![theory of causality theory of causality](https://42796r1ctbz645bo223zkcdl-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/8529449382_85663d5f6a2.jpg)
The relationship between the basic categories of psychology can be compared with the relationship of the Leubinian monads: each reflects each. While in each of the basic categories, any other basic category exists hidden, `compacted', each metapsychological category is a `development' of these latent formations. The ratio of basic and metapsychological categories defined below can be interpreted as follows: in each metapsychological category there is a certain basic psychological category revealed through its relation to other basic categories (allowing the identification of the `systemic quality' within it). A number of correspondences emerge between basic and metapsychological categories: image ^ consciousness motive ^ value experience ^ feeling action ^ object activity relationship (interaction) ^ communication subject ^ I situation ^ objectness. So, currently in the development of problems of theoretical psychology, there may be noted a possibility of an upward movement of specifying basic psychological categories towards metapsychological categories with varying degrees of generality and specificity. Metapsychological development of these categories (based on other - basic - categories) can be found, respectively, in such categories as feeling and the I. For example, the four basic categories first introduced by M.G. Yaroshevsky (when describing the categorical system of psychology) are joined by two more - experience and subject (Yaroshevsky, 1974). New dyads can be built in a similar way: a basic category - a metapsychological category. When researchers define the principle of openness in the categorical system as one of the principles of theoretical psychology, they become capable of expanding basic categories by means of a psychological understanding of thought on other concepts that exist in psychology. The identification of a system of categories in the historicism of psychological analysis enables the historian of psychology to shift to the position of being a developer of theoretical psychology.
![theory of causality theory of causality](https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/0c7057ac88d815fbc27633f1bfaf45ae627c7558/52-Figure1-1.png)
There are different logical mechanisms of the horizontal (pleiades) and vertical (clusters) integration of the categories inherent to the process of their theoretical synthesis, which reflects the logic of the phylo-, socio - and ontogenesis of human beings in their becoming and development. Such are substantiality (organism, being, subject, the I, personality) orientation (deficit, need, motive, value, ideal) activity (metabolism, reflex, action, object activity, freedom) cognitivity (signal, sensation, image, consciousness, mind) bias (selectivity, affectivity, experience, feeling, meaning) co-being (synergy, coexistence, interaction, communication, involvement) and reality (environment, field, situation, objectness, world). Each of the clusters of categories reflects a fundamental dimension of human existence. The pleiade of extrapsychological categories are controversies (discretions that instigate a diverse reinterpretation of existence and the mutual criticism of ideas about it by different researchers). The pleiade of metapsychological categories contains ideas (unity of the thought and the conceivable, self-fulfilling representations). A pleiade of basic psychological categories refers to phenomena that are available for introspection. The pleiade of protopsychological categories contains noumena (intelligible entities). The pleiade of the categories of natural causality indicates phenomena that can be documented by objective methods, «from the outside» (biophysical data). The categories were inentified that form pleiads and clusters in theoretical psychology, the «theory of theories», in which psychology reflects itself. The paper proposes a different interpretation of the mental world: it is formed not by a single «cell» in its development, but by a complex, multi-stage, internally connected, but qualitatively specific system of categories that finds sources for the development and internal organization in nature and society. During the subsequent critical review, each of these «cells» has never emerged as the sole creator of the mental. The idea to transfer the `goods' (the classical cell of the political economy of Marxism) into the sphere of psychological constructions seemed tempting. An experience of constructing a theory of theories in psychologyįor decades, Soviet psychologists were engaged in the search for the cell (unit) of the psyche.