The purpose of the research is to substantiate the development of integral branch of modern psychology of personality which is defined as personology. The research stresses the need to change dominating analytical approaches to the study of personality for the synthetic approach defined as «science of synthesis». It will reflect multiple ties between different theories and consulting personality models; experience of creating a single semantic space for personality cognition; unity of theoretical, cultural and practical psychology of personality. This triple format of personology is focused on discovery and realization of self-cognition of the personality as well as personality of the personologist being the subject of hermeneutics, theoretical studies and practical activity. The research defines the subject of personology based on positions of synthesis as well as defines the foundation for integration of the personological knowledge, structure of personology, content, method and forms of interaction between cultural, fundamental and consulting psychology.
Semiotic systems are closely associated with social practices, within which the former record, store, and disseminate social experience. These systems affect the human consciousness to change the semantic picture of the world, behaviour, and the way one perceives reality. Almost all cultural artefacts perform the function of a sign. As a semiotic system develops, special signs emerge to replace the artefacts by denoting them. Iconic signs are based upon resemblance, index signs upon a causal relationship, and symbols on social conventions. Language is the most important system of symbolisation. Indeed, language serves as a guide to the systems of rules, values, and socio-cultural practices. In this paper, I present a model of deep semiotics, which is interpreted as a semantic structure of social experience objectified into a sign. This structure includes the material form, the referential meaning, and the personal meaning (attitudes and experiences) of the sign. This model describes the levels and dynamics of the assimilation and subjectification (de-objectification, understanding) of social experience. At the same time, the model demonstrates the objectification of experience. The components of the semantic structure represent the levels of understanding – identification, referencing, interpretation, evaluation, and empathy.
The article is devoted to study implicit aspects of "I" by the hermeneutics of personological models "I". The forms of depersonalization (K. Jaspers), the model of the genesis of personal attitudes and the model of cultural depersonalization (E.B. Starovojtenko) became the material of hermeneutics. "Meta-hermeneutics" (Isaeva, 2008) and "opposition principle" (Isaeva, 2013) were used in this work. As a result, the phenomenological aspects of the "I", aspects of "I" in significant attitudes and aspects of the personalization of the "I" in culture were reconstructed. The revealed aspects are used in the analysis of the individual case.
The subject of this article is Heidegger's existentially-ontological consideration of human being (Dasein) as the transcending structure. This article proves the conclusion that the interpretation of Heidegger's intentional consciousness as "transcendence"
means going beyond Husserl's phenomenology. Consequently, raising an issue of intentionality as a specific kind of Being (rather than cognition) Heidegger in contrast with Husserl considers the latter not as the consciousness immanent act, but as the act of transcending, or ecstasis, which being "isomorphic to Husserl's structure of intention" is regarded as ontological (rather than epistemological or academic) phenomenon. Specifically, Heidegger regards the act of transcending as the ecstatic temporality, and, therefore, as the fundamental aprioristic structure of the human Being. Significantly, this ecstatic temporality corresponds to "«the horizon of understanding, which ontologically belongs to Dasein".
Furthermore, Heidegger characterizes the above-described structure as the "openness" (openness of things existent to Dasein and vice versa) and interprets it as the basic phenomenon, and as the initial research subject in his phenomenological ontology. Moreover, this structure of the human being has a twofold interpretation: as the Being of things existent (Dasein), or as the aprioristic condition of this Being, hence it "internally" grounds "the possibility of ontology" in principle.