The article compares views of C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky on the nature of time, including in the context of contemporary to them physical theories - quantum mechanics by W. Pauli and relativistic physics by A. Einstein. In particular, the author points to the similarity of ideas of both thinkers that the psyche relativizes time not only subjectively, but also objectively. Jung and Lossky provide this statement with a similar empirical basis, for example, the researches of T. Flournoy, as well (...) as similar theoretical arguments by postulating a fundamental acausal principle of the connection of all things, which is better suited for describing psychic and some physical phenomena than the classical causal explanation. In analytical psychology, such a principle is synchronicity, in hierarchical personalism - gnoseological coordination. Both concepts are genetically related to the G.W. Leibniz idea of pre-established harmony, which was reinterpreted by Jung and Lossky through different worldview foundations. Jung in his reasoning relied on the transcendental idealism of I. Kant, the principle of complementarity and the discoveries of quantum mechanics, Lossky - on intuitivism, the principle of subordination and on his own interpretation of Einsteins theories. Jung comes to the conclusion that the psyche has a timeless character, and Lossky comes to the conclusion that it has a super-temporal character. Jungs timelessness indicates the transcendental nature of psyche and the strive to get away from the classical causal explanation, saving it according to the principle of complementarity only to consider the phenomenal side of being and mainly physical processes. One of the pioneers of quantum mechanics Pauli was of the same opinion in general. Because of there is nothing transcendent in hierarchical personalism, Losskys super-temporality is of a strive to find a deeper basis for occurring in time processes, and, according to the principle of subordination, to include time in the hierarchical structure of the universe, prescribing for it a role of one of the two key forms of psychic and psycho-material processes characteristic of a certain stage of being. (shrink)

The author demonstrates that despite of belonging to different philosophical traditions C.G. Jung and N.O. Lossky concluded that everything in the Universe is connected by some fundamental acausal principle. This connecting principle cannot be described by means of classical spatial-temporal paradigm. Jung names such principle ‘synchronicity’, Lossky – ‘gnoseological coordination’. According to Jung, synchronicity is a modern interpretation of the ancient idea of sympathy, which is most fully and consistently represented in G.W. Leibniz’s doctrine of the pre-established harmony. The key (...) parameters of synchronicity are its spaceless and timeless nature. This fact, as Jung suggested, allows give a rational explanation of parapsychological phenomena. Like Jung, Lossky relied on Leibniz’s ideas. However, in spite of the fact that the principle of gnoseological coordination also describes the acausal type of connection and makes it possible to explain parapsychological phenomena, its character is somewhat different from synchronicity. As the author shows, these differences are due to the fact that Jung was largely based on Kant's transcendentalism and took into account the difference between thing-in-itself and phenomena, while Lossky consistently stood on intuitivism. -/- В статье демонстрируется, что, несмотря на принадлежность к разным философским традициям, К.Г. Юнг и Н.О. Лосский пришли к похожим выводам об акаузальном характере взаимодействия всего сущего на фундаментальном уровне, который не может быть описан в привычных пространственно-временных параметрах. Для обозначения подобного акаузального вида связи Юнг вводит термин «синхронистичность», Лосский – термин «гносеологическая координация». По мнению Юнга, синхронистичность является современной интерпретацией древней идеи симпатии, которая наиболее полно и последовательно представлена в учении Г.В. Лейбница о принципе предустановленной гармонии. Ключевыми параметрами синхронистичности является её внепространственный и вневременной характер, что, как полагал Юнг, позволяет дать рациональное объяснение парапсихологическим феноменам. Как и Юнг, Лосский во многом опирался на идеи Лейбница. Однако, несмотря на то, что принцип гносеологической координации также описывает акаузальный вид связи и позволяет объяснить парапсихологические феномены, его характер несколько отличается от синхронистичности. Как показывает автор статьи, различия эти обусловлены тем, что Юнг в большей степени основывался на трансцендентализме и дискурсивизме Канта и принимал во внимание различие между вещами в себе и феноменами, в то время как Лосский последовательно выстраивал интуитивистскую систему. В заключении даётся ответ на вопрос, зачем Юнгу и Лосскому потребовалось постулирование акаузальных принципов связи. (shrink)

De Interpretatione is among Aristotle's most influential and widely read writings; C. W. A. Whitaker presents the first systematic study of this work, and offers a radical new view of its aims, its structure, and its place in Aristotle's system. He shows that De Interpretatione is not a disjointed essay on ill-connected subjects, as traditionally thought, but a highly organized and systematic treatise on logic, argument, and dialectic.

Doing Educational Administration is the final part in a three volume series by Evers and Lakomski presenting their perspective on educational administration. The first volume, Knowing Educational Administration , established the importance of epistemological issues in the international field of educational administration and suggested a new, post-positivist approach to research. The theoretical approach presented in the first volume was further examined in Exploring Educational Administration, where the authors' theories were considered in an applied context. In this, the third and final (...) volume, the authors conclude their presentation of their post-positivist theory by demonstrating how their account of knowledge and cognition shapes the content and structure of administrative practice. Built around a set of basic issues in the practice of educational administration where the role of condition is of primary importance, Evers and Lakomski produce a comprehensive and persuasive applied theory of administrative practice. (shrink)