System-structural and bioessential-deterministic
meta-paradigms. Part two

Ufimtsev Aleksandr Evgenevich ORCID: 0009-0004-9788-5550 independent researcher 660122, Russia, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Krasnoyarsk, Transit str., 48, sq. 32 ufimtzev@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

Smirnova Marina Mikhailovna independent researcher 668312, Russia, Republic of Tyva, Mezhegey village, Lenin str., 69, sq. 1 knyam2020@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms. Part Two

dedicated to our dear and close friend Nadezhda Nikolaevna Bebrish

Dry, my friend, theory is everywhere,

And the tree of life is luxuriantly green.

(I. V. von Goethe's Faust,

N. A. Kholodkovsky Lane)

Introduction

The article is in two parts. The second part is presented to the attention of readers.

The article continues to consider the manifestations of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms implemented in various fields of knowledge in the form of paradigms or separate concepts.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the development of scientific knowledge.

The subject of the study is the development of scientific knowledge.

Relevance of the research: identification of patterns of development of scientific knowledge may be useful for making strategic forecasts of the development of science.

The novelty of the research consists in considering the theory of the sign in an interdisciplinary aspect and in identifying and describing meta-paradigms as conceptually generalized sets of representation systems (paradigms) in various sciences.

In the first part, the theory of the sign from the course of linguistics is extended to the system-structural and anthropocentric paradigms in linguistics. This distribution made it possible to identify meta-paradigms: systemic-structural, which has a formally oriented character, and bioessential-deterministic, which has an essence-oriented character.

In the first part, the characteristics of meta-paradigms highlighted by the example of linguistics are given:

· the system-structural meta-paradigm is a narrow specialization; statics; logic; reliance on the conscious; rigor and orderliness according to V. M. Alpatov; abstract objectivism according to V. N. Voloshinov: a stable unchangeable system, the laws of language have a specifically linguistic causality and have no axiological meaning, acts of speech are a random refraction of the norms of language as a frozen system; a system-centered approach according to E. V. Rakhilina; language is considered as a closed system; a formally oriented approach is implemented.

· bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm is a broad interdisciplinarity; dynamics; intuitionism, intuition; reliance on the unconscious; chaos and arbitrariness according to V. M. Alpatov; individualistic subjectivism according to V. N. Voloshinov: continuous creative activity, the laws of linguistic creativity are psychologically conditioned and make sense, live speech uses language as a finished product; anthropocentric the approach according to E. V. Rakhilina; the language is considered as an open system; an essence-oriented approach is implemented.

The conclusion is made: the change of meta-paradigms as trends in the development of science is systemic. The dispute between the two trends in linguistics has been going on for a long time. Currently, the systemic-structural meta-paradigm is being changed to a bioessential-deterministic one. In addition, the first part examines the manifestation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in various fields of knowledge (literary studies, exact sciences, religious studies) and in the work of T. S. Kuhn "The Structure of scientific revolutions".

This part shows the implementation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in other fields of scientific knowledge (biomedical field, phonopedia, psychology, psycholinguistics) and in the works of individual researchers ("Culture Two" by V. Z. Paperny, "Pendulum of Culture" by P. B. Bogdanova).

The choice of scientific disciplines is determined by the professional activity of the authors (practical pedagogy in a children's psychoneurological boarding school, pedagogical activity in the field of secondary general education) and research interest (there are scientific publications on linguistics, philosophy, bioethics, phonopedia, psycholinguistics). The choice of the works of individual researchers is due to the rather vivid manifestation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in them.

In conclusion, the final conclusions are presented.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge:

biomedical field

The original and main purpose of the origin and development of medical sciences was to provide assistance to a person regarding his health status. Following the logic of this goal, at first glance, the development of medicine is designed to take place approximately according to the same scenario: serving human health, and besides, it seems natural to have progress in improving the situation of physical and spiritual well-being of mankind. This progress, which could be hypothetically predicted, being at one point or another in the course of the history of human civilization, would naturally be seen in a linear way. This pattern could be manifested in the development of biomedical sciences, on which the possibilities of implementing medicine in practice depend. But, despite the numerous discoveries and knowledge accumulated over time, the course of history has gone in a direction that has fundamental differences and specific features that run counter to the linear in content assumed model of the evolution of this sphere.

Since the Ancient World, a number of documents related to the topic of medical ethics have reached us: these are various kinds of conditional codes. These sets of rules were formed on the territory of Babylon, Ancient China, Ancient Egypt, Ancient India, the Israeli state, etc., and contained the basic ethical criteria that the healer of the Ancient World was obliged to meet. Not all types of such moral codes have survived or could ever exist in written form, but those that have come down to our time have been expressed through the work of individual healers, thinkers, educators and other figures. In connection with the issue of medical ethics of the Ancient world and antiquity, the names can be named: Sushruta, Charaka (Ancient India), Lao Tzu, Kon Fu Tzu (Ancient China), Hippocrates, Epicurus (Ancient Greece), Galen (Ancient Rome), etc.

Among the figures of the Middle Ages, it is fair to name Romuald of Salerno, Abu al Faraji, Paracelsus, Eustachius, W. Harvey; these same thinkers and practitioners will be those who will later lay the foundation for the rapid development of science in the New Age, with the advent of which the course of scientific progress is increasingly accelerating. In this historical period, there is a kind of bifurcation in the direction of public thought: on the one hand, a clear priority is given to scientific and technological progress, on the other hand, attention is still paid to moral principles that are present in the structure of collective consciousness, as grains of the legacy of the past. Nevertheless, scientific progress is gaining more weight and importance due to the multiplication and expansion of opportunities as a result of these processes. As a result, the principles related to the relationship to life temporarily recede far into the background, giving way to the processes and results of scientific progress.

Since the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a paradigm shift in relation to the ideological sentiments of society has become increasingly relevant for the civilized world. The general unstable socio-economic atmosphere established in the world, due to the consequences of the World War, as well as new trends in economics and science, contributed to the active processes of restructuring the thinking of society. This tendency finds expression in the collapse of religious (in particular, Christian) morality and the loss of relevance of seemingly unshakable moral pillars, which can quite rightly be expressed in the words of F. Nietzsche: "God is dead."

At the same time, prerequisites for scientific knowledge are beginning to form, which in the future will act as a counterweight and deterrent to the rapidly developing scientific progress of the force. These prerequisites begin to manifest themselves in the form of concerns expressed by public figures about the living in general. Thus, O. Leopold (who is called the most important American ecologist of the twentieth century) develops his activity with regard to the environmental sphere of life, drawing attention to existing problems, and thereby having a noticeable impact on modern ideas about environmental ethics. And later (1960-1970s), the American biochemist and oncologist-surgeon V. R. Potter, speaking to colleagues with a manifesto, expressed in a detailed form his concerns related to the rapid pace of development of scientific technologies, and pronounced the name of science, designed to become a deterrent force for the negative sides of progress – bioethics.

So, since the twentieth century, the development of scientific and technological progress and bioethical knowledge has been going on in parallel, which has a deterrent effect of an informational and practical nature, in particular, legal. Scientific and technological progress in the field of medicine is manifested, for example, in the form of biotechnologies, the development of which in most cases is perceived as new opportunities for society and benefit. But if we talk about the consequences, especially the long-term ones, at the moment it does not seem possible to build an accurate and clear forecast due to the insufficient amount of necessary data.

Considering the situation in the medical and biological sphere and taking the situation on the world stage for analysis, we can come to the following conclusions. Currently, the rapid pace of development of the technological sphere has led to the fact that its manifestations crossed the line when the products of the technological sphere worked for a person, and began to work to maintain the existence of the Technosphere itself – in all its might. So, often we are talking about substitution, when the treatment process "replaces" the goal of healing the patient, or when suppression and leveling of symptoms occurs instead of paying attention to the root of the existing problem, and these results are achieved by using synthesized drugs that are inherently alien to the biological organism. Thoughtless consumption of Technosphere products in the biomedical field can lead to a dead end, because treatment should cover not only the body, but also the soul, psyche, and psychomental sphere of the individual, and be predominantly not synthetic (if possible), but biogenic and focused on the processes of a living organism. The negative impact of the Technosphere is that the living is being replaced by the inanimate.

And although Hippocrates also bequeathed: treat the patient, not the disease, historically the development of biomedical thought develops from body–oriented medicine - and I want to believe that with the transition to a personality-oriented one.

Thus, speaking about belonging to a certain vector of development, it can be summed up that the modern biomedical sphere, for the most part, is still developing within the framework of a system-structural meta-paradigm, while taking into account the priority of the essence of life (bioessential meta-paradigm) is in a state of potential that can only be revealed in the processes of the future.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge:

phonopedia

Phonopedia is the science of voice. Currently, phonopedia is considered a section of speech therapy, and is located at the junction of medicine and pedagogy. As a rule, a practicing phonopedist works in conjunction with a phoniatrist (for example, in the St. Petersburg Research Institute of ENT). Phoniatry studies the problems of voice from the medical side, and phonopedia – from the pedagogical side. Thus, L. B. Rudin's article provides an example of cooperation between phoniatrists and phonopeds ^{[1, pp. 95-98]}.

Speaking about meta-paradigms in phonopedia, we can identify individual concepts. Currently, there are the following theories of voice formation in speech and singing (listed in chronological order):

· myoelastic (Miller, XIX century; M. Garcia, XIX century) – explains phonation at the anatomophysiological level, and assigns a leading role in voice formation to the work of the vocal folds ^{[2, pp. 250-256] [3, pp. 180] [3, pp. 339-340] [4, p. 34]}; in fact, phoniatry as a section medicine professes the myoelastic theory, including at the present stage ^{[5, 2013, pp. 97-102] [6, 2017, pp. 1256-1257] [7, pp. 542-543]};

· mucoondulatory theory (Perello, XX century) – explains phonation from the point of view of physics ^{[4, p. 35]}; it has not been widely used;

· neurochronaxic (R. Yusson, XX century) – identifies the central nervous system as a central mechanism; explains phonation at the neurophysiological level [Yusson, p. 264] [Morozov, p. 180-182] [Orlova, p. 35];

· resonant theory of the art of singing, RTIP (V. P. Morozov, XX century) – explains phonation from the standpoint of three sciences: acoustics, physiology and psychology; the leading role is given to the formation of resonance; in addition, V. P. Morozov speaks about the importance of psychological sensations ^{[3, pp. 339-368] [4, pp. 35-36]};

· phonopedic method of voice development, FMRG (V. V. Yemelyanov, XX-XXI centuries) – explains phonation at the psychophysiological level; V. V. Yemelyanov introduces a number of principles of FMRG, among which he pays attention to the aesthetic component ^{[8, pp. 53-54]};

· psychoacoustic neurobronchial (V. P. Bagrunov, XX-XXI centuries) – identifies the human psyche as the central mechanism, and the body as the peripheral one; explains phonation at the psychophysiological level, highlighting the central vocal apparatus (brain, psyche) and peripheral (the actual vocal apparatus), and speaks about the importance of work at the mental level ^{[9, pp. 143-144]}.

It should be noted that V. V. Yemelyanov "came" to phonopedia from the world of vocal art, and V. P. Bagrunov – from psychology, which determined the scientific views of these researchers – towards psychophysics, and not the materialistic conditioning of the sound of the voice. The works of both researchers are united by reliance on evolutionarily older methods of voice formation, however, with some differences: for example, V. P. Bagrunov appeals to the use of smooth muscles involved in voice formation ^{[9, pp. 118-122]}, and V. V. Yemelyanov suggests using voice signals of pre–speech communication - GSDK ^{[8, p. 53]}. V. P. Morozov also speaks about the importance of psychological sensations when using the voice, but it is in the works of V. V. Yemelyanov and V. P. Bagrunov that the psychophysical component in the work on the voice is given a significant place.

We can conclude that theories describing the phonation process at the bodily level and mechanistically determining, even rather prescribing, proper actions when singing are comparable to the systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and theories describing the phonation process at the mental level and taking into account biological features at the evolutionary level are comparable to the bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm.

It is noteworthy that the theories of voice formation and singing appeared from the allocation of the leading role of anatomy to physiology and then to the psyche. In other words, the development of conceptual thought in phonopedia moves from bodily causality to mental conditioning and from a system-structural meta-paradigm to a bioessential deterministic one.

It should be noted that phonopedia as a science is at the junction of medicine and pedagogy, and phonopedia works in collaboration with a phoniatrist operating within the framework of the myoelastic theory of voice formation, which describes the phonation process at a purely bodily level, which additionally confirms belonging to the general vector of medical development and generally occurs within the framework of a systemic structural meta–paradigm. At the same time, phonoped uses pedagogical methods in his work – which explains the interest in this science among researchers from other fields of knowledge, and generally occurs in line with the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge:

psychology

There are many definitions of psychology as a science. Paleoanthropologist B. F. Porshnev gives an interesting definition of psychology: "human psychology is the physiology of nervous activity at the level of the existence of a second signaling system" ^{[10, p. 129]}, and further, the scientist, speaking about the research of L. S. Vygotsky, notes: "the key to higher mental functions, to their truly scientific causal explanation, to the disclosure Vygotsky rightly saw their mechanism in speech, in language, in the second signaling system that distinguishes a person" ^{[10, p. 132]}. Thus, psychology can be considered as the science of controlling the first signaling system through the second signaling system – which in the context of the topic under consideration can be explained as follows: through verbal thinking, there is a regulation of specifically effective thinking, which operates the body and psyche. The living entity is guided by verbal instructions (or auto-instructions), life processes are regulated verbally.

Speaking about the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in psychology, we can identify separate concepts. Thus, in the concept of transactional analysis by E. Bern, models of ego states are considered: a child, an adult and a Parent, while certain feelings, experiences and behavior are inherent in each model ^{[11, p. 236]}.

It can be said that the Parent ego-state model, in which behavior is built in accordance with external requirements, is a manifestation of a systemic structural meta–paradigm, and the Child ego-state model, when behavior is based on internal needs that are not always adequate to the situation, is a manifestation of a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm. The Adult ego state model is characterized by building behavior with a balance between external demands and internal needs – thus combining systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism.

It should be noted that the content components of the ego models of the Child, Adult and Parent states are bioessentially determined - that is, they are determined in accordance with the psychophysical characteristics inherent in a person at each of these stages of development, and the very concept of the transactional as a certain system is the property of systemic structuralism.

In the first part, we touched on the question of what should be guided by feelings or duty. According to the theory of transactional analysis, models of ego states have a time frame: conditional childhood (Child) takes place under the auspices of bioessential determinism, and conditional parenthood (Parent) – under the auspices of systemic structuralism. If we look at this question more broadly, the answer can be formulated as follows: the ideal case is when the choice between feeling and duty is bioessentially determined, i.e. comes from within, and at the same time is systemically structurally conditioned, i.e. predetermined from the outside, and the very fact of the existence of this pattern is the property of systemic structuralism; this is a model The ego is an Adult state.

Let's give another example. The direction of behaviorism studies behavioral reactions, the universal scheme of behaviorism looks simplistically like this: stimulus – reaction – fixation. When exposed to a stimulus, a reaction occurs – this is the body's response in line with the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm, and the consolidation of the reaction of the subject necessary for the experimental scientist takes place within the framework of a systemic structural meta-paradigm.

Let's give another example. Developmental psychology and age psychology in particular describes human development. Human development goes through a number of age–related crises: the crisis of birth, the crisis of one year, the crisis of three years, the crisis of seven years, the crisis of puberty, etc. - during which there seems to be a reassembly of personality due to the development of the body, whereas outside crisis periods development is relatively calm ^{[12, pp. 11-21]}. It can be assumed that age–related crises are a manifestation of a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm based on the material of the development of the human psyche, and the very fact of the presence of certain patterns is the property of a systemic-structural meta-paradigm. Abstract ideas are embodied in the real world in the form of development trends, and people are the conductors of these trends.

It should be noted that in psychology there are many concepts and theories devoted to the identification and description of types of people: classification by temperament types, extroversion/introversion scale, K. Leonhard's classification of accentuations, A. E. Lichko's classification of accentuations, etc. Any concepts and theories that typify people in one way or another are a manifestation of systemic structuralism.

However, there will always be people who do not fit into the Procrustean bed of the proposed framework – and will thereby serve as an engine for the creation of new concepts and theories – as in the theory of T. S. Kuhn, when anomalies arising in normal science lead to a scientific revolution ^[13]. The very fact of creating a new concept or theory of determining the types of people for any reason is the property of bioessential determinism, but as soon as the concept or theory of typing is created and tested, and people began to type according to it, one way or another driving them into certain rigid frames, it becomes the property of systemic structuralism – as in the theory of T.S. Kuhn: discovery – this is a scientific revolution, but gradually scientific revolutions become indistinguishable, turning into normal science, and so on indefinitely ^[13].

Thus, it is possible to identify other concepts, the example of which shows the implementation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, however, in the mainstream of psychology, these will be individual concepts, not paradigms. The description of the bizarre interweaving of systemic structuralism and bioessential determinism based on the material of various trends in modern psychology is certainly an interesting and fertile topic for research, however, due to the complexity and multidimensionality of psychology as a science, it promises to take an inappropriately large volume for this work, therefore, within the framework of this article we will focus on the examples already given – fortunately there are enough of them, to draw certain unambiguous conclusions.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in other branches of scientific knowledge: psycholinguistics

Psycholinguistics is a science that arose at the junction of psychology and linguistics, and uses the methodologies of both sciences. It should be noted that at one time, including with the accumulation of scientific knowledge, philology was divided into linguistics (linguistics) and literary studies. In the mass consciousness, linguistics represents a clear, clear and at the same time incomprehensible and difficult to study system, and literary studies, according to popular beliefs, like a number of other fields of knowledge: philosophy, psychology, etc., does not consider science, which can be explained by the manifestation of the human factor, inevitably present in human–oriented disciplines. It can be said that depending on which hemisphere of the brain is the leading one, people are right–handed – i.e. with the leading left hemisphere – and left-handed - i.e. with the leading right hemisphere. It is generally believed that the right hemisphere is "responsible" for logic and mathematical abilities, while the left hemisphere is responsible for creativity and art abilities. In relation to philology, this conditional division manifests itself as follows: "right–handers" are more willing to "go" into linguistics, "left–handers" - into literary studies, and "ambidextrous" - into psycholinguistics. The piquancy of the situation is compounded by the fact that psycholinguistics studies thinking – something that the brain, with its two hemispheres, is just involved in.

It can be noted that philology has divided, according to the functions of the cerebral hemispheres, into linguistics and literary studies, and psycholinguistics just assumes the involvement of both hemispheres – that is, the unification of the functions of the hemispheres at a qualitatively new level.

We can say that this is how Rationality and Irrationality manifest themselves – rational and irrational components, respectively. Rationo corresponds to a systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and Irrationo corresponds to a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm, and psycholinguistics combines them.

Thus, psycholinguistics is a unique science: its subject is the property of both meta-paradigms at the same time. And if the "right–handed" sciences are linguistics, physics, mathematics, etc., and the "left-handed" sciences are literary studies, philosophy, psychology, etc., then psycholinguistics is an "ambidextrous" science. Of course, these are figurative simplifications, you should not take them literally.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in the works of individual researchers:

V. Z. Paperny "Culture Two"

The work of V. Z. Paperny "Culture 2" is multidisciplinary in nature: the data of architecture, poetry and events of socio-political life in certain historical periods (XX century) are compared. Based on the material of comparing these data in a synchronized cross-section, the author describes the main features of two cultures (named by the author as culture 1 and culture 2), which alternate, replacing each other.

V. Z. Paperny describes culture 1 and culture 2 using the example of binary oppositions: beginning/end (movement/immobility, horizontal/vertical, uniform/hierarchical), mechanism/person (collective/individual, inanimate/living, concept/name, good/evil), lyrics/epic (dumbness/word, improvisation /notes, expedient / artistic, realism / truth, deed / miracle).

Culture 1 and culture 2 can be characterized as follows:

· culture 1 is mobile; it is in a state of spreading; it is focused on movement, on horizontality, on the destruction of boundaries and hierarchy, on uniformity, on internationality. Culture 1 declares itself the beginning of history, aspires to the future and destroys the past ^{[14, p. 56]}; breaks ties with the past, renounces the legacy of the past ^{[14, p. 40]}; culture 1 longs to rush into the future right now ^{[14, p. 42]}. Culture 1 is characterized by centrifugal movement ^{[14, p. 18]}; reverence for the foreign ^{[14, p. 70]}. Culture 1 does not distinguish an individual from the mass of people, and in general offers a collective existence in the form of communes ^{[14, pp. 126-128]}. Culture 1 does not distinguish between men and women, trying to erase gender differences ^{[14, p. 132]}. Culture 1 is the element of fire, the pathos of burning ^{[14, p. 156]}. In culture 1, there is no concept of Evil and Good ^{[14, p. 173]}. Culture 1 is characterized by the rejection of the similarity of art to life, the assertion of the right of art to its own language – what V. Z. Paperny calls non-objectification ^{[14, p. 234]}.

"The realism of culture 1 is, figuratively speaking, the realism of real schools in contrast to the classicism of gymnasiums, that is, an attitude towards natural science, not philological knowledge" ^{[14, p. 258]}.

Culture example 1: Avant-garde art of the 1920s.

· culture 2 is immobile; it is in a state of solidification, solidification; it is oriented towards immobility, immutability, hierarchy and verticality. Culture 2 declares itself the end of history, is turned into the past, and turns the future into eternity ^{[14, p. 56]}; culture 2 pushes the future indefinitely ^{[14, 42]}. Culture 2 is characterized by centripetal movement ^{[14, p. 18]}; fear of foreign ^{[14, p. 81]}; borders are drawn everywhere, boundaries and thresholds are created ^{[14, p. 74-75]}. Culture 2 has a negative attitude towards collective life, which contributes to the strengthening of the traditional family, and distinguishes men and women ^{[14, pp. 132-133]}. Culture 2 is the element of water, the culture of water ^{[14, p. 156]}. The concept of Evil appears in culture 2 ^{[14, p. 174]}; evil in culture 2 is a kind of anti–world of culture 2, sometimes with features of culture 1; the most striking pests in culture 2 are representatives of culture 1 ^{[14, p. 203]}. Culture 2 is characterized by a complete fusion of art with life – what V. Z. Paperny calls life-building ^{[14, p. 234]}.

"The realism of culture 2 is rather the realism of Plato and Anselm of Canterbury, that is, realism as opposed to nominalism, as a belief in the real existence of universals" ^{[14, p. 258]}.

Example of culture 2: Stalinist architecture of the 1930s and 1940s.

In general, summarizing these characteristics, it can be argued that the culture 1 and culture 2 described by V. Z. Paperny are abstract models, trends realized on the material of the human community: culture 1 is a revolutionary desire for revolutionary changes, extremely dynamic and unstable, and culture 2 is a tradition to follow traditions, extremely static and viscous. Culture 1 can be considered as a manifestation of a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm, and culture 2 as a manifestation of a systemic structural meta-paradigm.

At the same time, it can be noted that the description of culture 1 includes elements that are not characteristic of the bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm – as well as the description of culture 2 includes elements that are not characteristic of the systemic-structural meta-paradigm. Thus, culture 1 reveres the foreign, assumes a collective existence in the form of communes, rejects sexual differences, denies Good and Evil; culture 2 shows fear of foreign, negatively treats collective life, distinguishes men and women, introduces the concept of Evil – however, it seems that these characteristics can be explained by the action of the human factor: bioessentially-deterministic and system-structural meta-paradigms are implemented in the human world in the form of culture 1 and culture 2, described by V. Z. Paperny at a certain historical stage. Perhaps culture 1 and culture 2, described at another historical stage, will have some other characteristics – however, they are of a secondary nature.

In addition, you can notice the opposite characteristics. Thus, culture 1 is characterized by spreading, and culture 2 is characterized by solidification; however, at the same time, culture 1 is the element of fire, and culture 2 is the element of water. We see that the semantically similar characteristics of spreading and the element of water turn out to be in opposite cultures. We can explain this in the following way: culture 1 and culture 2 are never completely present in their pure form. Indeed, describing the individual trends of culture 1 and culture 2, V. Z. Paperny notes that both of them in their pure form almost did not exist ^{[14, p. 235]}.

Thus, speaking about the non-objectification inherent in culture 1, expressed in the rejection of the similarity of art to life (and semantically opposite to culture 1, if culture 1 is considered a manifestation of a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm), V. Z. Paperny notes: "culture 1 managed to see non–objective beauty in expedient structures and expediency in non-objective compositions" ^{[14, p. 235]} – which translates the conversation into aesthetic and pragmatic planes, and in general introduces an element of humanitarianism, the presence of the human principle. And speaking about the life-building characteristic of culture 2 (and semantically opposite to it, if culture 2 is considered a manifestation of a system-structural meta–paradigm), V. Z. Paperny notes: the cult of expediency and the symbolic vision of machine civilization lies at the heart of the ideas of life-building in culture 2 ^{[14, p. 236]} - which is more system-structural in nature.

Thus, culture 1 and culture 2 do not exist in their pure form. V. Z. Paperny emphasizes: culture 1 and culture 2 are models, artificial structures invented by the author to explain the realities of cultural and social life in certain time periods ^{[14, p. 17]}.

It can be concluded that in any culture there are elements of the opposite culture; the case when one culture is strategically implemented, but tactics at the moment may contradict the strategy (i.e. culture) as a whole.

Thus, we can conclude that the concept of V. Z. Paperny is complex and ambiguous. It should be noted that the work of V. Z. Paperny is a fairly voluminous study – and of course, it is impossible to cover it comprehensively within the section of one article; however, it is possible to describe the key ideas.

In fact, described on the basis of binary oppositions, culture 1 and culture 2 are themselves binary oppositional.

Parallels can be drawn with T. S. Kuhn's theory: culture 1 is similar in its characteristics to the scientific revolution, and culture 2 is like normal science.

It can be concluded: using the example of V. Z. Paperny's work "Culture Two", bioessential deterministic and system-structural meta-paradigms are implemented under the names culture 1 and culture 2, respectively.

Systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic

meta-paradigms in the works of individual researchers:

P. B. Bogdanova "The Pendulum of culture"

In addition to this monograph ^{[15, 2021]}, the results of P. B. Bogdanova's research are reflected in a number of articles:

• "On the question of cyclicity in the development of directing" ^{[16, 2015]};
• "General patterns of changing cultural cycles" ^{[17, 2020]};
• "Classical and non-classical structures of drama" ^{[18, 2022]}.

In these works, P. B. Bogdanova writes about the model of repetitive cycles – destructive and restorative, based on the material of cultural studies. According to P. B. Bogdanova, a certain cycle is realized in each epoch – destructive or creative – but at the same time it cannot be said that only one trend can be talked about within one cycle. P. B. Bogdanova explains the mechanics of cycle change in this way: both trends are realized simultaneously, while one is dominant, and the second, being secondary, it becomes the main one in the next cycle, "and it is in conflict with it that the new trend of the cycle begins to act" ^{[15, p. 174]}.

P. B. Bogdanova summarizes: the restoration cycle is an appeal to Knowledge, it is Rational, whereas the destructive cycle is an appeal to Faith, it is Irrational ^{[15, p. 174]}.

P. B. Bogdanova notes: the recovery cycle is the time of demand for left–hemisphere personalities (i.e., right-handers), in whom logical thinking prevails, whereas in the destructive cycle right-hemisphere personalities (i.e., left-handers) are activated, in whom creativity and intuition prevail ^{[15, p. 174]}.

Analyzing the structures of drama, P. B. Bogdanova writes: the closed structure of order arises at the stage of rise in the life of society, and manifests itself in all aspects – in art, society, thinking, etc., whereas the open structure of chaos appears at the stage of decomposition of integrity. P. B. Bogdanova calls the structure of order classical, and the structure of chaos – non-classical ^{[18, p. 221]}. Discussing the structure of drama, P. B. Bogdanova identifies the vectors of development: the centripetal corresponds to the classical structure, and the centrifugal corresponds to the non–classical one ^{[18, p. 222]}.

P. B. Bogdanova writes about changes in structures: when centrifugal tendencies intensify, there is a transition from the structure of order to the structure of chaos, a transition from consciousness to subconsciousness, or reliance on an intuitive irrational principle as opposed to a rational conscious one. When centripetal tendencies win, there is a transition from the structure of chaos to the structure of order, a transition from the subconscious to consciousness, reliance on the rational conscious principle as opposed to the intuitive irrational. P. B. Bogdanova notes: This is a global law, the mechanism of birth and death ^{[18, pp. 222-225]}. Having reached the limit, the structure of order gradually gives way to the structure of chaos, and vice versa – and this movement is cyclical, pendulum-like. Thus, we can distinguish four such periods: the structure of order, the transition stage from the structure of order to the structure of chaos, the structure of chaos, the transition stage from the structure of chaos to the structure of order.

P. B. Bogdanova hypothesizes: "this is how man is built, this is how he is conceived by nature, that in his movement, development, comprehension of the world he must return to the archaic beginnings of his being, to some kind of ancestral memory or, in Jung's words, to ancient archetypes" ^{[17, p. 162]}. P. B. Bogdanova summarizes: "The law of the pendulum is shown on the material of culture, and in a narrower sense, on the material of transformations of the drama of Modern times. But it seems that it operates in all spheres of human civilization" ^{[15, p. 175]}.

P. B. Bogdanova notes: "with regard to historical and cultural cycles, we can say that if one cycle is based on rationality, then the next one will develop on the basis of intuition, feeling. An example of this is classicism and sentimentalism, Enlightenment and romanticism. Examples of other oppositions can be given: objectivism and subjectivism, idealism and materialism" ^{[17, pp. 161-162]}. P. B. Bogdanova notes: the theory of the cycle allows us to analyze the process of the historical and cultural cycle and make a forecast ^{[16, pp. 104-105]}.

Thus, P. B. Bogdanova in his research writes about two opposite trends in development:

• a closed structure of order with centripetal motion, it is also a restorative cycle: rationalism, consciousness, classicism, Enlightenment, objectivism, idealism;
• an open structure of chaos with centrifugal movement, it is also a destructive cycle: irrationalism, feelings, sentimentalism, romanticism, subjectivism, materialism, –

– which is semantically close in description to the system-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, respectively.

It can be said that during the destructive cycle, there is a reassembly of mass consciousness, or consciousness in phylogeny, as during the age crisis of an individual in ontogenesis; parallels with age psychology and developmental psychology are obvious.

The comparison of P. B. Bogdanova's model of repeating cycles with V. Z. Paperny's theory of cultures also seems obvious:

· general characteristics of the destructive cycle and culture model 1 – an open structure of chaos with centrifugal motion;

· the general characteristic of the model of the recovery cycle and culture 2 is a closed structure of order with centripetal motion.

In addition, P. B. Bogdanova's theory is comparable to that of T. S. Kuhn: the model of the destructive cycle corresponds to the scientific revolution, and the model of the recovery cycle corresponds to normal science. It should be noted that T. S. Kuhn's work is meta-scientific in nature, and P. B. Bogdanova's work was carried out in line with a specific discipline – cultural studies, although P. B. Bogdanova assumes that the discovered patterns are universal ^{[15, p. 175]}.

Thus, the recovery cycle can be considered as a manifestation of a systemic-structural meta-paradigm, and the destructive cycle as a manifestation of a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm.

Conclusion. The universal nature of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms

The spread of sign theory from the course of linguistics to other branches of scientific knowledge allowed us to distinguish two meta-paradigms: systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic. The implementation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms is shown using examples from various fields of scientific knowledge and the works of individual researchers. It can be argued that the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves as trends in the development of scientific knowledge.

A paradigm is a system of ideas accepted by the scientific community within a single science. A meta-paradigm is a conceptually generalized set of representation systems in various sciences.

Speaking about trends, trends and meta-paradigms, it is worth defining and differentiating these phenomena. The trend is the current vector of science development. A trend is a fashion trend that is systemic in nature and reflects the current state of affairs. The meta-paradigm is timeless in nature, it displays an exit to the super-level, while the trend and trend describe the development at the level of the described patterns. The meta-paradigm, unlike trend and trend, not only describes the current development, but also explains the reasons and gives strategic forecasts.

In addition, trends and trends are special cases of the meta-paradigm implementation. Parallels can be drawn with tactics and strategy: meta-paradigms describe strategic development, and are tactically implemented through trends and trends, while tactics at the moment may contradict strategy as a whole – and at the same time work for strategy, no matter how paradoxical it may seem.

Meta-paradigms are universal in nature and manifest themselves in all fields of scientific knowledge: in some cases as global paradigms guiding the development of all science, and in others as separate concepts implemented in the form of particular theories.

Of course, much has been left behind the scenes – within the framework of one scientific article, even in several parts of one article, it is impossible to comprehensively cover any broad issue. The human mind cannot a priori cover all areas of scientific knowledge. The systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are distinguished by spreading the theory of sign from the course of linguistics to paradigms in linguistics (the plan of expression is compared with the systemic-structural paradigm, the plan of content is compared with the anthropocentric one). Using the example of other scientific disciplines and the works of individual researchers, the manifestation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms is shown. The patterns revealed in the analysis of the manifestation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms in other areas made it possible to make the description of meta-paradigms more vivid and added new characteristics. However, it should be noted that the implementation of system-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms is shown by the example of only some scientific disciplines and the works of individual researchers. It seems that representatives of other sciences will be able to conduct similar research in "their" sciences, and scientists from the sciences presented in this paper will be able to conduct a more in-depth study. It is impossible to embrace the immensity – but you can outline the field, outline the possibilities for further research.

Thus, refracted in various scientific disciplines and the works of researchers, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms manifest themselves differently in various fields of knowledge. The paradigm shift is systemic.

Conceptually comprehending the main trends of scientific knowledge, we can identify two main opposing trends: the tradition of preserving traditions and the revolutionary desire for revolution – the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, respectively. These trends are systemic in nature, therefore they are called meta-paradigms. Currently (from the beginning of the new era to the present), the systemic-structural meta-paradigm is changing to a bioessential-deterministic one. This change of meta-paradigms is systemic in nature – that is, it manifests itself in a number of sciences – and the process of changing meta-paradigms can be called an anthropocentric turn.

On the basis of a variety of factual material, the implementation of two main trends in the development of scientific knowledge is described:

· systemic-structural meta-paradigm – systemic-structural paradigm (as well as V. N. Voloshinov's abstract objectivism and E. V. Rakhilina's systemocentric approach) in linguistics; a set of bodily causal theories of voice formation in phonopedia; normal science according to T. S. Kuhn; culture 2 according to V. Z. Paperny; restoration cycle and closed structure of order with centripetal motion according to P. B. Bogdanova;

· bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm – anthropocentric paradigm (as well as V. N. Voloshinov's individualistic subjectivism and E. V. Rakhilina's anthropocentric approach) in linguistics; a set of psychologically conditioned theories of voice formation in phonopedia; scientific revolution according to T. S. Kuhn; culture 1 according to V. Z. Paperny; the cycle of destruction and the open structure of chaos with centrifugal movement according to P. B. Bogdanova.

The data obtained made it possible to give a more detailed description of the common characteristics of both meta-paradigms:

· general characteristics of the system-structural meta-paradigm: the world is linear, static, logic, reliance on the conscious, orderliness, rigor, rational, Rational, conscious, objectivity, definite, language, evolution, tradition to preserve traditions, the Path of Knowledge, the path of quantitative changes; narrow specialization, deep development, a specific scientific discipline as a closed system; a formally oriented approach;

· general characteristics of the bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm: the world is chaotic, dynamics, intuition, reliance on the unconscious, chaos, arbitrariness, irrational, Irrational, unconscious, subjectivity, amorphous, speech, revolution, revolutionary desire for revolutionary changes, the Path of Faith, the path of qualitative changes; broad interdisciplinarity, development in breadth, a specific scientific discipline as an open system; an essence-oriented approach.

In addition, in a number of analyzed scientific disciplines (literary studies, psychology, psycholinguistics), systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are implicitly presented in the form of various concepts, trends and theories.

Thus, the identified and described trends are characteristic of the world of ideas: linguistics, literary studies, psycholinguistics, psychology, biomedical field, phonopedia, religious studies, the theory of T. S. Kuhn, and for the world of people: the theory of V. Z. Paperny, the theory of P. B. Bogdanova. The world of ideas and the world of people are studied by people – that is, a priori, the factor of anthropocentrism is embedded in the study of ideas and people – or, more broadly, the factor of bioessential determinism. Exact sciences penetrate into the world of things – that is, the world of objective laws without taking into account the human factor: mathematics, physics, etc. – and perhaps in the world of things, as in the world of objective determination, the factor of systemic structuralism is a priori embedded – however, the article considers representations of representations, and not the phenomena themselves; we will give the right to answer this a question for representatives of the exact sciences. However, we note that people study the world of things – that is, the factor of bioessential determinism is embedded in the study of the world of objective determination.

It should be noted that each manifestation of the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms, in addition to the described basic characteristics, has its own distinctive features. Thus, manifesting in the human world, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms are refracted through the prism of the human factor and acquire distinctive features – culture 1 and culture 2 according to V. Z. Paperny are complemented by characteristics that are absent when meta-paradigms manifest in other areas and even more so are characteristic of the opposite meta-paradigm. However, culture 1 and culture 2 are artificial constructions invented by the author to explain the realities of cultural and social life in certain time periods and do not exist in their pure form ^{[14, p. 17]}. This means that when culture 1 dominates, at the same time, there may be inclusions of culture 2 – and vice versa. Kaleidoscopically intertwined, culture 1 and culture 2 nevertheless reveal the features of bioessential deterministic and systemic structural meta-paradigms, respectively.

In addition, let's take into account the remark of P. B. Bogdanova: within one cycle, both trends act simultaneously, while one is dominant, and the second, being secondary, becomes the main one in the next cycle, "and it is in conflict with it that a new trend of the cycle begins to act" ^{[15, p. 174]}, – we We can conclude that the presence of elements of the opposite trend in the cycle makes this cycle more vivid and individual.

Also, according to T. S. Kuhn, the scientific revolution does not occur immediately upon the discovery of an anomaly – rather, the scientific community will attempt to explain the anomaly by means of the existing paradigm; as well as the result of the scientific revolution is a new paradigm – and not just the transition itself from the old paradigm to the new one. The result of the scientific revolution and the collapse of the old paradigm is a new paradigm; i.e., the scientific revolution is a transition from one normal science to another normal science. Therefore, we can conclude that there are transitional periods when normal science and the scientific revolution exist, being intertwined in some proportions.

Note that in some scientific disciplines, the article shows the intertwining of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms (literary studies in the first part; psychology, psycholinguistics in the second part).

Thus, we can conclude that in some areas of knowledge, the systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms replace each other, while in others they are intricately intertwined.

Continuing T. S. Kuhn's arguments about the development of scientific knowledge, we note that the language of one meta-paradigm is untranslatable into the language of another without loss.

Parallels can be drawn with the structure of the brain: the functional of the left hemisphere "fits" into the description of a systemic structural meta-paradigm, and the functional of the right hemisphere can be described by a bioessential deterministic meta-paradigm. We all know the differences between left–handers and right-handers - that is, the hemispheres of the brain manifest themselves as binary oppositions.

Taking into account the books of the New Testament – the Gospels – it can be considered that the activity of Jesus Christ marked a turn from a systemic-structural meta-paradigm to a bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigm, which led to a subsequent global paradigm shift in all fields of knowledge in Western European civilization. Thus, the anthropocentric turn and paradigm shift are systemic in nature. At the same time, the works of individual researchers (V. Z. Paperny) describe a more frequent change of meta-paradigms – within the XX century – which can be explained by the complexity and versatility of the nature of the manifestation of systemic-structural and bioessential-deterministic meta-paradigms functioning as binary oppositions of form and content.

It can be said that binary oppositions are trends that asymptotically guide the development of consciousness. Then the binary oppositions of form and content are a manifestation of the law of quantitative and qualitative changes, while the form is the property of systemic structuralism, and the content of cognition is bioessentially deterministically conditioned. Thus, form and content – the plane of expression and the plane of content, formal and essential, external and internal – cognitions are bioessentially deterministic, and can expand infinitely according to the principle of fractality of the Universe – according to the principle of infinite similarity. It can be argued that life is limitless cognition unfolded in time, and the possibilities of cognition as a process are determined by the vital essence of the knower, his biologically determined limitations.

In this work, the theory of the sign from the course of linguistics is extended to other fields of scientific knowledge: the effect of the law of quantitative and qualitative changes is shown by the example of highlighting and describing the implementation of two oppositely directed trends - a formally oriented system–structural and essence-oriented bioessential deterministic meta-paradigms conceptually generalizing scientific ideas in a number of scientific disciplines.

Analyzing the development of scientific knowledge using the example of linguistics, V. M. Alpatov notes: science is done by people, and for some scientists it may be closer to obtaining and researching new factual material, and for others to generalize and build explanatory theories ^{[19, p. 3]}. V. M. Alpatov concludes: "there are periods when when science is temporarily focused on a specific factual material and on polishing the methods of obtaining it. But there invariably come times of crisis and turning point, when a breakthrough in theory is needed, which often acquires the character of a scientific revolution, when it is not always necessary to look for new facts, it is enough to interpret what is known in a new way. In short, at first glance, in the development of science, there is a description, an explanation. Meanwhile, some scientists by nature like one thing, others like another. And the disputes between theorists and factographers are eternal" ^{[19, p. 11]}. Comprehending revolutions and evolutions in the history of science using the example of linguistics, V. M. Alpatov sums up: revolutionary and evolutionary stages alternate, and this is the pattern of scientific development ^{[20, p. 15]}.

We continue the discourse set by Plato and Aristotle and developed by researchers in various fields of scientific knowledge.