Символ в контексте психоаналитической и смысловой интерпретации

The paper considers the modern interpretation of the symbol as a psychological category in the context of the theory of sense and sense-creation. The study ofthe symbol has a long history of various scientific interpretations. Modern psychology makes some substantial additions to the understanding of the mechanisms ofthe formation of symbols at the level of public conscience, aswell as at the level ofpersonal consciousness. The main purpose of the paper is to characterizethe specificity of the interpretation of the symbol as a certain sense value. Theauthors revealed and described the genetic relationship ofthe interpretation ofsymbolization in two different psychological schools: psychoanalysis and the theory of sense-creation.The authors suggested differentiating symbols in accordance with thecharacteristics of their representation in the system of personal values. Thus, the authors introduce the “concept-symbol” category. Concepts-symbols are not similar to traditional concepts owing to their universal functional filling. Concepts-symbols are a sort oftransformers; they bear meanings that not only direct the person’s understanding ofa context but also disclose the sense and its possible variability. The symbol includes two forms of senses: extrapersonal andinterpersonal. Hence, the symbol is able toinspire the procedure of sense-creation in the subject who cognizes its meanings. The “decrystallization” ofpersonal comprehension, where the very concept is its bearer, underlies theinteriorization of concepts-symbols. The formation and improvement of the person’s sense sphere is possible through the use of the conceptual-symbolic system, whichconsiders concepts-symbols of various meanings (symbols: signs, properties, composition, and metaphors).В данной статье представлена современная интерпретация символа как психологической категории в контексте теории смысла и смыслообразования. Хотя исследование символа имеет достаточно длительную историю изучения в различных научных интерпретациях, современная психология дает возможность внести определенные содержательные дополнения в понимание механизмов формирования символов как на уровне общественного, так и личностного сознания. Основная цель данной статьи – охарактеризовать специфику понимания символа как определенной смысловой ценности. Выявлено и описано генетическое родство в интерпретации символизации в таких разных психологических школах, как психоанализ и теория смыслообразования. Авторы предлагают дифференцировать символы по характеру их представленности в системе личностных ценностей и в связи с этим вводят категорию «понятия-символа». Понятия-символы, по мнению авторов, вследствие своего универсального функционального наполнения не похожи на традиционные понятия. Они – своеобразные трансформаторы, т. к. те значения, обладателями которых они являются, направлены не просто на постижение воспринимаемым субъектом данного контекста, а на вычленение смысла и его возможной вариативности. Символ способен инспирировать процедуру смыслообразования у субъекта, познающего его значения, потому как вбирает в себя две формы смысла: внеличностные и межличностные. Под интериоризацией понятий-символов принято рассматривать осуществление «раскристаллизации» личностного осмысления, где само понятие и является его обладателем. Через использование понятийно-символической системы, рассматривающей понятия-символы различной смысловой нагрузки (символы: знаки, свойства, композиции, метафоры) возможно формирование и совершенствование смысловой сферы личности

Сложные системы в психофизиологии представляют эффект «повторение без повторений» Н. А. Бернштейна

The discussion of special properties of living systems still continues. The authors present a new understanding of complexity and systems of the third type (W.Weaver) in the new theory of chaos and self-organization, as well as in postneclassic(V.S.Stepin). The paper explains ineffectiveness of applying stochastics and deterministic chaos (I. R.Prigogine, J. A.Wheeler and M.Gell-Mann) for describing complexbiological systems. The authors introduce a new concept of homeostatic systems. These systems are in continuous random motion. Thus, statistical methods are inappropriate here. The authors dene the limits of modern deterministic and stochastic science in describingcomplex homeostatic biological systems. These propositions signify a new stage in the development of the philosophy of science and the science of nature (complexity) in whole. The eect of “repetition without repetition” (N. A. Bernstein) which is now quantitatively described by the eect of Eskov–Zinchenko underlies this dierentiation.Продолжается дискуссия об особых свойствах живых систем – complexity (гомеостатических систем). Представлено новое понимание complexity и систем третьего типа W. Weaver в рамках новой теории хаоса-самоорганизации и постнеклассики В. С. Стёпина. Сейчас мы демонстрируем отсутствие эффективности в применении стохастики и детерминированного хаоса (которые были представлены I. R. Prigogine, J. A. Wheeler и M. Gell-Mann за последние 50 лет) для описания сложных биосистем. Возникает возможность нового представления о гомеостатических системах. Эти системы находятся в непрерывном хаотическом движении (неопределенность 2-го типа), и для них методы статистики применять нецелесообразно. Обозначается граница современной детерминистской и стохастической науки в описании сложных гомеостатических биосистем. Это знаменует и новый этап развития философии науки и науки о живой природе (complexity) в целом. В основе этого разделения – эффект «повторение без повторений» Н. А. Бернштейна, который сейчас количественно описывается эффектом Еськова – Зинченко

Education Reform at the "Edge of Chaos": Constructing ETCH (An Education Theory Complexity Hybrid) for an Optimal Learning Education Environment

EDUCATION REFORM AT THE "EDGE OF CHAOS":CONSTRUCTING ETCH (AN EDUCATION THEORY COMPLEXITY HYBRID) FOR AN OPTIMAL LEARNING EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT AbstractCurrently, the theoretical foundation that inspires educational theory, which in turn shapes the systemic structure of institutions of learning, is based on three key interconnected, interacting underpinnings -mechanism, reductionism, and linearity. My dissertation explores this current theoretical underpinning including its fallacies and inconsistencies, and then frames an alternative educational theoretical base - a hybrid complex adaptive systems theory model for education - that more effectively meets the demands to prepare students for the 21st century. My Education Theory Complexity Hybrid (ETCH) differs by focusing on the systemic, autopoietic nature of schools, the open, fluid processes of school systems as a dissipative structure, and nonlinearity or impossibility of completely predicting the results of any specific intervention within a school system.. In addition, I show how ETCH principles, when applied by educational system leaders, permit them to facilitate an optimal learning environment for a student-centered complex adaptive system.ETCH is derived from Complexity Theory and is a coherent, valid, and verifiable systems' framework that accurately aligns the education system with its goal as a student-centered complex adaptive system. In contrast to most dissertations in the School Leadership Program, which are empirical studies, mine explores this new theoretical orientation and illustrates the power of that orientation through a series of examples taken from my experiences in founding and operating the Lancaster Institute for Learning, a private state-licensed alternative high school in eastern Pennsylvania

Fundamental Sources of Unpredictability

In discussing the fundamental sources of unpredictability, I shall concentrate on those indeterminacies that are definitely required by theory. Let me therefore begin by eliminating from consideration supposed indeterminacies stemming from doubts that some people may entertain about basic principles or from certain kinds of ignorance that I believe to be temporary and likely to be remedied in the relatively near future. I assume the following: 1. Quantum mechanics is correct. The formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics are still undergoing some necessary evolution, especially in order to accommodate quantum cosmology in a comfortable way, but the basic character of quantum mechanics has always been the same and we may suppose it will remain unchanged. 2. The elementary particles and their interactions obey a definite dynamical law, discoverable by inquiring complex adaptive systems such as the human scientific enterprise. Although the process of discovery involves a sequence of approximate schemata, there is an endpoint to the process after a finite amount of research. (Of course, it can never be possible to prove that the resulting unified theory is perfect; one can only verify it in the usual way by comparing predictions to available observations.) Humans may already have found this unified quantum field theory in the form of superstring theory, which has, to begin with, no arbitrary parameters. (Of course, spontaneous symmetry breaking may give rise to some parameters and even to a choice of solutions, with probabilities for the various alternatives. I will deal with that possibility further on.) This second assumption is equivalent to stating that there is no necessary fundamental unpredictability stemming from ignorance of the universal dynamical law. 3. The density matrix (in the Schrödinger picture) of the universe near the beginning of its expansion is also knowable. It must in any case be comparatively simple and very far from equilibrium. The second law of thermodynamics and the other associated arrows of time are explained by these properties of the initial density matrix along with the fact that the universe is still very young—the interval of ten billion years is extremely short compared with the relaxation time from the special initial condition