Methodological reconstruction of system-thought-activity approach to understanding consciousness

Anatoliy V. Furman

Анотація


The goal of the proposed study is a radical reorganization on a cyclical-deed basis of the stages of the historical formation of methodological concept of consciousness in the theory of activity and STA(system-thought-activity)-methodology as a well-known domestic philosophical trend of the second half of the XX century. (G.P. Shchedrovitsky and his school). The process of updating the principles and norms of the STA-approach to understanding the category and mechanism of consciousness became possible due to metatheoretical guidance in its interpretation as an attributive invariant-way of human existence in interpenetration and unity of its modalities such as noumenal and phenomenal, transcendent and immanent, unknowable and cognizable, speechless and speechful, indefinite (unnamed) and signified (named). To solve this supertask, three search steps were performed, which reveal as the author’s vision of the problematic context of philosophical methodologization in working with consciousness and the main modes of its comprehension (consciousness-phenomenon, consciousness-noumen, consciousness-category, conscious experience, consciousness of being) in the format of integral directions of philosophy development (ontology, metaphysics, phenomenology, polymethodology), as well as principles, conditions and features of system-thought-activity ideas about consciousness as a conceptual means of methodological work and intellectual basis and, at the same time a resource of collective and individual thinking activity. First of all, starting from the reasoned distinction of two research strategies of cognition-construction of reality (scientific-natural and metaphysical), which form essentially different ontological pictures of consciousness, it is concluded about the extensiveness and even deadlock of the first and heuristics and productivity of the second. The last one requires not only the critical-reflexive usage of the existing scope of philosophical knowledge, but also the implementation of competent philosophical methodologization on the way to creating a metatheory of consciousness. In fact, such work, within the defined range of goals and tasks and carried out in the format of this study: according to the principle of quintessence, the optimal number of modes of consciousness understanding is singled out, where each of them is subject to meta-description by definition, essential features and functional characteristics, and constructed a fivefold thought-scheme, which in the post-non-classical style mutually reconciles these understanding modes. In the main part of the semantic metaconsideration of the raised methodological issues it is proved that the cultural achievements of STA-methodology in comprehension of the resource potential of human consciousness are unique, firstly, considering the departure of its representatives from the scientific-subject consideration of the phenomenon of consciousness, and the implementation of a purely methodological approach, secondly, considering the peculiarities of their advocated way of using the category of consciousness, namely as a conceptual means, thought-toolkit. Yes, there is every reason to believe that G.P. Shchedrovitskiy and his circle members carried out a full-fledged act of collective thinking activity, particularly in joint understanding work with the sphere of consciousness, which we reconstructed at the stages of canonical thinking-deed: 1)    s i t u a t i o n a l stage – conceptual and categorical elaboration of the problem of consciousness is carried out on the achievements of logic, and later methodology, with their main subject – thinking and setting for the creation of its content-genetic theory by means of activity approach; 2) m o t i v a t i o n a l – consciousness, starting from the generalizations of the cultural-historical theory of the development of higher psychic functions of L.S. Vygotskiy, was comprehenced as an intellectual means of domestication and socialization of the person through the mastery of signs as an instrument of determining influence of intersubjective cooperation with others as opposed to the secondary value of knowledge, the functionalities of consciousness; 3) a c t i o n – a wide sign-instrumental use of the concept and category of consciousness in collective and individual thinking activity, especially in such conceptual organizations as “scoreboard of consciousness”(the flow of consciousness, which is intended for both objective actions and on knowledge), “mechanisms of consciousness” (generate thinking in sensual form as images or objective perceptions, or sign form), “pure consciousness” (spontaneous, meaningless, unstructured, self-causal – independent of the experience of sensual perception, from the action of any empiricism), “organized consciousness” (rhythmically balanced in functioning, filled with psychocultural formations, although not durable, fluid, requires considerable internal (motivational, intellectual, volitional, etc.) efforts of the person for its maintenance, harmonization of all available material which has got to its spherical flow of life), herewith pure consciousness, organizing, loses its spontaneity, is freed; 4) a f t e r-a c t i o n – substantiation of reflexivity as one of the main determinants of the cooperation effectiveness of several acts of activity, and at the same time maturity and perfection of consciousness; reflection is responsible for the organization of consciousness, which, however, itself structurally determines the reality of reflection; only in the reflexively enriched, thought-communicative organizational space of methodological seminars and sessions, organizational and organizational-action games do the functionalities of consciousness find their sign-semantic shelter, witness settlement (primarily in texts, formulas, schemes, models, drawings).


Ключові слова


consciousness; being; human; metatheory; research strategy; ontological picture of consciousness; transcendence; philosophy; methodology; philosophical methodologization

Повний текст:

PDF>PDF

Посилання


Agafonov, A.Yu. Soznanye: hde yskat “chernei yashchyk”. Metodolohyia i istoryia psykholohii. 2009. T. 3. Vyp. 1 [in Russian].

Miasoid, P. A. & Shatyrko, L. O. (Eds.). (2016). Akademik V. A. Romenets: tvorchist i pratsi [Akademiс V. A. Romenets: creativity and work]. Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian].

Akopov, G.V. Klassycheskaia i/ili neklassycheskaia psykholohyia soznanyia. Metodolohyia y istoryia psykholohii. 2009. T. 4. Vyp. 1 [in Russian].

Babayucev, A.Yu. Soderzhatelno-henetycheskaia lohyka. Vsemyrnaia entsyklopedyia. Fylosofyia / hl. nauch. red. y sost. A.A. Hrytsanov. Moskva: AST, Mynsk: Kharvest, Sovr. lyt-tor, 2001. S. 964–965 [in Russian].

Vygotsky, L.S. Problema soznanyia. Sobranye sochynenyi: v 6-ty t. T. 1. Moskva: Pedahohyka, 1982. S. 156–167 [in Russian].

Vygotsky, L.S. Psykholohyia. Moskva. 2002. 1008 s. [in Russian].

Furman, A. V. & Furman, O. I. & Shandruk, S. K. & Co (Eds.). (2019). Vitakulturna metodolohiia: antolohiia. Do 25-richchia naukovoi shkoly profesora A.V. Furmana [Viticultural methodology: an anthology. To the 25th anniversary of professor A.V. Furman’s Scientific School]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Shchedrovitskiy, P. H. & Danylova, V. L. (Eds.). (2010). Georgiy Petrovich Shchedrovitskiy. Moscow: ROSSPEN [in Russian].

Huseltseva M. S. (2017). Metodolohichna optyka yak instrument piznannia [Methodological optics as a tool of cognition]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 4, 39–55 [in Ukrainian].

Guseltseva, M. S. (2013). Evolyutsiya psihologicheskogo znaniya v smene tipov ratsionalnosti (istoriko-metodologicheskoe issledovanie) [Evolution of psychological knowledge in the change of types of rationality (historical and methodological research)]. Moscow: Akropol [in Russian].

Gusserl, E. Ideia k chystoi fenomenolohii i fenomenolohycheskoi fylosofii / per. s nem. Moskva: Akad. Proekt, 2016. 326 s. [in Russian].

Gusserl, E. Kartezianski medytatsii. Vstup do fenomenolohii / per. z nim. Kyiv: Tempora, 2021. 304 s. [in Ukrainian].

Dennet, D. (1918). Pojasnennia “magiya” svidomosti [Explaining the “magic” of consciousness]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 3-4, 5–12 [in Ukrainian].

Kant, I. (2001). Krytyka chystoho rozumu [Critique of pure reason]. (Trans. from german). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Mamardaschvili, M.K. (1915). Problema svidomosti I filosofske poklikanniya [Problem consciousness and pfilosoficat calling]. Psykholohiya i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 4, 19–27 [in Ukrainian].

Mamardashvili, M. K. & Pyatigorskiy, A. M. (2011). Simvol i soznanie (Metafizicheskie rassuzhdeniya o soznanii, simvole i yazyike) [Symbol and consciousness (Metaphysical reasoning about consciousness, symbol and language)]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya [in Russian].

Furman, A. V. & Furman, O. I. & Shandruk, S. K. & Co (2019). Metodolohiia i psykholohiia humanitarnoho piznannia. Do 25-richchia naukovoi shkoly profesora A. V. Furmana [Methodology and psychology of humanitarian cognition. To the 25th anniversary of professor A. V. Furman’s scientific school]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Piskoppel, A.A. (2016) SMD-podkhod k katehorii soznanyia v sovremennoi psykholohii. Etnometodolohyia: problemy, podkhody, kontseptsii. Vyp. 21. Moskva. S. 34–59.

Myasoid, P. A. & Furman, A. V. (Eds.). (2012). Psykholohiia vchynku: Shliakhamy tvorchosti V.A. Romentsia [Psychology act: the way of creativity, of Romenets V. A.]. Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian].

Reus, A. G. & Zinchenko, A. P. (2003). Putevoditel po metodologii Organizatsii, Rukovodstva i Upravleniya: hrestomatiya po rabotam G. P. Schedrovitskogo [A guide to the methodology of Organization, Leadership and Management: a reader on the work of G.P. Shchedrovitsky]. Moscow: Delo [in Russian].

Rubinshtjejn,S.L. (2003). Bytije I soznanije. Chjelovjek I mie. Sankt-Peterburg: piter [in Russian].

Saveleva, M. Y. (2002). Vvedenie v metateoriyu soznaniya [Introduction to the metatheory of consciousness]. Kyiv: Vidavets PARA-PAN [in Russian].

Furman, A. V. (Ed.). (2015). Systema suchasnykh metodolohii: khrestomatiia u 4-kh tomakh [The system of modern methodologies: a textbook in 4 volumes]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A.A. (2019). Interzijnist yak sutnisna oznaka smuslozuttevogo buttij osobustosti [Intentionality as an essential feature of the persnality’s meaning-life existence]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 3-4, 118–137 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. A. (2020). Metodolohiia psykholohichnoho piznannia smyslozhyttievoi sfery osobystosti [ethodology of psychological cognition of the meaning of life sphere of personality]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 1, 5–34 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. A. (2017). Psykholohiia smylozhyttievoho rozvytku osobystosti [Psychology of the meaning-life personality development]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2016). Ideia i zmist profesiinoho metodolohuvannia [The idea and content of professional methodology]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2018). Metateoretychna mozaika zhyttia svidomosti [Metatheoretical mosaic of the life of consciousness]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 3–4, 13–50 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2018). Metateoretychni kontsepty piznannia svidomosti [Metatheoretical concepts of cognition of consciousness.]. Psykholohiia osobystosti – Personality psychology, 1 (9), 5–11 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2005). Modulno-rozvyvalna orhanizatsiia myslediialnosti – skhema profesiinoho metodolohuvannia [Modular and developmental organization of thinking - a scheme of professional methodology]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 4, 40–69 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2017). Modulno-rozvyvalnyi orhprostir metodolohuvannia: arhumenty rozshyrennia [Modular-developmental organizational space of methodology: arguments of expansion]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 1, 34–49 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2013). Paradyhma yak predmet metodolohichnoi refleksii [Paradigm as a subject of methodological reflection]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 3, 72–85 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2011). Psykhokultura ukrainskoi mentalnosti [Psychoculture of the Ukrainian mentality]. Ternopil: Ekonomichna dumka [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. (2015). Svit metodolohii [The world of methodology]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 2, 47–60 [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A. V. & Shandruk, S. K. (2014). Orhanizatsiyno-diyalnisni ihry u vyshchiy shkoli [Organizational-activity games in high school]. Ternopil: TNEU [in Ukrainian].

Shvalb Yu.M. Svidomist yak vidnoshennia liudyny do svitu. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. 2004. №4. S. 154–166 [in Ukrainian].

Schvalb, Yu.V. (2004). Svidomist jak vidnoschennja do svitu. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 4, 154–166 [in Ukrainian].

Schvalb, Yu.M. (2012)/ Soznanija jak fenomen zhyzny: metodolohycheskye podkhodы. Kharkovskaia shkola psykholohyy: nasledye y sovremennaia nauka / otv. red. T.B. Khomulenko. M.A. Kuznetsov. Kharkov, 2012. S. 153-164 [in Russian].

Shchedrovytskyi, G.P. (2013). Dyzainerskoe dvyzhenye y perspektivi eho razvytyia. Annaly MMK: 1979 (1). Moskva, 2013. 348 s. [in Russian].

Shchedrovytskyi, G. P. (2006). Znak i dejatelnost. Kn. 2. Moskva [in Russian].

Shchedrovitskiy G. P. (1995). Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]; Piskoppel, A. A. & Shchedrovitskiy, L. P. (Eds.) Moscow: Shk. kult. politiki [in Russian].

Shchedrovytskyi, H. (2013). Metodolohichne znachennia opozytsii naturalistychnoho i systemodiialnisnoho pidkhodiv [Methodological significance of the opposition of naturalistic and systemic approaches]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 1, 40–47 [in Ukrainian].

Shchedrovytskyi, G. P. (2005). Muschleniie. Ponimanie. Reflecsija. Moskva [in Russian].

Shchedrovytskyi, H. (2006). Orhanizatsiino-diialnisna hra yak nova forma orhanizatsii ta metod rozvytku kolektyvnoi myslediialnosti [Organizational-activity game as a new form of organization and method of development of collective thinking]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 3, 58–69 [in Ukrainian].

Schedrovitskiy, G. P. (2004). Organizatsionno-deyatelnostnaya igra: Sbornik tekstov (2). Iz arhiva G.P. Schedrovitskogo [Organizational-activity game: Collection of texts (2). From the archive of G.P. Shchedrovitsky]. Vol. 9. Moscow: Nasledie MMK [in Russian].

Shchedrovytskyi, H. P. (2005). Skhema mysle¬diialnosti – systemno-strukturna budova, znachennia i zmist [The scheme of mentality – the system-structural structure, meaning and content]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo – Psychology and society, 4, 29–39 [in Ukrainian].




DOI: https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2021.01.005

Посилання

  • Поки немає зовнішніх посилань.


ISSN 2523-4099 (online), ISSN 1810-2131 (print)