Dialectics of Eidos and Logos in the "Philosophy of the Name" by AF Losev. Cosmocentrism and basic concepts of ancient philosophy. (Cosmos, Nature, Logos, Eidos, Soul) Material for synthesis

Systematization and connections

Topic - on the relationship between the categories "eidos" and "logos" in the work of AF Losev "Philosophy of the Name" and a critical article by the modern philosopher A.A. Tashchian "CATEGORIES OF EIDOS AND LOGOS IN THE DIALECTICS OF LOSEV"

A.A. Tashchian believes that Losev was too opposed to "formal concepts" (logos) "picture" eidos: "It is necessary to note the incompetence of the very opposition of logos to dialectic eidos"

At the end of the article, he concludes: "Thus, phenomenology is relative, and dialectics is absolute. But the dialectic of the Russian philosopher has logic, and, therefore, it exists in logos. This means that absolute knowledge, that is, dialectics, is possible only through logos, through concepts, but in no way through eidos. Therefore, it is concepts, but not eidos, that is an absolute conceivable form. And it is eidos that is the moment of logos, but not vice versa. "

I made a short summary of the work of A.F. Losev, chose the main points regarding the relationship between the categories "eidos" and "logos", so that it would be easier and faster to see and understand the position of A. Losev. (Emphasis mine)

« Dialectics is the only method capable of embracing living reality as a whole.... Moreover, dialectics is simply the rhythm of reality itself. And one cannot approach such a living nerve of real experience as a word or a name with one or another abstract method. Only such a concrete method as dialectics can be a truly philosophical method, because it itself is woven from contradiction, like real life.

I consider dialectics to be the only acceptable form of philosophizing. But since dialectics is truth, it cannot but have numerous enemies, for people love to fight with truth, even when they secretly feel its strength and truth.

... true dialectics is always direct knowledge.

The "whole" is a dialectical synthesis of "one" and "many".

…dialectics is the true and only possible philosophical realism.

Dialectics is abstract. But how, then, is it the immediate basis of life? And so that it is, as it were, the skeleton of life, the rhythm of life, the design and comprehension of life. Don't look for reality only in the nameless, wordless and chaotic. The skeleton, core, form, figure of life are as real as life itself.

Science, of course, is not life, but the awareness of life, and if you are the builders of science and creators in it, willy-nilly you will have to lock yourself in your office, surround yourself with a library and at least temporarily close your eyes to the environment. Life does not need science and dialectics. Life itself gives rise to science and dialectics. There is no life, there is no correct perception of life - there will be nothing good even from dialectics, and no dialectics will save you if your living eyes - before dialectics - do not see the real and binding reality. Relying on dialectics is in vain if your life is bad, and your experience of life is ugly and strangled. You cannot open the eyes of a blind person with dialectics, and you cannot teach a feeble-minded person how to become normal with dialectics. Dialectics is the rhythm of life, but not just life itself, although this also means that it is life, for rhythm is also vital.

…schema, topos, eidos and symbol- four necessary faces, in which the named entity is.

Essence manifests itself in eidos... Since we see the eidos of the essence, we do not need any other form of seeing or any other logic. Eidos has its own eidetic logic, namely dialectics. There are two moments in eidos - contemplative-static and dialectically-mobile; their separation is conditional, and in fact there is no one of them without the other. From the first point of view, eidos, the manifested face, is an absolutely simple, integral and unchanging individual community of an intra-self-moving, absolutely indivisible essence. All these aspects of the definition of the concept of eidos follow by themselves from the above proposed dialectic of essence. In the aspect of dialectical mobility, each such eidos 1) presupposes a corresponding meonal environment, against the background of which it turns from 2) undivided unity into 3) a dismembered image, 4) in constant motion (dialectical triad with a meonal background). So, all this phenomenological-dialectical element of essence, plunging into the darkness of the absolute meon and, as it were, defining itself anew, already in the “other”, acts shaping on this “other”, selects and unites individual moments into a whole, holds and unites them into a definite semantic unity ...

…logos exists only depending on eidos and, next, from the essence; he is the essence of eidos, as eidos is the essence of the apophatic x.

Essence itself does not need formal logic and lives apart from it, in another logic, in dialectics.

However, let us outline specifically the points of similarity and difference between eidos and logos. Both are the meaning of the essence, its expressiveness. The difference starts from the moment this meaning is given. The whole question is how the meaning is given in eidos and how in logos.

We saw that eidos is, first, something simple. Logos is always complex... Eidos is contemplated in its simple unity; logos receives its meaning only as a union and unification of many moments. Whatever parts the eidos contains, it contains, as we said, a moment of absolute unity, which is "higher" than the essence itself. There is no such union in the Logos; all its meaning lies in the fact that, in order and separately, list what is collectively and as a single organism is given in eidos. Of course, it is possible to think in the Logos as well, its super-semantic unity, just as we think in Eidos. But in eidos it will be a very special hypostasis, which is a universal semantic reason, principle and purpose of eidos; in the Logos it will only be a search for this causal-purposeful principle, only becoming as a principle.

Secondly, eidos is something whole. The Logos, for the same reason, is something multiple and discrete. Logos is that which is usually vaguely interpreted as a concept. Logos is a "formal" logical concept. So, if a given concept is characterized by the sum of certain moments of "content", or attributes, then in no way can one say that the concept itself is something simple and integral. The eidos is simple and whole, by highlighting and enumerating the moments of which the logos, the “concept”, lives; the very same "concept" just plays the role of the enumerated moment, it is a registration of separate moments, and it is not possible for it to be whole and simple.

c) Third, eidos is something unchanging, not subject to time, eternal, for it is pure meaning, and one cannot say about the meaning that it, as a meaning, is characterized by temporal moments. The Logos in this case has a similar character. Giving a snapshot of the relationship of things at a given moment, it does not reflect on itself the continuity of its change and therefore is completely stationary.

d) Fourth, eidos is an individual community ... This means that all the individual moments of its definition are united at one point, that each eidos, being peculiar and original, being an individuality irreducible to separate moments, is at the same time a complete and absolute separation of all its moments; separate moments are not the disintegration of eidos, for example. in time, but in each of them - the whole essence as a whole. This is not in the logos. Logos, "concept" is an enumeration of individual characteristics. That picture, which unites them into one living whole, is not in it. Logos would lose its meaning if it obeyed the law of increase in "volume" parallel to the increase in its "content". In eidos - the more we list its "Signs", the more complex it becomes, the more it embraces itself, the more moments can be brought under it. In the Logos we are distracted from the living picture of the whole; and here - the more we took separate moments of the picture of eidos, the more we violated its integrity, the less likely it is that there will be many classes, or groups, objects that would fit such a complex complex of discrete moments. In eidos, the more common the object, the more individual, because the more various signs fall into it, the more difficult and difficult it is to find the resulting image. In the Logos - the more general the subject, the more formal, the more simple, because the more it is necessary to throw out various moments and "contents" from it. In the logos - the unification of various meonal points, and in their generalization one looks for not eidos, in which all of them, after the removal of the meon, coincide, but what is in them in common, exactly in the meonally marked points of eidos; therefore, the more we collect these meonal features, the smaller the number of meonal points they can be attributed to, in view of the infinite variety of meonal points of eidos. So, from the point of view of eidos, eidos “living being” is richer than eidos “man”, because in eidos “living being” contains, apart from eidos, “man” and all other types of living beings. The “content” of the eidos “living being” is broader than the “content” of the eidos “man” - in parallel with the increase in the “volume”. If we discard the eidetic picture, conceivable in the eidos "living being", and scatter it into its individual constituent elements, then there will be much more of these elements in the logos (concept) "man", because this concept is the result of breaking and stratifying into many smaller and more numerous pieces than the concept of "living being", and therefore it consists in a much more complex relationship to other concepts than the concept of "living being". Only in formal logic can we talk about the difference between the "volume" of a concept and its "content"; it arises due to the fact that eidos is thought of in the mode of design and comprehension of the meon; what in eidos is intuitively thought of as a semantic sculpture of an object, in logic it is given as an abstract enumeration of features, as "content", and what is not thought at all in eidos - an absolute-meonal environment - is the same in logos, since the latter - the form of understanding the eidos of the meon, plays the role of a principle that limits the significance of the eidos within a given degree of interdetermination of the eidos and the meon, and is given as the volume of the concept, and it becomes completely clear that with an increase in this volume, i.e., with a decrease in the meonization of eidos, “Content”, ie the number of meonal moments, decreases, and the smaller the volume, ie, the more darkness the eidos plunges, the richer the “content” of the concept, that is, the more elements of the eidos captured by the meon. To understand all this can only be those who experience the concreteness and individuality of the general and for whom it is abstract - that which is most fragmented and variegated. For the eidetic, “a living being” is a rich eidos, and “being” is an even more alive, richer and more concrete eidos; at the same time, "man" for him is much more abstract, even more abstract is "European", even more "French", and - the highest abstraction - "a Frenchman who lives in Paris at such and such a time and in such and such a place." The other way around is for formal logic.

e) Fifthly, eidos inside - self-propelled, as well as, sixth, self-transparent. All this is inapplicable to logos for the same reason, for the absence of a semantic picture in it. Both presuppose a living object and a living entity, and logos is only a way to see an object, an instrument with which it is taken. The Logos is therefore completely static and has absolutely no semantic self-transparency. These definitions were obtained as a result of the dialectical life of eidos, that is, essence. And logos is not any essence, but only a method of approaching it. It doesn't have to be an entity.

f) Seventh, eidos makes sense. We have already spoken about this. This is the point of similarity between eidos and logos. But in eido-se - the meaning is intuitively given and essentially embodied, and in the logos it is an abstraction and a method, albeit substantiated in essence. Logos also relates to an indivisible entity, as,

e) eighthly, eidos also applies. But here, too, we must remember the whole difference in this attitude. Eidos is the eidos of an indivisible essence and is itself indivisible. The Logos is the Logos of an indivisible essence, but it is itself divisible. The eidos of a thing, without any ado, is the thing itself. The logos of a thing is some abstract moment in a thing; it is real not to the extent of his direct expression of the essence of a thing, but to the extent of his awareness of its methodological and principled nature. Logos is not real as eidos. The Logos is real as a principle and method, as an instrument, as tongs with which fire is taken, and not as fire itself. Therefore, the transfer of the entire eidetic reality to the logos, and even more so the material reality of the fact, is a distortion of the true reality of the logos and leads to the hypostatization of the abstract, and turns an integral, living, eidetic object into a formal, empty and abstract object. The reality of the logical is the reality of the application of the logical principle, while the reality of the eidetic is a direct manifestation of essence in general, not dependent on any principle. This is the fundamental difference in the relationship of eidos and logos to the indivisible essence. Logos, used as logos, not only does not violate the eidetic nature of the manifested face and not only does not dissect it into a discrete set, but, on the contrary, presupposes its integrity and lives by it. That is why formal logic, in its rational use, is nothing more than a legitimate, albeit partial and, moreover, conditional and dependent, moment of phenomenological dialectics.

g) Finally, ninth, eidos is a manifest face... Of course, if logos did not in any way capture eidos as a manifest face, then it would not have any meaning and would not have any relation to essence. But, while eidos is - a semantic sculpture of the essence, logos is only a principle and method, the law of unification and comprehension. Its nature is entirely principled. It acquires meaning only in connection with formal bringing into a connection, into a meaningful whole. He does not justify himself; and in the Logos as such, it is not known why such and such a set of attributes is given in it. The substantiation of this connection is entirely where it is given as life, where all these signs are given in a living whole, in eidos. “One” is required here as absolute identity and absolute difference in everything, so that an individual coordinated separateness, or semantic picture quality, is really obtained. The Logos does not justify itself. He is only a method of unification. “Looking at the eidos” (in Platonic terms), we enumerate its properties and features and make up a special set of them, which is an abstract parallel to the living eidos. Therefore the Logos, taken as such, does not justify itself; he is only a method of uniting meanings according to the seen eidos. And eidos justifies itself, it is a semantic and integral picture of a living object.

h) So, eidos appears as a statue, as a face and a picture of meaning; logos reveals essence as a principle and method of manifestation of eidos in the “other”. Eidos is seen by thought, felt by the mind, contemplated intellectually; logos - not seen by thought, but relied on by it; it is not felt by the mind, but itself there are tentacles with which the mind runs over the subject; it is not contemplated intellectually, but there is only a task, a given, a method, a law, a pure possibility of intellectual contemplation.

So, logos is the method and law of manifestation of essence in other being... Simply put and using the dialectical concept already tested in the previous one, we can say that logos is the formation of essence in otherness... But the following two restrictions are essential here. First, it is such a becoming in another being, which in itself continues to be purely semantic. This is not the other being itself in its becoming, that is, for example, not time, not movement, etc., but becoming in the sphere of meaning itself, in the sphere of essence itself, although becoming is another being... After all, otherness also has some kind of meaning of its own, different both from itself and from that pure meaning that is taken without any other being. That is, logos is the purely semantic formation of essence, or the meaning of the other-being becoming of essence.

This significant difference between logos and essence, or, more precisely, from eidos and from energy, gives rise to more detailed points of difference, which are very easy to construct if we take into account the details of the structure of the eidos itself. Here we will reach the principle of already systematic differentiation of logos from eidos. Eidos is existence. This means that logos is 1) the semantic formation of beings or, what is the same, continuous non-being. So, the infinitely small, in mathematical analysis, which is a numerical prototype of the conceptual logos, is not a definite quantity, but it is precisely the continuous non-existent, the continuous formation of number, going into the immeasurable infinity of decrease. Eidos is, further, a self-identical difference. This means that logos is 2) the semantic interpenetration of separate semantic moments, so that in this continuous semantic becoming one cannot distinguish anything from another, and this continuity is continuously illogical and absolutely indistinguishable in itself. Finally, eidos is mobile rest. This means that logos is 3) the semantic interpenetration of semantic moments moving in relation to each other, or a movable continuity of mutually permeated moments of meaning. As a result, the logos of the essence is the semantic formation of the other being of the essence, which is a mobile (3) continuity of mutually permeated moments (2) of non-being as meaning (1).

l) In other words, this is nothing more than the moments of the absolute meon (15) and meon in the mode of comprehension (16) already indicated by us, but considered not simply as such and, moreover, not just as an other-being reality and facts, but only as a definite semantic structure. This is not the meon itself, but its meaning; and, consequently, logos is the belonging of pure meaning, that is, of essence. This is an abstract moment of the energy of the essence, which, as we have seen, in itself is not another being, but only comprehends it, that is, it is its meaning and thus, therefore, definitely differs from the essence, which is given by itself, without other being and without comprehending it. Differing in meaning, in fact it is identical with the essence. And logos, differing in meaning from essence (and from its energy, although in different ways), is identical with it in fact, for it does not presuppose any other being as an obligatory fact, although it is its possibility.

The characteristic of the logos just proposed shows firsthand all its imprudence, which we noted above.

The principle of movement of eidos was indicated above. This is the principle of the dialectical triad, which is based on the ideal-optical picture of meaning, surrounded by the darkness of meon

2) absolute singularity and, next, immutability, 2) absolute meaning and its ideal optical clarity, clarity and purity and 3) continuous continuous, absolutely uninterrupted change - all this not only does not contradict each other in eidos, but, on the contrary, there is an absolute requirement of the mind, which wants to conceive of a living object as it is given in its original being. This is an absolute requirement of thought, not of some changeable "mood" or "feeling", but precisely of thought, if we really want to think of eidos from its dialectical side.

In the dialectic of eidos, as we have seen, not only the being and the positing of the being, the meaning and the positing of the meaning, or the meaning and its self-identical difference are united into an inseparable singularity. This is also joined by the moment of variability, alogical formation associated with the third hypostasis of the idea, a moment that reveals more and more new details in a given and existing sense. As we said above, in dialectics, meaning, the positing of meaning and the identification of new, more fractional moments or, I would say simply, new details of the posited meaning, are simultaneously realized. In the Logos, since its nature in its essence is discrete, the externality of meaning and the receipt of semantic details on the basis of the introduction of the third hypostasis, that is, the moment of alogical duration and variability, must be separately and completely discretely presented. As earlier it was said about the position within the eidos, so now it is about the positioning of the whole eidos with all its categories. "

What do you think about the dialectics of eidos and logos by A. Losev and criticism of A. Tashian?

Comments (1)

At one time, Tashchian confused me, and I built eidos, which I now consider to be false. The point is that all philosophy is eclectic, and perhaps it cannot be otherwise. And everyone who has studied Hegel is already infected with memes of contradiction. For someone, this disease progresses in an open form, someone gets sick latently.

Here is what Tashchian writes in his work "Triad, tetractid and pentad at Losev":

“As you know, dialectics is usually represented as logic of contradiction, which allows it to be distinguished from formal logic, which, on the contrary, excludes contradiction, which is why it turns out to be limited. "

All this eclectic "husk" flies away when you start to build your own eidoses associated with human practice in different areas. Eidos of number, geometry, mechanics, etc.
And what Tashchian writes in the same place:

“How is Losev doing in this respect? For him, the main method of dialectics is the method of contradiction. "

Actually, in practice, Losev applies his method, it seems, only in "Ancient Cosmos ..." and if you look there, then there is no contradiction there. Although Losev never denied the existence of contradictions. But the one who wants to actually construct something out of contradictions is waiting for a "bummer".

Losev's constructiveness of practical eidos, in my opinion, was very "heavy". Well, for example, here's how he defined time and space in "Ancient space ...":

« Time therefore there is a singularity of the mobile rest of self-identical difference, given as its own hypostatized otherness and considered as a mobile rest of the alogical formation of this otherness. "

“Now we hypostatize this eternal self-identical difference and get space. Space, hence, there is the singularity of the mobile rest of self-identical difference, given as its own hypostatized otherness and considered as a self-identical difference in the alogical formation of this otherness. "

***
What is all this for me. When Tashchian writes that "phenomenology is relative, and dialectics is absolute." - he is right. Precisely because dialectic is absolute- philosophy can be a science.
Here is what Losev writes, with his usual insight:

"If you want to live but only live- there is nothing for you to do science, and in particular dialectics. Dialectics is a science, a you can't live with science alone.»

The fact that dialectics has not yet been created indicates the criteria by which science was built ... But this is a different topic.
But what Tashchian writes further suggests that he did not understand anything in the main:

“This means that absolute knowledge, i.e. dialectic, possible only through logos, through concepts, but not through eidos... That's why, precisely concepts, but not eidos, is the absolute conceivable form... And it is eidos that is the moment of logos, but not vice versa. "

This: " exactly concepts, but not eidos , is an absolute conceivable form "stretches from his Tashian" infection "by Hegel, from his" Science of Logic ", which I do not recognize ... Well, you can't concepts oppose eidosu!!! These are words from different worlds, which are highly undesirable to mix!
Tashchian knocked me down for a long time (about a year), until he figured out what was what in practice. For she is the only criterion of truth!

Thank you Victor for your very deep comment! I feel that the topic has been worked out by you and has been pursued for a long time.
I agree with you, almost completely:
<<Вот это: "именно понятия, но не эйдос, является абсолютной мыслимой формой" тянется от его Тащиана "зараженности" Гегелем, от его "Науки логики", которую я не признаю... Well, you can't oppose the concept to eidos!!! These are words from different worlds, which are highly undesirable to mix! >>
From every thinker, I try to take the deepest, key ideas and try to go deeper even further. Even if you completely disagree with something.
"From different worlds" is probably a metaphor ...
How do they work jointly eidos and logos? Who starts work first- logos or eidos? How is the process of "conceptual-figured synthesis" going on, if we proceed from the line of Plato ("Platonic solids") - Kant (conceptual-figured synthesis)?

I do not agree with Victor with everything, but I agree on one thing. You cannot thoughtlessly take terms from one author, especially such difficult, polyvalent and unsettled ones like logos, eidos, concept, etc., and even with your own interpretation and try to do something in philosophy - you can come to an absurdity, and even spiritual crises.
Here are some examples.
For Plaon, eidos is the equivalent of an idea. For Losev, eidos is always the equivalent of an empirical thing: table eidos, cabinet eidos, etc. (I started a conversation about this here -). But Victor writes "eidos of number, eidos of geometry", etc. What kind of eidos is this: Platonic, Losev, or what else?
And with logos there is even greater variability. When we refer to the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Logos ...", then we are talking about the primary substance of all things and the entire universe. When we derive the derived word "logic" from this substance, then we single out the aspect of its rational form (formalizability). When Losev says "logos", he means the concrete logical meaning of a particular thing. A thing has: its eidos and its particular logos, and not the substance Logos = God.
It is necessary to very clearly define the concepts of what we are talking about, and then there will be no other interpretations, delusions and misunderstandings. I invite each of the participants to speak.

PS. The Kantian transcendental scheme of a concept is not at all an eidos (Plato-Losev), but rather an eidos of logos (meaning).

Sergey! Why I agree with Victor on almost everything. As I can see from his commentary, he is trying to modernize and expand the interpretation of both concepts of eidos and logos. The task of modern philosophy is precisely this - to actualize both concepts and give them a new interpretation and representation, more meaningful and modern, taking into account modern problems of knowledge itself (substantiation of knowledge) and problems of specific sciences - basic sign systems, mathematics and physics, experiencing a "crisis interpretation and representation ", the crisis of understanding.
It is here that the joint work of expanded and deepened, modernized eidos and logos is the first aid for overcoming the "loss of certainty" in mathematics (M. Kline) and "troubles with physics" (Lee Smolin).

I do not think that Losev's negative critical analysis will be successful here; no one is interested in such analysis here. Well, sluggishness will follow - eidos is not an idea, Losev is not Hegel, and that's it. Those who are fond of Losev love him not for his dialectics, those who have claims to Losev do not base them on his dialectics. Positive criticism of Losev is much more urgent. Criticism aimed at revealing what Losev is, and not what it seems and what is not.
Losev, and the whole so-called. Russian philosophy is presented as a negative reaction to the rationalism of classical Western philosophy. Like: Western philosophy appeared and there was a negative reaction to it. In fact, Losev adheres to neo-Platonism, which arose and fully took shape before any Western philosophy. Losev's philosophy can be called the scholasticism of Neoplatonism, i.e. an attempt to rationalize and modernize Neoplatonism.

Corwin writes:

... Losev's philosophy can be called the scholasticism of Neoplatonism, i.e. an attempt to rationalize and modernize Neoplatonism.
According to unverified rumors, Western philosophy simply ignores the Russian and Losev in particular. If this is so, then it is easy to find an explanation for this: at one time the ZF rejected neo-Platonism and sees no reason to return to this issue.
Analyzing Losev, one must first of all understand what Neoplatonism is, why it lost its leading position in the West, and what makes Losev return to it.

Dear Corwin! So get involved in order not just to discuss Losev's ideas, his dialectics, but to solve modern problems of cognition. After A.F. Losev, many new problems have appeared in fundamental science ...

Problems in philosophy are eternal. Maybe new approaches are yes. Which approach is older is also a question: Losev is younger than Kant, but the tradition that Losev follows is older. In order to discuss Losev's ideas, you must first highlight them.

Corwin writes:

Problems in philosophy are eternal. Maybe new approaches are yes. Which approach is older is also a question: Losev is younger than Kant, but the tradition that Losev follows is older. In order to discuss Losev's ideas, you must first highlight them.

So I have singled out only the correlation of eidos and logos, which is important for the conceptual-figurative synthesis. Probably, deeper than Losev, no one dug this topic ... Maybe you know other philosophers?

I think Losev is the leader in neoplatonic scholasticism. The problem here is that criticism of critics requires adequate criticism of Losev. For me, there is no problem of the closet: the object as a concept is accessible to dialectics, and the closet itself, which falls under the form of the object, falls under the formal-logical analysis. But for Losev, this explanation is not acceptable, because, proceeding from his principles, he cannot separate the wardrobe conceivable as an object from the wardrobe itself. Therefore, all sorts of eidos are created, which are not things and not concepts, but under them their own special dialectic, which is not a dialectic of concepts. Losev's main criticism is not in discovering the defects of the dialectic invented by him, which is correct by definition, but in discovering the limits of applicability of the eidic approach.

Corwin writes:

... Losev's main criticism is not in discovering the defects of his own dialectic, which is correct by definition, but in discovering the limits of applicability of the eidic approach.

And what "limits" do you see?

Corwin writes:

Some limits in Neoplatonism were already fixed by Aristotelianism. But I am more worried about the limitations of a different kind: Losev's philosophy denies the subjective, and as a consequence of the subject itself.

What is the result of this "denial"? What is its "salt"?

Corwin writes:

There is neither Vladimir Rogozhin nor Alexander Korvin. There is only Losev, but purely as a phenomenon of our Russian reality.

So who, then, will develop Losev's ideas? "End of Philosophy"?

Actually, I'm already repeating myself.

Corwin writes:

Philosophical systems differ in the range of issues that can be discussed in them. If there is no concept of a subject in the system, then the question "who zombified the subject?" it is not correct.
Actually, I'm already repeating myself.

When I think about the Universe as a whole, its essential construct, the "subject" (I) is eliminated into thought, merging with the first process of the Universe.
"Zombie" is obviously a concept from the field of psychology.

Corwin, December 22, 2013 - 15:42
In order to discuss Losev's ideas, you must first highlight them.

For a start, it would be nice to independently understand what Losev wrote about. And this can be done only if the level of one's own understanding is not lower than the level of Losev's. And having understood, there will be no need to discuss what Losev said. Except to note the fact that Losev knew the same thing. :))

Naturally, this is the only way and nothing else. Many have read Turgenev's story "Mu-mu", but not all of them understand what he is talking about, the meaning of what he has written. What can we say about Tolstoy, Dostoevsky ... or Losev. :)

Sergey Borchikov:
For Plato, eidos is the equivalent of an idea. For Losev, eidos is always the equivalent of an empirical thing: table eidos, cabinet eidos, etc. (I started a conversation about this here -). But Victor writes "eidos of number, eidos of geometry", etc. What kind of eidos is this: Platonic, Losev, or what else?

***
Sergey! When I started to study philosophy and read everyone in a row, then at some point I was seized by claustrophobia. It seems that everyone is speaking correctly, and this "right" compresses the space. and there is nothing to rely on.

Since the essence of any person is Experience, I selected from my Experience "absolute support" - eidos. Precisely because this "support" does not constitute something substantial, but only "software", technological, with "input" and "output" ...

So you want to build a system of categories? Do you proceed from your Experience? But everyone has a different experience ...

You write: // For Losev, eidos is always the equivalent of an empirical thing: table eidos, cabinet eidos, etc. //. But above, I gave examples of how Losev, through eidos, defines space and time. And this is not a thing! In the same place he considers both the "set" and "topos" and others.
***
There is such a problem in the problem of artificial intelligence: the system must support exactly context sensitive language. That is, if I say: "He will come to me at the appointed time," then you need to know the whole context: who is he? what time?
So Losev often made mistakes, starting to discuss something without putting it into context. So it is with this "closet". And the context, which contains the entire "landscape" of knowledge, is "overwhelming". Plus the "dictatorship of philosophy", where, for example, Hegel was an obligatory figure of that time (but it seems that Losev respected him). I am writing this not for you, but for those who will try to comprehend Losev - what awaits them. Here you either have to read a dozen times and that's it, or don't do it at all. By the way - the same with Hegel. I was vomiting (from his pompous turns) but read. I confess - all once, except for "Science of Logic".
***
Sergey! You once told me this phrase: "I am not a physicist, I am a metaphysicist." But then you don't need eidos. As for me, Losev's dialectics as "logos about eidos" is a more applied science. Otherwise, why does society need philosophy? Modeled on "thesis" and " anti the thesis "to be divided into" white "and" red "? A dictatorship needs such a philosophy! It is much more difficult to understand that eidos is an increase in ortho gonal freedoms (VV Demyanov) coupled (passive and active) factors.

To your question: // Victor writes "eidos of number, eidos of geometry", etc. What kind of eidos is this: Platonic, Losev, or what? // I see only one answer - there is no Platonic, Losev, Proklov, Victor or other eidos! There is eidos in itself, and there is some kind of successive line of its interpretation.

Victor “ripped off” the eidos of number from Losev, Losev “ripped off” the idea of ​​eidos from Plato ...

For me, Losev made a methodical mistake when he used " singularity of mobile rest of self-identical difference"like a stencil. With this he" erased "various categories. And most importantly, he recently gave these categories a personified corresponding name, as, for example, I do when I write specifically about the eidos of conservation laws in the dynamics of a material point:
mass - impulse - force - energy - power.

But I must say that he began to change his scheme when in "The Self" he developed the stages of thinking as:
difference - identity - becoming - becoming - manifestation (emanation).

That is, I did not think at all about what is logos and essence at first. I was wondering, but in general this eidos is not an invention? Is it "real"? Now I can say with confidence: "He is" real "!
About the "logos" a little later.

There are two approaches to the topic: 1) historical-philosophical (regarding Losev) = research and 2) purely philosophical (metaphysical) = constructive.
I would suggest that Vladimir simply close the first approach (topic), since there are no forces at the FS that can raise such a study, and it is simply unethical to deliver "verbiage" around the name of the genius of Russian philosophy.

And for the development of the second theme, I invite everyone to give a definition of eidos and logos (even if borrowed from someone, but defend as their own) and start a constructive conversation or, as Kant said, figurative synthesis.

I define eidos

I define logos as a kind of substance (analogy with energy, force, field), linking thoughts, concepts, categories, essences, theories, systems into something whole.

In this sense, any philosophical system has two levels: 1) the level of eidos and concepts and 2) the level of universal categories - (sub-) system of categories. The task of categories is to predetermine, link, explain all concepts and all eidos, i.e. in other words, to place them in the field of the Logos and to give them logical connections.

I am waiting for constructs, yours, Vladimir and other participants.
Then let's argue.

Here are my definitions:

kto writes:

Dear Sergey Alekseevich and Vladimir Rogozhin 22 12 2013
I believe that there is a connection between our ideas, namely: gene (who) -structure (Vladimir Rogozhin) -concept (Sergei Borchikov). With this in mind, you can try to give your own definitions of logos and eidos, and then compare them.
Here are my definitions:
Logos is the structure of the gene of the subject, corresponding to the physical thing of the external world.
Eidos is the subject's sensation of the structure of a gene when the subject observes a thing in the external world that corresponds to a gene.

Philosophy is the unraveling of the Creator's thought before the act of creation.
Logos is the law of the Universe ("law of laws", meta-law)
Eidos is the very thing, internal and external, structure and its image.
The unity of logos and eidos = ontological (structural, essential) memory.

As a participant in other forums with me, you must have read reminders from me about " the principle of the presumption of intelligence"put forward by S. L. Katrechko.
A.F. Losev and the leading figures of Russian philosophy with their lives and works have earned this presumption. Therefore, while it is you, without proof, accuse them of incompetence. And I defend them by right of presumption. It seems that everything is natural for those who love wisdom.

Where in this topic did I doubt Losev's competence? When did he write that Losev "cannot separate a wardrobe conceivable as an object from the wardrobe itself"? So this is due to the principle of Parmenides: the object and the thought about it are one. Losev adheres to the Parmenides principle. And in what way can he be incompetent? Neoplatonism?

[The "whole" is a dialectical synthesis of "one" and "many".]- in my opinion schizophrenia it refers to split consciousness, not in the sense illness I mean, but representation, after all single excludes much if refers to human within the whole, one.

Material for synthesis.

So, our definitions.

By eidos.

S. B. I define eidos as a sensory-ideological statue, a substitute for a thing, object, process, phenomenon, and even the idea itself. It is always concrete: there is the eidos of the mountain, there is the eidos of the cat, there is the eidos of revolution, there is the eidos of conscience, etc.
kto: Eidos is the subject's perception of the structure of a gene when the subject observes a thing in the external world that corresponds to a gene.
V.R .: Eidos is itself the inner and outer, the structure and its image.

Similarities: there is something, and it has eidos. It is something - either a thing, or an object in general, or a structure. And eidos is his self-arrangement.

Discrepancies:
1) in the methods of perception of eidos: for kto - sensation, for V.R. - image, imagination, in S. B. - and sensation, and image, and idea, and even mind,
2) in doubling (for kto). There is a gene, there is a thing. They have one eidos. So this is the eidos of a gene or the eidos of a thing? If this is the eidos of a thing, then it turns out that the gene does not have eidos. And if it is the eidos of a gene, then the thing remains without eidos.

By the logo.

S. B .: I define logos as a kind of substance (analogy with energy, force, field), linking thoughts, concepts, categories, essences, theories, systems into something whole.
kto: Logos is the structure of the subject's gene corresponding to the physical thing of the outside world.
VR: Logos is the law of the trinity of the Universe ("law of laws", meta-law).

There are still some discrepancies here.
In kto, logos, like eidos, is associated with a specific something (gene structure) and belongs biological the world.
My logos, like a neutrino, permeates a whole multitude of elements, but exclusively ideal the world (thoughts, ideas, concepts, categories, theories, systems).
ideal and material
Have Loseva

Sergey Borchikov writes:

Material for synthesis.
V.R. logos already permeates both worlds: ideal and material... It is not clear, however, this is ONE-only law (which can be expressed in this way and that), or it is a set of many laws about individual something.
Have Loseva by the way, logos is the meaning (law) of each individual something. Those. something (thing) = his eidos + his logos (meaning).

Yes, Sergei, this is ONE-only law that manifests itself in the "laws of nature" and society as "fusis" and "nomos".

Dear Sergey Alekseevich 23 12 2013

I will not touch on your whole very promising analysis of logos and eidos yet, there is something to think about, but I will touch on Losev's ideas in your interpretation: “In Losev, by the way, logos is the meaning (law) of each individual something. Those. something (thing) = his eidos + his logos (meaning). "

I believe that on the shoulders of this formula, we must move forward. To do this, I will write Losev's formula as a thingA = eidosA + logosA, however, we must pay attention to the fact that thingA does not feel its eidosA and logosA, for when interacting with a thingB feels partly eidosB and partly logosB. This partial interaction is realized during the deformation of those chemical bonds of thing A, which are accessible to the atoms of thing B.

Thus, any thing A, consisting of atoms interconnected by chemical bonds, contains partial logos and eidoses of all things of the external world in the structure of its chemical bonds, and these logos and eidoses appear in the form of deformation of those chemical bonds that interact when things come into contact and they are named for all things in the outside world.

This interconnection of eidos and logoi of all things in the external world allows life to be arranged on a single genetic code.

I propose, based on the results of all comments, to formulate a general summary in which to capture common ideas and disagreements.

Dear Sergey Alekseevich and Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

kto writes:

Dear Sergey Alekseevich and Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

I propose the following formulas for agreement:

Eidos is the very thing based on sensations, pleasant and unpleasant.
Logos is the law of the Universe ("law of laws", meta-law).

This definition of eidos is not essential, it is psychologism.

kto writes:

And what are the disadvantages of psychologism? You also have a "structure and its image."

I am considering internal essence structure and its image as a framework of the generating process.
On the dispute between "psychologists" and "antipsychologists"

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

kto writes:

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

Your link to “K.A. Mikhailov On the question of the relationship between logic and psychology, psychologism and antipsychologism in logic. " is not indicative for me, since according to K.A. Mikhailova "Psychology studies the real, natural process of thinking," as it is, "". In my opinion, the process of thinking is carried out by the brain and it appeared as a result of evolution along with the emergence of the nervous system-brain.

We are considering a sensation, which, in my opinion, is inherent in both things, the carrier of which is a chemical bond, and the Universe, which consists of elementary particles of matter and elementary particles of sensation.

In connection with the above, it is impossible to formulate the concept of eidos without the concept of sensation. In my opinion, in your formula "Eidos is the very thing, internal and external, structure and its image." the concept of "sensation" is hidden in the concept of "image".

And how, through sensations, to "grasp" the dialectic of the coinciding opposites of the first process?

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
And how, through sensations, to "grasp" the dialectic of the coinciding opposites of the first process?

kto writes:

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
And how, through sensations, to "grasp" the dialectic of the coinciding opposites of the first process?

With the help of my eyes, I grabbed your text and transferred it to my genome, where I transformed it into a sensation of the text, from which I extracted its meaning in the volume in which my genome was a priori ready.

Now draw a dialectic of "coinciding opposites" of the transmitted text and meanings that generate new knowledge ...

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
"And now draw a dialectic of" coinciding opposites "of the transmitted text and meanings generating new knowledge ..."

Coinciding opposites are contained in the gene in the form of matter-atoms and ideas-chemical bonds. When the text of a gene is transcribed by polymerase, the deformation of each subsequent nucleotide generates a new sensation-idea of ​​the meaning of the text of the gene, just as the new meaning of my text is manifested when reading it literally.

S. Borchikov:
I define eidos as a sensory-ideological statue, a substitute for a thing, object, process, phenomenon, and even the idea itself. It is always concrete: there is the eidos of the mountain, there is the eidos of the cat, there is the eidos of revolution, there is the eidos of conscience, etc.

Vladimir, you are again following the same scenario: "Either my definition, or none at all." Well, suggest constructive synthesis ...

Your approach meta-approach

Second approach

Sergey Borchikov writes:

Vladimir, you are again following the same scenario: "Either my definition, or none at all." Well, suggest constructive synthesis ...

Your approach: one universal logos + (hence, like Victor's) one universal eidos. I do not mind, let's designate it as meta-approach: meta-logos + meta-eidos = Universe (ultimate abstractions).

But with this approach, firstly, specific things are lost, where are they from? Secondly, the theories of colleagues who consider specific eidos and logos of things are belittled.
Second approach: private eidos + private logos. There is the apple tree eidos and the apple tree logo, there is the cabinet eidos and the cabinet logo.

And then there is a striving for convergence of positions: to look for how the general meta-logos is connected with private logos, and how is the general meta-eidos connected with private eidos? And how are logos and eidos related to each other?

Otherwise, again a departure from theoretical communication ...

From the "concrete things" I can only take the "apple tree". The eidos and logos of the apple tree make it possible to move ("grab") to meta-eidos and meta-logos. But no "closet".
But I urge you not to get hung up on "definitions" and even understanding (each has his own) of the concepts "eidos" and "logos" (after all, it's not just that the culture itself and language have supplanted them). I see the task in understanding the approaches of Losev and Tashian, to reach a new level of thinking about these two concepts, to give them a new, modern interpretation and to give a visual representation of both. In the end, I went to third concept, as I think it is synthetic - ontological (structural) memory. And only then I give "definitions" of logos and eidos.

V.A. Sakhno

Eidos as a universal "template of a single language"

Annotation.

We communicate with each other not only in natural human (Russian, English, ...) languages. But also in the language of document flow, the language of physical, electrical, radio engineering, design, etc. schemes. Sometimes such languages ​​as social, political, economic, although they are "human", but sometimes they are an obstacle to understanding each other.

Presently existing ideas of the scientific world put forward the laws of evolution in the first place. Where the law itself is no longer a formula of the type of Hooke's law, but homologous series possessing a large systemic range of applicability, "stitching" together different spheres of activity. In this regard, we are talking about a "single language" - as a universal "template" that generates meaning, thanks to which it is only possible to understand each other.

1. Eidos.

Wikipedia gives the following definition of eidos:

“Eidos (ancient Greek εἶδος - view, appearance, image), the term of ancient philosophy and literature, originally meant“ visible ”,“ that which is visible ”, but gradually acquired a deeper meaning -“ concrete manifestation of the abstract ”,“ material given in thinking ”; in a general sense, a way of organizing and / or being an object. In medieval and modern philosophy - a categorical structure that interprets the original semantics of a concept. "

Eidos, as a concept, has its own history. But we will consider eidos in aspects related to Plato and its further development in the works of Aristotle and A.F. Losev. Before Plato, eidos was more identified with an external form corresponding to sensory perception. That is, in early natural philosophy, eidos was understood almost exclusively as an image. In Plato, the eidos changes significantly. “Now it is understood not as an external, but as an internal form, that is, an immanent way of being a thing. In addition, eidos is now acquiring an ontologically independent status, forming the transcendental world of ideas (that is, the actual world of eidos) as a set of absolute and perfect samples of possible things. "

A feature of our consideration will be the connection between eidos and logos. In his works A.F. Losev pays great attention to eidos. Eidos in his writings is a powerful tool of dialectics. This is actually what he writes in his work "Ancient Cosmos and Modern Science" in the chapter "Definition of Dialectics" about logos and eidos:

“Firstly, dialectics is logos, logical construction.” “Secondly, dialectics is the logical construction of eidos.” He further explains that eidos (clever face) links all contradictions. possible types of eidos, but eidos in the narrow sense ... of its categorical definiteness. "" Fourthly, dialectics (general and basic) is a logical construction of categorical eidos as being based on myself and from oneself dependent. "" Fifthly, dialectics (general and basic) is a logical construction of the categorical structure of eidos as being based on itself and depending on itself, and such a construction has an absolute universal character, capturing all conceivable and imaginable types of being, so that everything that is not-eidetic and irrational and not logical must be in an eternally indestructible eidetic connection with pure eidos. " , outlined above, should give an internally eidetic system of categories, starting with the self-arising and primary element of eidos and ending with eidos as a name. "

But this is not enough. A.F. Losev connects eidos with meaning formation:

“There is eidos, therefore the first definition of meaning in general, ie the first setting for him of exact limits, exact boundaries, as a result of which the first and most general structure of meaning appears before us here, while until now there was only an eternally beating source of semantic design, but not the design itself. ... We reveal the nature of meaning. Eidos is the meaning. "

In his work The Sophist, Plato gives a categorical distinction between the parts of the eidos as something whole in the following form:

the other is identity - being - rest - movement.

Later A.F. Losev will replace “other” with “difference” (perhaps, so as not to confuse the opposition of dualities: “something” - “other”). The most common form is the categorical form of eidos by A.F. Loseva is as follows:

difference - identity - becoming - becoming - manifestation.

As we already see, in the categorical form, eidos has a certain “skeleton”, or, as the designers say, “fish” (structural sketch). The invariability of eidos, its unity remains its internal parts (statuses), their certain order and quantity. Plato did not have this order; it was established by A.F. Losev.

A typical expression used by A.F. Losev to eidos is a "face":

“Eidos in Plato and Aristotle is the visible essence of a thing, or, so to speak, the face of a thing. And now it turns out that this face of a thing is not only something univariate, but also the very individuality of a thing, the separateness of which has already faded into the background. Here, it is precisely that eidetic unity that comes to the fore, which is not reduced either to the unity of the continuous fluidity of a given thing, or to the unification of its properties and qualities, or simply to our logical processes of generalization. "

As we can see from the quote by A.F. Losev, eidos has a large systemic range, from individuality to eidetic unity. What does this mean in our modern understanding? What eidos (in itself) possesses as a category special so by category general... After all, if we look at people's faces, then everyone has eyes, forehead, lips. But we somehow distinguish between them. But when we say "distinguish", then we are no longer in static, where there is a forehead, eyes, lips, but in a kind of constructive dynamics. In the same dynamics, these foreheads, eyes, lips were created according to the laws known to all, from conception.

Then we come to the conclusion that in the process of perception we construct an image by some universal operators of the Universe. These operators are common for both the observer and the Universe. Such universal operators are known in the history of philosophy - this is logic. But, before moving on to logic and its connection with eidos, let us note one important idea.

Plato proceeded from his dialectical concept of the structure of the world as One ("Parmenides"), therefore eidos, with its five categories, is in a certain way connected with the One. This means that it contains the idea of ​​continuity and optimality of the One. If you like, the idea of ​​some fundamental simplicity, according to which the One acts (“talks” to us). This is precisely the ultimate "template" by which we can understand each other and construct the world. This "template" is sometimes very different from how we design in our everyday world. But our everyday world contains all the elements corresponding to the context of eidos. Therefore, the “universal language” with which we communicate with each other in different areas necessarily contains the idea of ​​eidos.

2. Natural language of communication and logic.

In the history of the development of logic, there were doubts: is logic an immanent part inherent in the Universe or is it a “product” of human mental (and biological) capabilities? In a dispute on this matter, Husserl left significant explanations in his "Logical Investigations" (especially in the first volume), clearly separating logic from the psyche, calling it "ideal logic". Like Bolzano, Husserl connected logic with science of science. Logic is not so connected with anything as with thought activity, and this is correct. But now it can be argued with some certainty that logic is the operating space of the entire Universe. Man, as a part of the Universe, is simply endowed with the logical possibilities of thinking along with the "thinking" of the Universe. In a little more detail, Husserl's views on logic are presented by us in.

Naturally, in this context, recall the words of Hegel ("Science of Logic"):

“Logic, therefore, should be understood as a system of pure reason, as the kingdom of pure thought. This kingdom is the truth, what it is without veils, in itself and for itself. Therefore, it can be expressed as follows: this content is an image of God, as he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and the finite spirit. "

If we assert that the Universe “thinks” logically, then logic is inevitably connected with languages ​​in the most general case, and with the languages ​​of human communication in particular. The greatest breakthrough in science in this direction is attributed to L. Wittgenstein and his famous "Logical-Philosophical Treatise" (LFT). One of the researchers of his legacy in our country was V.A. Surovtsev, the author's abstract for the doctoral dissertation and the book of which we will use in the further presentation.

V.A. Surovtsev called it "The principle of the autonomy of logic." The thing is that the search of philosophers for the foundations of the universe and universals was constantly reduced to "an impersonal image of the world." And in this regard, the search for formal logical foundations was important, where the contribution of L. Wittgenstein is significant. Here is how Surovtsev writes about Wittgenstein:
“No one before him not only tried to substantiate analytical sciences from their own source, ie. without explaining them with a special interest in cognition or the structure of ontology, but such a train of thought was not even considered as a problem. ... This is precisely the concept of the autonomy of logic. Having formulated in the Diaries 1914-1916 the basic principle of the philosophy of logic: "Logic should take care of itself" and consistently explicating it in the LFT, Wittgenstein laid down completely new principles for the study of the originality of knowledge. He deduces formal logic from the beginning of ontology and the theory of knowledge, believing that when clarifying its basic concepts, it is necessary to start exclusively from the features of the symbolic language. Logic as a study of the universal possibilities of meaningful statements cannot be substantiated by any ontology, quite the opposite, since it is logic that sets the criterion for meaningfulness, any ontology is a consequence of the logical clarification of possible interconnections of description structures. As a universal method of clarifying thoughts, logic cannot depend on any epistemology, since the theory of knowledge is considered only as a particular philosophical discipline. "

Philosophy at one time turned to language, drawing attention to its self-sufficiency. That is, he himself forms his own "habitat" by providing switching between different aspects of life and their participants, modeling reality. The coherence of this “environment” of language is set by logic: “Logic fills the world; the boundaries of the world are the essence and its boundaries ”(LFT, 5.61). "It is logic that determines the ontological structure of the world, since it is within its competence to decide what can take place in the world and what cannot."

To understand why it is logic that is self-sufficient within the language, you need to have an idea of ​​tautologies and contradictions. "A tautology in logic is an identically true statement that is invariant with respect to the values ​​of its components" (Wikipedia). A well-known example from the song: "Real men play hockey, a coward does not play hockey" Here, "real man" and the opposite (negation) - a coward become important variables. So, if you swap these variables, then the meaning of the sentence (and its correspondence to life experience) will change. But its logical consistency - no! This, in essence, is the autonomy of logic - it has nothing to do with the surrounding reality, with the variables of its manipulation. It is self-sufficient by its internal consistency (tautology). Logic simply shows how any language works, including the language of human communication.

There is one more side that connects logic and language - teleology (purposefulness). This is how it is described in: “The dissertation proves that, unlike Frege and Russell, who consider logical analysis as a means of constructing an ideal language, Wittgenstein understands logical analysis as a method that reveals the inner teleology of any language. Logic shows "the general and necessary nature of signs." At the same time, thinking is denied the role of a mental mediator between language and reality. Thinking is seen as a kind of language. Therefore, logical analysis does not correct language in terms of thinking; on the contrary, clarification of the nature and possibilities of language indicates the essential and necessary in thinking. "

In "Natural Science Ontology", we showed the possibility of a natural reflection of formal logic in the Platon-Losev eidos in the following form:

The formal operators of this logic assume just such an arrangement. That is, in order to work with equivalence we must be able to discern. For implications we need to know equivalence since in implications phrase: " if(fulfillment condition) then(execution method 1) otherwise(execution method 2) ", requires prior knowledge equivalence, otherwise the "execution condition" cannot be checked. Due to previous events implication takes us to a structure defined disjunction- "...or or...". Operator conjunctions"... and ... and ..." already defines the previous selection as the final text.

As you know, the parts of speech of the grammar of the language in the expressiveness of speech are of the greatest importance (in comparison, for example, with the gender of a noun). And therefore, we take the ideas of M.V. Panov, who in the article "On parts of speech in the Russian language" (1960) identifies five main parts of speech (Wikipedia): "

Nouns, verb, participle, adjectives and adverbs;

Numbers and pronouns are assigned to other parts of speech;

Outside the system of parts of speech are particles of speech and interjections. "

Thus, in accordance with the logical meaning, the following eidos can be chosen for the eidos of an elementary sentence of a natural language of communication:

adjective - noun - verb - adverb - participle.

In our opinion, such an arrangement corresponds as much as possible to the expression of logical operators, and also corresponds to the idea of ​​teleology. In addition, this is largely consistent with the work that has been carried out on the development of predicate theory. All this together, we associate it with the "template of a single language." Although it would be more correct to call it a cortege, since the places in the eidos statuses strictly correspond to certain parts of speech. We cannot, for example, swap the places of the adjective and the noun, since it is the adjective (according to the context) that determines the noun. Just like a noun defines a verb, etc.

Yes, we can say "green oak" or "green oak". The meaning will not change from this. But we cannot say "oak green". The word itself (as a part of speech) carries information about its position in the eidos. The sentence “the green oak stood on a hillock swaying” can be executed in various ways, but the meaning (the carrier of the target position) will remain the same. It is already defined by the invisible context of linguistic eidos, which, regardless of the location of the words, carries us the image (eidos) of the given description. Without such a template, we would never have been able to understand each other.

It is clear that the adjective corresponds to the "difference" as much as possible. And a noun is an element of "self-identity" (equivalence) to oneself. Also, the verb corresponds to logical "following", "implicating" (transferring) the tree "to the hillock". The sentence is building up the meaning, reaching the gerunds "swinging".

The word itself also has a pentadic structure (as well as sounds):

prefix - root - suffix - post-suffix - ending.

This fractal structure allows the words to "take root" in the sentence almost regardless of where it resides. Sometimes this is required for artistic expression. But the form of logic, "an invisible frame", retains the whole meaning of any proposition. It seems that it is precisely this unique post-status nesting that is characteristic of the languages ​​of high-level human communication.

The linguistic eidos of natural language also reflects the property that is inherent in most (and most likely all) eidos. We are talking about the second status of the pentad, its special role in eidos. The fact is that we conditionally call the second status “subject” due to the fact that it already participates (explicitly or implicitly) in the following statuses. So the adjective "green" can be attributed to any object - for example, a toy - a cube. But to say about the cube that it "stood on a hillock, swinging" is meaningless. The second status (noun) sets the entire semantic tone of eidos, corresponding to the meaningfulness of this status. To understand this, it is better to give an example of the eidos of a material point in the formulas ( ):

dm / dt - mV - mdV / dt - mVV / 2 - mVdV / dt.

As we can see, velocity (V) appears in the second status of eidos, which then appears further in different “images”.

The same can be said for games (in general):

passion (desire) - game rules - tactics - strategy - result.

As we can see, here too rules of the game participate in other statuses, determining tactics games, strategy games and result.

The theory of predicates, which has been developing for many decades, in our opinion, narrows the horizon of dialectical (evelectic - according to V.V.Demyanov) concepts. For the predicate theory, the expression "a good person" and "a person walks" is practically the same. It simply assigns meaning to the subject. This develops predicate thinking and nothing more.

It is important to note the thought of Saussure that "the flow of speech, taken by itself, is a line, a continuous tape ...". That is, on the one hand, we have a certain continuity of the text, on the other hand, its discreteness, in the form of at least words. Considering that a simple sentence is also an eidos and a word is also an eidos, the journey through the text is at least a two-dimensional movement. Such a movement is undoubtedly evolutionary, as the famous linguist Benveniste spoke about, referring to Saussure: “The main thesis of de Saussure is that“ at any given moment, speech activity presupposes both an established system and evolution; at any moment, language is both a living activity and a product of the past. " But, and if the language includes evolutionary moments, then it can be considered both as an instrument of evolution (in the communication sense) and its reflector for the observer.

Thus, the emergence of any language, such as DNA, plays the evolutionary role of a store of information about the world. In the process of human activity, not only the accumulation of information in linguistic form began to occur, but also the active study of all forms of its organization.

In conclusion of this section, one can try to construct not only the eidos of a simple sentence (which we have devoted most of the section to), but the eidos of the language of communication used in literature. In our view, it looks like this:

sound (letter) - word - sentence - table of contents - work.

Given the evolutionary nature of eidos, the eidos of the language of communication can end with a hum, like: "mmm-d-a". It may also be the word "fun!" There may be a sentence: "wonderful weather outside!". Maybe a table of contents (hierarchical structure of the idea) for a novice writer. Or maybe an epic work of the type "War and Peace". In any case, continuity prevails in eidos - the subsequent status of this eidos requires the previous ones. The "subject" of this eidos is word.

3. "I" in the logic of eidos.

Philosophically, "I" - subject. Subject in the sense that it is opposed object as some kind of active study and transformation object... But subject arose evolutionarily later object... Having arisen subject and an object interact. This interaction is the third phase moment of evolutionary development. The way modern philosophy describes it, such as subject"Turns around" to object(for the emergence of relations) in an evolutionary context can not be considered. Subject manifests itself through activity. This activity can be, for example, creativity in art. This creation should be considered as a category "new" according to the trinitarian ontology of V.V. Demyanov (a new axis of the "orthonormal space of events", which develops an object and subject). The same "new" category will be art formed by subject and creativity; the same "new" will be inspiration which gives creation and art... And then subject in this area represents part of the eidos:

object - subject - creativity - art - inspiration.

It is clear that instead of creativity there can be another type of activity and other concepts of eidos. But the essence of the eidos itself does not change from this. Eidos is an evolutionary constructor (in terms of the necessary components and order) that creates a text of the Universe of minimal length.

Since the second status subject, and he has certain properties in eidos - as if projects himself in different forms into the following statuses, then in the pentad we often call him the "subject" of eidos. In fact, it provides a lot of food for thought.

As a person, a person consists of many eidos. As an object of the Universe, it represents the aggregate states of matter:

ether - liquid - plasma - solid - gas.

(Note that a person is almost half liquid. And this makes sense, since dynamically, he is a flow.)

At the molecular biological level, it represents a complex metabolic system:

water-salt - carbohydrate - nucleoprotein - lipid - protein.

(It’s not for nothing that they say: “bread is the head of everything.” It is carbohydrates that “mastered” copying and occupy the second status of “subject”.)

In logical eidos, first of all, "subject" is an operator equivalence(Losevskaya identity to myself). Why exactly this identity has become a kind of the most important point of evolutionary development? Perhaps because this is a fact of some copying. And if in carbohydrates this is a fact of a certain build-up, the ability to form chains and rings, then in DNA this is a copying of a higher level - dynamic copying for the purpose of adaptation. The copying idea continues in lipids and proteins.

All our commercial production is a product equivalence, first of all. Our means of production are, in essence, copiers. If we invent anything, it is only for the purpose of copying in the future - even missiles, even medicine. It looks contradictory, but if you think about that monotony, it allows diversity to exist precisely fractally, evolutionarily. Perhaps, if the nucleons of the atoms were different, then some combination could be assembled. But most likely this "assembly" would be unique (and therefore unattainable) and evolution obviously would not work.

So existence subject is predetermined precisely by the logic of the Universe through eidos. Since all of his texts are written according to a single template, the existence subject laid down by the eidosome as a genome. Eidos has an evolutionary purpose in the first place. And here we come to the most important point on which there have been no particular disagreements in the history of philosophy. This is the presence of a causal relationship. Only in the 20th century, having looked more closely at this causal relationship, did they see that it is not a simple phenomenon. That at some points of phase transformations bifurcations can occur - a double outcome of phenomena. Synergetics is more concerned with these phenomena. If we transfer this moment of "bifurcation" to a formal logical language, then implication is responsible for this.

Let's write down the simplest implication in the “human” event language. Have a person stand at a pedestrian crossing in front of a traffic light. The implication will look like this in programming language:

If (traffic light color = green) Then

go;

stand;

EndIf;

Note that both consequences: "walk" and "stand" guarantee you life in the evolutionary movement, otherwise - you can drop out of the game in evolution. Here is the simplest popular explanation for the evolutionary purpose of logical eidos:

negation (difference) - equivalence - implication - disjunction - conjunction.

Any object claiming for evolutionary development must have a minimum adequate device that allows you to operate with the specified eidos. The "heart" of implication ("subject") is equivalence(traffic light color = green).

(1. If we speak for real programming, then any condition could stand in place of equality - for example, “more” or “less.” But it is equivalence stands in the original logical eidos! It is she who "cares" about her self-sufficiency and preservation!

2. Thus, this logic, which we are talking about here, can be conditionally called "nonlinear", since it presupposes a causal relationship in implication and a special order of arrangement of logical operators. If it were not for this implicative "premeditation", evolution could not have taken place. The implication that is presented in ordinary literature on logic, "what follows from A to B" does not leave options for development, in our opinion. While the laws of physics say exactly the opposite.

3. There is another important aspect of this implication. The point is that such an implication emphasizes the teleological character of evolution. Simply put, in order to be optimal in time to achieve the goal (as an example), a person always needs a "green light", or as they say "green wave". This is precisely what ensures the nature of the implication, fixing the substantive part of the equivalence in the form of a hierarchy of disjunction. Psychologically, it will be difficult to perceive that the hierarchical vertical is from the Planck lengths through nucleons, atoms. molecules, cells, a person is supported by a "choice in implication" .... Do not forget that the implication is additive (instead of "execution" you can insert another implication), that in the noospheric eidos of a person, there is implications costs intelligence, and in place disjunctions - consciousness.}

What a person should do depends on whether our equality is fulfilled: "walk" or "stand". This "or" shows that we are placing the result of the choice in a disjunction structure ("... or ..."). To put it more clearly, the operating space of the Universe provided for the possibility of controlling the outcome of a bifurcation. Where is the fact of "control" ( implications) is entrusted to equivalence, behind which in the integral evolutionary embodiment stands subject... That is, in the evolutionary terms of this philosophy subject is a set of all second statuses of incoming eidos.

For programming, any part of the program is also specific text. The minimum set of which is represented by the following software eidos:

variable - props - calculation - table - view.

Of course, we have somewhat simplified the presentation of programming, but only slightly, and not in essence. For our case variables"colors" are set, props this is a "traffic light" - a kind of constant like metadata. V calculations can determine the result of the implication and place it in table. Table can imagine on the monitor screen. Or it can be complicated variable in the next programmed eidos. A table is the simplest hierarchical device in which direction(without side branches of the “tree” - in the simplest case), the top line of which is “go”, the bottom line is “stand”.

And here the most interesting question arises. But this one table in the Universum, from which you can choose disjunction is the meaning of "walking" or "standing" really hierarchical, or is it our guess? It looks like it really is!

The hierarchical table clearly demonstrates to us that without the phenomenon of hierarchy there would be no phenomenon energy and structures, which are impossible without it. But here it is important to remember that the third status of eidos sets the hierarchy. This moment was very accurately noticed by A.A. Zinoviev in his explanations of the concept of "structure". The fact that A.A. Zinoviev called direction, in logic it is often called following. Implication- this is for the eidos of manifestation of the third status (Losevskoe becoming). It's just that different names correspond to different contexts.

Returning to the "I", it is necessary to mention several postulates of L. Wittgenstein (LFT):

“I am my world” (5.63).

"There is no thinking, representing subject ..." (5.631).

"The subject does not belong to the world, but he is the border of the world" (5.632).

Thus, the "subject" of eidos (as its second status) existed from the very beginning of evolution. Just at a certain stage of evolution in the text of the Universe appeared subject our modern views.

4. Consignment note as the language of eidos.

In case of commodity exchange, the invoice (for issue or receipt) is the main document of commodity circulation. We need this example to show an important concept. structure(the fourth status of eidos), which is operated by everyone: who is engaged in science and who is in production. Programmers know that the invoice as a software object consists of two parts: "Header" and "Tabular Part". We will reflect the simplest case of an invoice, as follows:

Invoice No. 1884321 dated 5/10/2011

Sender: Clothes LLC. Recipient: Petrov.

We will use this table to show an example of thinking with the concept of eidos. Since the consignment note is a kind of visual object, then all its descriptive elements can be represented by certain categories. One of the most important categories in philosophy were quality and number... And here it is important that A.F. Losev - quality preceded quantity... In eidos, the order of categories is regulated by the context of the descriptive domain. Further we will show in more detail, and now we will emphasize the antinomical side quality - quantity... After all quality reflects any thing as a whole, but specifically. While number can combine different quality... In parallel, you can test yourself for associative thinking: quality semantically corresponds to Losevskoe difference, a quantity - identity.

So, as applied to this problem, eidos is expressed through the following important philosophical statuses:

quality - quantity - change (direction) - structure - manifestation.

1. Qualities(pants, shirt, T-shirt). (Personifying moment - Losev's "difference")

2. Quantity(rubles). (Generalizing moment - Losev's "identity")

3. Direction(numbering order, (in modern programs the "Order" property ...)). (Losev's "formation", and the word and "direction", "following" is taken from A.A. Zinoviev)

4. Structure(a table with ordered rows, A.F. Losev - which became).

5. Manifestation(the result of the addition of the sums. Yu. Urmantsev has the law of composition, Losev's "manifestation").

Actually, in an implicit form, everyone knows this. Take any invoice for the goods, and its tabular part falls under Losev's "eidos" (simplified):

product - amount - numbering - tabular section - total amount.

Actually, you can look at the waybill as a field of operational activity of our thinking. And then the tabular part of the waybill can be interpreted so that in order to operate with qualities goods, they are necessary making a difference.

To operate with quantities, more (!) you need to know equivalence (identify).

But so that quality and quantity implicit in the table, you need to order them (more!) direction). And here it is well described by A.A. Zinoviev in "Sketches of Complex Logic" that to create structure(connection between elements) it is necessary to set in the system direction (following). This can be done arbitrarily by specifying, for example, numbering. And it can be based on the system itself - for example, according to the amount of money for a purchase, which is methodologically correct. The principle of self-sufficiency of the system is important for us! After all, it is number allows us to create direction(basically).

Disjunction (who does not know in Russian this is a construction: "... or ... or ...") - symbolizes the possibility of choice (from the table).

A conjunction(in Russian this is a construction: ".... and ... and ..." - the obligation to take into account all the circumstances (amounts)).

I would like to emphasize two points "along the way":

First, the "movement" according to the statuses of eidos proceeds with the constant attraction of the previous statuses. They are not discarded, but "accumulated" to the previous statuses. The principle of continuity in evolution is being fulfilled.

Secondly, the second status has one feature (for which we call it the “subject” of eidos) - it participates directly in all subsequent statuses.

The life of an invoice doesn't end there. As a rule, a register of invoices is drawn up in a day. And then a certain metamorphosis occurs with the invoice. Its tabular part is "collapsed" to the total amount. And as quality the next level is the consignment note itself (its "Hat"):

Register of consignment notes LLC "Clothes" for 5/10/2011

As a result, we will get the same structure, where quality and number were transformed in accordance with the laws of conservation of the eidos of this profile. Moreover, the “packing” was not just utilitarian, like “Russian nesting dolls”, but it was compositionally coordinated and status-by-status.

But this is not the end of the transformations in Losevsky becoming... As you know, sales revenue is calculated monthly at each enterprise. And our registries are "ground up" in the next metamorphosis, where their final result is "revenue per month." In its constructivism, this process is exactly the same as the previous one, and there is no point in showing it. Further, the proceeds for the month fall into structure revenue for a quarter, half a year, a year. Thus, we get a kind of fractal "convolution" process: invoice → register → revenue. The characteristic moment of this "convolution" is that structure becomes a kind quality at a higher level. But the formed structure the final Manifestation carries the quantitative aspect of generalization - number.

We must not forget about direction (becoming). It is it that makes it possible to maintain the systemic integrity of the structure, carrying in itself essentially the global systemic attribute of time. By itself, the metamorphosis of the consignment transformations confirms the idea of ​​an evolutionary trajectory (creoda), just in terms of this context. As soon as the enterprise's creod is interrupted, this means the end of its existence (as a being).

Another remark. It's amazing how they get along number and quality in the invoice. But it will never occur to anyone that they are antinomies (of the type "individualism - collectivism", "egoism - altruism"). It turns out that this "anti" should ( necessarily!!!) be present in the structure for it to take place. All this means that there is no "unity and struggle of the opposite" as a dialectical law (V.V. Demyanov,).

5. "Material point" and other elementary physical objects.

Astronomers have conclusively established that the universe is expanding with acceleration (2011 Nobel laureates). And before that there were doubts, and it was believed that it was expanding at a constant rate. Anyone who read "Evaluation of the noosphere" by V.V. Demyanova does not doubt the existence of acceleration. Since the expansion at a constant rate means that the "Flesh of the One" goes to an unknown destination and the world is not one in the Platonic sense. This can be compared to the fact that a person would only be in a constant phase of inhalation, or exhalation, and not carry out a cyclical process of breathing.

The above is a prelude to the eidos of the material point. Above, we put it in quotation marks to emphasize the nature of the ideality of such a definition. Which assumes the absence of other forms of movement (for example, rotation). And the dimensions themselves do not really matter.

The eidos of a material point itself can be expressed in two versions:

a) As laws of conservation: mass - momentum - force - energy - power;

b) Through the analytical representation of physical quantities: mass transfer - impulse - force - energy - power.

I must say, historically, there is some "uncertainty" in philosophical texts and physical treatises (less) between energy and power. Perhaps Pobisk Kuznetsov was one of the first to draw attention to the discrepancy between the "priorities" of energy and power. The generally accepted expression "energy goes into ..." is not entirely correct, since this "goes over" means the presence of power! In philosophical texts, "potentiality" and "energeticity" also seem to correspond to energy and power.

Between the invoice and the eidos of the material point, it would seem, there is an abstraction abyss! And it exists, but it is passable if we remember about Plato's eidetic unity. Although these objects differ in the application area, from a systemic point of view, they are one! Let's try to find this in common between them.

(The difference and similarity between Plato and Aristotle was analyzed in detail by A.F. Losev in his work. Despite the fact that Aristotle gravitated more towards logical formalizations (where he succeeded), in relation to the eidos they retained the unity. Moreover, they are like would complement each other: "Thus, the accuracy of the study of the corresponding texts makes us recognize that Plato's eidos is a categorical-dialectical eidos, and Aristotle's eidos is an entelechy eidos.")

Developing the problem of categories, Aristotle first of all singled out categories quality and quantity... Considering the eidos of the consignment note, we saw how it "works" in terms of them as antinomies. The eidos of a material point has the first pair ( mass transfer - pulse) is also an antinomy, which can be defined semantically as "mobility" - "inertia". That is, any eidos begins with an essential antinomy, which A.F. Losev reflected in the general case as difference and identity.

The fact that a material point has a dimension will help us understand the nature of antinomy in a more substantive way, given that physics is increasing the processes of a systemic and constructive approach to it. If we remove the mass itself from the expressions for the initial antinomy of a material point, then in dimensions the antinomy looks like this S 0 T -1 - S 1 T -1. In a word, antinomy is an evolutionary process of increasing the topology of dimension (in this case, S 1), which in general form (as an increase) for a material point looks like this: T -1 - S - T -1 - S - T -1 ...

This idea of ​​the development of evolution, as an increase in the degrees of freedom in a certain "constructive space" was expressed by V.V. Demyanov. As we see for a material point, such a space is constructively binary, and rather resembles the construction of behavior with the help of time and space, which have the semantic character of “activity” and “fixation”. What Kant called "series" and "aggregate".

The third status of eidos for a material point as a form of manifestation determines acceleration. Acceleration can be both qualitative (in direction) and quantitative (in magnitude). To deprive a material point of acceleration is a ban on evolution - for this reason, the Universe is expanding with acceleration. It is clear that a material point can evolve. But can a billiard ball evolve even if it gains acceleration or deceleration by transferring its energy to another ball? Apparently Losevskoe becoming is an image of philosophical generalization in terms of the possibility of being become.

What energy there is a material point structure in fact, says the nonlinear nature of the formula for the kinetic energy, which is proportional to the square of the velocity. So V.V. Demyanov linked the structure of the formation of a moving material body with the quantum-dynamic adhesion of the "Flesh of the One". And the founder of rhythmodynamics, Yu.N. Ivanov gives a formula that links kinetic energy to phase difference. Indirectly, the complex structure of the "potential" of kinetic energy can be judged on its dimension (without mass) in this form.

Ultimate Losevsky expression for the eidos of a material point, it will be power- the amount of energy per unit of time transferred to another material point. In this regard, the invoice is associatively no different from the material point.

Returning to the topic of the article about the "common language", we can emphasize the following point. Now, if we take, for example, other elementary objects of the physical world - a spring, a capacitor, an inductor, then they are also eidos-pentads. But among themselves they have general and special... In particular, everyone has a status energy(4) and power(5) who wear the same ( general) name for any elementary physical objects. But for the first three statuses of eidos there are no such names, and sometimes even formulas! The reason for this is that, historically, introducing philosophical concepts shape and content(for example), we forget that all elementary objects are turned towards us, subjects form... The content usually remained in the shadows. It was clearly defined only for a material point - as a theoretically "beloved" object by all. As for, for example, a mechanical spring, everything stopped at Hooke's law in the systemic plan. In the linguistic pentad, the noun corresponds to the second status. The fact that we do not pay attention to the "noun" of elementary physical objects (such as momentum for a material point) indicates a complete absence of a systematic approach to elementary physics.

(This point is especially interesting for those who study general systems theory (OTS). The fact is that in "The Self" AF Losev shows by the example of a pencil drawing that the area of ​​eidos becoming breaks down into "something" and "other". "Other" is in some way the same for everyone and reflects the category general... While "something" is hidden behind becoming and reflects a category special... This can explain the fact that energy and power turned out to be the same for any objects of physics (they general). While the first, second and third statuses of physical objects are specific. For example, the concept of "impulse" particular the concept is only for the material point. For a spring, this can be called "elasticity". And for a capacitor, an inductor?

Even what is called strength , is not a general concept for a material point and a spring. From a systemic point of view, strength in statics and dynamics are different concepts.)

A material point and a spring, as well as a capacitor and a coil, produce harmonic self-oscillations, which indicates their common systemic nature. But the intellect requires that a single systemic language be created for this unified nature, which would make it possible to "stitch" different areas of knowledge, unifying them. It is unification that acts as a kind of result of intelligence, making life easier for society.

At one time, linguistics attracted philosophers by the fact that it could explain itself by its own means - that is, be self-sufficient. Examination of elementary physical objects shows that there are "holes" in the physical language at the level of the first statuses of eidos. In addition, as Wikipedia shows, even the methodology for solving the simplest problems (a mechanical oscillator is solved through equality of forces, not equality of powers - which is more correct!) Does not stand up to fundamental criticism.

6. The principle of superposition in eidos.

Probably the simplest thing would be to imagine the principle of superposition (overlay) on the example of a material point. Transferring from physics analogues of the laws of conservation of mass, momentum, forces, energy and power. In this case, for a certain local area, we would simply have post-status laws of conservation of physical quantities.

In fact, such a formal approach, constructively, does not seem to do much. Indeed, in fact, "combining" the capacitor and the inductance coil by direct connection, we get not only the law of conservation of power and energy, but also a sinusoidal harmonic oscillation - as an emergent effect. In this regard, the combination of a proton and an electron gives us the category new(in the sense of VV Demyanov's ideas) - a hydrogen atom.

Thus, the superposition process can be viewed from at least two sides: both a formal unification of eidos and coupled eidoses (oscillatory circuit, hydrogen atom).

As for physics, at the moment we know the eidoses of only the most elementary objects such as a material point, a spring, a capacitor, an inductor. But according to Plato's ideas, any material embodiment has eidos. It is another matter that the eidoses, for example, of the proton and the electron are little known to us, since it is difficult to present them reliably in formal terms.

Our natural language gives us an idea of ​​the superposition in the field of linguistics. So, for example, the expression “Vitya loves the Light” involves two eidos in interaction: (, Vitya, loves,) and (, to Light,). It seems that subordinate clauses are built on the same principle. A characteristic phenomenon is that subordinate clauses usually correspond to the fourth status of eidos, i.e. structure.

The emergence of such conjunctions as "and" or "or" can be explained by the use of logical eidos as a linguistic link. Thus, any scientific and literary text is not a formal union of eidos, but related eidoses.

The history of the development of science and technology is also the history of the development of their languages. If we take construction drawings in linear forms, then their basic eidos will be as follows:

point - line - angle - flat figure - volumetric figure.

Indeed, point and line are antinomies. Using a point (1) and two lines (2), you can create an angle (3). Using a line and an angle, you can create a flat shape (4), for example, an equilateral triangle. Using the angle (3) and plane figures (4), you can build a volumetric figure (5), for example, a tetrahedron. It is clear that the geometric linear eidos is sufficient for most construction drawings.

The language of linear constructions is used by nature, mainly in inanimate nature, for example, in crystals. For the formation of objects of living nature, the eidos of surfaces of the second order is more suitable:

point - line - circle - cylinder - torus.

This eidos allows the Universe to build venous, arterial, lymphatic and other systems in organisms. Even greater possibilities arise with the superposition of these two eidos.

7. Conclusion.

We are all human and we have physiological desires. These desires are in antinomy with physiological satisfaction. The excess of desire over satisfaction triggers the mechanism of enumerating options for solving this problem (for example, the desire to eat) - activity. Enumeration of options forms a hierarchy of the simplest goals, followed by the realization of desire:

desire - satisfaction - enumeration of possibilities - achievable goals - realization of desires.

As social beings, we form a more “conscious” eidos with family and environment in mind:

Needs - Opportunities - Situation Analysis - Priorities - Directed Activities.

Solving our problems, we are forced to work in production. Thus, entering the production eidos, offering his work:

labor - production resources - production - economic system - commodity flow.

Working and participating in the meeting, we solve production problems:

Problem - Opportunity - Solution - Plan - Execution.

Thus, in time and space, we sometimes find ourselves simultaneously in several eidos, entering the "Mobius strip" (family - work) and other complex figures, constructing the text of our life. In one word - "The world is text."

Literature.

2. Losev A.F. The very itself (Sat. Myth, number, essence) M: Thought. 1994, 919 p.

3. Sakhno V.A. Logic as a mechanism of evolution. 04/16/2010, http://filosofia.ru/76555/

4. Surovtsev V.A. The principle of the autonomy of logic in the philosophy of early Wittgenstein. Abstract, Tomsk, 2001, http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000275/st000.shtml

5. Surovtsev V.A. Autonomy of Logic: Sources, Genesis and System of Philosophy of the Early Wittgenstein, Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 2001.

6. Sakhno V.A. Natural Science Ontology, 03.05.2010, http://filosofia.ru/76557/

7. Zinoviev A.A. Essays on Complex Logic. M. Editorial, 2000, 560 p.

eight . Demyanov V.V. Evelectics of the noosphere. - Novorossiysk: NGMA, part 1, 1995, 384 p .; part 2, 1999, 896 p .; Part 3, 2001, 880 p.

9. Losev A.F. The history of ancient aesthetics - Aristotle and the late classics., Volume IV, M .: "Art", 1975.

10. Losev A.F. The history of ancient aesthetics - the results of millennial development, volume VIII, books I and II, M .: "Art", 1992, 1994

11. Ozhigov Yu.I. Constructive Physics, RKhD, 2010, 424 p.

12. Pozdnyakov N.I. Systems Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 2008, 122 p.

13. Ivanov Yu.N. Frequency space, M: New Center, 1998, 32 p.

14. Sakhno V.A. Periodic processes in evelectic pentads, 06.02.2011,

V.A. Sakhno, Eidos as a universal "template of a single language" // "Academy of Trinitarianism", M., El No. 77-6567, publ. 16911, 26.10.2011

As already noted, the peculiarity of the Platonic interpretation of being is in finding the necessary connection between the absolute being and its relative manifestations. The Eleatics, Sophists and Socrates proved the logical incompatibility of the ideally conceivable and the concretely felt, assessing in different ways the right of these began to be called being. The late pre-Socratics were looking for a connection between the world of truth and the world of phenomena, but being for them acted as a beginning indifferent to its otherness. Plato, faced with the inconsistency of these positions, is looking for a new path.

The situation that has developed in philosophy is outlined by Plato in the famous passage from The Sophist: "it is not at all easier to explain what being is than to say what non-being is," therefore, among philosophers "something like a struggle of giants occurs over a dispute with each other about being "(dia ten amphisbetesin peri tesoysias pros alleloys)," some pull everything from the sky and from the invisible to the earth ... they assert that there is only that which allows touch and touch, and recognize bodies and being as one and the same ... "; "those who enter into a dispute with them, prudently defend themselves as if from above, from somewhere invisible, resolutely insisting that true being is some intelligible and incorporeal ideas (noeta kai asomata eide); bodies ... they are , decomposing into small parts in their reasoning, they call it not being, but something mobile, becoming "(Soph. 246a-c). Somewhat differently in Teetete: “There are people who agree to recognize as existing only that which they can grasp tenaciously for with their hands; "(Theaet. 155e). Most likely, this refers to the cynics and megarics. To these two groups one could add a third - the "artisans" whom Plato criticizes in the person of Protagoras in Theetete.

The path that Plato chose for himself assumed the disclosure of the connection between different levels of being, that is, the solution of the problem of the one and the many, truth and falsehood, the identical and the other. This meant that the integral comprehension of being, accessible to a special intellectual ability (noys, noema), had to find a rational correspondence, which in turn meant to give an account of the intuitive content (the doctrine of cognition), to understand how being is present in a thing (the doctrine of being ), explain how the soul can accommodate the truly existing (the doctrine of the soul). How the whole is present in the fragmented - this is one of the possible generalizing formulations (or, in other words, how to find the logos for being). Plato raises the question of what is "the very essence of being, to which we give logos" (ayte he oysia, hes logon didomen toy einai) (Phaed. 87c) [ 15 ]. After all, you can own the truth without owning knowledge, which is impossible without a rational-verbal report, logos (Theaet. 202c). Apparently, Plato believed that truth - at least when it comes to the highest truth - must be a conscious truth. This is a higher type of truth in comparison with the unconscious and, therefore, more worthy of the absolute. On the other hand, the seventh letter of Plato contains an indication of the inexpressibility of higher truths. The spoken thought is already incomplete and therefore a lie. But we cannot but talk about the absolute, just as we cannot express it. Unmanifest truth is poorer than manifested, and this obliges us to look for a word, that is, logos, for being. For the same reasons, being should split up and lose itself in things, and a single soul - in individuals, who will then, each at his own peril and risk, look for the way back.

In "Teetete" Plato raises the question of whether a true view, clarified by the word [ 16 ], in connection with which he examines the concept of "some people" (cynics?), who assert that the primary elements of everything do not have a corresponding logos; they cannot even be attributed to being or non-being, since they are simple, have no composition and, therefore, defy definition. They can only have a name (ou gar einai ayto alle onomazesthai) (202b). That which is made up of the first principles may already have a word (logos), "for the essence of the word is in the interweaving of names" (onomaton gar xymploken einai logoy oysian) (ibid.).

Plato objects to this theory, although, in essence, he gives not a criticism of it, but a development. He shows that not only the primary elements, but also any wholeness is not deducible from its parts, and therefore, indefinable, "without logos". But integrity is given by the idea, therefore, being as an idea is always illogical, defying rational account. Along with this problem, another one arises, naturally connected with it: if the logos is always a lie in a certain sense, then it is always true, because falsehood and truth are indistinguishable; if one does not limit the other, then none of these principles can be the only one existing. Hence it is clear: in order to save the truth, it is necessary to recognize the reality of a lie, and since a lie is thinking about non-being, it is nevertheless necessary to ascribe being to non-being. The paradoxes of the concept of “being” that have arisen and clearly formulated in Teetete will receive a detailed interpretation in The Sophist and Parmenides. But this dialogue also allows us to draw significant conclusions. Ironically, the skeptical-looking Teetetus contains a very definite result: knowledge is inevitable, even if we fail to grasp its essence; being cannot but be thought of, even if we are aware of its inaccessibility for thinking. But at the same time, the sufficiency of the abstract theory of being-eidos, which was discussed in the previous paragraph, is called into question, because it leads to contradictions.

Mikhail Starodubtsev ( [email protected])

Mikhail Leonidovich perceives difficult children and emergency situations in the lesson not as a scourge of God, but as ... a blessing that contributes to the development of a teacher. For example, at the very beginning of his teaching career, the musician had to “pick up” a class after a sick teacher at an art school. "Despite the fact that it was a small group of only six people, we never managed to reach a true understanding with them, as I believe." The problems that arose then, many years ago, led to the creation of a program of work in high school. Always like this. Mikhail Starodubtsev loves to study, despite his solid teaching experience. And experience is the best teacher.

“Two ways of cognition arose precisely because there are two objects, or subjects, of cognition. And the object (subject) of cognition for the emotional-figurative sphere of thinking is not the reality of life itself, but our human emotional-personal attitude to it. In one case (the scientific form) the object is cognized, in the other (artistic) the thread of the emotional-value connection between the object and the subject is cognized - the attitude of the subject to the object (object) "(BM Nemensky." Emotional-figurative cognition in human development " , 1990).

Boris Mikhailovich Nemensky in his article passionately defends the role of the artistic form of cognition as being equal in relation to the scientific form, in everyday consciousness the only "legitimate" one in terms of cognition. And the main "message" here is not to fix it once again. The task is to draw the attention of the community to the fact that the real configuration of education is built exactly according to the opposite model, which corresponds to everyday ideas about cognition and thus distorts the harmonious picture of the world in the direction of fetishizing the scientific path of cognition.

But within the framework of this article I would like to talk about something else - about the trends in musical and pedagogical activity in connection with the various "paths" in them.

Even in Ancient Greece, two kinds of musical art were distinguished. Strict, orderly, "high" was associated with the name of the sun god Apollo, the leader of the muses. The wild art, bursting from the depths of corporeality, Dionysian art, associated with the cult of the goat-footed god of winemaking Dionysus, sharply differed from the Apollonian art.

Everything here was different: the way and environment of being, forms of music and even instruments. The slender lyre and cithara of Apollo were opposed by loud, harsh-sounding "goat-like" aulos.

The interaction of the Apollonian and Dionysian principles then permeates the entire history of music. Either coexisting, now intricately intertwining, these general lines have always been present in the art of music ever since.

Today we can talk about the metaphorical use of these words, calling everything connected with ordering "coming from above" as Apollonian. An example here is the practice of classical art: the composer writes down a piece of music, the performer or performers interpret the musical text he has created. The work here is this text, crystallized as a result of the composer's artistic selection.

The Dionysian origin is clearly manifested in improvisational art forms, such as, for example, authentic folk art, jazz. Here, so to speak, "order from below" rules. The very concept of a work is here shifted towards the process, since the text as a predetermined path is absent. It is interesting that the performer retains in his consciousness only the general character of the sound, focuses on a certain holistic phonic image, moving at each moment of the sound as if by touch. It literally produces what it sounds like.

Improvisation also existed within the framework of the classical tradition, for example, in the cadenza of instrumental concerts. In modern new music, elements of aleatoric are used, giving the performer almost composer freedom.

Apollonian and Dionysian can also be spoken about in connection with the creative process of composers. It is known that many of them had notebooks for recording music that came from somewhere from within. Then, when creating this or that composition, these unformed sketches received a place in the structure of the whole. This was expressed

S. Prokofiev, I. Stravinsky. In particular, Igor Stravinsky spoke directly about the "Dionysian" initial stage and the "Apollonian" completion of the work on the work.

Musical pedagogy, following the example of general pedagogy, habitually builds its activity on the initially structured Apollonian sphere: notes, strict sequence, step-by-step gradualness, etc. Let us not question the many times proven paths. Let us only note that at the same time musical development suffers from an insufficiency of the creative Dionysian principle. One Apollonian, frankly speaking, is boring. I remember my second graders studying violin. Classes were usually held in a group of 12-15 children. Needless to say, how difficult is the violin instrument, how difficult is the first stage of learning on it. Violin techniques offer very consistent hand placement. Of course, we try to fulfill the pedagogical task - to clothe the actions of children in a vivid figurative form. But nevertheless, it is clear that they will not play soon. And somehow at the end of one of the lessons I ask the children a question: "Who wants to play a real violinist?" Everyone was ready to break off. I call the boy, who was lethargic in class, although he did tasks with everyone. Where did his lethargy go? In front of the class, as in front of the audience, there was a real virtuoso violinist with an ideal positioning of his hands! Since then, I periodically give the opportunity to children in the game to instantly achieve the desired goal. I don’t remember any of them refused.

The functional asymmetry of the cerebral hemispheres is manifested in the difference in their analysis of abstract (left p.) And sensory (right p.) Information. “The art of music is spoken of as“ the most sensual among the arts ”. Poetry or painting, for example, cannot be perceived at the level of physiological reactions. And music can not only be perceived, but also played without the inclusion of intelligence. At the same time, according to the ancient tradition, music is recognized as the most generalized, abstract art - the artistic equivalent of philosophy and mathematics. By themselves, the criteria of the most sensual and extremely abstract exclude each other. " This is how the book by musicologist Tatyana Vasilievna Cherednichenko "Music in the history of culture" begins. In conclusion of this short reflection, the author draws an unexpectedly simple conclusion: "The key to this paradox can be a statement of the seemingly self-evident: music is singing and playing the instruments."

Let us add to this that when building a harmonious correlation of subjects "scientific" and playing music in the school curriculum, academic performance (and many other indicators!) Improves in these "non-musical" disciplines. This was scientifically proven by the research of Maria Spiehiger in the 1970s and confirmed by Hans Gunther Bastian in the 1990s. Is it not the similar versatility of music here?

Knowledge in art is sensual. It is impossible to understand the duration of a musical sound without its “duration”. It is impossible to understand the pitch without comparing it with the voice. To strive to understand art without practice in it is at least to doom oneself to substitute the perception of musical phenomena per se by the perception of what has been said about these phenomena.

But the sound itself has an incomparable impact, rising to high generalizations.

Taking music, musical practice, in addition to accumulating purely utilitarian skills, introduces a person to the phenomena of a cosmic order. In his book "Secrets of Geniuses", the famous musicologist Mikhail Semenovich Kazinik quotes Albert Einstein's statement that when creating the theory of relativity, Bach's fugues helped him much more than all the previous discoveries of physics.

The poet's line, the artist's line, the composer's melody are a kind of cardiogram of the world's phenomena. Over time, a scientist has the ability to put down exact numbers on it.

Science operates with concepts, art with images. Etymologically, the concept is associated with the verb "to have" (po-yat). The image indicates to us that something must be produced (formed). I am convinced that the predominance of conceptuality in education to the detriment of imagery contributes to the strengthening of the consumer component in the mind.

“It's time to realize that human thinking is initially two-sided: it is made up of the rational-logical and emotional-figurative side as equal parts,” writes Academician BM Nemensky. Unfortunately, society is dominated, he notes further, “not at all scientific, but trivially everyday attitude to the arts; understanding their role only as a sphere of recreation, creative entertainment, aesthetic enjoyment, and not a special, equal scientific, irreplaceable sphere of knowledge. "

Bibliography

Ilyenkov E.V. Dialectical Logic: Essays on Theory and History. - Ed. 2nd, add. - M.: Politizdat, 1984.

Nemensky B.M. Emotional-figurative cognition in human development, 1990.

J. Weizenbaum. The Possibility of Computing Machines and the Human Mind. - M., 1982 .-- S. 40, 44.

Pasternak B. L. Doctor Zhivago.

Shcherbakov M. Another life. - M., 1996.

Kazinik M.S. Secrets of geniuses. - Kostroma, St. Petersburg. : DiAr, 2005.

Cherednichenko T.V. Music in the history of culture: a course of lectures: in 2 volumes - Dolgoprudny: Allegro-Press, 1994.

B. Yarustovsky Igor Stravinsky. - M.: Music, 1964.