Metatheoretical mosaic of consciousness life

Abstract

The proposed methodological research is devoted to the creation of an updated version of the consciousness metatheory by intellectual means of its original version reconstruction (M. K. Mamardashvili, O. M. Pyatygorskiy, M. Yu. Savelyeva) in the format of the philosophical and scientific-humanitarian dimensions combination of metatheorizing with the help of the involvement of conscious and purely reflexive instrumental resources of professional methodologization in general and the cyclically-deed approach in particular. The logic of constructing a given version, embodied by this study, is carried out in four thematically centered and conceptually designed stages or deed tact of mind activity. At the first stage two the most systematically perfected and culturally significant paradigmatic streams of the philosophical-scientific construction of the consciousness theory are analyzed – gramatological (semiotic) and metatheoretical (metaphysical), which fundamentally differ by their foundations and guidelines, concepts and models, lace of conceptual and theoretical constructs, and the main thing – by advocated by them different methodological optics of knowing what determinately represents consciousness as the existentially rooted reality of human life. It is proved that the alternativeness of named streams accordingly relates either to negation or to the support and development of the metaphysical status of consciousness beyond the symbolic space, to the rejection or acceptance of the form or the so-called “pure form” (empty content) for the essence of consciousness and, therefore, in leveling or reflexive elaboration of consciousness as transcendental foundation and attributive event-property of out-of-logical being; that is why actualization of a conscious act-experience is its constant propagation outside, beyond the limits of reality, that is, staying in a state of continuous holistic transcendence. In addition, it is reasoned alternativeness of named streams according to conceptual-categorical thesaurus, research strategies and mind-communicative discourses, self-sufficient sets of methods, procedures, means and tools of methodologization, as well as to the specifics of complex structured methodological optics. In the situation with the metatheory, it enables to study and describe the consciousness indirectly as the establishment of conditions for the functioning of the conscious person’s capacity, and without regard to culture and the outside world, meaningless, from formal positions, impersonal and insubstantial, indirectly and with the use of the latest resources of meta-methodology in relation to transcendental foundation – form as the essence of consciousness. At the second stage of metatheorizing, a cyclically-deed mind-scheme of deployment of its main procedural directions is implemented, which justifies the life-affirming essence of consciousness and makes it possible to find the basis of a conscious, actually pragmatic, human presence in the world, in the center of which there is almost an ongoing struggle with its own consciousness aimed at restraint, restriction or, at least, rational regulation of its excessive self-sufficiency and self-activity. This led to the implementation of a number of methodological measures, among which became obligatory the adoption of the sphere of consciousness as a quasi-subject, pseudo-spatial, timeless, understanding of its ontological rooting (status) and, consequently, consideration of metaconsciousness as a distinct cognitive sphere over mental processes and logical procedures, as well as the use of close to the daily speech of terms and concepts regarding their use as properties of work with consciousness and their operation in the format of a metalanguage of its explanation and description. At the same time, at the “mastery of consciousness”, the content and scope of which captures a relatively optimal mode of harmonizing soaked with energy of conscious capacity of the material, raises the problem of self-mastering by consciousness with its own rhythm. It is argumented that at the situational stage of metatheorizing as a committing, an understanding of consciousness as a framework condition of all subsequent work is achieved precisely as with metaconsciousness. At a motivational stage – the field of struggle with consciousness is actualized and intended, when the stimulus peak reaches the person’s aspiration to internally overcome its unlimited spontaneity and self-active fluidity, which confront the rational-volitional frame of mental life. At the action stage - a multi-dimensional work with consciousness is carried out, aimed at revealing the conditions of conscious committing, the study of the internal picture of the actualization of conscious experience as an effort to exit human beyond the existing reality and at the same time beyond oneself as a “world within consciousness”. At the after-action stage – there is a relative mastering the consciousness by a person as a situational balancing of its ontologically rooted life-transcendence, and at the same time mastering the consciousness by life path of the person himself. At the third stage of metatheorizing a system reflexive combination of two paradigmatic trends or methodologems of consciousness studying is carried out – theoretical (subject-centered, empirically-psychological) and metatheoretical (ontological, quasi-subject, metaphysical). It is substantiated that in psychology the consciousness is invariably considered in the reality of the psyche, the mental processes and the substantive content, in its unity and mutual predetermination with the unconscious, that is, in the direction of revealing its phenomenal and purely empirical diversity and immensely created theoretical constructs, which at best name and conventionally distinguish signs, properties and features of the development of psycho-spiritual phenomena. A striking example of this is the well-known, paradigmly close, theoretical systems – S. Freud’s psychoanalysis and C. G. Jung’s analytical psychology, as well as today’s popular neurobiological theories of consciousness that are based on artificial “naturalization”, materialization (by measuring the information-energetic pulses of different parts of the brain) of this “sphere of forgotten being,” which is never fully known (I. Kant). Having singled out unconscious and giving it the complete mythological scientific status (as “the deposit of all human experience” as the “ready-to-react, living and open system, which by invisible ways, and therefore the most effective, regulates individual life”, etc.), was made a substitution of the research subject: really studying the induction of the conditions for acquiring a new conscious experience by each of the participants in the psychoanalytic process, the leaders of the Vienna School of Psychology subjected to the analysis a mentally constructed  unconscious (respectively, individual and collective ) as a bottomless subject, which can not be liquidated, but only through the implementation of a certain theoretical work with it to develop and to power up conscious ability to expand the existential horizon of their own consciousness. Namely in this – ontological – meaning of “the unconscious does not exist” (M. K. Mamardashvili), it is often a certain fluid boundary point of consciousness to understand the unknown, its kind of rubicon of illumination of the cracks and the corners of life. That’s why it is concluded that consciousness is the only true power – the energy of present as the ability of the spirit in the ideal plane of existency to build order from chaos, to extract and multiply wisdom by the conscious resources of research and self-cognition, mind committing and self-creation. A substantial advantage of consciousness is the spontaneity and freedom of the existence of its transparent spiritual energy, which enables life on a qualitatively high-level level of self-design and self-creation of being – in the embodiment of a reasonable, active, and creative person. At the fourth stage, based on six basic foundations of the construction of the original, terminological apparatus of a metatheory of consciousness, the optimal presence of eight categorical concepts that are correlated with each other according to the principles of the cyclically-deed approach and in a binary manner has been proved. As a result, the following binary inoculations of the secondary and primary terms of the metalanguage were obtained and characterized by the scope, content and significance: the situation: “sphere of consciousness” and “conscious ability”, motivation: “state of consciousness” and “text of consciousness”, action: “material of consciousness” and “form of consciousness”, the after-action: “the structure of consciousness” and “conscious experience”. Both quaternary organizations of terms in the synthesis and different-quality interconnections of the primary (so-called pragmeme) and secondary (basic metaconcepts) metalanguage clots allow from the metatheoretical positions to create the perfect picture of consciousness as ontologically rooted, half-drawn in the realities of human everyday life property.