The article brought to your attention is devoted to a philosophical and clinical analysis of one of the most important cultural phenomena of human civilization, namely mental pathology. We will talk about madness as a field phenomenon and, in a more particular sense, as a cultural phenomenon. Relevant psychopathology ideas characteristic of the modern era differ significantly from the ideas and clinical practice based on them of previous historical stages. So, for example, if in the Middle Ages the mentally ill were considered as possessed, using measures corresponding to these ideas, then in the classical era, madmen gradually took the place of lepers and they were isolated first in former leper colonies, and then in general hospitals along with criminals and beggars. Only the psychiatric revolution (by the way, it seems directly related to the bourgeois revolution in France) of Pinnel at the end of the 18th century made it possible to change the conditions of detention of the mentally ill, while maintaining the institution of isolation. Further, psychiatric evolution unfolded in the direction of objectification of clinical knowledge, the intermediate result of which today is represented by clinical classifiers that are enormous in scope. This is, of course, the rise of the individualistic clinical paradigm. However, in my opinion, this “clinical renaissance” is now increasingly demonstrating its side effects. Diagnostic categories and groups, becoming increasingly important and occupying an increasingly significant place in clinical theory and practice, are replacing the remnants of humanism, which is acquiring the character of atavism in modern psychiatry. In this case, the diagnosis becomes more important than the person, but the overall situation is much clearer and simpler. However, the human process itself, despite the illusion of the omnipotence of modern psychiatry thus formed, does not become less complex, contradictory and, nevertheless, remains Alive. The postmodern era initiated many radical changes in modern civilization - culture, art, science, etc. d. The nihilism of postmodernism with its anti-essentialism, anti-realism, anti-basicity had not so much a destructive as a deconstructive influence on all these areas, allowing new original ideas to emerge, for example, about personality as a process in the field. However, the sphere of knowledge about man is not yet able to fully assimilate the postmodern cultural vector into its paradigm. Although, we must pay tribute, there are still attempts in this direction, despite the global nature and indescribable complexity of this task. The most striking example is the concepts of the Gestalt approach, which consider the self with its functions as a process in the field, or needs as derivatives of the dynamics of the “organism/environment” field. The following text serves as a description of the postmodernist view of the problematic area of ​​clinical theory and practice in general, as well as some specific aspects of psychopathology. I will try to further present my thoughts on the problem, combining them into logically complete blocks. The most important principles of postmodernism that could be useful for further reasoning are: pluralism in the broadest sense of the word, directly resulting from the concepts of anti-essentialism, anti-realism, anti-basicity; decentralization and variability, which I consider in this article through shifting the focus of analysis from the individual to a dynamic field with variability in the processes relevant to it; uncertainty related to the current situation; contextuality, mediating sign-semantic interactions; the importance of discourse that defines the context and has implications for the dynamics of the field; fragmentation, relevant both to the situation and processes, and to discourse, etc. Pluralism and fragmentation. One of the characteristic features of postmodernism is the loss of any roots, which often takes the form of nihilism. Thus, in the postmodern era, our knowledge aboutthe world loses all meaning because it has no solid foundation; the same applies to the reality and essence of man. A way out of this impasse is possible only by introducing the category of pluralism - reality is multiple. Returning to the problem under analysis, I would put forward a hypothesis: such a radical shift in the way of thinking that characterizes the postmodern era could be partly provoked by anxiety and fear of madness, actualized by the flurry of increase in clinical knowledge. In order to cope with the anxiety of madness generated in the modern era, postmodernism, by legalizing madness, favored the introduction of differentiation of reality - this is how shared and indivisible reality appears. Thus, anxiety about madness can be neutralized, due to the fact that madness is a phenomenon relevant to an alternative reality. This process reached its apogee after the introduction of possible worlds semantics (the world in which I live is only one of many). Two other postmodern principles - anti-essentialism and anti-basicity - complete this process of depathologization: if the truth about the essence of the world and man does not exist, then madness cannot exist. Speaking about pluralism regarding reality, it is also necessary to note the features of the relationship between reality and its image. The phenomenon of reality and the image of this phenomenon should be considered as two different processes, although they are in some more or less stable relationship. The extent of this difference appears to underlie modern clinical diagnosis. Thus, on the continuum of high – low degree of difference between reality and its image, the levels of psychopathology are located. Moreover, the depth of mental disorders is directly proportional to the degree of this difference. Particularly noteworthy is the pluralism of opinions regarding the nature of man, reality and the world, as well as the resulting fragmentation of methodology, characteristic of postmodernism. The postmodern approach is, in a sense, the antipode of the individualistic anthropological paradigm, not because it denies the objective nature of man with a focus on intrapersonal processes, phenomena and qualities, but because of greater freedom in interpreting the essence of human manifestations. At the same time, the previous theses regarding human nature also have significance and meaning. Decentralization and variability. The introduction of these categories by postmodernism marks the beginning of the rejection of the individualistic paradigm. If previously the source of psychological disorders and psychopathology should have been sought within the individual, then postmodernism proposes to consider them only as phenomena of a variable field. At the same time, the personality as a whole also becomes a phenomenon in the field, acquiring the characteristics not of an object, but of a process. Outside the field, a person does not exist, just as his desires and needs, which are derived from the context of the field, do not exist. From applied considerations of clinical practice, I would somewhat soften the transition from understanding personality as an object to understanding personality as a process in the field, putting forward the thesis about the dualistic nature of man (by analogy with the thesis about the dualistic nature of elementary particles, borrowed from quantum physics). The objective and procedural nature of personality are in a dialectical relationship that determines the unity and struggle of opposites. Thus, personality becomes a phenomenon that has both structure and functions. A few words regarding the procedural aspect of personality. Personality as a process appears to have some special characteristics that fall on a continuum of polarities: stable – unstable; open – closed; active – passive; integrated – split; balanced – unbalanced; teleological – process-oriented; self-regulating – incapable of self-regulation, etc.[1] In addition, each process has direction and intensity, i.e. vector and module. Thus, we can consider anypsychological phenomena as processes in the field, distinguished by a set of different characteristics. However, it should be noted that while some characteristics are quite stable, others depend on the context of the field in which they exist. The proposed idea can also form the basis of a clinical diagnostic model in Gestalt therapy. For example, mental health and various types of mental disorders will manifest themselves not in process disturbances, but in the qualitative characteristics of this process. For example, if a neurotic is a relatively integrated, teleological and balanced process, then a borderline client is an unstable, closed, conditionally integrated, and a psychotic is a disintegrated, closed, split process. Undoubtedly, this model needs further development, but the idea underlying it seems to me very promising. To support the thesis about the procedural nature of man, I will cite one observation from psychotherapeutic practice. Paradoxical as it may sound, the psychotherapeutic process unfolds from the point of cessation of development, which characterizes the present moment, towards regression. Thus, if at the beginning of therapy phenomena related to the neurotic level of functioning are actualized, then as therapy progresses, borderline phenomena inevitably manifest themselves, and after that one can often observe a regression towards the psychotic functioning of the psyche. Only after reaching the core of madness and the affects relevant to meeting it is reverse progressive development possible (by the way, probably the same pattern characterizes the development of culture). Thus, a person is faced with a choice - either to live at the level of arrested development (in this case, mental balance will be maintained due to the stability of the chronic process), or to begin to complete the “gestalts” (with the risk of losing the existing stability). At the same time, having completed the current “gestalt”, the previous, earlier and deeper one is updated, causing stronger feelings (not always pleasant, and not even always bearable). However, it should be noted that a higher level of mental functioning also serves the purpose of preventing regression. Thus, neurotic clinical patterns are designed to keep the personal process from regressing to borderline states and phenomena, while borderline themes act as resistance to regression to the psychotic core. Therapist-dependent neurotics, for example, are kept from regressing into “borderlineness” by demonstrating attachment and dependence, while narcissistic individuals avoid the horror of psychosis by actualizing narcissistic phenomena (e.g., devaluation). However, the actualization of affects related to madness is inevitable. This, in my opinion, explains the deterioration of the condition of some clients during therapy. There is an optimistic side to the above. Just as regression to deep early experiences is inevitable, so is the reverse progressive process inevitable: from the psychotic core to the holistic functioning of the psyche, characterized by flexibility and the ability to creatively adapt. This is the full cycle of the psychotherapeutic process, which assumes the secondary nature of progress in relation to mental regression. Returning to psychopathology as the object of this analysis, we should mention another particular thesis put forward by Barth, namely the “death of the author.” This thesis is relevant to literary creativity, however, in my opinion, it may also be applicable to the field of psychopathology. Its essence is the following: the author eliminates the personal element from the text, remaining, nevertheless, a figure, while the reader, representing the background, endows the text with unique meaning and significance. In relation to psychopathology, the “author” of which is the patient, this thesis takes on the following form: the diagnosis is only a derivative of the clinical situation, gaining meaning only in the interpretation by the environment and its components. Thus, from the phenomenon inherent in the patient,mental illness turns into a phenomenon inherent in the field. So, psychopathology is nothing more than a speculative virtual construct, apparently very convenient for coping with anxiety in the field. Perhaps this phenomenon partially influences, acting as a motivational factor, on the choice of the profession of a psychiatrist or psychotherapist. Uncertainty and contextuality. Refraction of these postmodern categories through an anthropological prism means introducing the primacy of the situation into personology. At the same time, any human manifestations become derived from a situation that is inherently uncertain and unpredictable. All human phenomena, from motivation to completed patterns of behavior, acquire significance and meaning only by relating them to the context of the situation. It is the context that determines the concept and specifics of psychopathology; when the context changes, the diagnosis will have to lose its meaning and significance. I think that the concept of mental illness appeared only with the advent of a psychiatric clinic that organized the appropriate context; the disappearance of the psychiatric institution would lead to the loss of the meaning of madness and the leveling of the meaning of psychopathology. Thus, psychopathology in all its manifestations, which is the object of the analysis, is only a phenomenon of a changeable and uncertain field that has specificity relevant to the modern cultural era. In its ultimate, extreme meaning, uncertainty and contextuality in relation to the field of psychopathology can be expressed by me in the form of a hypothesis about the inevitability of madness. Considering the unusual nature of the thesis being put forward, I will explain it. Since the field in which all human manifestations unfold without exception has uncertainty, it is impossible to control it, just as it is impossible to control the result of its dynamics. Only a combination of circumstances corresponding to an uncertain and changeable field situation divides people into healthy and mentally ill; only a context that is dynamic in nature separates us, psychotherapists, from our clients and patients. If human life had no time limits, madness would be inevitable; However, most of us are freed from this prospect by death. Of course, this state of affairs cannot but cause strong anxiety of insanity, which I would consider as one of the important sources of motivation for the individual. The variety of patterns relevant to this motivation is truly limitless: from avoidance, which often takes on a phobic nature, to devoting one’s life to psychiatric practice while exposing danger to the outside; from tendencies that determine psychiatric segregation, to statements about one’s possible insanity, which have the nature of hysterical pathos, etc. In addition, the anxiety of madness, apparently, underlies many creative acts, and, perhaps, the cultural evolution of civilization as a whole. In order to logically continue the consideration of the thesis about the inevitability of madness, I will formulate the second part of this hypothesis. At every point in life, a person is in the dynamic context of two forces in the field - the tendency towards madness and the tendency to escape (often acquiring a phobic character) from it. The relationship between these two forces in the field creates the context in which the current mental status unfolds. This context determines human behavior and experiences, rigidity and creativity, fear and peace, love and pain, attachment and rage. The stronger the tendency towards madness, the more pronounced the creativity. However, on the other hand, the stronger the desire for creativity, the greater the opportunity for the sublimation of madness. The third part of the hypothesis under consideration relates to cultural phenomena and processes: the development of culture as a whole is also characterized by the coexistence of these two tendencies - towards madness and escape from it . I think that human evolution has turned towards the development of intelligence with the accompanying loss of meaninginstinct based on the motivation of humanity to cope with the fear of madness. Considering the line between normality and mental pathology (concepts, as we have already found out, determined by the context, and therefore very conditional in nature) as very fragile and uncertain, the concept of control, often being the focus of psychotherapy. The ability of an individual to control himself is not only limited - control is fundamentally impossible. There is only his image - an illusion. However, it is the illusion of control that is the saving grace from the fear of madness. In my opinion, it is worth considering the desire to constantly find yourself in extreme situations as a way to ignore the need for control. At the same time, the desire to “surrender” to the forces of nature or life’s adversities acts as the opposite limit of a strong total tendency to control. Many people who experience this phenomenon report that a necessary condition for such a life for them is acceptance of the inevitability of their death. Perhaps we can also find some analogies in the mental sphere. Thus, pathos and shocking content with content relevant to madness are an attempt to weaken the fear of madness by “accepting” it. I would like to note another aspect of the refraction of contextuality and uncertainty in personology, relating to human existence. How does a person gain confidence that he exists? In my opinion, knowledge of one’s own existence is also a field phenomenon. The meaning and meaning of the human process (self) as a figure in the field is in the background, which can be other people, introject, appearing in the form of faith or a priori knowledge, etc. Anxiety, conscious or not, of non-existence (in its extreme expression manifested in the form of fear of death or madness) is inversely proportional to the corresponding field confirmation. In this phenomenon, perhaps, there will be explanations for the pain of loss and fear of separation, as well as the nature of codependent relationships based on the fear of losing the signifying (meaning-giving) phenomena of the field. And the last personal observation of a clinical nature, also relevant to the discussion of the postmodernist principle of contextuality. Upon careful observation in an infant, one can detect the coexistence of two, often multidirectional, psychological tendencies that determine his behavior in the field: curiosity and fear. The characteristics of the child’s reaction and behavior are the result and process of the dynamic relationship between these two tendencies in the organism-environment field. I would hypothesize that the clinical characterology we encounter in adult psychotherapy is also due to this dynamic character. So, here are a few examples that demonstrate this thesis. Hysteroids are characterized by complete and unconditional victory of the desire for curiosity. The schizoid character, on the contrary, is the result of the prevalence of fear in the field. The obsessive character is distinguished by the regular stopping of curiosity by fear at the border of contact between the organism and the environment. Epileptoids are characterized by a chronic cessation of curiosity followed by a release of aggression motivated by fear. This description, of course, can be continued, however, the purpose of this article is not so much a clinical analysis of mental disorders, but rather a description of the prospects of the analyzed methodological approach. The importance of discourse. In the postmodern paradigm, all life phenomena are perceived as text, and any field phenomenon acts as a message that can be read. Mental illness is no exception and is also a kind of discourse that organizes the field accordingly. I would like to note that it is a discourse, and not a set of symptoms and syndromes classified from the already mentioned anxiety. If any field phenomenon is a process, as we have already found out when discussing the principles of decentralization and variability, then the question naturally arises: is discourse or a separate word independentprocess or just a designation, a sign of some process? If I am a process, then what is “Igor Pogodin”? An independent process or a symbol of me as a process? A word, and even more so a complex discourse, is an independent process that has its own life and which can influence me as a process in the field. Since discourse is an independent process, it has corresponding characteristics similar to those that characterize human processes (stable - unstable; open - closed; active - passive; integrated - split; balanced - unbalanced; teleological - process-oriented; self-regulating - incapable to self-regulation, etc.). Thus, clinical phenomenology can be described through the dynamic characteristics of clients' discourses. However, it should be noted that discourse has diagnostic value based on context. Assimilating the postmodern thesis about the importance of discourse, and taking into account the idea of ​​discourse as a process discussed above, I would like to put forward another hypothesis. I think that mental disorders can be viewed through the prism of the pregnant relationship between the individual's discourse and the context in which it is located. Thus, the discourse of a neurotically organized client is fixed relative to the context. In view of the immutability of this relationship, the meaning and meaning of discourse as a figure in the field also remains unchanged, which corresponds to the loss of the ability to creatively adapt and the dysfunction of the ego. Creativity and choice become blocked. A change in discourse is directly related to a change in context. The discourse of borderline clients becomes chronic and does not depend on changes in the context in which it occurs. The most important function of discourse in this case is to support some of the borderline client's unstable ideas about himself, i.e. his fragile identity. At the same time, an internal illusion of stability and stability of the self of borderline individuals is created due to the stabilization of discourse. However, in the event of a sudden change in the context, often acquiring a traumatic nature, the discourse can be disorganized due to the rapid increase in anxiety, which gives rise to the desire to act out in behavior characteristic of borderline individuals. As for the relationship between discourse and context of psychotics, several types can be distinguished, the common feature of which is the leveling of the importance of reality. In the first case, the patient's discourse, under the influence of severe anxiety, becomes disorganized, acquiring a strange, bizarre, incoherent or split character. However, a change in context does not in any way affect these features of the discourse. In the second case, as a result of a psychotic attempt to relieve anxiety, a new context is artificially recreated, acquiring the character of delirium. In this case, the context becomes completely stable and unchanging, and the discourse only serves to confirm it. Thus, anxiety acquires a manageable character, being fixed in a vicious circle of context-discourse. In conclusion of the article, it should be noted that not a single sphere of theoretical and practical human activity can develop independently of the influence of phenomena and paradigms that determine the characteristic features of the current cultural era. Moreover, personology cannot remain unaffected by cultural evolution. Evolutionary development in the field of knowledge about man, as a result of the transformation of clinical individualism into the field paradigm, is gradually transforming clinical and psychotherapeutic theory and practice. The theses presented in the text are not complete and therefore require further development. Nevertheless, the hypotheses put forward, which were the result of reflections in line with the postmodern personological paradigm, may turn out to be important and useful in the field of clinical theory and psychotherapy.[1] from a discussion with N. Olifirovich, G. Maleychuk,-2006»