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

Systematization and communications

The topic is about the relationship between the categories "eidos" and "logos" in the work of A.F. Losev "Philosophy of the Name" and the critical article of the modern philosopher A.A. Tashchan "CATEGORIES OF EIDOS AND LOGOS IN LOSEV'S DIALECTICS"

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

At the end of the article, he concludes: “Thus, phenomenology is relative, and dialectics is absolute. But the Russian philosopher’s dialectics is logic, and, therefore, it exists in logoi. This means that absolute knowledge, i.e. dialectics, is possible only through the logoi, through the concepts, but not through the eidos. Therefore, it is the concepts, but not the eidos, that is the absolute conceivable form. And it is the eidos that is the moment of the logos, but not vice versa."

I made a small 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 it is impossible to approach such a living nerve of real experience as a word or a name with one abstract method or another. Only such a concrete method as dialectics can be a truly philosophical method, because it is itself woven from contradiction, just like real life.

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

…true dialectics is always direct knowledge.

The “whole” is a dialectical synthesis of the “one” and the “many”.

…dialectics is the true and only possible philosophical realism.

Dialectic 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 understanding of life. Do not seek reality only in the nameless, wordless and chaotic. The skeleton, the core, the form, the figure of life are as real as life itself.

Science, of course, is not life, but awareness of life, and if you are the builders of science and creators in it, you willy-nilly have to lock yourself in your office, surround yourself with a library and at least temporarily close your eyes to your surroundings. Life does not need science and dialectics. Life itself gives rise to science and dialectics. If there is no life, there is no true perception of life, there will be nothing good from dialectics, and no dialectics will save you if your living eyes - before dialectics - do not see the true and binding reality. It is in vain to rely on dialectics if your life is bad and your experience of life is ugly and stifled. You can't open the eyes of the blind with dialectics, and you can't teach the weak-minded with dialectics how to become normal. Dialectics is the rhythm of life, but not simply life itself, although this means that it is life, for rhythm is also vital.

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

The essence reveals itself in the eidos. Since we see the eidos of essence, we do not need any other forms of vision and no other logic. Eidos has its own eidetic logic, namely dialectics. There are two moments in eidos - contemplative-static and dialectical-moving; their separation is conditional, and in fact there is no one of them without the other. From the first point of view, the eidos, the revealed 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 dialectics of essence proposed above. In the aspect of dialectical mobility, each such eidos 1) presupposes a corresponding meonal environment, against which it turns from 2) an undifferentiated unity into 3) a dissected image, 4) remaining in constant motion (a dialectical triad with a meonal background). Here, all this phenomenological-dialectical element of essence, plunging into the darkness of the absolute meon and, as it were, being defined anew, already in the “other”, acts formally on this “other”, selects and combines individual moments into a whole, fastens and connects into a certain semantic unity .

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

The 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 essence, its expression. The difference begins from the moment this meaning is given. The whole question is how meaning is given in eidos and how in logos.

We have seen that eidos is, firstly, something simple. Logos is always complicated. Eidos is contemplated in its simple unity; the logos, on the other hand, acquires its meaning only as a combination and unification of many moments. Whatever parts the eidos contains, there is, as we said, a moment of absolute unity, which is "higher" than the essence itself. There is no such association in the logos; its whole meaning lies in the fact that in order and separately to list what is collectively and as a single organism is given in the eidos. Of course, it is possible to think in logos its super-semantic unity, just as we think it in eidos. But in the eidos it will be a completely special hypostasis, which is the universal semantic cause, principle and purpose of the eidos; in the logos it will be only a search for this causal principle, only becoming as a principle.

Secondly, eidos is something whole. The Logos, for the same reason, is something multiple and discrete. Logos is what is usually vaguely treated as a concept. Logos is a "formally" logical concept. Thus, if a given concept is characterized by the sum of certain moments of "content" or features, then it cannot be said that the concept itself is something simple and integral. The eidos is simple and whole, the logos, the “concept” lives by highlighting and enumerating the moments of which; the “concept” itself just plays the role of the enumerated moment, it is the registration of individual moments, and it has no possibility of being integral and simple.

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

d) Fourth, eidos is an individual community . This means that all the individual moments of its definition are connected at one point, that each eidos, being unique and original, being an individuality irreducible to separate moments, is at the same time a complete and absolute separateness of all its moments; individual moments are not the disintegration of the eidos, for example. in time, but in each of them - the whole essence as a whole. This is not in the logo. Logos, "concept" is an enumeration of individual features. That picturesqueness that unites them into one living whole is not in it. The Logos would lose its meaning if it obeyed the law of an increase in "volume" parallel to an increase in its "content". In eidos, the more we enumerate its “Signs”, the more complex it becomes, the more it embraces itself, the more moments can be summed up under it. In logos, we abstract ourselves from the lively picture of the whole; and here - the more we took individual moments of the picture of the eidos, the more we violated its integrity, the less likely it is that there are many classes, or groups, of objects that would fit under such a complex set of discrete moments. In eidos, the more common the subject, the more individual, because the more various features fall into it, the more difficult and difficult it is to find the resulting image. In logos, the more common the subject, the more formal, the simpler, because the more one has to throw out various moments and “contents” from it. In the logos, there is a union of various meonal points, and in their generalization, it is not the eidos in which they all coincide after the meon is removed, but the common thing that is in them, as in the meonally marked points of the eidos; therefore, the more we collect these meonal features, the fewer meonal points they can be attributed to, in view of the infinite variety of meonal points of the eidos. So, from the point of view of the eidos, the eidos “living being” is richer than the eidos “man”, because in the eidos “living being” there are, in addition to the eidos “man”, all other types of living beings. The "content" of the eidos "living being" is wider than the "content" of the eidos "man" - in parallel with the increase in "volume". If we discard the eidetic picturesqueness, 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 much smaller and more numerous pieces than the concept of "living being", and therefore it has 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 the eidos is conceived in the mode of design and understanding of the meon; what is intuitively conceived in eidos as a semantic sculpture of an object is given in logic as an abstract enumeration of attributes, as “content”, and what is not conceived at all in eidos - an absolute meonal environment - is the same in logos, since the latter - a form of understanding the eidosomes of the meon, plays the role of a principle that limits the significance of the eidos within a given degree of mutual determination of the eidos and meon, and is given as the scope of the concept, and it becomes completely clear that with an increase in this volume, i.e. with a decrease in the meonization of the eidos, The “content,” i.e., the number of meonal moments, decreases, and the smaller the volume, i.e., the more darkness the eidos plunges into, the richer the “content” of the concept, i.e., the more elements of the eidos captured by the meon. Only those who experience the concreteness and individuality of the general and for whom it is abstract - that which is most fragmented and motley - can understand all this. For an eidetic, “a living being” is a rich eidos, and “being” is an eidos even more alive, richer and more concrete; at the same time, “man” is much more abstract for him, even more abstract is “European”, even more “French”, and - the highest abstraction - “a Frenchman living in Paris at such and such a time and in such and such a place.” The reverse is true for formal logic.

e) Fifth, eidos inside - self-propelled, as well as, sixth, self-transparent. All this is inapplicable to the logos in the same way, due to the absence of semantic picturesqueness in it. Both presuppose a living object and a living essence, and the logos is only a way to see the object, the tool with which it is taken. The Logos is therefore completely static and has absolutely no semantic self-transparency. These definitions are obtained as a result of the dialectical life of the eidos, i.e. 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 has meaning. We have already talked about this. This is the point of similarity between eidos and logos. But in eido-se, meaning is intuitively given and essentially embodied, while in logos it is an abstraction and method, although substantiated in essence. The same applies to logos indivisible essence, as,

e) eighthly, eidos also applies. But here, too, we must bear in mind the whole difference in this relation. The eidos is the eidos of an indivisible essence and is itself indivisible. Logos is the logos of an indivisible essence, but we ourselves are divisible. The eidos of a thing, without any roundabouts, is the thing itself. The logos of a thing is an abstract moment in a thing; it is real not to the extent of its direct expression of the essence of the thing, but to the extent of awareness of its methodological and principled nature. The Logos is not real as an eidos. The Logos is real as principle and method, as an instrument, as a tongs with which fire is taken, and not as fire itself. Therefore, the transfer to the logos of the entire eidetic reality, and even more so of the material reality of a fact, is a distortion of the true reality of the logos and leads to the hypostasis 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 the immediate manifestation of essence in general, independent of any principle. This is the fundamental difference in the relationship of eidos and logos to indivisible essence. The logos used as a logos not only does not violate the eidetic nature of the revealed face and not only does not cut it into a discrete set, but, on the contrary, presupposes its integrity and lives by it. That is why formal logic, in its reasonable use, is nothing but a legitimate, albeit private, and, moreover, conditional and dependent moment of phenomenological dialectics.

g) Finally, ninth, eidos is the revealed face. Of course, if the logos did not in any way capture the eidos as a manifested face, then it would not have any meaning and would have nothing to do with essence. But, while there is an eidos - a semantic sculpture of the essence, the logos is only a principle and a method, the law of association and comprehension. Its nature is entirely principled. It acquires meaning only in connection with the formal bringing into 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 signs is given in it. The substantiation of this connection is entirely where it is given as life, where all these signs are given in the living whole, in the eidos. “One” is required here as absolute identity and absolute difference in everything, so that in fact an individual coordinated separateness, or semantic pictureness, is obtained. Logos does not justify itself. It is only a method of unification. “Looking at the eidos” (to put it in Platonic language), 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 substantiate itself; it is only a method of combining meanings according to the perceived eidos. And eidos substantiates itself, it is a semantic and integral picture of a living object.

h) So, the eidos is like a statue, like a face and a picture of meaning; logos reveals the essence as the principle and method of manifestation of the eidos in the “other”. Eidos is seen by thought, touched by the mind, contemplated intellectually; logos - is not seen by thought, but relies on it; is not tangible by the mind, but is itself tentacles with which the mind runs over an object; 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 the manifestation of essence in otherness. 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 there are two important limitations here. First, it is such a becoming in otherness, which in itself continues to be purely semantic. This is not otherness itself in its becoming, i.e., for example, not time, not movement, etc., but becoming in the sphere of meaning itself, in the sphere of essence itself, although this formation is other-being. After all, otherness also has some meaning of its own, different both from itself and from that pure meaning, which is taken without any otherness. That is, logos is the purely semantic becoming of the essence, or the meaning of the other-being becoming of the essence.

This essential difference between logos and essence, or more precisely between eidos and energy, gives rise to more detailed points of difference, which are very easy to construct if one takes into account the details of the structure of the eidos itself. Here we will reach the principle of systematically distinguishing the logos from the eidos. Eidos is being. This means that the logos is 1) the semantic formation of the existent or, which is the same, the continuous non-existent. Thus, the infinitely small, which in mathematical analysis is the numerical prototype of the conceptual logos, is not a definite quantity, but precisely the continuous non-existent, the continuous becoming of number, which goes into an immeasurable infinity of reduction. 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 nothing can be distinguished from the other, 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 that are mobile in relation to each other, or the mobile continuity of interpenetrating moments of meaning. As a result, the logos of the essence is the semantic formation of the otherness of the essence, which is a mobile (3) continuity of interpenetrated moments (2) of non-being as a meaning (1).

l) In other words, these are nothing else than the moments of the absolute meon (15) and the meon in the mode of comprehension (16) already indicated by us, but considered not just as such, and, moreover, not just as other-existential reality and facts, but only as a certain semantic structure. This is not the meon itself, but its meaning; and consequently the logos is the property of pure meaning, that is, of essence. This is an abstract moment of the energy of essence, which, as we have seen, in itself is not otherness, but only comprehends it, i.e., is its meaning and, therefore, definitely differs from essence, which is given in itself, without otherness. and without understanding 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 a mandatory fact, although it is its possibility.

The characterization of the logos that has just been proposed shows with one's own eyes all its lack of perception, which we noted above.

The principle of movement of the 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 the meon.

2) absolute singularity and, consequently, 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 demand of the mind, which wants to conceive a living object, as it is given in its original being. This is the absolute requirement of thought, not of some kind of changeable "mood" or "feeling", but precisely of thought, if we really want to think eidos from its dialectical side.

In the dialectic of eidos, as we have seen, not only are beings and the positing of beings, meaning and positing of meaning, or meaning and its self-identical difference not only united into inseparable individuality. This is also joined by the moment of variability, illogical formation, associated with the third hypostasis of the idea, a moment that reveals more and more details in the prescribed and existing sense. As we said above, in dialectics, at the same time, meaning, the positing of meaning and the identification of new, more fractional moments, or, I would simply say, new details of the supposed meaning, are carried out. In logos, since its nature is discrete in its essence, the outsideness of meaning and the receipt of semantic details on the basis of the incorporation of the third hypostasis, i.e., the moment of illogical duration and variability, must be presented separately and quite discretely. As earlier it was said about positioning within the eidos, so now - about the positioning of the whole eidos with all its categories.

What do you think about A. Losev's dialectic of eidos and logos and A. Tashchian's criticism?

Comments

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

Here is what Tashchian writes in his work “Triad, tetraktida and pentad in Losev”:

“As you know, dialectics is usually presented 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 off when you start to build eidoses associated with human practice in different areas. Eidos of number, geometry, mechanics, etc.
And what Taschian writes in the same place:

“How are things with Losev in this respect? For him, the main method of dialectics is the method of contradiction.

In fact, Losev practically applies his method, it seems, only in "Ancient Space ..." and if you look there, then there is no contradiction there. Although Losev never denied the existence of contradictions. But those who want to actually construct something out of contradictions are waiting for a “bummer”.

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

« Time therefore, there is a singularity of the mobile peace of self-identical difference, given as its own hypostatized otherness and considered as the mobile peace of the illogical becoming of this otherness.

“Now we hypostasize this eternal self-identical difference and get space. Space, hence, is the singularity of the mobile rest of the self-identical difference, given as its own hypostasized otherness and considered as the self-identical difference of the illogical becoming of this otherness.

***
I'm what it's all about. When Taschian writes that "phenomenology is relative, dialectics is absolute." - he is right. Precisely because dialectic is absolute- Philosophy can be a science.
Here is what Losev writes, with his inherent insight:

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

The fact that dialectics has not yet been created speaks of the criteria by which science was built ... But this is another 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. So, it is the concept, but not the eidos, that is the absolute conceivable form. And it is precisely the eidos that is the moment of the logos, but not vice versa.

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

Thank you Victor for your very insightful comment! I feel that the topic has been worked out and worked out by you 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 of eidos!!! These are words from different worlds that are highly undesirable to mix!>>
I try to take the deepest, key ideas from every thinker and try to go 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-figure synthesis" proceeding, if we proceed from the line of Plato ("Platonic solids")-Kant (conceptual-figure synthesis)?

I do not agree with everything with Victor, but I agree on one thing. You can’t thoughtlessly take terms from one author, especially such difficult, polyvalent and unstable ones as logos, eidos, concept, etc., and even with your own interpretation and try to do something in philosophy - you can come to absurdity, and even spiritual crises.
I will give examples.
Plaon's eidos is the equivalent of an idea. For Losev, eidos is always the equivalent of an empirical thing: the eidos of a table, the eidos of a cabinet, etc. (I started talking about this here -). But Victor writes "eidos of number, eidos of geometry", etc. What kind of eidos are these: Platonic, Losev or some other?
And with the logo, there is even more 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 deduce from this substance the derived word "logic", we single out the aspect of its rational form (formalizability). When Losev says "logos", he has in mind the specific 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, misconceptions and misunderstandings. I invite each of the participants to speak.

PS. Kant's transcendental scheme of the concept is not an eidos (Plato-Losev) at all, but rather an eidos of logos (meaning).

Sergey! Why do I agree with Victor on almost everything. As I 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 update both concepts and give them a new interpretation and representation, more meaningful and modern, taking into account the modern problems of knowledge itself (substantiation of knowledge) and the problems of specific sciences - basic sign systems, mathematics and physics, experiencing a "crisis". interpretation and representation", crisis of understanding.
This is where the joint work of expanded and in-depth, modernized eidos and logos is the first aid to overcome the "loss of certainty" in mathematics (M. Kline) and "troubles with physics" (Lee Smolin).

I do not think that a negative critical analysis of Losev will be successful here, such an analysis is of no interest to anyone here. Well, a sluggish one 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 dialectics, those who have claims against Losev do not base them on his dialectics. Losev's positive criticism is much more relevant. Criticism aimed at identifying 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 Neoplatonism, 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 rationally and modernly expound Neoplatonism.

Corwin writes:

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

Dear Corvin! So join in, so as not just to discuss Losev's ideas, his dialectics, but to solve modern problems of cognition. After A.F. Losev, many new problems appeared in fundamental science...

Problems in philosophy are eternal. There may be new approaches - 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, one must first single them out.

Corwin writes:

Problems in philosophy are eternal. There may be new approaches - 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, one must first single them out.

Here 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 a leader in neoplatonic scholasticism. Here, after all, the problem is that criticism of critics requires adequate criticism of Losev. For me, there is no closet problem: the object as a concept is accessible to dialectics, and the closet itself, falling under the form of an object, falls under formal logical analysis. But for Losev, this explanation is not acceptable, because, based on his principles, he cannot separate the cabinet, conceivable as an object, from the cabinet itself. Therefore, all sorts of eidoses 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 the discovery of defects in the dialectics he himself invented, which is correct by definition, but in the discovery of the limits of applicability of the eidic campaign.

Corwin writes:

... Losev's main criticism is not in the discovery of defects in the dialectics he himself invented, which is correct by definition, but in the discovery of the limits of applicability of the eidic campaign.

And what do you see "limits"?

Corwin writes:

Some limits in Neoplatonism were already fixed by Aristotelianism. But I'm more concerned about another kind of limitation: Losev's philosophy denies the subjective and, as a consequence, the subject itself.

What is the result of such "denial"? What is his "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? "The End of Philosophy"?

Actually, I'm 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 repeating myself.

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

Corvin, December 22, 2013 - 03:42 pm
In order to discuss Losev's ideas, one must first single them out.

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

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

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

***
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 "correctly" compresses the space. but nothing to rely on.

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

So you want to build a system of categories? Are you based on your experience? But everyone's experience is different...

You write: //For Losev, eidos is always the equivalent of an empirical thing: the eidos of a table, the eidos of a cabinet, etc.//. But above, I gave examples of how Losev defines space and time through eidos. And this is not a thing! In the same place, he considers both "set" and "topos" and more.
***
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 - it is "heavy". Yes, 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 not writing this for you, but for those who try to comprehend Losev - what awaits them. Here you either need to read a dozen times and that's all, or not to take at all. By the way - the same thing and Hegel. I vomit (from his pretentious turns), but read. I confess - all at once, except for "Science of Logic".
***
Sergey! You once told me the following phrase: "I'm not a physicist, I'm a metaphysician." 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 after "thesis" and " anti thesis "to be divided into" white "and" red "? Dictatorship needs such a philosophy! It is much more difficult to understand that eidos is the buildup of binary ortho gonal freedoms (V.V. Demyanov) conjugated (passive and active) factors.

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

The eidos of the number Victor "ripped off" from Losev, Losev "ripped off" the idea of ​​the eidos from Plato ...

For me, Losev made a methodological mistake when he used " singularity of the mobile rest of self-identical difference"like a stencil. He "wiped out" various categories with this. And most importantly, he did not give these categories a personalized 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 - momentum - force - energy - power.

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

I mean, I didn't really think about what it was. logos and essence at first. I was wondering, but in general this eidos is not a fiction ?, 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 capable of raising such a study, and spreading "verbiage" around the name of the genius of Russian philosophy is simply unethical.

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

I define eidos

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

In this sense, every philosophical system has two levels: 1) the level of eidos and concepts and 2) the level of general categories - a (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 give them logical connections.

I am waiting for the constructs, yours, Vladimir and other participants.
Let's argue then.

Here are my definitions:

who 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) - concepts (Sergey 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 gene structure of the subject corresponding to the physical thing outside world.
Eidos is the feeling by the subject of the structure of the gene when the subject observes the thing of the outside world that corresponds to the gene.

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

You, as a member of other forums with me, must have read reminders from me many times about " presumption of intelligence", put forward by S.L. Katrechko.
A.F. Losev and the luminaries of Russian philosophy have earned this presumption with their lives and work. Therefore, while it is you who unsubstantiatedly accuse them of incompetence. And I, by right of presumption, defend them. 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 closet conceived as an object from the closet itself”? This is so by virtue of Parmenides' principle: the object and the thought about it are one. Losev adheres to the principle of Parmenides. And in what way can he be incompetent? In Neoplatonism?

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

material for synthesis.

So here are our definitions.

By eidos.

S.B. I define eidos as a sensual-ideological statuary, a substitute for a thing, object, process, phenomenon, and even the idea itself. It is always specific: there is the eidos of the mountain, there is the eidos of the cat, there is the eidos of the revolution, there is the eidos of conscience, and so on.
kto: Eidos is the subject's sense of the structure of a gene when the subject observes the thing in the outside world that corresponds to the gene.
V.R.: Eidos is the very trinity internal and external, the structure and its image.

Similarities: there is something, and it has an eidos. This something is 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 is it the eidos of the gene or the eidos of the thing? If this is the eidos of a thing, then it turns out that the gene does not have an eidos. And if it is the eidos of the gene, then the thing remains without an eidos.

By logo.

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

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

Sergey Borchikov writes:

material for synthesis.
V.R. Logos already permeates both worlds: ideal and material. It is unclear, however, whether this is ONE single law (which can be expressed in such and such a way), or is it a collection of many laws about individual somethings.
At Loseva By the way, logos is the meaning (law) of each separate something. Those. something (thing) = its eidos + its logos (meaning).

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

Dear Sergey Alekseevich 23 12 2013

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

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

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

This interrelation of the eidos and logoi of all things of the external world makes it possible to arrange life on a single genetic code.

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

Dear Sergey Alekseevich and Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

who writes:

Dear Sergey Alekseevich and Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

I propose the following formulas for agreement:

Eidos - very u-s-three on the basis of sensations is pleasant-unpleasant.
Logos is the law of the trinity of the Universe ("the law of laws", meta-law).

Such a definition of eidos is not essential, it is psychologism.

who writes:

What are the disadvantages of psychology? After all, you also have a "structure and its image."

I'm considering internal entity structure and its image as a frame of the generating process.
On the dispute between "psychologists" and "anti-psychologists"

Dear Vladimir Rogozhin 24 12 2013

who 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. for me it is not indicative, since according to K.A. Mikhailov "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 advent of the nervous system-brain.

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

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

But how can one “grasp” the dialectics of the coinciding opposites of the primary process through sensations?

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
But how can one “grasp” the dialectics of the coinciding opposites of the primary process through sensations?

who writes:

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
But how can one “grasp” the dialectics of the coinciding opposites of the primary process through sensations?

With the help of my eyes, I grabbed your text and delivered it to my genome, where I transformed it into a sense of the text, from which I extracted its meaning to the extent that my genome was a priori ready.

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

Vladimir Rogozhin writes:
"And now draw the dialectic of the "coinciding opposites" of the transmitted text and the meanings that give rise to new knowledge..."

Coinciding opposites are contained in the gene in the form of matter-atoms and ideas-chemical bonds. During the transcription of the text of the gene by polymerase, the deformation of each subsequent nucleotide gives rise to a new sensation-idea of ​​the meaning of the text of the gene, just as the new meaning of my text appears when reading it letter by letter.

S. Borchikov:
I define eidos, as a sensuous-ideological statuary, a substitute for a thing, object, process, phenomenon, and even the idea itself. It is always specific: there is the eidos of the mountain, there is the eidos of the cat, there is the eidos of the revolution, there is the eidos of conscience, and so on.

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

Your Approach meta approach

Second approach

Sergey Borchikov writes:

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

Your Approach: one universal logos + (hence, as with Victor) one universal eidos. I don't mind, let's call it meta approach: meta-logos + meta-eidos = Universe (ultimate abstractions).

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

And then there is a desire to converge positions: to look for how the universal meta-logos is connected with private logoi, and how is the universal meta-eidos connected with private eidos? And how are logoi and eidos related?

Otherwise, again a departure from theoretical communication ...

Here from "concrete things" I can take only "an apple-tree". The eidos and logos of the apple tree make it possible to pass ("grab") to the meta-eidos and meta-logos. But no "closet".
But I urge you not to get hung up on "definitions" and even understanding (everyone has their own) the concepts of "eidos" and "logos" (it's not just that culture and language themselves replaced them). I see the task in understanding the approaches of Losev and Tashchian, 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. Eventually I went to third concept, as I consider 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 workflow, 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.

Presentations currently in existence scientific world put forward the laws of evolution. Where the law itself is no longer a formula similar to Hooke's law, but homologous series that have a large systemic range of applicability, "stitching" different areas of activity together. 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 - appearance, appearance, image), a term of ancient philosophy and literature, originally meaning “visible”, “what is visible”, but gradually gaining a deeper meaning - “the concrete manifestation of the abstract”, “ material given in thinking”; in 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 the 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 is 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, the eidos now acquires an ontologically independent status, forming the transcendent world of ideas (that is, the world of eidos proper) as a set of absolute and perfect samples of possible things.

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

"Firstly, dialectics is logos, logical construction." "Secondly, dialectics is the logical construction of eidos." Further, he explains that eidos (intelligent face) links all contradictions. "Thirdly, dialectics is the logical construction of not everyone at all possible types of eidos, but eidos in the narrow sense ... its categorical definiteness. ""Fourthly, dialectics (general and basic) is the logical construction of categorical on oneself Fifthly, dialectics (general and basic) is the logical construction of the categorical structure of the eidos as being based on itself and dependent on itself, and such a construction has an absolute universal character, capturing all conceivable and imaginable types of being, so that everything non-eidetic and irrational and non-logical must be in an eternally indestructible eidetic connection with pure eidos." "Since it is eidos that is being studied, then everything is being studied." "Finally, sixthly, the basic and general dialectics , outlined above, should give an internally eidetically connected system of categories, starting with the self-arising and primary element of the eidos and ending with the eidos as a name.

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

“There is an eidos, therefore the first definition of meaning in general, i.e. the first setting for it 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 formation, but not the formation 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:

other - identity - being - rest - movement.

Later A.F. Losev will replace "other" with "difference" (perhaps in order not to confuse the opposition of dualities: "something" - "other"). The most common form is the categorical form of eidos by A.F. Losev is:

difference - identity - becoming - becoming - manifestation.

As we can already see, in the categorical form, the eidos has a certain “skeleton”, or, as the designers say, a “fish” (structural sketch). The immutability of the 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 characteristic 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 undivided, but also the very individuality of a thing, the separateness of which is already fading into the background. It is precisely that eidetic unity that comes to the fore here, 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 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 view? What eidos (itself) has as a category special so category general. After all, if we look at the faces of people, then everyone has eyes, forehead, lips. But we do distinguish them. But when we say “distinguish”, then we are no longer in statics, where there is a forehead, eyes, lips, but in some kind of constructive dynamics. In the same dynamics, these forehead, 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 both for the observer and for the Universe. Such universal operators are known in the history of philosophy - this is logic. But, before turning to logic and its connection with the eidos, we note one important thought.

Plato proceeded from his dialectical concept of the structure of the world as the One (“Parmenides”), therefore the eidos, with its five categories, is connected in a certain way with the One. And this means that it has the idea of ​​continuity and optimality of the One. If you want, 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 design 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 the eidos. Therefore, the "universal language" that we use to 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 a person’s mental (and biological) capabilities? In the dispute on this issue, Husserl left significant clarifications in his "Logical Investigations" (especially in the first volume), clearly separating logic from the psyche, calling it "ideal logic". Just like Bolzano, Husserl connected logic with the science of science. Logic is not associated with anything so much as with mental activity, and rightly so. But now with a certain confidence it can be argued that logic is the operational 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. A little more detail on Husserl's views on logic is set out by us in.

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

“Logic, therefore, must be understood as a system of pure reason, as the realm of pure thought. This realm is truth as it is unveiled, in and for itself. Therefore, it can be expressed as follows: this content is the image of God, what he is in his eternal essence before the creation of nature and 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 biggest breakthrough in science in this direction is attributed to L. Wittgenstein and his famous Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (LTT). One of the researchers of his heritage in our country was V.A. Surovtsev, whose abstract for a doctoral dissertation and whose book we will use in the following presentation.

V.A. Surovtsev called "The principle of the autonomy of logic". The thing is that the search of philosophers for the foundations of the universe and universals has constantly been 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 the analytical sciences from his own source, i.e. without explaining them by the special interest of cognition or the structure of ontology, but such a train of thought was not even considered as a problem. ... This is precisely the idea of ​​the autonomy of logic. Having formulated in the Diaries of 1914-1916 the basic principle of the philosophy of logic: “Logic must take care of itself” and consistently explicating it in the LFT, Wittgenstein laid down completely new principles for studying the uniqueness of knowledge. He deduces formal logic from the beginning of ontology and the theory of knowledge, believing that in clarifying its basic concepts, it is necessary to start solely from the features of the symbolic language. Logic as a study of the universal possibilities of meaningful statements cannot be founded by any ontology, on the contrary, since it is logic that establishes the criterion of 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 private philosophical discipline.

Philosophy once turned to language, drawing attention to its self-sufficiency. That is, he himself forms his own "habitat" providing switching of different aspects of life and their participants, modeling reality. The coherence of this “habitat” of the language is defined by logic: “Logic fills the world; the boundaries of the world are and its boundaries” (LFT, 5.61). “It is logic that determines the ontological structure of the world, since it is in 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 a language, one must 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 the important variables become " a real man” and the opposite (negation) is a coward. 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 where the autonomy of logic lies - it has nothing to do with the surrounding reality, with the variables of its manipulation. It is self-sufficient in its internal consistency (tautology). Logic simply shows how any language works, including the language of human communication.

There is another side that connects logic and language - teleology (purposefulness). Here is how it is described in: “The dissertation proves that, in contrast to Frege and Russell, who consider logical analysis as a means of constructing ideal language, Wittgenstein understands logical analysis as a method that reveals the internal teleology of any language. Logic shows "the universal and necessary nature of signs." At the same time, thinking is denied the role of a mental mediator between language and reality. Thinking is considered as a kind of language. Therefore, logical analysis does not correct the language in terms of thinking; on the contrary, elucidation of the nature and possibilities of language points to the essential and necessary in thinking.

In "Natural Scientific Ontology", we have shown the possibility of a regular reflection of formal logic in Plato-Losev's 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 distinguish. For implications we need to know equivalence, because in implications phrase: " if(condition fulfillment) then(version 1) otherwise(version 2)”, requires prior knowledge equivalence, otherwise the "execution condition" cannot be checked. Due to previous events implication takes us to a structure defined by disjunction- "...or or...". Operator conjunctions"...and...and..." already defines the previous choice as the final text.

As is known, the parts of speech of the grammar of a language in the expressiveness of speech are of the greatest importance (compared, 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 Russian” (1960) identifies five main parts of speech (Wikipedia): “

Nouns, verb, gerund, adjectives and adverbs;

Numerals and pronouns are distributed among other parts of speech;

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

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

adjective - noun - verb - adverb - gerund.

In our opinion, such an arrangement corresponds to the maximum to the expression of logical operators, and also corresponds to the idea of ​​teleology. Moreover, this is largely consistent with the work that has been done on the development of predicate theory. All this together, we associate with the "pattern of a single language." Although it would be more correct to call it a tuple, since the places in the eidos statuses strictly correspond to certain parts of speech. We cannot, for example, interchange the position of an adjective and a noun, since it is the adjective (by context) that determines the noun. Just like a noun defines a verb, and so on.

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

It is clear that the adjective maximally corresponds to "difference". A noun is an element of "self-identity" (equivalence) to itself. Also, the verb corresponds to the logical “following”, “implying” (transferring) the tree “to the hillock”. The sentence is building up the meaning, reaching the gerund "shaking".

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

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

Such a fractal structure allows words to "take root" in a sentence almost regardless of its location. Sometimes it is required for artistic expression. But the form of logic, an "invisible frame", holds the whole meaning of any proposals. It seems that it is this unique post-status nesting that is characteristic of high-level human communication languages.

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 the 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, to a toy - a cube. But to say about the cube that he "stood on a hillock swaying" is meaningless. The second status (noun) sets the entire semantic tone of the eidos, corresponding to the content 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, in the second status of the eidos, speed (V) appears, which then appears further in different “images”.

The same can be said for games (generally):

excitement (desire) - rules of the game - tactics - strategy - result.

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

The theory of predicates that has been developed for many decades, in our opinion, narrows the horizon of dialectical (evalctic - according to V.V. Demyanov) ideas. For the theory of predicates, the expression "a good person" and "a person is walking" are practically equivalent. It simply assigns a value to the subject. It develops predicate thinking and nothing more.

It is important to note Saussure's idea 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 both a simple sentence is an eidos and a word is also an eidos, then a journey through the text is at least a two-dimensional movement. Such a movement is undoubtedly evolutionary, as the well-known linguist Benveniste spoke of, 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 appearance 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 language form but also an active study of all forms of its organization.

In conclusion of this section, we can try to build not only eidos simple sentence(which we have covered most of the section), 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 may end with a lowing, such as: "m-m-d-a." It can also be a word: "fun!". There may also be a sentence: “beautiful weather in the yard!”. Maybe a table of contents (hierarchical structure of intent) for a novice writer. Or maybe an epic work like "War and Peace". In any case, continuity dominates in the 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 a kind of vigorous activity for the study and transformation object. But subject evolved later object. Having arisen, subject and an object enter into interaction. This interaction is the third phase moment of evolutionary development. In the way modern philosophy describes, such as subject"turns" to object(for the emergence of relationships) cannot be considered in an evolutionary context. Subject manifests itself through activity. This activity can be, for example, creativity in art. This creation must be considered as a category of "new" according to the trinitarian ontology of V.V. Demyanov (a new axis of the "orthonormal event space", developing an object and subject). The same "new" category will be art, formed subject and creativity; the same "new" will be inspiration, which gives creation and art. And then subject in this area is 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 sequence), creating the text of the Universe of the minimum length.

Since the second status subject, and he has certain properties in the eidos - as if he projects himself in different forms into the following statuses, then in the pentad he is often called the "subject" of the eidos. In fact, this provides considerable "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 body - gas.

(Note that a person is almost half liquid. And this makes sense, because in a dynamic sense, 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 have “mastered” copying and occupy the second status of “subject”.)

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

All our commodity production is a product equivalence, primarily. Our means of production are essentially copiers. If we invent something, it is only in order to copy it in the future - even rockets, even medicine. It looks contradictory, but if you think about it, then the monotony allows diversity to exist precisely in a fractal, evolutionary way. 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 would obviously not work.

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

Let's write down the simplest implication in the "human" event language. Have a person stand at a crosswalk in front of a traffic light. The implication will have the following form in the programming language:

If (traffic light color = green) Then

go;

stand;

EndIf;

Let's pay attention that both consequences: "to go" and "to stand" guarantee you life in the evolutionary movement, otherwise you can drop out of the game of evolution. Here is the simplest popular explanation for the evolutionary purpose of the logical eidos:

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

Any object that claims to evolutionary development must have a minimum adequate device that allows you to operate with it with the specified eidos. The “heart” of the 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 than” or “less.” But precisely equivalence stands in the original logical eidos! It is she who “takes care” of her self-sufficiency and preservation!

2. Thus, this logic, which is discussed here, can be conditionally called "non-linear", since it presupposes a causal relationship in the implication and a special order of arrangement of logical operators. Without this implicative "intentionality", evolution could not have taken place. The implication that is presented in the usual literature on logic, “what follows from A follows B”, leaves no options for development, in our opinion. While physical laws say exactly the opposite.

3. There is one more important aspect of this implication. The fact 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, a “green wave”. This is precisely what ensures the nature of the implication, fixing the meaningful part of the equivalence in the form of a disjunction hierarchy. Psychologically, it will be difficult to perceive that the hierarchical vertical from Planck lengths through nucleons, atoms. Molecules, cells, human are based on "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 in place implications costs intelligence, and in place disjunctions - consciousness.}

From whether our equality is fulfilled depends on what a person should do: “go” or “stand”. This “or” here shows that we place the result of the choice in the disjunction structure (“... or ...”). To put it more clearly, the operational space of the Universe provided for the possibility of controlling the outcome of the bifurcation. Where is the fact of "management" ( implications) assigned to equivalence, behind which in the integral evolutionary incarnation stands subject. That is, in the evolutionary plan 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 the following software eidos:

variable - props - calculation - table - view.

Of course, we have somewhat simplified the presentation of programming, but only slightly, and not to the point. For our case variables set "colors" props this is a "traffic light" - a kind of constant as metadata. AT computing can determine the result of the implication and place in table. table can introduce on the monitor screen. Or it can be difficult variable in the next software eidos. A table is the simplest hierarchical device in which direction(without lateral branches of the "tree" - in the simplest case), the top line of which is occupied by "go", the bottom - "stand".

And here comes the most interesting question. But this one table in the Universe, from which you can choose disjunction Is the meaning of "go" or "stand" 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 the eidos sets the hierarchy. This point was very accurately noticed by A.A. Zinoviev in his explanations to the concept of "structure". That A.A. Zinoviev called direction, in logic is often called following. implication- this is a manifestation of the third status for the eidos (Losev becoming). Just different contexts correspond to different names.

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 boundary of the world" (5.632).

Thus, the "subject" of the 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 ideas.

4. Invoice as the language of eidos.

In the case of a commodity exchange, an invoice (for vacation 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 everyone operates: both those who are engaged in science and those who are in production. Programmers know that the invoice as a program object consists of two parts: "Header" and "Table Part". We will reflect the simplest case of an invoice, in this form:

Invoice No. 1884321 dated 5/10/2011

Sender: OOO "Odezhda". Recipient: Petrov.

We will use this table to show an example of thinking in terms of the concept of eidos. Since the invoice 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 amount. 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 area. Further we will show in more detail, and now we will emphasize the antinomic side quality - quantities. After all quality reflects any thing as a whole, but specifically. While amount can combine different quality. In parallel, you can test yourself for associative thinking: quality semantically corresponds to Losevsky difference, a quantity - identity.

So, in application to this task, eidos is expressed through the following important philosophical statuses:

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

1. Qualities(trousers, shirt, T-shirt). (The personifying moment is Losev's "difference")

2. Quantity(rubles). (The generalizing point is Losev's "identity")

3. Direction(numbering order, (in modern programs, the “Order” property ...)). (Losevsky “formation”, and the word and “direction”, “following” is taken from A.A. Zinoviev)

4. Structure(table with ordered rows, from A.F. Losev - become).

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

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

goods - amount - numbering - tabular part - total amount.

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

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

But here to quality and quantities implicate them in a table, you need to (yet!) arrange them (set direction). And here it is well described by A.A. Zinoviev in "Essays on Complex Logic" that to create structure(connection between elements) it is necessary to set in the system direction (following). You can do this arbitrarily by setting, for example, numbering. And it can be based on the system itself - for example, according to the amount of the sums for the purchase, which is methodologically correct. The principle of self-sufficiency of the system is important for us! After all, it is amount allows us to create direction(basically).

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

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

I would like to highlight two points along the way:

Firstly, the "movement" of the statuses of the eidos goes with the constant involvement of previous statuses. They are not discarded, but "built up" on previous statuses. The principle of continuity in evolution is fulfilled.

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

The life of an invoice does not end there. As a rule, a register of invoices is compiled per day. And here a certain metamorphosis takes place with the invoice. Its tabular part is "collapsed" to the total. And as quality the next level is the invoice itself (its “Header”):

Register of waybills LLC "Odezhda" for 5/10/2011

As a result, we will get the same structure, where quality and amount were transformed in accordance with the laws of conservation of the eidos of this profile. Moreover, the “packaging” did not take place in a utilitarian simple way, like “Russian nesting dolls”, but precisely in a compositionally coordinated and status-by-status manner.

But this is not the end of the transformations in Losevsky becoming. As you know, each company calculates monthly sales revenue. And our registries are “grinded” in the next metamorphosis, where their final result is “revenue per month”. This process, in its constructivism, is exactly the same as the previous one, and there is no point in showing it. Further, the revenue for the month falls into structure revenue for the quarter, half year, year. Thus, a certain fractal process of “convolution” is obtained: invoice → register → revenue. The characteristic moment of this "convolution" is that structure becomes something quality at a higher level. And here is the generated structure the final Manifestation carries the quantitative aspect of generalization - amount.

We must not forget about direction (becoming). It is it that makes it possible to maintain the system integrity of the structure, carrying in itself the essentially global system attribute of time. In itself, the metamorphoses of the invoice transformations confirm the idea of ​​an evolutionary trajectory (creod), just in part of this context. As soon as the creod of the enterprise is interrupted, this means the end of its existence (as a being).

Another note. It's amazing how they get along amount and quality in the invoice. But after all, it will never cross anyone's mind that they are antinomies (of the type "individualism - collectivism", "egoism - altruism"). It turns out this "anti" should ( necessarily!!!) be present in the structure for it to take place. This is all to the fact that there is no “unity and struggle of opposites” as a dialectical law (V.V. Demyanov,).

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

Astronomers have finally established that the universe is expanding with acceleration (Nobel laureates in 2011). And before that, there were doubts, and it was believed that it was expanding at a constant rate. Anyone who has read "Evalectics of the Noosphere" by V.V. Demyanova has no doubts about the existence of acceleration. Because the expansion at a constant speed means that the "Flesh of the One" goes to no one knows where 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 cyclic breathing process.

The above is a prelude to the eidos of a 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 (such as rotation). The size itself doesn't really matter.

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

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

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

It must be said, historically, that there is some "uncertainty" in philosophical texts and physical treatises (less) between energy and power. Perhaps, Pobysk Kuznetsov was one of the first who drew attention to the discrepancy between the "priorities" of energy and power. The commonly accepted expression "energy goes into ..." is not entirely correct, since this "goes" means the presence of power! In philosophical texts, "potentiality" and "energy" also seem to correspond to energy and power.

Between the consignment note and the eidos of a material point, it would seem, there is an abyss of abstraction! And it exists, but is passable, if we keep in mind the eidetic unity of Plato. Although in the application area these objects differ, from a system point of view they are the same! Let's try to find something in common between them.

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

Developing the problem of categories, Aristotle first singled out the categories quality and quantities. Considering the consignment note eidos, 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 designated 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 to understand the nature of antinomy more objectively, given that the processes of a systematic and constructive approach to it are growing in physics. 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 terms (as an increase) for a material point, by status, 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 nature of "activity" and "fixation". What Kant called "series" and "aggregate".

The third eidos status 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 the material point can evolve. But can a billiard ball evolve even if it gets accelerated or slowed down, transferring its energy to another ball? Apparently, Losevskoe becoming- this is an image of a philosophical generalization in terms of the possibility of being become.

What energy material point there is a certain structure in fact, says the non-linear nature of the formula for kinetic energy, which is proportional to the square of the speed. So V.V. Demyanov associated the structure of the formation of a moving material body with the quantum-dynamic sticking of the "Flesh of the One". And the founder of rhythmodynamics, Yu.N. Ivanov gives a formula that relates the kinetic energy to the phase difference. Indirectly, the complex structure of the "potential" of kinetic energy can be judged by 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 time transferred to another material point. In this regard, the consignment note is associatively no different from a material point.

Returning to the topic of the article about the “single language”, one more point can be emphasized. Now, if we take, for example, other elementary objects of the physical world - a spring, a capacitor, an inductor, then they also represent eidoses-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 the eidos, there are no such names, and sometimes formulas! The reason for this is that, historically, introducing philosophical concepts forms and content(for example), we forget that all elementary objects are turned towards us, subjects, form. The content usually remained in the background. It was clearly defined only for a material point - as a theoretically "favorite" object by everyone. As for, for example, a mechanical spring, everything stopped at Hooke's law in a systemic way. In the linguistic pentad, the second status corresponds to a noun. The fact that we do not pay attention to the "noun" of elementary physical objects (such as momentum for a material point) indicates the complete absence of a systematic approach to elementary physics.

(This moment is especially interesting for those who study the general theory of systems (GTS). The fact is that in "The Most Itself" A.F. Losev, using the example of a pencil drawing, shows that the region of the eidos becoming divided into "something" and "other". “Other” is somehow the same for everyone and reflects the category general. While "something" is hidden behind becoming and reflects the 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 status of physical objects are specific. For example, the concept of "momentum" special concept only for a 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 unified systemic nature. But the intellect requires that a single systemic language be created for this unified nature, which would allow "stitching" various areas of knowledge, unifying them. It is unification that acts as a kind of result of intellect, making life easier for society.

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

6. The principle of superposition in eidos.

Probably, the simplest thing would be to present the principle of superposition (overlay) using 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 conservation laws for physical quantities.

In fact, such a formal approach in a constructive way, it seems, does little. After all, in fact, by “combining” a capacitor and an inductor with a 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 the ideas of VV Demyanov) - a hydrogen atom.

Thus, the process of superposition can be considered at least from two sides: as a formal union of eidos, and connected eidos (oscillatory circuit, hydrogen atom).

As for physics, at the moment we know the eidos 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 incarnation has an eidos. Another thing is that eidos, for example, of a proton and an electron are little known to us, since in a formal expression it is still difficult to present them reliably.

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

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

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

point - line - angle - flat figure - three-dimensional figure.

Indeed, a point and a line are antinomies. Using a point (1) and two lines (2), you can construct an angle (3). Using a line and an angle, you can construct a flat figure (4), for example, an equilateral triangle. With the help of an angle (3) and flat figures (4), you can build a three-dimensional 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 wildlife objects, the eidos of second-order surfaces is more suitable:

point - line - circle - cylinder - torus.

Such an 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 enumeration of options for solving this problem (for example, the desire to eat) - activity. The 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.

Being social beings, we form a more “conscious” eidos, taking into account family and environment:

needs - opportunities - analysis of the situation - priorities - directed activities.

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

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

By working and participating in the meeting, we solve production problems:

problem - opportunity - solution - plan - execution.

Thus, in time and space, we are sometimes simultaneously in several eidos, entering the “Mobius leaf” (family - work) and other complex figures, constructing the text of our life. In a word - "The world is a text."

Literature.

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

3. Sakhno V.A. Logic as a mechanism of evolution. 04/16/2010, http://filosophia.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 Early Wittgenstein's Philosophy, Tomsk: Tomsk University Press, 2001.

6. Sakhno V.A. Natural science ontology, 05/03/2010, http://filosophia.ru/76557/

7. Zinoviev A.A. Essays on complex logic. M. Editorial, 2000, 560 p.

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

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

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

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

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

13. Ivanov Yu.N. Frequency space, M: Novy Tsentr, 1998, 32 p.

14. Sakhno V.A. Periodic processes in evalctic 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, 10/26/2011

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, evaluating differently the right of these beginnings to be called being. The late pre-Socratics were looking for connections between the world of truth and the world of phenomena, but their existence acted as an indifferent principle in relation to its otherness. Plato, faced with the inconsistency of these positions, is looking for a new way.

The current situation in philosophy is described 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 is taking place because of a dispute with each other about being "(dia ten amphisbetesin peri tesoysias pros alleloys)," some bring everything down from heaven and from the region of the invisible to the earth ... they claim that there is only that which allows touch and touch, and recognize bodies and being as one and the same ..."; "those who argue with them prudently defend themselves as if from above, from somewhere invisible, resolutely insisting that true being is some kind of intelligible and incorporeal ideas (noeta kai asomata eide); bodies ... they , decomposing in their reasoning into small parts, they call it not being, but something moving, becoming" (Soph. 246a-c). Somewhat differently in Theaetetus: "There are people who agree to recognize as existing only that which they can grasp tenaciously with their hands, while actions or becomings (praxeis de kai geneseis), like everything invisible, they do not allocate a share in being "(Theaet. 155e). It is most probable that the Cynics and Megarics are meant. To these two groups one could add a third - "artists", whom Plato criticizes in the Theaetetus in the person of Protagoras.

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 one and many, truth and falsehood, identical and different. 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 knowledge), to understand how being is present in a thing (the doctrine of being ), to explain how the soul can contain 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 a 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, one can possess the truth without possessing knowledge, which is impossible without a rational-verbal report, the logos (Theaet. 202c). Apparently, Plato believed that the truth - at least when it comes to the highest truth - must be a conscious truth. This is a higher type of truth than 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 uttered thought is already an incompleteness and therefore a lie. But we cannot stop talking about the absolute, just as we cannot express it. The unrevealed truth is poorer than the revealed one, and this obliges us to look for the word, that is, the logos, for being. For the same reasons, being must be fragmented and lose itself in things, and a single soul in individuals, who will then, each at their own peril and risk, look for the way back.

In Theaetetus, Plato raises the question of whether the true view clarified by the word [ 16 ], in connection with which he analyzes the concept of "some people" (cynics?), who claim that the primary elements of everything do not have a logos corresponding to them; they cannot even be attributed to existence or non-existence, since they are simple, have no composition and, therefore, are not amenable to definition. They can only have a name (oy gar einai ayto alle onomazesthai) (202b). That which is composed of the beginnings 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 derivable from its parts, which means that it is indefinable, “logoless”. But integrity is given by the idea, therefore, being as an idea is always illogical, not amenable to rational account. Next to this problem, another problem arises, naturally connected with it: if the logos is always in a certain sense a lie, then it is always the truth, because the lie and the 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 falsehood, and since falsehood is thinking about non-being, one must nevertheless attribute being to non-being. The paradoxes of the concept of "being" that arose and were clearly formulated in "Theaetetus" will receive a detailed interpretation in the "Sophist" and "Parmenides". But this dialogue also allows us to draw significant conclusions. Ironically, the skeptical-looking Theaetetus contains a very definite result: knowledge is inevitable, even if we fail to grasp its essence; it is impossible not to think being, even if we are aware of its impregnability for thinking. But at the same time, the sufficiency of that 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 classroom not as a scourge of God, but as ... a boon 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 an ill teacher at an art school. “Despite the fact that it was a small group of only six people, we never managed to reach a genuine understanding with them, in my opinion.” The problems that arose then, many years ago, led to the creation of a work program in the upper grades. 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 objects, 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 towards it. In one case (scientific form) an object is cognized, in another (artistic) a thread of emotional and value connection between an object and a subject is cognized - the relation of the subject to the object (object) ”(B. M. 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 equal in rights in relation to the scientific form, in everyday consciousness the only "legitimate" part 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 ordinary 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 the activities of the musical and pedagogical in connection with the various "paths" in them.

Also in Ancient Greece distinguished two kinds of musical art. Strict, orderly, "high" was associated with the name of the sun god Apollo, the leader of the muses. Sharply different from the Apollonian art was wild, torn from the depths of the body, Dionysian, associated with the cult of the goat-legged god of winemaking Dionysus.

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

The interaction of the Apollonian and Dionysian principles then permeates the entire history of music. Either coexisting, or whimsically 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 Apollonian everything associated with orderliness, "coming from above." An example here is the practice of classical art: the composer writes down the composition in musical form, the performer or performers interpret the musical text he created. The work here is this text, crystallized as a result of the artistic selection of the composer.

The Dionysian beginning 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 here is shifted towards the process, since the text as a previously known path is absent. It is interesting that the performer keeps in mind only the general nature of the sound, focuses on a certain integral phonic image, moving at every 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 cadences of instrumental concerts. In modern new music elements of aleatoric are used, providing the performer with almost composer's freedom.

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

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.

Music pedagogy, following the example of general pedagogy, habitually builds its activities on the initially structured Apollonian sphere: notes, strict sequence, step-by-step gradualness, etc. Let's not question the repeatedly proven paths. Let us only note that, in this case, musical development suffers from the lack of a creative Dionysian principle. One Apollonian, frankly, is boring. I remember how my second graders played the violin. Classes were usually held in a group of 12-15 children. Needless to say, how difficult the instrument is the violin, how difficult is the first stage of learning on it. Violin techniques offer very consistent hand placement actions. 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 classes, I ask the children the question: “Who wants to play a real violinist?” Everyone was ready to take off. I call the boy who was lethargic during the lesson, although he completed the tasks along with everyone else. Where did his lethargy go? In front of the class, as in front of the public, stood a real virtuoso violinist with perfect hand placement! 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 saying no.

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 said to be "the most sensuous of 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 reproduced without turning on the intellect. At the same time, according to a tradition dating back to ancient times, music is recognized as the most generalized, abstract art - the artistic equivalent of philosophy and mathematics. By themselves, the criteria of the most sensible and the most abstract are mutually exclusive. Thus begins the book of musicologist Tatyana Vasilievna Cherednichenko "Music in the history of culture." At the end of this short reflection, the author draws an unexpectedly simple conclusion: “The key to this paradox can be a statement of what would seem to be self-evident: music is singing and playing instruments.”

Let's add to this that when building a harmonious ratio of subjects "scientific" and music in the curriculum of the school, academic performance (and many other indicators!) improves just in these "non-musical" disciplines. This was scientifically proven by research by Maria Speihiger in the 1970s and confirmed by Hans Günther Bastian in the 1990s. Isn't this the universality of music here?

Knowledge in art is sensual. It is impossible to understand the duration of a musical sound without "lengthening" it. It is impossible to understand pitch without assimilation by voice. To strive to understand art without practice in it is, at the very least, to condemn oneself to the substitution of the perception of musical phenomena proper by the perception of what has been said about these phenomena.

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

The occupation of music, musical practice, in addition to the accumulation of 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 previous discoveries of physics.

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

Science operates with concepts, art with images. Etymologically, the concept is associated with the verb "to have" (to-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 is 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 B. M. Nemensky. Unfortunately, society is dominated, he notes further, “not at all scientific, but trivially everyday attitude towards the arts; understanding of their role only as a sphere of recreation, creative entertainment, aesthetic pleasure, and not a special, equal scientific, indispensable sphere of knowledge.

Bibliography

Ilyenkov EV Dialectical logic: essays on theory and history. – Ed. 2nd, add. - M. : Politizdat, 1984.

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

Weizenbaum J. Possibility of computers and 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.

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