WWW.DISSERS.RU

    !


Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 |

Usually in philosophical dictionaries the communication is defined as a process of an information interchange. Such definition implies the primacy of cognition before a communication. First there is a knowledge, and then there is a communication. The exchange of knowledge is necessary for the solving of practical problems in management, training, joint action, etc. In this case the problem of communication is reduced to a search of means and ways of transferring of the information to increase the efficiency of the communication. So, the sense of communication is to know, and after that to operate. The understanding of meaning of communication depends on our interpretation what it is knowledge. Quite different interpretations of knowledge and understanding of communication are proposed by foundationalism and relativism.

I would like to show, first, that the above mentioned definition of the communication is rather confined. Second, it will be proved that there is the necessity of another understanding of communication and cognition relations.

The crosscultural communication can be understood differently. It depends on certain ontological, epistemological and anthropological preconditions involving in the structure of conceptualization of the communication problem. Foundationalism and relativism concepts offer various treatments of knowledge, and consequently various understanding of communication. I will consider those preconditions.

The foundationalism is defined as the epistemological point of view according to which the knowledge should be regarded as the structure arising from the certain absolute bases. These bases can be seen in the objective reality, or in ideas of reason. The foundationalism concept goes back to the ontological paradigm. It is based on the belief that there is a being itself, corresponding to which a person determines his own existence in the world. Parmenides principle of identity is laid in the basis of the foundationalism strategy. Something is cognizable only if it is identical to itself. The identity, or the similarity of cognizable and a cognizing person is a condition for cognition and knowledge.

Foundationalism implies the opportunity of the existence of absolute. Foundationalism is justified if there is admission of unconditional selfidentity being, which is independent on a process of communication. The objective truth, the universal language, the universal system of categories underlying human experience, etc. belong to this being. The opportunity to get adequate knowledge of absolute existence is guaranteed by presence of the unique universal subject. Empirical subjects are considered to be the modes of this uniform subject. Divine Mind, a transcendental subject, or

Abstract

consciousness are the images of such subject in the classical philosophy.

The possibility of communication is conditioned by presence of agents between which there is a certain identity. There also should be a certain common context. For example, a communication is realized on the assumption of existence of the same world for everybody, the same truths and ways of their certification. Thus a dialogue is really reduced to the process of information interchange. But as the information is capable to be reproduced then a communication is a means of increasing of knowledge about the world for each subject. However it is essentially that the information can be received without using a communication. It only requires to cognize the world with the help of so to say right methodology, according to which the way to the truth is always the only one.

They speak, for example, that an achievement of consensus is a purpose of the communication. Achieving a consensus the empirical subjects overcome those distinctions, which distinguish them from one another. The consensus is reached by familiarizing with the uniform Subject, which is a carrier of truth, authentic knowledge. Such approach implies by the interpretation of Socrates dialectic according to which the dialectic is a way of discovering of common truths already existing in people consciousness.

Foundationalism also provides certain interpretation of the language. M. Heidegger, J. Derrida, and others have criticized the concept of language as a system of signs, because that concept is directly connected with metaphysics. The notion of sign refers to some external existence, to a transcendental one. Metaphysics is a thinking about the meaning as existing separately from the sign. In foundationalism the meaning dominates over the sign.

Due to the above said a communication is determined by the logic of the meaning. The communication takes place only in the case if the agents of communication comply with that logic of the signified, that is, the logic of cognition of sufficient reasons.

Relativism is defined as the concept denying the absolute, unconditional basis of any knowledge, recognizing a relativity of any knowledge. The precondition of relativism is the recognition of existence of a set of subjects of cognition essentially different from one another and equal in rights. Relativism strategy arises from the gnosiological paradigm, which proceeds from the belief that the world is never given to us as itself, but always in forms of our subjectivity (consciousness, sensuality, forms of practice, a language, etc.).

Relativism according to understanding of communication is demonstrated in the fact that the conditions, the results, and the purposes of communication are relative to each subject of communication. Being of another person and his consciousness are interpreted through the forms of individual subjectivity. Relativism strategy goes back to the sophists, and is based on the principle of distinction according to which only that has being and truth that is related to another one. Each from the agents of communication has a different context. Therefore the content of the received information depends on the framework in which each from the communicants exists.

The knowledge does not have the absolute base. Knowledge and the truth are relative to the perspective or the point of view. Knowledge is an interpretation. Relativism recognizes equality between different acceptable interpretations. In those interpretations the sign dominates. So the communication is impossible if different interpretation contexts are untranslatable, or if it is confined by an agreement between different logics of subjects.

First we ask the question who the communication loses a sense, or becomes meaningless for. The communication is obviously meaningless for those who have all the completeness of knowledge about the world. Such persons are similar to God. Having absolute completeness of being they do not need anything. Thus it is possible to conclude that the communication exists not because someone knows about something and wants to share it with another one, but because there are unknown things to a person. A person does not have all the completeness of being. Therefore the communication can be understood as an indemnification of this incompleteness. It means that the communication is a way of acquiring of fuller completeness of a person being by means of relations with others who are also defective or insufficient subjects. Thus, the concept of the communication as an information exchange assumes understanding of a person as someone who is not having the completeness of being. Besides the anthropological basis such incompleteness has also an ontological one. As people are separated from one another in space and time, therefore each of them has knowledge about the world existing only here and now. The communication provides the connection of people in space and time. Due to it there are the structures allowing a person basically to be anywhere and in any time. Thus the degree of completeness of being for each person rises. Therefore the communication is motivated by a need of a person what he does not have, but could acquire by exchanging knowledge. Thus the communication is meaningless for those creatures who either have completeness of being, or are able to reach it by another way. Classical philosophy presumed the primacy of cognitive ability of a person. Therefore communication was not considered as something that might constitute a human being.

Further I would like to point out the situations when communicative interaction degenerates and ceases to be as such. I will address to Gadamer's work Platos Dialectical Ethics [vii], where he considers the ways of disintegration of speaking. The first form of that consists in deprivation of the other one of an opportunity to object freely [viii]. The second form consists in constraint of the other one to silence. The first situation implies the exclusion of the other one as one not having any positive knowledge about the world. The superiority of imaginary knowledge is expressed in aspiration to get the other one to be unanimous with him. When is it difficult to contradict in a dialogue? Probably it is when a power of logos of one agent of communication is directed at overcoming of objection of the other one. And it happens if a power of logos claims to have the whole and commeasurable knowledge of things concerning which communication takes place. But if logos is selected only because of his power, then the stronger power denies a weaker one. It is right in regard to any power. Thus any surpassing knowledge appears imaginary. As Gadamer remarks, care about the superiority of logos blacks out a view opening out to a thing [ix]. That strategy of a dialogue, resulting actually in its destruction, is justified by a foundationalism epistemological attitude. According to it, if somebody is sure that he has already got true knowledge, then the other one opinion is not true.

The other strategy of a dialogue is a strategy of refutation as a result of the other one compels to be silent. This intention is achieved not by means of direct usage of the superiority, but on the contrary, by showing subordination of the other ones to their conditions [x]. So if somebody wants to appear as a knowing person, it is enough for him to refute the other one. Such strategy of a dialogue is justified by that epistemological precondition, which is connected with relativism concept. According to this concept none of the subjects can claim to be a carrier of the objective truth. Strategy of disintegration of a dialogue is determined by that attitude.

Further, if we will consider communication as a crosscultural process, it is necessary to pay attention that foundationalism and relativism are closely connected to different types of culture. It is possible to indicate at least two types of culture, which are connected to the following two approaches to understanding of the relation of language and a reality.

) First of them is based on the idea, that language is a translucent mediator representing things to consciousness as they are. A sign expresses a meaning "right. From that the attitude is arisen to call things by their proper names, searching a right or adequate language, that is, the privilege representation of a reality.

) The other approach proceeds from the understanding of language as an autonomous opaque mediator of a symbolical exchange. A sign represents itself.

These approaches to language signs correspond to two types of culture. One of them is defined by the following way. A sign is not arbitrary, but it is connected to the nature of things. A sign that is arbitrary and conditional in the attitude to a designated object defines the other type of culture.

In my opinion, certain epistemological preconditions lay in the basis of the above mentioned distinction of the types of culture. The first type of culture is based on the precondition that there is the privilege representation of a crosscultural meaning. Such precondition means that the culture is an expression of some transcendental sense (for example, Being, Logos, God). This sense attributes to its descriptions, or representations justifiability and objectivity. From the semiotic point of view such cultures should have identical expressive opportunities, and they should be translatable into each other. Despite of distinction of the cultures as descriptions of transcendental sense, the various culture subjects are capable to understand one other, due to common conceptual background for all individuals guaranteeing the invariable content, or information, which is broadcast during the communication. In this case there are not principal difficulties for communication.

Let us represent a communication process as figure number 1.

Fig. 1.

Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 |




2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .