General idea of ​​the image of the world. Category "Image of the World" in modern psychology. Some general conclusions

As a result of mastering the material of the chapter, the student must:

know

• the concept of "image of the world" and be able to use it;
• types of models of the image of the world and be able to describe them;
• the main regularities of the functioning of the image of the world and its professional specificity;

be able to

• use the concept of "image of the world" to generalize and interpret the results of using the methods of psychology of subjective semantics and psychosemantics;
• use knowledge about the professional specifics of the image of the world to work with different types of professionals;

own

• knowledge about structural components image of the world for research planning;
• the described research schemes and the possibility of their use in their own scientific and applied developments.

The concept of "image of the world"

The image of the world as a system of meanings

A. N. Leontiev introduced the concept of "image of the world" to solve the problems of generalizing a huge body of empirical data accumulated in studies of human perception. Drawing an analogy, we can say that just as the concept of "image" is an integrating concept for a systematic description of the process of perception, taking into account the totality of its active and reactive components, so the concept of "image of the world" is an integrating concept for describing the entire phenomenology of human cognitive activity. Today, this concept has a very large descriptive potential for all areas. domestic psychology.

Assuming that those relations of reality that are significant for the regulation of activity (for animals - life activity) become the subject of mental reflection, A.N. Leontiev proved this in a series of his experiments on the development of nonspecific sensitivity: the subjects, performing the task, learned to distinguish the color of the skin of the palm ( Leontiev, 1981) . These facts allowed A. N. Leontiev to develop views on the role of activity in the formation of sensations, on the determinism of sensations by objective reality.

Summarizing the results of numerous studies of perception, A. N. Leontiev puts forward the "assimilation hypothesis": the essence of the mechanism of sensory assimilation lies in the assimilation of the dynamics of perceptual actions to the properties of the reflected.

• 1. A person recognizes an object by touch after the movements of his fingers and palm describe a contour similar to the shape of the object.
• 2. A person visually recognizes an object or image after the line of his gaze (fixed with a suction cup with a microphone around the pupil, the flashlight beam shows gaze movements on photographic paper) describes a contour similar to an object or image.
• 3. A person recognizes a sound after the frequency of vibrations of the tympanic membrane becomes similar to the frequency of sound vibrations.

Experimental data (nonspecific sensitivity, hearing studies) allowed A. N. Leontiev to suggest that "that the process of assimilation, with the exclusion of the possibility of external practical contact of the motor organ with the object, occurs by" comparating " signals within the system, i.e. in the internal field" (Leontiev, 1981, p. 191). This assumption is one of the first formulations of the thesis about the polymodality and possible amodality of the image.

Solving the problem of the emergence of the psyche, A. N. Leontiev narrowed the conditions (the world) to the subject of need and its properties. Solving the problem of the emergence of an image, he, on the contrary, proved the dependence of perception on the entire objective world as a whole: “It turns out that the condition for the adequacy of perception a separate subject is an adequate perception of the objective world as a whole and the relation of the object to this world" (ibid., p. 149).

A. N. Leontiev especially emphasized: “a) the predetermination of this signified, meaningful objective world to each specific act of perception, the need to “include” this act in an already prepared picture of the world; b) this picture of the world acts as a unity of individual and social experience” (Leontiev , 1983, p. 36).

The role of human experience and the role of systems of socially developed meanings in the understanding of this experience, the non-identity of the image of the world with a visual or any other image, any combination of images is emphasized. E. Yu. Artemyeva (Artemyeva, 1999) interprets the “scooping out” of the subjective image from the world described by A. N. Leontiev as the first proposed model of merging process, image and reality in one mental act. In the cited (Leontiev, 1983, pp. 37–38) draft of an unwritten book by A. N. Leontiev (probably "The Image of the World"), the development of the presentation of expanding time ends with a socio-historical perspective, and expanding space ends with a cosmic one ("It is no longer mine, but human").

The image of the world, in addition to the four dimensions of space-time, also has the fifth “quasi-dimension” [meaning]: “This is a transition through sensibility, beyond the boundaries of sensibility, through sensory modalities to the amodal world! The objective world appears in meaning, i.e. the picture of the world is filled with meanings "(Leontiev, 1983, vol. 2, p. 260). The introduction of the fifth dimension emphasizes the fact that the image of the world is determined not only by the spatio-temporal characteristics of reality (a four-dimensional model of space-time), but also by the meaning for the subject of what is reflected: "... Values ​​do not appear as something that lies in front of things , but as something that lies behind the appearance of things - in the known objective connections of the objective world, in various systems in which they only exist, only reveal their properties" (ibid., p. 154). The subjective meaning of events, objects and actions with them structures the image of the world in a completely different way from the structuration of metric spaces, affectively "contracts and stretches" space and time, places emphasis on significance, violates their sequence and, thereby, casts doubt (or in no way puts) all kinds of logical connections, being part of the irrational. The "image of the world" is a concept that describes a subjective, biased model of the world, including the rational and the irrational, developing on the basis of a system of activities in which a person is included (Artemyeva, Strelkov, Serkin, 1983).

The work of A. N. Leontiev "The Image of the World" (Leontiev, 1983, vol. 2) makes it possible to reconstruct probabilistically the five-dimensional model of the phenomenology described by the concept "image of the world": four dimensions of space-time are "permeated" by the fifth dimension - value, as another coordinate of each points of four-dimensional space-time. Interpreting, we can say that just as two points far apart on a flat geometric figure can touch, if you fold a sheet in three-dimensional space, objects, events and actions far apart in time and space coordinates can touch in meaning, turn out to be "before", although there were "after" according to the temporal and spatial coordinates of the four-dimensional space-time. This is possible only because "the space and time of the image of the world" are subjective. If we take into account the concept of the representation of meanings and meanings for the future, then the "whirling" of the subjective time of the image of the world, its "leading" and "lagging behind" the conventional reality becomes understandable.

Using such a model, we refuse uniform models of an unchanging space filled with objects, and a uniform model of time filled with events with objects in space. Strictly logically reasoning, when formulating the concept of “image of the world”, we should generally use not the structures of the description of the material world, but the structures of descriptions of such ideal phenomena as the concept, meaning, representation, idea, thought, etc. This is exactly what A. N. Leontiev, speaking about the image of the world as a system of meanings. Rejection of this is a methodological dead end for many researchers who propose models of subjectively uniform space or time, which make it possible to describe the facts obtained in the experiment with a big stretch (or, to put it bluntly, “with fitting”), but are helpless in predicting the subjective structures of space and time. The problem of the time of the image of the world during its development requires a cardinal solution of the still undeveloped problems of synchronization of the processes of the "internal" and "external" worlds and the "requalification" of experimental data on all cognitive processes(especially about memory) as built not only "as a result", but, above all, "for" activity.

Based on the above considerations, we formulate the following working definitions.

Definition 1."The image of the world" is a concept introduced by A. N. Leontiev to describe the integral system of human meanings. The image of the world is built on the basis of highlighting the experience (signs, impressions, feelings, ideas, norms, etc.) that is significant (essential, functional) for the system of activities realized by the subject. The image of the world, presenting the cognized connections of the objective world, determines, in turn, the perception of the world.

The images of the world of different people are different due to different cultural and historical conditions of their formation (culture, language, nationality, society) and differences in individual lifestyles (personal, professional, age, household, geographical, etc.).

An example of the functional dismemberment of a system is the dismemberment of consciousness by A.N. Leontiev into its components (functional subsystems): meaning, personal meaning, and sensory fabric of consciousness (for more details, see subparagraph 2.1.1). The functions of meaning and personal meaning as components of consciousness consist in structuring, transforming sensory images of consciousness in accordance with socio-historical practice (cultural description) and in accordance with the experience (being-for-itself, personal history of activities) of the subject. What is the product of such a transformation?

Definition 2."The image of the world" is a concept introduced by A. N. Leontiev to describe the integral ideal product of the process of consciousness, obtained by constantly transforming the sensual fabric of consciousness into meanings ("meaning", objectification). The image of the world can be considered as a process to the extent that we change the ideal integral product of the work of consciousness.

The concept of "consciousness" is not identical with the concept of "image of the world", since the sensual ("sensual tissue", according to A. N. Leontiev) is not a component of the ideal image. The determining factors in the transformation of sensual images of consciousness into meanings are the regularities of the existence of the image of the world and the totality of the activities implemented by the subject.

The activity implemented by the subject - driving force changes (development) of the image of the world. Considering the image of the world as an established dynamic system, we must take into account that this system has its own stable structure that preserves the system from destruction (and, sometimes, development), which gives the image of the world some conservatism. It is possible that the balance of conservatism and variability is one of the characteristics of the image of the world, which makes it possible to introduce a typology of "images of the world" (for example, age-related) and algorithms for describing individual images of the world.

• It should be noted that the subjects could not clearly describe their sensations, but could name the color, i.e. here it may be more correct to speak of the development of non-specific perception than of sensitivity.
• Still, we have no right to assert categorically that A.N. Leontiev created just such a model of psychological phenomenology, described by the concept of "image of the world", we have no right.
• Such a model is much better and more accurate than the previous models allows one to describe and interpret fundamental psychological patterns, for example, the laws of formation of associations.
• A. N. Leontiev would not introduce a new concept that is completely identical to the one already widely used.
• Such conservatism can explain the mechanisms of installation, apperception, and illusions of perception.

2

1 Lesosibirsky pedagogical institute- branch of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Siberian Federal University"

2 Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Siberian State University of Technology» - Lesosibirsk branch

The article provides a theoretical analysis of studies of the category "image of the world" in the works of Russian psychologists. It is shown that the term, first used in the work of A.N. Leontiev, is studied within the framework of different humanities, where it is filled with various semantic content. Comparing the concepts of "image of the world", "picture of the world", "multidimensional image of the world", the authors highlight the characteristics of the image of the world: integrity, sensibility, processuality, social and natural determinism. According to the authors, in modern domestic psychology, the most attractive approach is the one proposed by V.E. Klochko in the framework of systemic anthropological psychology, where a person, understood as an open psychological system, includes the image of the world (subjective component), lifestyle (activity component) and reality itself - the multidimensional human life world. In this case, the multidimensional image of the human world acts as a dynamic systemic construct that combines subjective-objective perception and is characterized by a single space and time.

systemic anthropological psychology.

multidimensional image of the world

psychology

image of the world

1. Artemyeva E.Yu. Psychology of subjective semantics. - Publishing House LKI, 2007.

3. Klochko V.E. Self-organization in psychological systems: problems of the formation of the mental space of a person (introduction to transspective analysis). - Tomsk: Publishing House of the Tomsk State. un-ta, 2005.

4. Klochko V.E. Formation multidimensional world of man as the essence of ontogenesis // Siberian psychological journal. - 1998. - P.7-15.

5. Klochko Yu.V. Rigidity in the structure of a person's readiness to change lifestyle: dis. … Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - Barnaul, 2002.

6. Krasnoryadtseva O.M. Features of professional thinking in the conditions of psychodiagnostic activity. - Publishing house of BSPU, 1998.

7. Leontiev A.N. Psychology of the image // Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser. 14. Psychology. - 1979. - No. 2. - P.3-13.

8. Mazlumyan V.S. Picture of the world and Image of the world?! // World of psychology. - 2009. - No. 4. - P.100-109.

9. Matis D.V. Reconstruction of the dynamics of the image of the human world by means of psychohistorical analysis: dis. … Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - Barnaul, 2004.

10. Medvedev D.A. The image of the world as an internal factor in the development of the student's personality pedagogical university: dis. … Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - Stavropol, 1999.

11. Serkin V.P. Five definitions of the concept "image of the world" // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 14. Psychology. - 2006. - No. 1. - P.11-19.

12. Smirnov S.D. Psychology of the image: the problem of the activity of mental reflection. – M.: MSU, 1985.

13. Tkhostov A.Sh. Topology of the subject // Bulletin of the Moscow University. Ser. 14. Psychology. - 1994. - No. 2. - P.3-13.

The term, first used by A.N. Leontiev in 1975, characterizes the image of the world as a world in which "people live, act, remake and partially create", and the formation of the image of the world is "a transition beyond the directly sensual picture". Analyzing the problem of perception, the scientist identifies, in addition to the dimensions of space and time, the fifth quasi-dimension - the intra-system connections of the objective objective world, when "the picture of the world is filled with meanings" and makes the image of the world subjective. It was with the development of this phenomenon that A.N. Leontiev connected "one of the main points of growth" of the general psychological theory of activity.

The concept of "image of the world" is used in a variety of sciences - philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, linguistics, in each of which it acquires additional shades of meaning and is often interchanged with synonymous concepts: "picture of the world", "scheme of reality", "model of the universe", "cognitive map". The development of the problem of the "image of the world" affects a wide range of philosophical and psychological research, and the projection of this problem is found in the works of many domestic scientists. To some extent, the formation of the “image of the world” phenomenon was influenced by the works of M.M. Bakhtin, A.V. Brushlinsky, E.V. Galazhinsky, L.N. Gumilev, V.E. Klochko, O.M. Krasnoryadtseva, M.K. Mamardashvili, G.A. Berulava, V.P. Zinchenko, S.D. Smirnova and others.

The lack of formation of ideas about the phenomenon under study is also confirmed by the fact that in psychological dictionaries there are different interpretations of the image of the world: a holistic, multi-level system of a person's ideas about the world, other people, about himself and his activity; integrated system general ideas a person about the world, other people and about himself, a scheme of reality in the coordinates of space and time, covered by a system of socially formed meanings, etc. However, the authors agree, noting the primacy of the image of the world in relation to any specific image, in other words, any image that appears in a person , is conditioned by the image of the world already formed in his (human) consciousness.

In a number of studies devoted to the analysis of the category of the image of the world, this phenomenon is considered through the prism - "representations of the world" by V.V. Petukhov, typologies of life worlds by F.E. Vasilyuk, subjective experience E.Yu. Artemyeva, "pictures of the world" N.N. Koroleva, “pictures of the world order” by Yu.A. Aksenova and others.

E.Yu. Artemyeva considers the image of the world as an entity that regulates the entire mental activity subject, and whose property is the accumulation of the prehistory of activity (Artemyeva, 30). According to the author, there should be a structure capable of being a regulator and building material for the image of the world, in the role of which the structure of subjective experience acts. In this context, the scientist singles out the surface layer (“perceptual world”), the semantic layer (“picture of the world”), the layer of amodal structures (the actual image of the world). Note that in the future, the level structure of the image of the world is analyzed in the works of F.V. Bassina, V.V. Petukhova, V.V. Stolin, O.V. Tkachenko and others.

S.D. Smirnov believes that the image of the world is a holistic formation of the cognitive sphere of the individual, performing the function of the starting point and result of any cognitive act, specifying that the image of the world "cannot be identified with a sensory picture." The scientist notes the main characteristics of the image of the world: immodality, integrity, multilevelness, emotional and personal meaningfulness, secondary nature.

S.D. Smirnov highlights following characteristics image of the world:

1. The image of the world does not consist of images of individual phenomena and objects, but from the very beginning it develops and functions as a whole.

2. The image of the world functionally precedes the actual stimulation and the sensory impressions it causes.

3. The interaction of the image of the world and stimulus effects is built not on the principle of processing, modifying the sensory impressions caused by the stimulus, followed by linking the image created from the sensory material to the pre-existing image of the world, but by approbation or modification (clarification, detailing, correction or even significant restructuring) of the image of the world

4. The main contribution to the construction of the image of an object or situation is made by the image of the world as a whole, and not by a set of stimuli.

5. The movement from the images of the world towards stimulation from the outside is a mode of its existence and is, relatively speaking, spontaneous. This process ensures constant approbation of the image of the world by sensory data, confirmation of its adequacy. If the possibilities of such approbation are violated, the image of the world begins to collapse.

6. We can talk about the continuous procedural nature of the movement from the “subject to the world”, which is interrupted only with a loss of consciousness. The difference between the approach developed here is that the image of the world generates cognitive hypotheses not only in response to a cognitive task, but constantly.

7. It is not the subject that adds something to the stimulus, but the stimulus and the impressions it evokes serve as an “add-on” to the cognitive hypothesis, turning it into a sensually experienced image.

8. If as the main component of our cognitive image a cognitive hypothesis emerges, formed on the basis of a broad context of the image of the world as a whole, it follows from this that this hypothesis itself at the level of sensory cognition should be formulated in the language of sensory impressions.

9. The most important characteristic of the image of the world, which provides it with the possibility of functioning as an active beginning of the reflective process, is its active and social nature.

V.S. Mazlumyan, analyzing the relationship between the concepts of "image of the world" and "picture of the world", notes that the image of the world is an individual emotive-semantic refraction of the social picture of the world in the mind of an individual. Moreover, the image of the world is not a simple body of knowledge, but a reflection of the individual shades of feelings and moods of the individual, which forms the basis for a person's orientation in the world and in his behavior.

YES. Medvedev puts three inseparable components into the concept of "image of the world": the image of the Self, the image of the Other, the generalized image of the objective world, where all the components are contained in the human mind at the logical and figurative-emotional levels and regulate the subject's perception of the surrounding reality, as well as his behavior and activities . While the person is looking at the world, which, under his research or simply observing gaze "here and now" generates a new one.

IN modern psychology a detailed analysis of the development of ideas about the essence of the phenomenon "image of the world" is made in the works of V.P. Serkin, who defined the image of the world as a motivating and orienting subsystem of the entire system of the subject's activities. The scientist, relying on the reasoning of A.N. Leontiev, identifies the following characteristics of the image of the world:

1. The image of the world is built on the basis of highlighting experience that is significant for the system of activities implemented by the subject.

2. The creation of an image of the world becomes possible in the process of transformation of the sensual fabric of consciousness into meanings (“meaning”).

3. The image of the world is a plan of the subject's internal activity, i.e. integral individual system of human meanings.

4. The image of the world is an individualized cultural and historical basis of perception.

5. The image of the world is a subjective predictive model of the future.

According to A.Sh. Tkhostov, the image of the world is a phantom of the world, which is the only possible way to adapt to the world, at the same time, the image of the world cannot be assessed outside the context against which the cognitive hypotheses of the subject are actualized, objects are structured, and as a result, the only possible reality of a person is created.

The most attractive for our study is the approach proposed by V.E. Klochko in the framework of systemic anthropological psychology, where a person, understood as an open psychological system, includes the image of the world (subjective component), lifestyle (activity component) and reality itself - the multidimensional human life world. According to the author, development consists in expanding and increasing the dimensionality of the image of the world, which means that it acquires new coordinates. Of particular note is the concept of "man's multidimensional world", which, in the understanding of the scientist, is the basis of a multidimensional image of the world. V.E. Klochko writes: “any image, including the image of the world, ... is the result of reflection. A multidimensional image of the world, therefore, can only be the result of a reflection of a multidimensional world”, i.e. human existence is greater and deeper than objectified reality, than what can fit within the framework of knowledge.

Thus, new dimensions are not added to the subjective image, but exist in the human world from the very beginning. Such an interpretation brings together the ideas of V.E. Klochko with A.N. Leontiev, who called the derivative of the multidimensionality of the “fifth quasi-dimension” a system of values, however, V.E. Klochko, in the development of the human world, more dimensions of meanings and values ​​are added. Similar ideas are found in the works of I.B. Khanina, for whom the multidimensionality of the image of the world is determined by the activity itself. In other words, the specificity and variability of activities (playing, educational, educational and professional, etc.) determines the emergence and development of different dimensions of the image of the world. At the same time, a person as a system cannot develop in all directions at once, he must choose the network basis that suits him for certain purposes, is optimal in terms of its internal correlation, co-measurement, which indicates the selectivity of mental reflection.

O.M. Krasnoryadtseva, analyzing the concept of “image of the world” and discussing the origin of its multidimensionality, notes that it is thinking and perception that perform the functions that form this multidimensionality. According to the author, perception leads to the construction of an image of the world, and thinking is aimed at its creation, at the production of dimensions, at bringing it into a system. At the same time, perception objectifies the external and inscribes it in the image of the world, and thinking projects the I of a person, his essential powers and capabilities into the objective world that has opened up to him. Thus, we can talk about the image of the multidimensional world and the multidimensional world itself as two poles of a single system, which is ordered with the help of perception and thinking.

Thus, the multidimensional image of the human world acts as a dynamic systemic construct that combines subjective-objective perception and is characterized by a single space and time.

In a number of dissertations, the ideas of V.E. Klochko about the formation of the image of the human world. So, in the work of D.V. Mathis not only revealed the psychological mechanisms of the reconstruction of the image of the world and lifestyle (socialization, adaptation, language, religion, folk pedagogy), but also determined that the formation of the image of the world among different peoples has its own characteristics, due to the traditional socio-cultural space, and is determined by the whole course historical development ethnos. The author believes that the formation of the image of the world occurs in stages, by transforming culture into it, while from the moment of birth, its dimension gradually expands, and in adolescence, changes in the image of the world acquire a qualitative character.

ON THE. Dolgikh notes the originality of the image of the world as a central category of art education, which allows us to speak about the possibility of forming the image of the world in the conditions and means of art education.

Yu.V. Klochko in his dissertation research shows that three components can be distinguished in the structure of the image of the world:

1. Perceptual layer, which includes spatial categories and time and is characterized by a set of ordered objects moving relative to the subject; the specificity of this layer is its representation in the form of various modalities;

2. Semantic layer, presented in the form of multidimensional relationships, the presence of meanings and qualities of objects, their characteristics; modalities are present and separated semantically;

3. Amodal layer, characterized by integrity and indivisibility.

Thus, the considered concepts make it possible to characterize the image of the world as an integral multi-level construction, which includes a person's ideas about himself, about other people, about the world as a whole and about his activities in it, while the integrity of the image of the world is the result of reflecting objective and subjective images. Most researchers focus on the role of perception, which makes it possible to create a holistic vision of the world.

Reviewers:

Loginova I.O., Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy with a course of medical psychology, psychotherapy and pedagogy of PO, Dean of the Faculty of Clinical Psychology, Krasnoyarsk State Medical University. prof. VF Voyno-Yasenetsky Ministry of Health of Russia, Krasnoyarsk;

Ignatova V.V., Doctor of Pedagogy, Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology and Pedagogy, Siberian State Technological University, Krasnoyarsk.

Bibliographic link

Kazakova T.V., Basalaeva N.V., Zakharova T.V., Lukin Yu.L., Lugovskaya T.V., Sokolova E.V., Semenova N.I. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF STUDIES OF THE IMAGE OF THE WORLD IN RUSSIAN PSYCHOLOGY // Contemporary Issues science and education. - 2015. - No. 2-2.;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=22768 (date of access: 01.02.2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the publishing house "Academy of Natural History"

Collection output:

PSYCHOLOGY OF IMAGE A.N. LEONTIEV

Goryachev Vadim Vladimirovich

cand. psychol. Sciences, Associate Professor, Ryazan branch of MPSU, Ryazan

The image is a rather active concept and is used in different ways in the system of scientific knowledge: psychological, historical, philosophical, pedagogical, ethnographic. In psychology, the image is often defined in the context of sensory perception and reflection of reality, the study of consciousness and the development of human cognitive activity. Fundamentally new problem situation not only in the system of psychological knowledge, but also in the general educational space, approaches to the image of the world in the context of the psychology of perception, expressed by A.N. Leontiev in his work "The Image of the World". As the scientist wrote: “the formation of the image of the world in a person is a transition beyond the “directly sensory picture”. The purpose of our article is to consider the category of "image" in the works of A.N. Leontiev, and above all, his position on the existing relationship and interdependence of reflection and activity.

Analyzing the state of the theory of perception, A.N. Leontiev comes to the conclusion that in psychology there is a large number of accumulated knowledge in this direction, however, a full-fledged theory is virtually absent. From the point of view of a scientist, it is necessary to reconsider the very fundamental direction in which research is moving. Of course, A.N. Leontiev proceeds from such fundamental provisions of dialectical materialism as the recognition of the primacy of matter in relation to the spirit, consciousness, psyche, understanding of sensation and perception as a reflection of objective reality and brain function. The researcher insisted on putting these provisions into practice. experimental work, while the author considered it necessary to radically change the very formulation of the problem of the psychology of perception and abandon the imaginary postulates that are preserved in it.

One of the main provisions made and defended by A.N. Leontiev, consists in the following: the problem of perception should be posed as a problem of the psychology of the image of the world and developed from this point of view. At the same time, the problem should be analyzed consistently materialistically, considering that every thing primarily exists objectively - in the objective connections of the real world, and that it secondarily posits itself in human consciousness, the direction of research should be the same.

A.N. Leontiev also touches upon the problem of the biological development of the sense organs in connection with the four-dimensional nature of the real world. He rightly points out the need to understand the phylogenetic evolution of the sense organs as a process of adaptation to a four-dimensional space. Further A.N. Leontiev introduces the concept of the so-called fifth dimension, in which objective reality is revealed to a person, understanding it as a certain semantic field or system of meanings. “In a person, the world acquires a fifth quasi-dimension in the image. It is by no means subjectively ascribed to the world. It is a transition through sensibility, through sensory modalities to the amodal world. The objective world appears in meaning, that is, the picture of the world is filled with meanings. Perceiving a certain object in this way, the subject does not have an image of its individual features, their simple combination (criticism of associative theories) and does not primarily perceive the form (criticism of Gestalt psychology), but perceives the object as a categorized object. Naturally, in the presence of an appropriate perceptual task, perception and individual elements object, and its form, but in the absence of such, it is objectivity that comes to the fore.

A.N. Leontiev introduces the division of the image into its texture or sensual fabric and objectivity. Texture is understood as a combination of individual elements of perception and the connections between them, main feature its is the possibility of folding and substitution, without distorting objectivity. Most often, the explanation of this phenomenon (the indirect connection between the sensory fabric and the objectivity of the image) consists in attributing the categorical nature of perception itself. It is essential that with this approach there is a logical need to refer to ontogenetic a priori categories, which, according to the scientist, seems to be very dangerous.

In contrast to this approach, the author puts forward a fundamentally new idea: the properties of meaningfulness and categorization should be understood as characteristics of the conscious image of the world, not immanent to the image itself. O.E. Baksansky notes referring to A.N. Leontiev that: “These characteristics express the objectivity revealed by the totality of social practice, idealized in the system of meanings that each individual finds as “outside-of-his-existing” - perceived, assimilated - and therefore, just like what is included in his image of the world. Thus, meanings are something that lies behind the “appearance of things”, in the objective connections of the real world, known by the subject. In other words, the meanings form in themselves a certain special dimension, which, according to A.N. Leontief is the fifth quasi-dimension of reality.

A.N. Leontiev in his work defines perception as a means of constructing an image of reality (building an image, but not reality itself), an image more or less adequate to the latter. An important point that the scientist focuses on is the inadmissibility of being limited in research to an analytical approach. With regard to the psychology of perception, this problem consists in returning to that integral image of reality, which is built in the mind of the subject, in the process of perceiving the latter. In other words, the image of the world cannot be reduced to a set of individual phenomena, characteristics and relationships abstracted from the real process of its functioning in the mind of the subject. Based on this provision, A.N. Leontiev expresses the idea of ​​the amodality of the real world in its separation from the subject. Putting forward this thesis, the author proceeds from the distinction of all information that can be acquired about an object into two types of property:

1. properties of inanimate objects that can be discovered in the process of their interaction with other inanimate objects;
2. properties of inanimate objects that can be detected only in the process of their interaction with living organisms that have sense organs arranged in a certain way.

Properties of the second kind are manifested in specific effects perceived by specially adapted sense organs and depending on the structure of the latter; it is in this sense that, according to A.N. Leontiev, are subjective or modal. It is essential that the same characteristics of objects can evoke impressions of different modalities in the subject. In addition, such a property of perception as the integrity of the image is empirically substantiated, that is, the data of different sense organs are organized in a certain way into a single image, and contradictions are resolved during this process. Which may occur between information coming from different sources.

Important, from our point of view, is the position discussed by A.N. Leontiev that any influence fits into the image of the world, i.e. into some whole. As an empirical justification, the scientist cites the following established facts:

1. not everything given in sensations reduces to a subjective image of the situation;
2. there is a phenomenon of "completing" the image, that is, attributing to the situation actually missing, but subjectively necessary elements.

Thus, the image of the world is a certain model, which is built on the basis of subjective experience, and in the future it mediates the perception of this experience.

Summarizing the above, I would like to highlight the most fundamental ideas of A.N. Leontiev with respect to the scientific turnover categories "image of the world":

1. The image of the world is not the sum of perceptual images, the image is not a sensory picture.
2. The image of the world mediates the interaction of the subject with reality.
3. The world outside the subject is amoral, the modalities of sensations appear as a result of the subject-object relationship of the individual with reality.
4. Information from different sense organs in a certain way is consistent in the image of the world into a single representation, that is, contradictory data in a certain way are consistent in a consistent image.
5. The modal characteristics of sensations caused by objects of reality depend on which species belongs to the perceiving subject.
6. The image of the world represents not only objects that are actually present in the thesaurus of perception of the subject, it is a relatively stable representation of reality.

These provisions, from our point of view, are very significant in the context of studying the image of the world. Particularly noteworthy is the formulation of the problem of the existence of a certain formation that acts as an intermediary between objective reality and the perceiving subject, functioning as a prism, which arouses the subject's interest in some of its elements and makes him completely ignore others. In addition, the thesis of A.N. Leontiev about the amodality of the surrounding reality outside the subject, that is, the world acquires modal characteristics only in the process of interaction between the subject and reality.

In the context of the study of the phenomenon of the image of the world, the idea of ​​A.N. Leontiev that this formation is not a simple summation of perceptual data, that is, it is a relatively stable formation resulting from the processing of perceptual data. This understanding of the image of the world is connected with the fact that any incoming information is embedded in some existing structure of the subject, which results in his ability and ability to take into account those objects in the environment. Which in this moment not in the actual field of perception.

In conclusion, I would like to note that the statements made by A.N. Leontiev's provisions were not duly appreciated by a wide range of researchers, and the phenomenon of the image of the world still remains practically little studied in Russian psychology. Probably, this situation is associated with certain methodological difficulties, overcoming which will allow us to consider the image of the world as an object psychological science in the broadest sense.

Bibliography:

1. Baksansky O.E., Kucher E.N. Cognitive image of the world: scientific monograph / O.E. Baksansky, E.N. Coachman. M.: "Kanon +" ROOI "Rehabilitation", 2010. - 224 p.
2. Leontiev A.N. Selected psychological works: in 2 vols. Vol. 2 - M. Pedagogy, 1983. 320 p.
3. Leontiev A.N. Image of the world // World of psychology. 2003. No. 4. S. 11-18.

In 1979, an article by A.N. Leontiev "Psychology of the image", in which the author introduced the concept of "image of the world", which today has a very large descriptive potential for all areas of psychology. The concept was introduced to summarize the empirical data accumulated in the study of perception. As the concept of "image" is integrating for describing the process of perception, so the concept of "image of the world" is integrating for describing all cognitive activity.

For an adequate perception of an object, it is necessary both to perceive the whole world as a whole, and to “inscribe” the perceived object (in the broad sense of the word) into the image of the world as a whole. Analyzing the texts of A.N. Leontiev, the following properties of the image of the world can be distinguished:

1) the image of the world is “predetermined” by a specific act of perception;

2) combines individual and social experience;

3) the image of the world fills the perceived object with meaning, that is, it causes the transition from sensory modalities to the amodal world. Meaning of A.N. Leontiev called the fifth quasi-dimension (except for space-time) the image of the world.

In our works, it has been experimentally proved that the subjective meaning of events, objects, and actions with them structures (and generates) the image of the world is not at all analogous to the structuring of metric spaces, affectively “contracts and stretches” space and time, places emphasis on significance, violates their sequence and inverts . Just as two points that are far apart on a flat sheet can touch if the sheet is folded in three-dimensional space, objects, events and actions that are far apart in time and space coordinates can touch in meaning, turn out to be “before”, although they happened “after” according to space-time coordinates. This is possible because "the space and time of the image of the world" are subjective.

Generating functions of the image of the world provide the construction of many subjective "variants of reality". The mechanism for generating and choosing the possible (forecast) is not only and not so much logical thinking, but the “semantics of possible worlds”, directed by the nuclear layer (goal-motivational complex) of the image of the world.

For further use, here are five definitions of the concept “image of the world” that we compiled earlier:

1. The image of the world (as a structure) is an integral system of human meanings. The image of the world is built on the basis of highlighting what is significant (essential, functional) for the system of activities implemented by the subject). The image of the world, presenting the cognized connections of the objective world, determines, in turn, the perception of the world.

2. The image of the world (as a process) is an integral ideal product of consciousness, obtained by constantly transforming the sensual fabric of consciousness into meanings.

3. The image of the world is an individualized cultural and historical basis of perception.

4. The image of the world is an individual predictive model of the world.

5. The image of the world is an integrated image of all images.

A.N. Leontiev and many of his followers described a two-layer model of the image of the world (Fig. 1), which can be represented as two concentric circles: the central one is the core of the image of the world (amodal, structures), the peripheral one (sensory design) is the picture of the world.

Rice. 1. Two-layer model of the image of the world

Due to the difficulties of operationalizing the study of the image of the world on the basis of a two-layer model, we used a three-layer model in our works in the form of three concentric circles: the core inner layer (amodal goal-motivational complex), the middle semantic layer and the outer layer - the perceptual world (Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. Three-layer model of the image of the world

The perceptual world is the most mobile and changeable layer of the image of the world. The images of actual perception are components of the perceptual world. The perceptual world is modal, but it is also a representation (attitude, foresight and completion of the image of an object based on the prognostic function of the image of the world as a whole), regulated by deeper layers. The perceptual world is perceived as a set of moving objects ordered in space and time (including one's own body) and an attitude towards them. It is possible that own body specifies one of the leading systems of space-time coordinates.

The semantic layer is transitional between surface and core structures. The semantic world is not amodal, but, unlike the perceptual world, it is integral. At the level of the semantic layer, E.Yu. Artemyeva singles out the actual meanings as the relationship of the subject to the objects of the perceptual world. This integrity is already determined by the meaningfulness, signifi- cance of the semantic world.

The deep layer (nuclear) is amodal. Its structures are formed in the process of processing the "semantic layer", however, there is still not enough data to reason about the "language" of this layer of the image of the world and its structure. The components of the nuclear layer are personal meanings. In the three-layer model, the authors characterize the nuclear layer as a goal-motivational complex, which includes not only motivation, but also the most generalized principles, attitude criteria, and values.

Developing a three-layer model of the image of the world, we can assume that the perceptual world has areas of perception and apperception (zones of clear consciousness according to G. Leibniz), similar to Wundt's zones. The term "areas of apperception" and not "zones of apperception" was chosen by us not by chance. This term emphasizes both the continuity of the ideas of Leibniz and Wundt, and the difference in the content of the term. Unlike W. Wundt, today one can point not to associative and arbitrary, but to motivational, target and anticipatory determinants of the allocation of areas of apperception. In addition, taking into account the proven S.D. Smirnov's position that perception is a subjective activity, one can say that the allocation of areas of apperception is determined not only by actual stimulation, but also by all the previous experience of the subject, is directed by the goals of actions of practical activity and, of course, by the determinants of cognitive activity proper. The areas of apperception are not at all continuous, as was the case with Wundt. For example, in the experiments of W. Neisser, it is clearly shown that when perceiving two superimposed video images, the subjects easily select any of them on the task, which is due to the anticipatory influence of the prognostic functions of the image of the world.

Similar areas exist in the deep layers of the image of the world. It is possible that psychological mechanism changes in the perceptual world, and behind it - the deeper layers is precisely the dynamics of the actualization of areas of apperception, the content of which, in turn, is determined by the motive (subject) of human activity. The parts of the perceptual world that are most often found in areas of intense perception, that is, associated with the subject of activity, are the most well structured and developed. If we imagine the model of the three-layer structure of the image of the world as a sphere, in the center of which there are nuclear structures, the middle layer is the semantic layer, and the outer layer is the perceptual world, then the professional functional substructure is modeled as a cone growing at the top from the center of such a sphere (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. Functional (activity) apperceptive subsystem of the image of the world

Stable activity functional subsystems of the image of the world are formed in any activity, but they are especially clearly “manifested” in the study of professional activity: a professional often demonstrates that he “sees”, “hears”, “feels” the features of his subject area (engine knock, wallpaper joints, shades of color or sound, surface irregularities, etc.) is better than non-professionals, not at all because he has better developed sense organs, but because the functional apperceptive system of the image of the world is “tuned” in a certain way.

Professional attitude to subjects and means of professional activity E.Yu. Artemyeva called the world of the profession. At the heart of the proposed E.A. Klimov of the multifaceted structure of the image of the professional world lies the thesis that professional activity- one of the factors of typification of individual images of the world: 1. Images of the surrounding world among representatives of different types of professions differ significantly. 2. The society is quantized into various objects in different ways in the descriptions of professions of different types. 3. There are specific differences in the picture of the subject relatedness of the gnosis of different types of professionals. 4. Different professionals live in different subjective worlds(highlighted by me - V.S.).

E.A. Klimov proposed the following structure of the image of the world of a professional (Table 1):

Table 1: The structure of the image of the world of a professional

The seventh plane is the most dynamic under normal conditions, the first the least. The image of the world of a professional consists of well-defined systemic integrity, the disintegration of which leads to the loss of the professional usefulness of ideas.

Of course, all Soviet authors proceed from the fundamental provisions of Marxism, such as the recognition of the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of spirit, consciousness, and the psyche; from the position that sensations and perceptions are a reflection of objective reality and a function of the brain. But we are talking about something else: about the embodiment of these provisions in their concrete content, in the practice of research psychological work; about their creative development in the very, figuratively speaking, flesh of perception studies. And this requires a radical transformation of the very formulation of the problem of wear psychology and the rejection of a number of imaginary postulates that persist by inertia. The possibility of such a transformation of the problem of perception in psychology will be discussed.

The general proposition which I will try to defend today is that the problem of perception must be posed and developed as a problem of the psychology of the image of the world.(I note By the way, that the theory of reflection in German is Bildtheori, that is, the image.)

This means that every thing is initially posited objectively - in the objective connections of the objective world; that it - secondarily posits itself also in subjectivity, human sensibility, and in human consciousness (in its ideal forms). It is necessary to proceed from this in the psychological study of the image, the process of generation and functioning.

Animals, humans live in the objective world, which from the very beginning acts as a four-dimensional: three-dimensional space and time (movement), which is "objectively real forms of being"

This proposition should by no means remain for psychology only a general philosophical premise, allegedly not directly affecting the concrete psychological study of perception, the understanding of mechanisms. On the contrary, it forces us to see many things differently, not as it has developed within the framework of Western psychology. This also applies to understanding the development of the sense organs in the course of biological evolution.

Life of animals With from the very beginning takes place in the four-dimensional objective world, the adaptation of animals occurs as an adaptation to the connections that fill the world of things, their changes in time, their movement, which, accordingly, the evolution of the sense organs reflects the development of adaptation to the four-dimensionality of the world as it is, and not in its individual elements.

Turning to man, to the consciousness of man, I must introduce one more concept - the concept of the fifth quasi-dimension, in which the objective world opens up to man. This - semantic field, system of meanings.

The introduction of this concept requires a more detailed explanation.

The fact is that when I perceive an object, I perceive it not only in its spatial dimensions and in time, but also in its meaning. When, for example, I cast a glance at a wrist watch, then, strictly speaking, I have no image of the individual attributes of this object, their sum, their "associative set." This, by the way, is the basis of the criticism of associative theories of perception. It is also not enough to say that I have, first of all, a picture of their form, as Gestalt psychologists insist on this. I perceive not the form, but an object that is a clock.

Of course, in the presence of an appropriate perceptual task, I can isolate and realize their form, their individual features - elements, their connections. Otherwise, although all this is included in invoice image, in his sensual fabric, but this texture can be curtailed, obscured, replaced without destroying or distorting the objectivity of the image.

The thesis I have stated is proved by many facts, both obtained in experiments and known from everyday life. It is not necessary for perceptual psychologists to enumerate these facts. I will only note that they appear especially brightly in images-representations.

The traditional interpretation here is to attribute to the perception itself such properties as meaningfulness or categoriality. As for the explanation of these properties of perception, they, as R. Gregory (1) correctly says about this, at best remain within the boundaries of the theory of G. Helmholtz. I note at once that the deeply hidden danger here lies in the logical necessity to appeal in the final analysis to innate categories.

The general idea I am defending can be expressed in two propositions. The first is that the properties of meaningfulness, categorization are the characteristics of the conscious image of the world, not immanent in the image itself, his consciousness. They, these characteristics, express the objectivity revealed by the total social practice, idealized in a system of meanings that each individual finds as "out-of-his-existence"- perceived, assimilated - and therefore the same as what is included in his image of the world.

Let me put it another way: meanings appear not as something that lies in front of things, but as something that lies behind the shape of things- in the cognized objective connections of the objective world, in various systems in which they only exist, only reveal their properties. Values ​​thus carry a special dimension. This is the dimension intrasystem connections of the objective objective world. She is the fifth quasi-dimension of it!

Let's summarize.

The thesis I defend is that in psychology the problem of perception should be posed as the problem of building in the mind of an individual a multidimensional image of the world, an image of reality. That, in other words, the psychology of the image (perception) is concrete scientific knowledge about how, in the process of their activity, individuals build an image of the world - the world in which they live, act, which they themselves remake and partially create; it is knowledge also about how the image of the world functions, mediating their activity in objectively real the world.

Here I must interrupt myself with some illustrative digressions. I am reminded of a dispute between one of our philosophers and J. Piaget when he visited us.

You get, - this philosopher said, referring to Piaget, - that the child, the subject in general, builds the world with the help of a system of operations. How can you stand on such a point of view? This is idealism.

I do not at all adhere to this point of view, - replied J. Piaget, - in this problem my views coincide with Marxism, and it is absolutely wrong to consider me an idealist!

But how then do you assert that for the child the world is the way his logic constructs it?

Piaget did not give a clear answer to this question.

There is an answer, however, and a very simple one. We are really building, but not the World, but the Image, actively “scooping out” it, as I usually say, from objective reality. The process of perception is the process, the means of this “scooping out”, and the main thing is not how, with the help of what means this process proceeds, but what is obtained as a result of this process. I answer: the image of the objective world, objective reality. The image is more adequate or less adequate, more complete or less complete ... sometimes even false ...

Let me make one more digression of a completely different kind.

The fact is that the understanding of perception as a process by which an image of a multidimensional world is built, by each of its links, acts, moments, each sensory mechanism, comes into conflict with the inevitable analyticism of scientific psychological and psychophysiological research, with the inevitable abstractions of a laboratory experiment.

We single out and investigate the perception of distance, the distinction of forms, the constancy of color, apparent movement, etc., etc. With careful experiments and the most precise measurements, we seem to drill deep, but narrow wells that penetrate into the depths of perception. True, we do not often succeed in laying “communication channels” between them, but we continue and continue this drilling of wells and scoop out of them a huge amount of information - useful, as well as of little use and even completely useless. As a result, whole heaps of incomprehensible facts have now formed in psychology, which mask the true scientific relief of the problems of perception.

It goes without saying that by this I do not at all deny the necessity and even the inevitability of analytical study, the isolation of certain particular processes and even individual perceptual phenomena for the purpose of studying them in vitro. You just can't do without it! My idea is completely different, namely, that by isolating the process under study in the experiment, we are dealing with some abstraction, therefore, the problem of returning to the integral subject of study in its real nature, origin and specific functioning immediately arises.

In relation to the study of perception, this is a return to the construction of an image in the mind of an individual. external multidimensional world, peace as he is, in which we live, in which we act, but in which our abstractions in themselves do not “dwell”, just as, for example, the “phi-movement” so thoroughly studied and carefully measured does not dwell in it (2).

Here again I have to make a digression.

For many decades, research in the psychology of perception has dealt primarily with the perception of two-dimensional objects - lines, geometric shapes, in general, images on the plane. On this basis, the main direction in the psychology of the image arose - Gestalt psychology.

At first it was singled out as a special "quality of form"; then in the integrity of the form they saw the key to solving the problem of the image. The law of "good form", the law of pregnancy, the law of figure and background were formulated.

This psychological theory, generated by the study of flat images, turned out to be "flat" itself. In essence, it closed the possibility of the "real world - psychic gestalt" movement, as well as the "psychic gestalt - brain" movement. Meaningful processes turned out to be substituted by the relations of projectivity and isomorphism. V. Koehler publishes the book “Physical Gestalts” (it seems that K. Goldstein wrote about them for the first time), and K. Koffka already directly states that the solution to the controversy of spirit and matter, psyche and brain is that the third is primary and this is the third there is a qestalt - form. Far from the best solution is offered in the Leipzig version of Gestalt psychology: form is a subjective a priori category.

And how is the perception of three-dimensional things interpreted in Gestalt psychology? The answer is simple: it lies in the transfer to the perception of three-dimensional things of the laws of perception of projections on the plane. Things of the three-dimensional world, thus, act as closed planes. The main law of the field of perception is the law of "figure and background". But this is not a law of perception at all, but a phenomenon of perception of a two-dimensional figure on a two-dimensional background. It refers not to the perception of things in the three-dimensional world, but to some of their abstraction, which is their contour*. In the real world, however, the definiteness of an integral thing emerges through its connections with other things, and not through its “contouring”**.

In other words, with its abstractions, Gestalt theory replaced the concept of objective peace notion fields.

It took years in psychology to experimentally separate and oppose them. It seems that at first this was done best by J. Gibson, who found a way to see the surrounding objects, the environment as consisting of planes, but then this environment became illusory, lost its reality for the observer. It was possible to subjectively create precisely the "field", it turned out, however, to be inhabited by ghosts. Thus, a very important distinction arose in the psychology of perception: the “visible field” and the “visible world”.

In recent years, in particular in studies conducted at the Department of General Psychology, this distinction has received fundamental theoretical coverage, and the discrepancy between the projection picture and the objective image has received a fairly convincing experimental justification (3).

I settled on the Gestalt theory of perception, because it especially clearly affects the results of reducing the image of the objective world to individual phenomena, relationships, characteristics, abstracted from the real process of its generation in the human mind, the process taken in its entirety. Therefore, it is necessary to return to this process, the necessity of which lies in the life of a person, in the development of his activity in an objectively multidimensional world. The starting point for this should be the world itself, and not the subjective phenomena it causes.

Here I come to the most difficult, one might say, the critical point of the train of thought I am trying out.

I want to state this point right away in the form of a categorical thesis, deliberately omitting all the necessary reservations.

This thesis is that the world in its remoteness from the subject is amodal. We are talking, of course, about the meaning of the term "modality", which it has in psychophysics, psychophysiology and psychology, when, for example, we are talking about the form of an object given in a visual or tactile modality, or in modalities together.

Putting forward this thesis, I proceed from a very simple and, in my opinion, completely justified distinction between properties of two kinds.

One is such properties of inanimate things that are found in interactions with things (with "other" things), i.e., in the interaction "object - object". Some properties are revealed in interaction with things of a special kind - with living sentient organisms, that is, in the interaction "object - subject". They are found in specific effects, depending on the properties of the recipient organs of the subject. In this sense, they are modal, that is, subjective.

The smoothness of the surface of an object in the "object-object" interaction reveals itself, say, in physical phenomenon reduce friction. When palpated by hand - in the modal phenomenon of a tactile sensation of smoothness. The same property of the surface appears in the visual modality.

So, the fact is that the same property - in this case, the physical property of the body - causes, acting on a person, impressions that are completely different in modality. After all, “shine” is not like “smoothness”, and “dullness” is not like “roughness”.

Therefore, sensory modalities cannot be given a "permanent registration" in the external objective world. I emphasize external, because man, with all his sensations, himself also belongs to the objective world, there is also a thing among things.

In his experiments, subjects were shown a square of hard plastic through a reducing lens. “The subject took the square with his fingers from below, through a piece of matter, so that he could not see his hand, otherwise he could understand that he was looking through a reducing lens. We asked him to give his impression of the size of the square... We asked some of the subjects to draw a square of the appropriate size as accurately as possible, which requires the participation of both sight and touch. Others had to choose a square of equal size from a series of squares presented only visually, and still others from a series of squares, the size of which could only be determined by touch ...

The subjects had a definite holistic impression of the size of the square. The perceived size of the square was approximately the same as in the control experiment with only visual perception" (4).

Thus, the objective world, taken as a system of only "object-object" connections (ie, the world without animals, before animals and humans), is amodal. Only with the emergence of subject-object relationships, interactions, various modalities arise, which also change from species to species (meaning a zoological species).

That is why, as soon as we digress from subject-object interactions, sensory modalities fall out of our descriptions of reality.

From the duality of bonds, interactions "O-O" and "O-S", subject to their coexistence, the well-known duality of characteristics occurs: for example, such and such a section of the spectrum of electromagnetic waves and, say, red light. At the same time, one should not only lose sight of the fact that both characteristics express "a physical relationship between physical things" "

Here I must repeat my main idea: in psychology, it should be solved as a problem of the phylogenetic development of the image of the world, because:

A) an “orienting basis” of behavior is needed, and this is an image;

B) this or that way of life creates the need for an appropriate orienting, controlling, mediating image of it in the objective world.

Briefly speaking. We must proceed not from comparative anatomy and physiology, but from ecology in its relation to the morphology of the sense organs, etc., Engels writes: "What is light and what is non-light depends on whether the animal is nocturnal or diurnal."

The question of "combinations" is of particular interest.

1. Combination (of modalities) becomes, but in relation to feelings, an image; she is his condition. (Just as an object is a "knot of properties", so an image is a "knot of modal sensations".)

2. Compatibility expresses spatiality things as a form of their existence).

3. But it also expresses their existence in time, so the image is fundamentally a product not only of the simultaneous, but also successive combinations, mergers**. The most characteristic phenomenon of combining viewpoints is children's drawings!

General conclusion: any actual influence fits into the image of the world, i.e. into some “whole” 14 .

When I say that every actual, i.e., now acting on perceptive systems, property "fits" into the image of the world, then this is not an empty, but a very meaningful position; it means that:

(1) the boundary of the object is established on the object, i.e., its separation takes place not at the sensory site, but at the intersections of the visual axes. Therefore, when using the probe, the sensor shifts. This means that there is no objectification of sensations, perceptions! Behind the criticism of "objectification", that is, the attribution of secondary features to the real world, lies the criticism of subjective-idealistic concepts. In other words, I stand by the fact that it is not perception that posits itself in the object, but the object- through activities- puts himself in the image. Perception is his “subjective positing”.(Position for the subject!);

(2) inscription in the image of the world also expresses the fact that the object does not consist of “sides”; he acts for us as single continuous; discontinuity is only its moment. There is a phenomenon of the "core" of the object. This phenomenon expresses objectivity perception. The processes of perception are subject to this nucleus. Psychological proof: a) in the brilliant observation of G. Helmholtz: “not everything that is given in sensation is included in the “image of representation” (equivalent to the fall of subjective idealism in the style of Johannes Müller); b) in the phenomenon of additions to the pseudoscopic image (I see edges coming from a plane suspended in space) and in experiments with inversion, with adaptation to an optically distorted world.

So far, I have dealt with the characteristics of the image of the world that are common to animals and humans. But the process of generating a picture of the world, like the picture of the world itself, its characteristics change qualitatively when we move on to a person.

In man the world acquires the fifth quasi-dimension in the image. It is by no means subjectively ascribed to the world! This is the transition through sensibility beyond the boundaries of sensibility, through sensory modalities to the amodal world. The objective world appears in meaning, i.e. the picture of the world is filled with meanings.

The deepening of knowledge requires the removal of modalities and consists in such a removal, therefore science does not speak the language of modalities, this language is expelled in it.

The picture of the world includes invisible properties of objects: a) amodal- discovered by industry, experiment, thinking; b) "supersensible"- functional properties, qualities, such as "cost", which are not contained in the substrate of the object. They are represented in the values!

Here it is especially important to emphasize that the nature of meaning is not only not in the body of the sign, but also not in formal sign operations, not in the operations of meaning. She - in the totality of human practice, which in its idealized forms enters the picture of the world.

Otherwise, it can be said like this: knowledge, thinking are not separated from the process of forming a sensual image of the world, but enter into it, adding to sensibility. [Knowledge enters, science does not!]

Some general conclusions

1. The formation of the image of the world in a person is his transition beyond the "directly sensual picture." An image is not a picture!

2. Sensuality, sensual modalities are becoming more and more "indifferent". The image of the world of the deaf-blind is not different from the image of the world of the sighted-hearing, but is created from a different building material, from the material of other modalities, woven from a different sensory fabric. Therefore, it retains its simultaneity, and this is a problem for research!

3. The "depersonalization" of modality is not at all the same as the impersonality of the sign in relation to the meaning.

Sensory modalities in no way encode reality. They carry it with them. That is why the disintegration of sensibility (its perversion) gives rise to the psychological unreality of the world, the phenomenon of its "disappearance". This is known and proven.

4. Sensual modalities form the obligatory texture of the image of the world. But the texture of the image is not equivalent to the image itself. So in painting, an object shines through behind smears of oil. When I look at the depicted object, I do not see strokes. The texture, the material is removed by the image, and not destroyed in it.

The image, the picture of the world, does not include the image, but the depicted (image, reflection is revealed only by reflection, and this is important!).

So, the inclusion of living organisms, the system of processes of their organs, their brain in the objective, subject-discrete world leads to the fact that the system of these processes is endowed with a content different from their own content, a content that belongs to the objective world itself.

The problem of such "endowment" gives rise to the subject of psychological science!

1. Gregory R. Reasonable eye. M., 1972.

2. Gregory R. Eye and brain. M., 1970, p. 124-125.

* Or, if you like, a plane.

**T. e. operations of selection and vision of the form.

3. Logvinenko A. D., Stolin V. V. Study of perception under conditions of inversion of the field of vision. - Ergonomics: Proceedings of VNIITE, 1973, no. 6.

4. Rock I., Harris Ch. Vision and touch. - In the book: Perception. Mechanisms and models. M., 1974. pp. 276-279.