ქვეცნობიერი? არა! ზეცნობიერი!!!, ქართველთა ეთნოფსიქოლოგიის ერთი ფრაგმენტი პარამეტრები

[Georg]

Grigol Peradze

From the Georgian historical journal "Artanugi» 2003 #11,
-a brief summary the Saints life.

The present special issue of “Artanuji” (2003, 11) is dedicated to the life of prominent Georgian ecclesiastical and theologian – archimandrite Grigol Peradze (1899 -1942), a fervent servant to his own country and faith.

After annexation of the Georgian republic by the Soviet Russia (1921), he continued education at the universities of Berlin and Bonn studying theology. In 1926 Grigol Peradze defended his Ph.D. on the “History of the Georgian monasticism from its origination until 1064” at the University of Bonn.

His scholar activities especially fruitful were in the 1930s – he worked under the supervision of Paul Peeters in Brussels, studied Georgian manuscripts in the libraries of the British Museum in London and Oxford University, regularly participated in the international scientific conferences, etc.

Grigol Peradze was devoid of possibility to return back to his homeland because of
Totalitarian regime established in Georgia.

He took monastic vows in 1931 and was ordained priest. Peradze founded St. Nino church in Paris (being the only Georgian church abroad during decades) in the same
Year and began to publish scientific journal “Jvari Vazisa” (‘Cross of Vine’).

Since 1933 Grigol Peradze was a Professor of Petrology at the faculty of Orthodox Theology of Warsaw University, proceeding at the same time with intensive scholar
Researches: numerous important written monuments of Georgian culture had been
Discovered by him in archives of Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Italy, and Greece.

His fruitful ecclesiastic and scientific activities were brought to end by the unleashing of
World War II in 1939, when Fascist Germany occupied Poland. Peradze did not leave the country, which by that time had already become his second homeland; he shared the horror of war with Polish people so dear to his heart, sacrificing eventually his own life. He was martyred in a concentration camp on December 6 1942 by entering gas-chamber instead of a Jewish prisoner who had large family.

Grigol Peradze was canonized in 1995 by the Council of the Orthodox Church of Georgia the Holy Synod of Bishops of Georgia, establishing the Feast Day for Priest Martyr Grigol on 6th December.


Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running!
Grigol Peradze
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Grigol Peradze (St. Priest Martyr Grigol), (September 13, 1899 - December 6, 1942) was a famous Georgian ecclesiastic figure, theologian, historian, Archimandrite, PhD of History, Professor.

Contents
1 Life and works
2 Some main scientific works of Grigol Peradze
3 Literature about Grigol Peradze
4 External links



[edit]
Life and works
Grigol Peradze was born in the village of Bakurtsikhe, in the Gurjaani district of the Kakheti region, in Eastern Georgia. His father, Romanoz Peradze, was a priest.

In 1918 Peradze graduated from the Tbilisi Theological Seminary, and afterwards studied at the Tbilisi State University until 1921.

On February 25, 1921, Georgia was occupied by Soviet Russia. Grigol Peradze went into exile in Germany in November the same year.

In 1926 he graduated from the University of Bonn (Germany). In 1927 he received a PhD degree in History (the title of his PhD thesis was "History of the Georgian Monasticism from its creation until 1064").

From 1927 - 1932 Peradze was an Associate Professor at the University of Bonn. From 1933 - 1942 he was a Professor of Patrology at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of Warsaw University, in Poland.

In 1931, Grigol Peradze was ordained a priest in the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of London; in 1934, he received the rank of Archimandrite. In 1931, he founded a Georgian St. Nino Orthodox church in Paris. In the same year he began to publish a Georgian scientific journal titled "Jvari Vazisa" ("Cross of Vine").

In the 1930s, Peradze discovered numerous important written manuscripts of Georgian Christian culture in Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Germany, and Austria (Georgian manuscripts of the Typicon of the Georgian Petritsoni Monastery (Bachkovo, Bulgaria), the so-called Tischendorf manuscripts of the Apagae of the Monastery of the Holy Cross at the University Library in the University of Leipzig, Germany, etc.).

Peradze's fruitful ecclesiastic and scientific activities were brought to an end in 1942 when, on May 4, he was arrested by the German Gestapo. On December 6, 1942, Grigol Peradze was killed in the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz (Oswiecim) when he entered a gas-chamber instead of a Jewish prisoner who had a large family.

Main fields of scientific activity of Grigol Peradze were: the history of the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church, source studies of the history of Georgia and the Georgian Church, Patrology, history of Georgian literature, Rustvelology (Shota Rustaveli was a great Georgian poet of the 12th century), etc.

Grigol Peradze was canonized by the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church in 1995. The Feast Day for St. Priest Martyr Grigol is December 6.

[edit]
Some main scientific works of Grigol Peradze
Die Anfänge des Mönchtums in Georgien.- "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte", 47, Heft 1, Stuttgart, 1928, pp. 34-75 (in German)
L'activité littéraire des moines géorgiens au monastère d'Iviron au mont Athos.- "Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique", 27, Fasc. 3, Paris, 1927, pp. 530-539 (in French)
Über das georgische Mönchtum.- "Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift", 34, Heft 3, Bern, 1926, pp. 152-168 (in German)
Die Probleme der ältesten Kirchengeschichte Georgiens.- "Oriens Christianus", 29, Bd. 7, Wiesbaden, 1932, pp. 153-171 (in German)
Zur vorbyzantinischen Liturgie Georgiens.- "Le Museon", 42, Fasc. 2, Louvain, 1929, pp. 90-99 (in German)
Les Monuments liturgiques prébyzantins en langue géorgienne.- "Le Museon", 45, Fasc. 4, Louvain, 1932, pp. 255-272 (in French)
The Liturgy of Saint Peter.- "Kyrios", 2, Fasc. 3, 1937, pp. 260-262
An Account of the Georgian Monks and Monasteries in Palestine as revealed in the Writings of Nongeorgian Pilgrims.- "Georgica", 2, Vol. 4-5, London, 1937, pp. 181-246
Über die Georgischen Handschriften in Österreich.- "Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes", 47, Heft 3-4, Wien, 1940, pp. 219-232 (in German)
Im Dienste der Georgischen Kultur.- "Aus der Welt des Ostens", Königsberg, 1940, pp. 30-50 (in German)
[edit]
Literature about Grigol Peradze
Victor Nozadze. "Grigol Peradze".- Georgian journal "Mamuli", Buenos-Aires, No 5, 1952
Tamar Dularidze. About the life and death of Grigol Peradze.- "Russkaia Misl", New York, 13-19.VII, 1995 (In Russian)
"Artanuji" (The Georgian historical scientific journal), Tbilisi, No 11, 2003 (Special issue: Grigol Peradze), 120 pp (In Georgian)
[edit]
External links
Świadkowie XX wieku - Grzegorz Peradze (in Polish)
A Georgian Saint (Grigol Peradze) by Lukas Vischer.- The Ecumenical Review, January, 2000
Sviaschennomuchenik Arkhimandrit Grigorii (Peradze) (in Russian)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigol_Peradze"
Categories: 1899 births | 1942 deaths | Georgian historians | Georgian people | Georgian saints | Georgian scientists | Theologians

Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers

[Georg]

History of Kintsvisi Monastery

There is substantial evidence to assume that the monastery was active in the period between the 10th and the 19th c. The monastic life revived in 1995.

The history of Kintsvisi Monastery is tightly linked with the most brilliant epoch of the Georgian statehood and culture - the reign of Queen Tamar (1184-1212), one of the most famous and powerful rulers of Georgia, the only woman from the Bagrationi royal family who ruled in her own right and was famous for her wisdom and virtues. She has recently been canonized by the Georgian Church. It was under her reign that Georgia became one of the most powerful states in the Near East. The famous poem "The Night in the Tiger Skin" by Shota Rustaveli is dedicated to her.

The monastery has preserved several churches, namely the Church of the Virgin in the north-west part (10th c.) of which only the sanctuary has survived; a big domed Church of St Nicholas (early 13th c.) and a small hall Church of St. George (14-15th cc.). The circuit walls, entrance gate and the bell-tower erected on it date from the 15th c.
The Church of St Nicholas is built of brick, which makes it different from other Georgian monuments dating from same period, all of which are constructed of hewn stone. Owing to this, the facades have no carvings, which is unusual for Georgian architecture. The whole interior is adorned with wall paintings. The murals, painted in the background dominated by rich and glittering lapis-lazuli (deep blue ultramarine), are best samples of the Georgian medieval art and Eastern Christian culture in general. The theological programme of the paintings is based on Christian dogmas of the Incarnation, Resurrection and Redemption. Along with the traditional Christological cycle, the monument has preserved an elaborate cycle of the Life of St. Nicholas, the image of St. Nino, Illuminator of Georgia (4th c.), and four figures of Saint Syrian Fathers, founders of the monasticism in Georgia (6th c.).

The portraits of the kings from the Bagrationi royal family, those of Queen Tamar, her father King Giorgi III and her son Giorgi Lasha, depicted on the north wall, are most noteworthy among the wall paintings preserved in the church. The figure of the angel, announcing Resurrection of Christ, is a masterpiece of the medieval Georgian Art.

The south wall is adorned with a portrait of the donor, chancellor of Queen Tamar and the Archbishop of Tshkondidi Anton Glonistavisdze, offering a model of the church to St. Nicholas. The inscriptions are made in old Georgian Asomtavruli script.

In the period between the 16th and the 17th cc., the walls of the west narthex were adorned with murals featuring a large composition of "The Last Judgment" and the figures of saints. The north wall next to the door has a portrait of prince Zaza Panaskerteli-Tsitsishvili, famous for medical treatise.

The sanctuary of the Church of the Virgin has preserved murals dating from the middle 13th c., distinguished for high artistic value and unique iconographic.

[Georg]

თანამემამულენო!

განვითარებული მსოფლიო მრავალი ათეული წელია თვალებს იღლის, კოკაინის მოტრფიალე, ზიგმუნდ ფროიდის "მემკვიდრეობის" კითხვით, საქართველოშიც მრავალია ფროიდის მკითხველი! ეს იმ დროს როცა ქართველებს გვყავს დიმიტრი უზნაძე - განწყობის თეორიის ავტორი, დიმიტრი უზნაძეს ქვეცნობიერიც შესწავლილი აქვს და ზეცნობიერიც - ადამიანის ურთიერთობა ღმერთთან - გავიხსენოთ ჩვენი უწმინდესისა და უნეტარესის, საქართველოს კათოლოკოს პატრიარქის ილია II-ის ქადაგება "სინერგიზმის" შესახებ!

ქართული ხალხური ანდაზა: თურაშაულის პატრონი - ტყეში ეძებდა პანტასა![u]

P.ს. ინგლისურენოვანი მასალაა ჯერ-ჯერობით უკეთესი ვერ ვნახე, ინგლისური იმიტომ რომ თანამემამულეებმა უცხოეთში ყველას გააგებინონ - "ვისი გორისა ვართ"!


The following text was originally published in
PROSPECTS: the quarterly review of comparative education
(Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. 24, no.3/4, 1994, p. 687–701
.UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2002
This document may be reproduced free of charge as long as acknowledgement is made of the source
DIMITRY UZNADZE1
(1886–1950)

Georgy Ketchuashvili2

Dmitry Uznadze was a classic psychologist, one of the most outstanding
figures in Georgian cultural history during the first half of the twentieth century. His name is
linked with the establishment of the renowned Georgian school of psychology. The original
theory developed by him over half a century ago, the psychology of set (Einstellung in German;
attitude in French) is an important achievement of modern psychological science. In the words of
the psychologist N. O Connor, ‘Soviet psychology is represented in the universal treasury of
science by the names of Pavlov and Vygotsky and by the Georgian school of psychology that
grew out of the work of Dmitry Uznadze.3
Uznadze’s ideas were far in advance of his time. A new understanding of how action is
rooted in the personality and of how behaviour is regulated, the discovery of their psychological
dimension and the establishment of an original method for research into unconscious forms of
mental activity marked the beginning of a new and remarkably promising stage on the road to a
knowledge of mental processes.
Uznadze’s special place in the cultural history of the Georgian people is also connected
with his contribution to the reform of the education system in Georgia after the October
Revolution, and with the founding of the national university in Tbilisi in 1918.
His life
Dmitry Uznadze was born in 1886 in a peasant family in the village of Sakar, which lay in the
Province of Kutaisi (western Georgia). His parents accustomed their children to work from an
early age, setting for them an example of mutual respect and high moral character. In 1896,
Uznadze entered Kutaisi high school, and from the outset showed himself to be a capable and
diligent pupil. He was expelled from the school for taking part in the 1905 revolution.
In the same year he left to continue his studies in Switzerland and then in Germany,
where he entered the philosophy faculty of Leipzig University. In Leipzig at that time philosophy
and psychology were taught by one of the founders of experimental psychology and the creator of
the world's first psychological laboratory, Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920). Many leading European
and American psychologists received specialist training from Wundt and later became, like
Uznadze, pioneers of experimental psychology in their countries. Such famous scholars as
Volkelt, Barth, Spranger and Krueger also lectured in the university at that time. Uznadze
attended Wundt's tutorial course, together with Köhler and other subsequently well-known
psychologists, and was considered one of the faculty’s best students.
2
It was during his years as a student that he achieved his first success. In 1907, the
Academic Council of the Faculty of Philosophy of Leipzig University awarded him a prize as a
third-year student for his work on the philosophy of Leibnitz. Uznadze was awarded the title of
Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Halle for his dissertation entitled ‘Vladimir Solovev:
His Epistemology and Metaphysics’ (1909).4
In 1909 Uznadze returned home.5 During the years 1909 to 1916 he engaged in
productive public, educational and scholarly work in the town of Kutaisi, where he taught history
in the local high school for boys, psychology and the history of education in the girls’ high
school, and psychology and logic in the church secondary school for girls. On his initiative a
‘Sinatle’ girls’ school (sinatle means ‘light’) was set up for the first time in Georgia, with
teaching conducted in Georgian and in accordance with educational principles developed by
Uznadze himself. As a member of the people's university he also delivered many public lectures
at the same time.
Uznadze’s educational work at this period of his life is worthy of particular mention. His
appointment as headmaster of the ‘Sinatle’ girls’ school in 1915 was due chiefly to his generally
recognized authority: by then he was already the author of many articles on educational science,
philosophy, aesthetics and art, and of several textbooks on ancient history in Georgian.
The beginnings of the ideas he later developed 6 can already be seen in these works, particularly
in the ‘Introduction to Experimental Pedagogy’.
A new stage in his work began when he took up permanent residence in Tbilisi in 1917.
He played an active part in organizing the Georgian national university and establishing the
department and laboratory of psychology and education, as well as the Higher Teachers’ College.
From the outset he delivered the lectures on basic psychology and teacher-education courses at
the university.
He would not have been able to carry out his far-reaching plans in the field of psychology
if he had not built up a capable academic team. He therefore devoted particular attention to the
selection and training of Georgian psychologists. The Soviet Union’s first psychology society
was formed under his direction by the year 1927.
Uznadze was the author of the first university textbooks and systematic courses in the
Georgian language on various branches of psychology. In addition to his aforementioned
‘Introduction o Experimental Pedagogy’, these works include The Foundations of Experimental
Psychology (1925); Paedology (1933); General Psychology (1940); and Child Psychology
(1947). On his initiative and under his direct supervision psychological research in Georgia also
developed in other research institutions specializing in educational science, psychological testing
and neuropsychiatry. The work of these scientific centres proved so productive that when the
Georgian Academy of Sciences was founded in 1941 all the requirements were already present
for the establishment under its auspices of a scientific institute for psychological research.
Uznadze became the institute’s first director and also the head of the department of psychology of
Tbilisi University, holding the two posts until his death on 12 October 1950.
His philosophical views
The content of Uznadze’s philosophical research was greatly influenced by the epistemology of
the founder of Russian religious idealism, Vladimir Solovev (1853–1900). As E. Kodua, who has
carried out research on Uznadze’s philosophical works, has pointed out, it is a great deal easier to
comprehend Solovev’s philosophy today than in its early years: the intervening period has clearly
3
highlighted the areas in which Solovev’s metaphysics influenced later philosophical systems.7
The young Uznadze, starting out on his career, correctly gauged its humanistic emphasis. The
question of the meaning and purpose of human existence that subsequently became a major
theme in his own research runs through all Solovev’s philosophical and artistic writings and
social commentary, clearly as a result of the influence of Dostoevsky.
In his dissertation on Solovev’s philosophical system, Uznadze described the national
roots of the former’s philosophical creativity and attempted to identify its personal, subjective
origins, in the belief that every philosopher weaves his own ego into his teachings and that every
doctrine is a portrait of the thinker who originated it.8
After returning home, Uznadze spent some time continuing to work out problems he had
encountered during his research on Solovev’s philosophical system. Many of his publications
from this period are concerned with the meaning of human life and of the nation as a whole and
with the ideas of good and evil, life and death.9 In these studies he attempts to identify common
ground in such apparently diverse subjects as philosophy and poetry, which converge and meet,
in his view, precisely in their treatment of the meaning of existence. The affinity between
philosophy and poetry ‘were the point of departure for a philosophy of life that later found a
sequel in existentialism’.10 Uznadze's merit was not only to establish a philosophical basis for
their affinity but to construct a system of proofs based on poetry, particularly the poetry of the
Georgian poets, including Baratashvili and Chavchavadze.11
For Uznadze the meaning of existence has as its domain people’s actions and socially
oriented life—hence his description of humankind’s activity in the past as the laying of the first
stones in the foundation of the edifice called ‘culture’; it was the duty of the present generation to
carry on building that edifice. He saw the construction of culture as the principal purpose of
Homo sapiens and believed that it was chiefly those who dedicated their lives to that common
task who remained in the memory of humankind. In his view, the quest for individual happiness
and prosperity could not form the real meaning of life. For Uznadze the meaning of existence was
to be found on a much higher plane: in culture. Only ‘cultural creation’ could provide our lives
with a meaning.
In defining the meaning of life Uznadze separated its socio-cultural aspect, that is to say
the meaning of life of an entire united people or nation, from its ‘socio-individual’ aspect, which
he considered to be the meaning of life for the individual. In the first case, the subject of the
meaning of life was a specific nation. The subject in the second case was the individual as a
participant in the culture of the people. According to Uznadze the meaning of life for an
individual was measured by his or her creative contribution to the transformation and
humanization of nature and the establishment of the manufactured world of culture. In this
constructive activity he perceived the vocation of Homo sapiens, the meaning of life for the
individual, and also the meaning of the life of each nation, measured by its contribution to the
culture of humankind.
Uznadze linked not only the meaning of life but also the question of death with that of the
human vocation. The denial of death and assertion of life acquired meaning through the
individual’s role as a member of human society and a representative of his or her people.
Through unity with that people and by identifying personal interests with those of everybody, the
individual realized the meaning of his or her existence and overcame the fear of death. On the
basis of that understanding of the meaning of existence, Uznadze condemned all attempts by one
people to assimilate another, believing that any such assimilation, and the artificial, enforced
intermixing of peoples, ran counter to the meaning of existence both for individuals and for the
nation as a whole and was tantamount to destruction of the nation. On the other hand, the
4
meaning of life, which involved the satisfaction of the people’s needs, could be realized only on
the basis of harmony between different peoples. None the less, when the interests of a people had
to be defended the voluntary sacrifice of the individual was fully justified, as that was also one
way of realizing the meaning of human existence.
Uznadze devoted a considerable amount of attention in his philosophical discourses to the
nature of poetry and art as a whole, believing contemporary poetry to be an expression in artistic
images of the philosophical question of the meaning of existence. In his view, the difference
between philosophy and art primarily was that the former comprehended truth through logic; the
latter through artistic imagery.
He believed that the true philosopher and the true artist were united by suffering and by
an insuperable urge to solve the secret challenge of life. What was accomplished in philosophy
by logical thought was achieved in art through form, as the outlook of the artist was expressed
through form and fulfilled through experience on the basis of instinct and intuition.
Unfortunately, we cannot provide here a fuller exposition of Uznadze’s philosophical
views on existence and the meaning of life, his understanding of art and the various qualities of
existence (fear, death, good, evil, etc.) which, in general, form a reasonably coherent system.
Another area of his philosophical work during this period involved problems bordering on
psychology. In his study of Solovev’s philosophy he had already drawn attention to the question
of the unconscious as one of the first states of consciousness: he looked into this subject in
considerably greater depth in his works on the philosophy of Leibnitz and Bergson.12
Uznadze's study of Leibnitz’s concept of petites perceptions and of Bergson's intuitionism
and anti-intellectualism, which constituted the essence of his doctrine of the unconscious, was
central to the development of the future theory of set. As A.S. Prangishvili, one of his pupils and
followers, noted, many major strands of modern psychological science (the psychology of the
individual, the genesis of consciousness, the unconscious mind, etc.) were delimited in the course
of the critique of philosophical doctrines that was the subject of Uznadze’s scholarly research.13
His views on education
The humanistic orientation of Uznadze’s world view shines through just as brightly in his work
as that of a theorist and a practitioner of education. During his period in Kutaisi, his conception
of education was formed and put into practice at the ‘Sinatle’ girls school mentioned above,
which was the first school for a century to teach in Georgian. In the report he submitted to the
board of the ‘Sinatle’ society in 1916 he formulated general educational principles for the
organization of education.14 Much earlier he had already published a number of educational
articles containing an original presentation and discussion of educational questions connected
with the development of children in relation to age, as well as his main work on experimental
pedagogy (1912).15
Uznadze maintained an almost lifelong interest in educational science, and during his stay
in Tbilisi this developed into an interest in child and educational psychology. He based his
educational work mainly on the ideas and findings derived from critical analysis of the
experimental pedagogy prevailing at that time in the West and in Russia. He was attracted
principally by the fact that it was ‘a system involving only operations based on a detailed
knowledge of the child’s scientifically demonstrated psychological traits’.16 In his view,
experimental pedagogy helped to transform ‘strivings of a conscious nature’ into part of ‘the
personal aspirations of the child’.17
5
Uznadze saw the main task of the ‘Sinatle’ school as being the organization of optimal
conditions for the all-round development of children’s capabilities. On the basis of his
dominating idea that the creation of culture formed the principal meaning of human life and that
the will was the main motive force of creativity, Uznadze took the view that a school’s first aim
should be to prepare a person for life through the development of his or her will. Schools should
help to raise ‘active, strong-willed people’.18
This insistence on such a targeted approach was undoubtedly new to Georgian pedagogy.
And, as the will ‘is capable not only of contributing to the enrichment of cultural life but also of
being the instrument of its destruction’, Uznadze held that the principal task of teaching at school
was the inculcation of a ‘moral and social will’. For that reason the ‘Sinatle’ school paid great
attention to the inculcation of initiative and boldness and to school self-government (in this
Uznadze played a pioneering role in Georgia) as one of the most important means of turning out
active pupils with a conscious sense of discipline.
The process of moral education in Uznadze’s school was based on the absorption of moral
categories through understanding, reinforced by powerful feelings that transformed those
categories into a moral force and induced the pupils to act in a given direction. In this connection
he attached considerable importance to literature and history and, in the senior classes, to ethics
and also physical education; for Uznadze ‘there is nothing like physical exercise for
strengthening bold and rapid decision-making’.19 He considered basic health education to be the
culmination of concern for physical health.
Uznadze assigned to aesthetic education a place of major importance in the formation of
the ‘ideally educated individual’, thus departing from the traditional curriculum, based on
intellectual, moral and physical training. Drawing and music were also harnessed to this end, as
was literature. There was a girls choir, and needlework was also practised. The school also did
not overlook the educational value of play, a form of human behaviour to which Uznadze
attached particular importance. It is worth while to restate in this connection that he was the
author of an original theory of play based on the concept of ‘functional tendency’
In keeping with his educational ides about preparation for real life, Uznadze was a
consistent opponent of early specialization, arguing for a fully logical selection of instructional
content on the basis of its educational value.20 Much later on, in his work on forms of behaviour,
he was to write that ‘school is neither a playground nor a factory where specific works must be
turned out by means of human labour and where, consequently, only those who have already
developed the force required are selected for work’. We can see clearly in this statement the
principles on which the content and methods of schoolwork should be based. When society
develops a specific need, for example, when electric machines are required, it accordingly sets
about building fully equipped factories and, in the most efficient manner possible, recruits staff to
work in them who have been trained to produce those machines. Teaching is a different matter.
Its main goal is the development of young people’s capabilities, which must therefore be taken
into account in determining the content and methods of instruction at any given time. In other
words, the latter must be justified in terms of their educational value. Productive work must be
organized on the basis of psychological tests, whereas the content and organization of productive
instruction must be justified in educational terms.21
For Uznadze, the acme of educational wisdom resided in the achievement of maximum
intellectual and spiritual development for a minimum material outlay. He made a special study of
the utility of various disciplines and of their quantitative aspect, defining precisely their
educational function and linking the study of each subject to psychological characteristics and
particularly age-related thinking patterns. In his view the main purpose of providing instruction
6
was not so much to impart knowledge but rather ‘to expand and develop the mind of the child’.22
Consequently, instruction had to be structured in accordance with thinking processes. In
Uznadze’s view, one of the most important goals of school education was to teach children to
take an independent, creative approach to their studies.
From the outset he embraced the psychological fact that a thought is usually sparked off
by the observation of a problem. Later, with the introduction of the concept of ob’ektivizacija
(objectification) into psychology, he attempted to define more precisely the sources of human
thought.
Uznadze’s views on the use of visual methods as an educational principle are highly
interesting. His concept of ‘intense visual methods’ involves ‘not only a visual acquaintance with
the subject but also observation of its workings and its relation to other subjects. Manual work
related to the subject matter would be of the greatest possible assistance in achieving this goal.’23
The rule adopted for tests in the ‘Sinatle’ school is also worth noting. Its purpose was to
develop a habit of critical thinking and independent evaluation ‘another innovation for Georgian
education of the day. Under this rule pupils were first of all given an opportunity to correct their
own mistakes.
The didactic principle of the lasting acquisition of knowledge and skills was related in the
school to the psychological principles governing instruction (development of the memory,
interest and attention, fatigue, etc.). Under Uznadze, the process of instruction was based on
activity and awareness as required by the classical writers on education ‘including Comenius,
Rousseau, Pestalozzi and Ushinsky’ instead of the largely mechanical assimilation and mindless
cramming methods of the old school.
Uznadze connected the implementation of educational ideas closely with the conscious
creation of an edifying atmosphere in the school. In his view, the teaching staff needed ‘to
believe firmly that children’s hearts and minds should be open to whatever was presented to
them. The atmosphere should be founded on trust and love. This is an old truth, but there are
major obstacles on the way towards making it a reality.’24
It was an awareness of the need for this sort of atmosphere that led him to reject marking
systems, which in his view were always subjective.25
‘Sinatle’ was therefore a new, progressive type of school without precedent in Georgia.
The innovation of its founder was that the entire process of education and instruction in the
school took account of the psychology of children and progressive teaching experience. It was
also geared to the development of an all-round personality.
The psychological theory
Psychology occupied a central position in Uznadze’s scientific work during his second period of
residence in Tbilisi. His theory of set, with its experimental basis, made a major contribution to
the science of psychology. He was also responsible for a number of outstanding studies on the
psychology of thought and speech, perception, attention and the will, and for works in the field of
differential genetic psychology, the psychology of labour and the psychology of art.
As we have already seen, the origins of the set theory may be discerned in both his
philosophical and his educational writings. It was based on a deep analysis of the causes of the
crisis in the science of psychology that erupted in the 1920s and on a resolute review of the
underlying methodological principles or postulates of classical psychology. As Asmolov wrote,
7
Only a review of the very foundations of psychology could eliminate the obstacles in its path…That step was taken
by Uznadze, who, after conducting a methodological analysis of the foundations…of psychology, singled out the
postulate of immediacy, which was a premise of all traditional psychology.26
Uznadze demonstrated that one of the main reasons for the crisis was the dogmatically held view
that mental processes were a form of reality operating purely in accordance with its own internal
laws. That view was analogous to the ‘principle of closed causality’ in the physical world,
according to which the cause of a physical phenomenon was to be found in the physical world
and interaction between a physical phenomenon and its physical environment required no
mediating link. In just the same way classical psychology saw in the psyche alone the first cause
of psychological phenomena and all changes in such phenomena. On this model facts testifying
to a certain correspondence between psychological and physical processes were also interpreted
in the spirit of the principle of immediacy, the physical process being the direct cause of
corresponding psychological processes. In psychological terms, this view implied rejection of the
real living personality, the subject of action, and identification of the self with consciousness—
and sometimes, as Freud maintained, with the unconscious.
In this connection, Uznadze wrote that
the question of psychological causality must be answered in such a way that psychology becomes the psychology of
the real, living, active person. This means that the concept of the subject must also have its proper place in
psychology. It must indeed underpin the entire discipline, together with other equally important concepts. The psychology of abstract functions without a subject must give place to the psychology of the active subject, the operative personality.27
A distinguishing feature of Uznadze’s philosophy was his understanding of the object of the mind
and, accordingly, of the nature of psychological mechanisms. In his article ‘Impersonalia’,28
written in 1923, he suggested that the laws of the object determined and controlled the processes
of human consciousness: the object ‘migrates’ as it were into the subject, assuming the latter’s
state, and organizes the processes of consciousness in accordance with the trans-subjective
object. Although empirical evidence in support of this idea was absent at the time, the essential
principle underpinning Uznadze'’s subsequent theory was really formulated then.
Uznadze discovered the path to the solution of a problem that was of prime importance in
psychology ‘the relationship between physical and mental processes’ in their dialectical unity. In
his view an explanation of psychological reality should be sought in the history of the
development of the mind rather than in bio-physiological processes (although the mind is also a
product of the brain). ‘Psychology,’ he wrote, ‘can fulfil its explanatory mission properly only if
research is based on the idea that our consciousness is determined by social and historical
factors’.29
The key task of psychology ‘to explain psychological reality on the basis of
developmental principles’ remained unsolved within the traditional framework. It was taken for
granted that there could not be an early stage in the development of consciousness. Therefore, the
question of which stages preceded consciousness and how the transition to active consciousness
occurred was never posed. Uznadze drew particular attention to the development of the mind and
also to the stages preceding the emergence of consciousness. As consciousness was the highest
form of mental development it had to be preceded by early, preconscious, forms of development.
The shared and also the distinctive features of the conscious and the preconscious mind had to be
established. Uznadze investigated this question at an operational level. In his view the most basic
8
feature of the mind was the reflection of reality and the capacity to produce suitable behaviour on
the basis of that reality.
Uznadze attempted to identify the psychological mechanism determining the activity of
the subject in the initial stage of mental development, at the very time when the mind was
formed. He held that any specific activity necessarily presupposed two factors: a subjective factor
(need) and an objective factor (a situation in which that need was fulfilled). In every single
instance the influence of the object depended on the need of the subject. The object could not in
itself explain any specific change it brought about in the subject. In the eloquent words of
D.I. Ramishvili, ‘The properties of the colour red cannot in themselves explain why it produces
the effect of salivation and, in general, a readiness to take food. Only the existence of a need and
the history of its formation, of the satisfaction of that need by the subject, enable us to understand
a particular reaction’.30 But a need can explain a specific effect of the object on the subject only
because in Uznadze's theory of set the need itself is perceived as the product of the object's
influence imprinted many times over.
Thus, in set theory the stimulus that activates a living being is in each and every case a
need, but the nature of the activity is determined by the actual situation. The combination of these
two factors induces in a living being a general change that is expressed in a readiness to take
appropriate action. This state of readiness mobilizes all the subject's capabilities for meeting the
challenge before him or her and anticipates the development of a process of activity. This is the
set. For Uznadze, the set is a reality that is far removed from any opposition between the
subjective and the objective. Uznadze’s set mediated the relationship not only between the
physical and the psychological but also between psychological processes.
Uznadze’s original method based on the artificial inducing of sets provides the
opportunity for accurate, objective experimental research on the unconscious state and for study
of the set through its role in the process of illusory (erroneous) perception that accompanies its
apparition and extinction.
The basic method for research on sets introduced by Uznadze is as follows: a need is
engendered in the subject to perform a given task. For example, the subject may be asked to
compare two balls placed simultaneously in his or her hand and say which is the larger. The balls
are presented several (ten to fifteen) times so that the set or disposition (to identify the big one
and the small one) induced on each occasion becomes sufficiently well reinforced (these are setinducing
tests), after which ‘say the sixteenth time’ the original balls of different sizes are
replaced by two of identical size, although the subject is still asked to compare their sizes. This
test usually reveals that the subject has acquired a fixed set corresponding to the previous tests
and now judges one of the two equal-sized balls to be ‘larger’ or ‘smaller’. The set-inducing tests
have created a state producing the illusionary perception that equal-sized balls are of different
sizes. In Uznadze’s view this state is nothing other than a disposition towards a specific activity.
Uznadze and his students discovered many more illusions. It was established, in
particular, that the illusory perception of weight considered by scientists for a half a century to be
a peripheral phenomenon could actually be explained as being caused by set and was a reflection
of the subject's integrated-personality state. Among similar freshly discovered illusory effects
were that of volume in the tactile and visual domains, that of pressure, auditory illusion, that of
illumination and that of quantity.
In the course of their experimental research Uznadze and his pupils identified a number of
characteristics of set. For example, a set established in one domain also manifests itself in other
domains. For instance, after set inducing tests requiring subjects to compare large and small rings
by touch, they visually perceived equal-sized rings as unequal. Summing up the results of these
9
experiments, Uznadze wrote: ‘We can conclude that a set is not a partial psychological
phenomenon but something integral characterizing, as it were, the personal state of the subject’.
The set as a disposition to act is consequently an integrated-personality state and not some kind
of partial psychological process. This is what distinguishes Uznadze’s conception of the set from
its treatment in traditional psychology.
Moreover, according to Uznadze’s conception, sets are also a characteristic of animals.
The ability to react to influences from the external world, chiefly through a set, that is to say ‘an
integral modification of the subject’, is a primary characteristic of an organism: it is the most
primitive form of reaction by an organism to the influence of the external environment. But, in
animals, sets are much less largely differentiated than in human beings. The fact that the set as an
integral dynamic state mediates the animal's reaction to the influence of the external world does
not mean, however, that the behaviour of animals and humans may be assigned to the same stage
of development or that they are similarly determined. In the 1940s, Uznadze made a special study
of the specific features of human behaviour that had social causes. The set theory also proved
extremely productive in this context. His identification of the second level of behaviour, the level
of ‘objectification’, which led to a new stage in the development of set theory, belongs to this
period.
What is the identifying feature of human action? It resides primarily in the fact that
human beings do not act only on impulse like animals but at will, in accordance with their
judgement. This specifically human level Uznadze referred to as ‘the second level’ of the mind,
i.e. its higher level. It is reached through a specific act, which Uznadze refers to as
‘objectification’, whereby the subject singles out an object in the external world. Before reacting
to the object the subject perceives it as an object of cognition. He or she normally switches to
action at the second level of speech when the smooth process of habitual forms of behaviour at
the ‘first level’, which do not require the participation of the consciousness, runs into difficulties
and encounters an obstacle. There may actually be spoken questions (‘What's happening?’ ‘What
is it?’) or simply astonishment. The subject then becomes aware of switching to the second
theoretical level of action, the situation is objectified and the problem identified. He or she
objectifies his or her activity, ‘mobilizes’ himself or herself, and ‘prepares’ for the next action.
The set is established on the basis of objectified content.
Of the fundamental significance of the concept of objectification for theoretical
psychology the psychologist K.A. Abul'khanova-Slavskaja wrote the following:
The brilliant revolution in determining relationships brought about by Uznadze in his conception of objectification
transferred the determination of action from the needs of the subject’s ego to the needs of other people. Linked with
this is a particular quality of the subject of the action, which is a methodological starting-point for psychology.
Through objectification the action of the subject and the determined nature of his or her action are linked by the
needs of other people.31
The intensive research work on the psychology of the personality, carried out by Uznadze’s
school chiefly in the light of the set concept and objectification, gave rise to a particular system
of psychology incorporating not only general and genetic (animal and child) psychology but also
differential and pathological set psychology.
In the above-mentioned basic monograph on the psychology of set published in 1966 in
the United States of America,32 Uznadze referred in broad terms to three basic personality types:
dynamic (balanced, well-adapted people); static (behaviour that is not impulsive but, on the
contrary, entirely based on objectification and volition and typified by constant reflection and
10
uncertainty); and variable (people with strong desires, action-oriented but with a conflictual
character structure), consisting of two groups: stable and unstable. He presented experimental
data showing the type of set characteristic of each of these categories of individual.33
Uznadze’s approach to research on the personality as an integrated whole also proved to
be of great interest to modern psychology. Luciano Mecacci chose for the epigraph to a study he
published in the 1970s the following words by Uznadze:
It is the task of our science especially to consider the psychological analysis of human behaviour and the laws
governing it. A view of human psychological activity that sees it as incorporating the activity of the subject as a
whole assumes that psychology should investigate primarily the subject, the personality as a whole rather than
individual acts of mental activity.34
In a whole series of works Uznadze made a fundamental contribution to research on many
important questions in psychology. These works include: ‘The Psychological Basis of
Designation’ (1923), which inspired a stream of studies in the USSR and abroad;35
‘Understanding Meaning’ (1927);36 ‘Conceptualization at the Preschool Age’ (1929),37 which
was first published in German; ‘Topical Issues and the Theoretical Basis of Occupational
Psychology’ (1933);38 ‘The Illusion of the Rate of Movement’ (1940);39 ‘Forms of Human
Behaviour’ (1941);40 ‘Objectification’ (1948).41
Uznadze was also the forefather of applied psychology in Georgia. Several psychologicaltesting
laboratories were opened under his direct supervision, as were laboratories for the study of
child psychology and educational psychology. This enabled him to develop a conception of the
‘periodization’ of child development based on an understanding of ‘the age environment’, an
original theory of play, his theory of occupational psychodiagnosis, etc.
Interest in Uznadze’s scientific heritage has grown immeasurably in recent times. The
effective use of set theory in social psychology,42 medical psychology,43 work psychology and
ergonomics44 provide an indication of how productive his ideas have been. The holding of an
international symposium in Tbilisi in 1979 on the unconscious was just one further indication of
the wide recognition accorded to Uznadze's scientific legacy.45 Today many psychologists both in
the Commonwealth of Independent States and abroad (including Hungary, Germany, Canada,
United States of America, Japan) are hard at work on issues relating to the psychology of set.
After the appearance of a monograph by the prominent Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget
concerning experimental research on set, the illusion identified in the visual sphere entered
psychological scientific terminology as ‘the Uznadze effect’.46
As a genuinely classic legacy, Uznadze’s works have not yet been fully explored. In all
probability several generations of scientists will be needed to comprehend, study and develop the
ideas of the great psychologist.
Notes
1. This article was first published in Prospects, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1991—Ed.
2. Georgy Ketchuashvili (Georgia). Ph.D. in the psychological sciences in 1971, since when he has been professor
and head in the department of Work Psychology and Economics at Tbilisi State University. He has published a
large number of works on human information processes, ergopsychology, the psychology of music and the
psychology of set. His most recent titles include : Set as a method of studying fatigue (In Russian, 1985) ; and
Some factors of set fixation (in Georgian, 1986).
3. N. O'Connor, Editor's introduction in N. O'Connor (ed.), Present-day Russian Psychology, Oxford, Pergamon
Press, 1966.
11
4. D. Uznadze, ‘Wladimir Solowiew: Seine Erkenntnistheorie und Metaphysik’ [Vladimir Soloviev: His
Epistemology and Metaphysics], Halle, 1909, 168 p. (Doctoral disseration.)
5. As foreign university degrees were not officially recognized in Russia at that time, Uznadze took the
examinations at the History and Philology Department of Kharkov University in 1910–13 as an external student,
gaining a first-level diploma.
6. D. Uznadze, ‘Celi vospitanija’ [The Aims of Education], ‘Droeba’, Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 1910; ‘Osnovnaja tragedija
vospitanija i eksperimental'naja pedagogika’ [The Basic Tragedy of Education and Experimental Pedagogy],
Ganatleba, 1912, No. 6; ‘Vvedenie v eksperimental’nuju pedagogiku’ [Introduction to Experimental Pedagogy],
Kutaisi, 1912, 202 p. (reprinted in: Antologija pedagogiиeskoj mysli Gruzinskoj SSR [Anthology of Educational
Thinking in the Georgian SSR]. Moscow, 1987, p. 314–21.)
7. Kodua, Introduction in: D. N. Uznadze, Philosophical Works, Tbilisi, 1984, p. 3–75 (in Georgian).
8. Ibid.
9. D.N. Uznadze, ‘Čto takoe teorija poznanija’ [What Is Epistemology?], Sahalho gazeti, 1910, No. 164;
‘filosofskie besedy. I. Smert’ [Philosophical Talks. No. 1. Death], Kolhida, No. 4, 1911; ‘Filosofija vojny’ [The
Philosophy of War], Sahalho purceli, Nos. 148, 149, 150, 153, 155, 1914; ‘Nacionalizm i socializm’
[Nationalism and Socialism], Megobari, 1915, No. 12 et seq.
10. Kodua, op. cit.
11. ‘Motivy liry N. Baratašvili’ [Motifs from the Lyre of N. Baratashvili], Droeba, Nos. 252/53, 1909; ‘Problema
otselničestva v ‘Otsel’nik’ I. Čavčavadze’ [Asceticism in ‘The Hermit’ by I. Chavchavadze], Sahalho gazeti,
Nos. 483/84, 1991.
12. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Leibnitz’s petites perceptions and Their Place in Psychology’, Izvestija Tiflisskogo universiteta,
No. 1, 1919-20 (in Georgian); Henri Bergson, Tiflis, 1920, 29 pp. (in Georgian).
13. A. S. Prangishvili, ‘Obsčepsihologičeskaja teorija ustanovki’ [The General Psychological Theory of Set],
Psihologiиeskaja nauka v SSR, Vol. 2, pp. 126–43, Moscow, 1960.
14. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Osnovy organizacii srednej školy’ [Fundamentals of Secondary-School Organization], in
Antologija ..., op. cit., p. 329–33.
15. Uznadze, ‘Vvedenie v eksperimental’nuju pedagogiku’, op. cit.
16. Uznadze, ‘Osnovnaja tragedija…,’ op. cit.
17. Ibid.
18. Uznadze, ‘Osnovy organizacii…’, op. cit.
19. D.N. Uznadze, ‘Otcet o dejatel’nosti zemskoj školy obsčestva ‘Sinatle za 1915/16 učebnyj god [Report on the
Activities of the ‘Sinatle’ Society's Girls' School for the School Year 1915/16], in Antologija…, op. cit., p. 333–
37.
20. Ibid.
21. D.N. Uznadze, ‘Formy povedenija čeloveka’ [Forms of Human Behaviour], in Psihologiиeskie issledovanija
[Psychological Research], Moscow, 1966, p. 328–65.
22. Uznadze, ‘Otcet …’, op. cit., p. 334.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. We find this principle being revived, for example, in the school of the contemporary Georgian educationist S.
Amonashvili.
26. A. G. Asmolov, Dejatel’nost’ i ustanovka [Action and Set], p. 16–17, Moscow, 1979.
27. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Psihologija i pedagogika’ [Psychology and Pedagogy], in Antologija…, op. cit.
28. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Impersonalia’, Cveni mecnierba, No. 1, 1923.
29. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Eksperimental’nye osnovy psihologii ustanovki’ [Experimental Bases of the Psychology of
Set], in Psihologiиeskie issledovanija, op. cit.
30. As cited by Uznadze in ibid., p. 24.
31. K. A. Abul’khanova-Slavskaja, ‘Kategorija ob’ektivacii v teorii ustanovki’ [The Category of Objectification in
the Theory of Set], in Dmitrij Nikolaevic Uznadze-klassik sovetskoj psihologii [Dimitry Nikolaevich Uznadze: A
Classic Soviet Psychologist], p. 6–15, Tbilisi, 1986.
32. D. N. Uznadze, The Psychology of Set, New York, Plenum, 1966.
33. D. N. Uznadze, Eksperimental'nye osnovy …, op. cit., p. 277–91.
34. Ibid.
35. D.N. Uznadze, Psihologi eskie osnovy naimenovanija [The Psychological Basis of Designation], in
Psihologiиeskie issledovanija, op. cit., p. 5–26; Psychologische Forschung [Psychological Research], Vol. 5,
Nos. 1–2, 1924.
12
36. D. N. Uznadze, ‘K probleme postičenija značenija’ [Understanding Meaning], in Psihologiиeskie issledovanija,
op. cit., p. 27–48.
37. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Vyrabotka ponjatij v doškolnom vozraste’ [Conceptualization at the Preschool Age], in
Psihologiиeskie issledovanija, op. cit., p. 49–75; Zeitschrift für Psychologie [Psychology Journal], Leipzig,
1928.
38. D. N. Uznadze, Ob aktual'nyh zadaиah i teoritiиeskih osnovah psihologii profesij [Topical Issues and the
Theoretical Basis of Occupational Psychology], Tiflis, 1933 (summary in German).
39. D. N. Uznadze, ‘The Illusion of the Rate of Motion’, in Reports of the Georgian Branch of the USSR Academy
of Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1940 (in Georgian).
40. Uznadze, ‘Formy povedenija eloveka’, op. cit.
41. D. N. Uznadze, ‘Problema ob'ektivacii’ [Objectification], Trudy Tbilisskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta,
Vol. 34 A-B, 1948.
42. S. A. Nadirashvili, The Psychology of Set (Social Set), Tbilisi, 1985, 303 p. (in Georgian).
43. Bessoznatel’noe [The Unconscious], Vol. 2, p. 27–476, Tbilisi, 1978.
44. G. N. Ketchuashvili, Work Psychology and Ergonomics, Tbilisi, 1982, 394 p. (in Georgian).
45. Bessoznatel’noe, op. cit., Vols. 1, 2 & 3, 1978; Vol. 4, 1985.
46. J. Piaget; M. Lambercier, ‘Essai sur un effet d’Einstellung survenant au cours de perceptions visuelles (effet
Usnadse)’ [Essay on the Set Effect in the Course of Visual Perception (the Uznadze Effect)], Archives de
psychologie (Geneva), Vol. 30, No. 118, 1944, p. 139–96.

[ლილიანა]

რატო მგონია რო ფროიდის "ზეკაცობას" ისტორიას კაცობრიობამ უკვე თავისი ადგილი აპოვნინა და ფროიდისავე ბიოგრაფიულ ფარგლებში ჩაკეტა ისევე როგორც ნიცშეს " აზროვნების ტრაგედიას " ცრემლი მადგება როცაა ვკითხულობ და ვხვდები როგორ იფიტებოდნენ სულიერად თავიანთი გონის დასაკამაყოფილებლად

[მარიამი]

საქართველოს კათოლოკოს პატრიარქის ილია II-ის ქადაგება "სინერგიზმის" შესახებ!

როდის წარმოითქვა ეს ქადაგება?

[იოანა]

როდის წარმოითქვა ეს ქადაგება?

პატრიარქი ძალიან ხშირად ქადაგებს სინერგიაზე და ამბობს, რომ ბედნიერია ადამიანი, რომლის ნება თანხვდება ღვთის ნებას...

[გლახა]

ხალხო ფროიდს თავისი ადგილი უკავია და უზნაძეს თავისი...
იცით, ყველა რაღაცის მოტრფიალეა ამ ცხოვრებაში, მაგრამ მათი მიღწევანი და აღმოჩენანი შესაძლოა "არაფრისმოტრფიალეთათვისაც" სასარგებლო იყოს...
ნუ ვიტყვით იმას რომ ფსიქოანალიზი იმიტომ არის ცუდი, რომ ფროიდი კოკაინის მოტრფიალე იყო...

[ლილიანა]

ხალხო ფროიდს თავისი ადგილი უკავია და უზნაძეს თავისი...
იცით, ყველა რაღაცის მოტრფიალეა ამ ცხოვრებაში, მაგრამ მათი მიღწევანი და აღმოჩენანი შესაძლოა "არაფრისმოტრფიალეთათვისაც" სასარგებლო იყოს...
ნუ ვიტყვით იმას რომ ფსიქოანალიზი იმიტომ არის ცუდი, რომ ფროიდი კოკაინის მოტრფიალე იყო...

ფსიქოანალიზე არავინ არაფერს არ ერჩის პირიქით ფსიქოანალიზი საჭიროა საჭიროა კი არადა განუყოფელი ნაწილია ადამინის გვინდა თუ არ გვინდა ფსიქოანალიზი ჩვენგან დამოუკიდებლად დევს ჩვენ ცნობიერში ოღონს ის რო ფსიქოანალიზი გვჭირდება არ გულისხმობს იმას რო ფროდის ყველა ნაშრომი კარგია და მისაღებია უბდალოს უნდა ვარჩევდეთ ფროდის და უზნაძეს ისე როგორც შავს და თეთრს ნათელს და ბნელს მივიღოთ ჯანსაღI ფსიქოანალიზი და არააა კოკაინით შთაგონებული ფროიდის აზროვნების ნაყოფი

[გლახა]

ფროდის ყველა ნაშრომი კარგია

ფორიდის ყველა ნაშრომი კი არა ..ღმერთისაგან შექმნილი რომ ყველაფერი კარგი იყო...ადამიანის შექმნა მანაც ინანა

რა თქმა უნდა ყველაფერს როგორ მიიღებ ვინმესგან, არამარტო ფროიდისაგან...

[Georg]

უნდა ვარჩევდეთ ფროდს და უზნაძეს ისე როგორც შავს და თეთრს, ნათელს და ბნელს. მივიღოთ ჯანსაღი ფსიქოანალიზი და არა კოკაინით შთაგონებული ფროიდის აზროვნების ნაყოფი

Liliana! მთლიანად გეთანხმები!

ფორიდის ყველა ნაშრომი კი არა ..ღმერთისაგან შექმნილი რომ ყველაფერი კარგი იყო...ადამიანის შექმნა მანაც ინანა

qlaxa!

გთხოვ, ღმერთს შენდობა ვთხოვოთ ყველამ (ციტატის წამკითხველმა)!

[შოთა]

თუ ვინმეს სურვილი აქვს მაღლა მოყვანი ინგლისურ ტეკსტის რუსულ ვერსიას დავდებ

[Georg]

დიმიტრი უზნაძის განწყობის თეორიის ცნების განმარტება


Понятие “установка” в трактовке Д. Узнадзе



Отличной от американской теории установки и французской теории коллективных представлений является теория установки предложенная грузинским психологом Д. Н. Узнадзе и развивавшаяся его коллегами и учениками вплоть до последнего десятилетия.

“Не существует почти ни одной более или менее значительной сферы отношения субъекта к действительности, в которой участие установки было бы вовсе исключено. Установка, касаясь материала, получаемого объектом при помощи всех его реципирующих органов, должна быть понимаема не как их специальная функция, а как общее состояние индивида... Она должна представлять собой скорее некоторое общее состояние, которое касается не отдельных каких-нибудь органов субъекта, а деятельности его как целого.” - так определяет понятие установки Д.Н. Узнадзе.

Установка, полагает Узнадзе, лежит вне сферы сознания. “Помимо сознательных психических процессов, существуют и в известном смысле “внесознательные”, что, однако, не мешает им играть очень существенную роль. В нашем случае эту роль играет установка, которую мы предварительно, в состоянии гипнотического сна, фиксировали у наших испытуемых. Она, эта установка, в наших опытах ни разу не являлась содержанием сознания. Тем не менее она оказывалась, несомненно, в силах действовать на него: объективно равные шары переживались как определенно неравные. Таким образом, мы можем утверждать, что наши сознательные переживания могут находиться под определенным влиянием наших установок, которые со своей стороны вовсе не являются содержаниями нашего сознания”.

Узнадзе не говорит о том, что установка бессознательна, хотя такое заключение напрашивается само собой. Однако Узнадце избегает этого термина, полагая, что читатель будет понимать его во Фрейдистском смысле. Толкование же бессознательно Фрейдом Узнадзе в корне не устраивает, по той причине, что, как полагает Узнадзе, “у Фрейда разница между сознательным и бессознательными процессами в основном сводится к тому, что эти процессы, будучи по существу одинаковыми, различаются лишь тем, что первый из них сопровождается сознанием, в то время как второй такого сопровождения не имеет. Что же касается их самих, то внутренняя природа и структура их остаются в обоих случаях одинаковыми. В таком освещении становится понятным, что бессознательные процессы, которые играют столь существенную роль, напр., при психических заболеваниях, могут стать сознательными сначала для психоаналитика, а потом, в определенных условиях, и для самого больного. Но учению психоаналитиков, с переживаниями больного не происходит по содержанию, ничего нового, ничего существенного: какое-то содержание не освещалось у него лучами сознания, теперь оно освещается этими лучами и этого в основном достаточно для того, чтобы больной стал вполне здоровым человеком”. У Узнадзе же сознание фрагментарно, а установка охватывает всю личность целиком. “Установка является самым важным моментом в деятельности человека, самым основным, на котором она - эта деятельность - вырастает”.

“Установка находится в существенной зависимости от условий, в которых она возникает, определяется и фиксируется в них, то в таком случае придется признать, что она ни в какой степени не относится к разряду раз навсегда данных, неизменных категорий... Если судить об установке по характеру условий, необходимых для ее возникновения, то не подлежит сомнению, что она не может относиться к категории врожденных, раз и навсегда данных сущностей, потому что как понятие потребности, так и среды относятся к группе явлений, зависимых от постоянно меняющихся условий существования организма. Следовательно, уже одного анализа условий возникновения установки достаточно для того, чтобы видеть, что раз навсегда разграниченных, фаталистически предопределенных установок не существует”. Расширение области человеческих установок в принципе не имеет предела.

Исходным пунктом психологии, считает Узнадзе, являются не психические феномены, а сами живые индивиды. “В активные отношения с действительностью вступает непосредственно сам субъект, но не отдельные акты его психической деятельности и, если принять в качестве исходного положения этот несомненный факт, тогда бесспорно, что психология, как наука, должна исходить не из понятия отдельных психических процессов, а из понятия самого субъекта, как целого, который, вступая во взаимоотношения с действительностью, становится принужденным прибегнуть к помощи отдельных психических процессов. Конечно, первичным в данном случае является сам субъект, а его психическая активность представляет собой нечто производное”. Задача психологии заключается, в первую очередь, в изучении “живой действительности человеческой деятельности”, на базе которой возвышается далее все здание наших психических содержаний - наше познание, наши чувства, наша воля. Заняв эту необходимую позицию, психология должна, в первую очередь, поставить вопрос, - что же представляет собою эта деятельность, каково ее конкретное содержание, могущее быть раскрыто и исследовано нашими обычными научными методами. Психическая деятельность человека - явления его сознания, изучавшиеся до настоящего времени в известном смысле как самостоятельные, независимые сущности, - представляет собою не более, как дальнейшие спецификации, как определения субъекта, определения этого личностного целого. В таком случае психология будет представляться нам как наука о конкретной душевной жизни субъекта, но не как наука об абстрактных, так называемых душевных явлениях.

В случаях наличия потребности и ситуации ее удовлетворения, в субъекте возникает специфическое состояние, которое можно характеризовать как склонность, как направленность, как готовность его к совершению акта, могущего удовлетворить эту потребность. Мы можем заключить, что деятельность человека может быть активирована помимо участия его отдельных, сознательных психических функций, помимо его познавательных, эмоциональных и волевых актов, - может быть активирована на базе его установки, выражающей не какие-нибудь из отдельных психических функций, а состояние всего субъекта, как такового. Есть по мало оснований, оправдывающих, более того, делающих обязательным в качестве исходного понятия при анализе психической жизни наметить именно понятие целостного субъекта, - понятие личности. При исследовании живого, целостного человека, его самого, но не отдельных фактов его активности, мы находим, что в каждом отдельном случае наличия у субъекта какой-нибудь потребности и ситуации ее удовлетворения у него появляется готовность, тенденция или - еще лучше - установка к определенной активности, могущей дать ему удовлетворение. Установка является модусом субъекта в каждый данный момент его деятельности, целостным состоянием, принципиально отличающимся от всех его дифференцированных, психических сил и способностей. Обращаясь к научному изучению установки, мы, в первую очередь, при анализе всякого поведения должны подчеркнуть факт обязательного наличия какого-нибудь качественно своеобразного, специфического изменения установочного состояния действующего субъекта; мы должны иметь в виду, что во всякой ситуации разрешения задачи, прежде всего, реагирует субъект, как таковой, реагирует, как целое, но не лишь как носитель отдельных психофизических сил, являющихся средствами, орудиями при разрешении стоящих перед ним задач. Поэтому не подлежит сомнению, что анализ психической деятельности должен начинаться, в первую очередь, с изучения модификации активного субъекта, как целого, с изучения его установки. Итак, факту выступления активности непосредственно предшествует установка действующей личности, как целостное ее состояние, и вся деятельность ее в дальнейшем протекает под знаком направляющего влияния этой установки. Активность личности, ее деятельность для разрешения данной задачи представляет собой, по существу, ни что иное, как процесс реализации ее установки.

Установка предшествует сознательным психическим процессам человека, она представляет собою факт из области той сферы человеческой активности, которую до настоящего времени называют сферой бессознательной психики. Установка представляет собою состояние личности, модус ее в каждый данный момент, но не какую-либо из ее частных психических функций, имеющих местное распространение и соответствующее этому значение.

Мы можем заключить, что установка - это не частный психический феномен в ряду других таких же феноменов, а нечто целостное, характеризующее, так сказать, личностное состояние субъекта. Кроме обычных психических фактов, кроме отдельных сознательных психических переживаний, следует допустить, несомненно, и наличие того или иного модуса состояния субъекта этих переживаний, той или иной установки его как личности. Само собой разумеется, что целостное состояние не отражается в сознании субъекта в виде его отдельных самостоятельных переживаний, - оно играет свою роль, определяя работу субъекта в направлении активности, приводящей его к удовлетворению своих потребностей. Оно, это состояние, субъекта, как целого, не может переживаться им в виде ряда отдельных содержаний, характеризующих ситуацию, в которой протекает его активность. Установка не может быть отдельным актом сознания субъекта, она лишь модус его состояния, как целого. Поэтому совершенно естественно считать, что, если что у нас протекает действительно бессознательно, так это в первую очередь, конечно, наша установка. Мы видим, что бессознательное действительно существует у нас, но это бессознательное ни что иное, как установка субъекта. Следовательно, считает Узнадзе, понятие бессознательного перестает быть отныне лишь отрицательным понятием [как по мнению Узнадзе это имеет место в учении Фрейда], оно приобретает целиком положительное значение и должно быть разрабатываемо в науке на основе обычных методов исследования.

“Результаты опытов, проведенных в школе Узнадзе, ясно свидетельствуют о том, что неосознаваемая психическая деятельность скрытым образом "соучаствует" как предпосылка и регулирующий фактор в становлении любой формы активности сознания” - пишет А.С. Прангишвили. Концепция установки Д.Н. Узнадзе тем и обогащает анализ поведения, что установка как переменная считается промежуточной именно в смысле специфического уровня и формы отражения реальной действительности. Концепция Д. Узнадзе исходит из постулата, лежащего в основе трехчленной схемы анализа деятельности, согласно которой всякое поведение, как бы и где бы оно ни возникло, определяется воздействием окружающей действительности не непосредственно, а прежде всего опосредованно, через целостное отражение этой последней в субъекте деятельности. Выстраивается цепочка: стимул - установка - реакция. Реакции индивида наряду с действующими стимулами определяются также промежуточной переменной - установкой, понимаемой как конституирующий фактор внутренняя психической организация индивида - расположенной между стимулом и реакцией.

Постановка проблемы целостного субъекта психической деятельности выдвигает вопрос о способе психической организации индивида как определенным образом слаженной системы, связной последовательности его опыта и поведения, его относительной структурной устойчивости в условиях постоянного изменения обстоятельств деятельности. Представляя собой диспозицию к определенной форме реагирования – психологическую организацию внутренней среды индивида, установка выступает как характеристика целостного состояния субъекта психической деятельности в каждый дискретный момент его активности. Это значит, что аттитюды, мотивы, черты личности, концепты и подобные факторы деятельности не изолированно и не "поштучно" определяют выявляющееся поведение, а подчиняются регулирующей функции установки – высшего уровня организации процессов переживаний и действий, имеющих место при осуществлении деятельности. “Установка – понятие единицы целостно-личностного измерения, к которому сводится действующий субъект в каждый дискретный момент его активности. В каждый дискретный момент деятельности индивида избирательно-направленные процессы его восприятия, памяти, воображения, решения задачи и т.д., проявляя определенную внутреннюю связность и последовательность, выступают как процессы, управляемые единой промежуточной переменной – готовностью к определенной форме реагирования – установкой, т.е. выступают как процессы, протекающие в определенной целостной форме психической организации. Правильно отметил Г.Олпорт: без такой направляющей установки индивид был бы растерян и сбит с толку. Никакая деятельность не может актуализироваться без готовности к определенной форме реагирования, побуждающей его действовать именно таким образом, а не каким-то иным. Индивид постольку является субъектом деятельности, поскольку он организуется не в самый момент деятельности, а предуготовлен к ней. Это значит, что реакция осуществляется не по принципу стимул-реакция, а как преломленная через всю систему психической организации индивида, т.е. реакция осуществляется как "обобщенный ответ".

В то же время "система психической организации", "система-индивид" не дана субъекту непосредственно как факт сознательных переживаний. Будучи ее субъектом, эту направляющую активность установки мы никогда непосредственно не переживаем. Лишь наблюдая за возникновением, течением и угасанием "эффекта" установки, мы судим о ее закономерностях и динамике. Установка выступает как фактор негэнтропического порядка. Выражая собой порядок, организацию, она является основой определенности поведения, поэтому, если установка не реализуется, нарушается порядок в организации переживаний и действий субъекта, имеющих место при осуществлении деятельности, "в них возникают дезорганизация и конфликты. Установка – фактор, всегда исходно ориентированный негэнтропически, т.е. чтобы минимализировалась вероятность возникновения "беспрорядка" как в отношениях между человекоми миром, так и в душевной жизни самого человека". Можно привести много примеров того, что "закономерные изменения установок – это одновременные изменения обуславливаемых установками значений... преобразования значимости для субъекта тех или иных аспектов окружающего мира". В ответах личности, например, на возникновение неблагоприятных для нее обстоятельств улавливаются закономерности "психологической защиты" как разнообразные формы специфической перестройки личностных установок, изменяющие значимость для субъекта ("личностный смысл") того, что его окружает.

В теории Узнадзе особую важность имеют понятия “потребность” и “ситуация”. Эти понятия рассматриваются как образующие факторы установки. “Потребность и ситуация как предпосылки установки предшествуют ей в логическом смысле, а не реально, во времени. Уже сам факт нахождения живого существа в той или иной среде в силу его биологической сущности непременно предполагает наличие постоянной связи, взаимодействия индивида со средой. Это взаимодействие в конкретных условиях преобразует индивида в субъекта определенного поведения, т.е. формирует соответствующую установку, а это значит, что, с одной стороны, среда преобразуется, структурируется (как в физическом, так и в психологическом смысле) в виде ситуации (что-то выделяется, четко воспринимается, приобретает большее значение для субъекта, что-то оттесняется, искажается, не воспринимается и т.д., а в целом, среда, в зависимости от конкретногосостояния субъекта, наделяется определенным смыслом); с другой стороны, одновременно со структуризацией внешней среды происходит структурирование внутренней, психической сферы (актуализируются определенные потребности, те или иные психические содержания, активируются определенные психические функции, когнитивные и диспозиционные образования и т.д.). Другими словами, так же как и установка определяется внешними и внутренними факторами, сами эти факторы не существуют сами по себе, а выделяются на основе взаимодействия внутренних и внешних детерминант одновременно в самом процессе формирования установки”.

В теории Узнадзе для этнопсихологии важно прежде всего положение, что сознание человека фрагментарно, а установка охватывает всю психику личность целиком, оставаясь при этом неосознанной. При этом установка является самым важным в определении деятельности человека. Деятельность человека “вырастает из установки”. Установка - это не частный психический феномен, как в западных теориях. Она определяет целостный модус личности, предшествуя сознательной деятельности, направляя ее. Установка не проявляет в себя в сознании, но направляет деятельность сознания, связанную с удовлетворением тех или иных человеческих потребностей. Определяя человеческую деятельность, установка является источником множество характеристик деятельности, которые внешне представляются разрозненными, случайными, но которые все интегрированы единой установкой и неразрывно взаимосвязанны. Установка структурирует как внутреннюю психологическую сферу, так и внешнюю среду как ее воспринимает человек. При этом внешняя среда представляется как поле деятельности индивида, а сам индивид, как субъект деятельности Все эти положения могут быть употреблены этнопсихологом для описания этнических констант, с той лишь разницей, что у Узнадзе установки возникают в течении всей жизни человека, чего в принципе мы не оспариваем, но когда говорим об этнических константах, то имеем ввиду установки особого рода, которые возникли в ходе энкультурации и социализации, являются неотъемлемыми специфическими элементами каждой культуры, характерными для всех ее носителей, и в течение жизни не затухают, получая все новые подкрепления в ходе взаимодействия носителей культуры.

[მნათე]

Georg


უმორჩილესად გთხოვ იქნებ ეს ყოველივე ქართულ ენაზე მოგვცე უბრალოდ რუსულის ცოდნა არ მყოფნის რომ ყოველივე წავიკითხო. . . .

[Georg]

თუ ვინმეს სურვილი აქვს მაღლა მოყვანი ინგლისურ ტეკსტის რუსულ ვერსიას დავდებ

Shota კარგი იქნება თუ განათავსებ შეპირებულ ვერსიას.

Georg


უმორჩილესად გთხოვ იქნებ ეს ყოველივე ქართულ ენაზე მოგვცე უბრალოდ რუსულის ცოდნა არ მყოფნის რომ ყოველივე წავიკითხო. . . .

Mnate ქართულ ვერსიას მოპოვებისთანავე განვათავსებ!

[მნათე]

Mnate ქართულ ვერსიას მოპოვებისთანავე განვათავსებ!

გაიხარე

[შოთა]

Georg
რუსულად ასოებს ვერ იხებს, ასე მიწერ აი:
Dmitry Uznadze áûë êëàññè÷åñêèé ôèçèîëîã, îäèí èç íàèáîëåå íåâûïîëíåííûé(âûäàþùèéñÿ)

[Jackson Beveridge]

The author named George has posted the Grigol Peradze that is from the Georgian historical journal named Artanugi in the year 2003. The brief summary of saint’s life is telling many aspects of the life like the education, https://essayreviewuniverce.com/usessaywriters-review/ grow up, tours, movements and some other kind of things.

ტჰან კყოუ

The author named George has posted the Grigol Peradze that is from the Georgian historical journal named Artanugi in the year 2003. The brief summary of saint’s life is telling many aspects of the life like the education, https://essayreviewuniverce.com/usessaywriters-review/ grow up, tours, movements and some other kind of things.

[Jasper Grimley]

The brief summary of a Saint life has been shared in the blog post from a Georgian Historical Journal in year 2003 article number 11. The writer here is Grigol Peradze with top 10 essay writing services who present the special issue named Artanugi with the dedicated life of the fervent servant to his own country and faith.