p Investigation into the structure of subjective reality is a very topical and simultaneously exceedingly complex problem which, regrettably, has not yet been subjected to a systematic analysis in our philosophical literature.^^1^^ It is partly accounted for by the widespread belief that this problem is psychological rather than philosophical. True, the psychologists are directly concerned with it—they carry out various empirical investigations and try to provide corresponding theoretical explanations. Yet the development of a general theoretical approach to individual consciousness and, first and foremost, to the axiological-semantic structure of subjective reality has always been regarded as a prerogative of philosophy which indeed showed a considerable interest in this subject. However, it happened so that the research was mainly carried out by representatives of idealistic trends, particularly the phenomenological and existentialist schools which were very active in the past few decades. Their views must be subjected to a serious critical analysis.^^2^^

p We shall now try to outline a number of general and, in our opinion, essential features of the structure of subjective reality without pretending in any way to completeness or conceptual perfection of our survey.

p As has been pointed out above, the term "subjective reality" can mean not only the integral whole, but also any of its individual components. In the latter case we usually speak of a phenomenon of subjective reality. The wholeness of subjective reality reveals itself primarily in its personal character by which is understood ithe integration of the internal diversity of 57 subjective reality by a given unique Ego. Any individual phenomenon of subjective reality, be it thought, perception or even sensation is always mediated to a certain extent by a concrete Ego and bears, as it were, its hallmark.

p Subjective reality is a historically concrete wholeness in a definite point of its socio-biographical trajectory. It is a constantly changing continuum in the sense that its “content” and vectors of activity, i.e. current images, thoughts, motives, volitional intentions, etc. are always in a state of flux. The central integrating and activating force of this perpetual motion is our Ego.  [57•*  All multitudinous phenomena of subjective reality occurring both simultaneously and consecutively are encompassed, organised and controlled, in one way or another, by our Ego which, in turn, is always permeated through, so to speak, with their content. It is only in a pathological state, in extreme conditions or under an external influence on brain structures that the so-called psychic automatisms may develop—an emotional experience of the estrangement of our Ego from certain components of subjective reality, their independence of the Ego and obtrusion upon it as something alien.  [57•** 

p In the continuum of subjective reality the Ego is just one of the multitude of other phenomena, yet it is the beginning and the end of this reality in the sense that it participates in and partakes of each of the phenomena thereby representing their interrelation and, consequently, the uniqueness of a given subjective reality as a whole.

p Every interval of subjective reality includes a definite "content field" and the Self. The "content field" representing the phenomena of reality (within the given interval) is apparently external to the Self and opposed to it, yet at the same time the Self, 58 as it were, “shares” in this "content field" which represents its sphere of activity. Depending on the concrete “content” of this field the creative possibilities of the Self may be great or very limited, but they are always realised in it to one or another extent attesting to the intentional and active nature of a conscious act.

p Let us take a simple example. Suppose, the "content field" of a given interval is dominated by the perception of a starry sky or an acute toothache. In both cases the “content” is given by real objective factors and in this sense is independent of the Self. Yet a subjective image of the starry sky or a toothache always belongs to a concrete individual. It is I who see the starry sky or suffer from a toothache, wherefore my Ego of necessity participates in the given “content”, imparts to it my qualities in this or that way, and manipulates it. Indeed, the vision of the starry sky an individual is having at the moment is largely determined by his general knowledge, interests, emotional state, etc. The same is true of the specificity of the experience of a toothache, though the manipulative capacity of the Self is normally limited here to a maximum degree. Nevertheless, people react to pain differently and try to overcome it in different ways. Some can force it to the periphery of the " content field" replacing its nucleus by a different “content”. There are also individuals who are capable of suppressing pain and in such cases the manipulative possibilities of the Self are very high.

p Hence, the "content field" is indicative of the personal traits of a given Self, its activity. Attempts to investigate the introsubjective aspect of the relationship between the Self and the present "content field" reveal their dialectically contradictory nature, the unity of their externalisation and interdependence. The antinomic character of this dynamic structure manifests itself with special clarity in this paradox: the specificity of the Ego, or at least some of its aspects or characteristic features, may represent (and usually does) the "content field" (when the Ego reflects, appraises and regulates itself) and, for this very reason, the "content field" may constitute the “Ego”.

p Here we have a subtle dialectic of introsubjective relations which is not easy to describe in clear analytical terms due to the sad lack of penetration into the problem and the resulting 59 inadequacy of scientific terminology (this latter circumstance accounts for frequent resorts to metaphoric expressions in attempts to analyse individual aspects of the structure and dynamics of subjective reality).

p We have already pointed out that subjective reality as an integrated whole can only exist in a unique individual form. This is not to say, of course, that it is invariant in many respects. It would be a mistake to think that the individual and unique lies beyond the grasp of science. Science is capable of describing, explaining and predicting individual and unique phenomena by the multitude of their invariants, as there is nothing absolutely individual and absolutely unique in the world. Science in its advance focuses on ever more specific invariants representing characteristic features of the individual. Manipulating them on the empirical and theoretical levels, a researcher can get a better insight into the specificity and genesis of a given individual phenomenon as a representative of a certain (no less unique) class of objects. The view of the individual as lying beyond the scope of scientific cognition is essentially non- dialectic and tends to mystify individuality.

p In principle, the exploration of subjective reality presupposes the solution of the same methodological problem that confronts a researcher studying, say, the growth of a birch or the behaviour of octopuses. The researcher must single out certain invariants (since birches and octopuses can only exist as inimitable unique organisms; but, for the matter of that, it is true at least of all representatives of animate nature and, perhaps, of all discrete phenomena in general). Using the invariants already available and creating new ones, scientific thought moves from the abstract to the concrete. All depends on the validity of such invariants and on the results achieved by using them. We shall now try to define some very general characteristics and structural invariants of subjective reality with a very modest aim in view: to demonstrate the possibility of initial, sketchy and tentative division and structuralisation of this complex object.

p Generally speaking, the structure of subjective reality has the following features. First, it is dynamic, i.e. its components and their relations are in a state of constant change; the orderliness inherent in it and the resulting stability are only realised through continuous local and global alterations. Second, it is 60 multidimensional, i.e. not linear in its orderliness, representing a unity of many dynamic “dimensions” or qualities not reducible to one another and having their own organisational principle. For instance, the axiological dimension of the structure of subjec* tive reality, inseparable as it is from the active-volitional “dimension”, cannot be reduced to it, and vice versa, since each of them is a specific register of a single organisation of subjective reality. Third, it is bipolar, i.e. its main links, introsubjective relations determining the wholeness of subjective reality are a unity of opposites. Fourth, it can be regarded as a selforganising structure, since its wholeness is maintained by internal factors keeping local changes under control and not allowing them to destroy the wholeness.

p The above indicated general features are dialectically interrelated and may serve as each other’s determinants, which means that the dynamism of the system is multidimensional, bipolar and represents the process of self-organisation, that the bipolarity is dynamic, multidimensional and provides for the self- organisation of the system, that the multidimensional nature of the system presupposes its dynamism and bipolarity, etc. Thus not only does each feature specify every other one, but the structure of subjective reality as a whole becomes more concrete and meaningful.

p The next step of the analysis is aimed at revealing and describing the initial, basic structure of subjective reality. It is, in our opinion, a unity of opposite modalities—Self and Other. This unity and interdependence represent the basic introsubjective relationship which manifests itself in every interval of subjective reality and shapes the framework of its dynamic semantic content. We have already shown it above while discussing the correlation between the Self and the content field in every concrete interval of a conscious experience.

p Opposing one another, the Self and Other (not-Self) modalities are at the same time necessarily interconnected and make a single dynamic bipolar system of the “content” of subjective reality. The movement of this “content” represents simultaneously the process of reflection of the object, the axiological attitude to it and the control of the movement itself.

p In every interval the Self and Other modalities retain their determinateness and their specific “content”. A given interval may 61 be dominated by the “content” belonging either to the Self (when the mind of an individual focuses on his personal traits, i.e. when he thinks about them), or to Other (when his attention is drawn to some external object or when he is engrossed in some activity).

p A content can change its modality in another dimension, since the content belonging to the Self, i.e. reflecting the personal traits of a cognising individual, an agent or a patient (the subject’s image of the Self), becomes for him the object of cognition and assessment and, consequently, poses as Other, not-Self; to be sure, in this case the modality of the Self does not disappear and it would not be correct to say that the given interval only contains the not-Self modality; bipolarity still obtains, yet the Self changes its content. Conversely, the content belonging to Other (i.e. reflecting the personal traits of other individuals, external objects, processes) may turn into the Self modality, pass from Other to the Self, be assimilated by the given Self in the acts of empathy, ascription of human characteristics to natural phenomena, in games, in the internalisation of another individual’s experience, in taking on a new social role, etc.

p This fluidity is a manifestation of the multidimensional dynamism of the modalities of the Self and Other each of which is capable of passing into its opposite in a different dimension or interval by changing the modality sign of the “content” being experienced. Such mutual transformations create extremely broad possibilities for the conscious reflection and projection of both objective and subjective reality, for the assimilation of social experience and for creative activity.

p It is highly significant that continual mutual transitions of the Self and Other modalities do not disturb the bipolar structure of subjective reality and the unity of these opposites in any of its actual intervals. Each modality can only be determined through the contrast with its counterpart and within the framework of their correlation. If a given content passes into the other modality (e.g. from the Self to Other), it is replaced by another content retaining the former modality, since its opposite cannot exist without it. For this reason the Self is always what contrasts and correlates with Other and, conversely, Other is what contrasts and correlates with the Self.

p This interdependence (and, consequently, unavoidableness of 62 the Self) has always been adduced as an argument in support of subjective idealistic conclusions and agnostic speculations. They were usually based on the identification of Other as a phenomenon of subjective reality with reality in general and, consequently, the very first epistemological postulate eliminated objective reality. This postulate, which confines philosophical thought to sterile abstractions mirroring nothing but the structure of subjective reality, deprives it of any capacity for selfreflection. Indeed, these very abstractions in that case cannot be reflexive and are absolutely immune from any critical analysis: their content is posited as the primary, sole and unquestionable reality.

p That lands us in naive ontologism turned inside out—- subjective reality is taken as the object of our knowledge, but the problem of its authenticity is completely ignored, the need for epistemological reflection is obviated and special analysis of those cognitive means which are used to single out and describe a given object becomes unnecessary. Yet without such an analysis we cannot have reliable knowledge either of objective or of subjective reality.

p Consistent subjective idealism inevitably arrives at solipsism. This philosophical conception leading to absurdities can only be logically constructed on the basis of radical ontologism in which the Self (like its derivative Other) is posited as Being, known but not cognisable. Such a logical incongruity inherent in radical (or childishly naive) ontologism reveals itself in the premises of any subjective idealist conception.

p The Self and Other modalities cannot overstep the bounds of subjective reality, yet they mirror both the outer world with man as objective reality and the man’s inner world as subjective reality. The aforementioned ability of a given content for passing from one modality into the other represents nothing else than a socially developed dialectical mechanism of ever more profound and active reflection of the outer world—a process which includes a tentative, preliminary, “blueprint” transformation of objective reality on the ideal plane in the human mind, i.e. in the sphere of subjective reality.

p Debates centring around the notions of the Self and Other not infrequently arise due to erroneous identification of the former with subjective reality, and the latter, with the 63 appearance of objective reality. In fact, the Self modality may reflect not only phenomena of subjective reality, but also real social ties, actions and relations of an individual. In turn, the Other modality may reflect and “represent” phenomena of both objective and subjective realities (provided they are the object or cognition, evaluation and control in a given interval).

p The structure of subjective reality reveals its specificity with more clarity when the main aspects of the Self-Other antithesis come into light and the relations between them acquire a definite content. At this stage we may try to discern these aspects taking the Self modality as the frame of reference.

p The Self-Other antithesis emerges as the relation of the Self to: (1) external objects, factors, processes; (2) its own body; (3) itself; (4) another Self; (5) “Us”, i.e. the social group, community with which the individual identifies himself; (6) “Them”, i.e. the social group, community from which the individual excludes himself and regards it as the opposite; (7) the “Absolute” which is understood and experienced differently by different individuals and depends on the peculiarities of their world outlook, frame of mind and disposition. It may take the shape of the world as a whole, the Eternal and Infinite, Nature, God, etc. not infrequently lacking a clear conceptual form and revealing itself as a feeling of unity with the boundless universe (the notions may often be fragmentary and contradictory, yet they form a specific and always meaningful “dimension” of subjective reality).

p To be sure, the above list of correlates is by no means complete, yet in our view it covers on a first approximation the bulk of the “content” shaped by the Other modality and, for that reason, comprises the principal dimensions of the Self modality. Expressed another way, it represents the basic axiological-semantic nodal points of subjective reality, the main types of value and sense parameters inherent in man’s spiritual world. It helps reveal the multidimensional character of each of the modalities and of the fundamental structure of subjective reality represented by their mutual positedness and dialectical unity.

p A more detailed description of this multidimensional structure would require an extremely complex multistage analysis. Indeed, in order to give a more or less adequate idea of one of the 64 indicated relationships of the Self, it is necessary not only to consider this relationship by itself, but also to characterise it from the angles of all the others. For instance, we shall not be able to understand the attitude of the Self to itself, its own Ego (so familiar to each of us and so vitally important!), if we leave out of account the attitude of the Self to the objective world, to its own body, to another Self, to “Us” and to “Them”. It is precisely these relationships that constitute the main axiological-semantic nodes of the content of our Self outside which it remains but a meagre abstraction.

Each relationship taken in the context of the others reflects the whole structure of subjective reality. To illustrate this proposition, we shall try to consider briefly the attitude of the Self to its own Ego. First, however, it is necessary to discuss at least two more bipolarities in the structure of subjective reality which are as crucial for its understanding as the unity of the Self and Other modalities.