Semiotics as a philosophical and methodological, natural science and mathematical discipline (main stages of development and perspective)

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Semiotic approach. During the formation of natural science, classical mathematics was considered a language in which one could study nature. In the dialogue "About Possibility-being", Nikolai Kuzansky writes that "there is nothing reliable in our knowledge except our mathematics... mathematical objects originating from our mind ... are known by us ... precisely" ^{[5, p. 162]}. About the same Galileo: "if human understanding is considered intensively, and since intensity means a perfect understanding of some judgments, then I say that the human intellect really understands some of these judgments perfectly and that in them it acquires the same degree of certainty that Nature itself has. Only mathematical sciences belong to these judgments, namely geometry and arithmetic, in which the divine intellect really knows an infinite number of judgments, since it knows everything" ^{[2, p. 61]}.

            If we accept the opposition formulated at the end of the XIX century ? "the sciences of nature and the sciences of the spirit" (later, the humanities), then semiotics is actually proposed for the humanities in the role of mathematics. "Semiotics," for example, M.V. Ilyin and I.V. Fomin write, "is an analogue of mathematics for social and humanitarian knowledge. Over the past two decades, we have had to use every excuse to put forward and develop this position… This is necessary, because among the public... the view that semiotics is “just linguistics” prevails in a surprising way… Peirce's ideas about the fundamental nature of semiotics were developed by the outstanding scientist Charles William Morris. He clearly distinguished pure semiotics (its authors, apparently, consider it an analogue of mathematics. ? V.R.) and its applications to various subject areas in the form of descriptive semiotics" ^{[3, pp. 31, 32]}. However, still F. Saussure pointed out that semiotics cannot be reduced to linguistics: "it is possible," he wrote, "to imagine a science studying the life of signs in public life... we would call it semiology (from the Greek semeion ? sign). It should reveal to us what signs are and what laws they are governed by... Linguistics is only a part of this general science, the laws that semiology will discover will be applicable to linguistics..." ^{[14, p. 23]}.

Thus, already at the end of the XIX, the beginning of the last century, semiotics received two disciplinary interpretations: as an analogue of mathematics and an analogue of natural science (but in this case it was not about the "first nature", but the "second", studied in the humanities). However, as is known, the beginnings of both types of sciences (mathematics and natural science) were set and developed in philosophy. Semiotics is no exception, the development of its principles is the merit of St. Augustine. In retrospect, we could say that it was he who formulated the idea of the "semiotic approach" and began to think through semiotics within the framework of philosophical and methodological discourse.

The need to distinguish between words and signs in the early Middle Ages was due to the task of comprehending different interpretations of Holy Scripture (as the Word of God, it had to have the only correct reading, but it was actually read differently, for example, in four different ways). Discussing this circumstance, Svetlana Neretina writes. "Things created according to the Word (in this sense, the word is always businesslike and technical) are not noumenal. They are mobile and unstable in their values. This is especially clear when reading the Boethian Commentaries on Aristotle's “Categories”, where his thought almost visibly slips from the idea of a name as a nomen to a name as a vocabulum, revealing difficulties for translation: both terms are “name", but they are different names. For nomen indicates the eternal and unchangeable Nus, Mind, and the sounding vocabulum indicates the tremor of change, if not treason, having a direct relation to time (which is impossible for Aristotle's understanding of the name), to verbality. From now on, it becomes important not to affirm the identity of the name, but its meaning for a person, which directly introduces the person himself into the ontological system. The earthly world, which requires skill at least for the sake of human salvation, is not supposed to be a fragment of eternity, but concreteness, fusion with eternity, ensuring human existence." Further quoting Augustine, who says that if "every language, every sign" were silent in a person, then the latter would hear God directly and see eternal life, Neretina tries to show that signs in the medieval understanding provide a connection of mystical knowledge of things (then they are not images, but objects themselves) with ordinary human knowledge of things" ^{[6, pp. 206-207]}.

 Analyzing different readings and interpretations of words, Augustine discovers, in addition to their direct meaning, additional ones, which he connects with the concept of a sign known from the works of Aristotle, and defines these additional meanings as the meaning of a sign. "Starting now to research about signs," Augustine writes, "I say the opposite: let no one in them pay attention to what is, but only to what they are signs, i.e. what they mean. For a sign is a thing that affects the senses, in addition to species, forcing something else to come to mind… And we have only one reason to designate, i.e. to give a sign – to take out and transfer into the soul of another that which produces in the soul that which creates a sign" ^{[1, pp. 66-67]}. In this case, "something else" can be understood as a denotation, and "take out and transfer into the soul of another" as an indication of communication. In the twentieth century, during the formation of semiotics, these two points are clearly understood and conceptualized ^{[21, p. 127]}.  

But in Augustine's work, the characteristic of the sign is presented not structurally, as in modern semiotics, but in the form of a scheme ("comes to mind", "take out and transfer", "soul"). As a scheme, the idea of Augustine's sign presupposes reconstruction, which, I assert, can be done not only with respect to words (the subject of Augustine's interest), but also with a variety of semiotic constructions, for example, music. Here is A. Schnittke's recollection of Prokofiev's music. Schnittke shows that an entire epoch can be "taken out" of Prokofiev's music.

"Meanwhile," writes Schnittke, "the beginning of the XX century promised mankind the long–awaited reliability of the historical route. Wars, at least great ones, seemed already impossible. Science has supplanted faith. Any still insurmountable obstacles would soon fall. Hence the cold, athletic life attitude towards the most useful, as well as the most spiritual, in the destinies of young people, including Prokofiev. It was a natural optimism–not ideologically inspired, but the most genuine. That multifaceted solidarity with the epoch and its attributes – fast trains, cars, airplanes, telegraph, radio, and so on – that gave a sobering ecstatic, once and for all achieved, the most accurate organization of time, reflected in Prokofiev's everyday habits... Apparently, every person at all turns of the path remains what he was from the very beginning, and time can't do anything about it. It should only be said that the gloomy beginnings of life were not alien to Prokofiev either. It is enough to recall the auto-dafe scene in the Fiery Angel or the scene of Prince Andrew's death in War and Peace, as well as many tragic and dramatic turns in the form of, for example, the Sixth Symphony, or the Eighth Piano, or the First Violin Sonata. And in the Second String Quartet, and in Five poems by Anna Akhmatova. And the brilliant double suicide scene in Romeo and Juliet? For too long, this most serious music has been judged only by its audacious shell, not paying attention to the deeply felt essence. They saw the carnival splendor of the outside world, without taking into account the seriousness – strict seriousness, which does not allow suffering to spill out and flood everything around. But the seriousness is present in Prokofiev from the very beginning! It is worth thinking about the Second Piano Concerto, about this still controversial sound world, full of rigidity and severity. About the Scythian suite of Ala and Lollii, a very peculiar “shadow version” Sacred spring. About the Second or Third Piano Sonatas and much more. This man, of course, knew the terrible truth about his time. He just didn't let her suppress him. His thinking remained within the classical framework, but the higher was the tragic power of utterance in all his gavottes and minuets, waltzes and marches" ^{[19, p. 210]}.

Of course, such an extension of the understanding of the sign may raise an objection: how so, can the presented Schnittke text be considered a sign? From the point of view of the concept of Augustine, given by the corresponding scheme, I think it is possible. Another thing, I agree, the ordinary meaning of the concept of "sign" in this case strongly diverges from the meaning of the Augustinian concept. It is better in this case to talk not about a sign, but about an "expression" (which is what V. Diltey suggested, considering "expression" to be the main human ability along with "understanding" and "experiencing"). In relation to this case, Augustine's definition can be reformulated as follows: "starting now to the study of expressions, I say the opposite: let no one in them pay attention to what is, but only to what they are expressions, i.e. what they express. For an expression is a semiotic construction that affects the senses, in addition to the form (immediate meaning), making them aware of something else… And we have only one reason to designate, that is, to identify the expression – to take out and transfer into the soul of another that which produces in the soul that which creates the expression." The analysis of expressions can be called "expressive" (from the Latin word "expressio" ? expression)

Semiotics is a science. Like science, mathematics and natural science, semiotics develops in the XIX and XX centuries. Semiotic schemes and typologies of signs (Augustine, Boethius, Locke and many other philosophers of the Middle Ages and Modern Times) served as the basis for constructing ideal objects of semiotics as a science. At the same time, several semiotics were constructed, differing in concepts, the structure of ideal objects, and areas of empirical applications.  "It should be noted," notes Elena Chernevich, "that the terminological discrepancy existing in the semiotic literature greatly complicates its study. Often the same or similar concepts are denoted differently, For example, such sequences of words are used synonymously:  

            expression, sign, signifying, signifying, name;

            denoted, denote, object, object, thing;

            signified, designation, signification, concept, or the concept of denotation, the meaning of a name or sign, the meaning of a sign;

            the relation of designation, denotation, naming, nomination;

            the relation of signification, expression, designation, signification.

            Such a large difference in word usage reflects the fact that the terms were once introduced by logicians and linguists in the study of completely different scientific problems" ^{[16, p. 35]}.

Chernevich herself develops a variant of semiotics, starting from semiotic works in which the planes of expression and content differ. As an empirical field of study, she identifies the linguistic texts of graphic design. The problem for her is, for example, an explanation of why in some cases, when creating an advertisement, the designer depicts exactly what he advertises, and in others it seems to be completely different. (For example, an advertisement for the selection of oil paints is depicted as an exact hit of a billiard ball in the pocket). "The semiotic point of view on graphic design," writes Chernevich, "allows us to bring together many theoretical and methodological problems of research and design of visual communication systems" ^{[16, p. 30]}. Chernevich builds ideal objects based on the logical relations established in semiotics between the planes of expression and content, namely, the relations of synonymy, metaphor, metonymy, antonymy, expansion and contraction.

            Your humble servant, in his early research, took mathematical texts of the ancient world as a field of semiotic study, and constructed ideal objects based on semiotic substitution schemes developed by G.P. Shchedrovitsky and representatives of the Moscow Methodological Circle. The main problem is the explanation of the development of the initial stages of mathematics ^[7]. At the same time, I managed to build the following typology of signs (they are also ideal objects under a different interpretation): model signs, symbol signs, sign designations ^{[13, pp. 44-49]}. Each such ideal object was represented by a structural diagram. On the basis of some ideal ideal objects, other, more complex ones were built in the structural transformation procedure. For example, a more complex type of sign could be obtained due to the fact that it was not the original object formed in practice that was replaced, but the sign replacing this object. In semiotic studies devoted to the analysis of art, I used this typology of signs to reconstruct the origin of rock paintings and musical expressions of Modern times, including the musical notation that fixes them.

V. Kanke built semiotics for philosophy, following Ch. Pierce, who, in addition to the sign and denotation, indirectly introduced the position of the creator and user of the sign. "The sign creates "in the mind" of the addressee an equivalent or, perhaps, a more developed sign, called an interpretant. What the sign means is an object. But, as Pierce writes, the object is not in all respects, but only in relation to a kind of idea that can be called the basis of representation. An idea is understood by him as something that has similar content (for different people ? when one person "grasps" the idea of another person, or for one person, but at different time intervals)" ^[15].

"There is," writes V. Kanke, "a whole bunch of so?called "simple" definitions of the sign. All of them are built according to the scheme of medieval scholastics, saying “Alquid stat pro aliquo“: Something stands in place of another.

                        replaces

                        presents

            If A carries information about B, then A is the sign of B, and B is the value

                        indicates

                        represents

the sign A ... Despite the fact that the standard definition of the sign is not erroneous, it nevertheless has undoubted weaknesses. The fact is that it does not take into account the role of the actor, the person interpreting and acting. In addition to the meaning, the sign also has meaning, and it is developed by the interpreter" ^{[4, p. 10]}. "So," explains Kanke, who was interested in the problem, "a certain list of categories of philosophy as semiotics has been obtained... which allows any of the traditional philosophical categories to be reformulated and presented in a semiotic form" ^{[4, pp. 25, 39]}.

Why, I ask, did semiotic sciences diverge? This is natural, because semiotics solved different problems and tasks, semiotically comprehended different subject areas, proceeded from a different understanding of science. Nevertheless, in all variants of semiotics, relations were established between the components of the sign (substitution, similarity, designation, metaphor, expression, etc.); the influence of the systemic approach and chemistry may have affected here. In some cases, ideal objects of semiotics were created in such a way that it was possible to describe different types of signs of a certain empirical field (semiotic natural science), in others ? to build others on the basis of some ideal objects of semiotics (semiotic mathematics).

My teacher, G.P. Shchedrovitsky, following L.S. Vygotsky here in methodological terms, regarded the situation of many semiotics as abnormal, and again, imitating Vygotsky, suggested removing different semiotics in semiotics correctly constructed on the basis of the theory of activity (Vygotsky in the 20s of the last century considered the existence of many as an indicator of a deep crisis psychology, offering to replace them with "general psychology" modeled on physics). "Whatever approach," writes G. Shchedrovitsky, "we now take ? logical, linguistic or psychological ? in each semiotics is thought of as a simple extension of the subject of the corresponding science, as an application of its concepts and methods to a new field of objects. In fact, nowhere are we talking about specific methods of semiotics, about special ? and they should be new ? procedures for identifying and describing its subject... Therefore, a more general thesis can be formulated: the main task of semiotics as a theory of sign systems, if it wants to be a special science, and not another name for extended linguistics, extended logic or psychology, is to combine those ideas about signs and sign systems that have been developed to date in psychology, logic, linguistics and other disciplines; semiotics will have the right to exist as an independent science if it solves this task that has already become urgent <...> It is not difficult to notice that with the task and interpretation of models that we had, every gap in the structure of the introduced units is a gap in activity… By sequentially specifying different types of breaks in the model structures, we will obtain different types of connections and means of communication that restore the integrity of the original structure. All elements of the models introduced in this way, we will call c e m and o t and h e c k and m i" ^{[20, pp. 21, 22, 35-36]}.

Having developed such an approach, Shchedrovitsky and yours truly built a new semiotics, but it turned out that it did not affect other semiotics in any way, did not remove them; it simply entered the family of already established semiotic sciences and disciplines. Later, I built another semiotics, basing it not on the concept of a sign, but on "schemes" ^[8]. And again, the new semiotics, which I called "schemology", has quietly entered the family of semiotic disciplines, and it is clear why. I solved the problem of development as conditioned by the challenges of the time that take hold of a person (philosopher, scientist, artist), on the one hand, and the work of his psyche and consciousness, on the other, and as semiotic forms (expressions) I took not signs, but graphic means (drawings, paintings, sculptures, etc.) that determine vi'denie.

Let us now return to the semiotic approach as formulated by Augustine. Based on this approach, I outlined a methodology that allowed me to offer an expressive analysis of a number of works of philosophy, art, and science. Here, to characterize the "something else" expressed in the text of the work, I introduced three plans of analysis (framework) and special concepts. Here are two detailed illustrations.

The first illustration.  "The most general framework and the encompassing whole is the "conscious cultural reality": its examples in modernity are art, science, religion, dreams, play, communication, work in a broad sense (from physical to intellectual and creative) and some other education. Some cultural realities differ from others: types of events, a kind of logic, convention. In relation to culture ? these are certain areas of vital activity, in relation to a person, the form and methods of his life, that is, a person lives by living the events of certain cultural realities, moving from one reality to another ^[9].    

 The second, also a fairly general framework and an encompassing whole (meaning "expressive constructions"), is "cultural communication" (communication), in which there are different: "communicants" (for example, creating narrative constructions, and joining them, living the events of the realities set by these constructions), "broadcast texts", "realities created and recreated in communication" (they determine the understanding and vision of communicants). In "one-sided communications", the realities of the communicants who create narrative constructions are similar (identical) to the realities of the communicants who live these constructions. In "two-way communications" these realities do not coincide…  

The third frame represents the structure of the content of expressive constructions. As I show, it consists of two wholes ? a certain reality and signs that allow you to enter this reality, actualize its events ^{[10, p. 160]}.

For example, metro circuit events such as subway entrances and exits are indicated by circles and station names, as well as the words "entrances" and "exits"; events of transfers from one line to another are curved arrows and the words "transfers", events of movement along certain routes are indicated by colored lines and numbers in circles and etc . For example, the denotations of the curved arrows and the word "transfers" have nothing to do with real or imaginary transfers from one station to another. In other words, although signs are necessary to enter into the reality of the scheme and actualize certain events, they relate to language, not reality. The individual creates reality based on language, but not from language; the creation of reality involves the constitution of a certain (sometimes new) "objectivity". So a person mastering the subway for the first time should not only practically learn how to move from one station to another (from one subway line to another), but also form (compose) in his mind such an object as "subway transfers". <...>

The artistic reality of a work of art is the world of events that an artist (writer, composer) creates, expressing his attitude to the events of the ordinary world (sometimes depicting these events, sometimes elevating and idealizing, sometimes only having them in mind, because, as a rule, he solves his problems in this way, and they are very different). The viewer (reader, listener) enters these events, for this he must correctly "read" and understand the work of art, enters in order to live them and solve his problems already. At the same time, both the artist and the viewer should get aesthetic pleasure (this is a condition of artistic communication) both from artistic communication and solving their own problems. Pleasure, the poles of which are just pleasant entertainment or, on the contrary, catharsis and ecstatic experience. Since the problems and life worlds of the artist and the viewer do not coincide (coincidences happen, but not so often), in general, the artistic realities that they create do not coincide either.  

I tried to show that an important role in the process of creating artistic reality is played by the problems of the artist and the viewer, as well as schemes and other semiotic constructions (including metaphors) that are created to solve these problems. Another necessary condition for the construction of artistic reality events is the creation of a new objectivity based on schemes, artistic techniques and expressive means (the concepts of "genre", "composition", "theme", "drama", "melody", "harmony", "content", "image", etc., which differ significantly for different types of art). For example, a metaphor can be understood precisely as a special scheme, a technique and an expressive means that allow, on the basis of two artistic contents (potential events), to create a new content (a new objectivity) in which they are, as it were, fused (Hegel would say "removed") both of the original artistic contents and due to a kind of emergent effect, a fundamentally new content (objectivity) is for our consciousness.     In order to make these rather general provisions more understandable and concrete, let's consider one example – the metaphor "centaur", to which the famous Israeli writer Meir Shalev turned when creating the artistic reality of the novel "Esav". 

First, we remind readers what a centaur is. First of all, the centaur is a creature that combines the image of a man and a horse. In this respect, the centaur construction is a potential metaphor. Although the centaur has the properties of a man and a horse, he is neither a man nor a horse. The centaur lives in the world of myth and is therefore perceived as a mystical character. By nature and upbringing, the centaur is usually a very wild creature, but, as an exception, on the contrary, like Chiron, very wise…

Now there is one storyline of the novel "Esau", where the centaur metaphor is widely used. The father of the main character, Abraham Levi, a baker, when he was still young, returning from the war to his hometown of Jerusalem, fell into a family of Russian immigrants and fell in love with Sarah, the only girl in the family (there were also father and brothers). He marries her and takes her to Jerusalem, where she gives birth to his twin sons. Brought up in love and freedom and, in fact, on a farm, far from big cities, Sarah cannot get along with the traditional Jerusalem society. Unable to stand the attitude towards her, including her mother-in-law, she takes her children and forcibly her husband, steals the Greek patriarch's carriage, harnesses it like a horse and runs through Israel in search of a place where she could live with her family.

"On the twelfth of July, 1927, at about three o'clock in the morning, a "Tak" suddenly burst out of the Jaffa Gate – a chic light carriage belonging to the Greek Patriarchate. She lacked, however, the usual group–the patriarch himself, his Arab coachman and a white Lipitian horse. Instead of a rider and a coachman, two children sat on the box, clutching the reins in their hands, and instead of a horse, a tall, fair-haired, broad-shouldered and beautiful young woman was harnessed to the wooden shafts… Covered with empty flour sacks and the foam of impotent rage, little frail Abraham cursed the day when he brought his wife from Galilee to Jerusalem. He no longer had the strength or patience to endure her manners– these habits of a loving mare, as the neighbors said– because of which he became a laughing stock in the courtyards of the Jewish Quarter, and the whole of Jerusalem, too…  Bulisa Levi, Mrs. Levi, Abraham's grumpy mother, couldn't sleep a wink either. “My daughter–in–law is with me - if you can't buy cheese from her, you will certainly get cuffs," she sighed. "I'm telling you, Abraham, this woman you brought into the house, I'll see the white crows before I'll have peace from her.”…

“Just think, Princess de Sutlach, she has a holiday all year," relatives and household ladies were indignant, having gathered at the well. ”She drinks milk all day long, even if she's not sick."

Walking through the stone alleys, accompanied by a faithful and vicious goose, brought by her from Galilee, Sarah made her way through the intricacies of customs and the thicket of decency, feeling the probing glances that measured her from head to toe and drilled into her skin. Looks surprised, lustful, curious, hostile. Passersby made way for her, pressing against the walls. Some with a nasty wet smile, some with a breathless sigh of lust, and some – splashing curses. With a confused grimace trembling at the corners of her lips, she hunched over and absorbed her broad shoulders, as if trying to shrink in size…

It was three o'clock in the morning. The young woman stopped the carriage at the city wall and looked around cautiously. Her gaze lingered on several fellahs who had come to the city before dark and were now waiting for the markets to open… Suddenly the donkeys roared, wrapped their necks and jumped on the spot in incomprehensible fear. The Fellahs, who rushed to calm them down, saw a stroller and a young blonde woman frozen between its shafts. They were terrified…

    The young woman lowered the shafts of the stroller to the ground and, trying to clear her way, furiously stamped her foot, threw her head high and let out a terrible wolf howl. In response, she immediately heard a terrible rumbling from the depths of the earth. Mighty stones suddenly rolled from the top of the city wall, frightened screams of people were heard from all sides, roosters and dogs howling, flocks of pigeons and bats rose from the cracks in the city, from cracks in the towers, from the shaken dungeons…

–Get inside," the woman shouted to the little twins. She herself was horrified for a moment, thinking that her scream had broken the shackles of the earth, but she immediately came to her senses – her eyes froze angrily and stubbornly, and a deep crease lay between her eyebrows. The red-haired boy got scared, hurriedly crawled inside the stroller and hid behind a cloth canopy near his bound father. But his brother only opened his dark eyes wider and remained on the driver's seat.

The young mother tightened the harness to her shoulders, picked up the shafts again and squeezed them with a vengeance. Then she took a deep breath and started running. Rushing past the crumbling walls, under a rain of stones and screams, she swallowed the road with long light steps, jumped elastically over the crevices that opened under her feet and tore with her body the shroud of smells that enveloped the city, vapors that rose over burning bakeries, over burst spice jars, over stinking sewage that escaped from sewage drains, over puddles of spread coffee left over from those who came to morning prayer ahead of time. She, who had only drunk milk all her life, hated the Jerusalem custom of starting the day with a cup of coffee and now rejoiced at the misfortune of all her haters…

The woman turned her head towards the city and spat angrily. Then she smiled contentedly, wrapped up the hem of her dress, pushed it into her belt and started running again. Her bare feet moved in the dark with noiseless confidence, like the strong white wings of that owl that lived in the Karaite cemetery, de los Karaites, and which used to frighten us in childhood. Through the small holes in the cloth canopy to me (we are talking about the memories of Sarah's second son. ? V.R.), the envious and encouraging cries of the mentally ill could be heard – when they saw us, they pressed themselves against the bars of their windows and accompanied our flight with longing and greedy glances. I saw the blur of Jerusalem receding, the face of my twin brother Jacob, laughing, clutching at his mother's reins, saw the long, tirelessly moving wings of her hips, inhaled her abundant sweat, heard the hum of her pink lungs, the pounding of a mighty heart, driving blood into her indomitable body. I imagined in my mind the strong tendons of her knees, the elastic pads of her heels, the biceps breathing under the skin of her thighs, all of her – my mother, the converted Sarah Levy, the 'white witch', the 'yellow-haired Jew', Sarah Levy from the Nazarov family" ^[17]. 

It is not worth much practice in constructing analogies, they are quite obvious, I will just list them. Sarah, harnessed to a carriage and running easily on Israeli soil, resembles a beautiful centaur. Here she "furiously stamped her foot, threw her head high and let out a terrible wolf howl," stones immediately fell down and the earth trembled. Before us is not just a man-horse, but a mystical being, which is also characteristic of a centaur. In comparison with the Jerusalem townspeople, Sarah is really a wild person, and a wild goose protects her, emphasizing the justice of the nickname "white witch" that has stuck to her. From the point of view of urban political correctness, Sarah's reaction to strangers who threaten her family is also wild...

It is not difficult to understand the artistic techniques that Shalev uses, creating and deploying the centaur metaphor. The first is the image of Sarah, harnessed to a carriage, rushing across the country. This is both a metaphor and a scheme. The scheme, I show, is invented by a person, allows him to solve the problems facing him, sets a new reality that opens up the opportunity to act in a new way ^[8]. As a scheme, the image of Sarah allows you to endow Sarah with unusual abilities and character, as well as to set a new reality ? Sarah is a centaur (she behaves like a centaur). The second technique is a smart and powerful goose guarding Sarah. The third is a coincidence: Sarah stamped her foot in anger and at the same moment, quite by chance, an earthquake begins. Another trick: Sarah grew up in a family of Russian immigrants in an atmosphere of freedom and love, and at the same time almost completely isolated from the usual culture with its social requirements, restrictions, conventionality and partly hypocrisy.    

It may seem that Sarah the centaur is just a combination of two types of properties - a young woman and a beautiful animal (horse). No, this is not so, by themselves these properties are incompatible, belong to different realities. In artistic reality, a new objectivity (reality) is created on the basis of two or more types of properties (realities). After all, Sarah, even acting unusually, is not a horse and not a wild animal. She is a person, her actions are quite understandable, but of course, in the light of the life context (world) that Shalev set and built. You can't help but admire Sarah: this admiration comes from both Shalev and the reader. In the first, the writer himself admits, in one interview he says:

“In Greek mythology, there is a nymph named Atalanta. As far as I can tell, heroines like her appear in my books every now and then: in "Esava", in "Fontanelle", to a lesser extent in "Russian Novel". This is a physically strong woman, of mighty build, of enormous stature. I've been thinking about her ever since I first read The Golden Fleece by Robert Graves at the age of 15—and Atalanta, as you remember, was the only woman among the Argonauts. I guess I have some kind of fixation. I have never met her in my life, but I do not stop dreaming about her” ^[18]. 

However, one day, the writer later recalled, he met a woman very similar to his dream, but she did not want to communicate with Shalev and left. I think I also admire Sarah, she is something (it is very difficult to define something) reminds me of my wife, especially when she was young, but even now" ^[12].

The second illustration. As you know, Praxiteles "in the image of the Greek goddess of love Aphrodite for the first time sculpted a naked female body.

"But simple nudity,? writes Mary Beard, ?was only part of it. This Aphrodite was different, clearly erotic. Hands alone ? the sale is here. Are they modestly trying to cover up? Do they point in the direction of what the viewer most wants to see? Or are they just teasing? Whatever the answer, Praxiteles established those acute relations between the statue of a woman and the supposed male viewer that have never been lost from the history of European art - as the ancient Greek viewers themselves knew all too well. For this was an aspect of sculpture staged in a memorable story about a man who treated this famous marble goddess as if she were a woman of flesh and blood"^[22]. 

There was a long interesting story here. Three goddesses: hunting, Artemis, wisdom, Pallas Athena, and the hearth, Hestia, have always been depicted by sculptors dressed. Before Praxiteles and Aphrodite was dressed. By the way, most of the male gods in early antiquity were also depicted dressed. This tradition fully corresponded to the understanding of what the gods were. These were the celestials, so different from people that the latter did not consider it possible to see them naked in everyday life. In addition, as the story with Octeon, who accidentally spied on Artemis naked, showed, it was deadly dangerous.

But in the VI-V centuries BC, the situation changed dramatically. Pythagoreans, who believe in deification and overcoming death, took the stage. They did not consider themselves equal to the gods, but they were equal to the gods, identified with them. Moreover, ancient art begins to depict gods very similar to humans, however, improved people. This is where the naked body was needed, it acted as an intermediary between the beautiful Greek women (as you know, Praxiteles created his Aphrodite from nature ? the beloved of the beautiful courtesan Phryne) and even more beautiful goddesses. The naked body attested the kinship of people with the gods. Praxiteles not only artistically models the female body, but, in fact, creates the ideal of an ancient woman-the goddess of love.

The body of Aphrodite created by Praxiteles forced the audience to recreate in their imagination and really experience, firstly, the appearance of a very beautiful naked woman (imitation of Phryne), secondly, the dazzling image of the goddess of love (achieved partly due to perfect proportions and skillful composition, partly the genius of the sculptor), thirdly, as if to try on to the first scene of love with all the expected events and impressions. There are two necessary conditions for awareness and experience of the body: artistic communication and the complex reality of entering into love, as well as communication with the goddess, and what! In the end, many viewers tried on a situation that allows, at least in imagination (in the reality of art), in the form and body of a beloved earthly woman, to love Aphrodite.

What in Praxiteles' creation gathered the prerequisites of the body into the body proper, into a whole, unity? On the one hand, the theme and the image of the opening love. On the other hand, she collected sacredness, because Aphrodite herself was the object of love (therefore, absolutely everything in her should be perfect and beautiful). On the third hand, "communication about" gathered (people came from all over Greece to look at Praxiteles' creation), it was in communication that the audience spoke and comprehended the new reality ? the body of Aphrodite-Phryne, the goddess of love-hetaera, beloved of the genius sculptor Praxiteles. What connected all these different realities? Beautiful body: it acted as a source of love, birthright, beauty" ^[11]. It was the beautiful body that represented the expressive construction.

Although the proposed methodology allows analyzing and comprehending a fairly wide range of expressions and works, one should not think that a universal methodology (master key) has been found. No, this is another semiotics, however, with good possibilities, let's call it "expressionism". One of the prospects of semiotics is the development of expressionics. And the last. I ask myself the question: maybe semiotic interpretations should not go beyond the boundaries of language (i.e., "something else" remains a language, because, for example, Aphrodite's body does not look like a language, or is it still the language of physicality)? But what, one wonders, is language? According to Heidegger, "the house of being"? Then the main thing is communication and human content. Not the functioning of smart machines, not Artificial Intelligence, but strictly according to Dilthey ? the life of a person in history and culture with understanding, experience, expression.