Abstract
The article shows that signs, cognitive and existential symbols are internal conditions of mental activity of a subject who understands the world. The psychological bases for understanding each reality — empirical, sociocultural, existential — are signs, cognitive symbols, and existential symbols, respectively. It is proved that the heterogeneity of understanding, its disparity and apparent divergence can not be considered a lack of psychological analysis of this phenomenon. On the contrary, the multiplicity of understanding, its focus on different types of signs and symbols when generating meanings of events and situations, is a characteristic of its completeness and variability. The difference in understanding is determined by the multilevel reality of the human world, which consists of at least three of the above-mentioned realities. It is argued that with the emergence and development of the psychology of the possible, scientists are increasingly paying attention to the implicit, hidden, non-obvious and even secret sides of the human world. Their identification and description is possible only on the basis of scientific ideas about the multiple nature of the determination of the natural and social worlds. Moving in the study of understanding from empirical reality to the understanding of existential reality, psychologists are forced to move from linear Laplace determinism to account for the natural randomness and unpredictability of many events and phenomena of natural and social reality. When understanding empirical reality, signs are represented in the psyche of the understanding subject as "cognitive knowledge" (Foucault, 2007). It reflects, but it does not transform: it does not change anything in the subject who knows reality. Cognitive symbols allow the subject to understand the multiplicity of variants of the understood socio-cultural reality. A cognitive symbol can point to different objects, but the understanding subject has not formed a personal attitude to them. In contrast to the cognitive, the existential symbol expresses something subjectively significant for a person. The existential symbol is inexhaustible and unlimited in its meaning, because it denotes something hidden, secret, often understood by people as only possible, but not real. Such a symbol indicates the existence of another reality that is not perceived by the senses.
Keywords
Funding information
The research was carried out through the financial support of RFBR, research project № 19–013–00032 “Psychology of understanding: from cognitive research to hermeneutic analysis and the psychology of human existence.”
References
Веракса, А. Н. (2016). Символ и знак: диалектика символического познания. Вопросы философии, 1, 51–58.
Выготский, Л. С. (1984). Собрание сочинений: В 6‑ти т. Т. 6. М.: Педагогика.
Знаков, В. В. (2019). Понимание как психология возможного. Сибирский психологический журнал, 72, 6–20.
Иванов, В. И. (1994). Родное и вселенское. М.: Республика.
Кулагина, Н. В. (2006). Символ и символическое сознание. Культурно-историческая психология, 1, 3–10.
Леонтьев, А. А. (2001). Значение и смысл. Мир психологии, 2 (26), 13–20.
Леонтьев, А. Н. (1983). Некоторые проблемы психологии искусства. Избранные психологические произведения: В 2 т. М.: Педагогика.
Лобанова, Н. И. (2019). Вещь между знаком и символом (о семиотической деятельности вещи). Манускрипт, 10, 202–208.
Лосев, А. Ф. (2014). Проблема символа и реалистическое искусство. М.: Русскiй Mip.
Малевич, К. С. (2016). Мир как беспредметность. М.: Эксмо.
Никоненко, С. В. (2016). К вопросу о соотношении символа и знака. Вестник СПбГУ. Сер. 17. Философия. Конфликтология. Культурология. Религиоведение, 3, 47–53.
Осорина, М. В., Целяева, С. И. (2014). Использование информационных знаков для изучения процессов понимания социальных ситуаций. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Сер. 16. Психология. Педагогика, 1, 6–20.
Петросян, Ю. С. (2018). Символ: сущность и предназначение. Вестник Омского университета, 4, 103–114.
Рикер, П. (1995). Конфликт интерпретаций. Очерки о герменевтике. М.: Медиум.
Спирова, Э. М. (2011). Символ как понятие философской антропологии (Автореф. канд. дисс.). М.
Субботский, Е. В. (2007). Строящееся сознание. М.: Смысл.
Сухачев, В. Ю. (1997). История без субъекта. Метафизические исследования. В Выпуск 3. История. Альманах Лаборатории метафизических исследований при философском факультете Санкт-Петербургского государственного университета (28–42). СПб.: Алетейя.
Федоров, Н. А. (2012). Психологические потенциалы символа. Вестник Омского университета. Серия «Психология», 1, 24–30.
Фуко, М. (2007). Герменевтика субъекта: Курс лекций, прочитанных в Коллеж де Франс в 1981–82 учебном году. СПб.: Наука.
Царева, Н. А. (2017). Особенности герменевтического подхода к тексту в русском символизме. Libri Magistri, 3, 29–38.
Цыбуля, В. И. (2012). Функции символа в психотерапии. Консультативная психология и психотерапия, 2, 158–173.
Цыбуля, В. И. (2014). К проблеме психологического понимания и исследования символа в психотерапии. Культурно-историческая психология, 3, 114–122.
Шалина, О. С. (2010). Символическое опосредствование переживаний личности в критических ситуациях (Автореф. канд. дисс.). Москва.
Anderson, J. R. (2005). Human Symbol Manipulation Within an Integrated Cognitive Architecture. Cognitive Science, 29(2), 313–341.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 4, 577–660.
Cantlon, J. F., Libertus, M. E., Pinel, P. et al. (2009). The Neural Development of an Abstract Concept of Number. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(11), 2217–2229.
Chen, Q, Li, J. (2014). Association between Individual Differences in Non-Symbolic Number Acuity and Math Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Acta Psychologica, 148, 163–172.
Josephs, I. E. (1998). Constructing One's Self in the City of the Silent: Dialogue, Symbols, and the Role of 'As-If ' in Self-Development. Human Development, 41(3), 180–195.
Leibovich, T, Ansari, D. (2016). The Symbol-Grounding Problem in Numerical Cognition: A Review of Theory, Evidence, and Outstanding Questions. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 12–23.
Reynvoet, B., Sasanguie, D. (2016). The Symbol Grounding Problem Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the ANS Mapping Account and the Proposal of an Alternative Account Based on Symbol–Symbol Associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01581