis of different systemic representations of the object (Scheme 22), and all these representations are fair and legitimate in the sense that they correctly grasp some " side "of the object. Therefore, the above principle alone is not enough to construct a methodological scheme that could unite the empirical material of all the sciences involved. Complementing it, we must carry out a special comparison of all these systemic representations, taking into account their subject content. In this case, they are used (if they already exist) or are developed in the course of the comparison itself, on the one hand, special generalizing subject representations, and on the other hand, methodological and logical principles characterizing possible relationships between structural models of this type.
In this case, you have to do both. As initial generalizing subject representations, we use schemes and ontological pictures of the theory of activity (see the second part of the article, as well as the fragments of sociological representations developed on their basis. »And local assumptions concerning subject and logical dependencies between the compared schemes.
Without setting out now the specific steps of such a comparison - this would require a lot of space - we will present its results in the form they appear
End of page 112
Top of page 113
after the first and extremely rough analysis. This will be an enumeration of the main systems "that form different subjects of research and are connected with each other, firstly, the relations" abstract - concrete "(see), secondly, the relations" whole - parts ", thirdly, the relations" configuring model - projection "and" projection - projection "(see part IV); the organization of systems within the framework of one scheme will be determined by the structure of their numbering and additional indications of the dependence of the deployment of some systems on the presence and deployment of others 1.
(1) A system that describes the basic schemes and patterns of social reproduction.
(1.1) A system that describes a social whole as a "mass" activity with various elements included in it, including individuals (depends on (1)).
(2.1) The functioning of "mass" activities.
(2.2) Development of "mass" activities.
(3) A system describing a social whole as the interaction of many individuals (it is not possible to establish a connection with (1)).
(4) Systems describing individual units of activity, their coordination and subordination in various spheres of "mass" activity (depends on (2), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (And ).
(5) Systems describing different forms of culture, normalizing activity and its social organization (depends on (1), (2), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10) ).
(6.1) Structural-semiotic description.
(6.2). Phenomenological description.
(7) Systems describing different forms of "behavior" of individual individuals (depends on (3), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12); implicitly defined (4), (5), (6).
(8) Systems describing the union of individuals into groups, collectives, etc. (depends on (7), (9), (10), (11), (12); implicitly defined by (4), (5), (6).
1 It is interesting that the definition of the general logic of the combination of the indicated constructive principles in the construction of complex systems of various kinds is now a common problem of almost all modern sciences and nowhere are there enough encouraging results in solving it.
End of page 113
Top of page 114
(9) Systems describing the organization of individuals into countries, classes, etc. (depends on (4), (5), (6), (8), (10), (11)).
(1C) Systems describing a person's “personality” and different types of “personality” (depends on (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (I), (12) ...
(11) Systems describing the structure of "consciousness" and its main components, as well as different types of "consciousness" (depends on (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), ( ten)).
12. Systems describing the human psyche (depend on (4), (6), (7), (10), (11)) 1.
The subjects of study outlined in this list do not correspond either to the abstract models presented in Figure 22, or to the subjects of the sciences that exist today. This is a rough draft of the basic theoretical systems that can be built if we want to have a fairly complete systemic description of "man".
After this set of subjects of study (or another, but similar in function) is given, we can consider and evaluate in relation to it ontological schemes and knowledge of all existing sciences.
So, for example, considering sociology in this regard, we can find out that from the moment of its inception it was guided by the analysis and image of relationships and forms of behavior of people within social systems and their constituent collectives, but it was really able to identify and somehow describe only social organizations and cultural norms that determine the behavior of people, and the change in both in the course of history.
Only very recently has it been possible to single out small groups and the structure of the personality as special subjects of study and thereby lay the foundation for
1 All dependencies indicated in this list are of an “objective” nature, that is, they are dependencies of thinking that manifest themselves in the deployment of subjects of study, and in no case can they be interpreted objectively as a connection of natural or social determination.
It is also significant that the order in which the items are listed does not correspond to the sequence of their deployment: all items depend not only on those that precede them in the list, but also on those that follow. In this case, of course, the dependencies are of a different nature, but this was insignificant to us in this consideration.
End of page 114
Top of page 115
research in the field of so-called social psychology,
Considering logic in this way, we can find out that in its origins it proceeded from the scheme of human activity with the objects surrounding him, but stopped, in fact, on the description of the transformations of signs produced in the process of mental activity, and although in the future it constantly raised the question of operations and actions of a person, through which these transformations were made, but were really interested only in the rules that normalized these transformations and never went further than that.
Ethics, in contrast to logic, proceeded from the scheme of the free partnership of a person with other people, but remained, in fact, in the same layer of "external" manifestations as logic, although it presented them no longer as operations or actions, but as relationships with other people, and always identified and described only what normalized these relationships and people's behavior when establishing them.
Psychology, in contrast to logic and ethics, from the very beginning proceeded from the idea of an isolated individual and his behavior; connected by a phenomenological analysis of the contents of consciousness, nevertheless, as a science, it was formed on the questions of the next layer: what "internal" factors - "forces", "abilities", "attitudes", etc. determine and condition the texts of behavior and activities of people who we observe. It was only at the beginning of our century that the question of describing the "behavior" of individuals (behaviorism and reactology) was first really raised, and from the 1920s on the description of the actions and activities of an individual (Soviet and French psychology). This marked the beginning of the development of a number of new items from our list.
We have named only a few of the existing sciences and characterized them in an extremely crude form. But it would be possible to take any other and, developing the appropriate procedures for correlating, and if necessary, then rebuilding the intended list, establish correspondences between it and all sciences, one way or another concerning "man". As a result, we will have a fairly rich system that combines all existing knowledge about the object we have selected.
End of page 115
Top of page 116
After such a system has been built, albeit in the most schematic and non-detailed form, you need to take the next step and consider it from the point of view of the tasks of pedagogical design. At the same time, we will have to, as it were, “cut out” in this system that sequence of knowledge, both existing and developed anew, which could provide a scientific basis for the pedagogical design of a person.
There is no need to specifically prove that the implementation of the outlined research program is a very complex matter, involving a lot of special methodological and theoretical research. Until they have been carried out and the subjects of study outlined above have not been constructed, we have only one thing to do - to use the already existing scientific knowledge about the "man" in solving pedagogical problems themselves, and where they do not exist, use the methods of the existing sciences to obtain new knowledge, and in In the course of this work (pedagogical in its tasks and meaning), criticize existing scientific concepts and formulate tasks for improving and restructuring them.
If, moreover, we bear in mind the task of creating a new system of objects and proceed from its already outlined plan, then, in fact, these studies gave us a concrete empirical embodiment of the work on restructuring the system of sciences about “man” that pedagogy needs.
Let us consider from this point of view the structural concepts of “man” and “human”, which are now being set by the main sciences in this area - sociology, logic, psychology, and assess their capabilities in substantiating pedagogical design. At the same time, we will not strive for completeness and systematicity of the description - such an analysis would go far beyond the scope of this work - but we will present everything in terms of possible methodological illustrations to clarify the main point about the combination of knowledge and methods from different sciences in the system of pedagogical engineering and pedagogical research ...
| " |
