It is difficult to think about complex things (tools of new pedagogical thinking)

Leskova Inna Aleksandrovna Doctor of Pedagogy Docent, the Institute of Art Studies, Volgograd State Pedagogical University 400066, Russia, g. Volgograd, prospekt im. V.I. Lenina, 27 innaleskova@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

"A new understanding is born not by the effort of our thought, but we need to get into a certain structure in which the metaphysical element of our being will work and the possibility of a new understanding will appear," M.K. Mamardashvili wrote [cit. according to: 1, p. 39]. In this cognitive position, the question arises about the structure into which the researcher's thought should fall in order to enable a new understanding of the problems and tasks of modern education, ways to solve them. Since understanding is "a cognitive procedure of comprehension or generation of meaning, which implies comprehension of reality by thinking" ^[2], this is a question of new thinking tools. There is always a need for their development, because they push the limits of the possible, acting as a factor of development. This determines the relevance of this research, the purpose of which is to offer a new thinking tool that provides the opportunity to think complex and about the complex.

The structure of ontological representation as a tool of thinking

Let's turn to the above quote. What does M.K. Mamardashvili mean when he writes "a certain structure into which thought falls"? From our point of view, we are talking about the structure of representations. A person always thinks and acts in the structure of any ideas, their change makes it possible for a new understanding. If there is a metaphysical element of being in a representation, then it is an ontological representation. Consequently, a new understanding is born if the thought has got into the structure of a new ontological representation, the meaning of which otherwise divides the world in consciousness. Thus, any object, action, process, etc. fits into a new ontological "picture", a qualitatively different system of connections and relationships, which opens up its new meanings, and with them new possibilities of understanding.

The structure of the ontological representation is the order of division of the world in consciousness — how the meaning of this representation organizes the consciousness of society. It consists of the individual consciousnesses of its members, the community of the order of division of the world in consciousness acts as a factor of social community. The structure of the ontological representation is the primary condition of meaning-setting, the condition for the emergence of meaningfulness, its constitutive basis. The ontological representation is fundamentally significant, because it contains the answer to important questions of being, for example, "what is authentic? what is right?", as well as "what is valuable?", since the meaning highlights the axiological characteristic. Therefore, the order of division of the world in consciousness is perceived by default as a natural given, which is genuine, correct, valuable. The thought, getting into this structure, gives a result consistent with it.

For example. In the industrial era, the world of technology and the social structures that arise with it, including education as a socio-cultural phenomenon, were built on the basis of the separation between the subjective and objective world, i.e. in the structure of the ontological representation of the world as an objective reality independent of man. The subjective world is changeable, it is characterized by uncertainty, the objective world, on the contrary, has clarity, authenticity. In the consciousness of the society of that era, both worlds are out of position to each other, their separation was accepted a priori and without reflexive, since it was the primary condition for the meaning-setting = the constitutive basis of heterogeneous processes, therefore the world of technology and social structures were built on the basis of the separation between the subjective and objective world.

The culture of modern society has a different ontological basis, in particular, the idea of the coevolution of man and the world. In its structure (the unity of the subjective and objective world), the world of modern technologies and social structures are built. The complexity of the current state of culture is in its transitional nature, both "old" and "new" primary conditions of meaning-setting are active, which generates an ontological conflict: the new content of life is often comprehended in the structure of the old ontological representation (based on the separation of the subjective and objective world). This is one of the factors generating crisis processes in the life of society.

The structure of the ontological representation as a thinking tool gives the researcher the opportunity to:

1. Reflection and self-reflection of the primary conditions of meaning-setting as a constitutive basis for understanding and designing theoretical, practical constructions, possessing objectivity and completeness.

2. "Think about the difficult." Consider an object, for example, education, as a complex whole, i.e. included through the generality of the constitutive basis in a system of different-quality connections and interactions. "It's hard to think." Qualitatively compress large arrays of heterogeneous information, integrate (collect) it into semantic coherence, semantic picture, while not reducing, not simplifying the difference of heterogeneous elements, but preserving their semantic completeness. Through the commonality of the constitutive basis, to identify hidden, deep connections and relationships between education and other fields of knowledge, thereby carrying out a multidisciplinary synthesis of knowledge necessary to solve inter (trans)disciplinary tasks and problems.

3. To be able to scale cognition, i.e. to determine the scale and boundaries of cognition of the subject of study from the standpoint of the commonality of the constitutive basis with various processes, phenomena, theoretical, practical constructions, etc.

It is important to note that when talking about the structure of ontological representations, we mean only the basic ones, i.e. those that are rooted in the consciousness of society. We are not talking about particular ontologies that serve as the basis, for example, of any types of realities (symbolic, reflexive, etc.) and methodologies for their research. The primary conditions of meaning-setting are only the structure of basic ontological concepts rooted in the consciousness of society. They are considered in this article as a tool of thinking.

Methodological strategy for building a traditional didactic learning system

"Reflexed ontology is a methodology" ^[3]. Methodology is a product of the transformation of the meaning of ontological representations into law—like forms (principles, regulations, attitudes, etc.) that organize human understanding and activity. Consequently, the structure of the ontological representation also has methodological significance, acting as a methodological strategy — "a system of priority methodological guidelines that determine the dominant methodological tools for solving a scientific problem" ^{[4, p.65]}. It defines the range of possible goal setting (the limit of what is possible), the structural characteristics of the design object. According to the strategy, an arsenal of methodological tools is selected.

The traditional didactic system was basically formed in the culture of the industrial era on its ontological grounds, in particular, the idea of the world as an objective reality independent of man. By its structure, it has a division between the subjective and objective world, the ontological meaning of which is the unity of the world through similarity. He initially sets the relation of similarity: the subjective becomes similar to the objective through participation, conformity to its qualities, characteristics, which ensures the unity of the world.

The didactic system formed in the structure of this representation establishes a similarity relationship between the subjective and the objective in the course of training. This is the ontological meaning of this system, to endow the subjective with the characteristics of the objective or, according to G. Hegel, to realize the universal in singularity: "A person is not by nature what he should be. ... He must bring his singularity into line with his rational side ... raise his separate being to his universal nature — to form himself" ^{[5, p.65]}.   

Methodologically, this similarity is realized by the strategy from due to being. It directs the researcher's thought from the outside inside, from the objective world (authentic, valuable, correct) into the inner subjective world of a person. The variability, ambiguity, uncertainty of the subjective is overcome in logic, the external generates the internal, i.e. the researcher looks at the world through objectively existing logic, sees the realization of the universal in the concreteness of the living being of the individual, looks for manifestations of the objective world as the only authentic in the changeable realities of life. At the same time, the opposite is also true. Assimilating, interacting with what is created in this methodological strategy, a person's consciousness receives an organization consistent with it (determination of individual consciousness by the consciousness of society, part of the whole), i.e., he assimilates a view of the world through objectively existing logic. Purposefully and on a systematic basis, this is carried out in education, this is its fundamental importance.

Structural markers of the traditional didactic system

Four structural markers have been identified:

I. The content of education in this system has a clear distinction, is made up of samples of knowledge, experience (skills, skills) that form a summative system. The content of education exists independently of the person, i.e. outside of him. In teaching, it is given as a normatively defined object of assimilation, assimilation, appropriation (that someone else's, which must be made one's own in order to realize the universal in a unit).  

Thus, through the content of education, the division between the subjective and objective world is initially set, which is the basis of the relations of similarity of the subjective to the objective established in teaching.

The first structural marker is a learning system, where the division between the subjective world of the student and the objective world is set through the content of education, there is a variant of the traditional learning system.

For example, developmental training. Unlike the traditional didactic system, in which learning is built from the individual to the general, from the concrete to the abstract, the main direction of developing learning is the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Consequently, in the two systems, the initial educational object of thinking is radically different, in the traditional system — these are objects, their properties, representations, and in developing learning — the relationship between them. The change of the initial educational object of thinking entails a radical revolution in the study of school material, but it does not affect the organization of the content of education. It remains a summative system of abstract patterns that is beyond the student and independent of him. Consequently, in developing learning, as in traditional, through the content of education, a division is set between the subjective world of the student and the objective world, which corresponds to the first structural marker and testifies to the deep unity of these learning systems.

II. Educational activity is a subject activity, "but its subject is theoretical, ideal... The paradox of educational activity is that by assimilating knowledge, the student himself does not change anything in this knowledge. The subject of changes is the subject himself who carries out this activity" ^{[6, p.307]}, knowledge remains unchanged. Consequently, changes are directed from the outside inwards, the external (knowledge) generates the internal (changes in the subject). The measure of changes is an abstract sample — a generalized image of a person: an image of a school graduate, a model of a university graduate, a model of a specialist, etc. Such an image / model is a set of typologically similar (qualities, characteristics of an individual, behavioral patterns, etc.). Everything that does not have typological similarity is eliminated as insignificant, personal manifestations are brought into line with type-forming signs (limiting characteristics). This implements the similarity of the subjective to the objective. The subject of learning "acts for himself as self-changing" ^{[6, p.307]}, but he self-changes within the boundaries of external prescriptions (from outside to inside), set in an abstract way (model) as a measure of his internal changes.

Since knowledge is unchangeable, the operator content of educational activity (the composition of the method of action) has the property of reversibility, i.e. the composition of actions can be repeated in reverse order. This is an activity with zero risks, its result is predictable and does not depend on accidents.

The second structural marker: in the process of educational activity, the subject of changes is the student/student as the subject of learning, the measure of changes is an abstract sample.

III. The subjectivity of a student manifests itself within the boundaries of external prescriptions (rules, standard models, etc.). Who prescribes? The main subject, he directs, encourages action, etc., therefore, the direct subject of action (the student) does not act on his own behalf, but is an instrument of the main subject. Distributed subjectivity arises (the main subject is the direct subject of action) or the subject of the proper form (the concept of the French philosopher Descombes) ^{[7, p.14]}.

The third structural marker: distributed subjectivity.

IV. The organizing principle of the educational process "presentation of knowledge — assimilation of knowledge" is determined by the out-of-position content of education. From the objective world (presentation of knowledge) to the student's inner subjective world (assimilation of knowledge). Instructive and reproductive forms of educational activity contribute to this.

The fourth structural marker: "knowledge delivery — knowledge assimilation" as an organizing principle of the educational process.

All structural markers are internally interconnected and show how the similarity relation is established and implemented in the traditional learning system. It is established through the non—location of the content of education and distributed subjectivity, implemented by the organization of the educational process based on the principle of "knowledge delivery — knowledge acquisition" and educational activities in which the subject of change is the student / student as the subject of learning, the measure of his changes is an abstract sample.

Basic meanings of the traditional learning system

Ontological meaning: the realization of the universal in the individual through its conformity to the qualities, characteristics of the objective world.

Anthropological meaning: the ascent of the individual to the universal. People are about the same in their mental properties. A person is a carrier of typologically similar (qualities, characteristics, behavioral patterns, etc.), normative knowledge that is mastered during training, typologically similar qualities are collective qualities (qualities necessary for collective work).

Social and economic meaning: a person as a carrier of collective qualities in the industrial era is a resource for the development and well-being of society. The ontological meaning of development and well—being is the creation of a perfect society, the achievement of universal prosperity (as participation in the objective world, like it), according to Y. Komensky, this is the way from the "labyrinth of the world" to the "paradise of the heart". The "labyrinth of the world" is a complex sequential process of the universal eradication of ignorance; the establishment of human domination for universal prosperity and well—being; the "paradise of the heart" is a perfect person, a perfect society, eternal peace ^[8]. The high level of material well-being of society ensures movement from the "labyrinth of the world" to the "paradise of the heart". In that era, it was achieved by expanding the developed territories and resources of the planet, which required collective efforts and technological progress. Education produced human resources for this (a person as a carrier of collective qualities).

New ontology — new basic meanings of the learning system

Modern society is moving to an intensive path of development, since the mechanism of its extensive development has been exhausted (the territory and resources of the planet have been mastered). It is no longer natural resources, but man and his productive capabilities that are the main resource for the development of society. Ontologically, these changes are justified by the idea of the coevolution of man and the world, the structure of which is the unity of the subjective and objective world. Reality is not thought of as an external and independent reality from a person, but as a process with the participation of a person, "a person and the world are developing, changing, using each other's capabilities." The division of the world in the consciousness of society has changed, the primary conditions of meaning-setting. Now the understanding of the world goes through a person, which means that human actions are determined internally, and not directed from the outside, internal determination contains subjective layers (value representations, emotional-empathic, intuitive connections, grasping meaning, sensations and giving meaning to sensations, etc.), therefore, individual subjectivity acts as a resource for the development of society. The subjective world of man is included in modern economic, technological, managerial schemes, is embedded in the mechanism of production. At the level of methodology, the unity of the subjective and objective world is represented by a strategy from the inside out, the inside generates the outside.

Thus, the world of modern technologies and the social structures that arise with it are built on the basis of the unity of the subjective and objective world. The training system built on this basis has the following basic meanings:

Ontological meaning: the communicative and dialogical unity of man and the world. A person in the process of communicative self-organization (first structuring his inner reality and structuring the object of activity on the basis of internal changes) is integrated (incorporated) into the existing order of reality based on the coordination of values, because his bodily and spiritual integrity and morality are of fundamental importance.

Anthropological meaning: the formation of a person as a subject of life in dialogue with the world and nature. A person is a participant in the self—organizing process of reality (and not a faceless carrier of collective qualities). People differ in their mental properties. The training system, not excluding the formation of collective qualities, is primarily focused on creating conditions for the maturation of individual, personal uniqueness of a person and gaining experience in its implementation. The resource of development is no longer similarity, but uniqueness, uniqueness (similarity is a resource of reproduction).

Social and economic sense. In a society that has embarked on an intensive path of development, "the productivity of the economy, the prospects of technology, the renewal of science and culture are dependent on the energy and quality of the activities of individual subjects" ^[9]. The generation of knowledge has become a new form of production, and the ability of a person to create knowledge is a direct productive force. The resource for the development of society is a person as a reflexive agent of industrial and socio-cultural innovations, his individual subjectivity acts as a "force and form of the development of sociality" ^[9].

In order to meet the challenges of the time, education must be built in the structure of a new ontological representation, methodologically represented by a strategy from the inside out (the inside generates the outside). It implies that the student's actions are determined internally, and not directed from the outside. Internal determination manifests itself by the influence of subjective layers in the content, process and result of educational activity, i.e. as a unity of the subjective and objective world.

Development or regression of education?

Modern education is in urgent need of systemic transformation, because, despite numerous transformations, it is still not able to meet the challenges of the time. The key, but implicit factor of the education crisis is the conflict of ontologies. We will show its action on the example of FGOS 4.0 — the first digital "standard". It is positioned by developers as a response to "challenges of complexity, uncertainty, diversity and unpredictability of the world order" ^{[10, p.60]}. The difference of the new FGOS from the previous versions was figuratively explained by its initiator, academician A.G. Asmolov. In the early versions, there was a "dictatorship of the experience of the past years, turning students into obedient tame "hamsters"" (Chudin N. Academician Alexander Asmolov: on withdrawing from the Initiative of FGOS 4.0 / Teacher's Newspaper. 27.04.2021), whereas the main principle of FGOS 4.0 is "there are no irreplaceable, and every child is a unique value" (Manylov D. What will surprise us with the new educational standard/ Outpost. 29.05.2020). The principle is formulated as a paradox, since it asserts the unity of incompatible qualities: interchangeability and uniqueness.  

What is the ontological meaning of FGOS 4.0? There is no reflection of the ontological basis in the presentation of its value-semantic foundations ^[10] and a number of other related materials. Using the thinking tool proposed in the article, we will identify the initial ontology of FGOS 4.0, considering its basic principle in parts.

· "There are no irreplaceable"

This statement assumes that a person as a carrier of qualities in the process of activity can be replaced without prejudice by another carrier of the same qualities (there are no irreplaceable ones). Interchangeability, in turn, presupposes the presence of typological similarity of qualities that are formed, as shown above, provided that education is structured on the basis of separation between the subjective and objective world. In FGOS 4.0, this condition is met.

Each element of the digital content of education is an abstract construct, independent of the subject ("mastering the necessary cultural norms: knowledge, standards, samples" ^{[10, p.66]}). As a consequence, the organizing principle of the educational process is the "presentation of knowledge — the assimilation of knowledge". Through the digital content of education, the division between the subjective and objective world is set, respectively, in the process of educational activity, it is not knowledge that changes, but the subject. The measure of changes determines the set of competencies as an educational result. Competence itself is an abstract pattern (standardized quality acting as a norm), a set of competencies is a set of abstract patterns, therefore the subject self-changes within the boundaries of external prescriptions (from outside to inside), and the main subject prescribes, therefore, the student takes the position of the direct subject of action, i.e. FGOS 4.0 implies the presence of distributed subjectivity.

Thus, "there are no irreplaceable" as a component of the basic principle of FGOS 4.0 indicates the presence of a structural correspondence (four structural markers of the traditional system) between the traditional learning system and the type of educational device designed on the basis of FGOS 4.0, therefore, it is unable to take into account the individual originality of the student, his uniqueness.

· "Every child is a unique value"

FGOS 4.0 is positioned by developers as the basis for the transition "from the dominant basic processes of "preparation" and "learning" to "productive education" based on the meta-competencies of self-organization, self-determination, goal-setting, productive action and reflection" ^{[10, p.60]}. The transition is provided by the possibilities of digital technologies. The above-mentioned meta-competencies imply the manifestation and realization of the unique value of each child, which is ensured by the personalization of education. Two key personalization mechanisms:

- "Academic freedom on the confidence interval. ... Each subject of education independently forms an educational and professional request, chooses the forms, means and conditions for its implementation" ^{[10, p.64]}. For example, N.M. Shadrina: "A child goes to one school for mathematics, and to another school, college, or Russian language, using Internet resources, because the quality of teaching there is higher or the teacher may be more interesting and clearer to explain" (FGOS 4.0 will be the standard of conditions).  

— Delocalization of the connection between the processes of submission and assimilation of knowledge by creating a system of places: 1. "The place of formation of inquiry and reflection ... a specially organized space where the subject learns the necessary cultural norms: knowledge, standards, samples — in interaction with experts, teachers, mentors, etc., as well as with books, the Internet, etc." ^{[10, p.66]}. In other words, it is a place of knowledge delivery. 2. "The place of implementation of the request in the activity ... is fundamentally "outside" the educational organization. Here the participants present and implement the norms of activity: create products, provide services, etc." ^{[10, p.66]}. This is a place of learning.

The system of places is the basis for the formation of an educational ecosystem in which the:

1. "Actors (communities, practitioners and providers) of collective future strategizing" ^{[10, p.67]}. They occupy the position of the main subject, because they "provide a variety of educational resources and opportunities for the formation of subjectivity" ^{[10, p.67]}; they form the image of the future — "the structure of the world that a group of participants wants" ^{[10, p.67]}.

2. Consumers of educational products and services. They occupy the position of the direct subject of action. Taking the image of the future (values, attitudes, goals), they "determine their own desired position in this image and form their collective and individual route to it" ^{[10, p.67]}.

There is a structure of educational relations "actor — image of the future — consumer" as a distributed subjectivity, where a market mechanism "supply—demand" is introduced into education through an intermediate link "image of the future". The actor, through the image of the future, gives the consumer a semantic picture of the state of the current reality and its possible transformation, as well as tools of thinking and activity for interacting with it. Thus, it ensures the preadaptation of both the education system and the consumer of educational services to "innovation and the challenges of the "complex world"" ^{[10, p.61]}, as well as the sustainability of consumer demand.

This is, in general terms, the type of education device according to the Federal State Educational Standard 4.0. The cognitive position adopted in this article allows us to draw an unambiguous conclusion: it is built in the structure of an ontological view of the world that has lost its relevance as a given independent of a person. The world of modern technologies and social structures are built in the structure of the ontological representation of the coevolution of man and the world, i.e. on the basis of the unity of the subjective and objective world, in the logic of understanding the world through man.

Thus, FGOS 4.0 is the product of an ontological conflict: the new content of life is comprehended in the structure of the old ontological representation, accepted by developers a priori and without reflexive. Every person who has been educated in accordance with the Federal State Educational Standard 4.0 will master the view of the world through objectively existing logic. But such a person is not a resource for the development of modern society, therefore, the transformation of education based on FGOS 4.0 is regressive, not progressive. Let's supplement what has been said with examples.

According to FGOS 4.0, self-organization (one of the meta-competencies) is understood as the ability to organize oneself by choosing educational services, products that exist independently of the consumer, i.e. through objectively existing logic (strategy from the outside in), the unique value of a person in this process manifests itself within the boundaries of external prescriptions. Self-organization in the logic of understanding the world through a person: the subject first structures his inner reality and, based on internal changes, structures the object of activity (strategy from the inside out). Subjective layers are integrated with objective content into a semantic integrity in which the subjective and objective exist indecomposably into simple elements or analytical units. In such a process of self-organization, there are no external prescriptions, which makes it possible to fully manifest the personal, individual uniqueness of a person and gain experience in its implementation. In modern conditions, in all spheres of society, the experience of such self-organization is in demand, it is a way of embedding the subjective world of a person into the mechanism of production. For example, a modern engineer, creating a technical object, is not limited by the possibilities of technical knowledge, but faces the need to take into account social, psychological, economic, aesthetic, organizational and other factors. Such a task cannot be solved rationally and logically, but only in the process of communicative self-organization (strategy from the inside out).

Another example. FGOS 4.0, implementing a methodological strategy from the outside in, determines a set of competencies as an educational result, respectively, a person is understood as a carrier of a set of competencies that ensures his adaptability to existing conditions. At the same time, the set of competencies is meaningfully expanded, and the figure of the carrier is meaningfully indistinct — the same, equally "faceless" carrier (interchangeability). The implementation of a methodological strategy from the inside out, on the contrary, implies that a person is a participant in the process (understanding, activity, etc.). As a participant, he is integrated into the existing order based on the coordination of values. The mechanism of embedding is a communicative coupling between the action of the subject and the object ("subject-action-object"). They are participants in a process in which they jointly and mutually construct each other. In such a process of self-organization, the subject does not adapt to what already exists, but creates. It is such a subject that acts as a resource for the development of modern society. The above example of an engineer's work shows that he does not adapt to reality, but constructs a fragment of reality. In this process, the fundamental importance is not a set of competencies, but the unique value of a person as a participant in the process in his bodily and spiritual integrity, the experience of realizing his subjectivity, the high level of his general culture, implying the presence of fundamental knowledge, etc.

Any education system has its own deep, root meaning, the transformed form of which it is, and which it implements. This is its ontological meaning. It organizes the consciousness of a person receiving education, which is an implicit, but fundamentally significant educational result. It is important to take into account that the quality of activity of people with different semantic organization of consciousness, owning the same set of competencies, will be radically different.

Concluding this section, we note: 1. The paradoxical nature of the formulation of the main principle of FGOS 4.0 is a consequence of the inaccuracy of its definition. The principle should be formulated as follows: there are no irreplaceable, and every child as a consumer of educational products and services has a unique value. 2. The type of education device built on the basis of the Federal State Educational Standard 4.0 turns education into an intermediary activity that helps interested parties (government, business, consumers) to achieve the desired result by providing educational services.

Conclusion

The structure of the ontological representation as a thinking tool gives the researcher an objective and complete basis for understanding existing theoretical and practical constructions and designing new ones. An education system capable of responding to the challenges of the time should be designed in the structure of an ontological view of the co-evolution of the world and man, and this means on post-non-classical philosophical and methodological grounds. Postnonclassics is not the opposite of classics. It's just different levels of complexity of understanding the world and a different range of possibilities for interacting with it. Both levels are equally significant and valuable. Therefore, the new system, in addition to new opportunities, should include the possibilities of the traditional model of education. So that, while studying, a person gets the experience of thinking and activity in the structure of two ontologies, learns to see and understand the world through objectively existing logic (methodological strategy from the outside in, external generates internal) and through a person (methodological strategy from the inside out, internal generates external). We have proposed a new construction of the content of higher education ^[11], built in the structure of a new ontological representation (the unity of the subjective and objective world), it acts as a key factor in the design of the educational process in which the student will have the opportunity to gain experience of thinking and activity in the structure of two ontologies.