Ideas and Ideals

The epoch-making discovery of the phenomenon of non-linear organization of the ancient Chinese text by the remarkable Leningrad sinologist-philosopher V.S. Spirin (1929–2002) radically expanded the horizons of our perception of the written heritage of Ancient China, outlining the way to overcome the prejudice about linear reading of the ancient Chinese classics as supposedly the only acceptable. At the same time, Spirin’s discovery of the multidimensionality of the ancient Chinese text seriously challenges the concept of the subject in the context of ancient Chinese discourse. After all, a break with the linear ordering of the text is tantamount to destroying the unity of the speech intention and the subjectivity of the speaker corresponding to it, constituted by his speaking. Accordingly, the figure of a storyteller telling a story should either disappear, leaving behind a void of subjectlessness, or give way to a completely different subjectivity. The proposed article raises the question of the nature and character of this subjectivity, which is fundamentally different from the narrator’s figure. It is shown that the synchronous integrity of the multidimensional image (Xiang 象), which distinguishes the Chinese hieroglyphic writing, has its own temporality, which allows it to be an alternative to the diachronic unity of the narrative. It is argued that the temporality of the image-xiang extends to gestaltic multidimensionality of hexagram graphics, endowing the latter with the corresponding multidimensional temporal structure. It is the hexagram time (guashi卦時) that assumes the functions of a narrative for the temporal unification of the past and the future, thereby providing the necessary prerequisites for the emergence of a special kind of subjectivity. The guashi-hexagram time is determined by the graphic structure of the hexagram. This is the most general characteristic of the meaning of a particular hexagram as an era, providing space for the game between the era and the individual. As a result, we have a two-person game, constituting a game subjectivity, consisting of the game interaction of an individual and a hexagram time. It is argued that it is precisely the subordination of the line of discourse to the course of the game that sometimes makes it loop, and then the text lining up along this line requires its reader to read it backward, so to speak.

This article presents a philosophical and methodological remark on the paper of A. Krushinskiy “Subject, Space, Time: How to Read Ancient Chinese Text” at the Round Table on the project “Geography of Rationality” (Moscow, RAS Institute of Philosophy, March 31, 2020), which gives an alternative explanation for the appearance of translations and studies of unsatisfactory quality in modern Russian sinology.

A. Krushinskiy attributes this to the fact that authors of these unsatisfactory works do not take into account the specifics of reading ancient Chinese texts, namely, ignoring the methodological theory of V. Spirin according to which ancient Chinese texts reveal additional semantic content, if read nonlinearly. The present article points that this is not due to ignoring the particular methodological achievements of V. Spirin, but because of the general methodological attitudes of authors writing about ancient Chinese philosophy.

The article distinguishes three types of general methodological attitudes: “sophistic” (when material from the history of philosophy is used for the author’s self-realization), “philosophical” (when material from the history of philosophy is used to solve a particular philosophical problem) and “historical” (when the description of material from the history of philosophy is the end in itself). It also shows methodological differences between these types that affect the style and methodology of scholars. The article pays special attention to the description of the general regulatory principles of the historian of philosophy, i.e. 1) accuracy in ‘modernization’, ‘actualization’ and ‘comparative method’; 2) moderation in ‘universalizations’ and ‘author’s interpretations’; 3) distinction between ‘subjects’ of historical philosophical material (author/s, text, tradition); 4) special attention to contradictions and uncertainties in it; and 4)  understanding that for a historian of philosophy ‘true” is ‘admissible’.

It is concluded that problems with translations and studies of unsatisfactory quality arise mainly when authors consciously or unconsciously confuse these three general methodological attitudes in their texts and thereby mislead readers.

The article develops a methodological conception. It is based on the principles of the philosophy of complexity. The author believes that the discussion of the problems of rationality in the space of cultural diversity will be futile if we do not take into account the cognitive and socio-cultural aspects of meaning generation. The author draws attention to the communicative nature of meaning formation, which is increasing in the context of globalization. Such forms of organization of collective thinking as an interdisciplinary and transdiciplinary dialogue spread to the philosophical community. A distinctive feature of historical and philosophical research remains a special attention to textual artifacts, but modern methodologies must also contribute to the understanding of ancient knowledge and mentality.

The author offers a methodological model of meaning generation. The coordinate grid of axes is its basis. As bearing axes, the author introduces: conscious-unconscious, explicit-implicit (hidden), external-internal, linear-nonlinear, order-chaos, simple-complex, reflexive-pre-reflexive, discrete-continuum. The Genesis of ethno-cultural mentalities took place in unique natural, cultural, historical and linguistic conditions. As a result, cultures can differ in the types of perception of space-time relations. This is reflected in the variety of space-time models. The problem of pairing the personal, environmental and social worlds of time by A.A. Krushinskiy. He presented the hexagram model of time as a game of player-personality and player-society.

In the complex process of meaning formation, the author identifies the conscious layer of language and speech, the semi-conscious layer of images, the unconscious layer of states and pre-reflexive understanding. In the course of global cognitive evolution, there were revolutionary turns towards the development of conscious speech from the depths of the unconscious. At the same time, different cultures had their own trajectories of rationality development, developing specific languages and mental models. Ideographic language such as Chinese stimulated the development of spatial-imaginative thinking based on visual algorithms. In alphabetic languages of Indo-European type, the linearity of speech is only the external plan of expression, while the nonlinear spatiality (geometric style) of meaning formation works in internal dimensions.

Discussing the noumenal sources of meaning formation, the author addresses the understanding of the nature of thought in spiritual philosophies and modern cognitive research. Scientific research of deep, pre-reflexive layers of understanding in the general structure and dynamics of meaning formation can bring a new dimension to the discussion on the «geography of rationality». In the global world, when unique cultures interact, new harmonics of the general planetary consciousness are formed.

Is there a universal human mind? The Western European philosophizing paradigm with well-developed methodological tools provides an affirmative answer to this question. It is generally accepted that rationality is the same, and scientific and technological progress that transformed the planet is the fruit of Western European culture. It would be very strange to talk about the “atlas of rationality,” or “the geography of rationality”, about European, Arab, Chinese, or African rationality within the framework of the Western European conceptual philosophizing system. However, with the entry into the socio-political and economic arena of non-Western civilizations, and, accordingly, worldviews and traditions of philosophizing, the question arose of alternative understandings of rationality. The eternal philosophical problem of the universal and the concrete-unique has received a new sound in the context of globalization and the growing complex interaction of cultures. A new planetary world order is being created along with a rethinking of the fundamental problem of nature and the possibilities of the human mind.

Is there a universal human mind in general?

The demands of life and the future world order brought to life the project of the Round Table “Geography of Rationality”, which is annually held at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Project Manager – Director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician A.V. Smirnov. Moderators: Professor I.A. Gerasimova (Institute of Philosophy, RAS), Professor A.A. Krushinskiy (Institute of the Far East, RAS). You can get acquainted with the heated discussions through the videos of March 20, 2018, April 25 and June 13, 2019.

The meeting of East and West at the Round Table was an attempt to expand the dialogue to professional interdisciplinary cooperation. The discussion was attended, on the one hand, by experts with knowledge of oriental languages ​​and philosophical teachings: Indologists, Arabists, Sinologists, Japanese historians, researchers of the Persian language and culture of Iran. The ancient Russian rational culture, as well as the first geopolitical situation that arose when Europeans appeared in the New World, were not forgotten. The “Westerners” were represented by epistemologists, methodologists of science, logicians, cognitive scientists, and synergetics. With each regular meeting, new specialists join the dialogue.

If at the first meeting the question of the “geography of rationality” arose in general terms, then in the subsequent meetings more specific problems were discussed. Each culture is unique, the system of thinking is directly linked to the realities of the language. There was and remains the problem of the adequacy of translation from one language to another language, and, accordingly, the problem of the transfer of meaning and understanding. At the same time, the exchange of knowledge and practices between cultures has always existed. Historically, people have found opportunities to understand the Other and learn from valuable experience. European philosophy in all its many directions and doctrines has developed a filigree language for discussing the diversity of the problems of cognition of nature, society and man. But the meeting of East and West showed that not everything is embraced by a positively directed philosophical thought. There can be disparate pictures of the world, different linguistic pictures of the world, diametrically opposite value orientations.

How to learn to understand each other? In western and domestic universities, philosophy courses are taught in the Western European paradigm and within the framework of the Western European conceptual system. The attitude to conceptual Eurocentrism is twofold: on the one hand, we understand something in our native language, which is constantly evolving, incorporating the concepts of a different system, and on the other hand, the orientation exclusively on conceptual Eurocentrism often simplifies and distorts real situations. Apparently, mutual understanding of cultures can only be achieved through joint efforts.

Turning to a specifically different one not only leads to a deeper understanding of one's own culture, but also conceals new possibilities of creativity, expanding the horizons of thought. For example, the problem of the procedural ontology of the Arabic language has exacerbated the question of ontologies of Indo-European languages ​​and models of logic that are “supportive” for Western European rationality (Round table from June 13, 2019).

The fourth Round Table “Geography of Rationality” was held in the context of the coronovirus pandemic, but this did not become an obstacle for the project participants. The remote access discussion focused around A.A. Krushinskiy “Subject, space, time: how to read the ancient Chinese text” (Round table on March 31, 2020). If philosophical systems based on Indo-European languages ​​can be considered on the principle of family similarity, then the situation with the Chinese language and mentality is more complicated. Translations of classical ancient texts from Chinese into Russian vary to such an extent that one can doubt the professional qualifications of specialists. But what then should the philosophical community do? How to avoid profanity when introducing eastern philosophies into the general philosophical space? The controversy between the Sinologists touched upon problems that went beyond exclusively historical and philosophical research: the relationship between historical and philosophical studies and philosophical methodologies (S.Yu. Rykov); polysemy of languages, including the Chinese language (M.V. Rubets), the problem of protosubject in the Chinese text (N.V. Pushkarskaya), the question of multilevel meaning generation and specific trajectories of cognitive evolution in the "atlas of rationality" (I.A. Gerasimova), about the values ​​of old texts in the context of modern realities on the example of a pandemic (M.R. Burget Ayala). Through centuries, the dialogue on behalf of Kant, Hegel, and the Sufi sages was conducted in a dispute on the problem of time by two orientalists – R.V. Pskhu and A.V. Paribok whose preferences have diverged.

Philosophical discussions are traditionally famous for posing questions and unexpected coverage of problems. The participants in the discussions on the project “Geography of Rationality” hope for the fruitfulness of their undertakings. The concept of the journal “Ideas and Ideals” contains a call for the development of broad public philosophical discussions on pressing problems of modern life and the future world order. The participants in the discussions of the Round table “The Geography of Rationality” hope for mutual understanding and active participation of readers of the journal “Ideas and Ideals”. The unity of the cultural centers of Moscow and Novosibirsk can be regarded as a landmark event.