64

p The notions of the reflexive and the nonreflexive, the actual and the dispositional have already suggested themselves, if only implicitly, in the description of the dynamic relations of the Self and Other modalities and their reciprocal determinations. Yet these notions call for a special analysis which must give a more profound insight into the multidimensional nature of bipolar relations in the structure of subjective reality- The unity of the reflexive and the nonreflexive on the one hand, and the actual and the dispositional, on the other, represents special aspects, special “dimensions” of this structure which show up in the dynamic relations of the Self and Other modalities and at the same time are actualised through one another.

p The unity of reflexivity and nonreflexivity expresses the operational “dimension” of the dynamic structure of subjective reality. Reflexivity is a conscious reflection (and, consequently, more or less adequate knowledge and understanding) of the content of a given phenomenon of subjective reality—an image, an experience, an inner motive, a subjective symbol, etc. Reflexivity 65 is realised at the present moment even if it refers to a past content. By contrast, nonreflexivity bars, as it were, a given content from conscious reflection (understanding) in spite of the fact that this content is present in the current interval of subjective reality and performs the informative-axiological or motivational-controlling function, or helps exercise these functions. Nonreflexivity is also a characteristic of the present ( current) state, though it may refer to the content that is already in the past.

p Both reflexivity and nonreflexivity are equally immanent in the Self and Other modalities. Each of them is two-dimensional in this respect, and includes reflexive and nonreflexive content or, better put, the reflexive and nonreflexive layers of a given content. The Self in its actual content and actual activity (in what is being actualised at the present moment) is always reflexive but partially and harbours a good deal of nonreflexive, spontaneous elements. In the current interval, at present, the Self never “surveys” and never “knows” itself completely, and not only because of the multidimensional character of its content which is too big for the sphere now being reflected, but also on account of its historicity, orientation on the future, creative potentiality and the possibility of “unpredictable” formations; the Self is not only what it is now, but also what it can become, and its potentialities are not inborn, but also historical and fraught with new formations.

p Reflexivity is expressed in the act of self-reflection and in the oriented activity of the Self which constantly goes beyond the bounds of the nonreflexive.  [65•*  Each new step of reflection uncovers a new layer of the nonreflexive, moreover, reflexivity is capable of producing new varieties of the nonreflexive content (e.g. new ideas and values shaped at the subsconscious level 66 before one becomes aware of them). In turn, the present nonreflexivity sets new objectives for reflexivity and determines the forms of its development. This dialectical unity reveals and actualises itself in the integral dynamic Self-Other reciprocity constituting the source of new creative formations.

p Nonreflexive structures and levels of subjective reality coincide in some respects with what is commonly known as the unconscious in the broad sense. This category includes not only subconscious, but also supraconscious (using Yaroshevsky’s term) formations, namely, unreflectable logical and axiological structures which in effect determine the course of thinking processes and the evaluation criteria. Very important is the part played by nonreflexive structures in the sphere of motivation and psychic control in general. Hence, a closer look at certain mental phenomena rated as unconscious might give us a better understanding of such a dimension of the structure of subjective reality as the unity of the nonreflexive and the reflexive, and thereby deepen our insight into the nature of the ideal. This is not to say, of course, that every unconscious phenomenon can be included in the category of the ideal: such an abstract statement would be incorrect, as it is based on a confusion of different categorial levels or, more specifically, on the implicit identification of the philosophical and psychological notions of consciousness. Besides, it may give one an impression that I propose a concept of a nonreflexive subjective reality existing alongside a reflexive one, and this at best would be an inaccuracy. Nonreflexivity is not a kind of subjective reality, but its specific “dimension”, its structural-operational register. Subjective reality as a whole, as well as each of its intervals is a dialectical unity of the reflexive and the nonreflexive in their multidimensional relations and mutual transformations.

p The structural determinateness of subjective reality derives from the unity of the actual and the dispositional—the two basic forms of its existence as a living and developing system. It is impossible to comprehend introsubjective relations outside these forms, therefore they should be clearly identified and considered separately; this will enable us to make yet another step towards a concrete conception of the structure of subjective reality.

p The actual is the current conscious experience, the "burning (or, one may add, only smouldering—D.D.) torch of spirit", if 67 we may borrow Spirkin’s words." Put another way, it is a definite content which is given me and of which I am aware at the present moment. It is essentially dynamic not only in the sense that it constantly changes as a whole and in its component parts, but also that it never stops passing into future always remaining "the present". Described in terms of actuality, subjective reality is what is given a man here and now, but remains in a state of perpetual motion, changing and at the same time maintaining its continuum (interrupted only in deep sleep or in a coma and terminated by death). Hence, actualised subjective reality is the immediate present, irrespective of its concrete content which may represent the present, the past and the future.

p Subjective reality is unthinkable in its specific quality outside and apart from the immediate present, yet it cannot be reduced to it, as it exists not only actually, but also dispositionally. This latter kind of existence represents all that remains outside the limits of the present, yet in one way or another contributes to the integrity, uniqueness, historical dynamism and other important aspects of the structure of subjective reality. It is always something much bigger than just the immediate present: an individual’s experience of injustice at a certain moment stems from deep-rooted convictions underlying his historically conditioned sense of right and wrong. The “content” of these convictions cannot be limited to their expression in the immediate present.

p Now, the dispositional is the former actual and its historical result, wherefore it determines the future actual. The content of the immediate present conditioned to a degree by the established dispositional formations is only partly new. The actual constantly passes into the dispositional and builds it up—and sometimes radically and abruptly restructures the whole edifice under a sudden impact of new ideas, mental illumination, or reassessment of values; the dispositional, in turn, constantly passes into the actual and shapes it. Such is, in general terms, the dialectical interrelation of these structural dimensions of subjective reality as a whole and of each of its specific intervals.

p It would not be correct to identify the actual with the reflexive and the dispositional with the nonreflexive. Every immediate present is necessarily reflexive, yet not the whole of it, 68 not all its components; there always remains a part of its content which is nonreflexive and can only manifest itself in the next moment, in another immediate present which, however, will again have its own nonreflexive layers and moments. For this reason the actual is always a unity of the reflexive and the nonreflexive. In like manner, the dispositional is always reflexive to a certain extent, since one cannot help knowing something now about one’s convictions, aims, one’s past which determines the present in terms of probability; yet at the present moment many areas and aspects of the dispositional are closed to one. It is not difficult to perceive that the processes of self- cognition, self-evaluation, self-transformation and self-perfection are linked predominantly with the problem of the dispositional. However, one can consciously reflect, comprehend and purposefully change one’s dispositional only actually and through the actual.

p Usually the dispositional is described in psychological terms as experience, knowledge, skills and other personal characteristics (abilities, propensities, interests, traits, etc.). As a result, attention is focused on the relative stability of certain structural components of subjective reality, on the moments of invariance in the multiplicity of their actual manifestations. Such manifestations, however, are highly variable and constitute a source of new dispositional formations. Understandably, this historical process, this dialectic of the dispositional and the actual is confined within the dynamic system of the Self-Other modalities and must therefore be comprehended in this and no other context, thereby contributing to a more profound understanding of the above indicated modalities and dynamic unity forming the basic structure of subjective reality.

p Now we may proceed to the consideration of the introsubjecttive attitude of the Self to its own Ego—with due regard for the fact that it includes both the reflexive and nonreflexive, the actual and the dispositional content. In this relation the Self poses as Other, i.e. as an object of self-reflection, self-regulation and self-development. It appears here as its other Self, since normally the Self is integral and split at the same time, incessantly positing itself as another Self (Thou) and using it for self-correlation, self-discovery, self-appraisal and self-alteration. Our consciousness is therefore autocommunicative, i.e. we 69 constantly monitor and appraise ourselves, argue with ourselves, view ourselves from the side, place ourselves in others’ positions, design real, doubtful and downright fantastic images of ourselves, etc. This kind of Ego split is a form of its activeness attesting to a conversational character of the process of (thinking and of conscious activity in general  [69•*  which is the most eloquent manifestation of man’s social nature.

p The attitude of the Self to its Other (Thou) falls under the head of value relations and is an act of value-oriented self- regulation. This introsubjective relationship provides a framework for the formation of the individual’s activeness vectors and for the realisation of the internal mechanism of appraisal and choice. Indeed, the act of value-oriented self-regulation includes the preassessment and sanctioning of our volition, as well as its subsequent appraisal, i.e. the appraisal of the appraisal. This relationship is likewise accountable for the operation of factors underlying a state of indecision, doubt and vagueness of volitional intentions.

p Continuous internal communication between the Self and its Thou is a manifestation of the necessary connection between a given personality, on the one hand, and another personality, a group of people and society at large, on the other hand. This internal communication reveals itself either as a direct projection of external communication (with other Selves, Us and Them), or as its transformation in certain respects, or as its preparation, planning or anticipation. It is only natural, therefore, that it tends to express itself in a clear intersubjective form. The most intimate internal dialogues implicitly project on external communication and manifest themselves in its sphere in different ways, from allegories, allusions, craftiness, partial or reckless confessions and concrete actions to great scientific, artistic and moral exploits of tremendous creative power.

p The interaction of the Self and its Thou is seeing oneself with others’ eyes and, in the final analysis, assessing oneself by a definite scale of social values nnd simultaneously assessing others 70 through the assessment of oneself. Such is the process whereby the Self not only builds up its own image, but continuously shapes its attitude to it.  [70•*  In (this process the Self internalises social values by practically assimilating and transforming them and thus changes its own content and opens up a possibility of its continual self-perfection—or degradation, if it increasingly retreats into the narrow confines of secondary and “false” values losing the capacity for effective assimilation of higher ones.

p The content of ’the Self in its attitude ito its own content is multidimensional, as it unfolds, historically explicates itself for itself through all the above mentioned relationships (the attitude to the material world, to its own body, etc.). In all these relationships the Self posits itself as its Other in the forms of “knowledge”, “assessment” and “action”; the unity of the Self and Other modalities, as well as the measure of their contrariety, remains intact. The identity of a person is contingent on the preservation of this measure: however far the Self may go into its Other, it always returns and remains its own Self.

p If this measure is disturbed by pathological destruction of subjective reality, the Self and Other modalities fall apart and become alienated. The "split personality" phenomenon assumes different forms broadly varying in degree and content. They range from individual “alien” fragments of one’s Other Self (“alien” sensations and images, “bizarre” visions as, for instance, in the so-called phenomenon of momentary horror when the entire field of vision suddenly fills with bright spots of equal size, or other psychic abnormalities of short duration mentioned above) or transient states of derealisation and depersonalisation arising in extreme situations (for instance, with cosmonauts, polar explorers, speleologists, etc.) to a total “split”. In the latter case one’s Other Self acquires autonomy, becomes alienated and may not only exist, as it were, alongside and independently of the Self (which is characteristic of the schizophrenic 71 “separation" and “obsession” or “capture”), but also completely substitute for it now and again (the metamorphoses of Eva White’s personality is one of the most striking cases of this type").

p The pathologic disintegration of the Self and Other modalities throws additional light on the dynamic structure of subjective reality revealing those extremely complex introsubjective relations, ties and mutual transitions which are normally inconspicuous or hardly identifiable. Specifically, certain pathological disturbances convincingly show that the attitude of the Ego to its own Self largely depends on its attitude to the outside world and to its own body. This clearly shows up in those cases when the phenomenon of derealisation traceable to different causes entails the phenomenon of depersonalisation (the loss of one’s own identity). This is a typical result of the impaired perception of one’s own body, since representations of the bodily organisation constitute one of the basic dimensions of the Self modality and, consequently, pose also as the content constantly referred to by the Self as its Other.^^12^^

p The above-indicated relationship reveals itself even more clearly under conditions of sensory deprivation and in general in those situations when the amount of information coming to a person from the outer world is sharply reduced for a prolonged period. Such a drastic shrinkage of the immediate content of the Other modality causes various abnormalities and disintegration of the Self modality and distorts the attitude of the Self to its own Ego.^^13^^

p In this context mention should also be made, if only in brief outline, of important changes in the interrelation between the Self and Other modalities characteristic of the so-called altered states; these cannot be included under the head of pathological destruction as they only take the form of episodes, though sometimes crucial for an individual, occurring against the otherwise normal functional background of subjective reality. What I mean are such diverse phenomena, so far poorly classed, as dreams and states of semi-wakefulness, altered consciousness in deep hypnosis, unusual states of consciousness resulting from meditation or the effect of certain pharmacological preparations (for instance, LSD), states arising at the peak of creative inspiration, love raptures, religious ecstasies, etc. They are notable 72 for a considerable distortion of the structure of immediate present taken in its basic bipolar dimensions.

p In dreams the reflexivity range of the content of the Self and Other modalities abruptly narrows and their alternating correlations become inhibited or cease altogether (therefore a person takes for granted what he sees or does in a dream). In a state of deep hypnosis the content of the Self and Other modalities shrinks to the limits set by the hypnotist who also defines the limits of the reflexivity of this content, usually extremely narrow; all the rest is completely nonreflexive. The overwhelming majority of dispositional structures are "fenced off", as it were, from the immediate present; the content of the Self may be reduced to the level of its Other Self (as, for instance, in the case of a hypnotic who received a suggestion that he was a great painter and began to bear himself accordingly, i.e. in compliance with his other Self’s idea of a "great painter", a person of exalted position^^14^^).

p Of special interest are the structural features of the " immediate present" in those intervals of subjective reality which may be called supervalent states (e.g. the peak of inspiration crowning an act of creation, etc.). Recall Goethe’s: "Stop, moment! You are so fair." Such states, in contrast with everyday, often drab consciousness constitute crucial milestones in the history of our subjective reality illuminating, as it were, all our life, providing its justification and giving us the sense of its unity despite the numerous yawning gaps (we do not mention here negative experiences of extreme intensity which are also of enormous existential significance).

p All these problems deserve careful consideration as they are connected with many important social phenomena (both positive and negative, e.g. stability of religious consciousness).

p Supervalent states differ from one another by social significance and culturological features, value and effect on the structure of subjective reality, and generally by their consequences, source, duration, reproducibility, etc. We shall only touch upon some of them.

p The immediate present as a supervalent state reveals three typical variants of structural transformations.

p 1. Reduction of the Self modality owing to excessive expansion of the Other modality—complete obsession by a definite 73 object (which may be my Other Self), self-oblivion (for instance, at the peak of creative activity). However, the Self modality has not completely disappeared, it clings to the periphery of the reflexive field and, though reduced almost to nought, is energised and saturated on the nonreflexive and dispositional sides to a maximum. Retrospectively, this condition is recaptured in subsequent intervals as the extreme existential fullness of the content and activity of the Self.

p 2. Reduction of the Other modality owing to the complete occupation of the reflexive field by the content of the Self modality—oblivion of Other (in some states of extreme elation,  [73•*  at the peak of sexual excitement, etc.). Here, too, one cannot speak of a complete disappearance of the Other modality, it can be traced on the borderline of the reflexive and the nonreflexive, the actual and the dispositional, and is extremely rich and meaningful beyond this line. Retrospectively, this state is identified with the exceptional existential fullness of the content of the Other modality.

p 3. Reduction of both modalities to the extent of their complete fusion, disappearance of any appreciable demarcation between them in the given immediate present (the experience is similar to what we have in the so-called state of semi- wakefulness, yet it lacks the quality of being supervalent). The most striking examples of this state are described by the adepts in oriental meditation practices (Yoga, Buddhist Zen, and others). It is worth noting in this context that their experience despite its religious background deserves a serious scientific investigation as a fact of subjective reality, as a specific supervalent state which is deliberately called forth by appropriate techniques; incidentally, mental states of this kind are not confined to the sphere of meditation proper and figure prominently, for instance, in some aesthetic experiences.  [73•** 

74

p A thorough phenomenological inquiry into these states from the position of dialectical materialism appears to be highly topical in many respects. Special interest attaches to the mental state known as "absolute samadhi" and achieved by Zen methods. It is described as "extraordinary peace of mind", "pure existence", "pure experience" in the sense of freeing the immediate present from any specific objective content and, for that matter, from any content in general which might be related to the Self or Other modality.

p Yet it is not absolute emptiness; we have here a kind of completely abstract content reflecting somehow the existence of the external world and man, i.e. objective and subjective reality. Zen practitioners usually point out that in true samadhi the person preserves “vigilance” and that the Self, as they put it, "is absent from the stage but awake inside". Hence, this state reveals both modalities, but only on the borderline of the reflexive and nonreflexive, the actual and the dispositional. In retrospect this experience stands out as a period of lucidity.

p All the three variants of the above indicated structural transformations represent the so-called arrested-present phenomenon with slight modifications in each case. Its essence, however, consists in that a given immediate present comes, so to speak, to a hault, freezes and loses its time dimension.  [74•*  In ordinary states of consciousness the present continuously flows away and "is no more" at each given moment, so that the awareness of our existence rests on the past and the future. However, under the conditions of the above-indicated structural transformations it is "still there", and this is perhaps what accounts for the unique quality of the supervalent state, the feeling of complete fullness and significance of one’s existence in the given interval of the immediate present, i.e the individual’s recovery of his own Self in which the Ego attains, as it were, the sought-for absolute identity with itself.

75

p It is highly significant that the person’s attitude to his own Self always displays to a greater or lesser extent the multidimensional structure of his subjective reality. But this means that such kind of relations, unfolding actually and being shaped dispositionally reflect first and foremost the existing structure of social relations, because the attitude of the Self to its Thou reveals itself through its attitude to other Selves, to Us and Them. Put another way, Thou (my second Self) necessarily reflects the general human, class, national and group determinations of a given unique Self, personalises in each particular case the values of a given society, given culture, and represents different social roles (and not only those actually played by the person, but also imaginary ones, those the person "tries on").

p In his very illuminating work The Discovery of the Ego I. S. Kon has justly observed that the human Ego is a unity in plurality. This plurality reveals itself in actuality and is indeed represented dispositionally as a plurality of a person’s relations with his own Self; they are realised, first and foremost, in invariant socio-cultural forms which make the axiological- conceptual framework of subjective reality and, consequently, of the Self. Ron’s book offers an expert analysis of this very important structural dimension of subjective reality.  [75•* 

p Alongside the socio-cultural standards the individual’s actualised relation with his own Self reveals also the personal- existential aspect, since the content of his second Self carries not only a definite socio-cultural invariant, but also something absolutely distinct as the current awareness of the specific features of his individual existence. The socio-normative and personal- existential are fused here into one. More precisely, the Self unfolding through (and therefore in) a multitude of its Other Selves provides a means for the socio-normative to manifest itself in the form of the personal-existential where it can vary within certain limits and mutate, so to speak, towards simplicity or complexity as the case may be; here lies the source of new axiological- 76 conceptual formations which may eventually acquire the socionormative status.

p In turn, the personal-existential necessarily shows up in the socio-normative form in view of the tremendous .power of the dominant social standards, values and concepts over every individual, as they mould the content and determine the orientation of basic manifestations of a given Self in the capacity of its other Selves, i.e. the value standards, needs, desires, hopes, interests, aims and ideals of a person. This power, however, is not absolute, since man is an active and self-conscious being capable of cognising social reality and his own Self, choosing values of his own free will and reappraising them. Here we have profound dialectical interrelation between the socio- normative and the personal-existential which can only be understood in the context of the analysis of social activity and interdependence of social and individual consciousness. Some aspects of this problem will be discussed later in chapters 7 and 8.

p It is in place to mention here yet another important aspect of the individual’s relation to his own Self which is indicative of the dynamics of the value structure of subjective reality as a whole. Each of my Other Selves is a personalised value, an axiological content of my Ego representing what I posit as good or bad, kind, just or otherwise, etc. It is what I should like to possess, attain, etc. (not infrequently what others possess or possessed, attained, etc.). The multifacedness of my Other Self is an expression of the variety of axiological value orientations of the Self which must be arranged somehow in an orderly manner to assure their unity. The orderliness here represents a two- dimensional structure notable for a hierarchical and linear organisations of value. The former may be imaged as a truncated cone so that the higher the rank of the values, the fewer their number. The linear values located on the same levels within this “cone” are not clearly distinguishable by rank and increase in number downward towards the base of the cone.

p We are deliberately confining ourselves here to a purely formal aspect of the organisation of values leaving aside the question of their social significance, the true worth of the axiological orientation of a given Self. At this stage we are only concerned with an outline of the general pattern of this dynamic organisation, but the next step, of course, will be the 77 establishment of the social scale and criteria of really topmost values (indeed, the supreme, dominating axiological orientation of a given individual may be towards the vilest, basest or even completely worthless goals). This, however, falls outside the scope of our immediate task—to trace out the main trends in the change and distortion of the structure of axiological orientations of the Self which are not only fixed dispositionally but also manifested actually in the plurality of the individual’s Other Selves.

p Normally, the upper level of the “cone” is relatively stable; the lower the level, the more dynamic and mutable the specific content of values. As the number of lower-level values sharply increases and they tend to spread beyond reasonable limits, the top of the cone caves in, as it were, and the hierarchical structure gets deformed; as a result, the higher axiological intentions degrade so that their control over lower-order intentions slackens or even becomes completely ineffective and the dynamic unity of the self-centring and self-decentring tendencies disintegrates. The latter tendency gains momentum bringing about the socalled decentred-Self phenomenon—the individual lands up in the jungle of second-rate things, false needs and low-value communications, and gets lost among them. The Self only retains its identity due to the strengthening of ties between contiguous axiological intentions, whereby it differs from the pathologically decentred Ego.

p The opposite extreme is the supercentred Self characterised by a rigid hierarchical structure of axiological intentions. This structure which may be likened to a nontruncated cone is notable for an exceedingly low degree of dynamism: the natural tendency to decentring is very weak or not traceable at all, whereas the higher intentions are not infrequently reduced to a single one, like for instance in Lermontov’s romantic image of his hero from Novice:

p His mind was chained to one obsession,
His one and single flaming passion.

p Depending on concrete circumstances, the objects of such a passion may be very different ranging from lofty social ideals to most ignominious ends, such as greed of gain, lust for power, gratification of base instincts, etc.

p The highest intention of the supercentred Self is determined 78 by the content of a concrete supervaluable idea (this term common in psychiatry is also used in psychology to denote the "normal obsession" of an artist, scientist, political figure, etc.).²⁰ Unlike the decentred Self which may comfortably posit anything as its other Self in view of its conformance to the environment and capacity for indiscriminate absorption of external impacts, the supercentred Self actually posits as its other Self only what conforms to the content of its supervaluable idea and is in this sense purpose-oriented and notably rigid (this quality becomes particularly manifest in the case of a pathologically supercentred Ego when the supervaluable idea acquires a delirious character and, yielding to no corrective action, seizes upon any chance content and gains undivided sway over the individual’s mind and behaviour).

Between the two extremes outlined above rank a host of intermediate states,^^21^^ which must be duly taken into account when assessing various developments in the value structure of subjective reality.