Motor Inversions as a Resource for Individualizing Human Activity
pdf (Русский)

Abstract views: 68
PDF Downloads: 57

Keywords

activity
hierarchy
inverse relations
organizational principle
contradiction
level of motor construction
poly-hierarchy
mono-hierarchy
symptomatic inversion
real inversion

How to Cite

Sevostyanov, D. (2020). Motor Inversions as a Resource for Individualizing Human Activity. Corpus Mundi, 1(1), 59-80. https://doi.org/10.46539/cmj.v1i1.3

Abstract

In this article, we have considered the factors that determine the individuality of human activity. We have shown that the traditional model of human activity does not take into account all such factors. The purpose of the study is to analyze insufficiently studied individualizing factors in the system of human activity. The most important resource that creates motor individuality is inversions in the hierarchical system of human activity. We conducted a study based on the concept of levels of motor construction by N. A. Bernstein. Inversions are a form of relationship between hierarchically subordinate levels of human activity, in which the lower level acquires dominant features, formally remaining in its former subordinate position. In this article, we have shown a number of examples of motor inversions. Separately, we have identified symptomatic inversions, in which the properties of the higher motor level are manifested in the lower motor level, and real inversions, which become a manifestation of actual systemic contradictions in human motor skills. These results show the need to study system inversions in the structure of human activity, and at the same time demonstrate the importance of studying inversions as a General form of relations in complex hierarchical systems. Ignoring inversions does not allow us to form an adequate model of human activity. The article is intended for all readers interested in philosophical problems of corporeality.

https://doi.org/10.46539/cmj.v1i1.3
pdf (Русский)

References

Akhutina, T. V. (2007). Model of speech production Leontiev and Ryabova: 1967-2005. Questions of Psycholinguistics, (6), 13-27. (In Russian)

Aylamazyan, A. M. (2017). Movement and formation of personality. National Journal of Psychology, 2(26), 3-84. Doi: 10.11621/npj.2017.0208 (In Russian)

Bataev, V. L. (2014). Coordination abilities in the sports selection system. Bulletin of the Surgut State Pedagogical University, 1(28), 127-132. (In Russian)

Bernstein, N. A. (1990). Physiology of movements and activity. Moscow: Nauka (In Russian)

Beskova, I. A. (2001). Evolution and consciousness: (cognitive-symbolic analysis). Moscow: IFRAN (In Russian)

Devishvili, V. M. (2015). N. A. Bernstein-founder of modern biomechanics. National Journal of Psychology, 4(20), 74-78. Doi: 10.11621/npj.2015.0407 (In Russian)

Feigenberg, I. M. (2004). Nikolai Bernstein: from the reflex to the model of the future. Moscow: The Meaning (In Russian)

Gimazov, R. M. (2015). The composition and structure of motor abilities of the person. Scientific Notes of Lesgaft University, 11(129), 67-72. Doi: 10.5930/issn.1994-4683. 2015. 11. 129.p67-72 (In Russian)

Knyazeva, T. (2007). An expressive person, or the problem of describing the expressive motor skills of a person. The Development of Personality, (3), 70-86. (In Russian)

Korenkova, N. E. & Oleynik, Yu. N. (2006). Psychomotorics in the structure of the integral personality of a person. Psychological Journal, (1), 54-66. (In Russian)

Kostyunina, L. I. (2012). Physiological justification of the unity of intellectual and motor activity. Pedagogical-Psychological and Medico-Biological Problems of Physical Culture and Sports, 2(23), 56-61. (In Russian)

Krutkin, V. L. (2014a). Techniques of human body and movement. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, (2), 167-179. (In Russian)

Krutkin, V. L. (2014b). Human movements: the experience of interdisciplinary research. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 3(40),141-156. (In Russian)

Levi, T. S. (2005). Psychology of corporeality in the perspective of personal development. Psychology of corporeality between soul and body. Moscow: AST (In Russian)

Lowen, A. (1996). Physical dynamics of character structure. Moscow: Pani Company (In Russian)

Lowen, A. (2002). Depression and the body. Moscow: Eksmo-Press

Lyusy, A. P. (2009). Through the symbols. The dialectic of the symbolization/desymbolization as a fundamental basis for applied cultural studies. Questions of Philosophy, (10), 48-59. (In Russian)

Machover, K. (2014). Projective drawing of a person. Moscow: The Meaning (In Russian)

Melia, A. A. (2018). Motor Constitution: biology, pathology, culture. Academy, 11(38), 14-23. (In Russian)

Mira y Lopez E. (2002). A graphic technique of personality research. Saint Petersburg: Speech (In Russian)

Nazarenko, L. D. (2015). The concept of classification of motor coordination. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, (3), 99-101. (In Russian)

Nemtsev, O. B. (2005). Theoretical foundations of movement accuracy. Bulletin of Adygeya state University, (1), 33-43. (In Russian)

Nikitin S. N., Shevelev A. E. & Nikitina N. S. (2011). Multi-level system for controlling human motor actions. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin, (2), 130-133. (In Russian)

Reich, W. (2000). Character analysis. Moscow: April Press, EKSMO-Press (In Russian)

Sevostyanov, D. A. (2015). Contradiction and inversion. Novosibirsk: Golden Еar (In Russian)

Slyadneva, L. N. (2009). Bodily plasticity as a biomechanical reality. Bulletin of Adygeya State University. Series 3: Pedagogy and psychology, (3), 302-308. (In Russian)

Zakharevskaya, E. A. (2018). Experimental study of the relationship between indicators of psychomotor activity and typological characteristics of the individual. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 3(24), 291-294. (In Russian)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.