Reflection. Question: What is the reflection of the direct relationship between the quantity of a product purchased and its price called in a market economy? Reflection is called differently
Mirroring). According to Kohut, a normal narcissistic process in which an infant looks at his mother (or primary caregiver) and sees himself reflected in her joyful gaze. Observing the reflection of his own positive qualities, the child feels all his self-worth. This process leads over time to realistic aspirations, reinforced by internalized praise from the mother.
REFLECTION
from the standpoint of materialism - a universal property of matter, consisting in the ability of objects to reproduce (with varying degrees of adequacy) characteristics, structural characteristics and relationships of other objects. The nature of reflection depends on the level of organization of matter, which is why it is qualitatively different in inorganic and organic nature, in the animal world and the social world, in simple and highly organized systems.
At the level of the organism, reflection primarily manifests itself in irritability - the ability of living matter to respond to influence with a selective reaction corresponding to the characteristics of the source, arising under the influence of external and internal stimuli. Such prepsychic reflection during development organic world is transformed into sensitivity - the ability to have sensations as primary mental images of the environment, serving the purposes of orientation and regulation of actions adequate to it and the needs of the body. These simplest forms of reflection serve as a prerequisite for the development of more complex forms, including sensory and mental images of reality, which make it possible to reproduce its spatio-temporal and causal relationships, giving behavior an increasingly adaptive and active character.
At the human level, mental reflection acts as the creation of images not only of the sensual, but also of logical thinking and creative imagination, embodied in cultural products, which radically changes the nature of reflection.
The adequacy of reflection to its source presupposes a certain similarity between the material characteristics of this source, the processes of processing nerve impulses in the brain and what is represented in the mental formations of the subject.
REFLECTION
1. Basic meaning - ricochet, recoil, throwing back or returning an object. The term is freely used in specialized literature in this general meaning. There are also three more specialized uses: 2. Reflection, a synonym for introspection. 3. Reflection on a subject, especially with the concept of reflection on a previous experience or event and its meaning. 4. In factor analysis - changing the signs of one (or more) columns or rows in the correlation matrix.
Reflection
fine-tuning an entire portion of another person's behavior. A pattern of systematically repeating, stable element (fragment) or sequence of elements (fragments) of behavior.
REFLECTION
a universal property of matter, which consists in the ability of objects to reproduce with varying degrees of adequacy the signs, structural characteristics and relationships of other objects. The nature of oxygen depends on the level of organization of matter, as a result of which it is qualitatively different in inorganic and organic nature, in the animal world and the social world, in more elementary and highly organized systems. In conflictology, an important type of O. is the O. of conflict in the psyche of the participants in the confrontation. The distorted and fragmented nature of the situation of social interaction between its participants creates conditions for the emergence of conflict. In the process of conflict resolution, a conflictologist largely works with the images of a conflict situation that its participants have. These images are the result of O. conflict. The conflict specialist himself also makes decisions based on his image of the conflict situation. Therefore, the study of the patterns of the conflict pattern in the psyche of the participants and the correction of this pattern is an important problem in conflictology.
in a general sense: a) reaction, opposition, b) reflection, turning back, c) display, giving an image; in a philosophical sense (closer to the terms “display”, “image”): the ability of interacting things to reproduce (in themselves, on themselves) characteristics each other.
O. is usually understood as one of the internal moments and effects of the universal interaction of things, phenomena, and processes. Abstraction O. crowns a one-sided view of the complex process of mutual reflection of counterparties A, B, C, etc., when the variety of mutual imprints of all participants in the interaction in each other is not taken into account, but only the imprinting of certain features is taken into account, for example, A in the properties of B Therefore, more precisely, the specific effect of the interaction of A and B should be spoken of as the mutual O. of these A and B. Actually, O. is spoken of as such a one-sided influence of A (reflected) on B (reflecting), when a trace from A. If we call an “image” the trace a(A) left by the prototype A on B (or inside B), then the following consequences follow from the definition of O as the reproduction of A in B: a) the prototype is logically primary, and the image is secondary, b) the image in some respect corresponds to its prototype; c) being part of its carrier, the image is capable, under certain conditions, of influencing internal processes and external reactions in the reflecting one. Sometimes, instead of the terms “prototype” and “image”, the synonyms “original” and “copy” are used.
Discussions about the essence of imagery begin with differences among philosophers in the interpretation of the concepts “reproduction of A into B” and “image.” Should we understand “reproduction” as some kind of mechanical or chemical penetration of part A into B and its cultivation there? Or is it closer to ideas about the operations of making a copy, photographing, mapping? Perhaps it would be more expedient to more abstractly express “reproduction” either through the concept of sign-symbolic correspondence of an image to a prototype, or through the mathematical concept of mapping - the function of transition from prototype to image, which determines the nature of the correspondence between them? One way or another, in the course of the history of philosophy, two theoretical alternatives have emerged and are in conflict: 1) the image is a representative part of the original A in the reflective B (Democritus’ doctrine of eidos, J. Locke’s doctrine of simple ideas, the theories of a number of sociologists about representative sampling, etc.) ; 2) image - a mark (sign, symbol, hieroglyph) of the prototype, but in no way a side or part of what is reflected (agnosticism, behaviorism, code concepts of the psyche, etc.). Each of the alternatives has factual confirmation. Let’s say the first (“eidetic”, “pictorial”) alternative is supported by this kind of example: we talked with a representative of some country that we ourselves had never been to, and through this “eidos” we created in ourselves an image of the whole country and the people inhabiting it . Supporters of the sign-likeness of the image, turning to other examples, falsify the “copy theory”. Thus, they say that it is strange to consider one’s image in the mirror to be a part or side of one’s body, and also to believe that the essence of “I” is reproduced in this image; Without requiring the image of the property to be a picture of the object, it is sufficient to assert the existence of a causal relationship between A and a(A) in B. The effect is not necessarily similar to the cause, and in the general case, the concept of correspondence of an image to a prototype is more convenient to explain with the words: “model”, “scheme”, “scenario”, “frame”, “code”, “language-like description”, “metaphor”, “ symbol", "sign".
If we look at the problem of the essence of O. in the aspect of the relationship between the image and its bearer, then here too we find a discrepancy in the answers of supporters of the “picture” and “sign-like” interpretations of the image. The urgency of this problem is given by the following three main questions: (1) Is it possible to assert that a(A) occupies a separate place in B, i.e., has metric properties, or, on the contrary, the image in principle does not occupy any place and is a kind of virtual of being, i.e. is there something sublated, functional? (2) To what extent does the integrity of the image depend on the content of the original, and to what extent on the nature of the interaction between A and B and on the characteristics of the reflecting authority? Which of the statements should be accepted: a) the content of a(A) is determined primarily by A itself (the priority of the objective meaning of the image), b) the content of a(A) is primarily operational, determined by the nature of the interaction between A and B (the primacy of the operational meaning of the image), c) the content of a(A) is primarily determined by the nature of the reflecting agent (the predominance of the intra-semantic, symbolic meaning of the image)? (3) Is the image neutral in relation to its carrier, or, conversely, is a(A) always active (albeit to varying degrees) in relation to B, striving to transform the initial state of its carrier?
All these questions are among the eternal, and it is unlikely that the debate will win in the foreseeable future: either the “theory of copy images” (Democritus, Aristotle, Locke, Feuerbach, V.I. Lenin, T. Pavlov, etc.) or the “theory image-markers" (Berkeley, Hume, Kant, I. Müller, Helmholtz, G.V. Plekhanov, B. Russell, J. Fodor, etc.), or those who generally reject the reality of O. - for example, the reality mental images inside a person (Theophrastus, D. Watson, D. Dewey, W. Quine, M. Heidegger, etc.).
Let us briefly mention competing answers to the questions posed above.
(1) Many materialists, following the atomist Democritus, believed in the materiality and extension of copy images. For example, they believed that images could be mechanically implanted in our heads and, uniting there into large associations, give rise to complex ideas. In the light of such a view, the subject of thinking is, rather, the image itself, but not the person possessing this image; the question of how many thoughts are in your head right now could be answered, in principle, quite literally. Other materialists, following T. Hobbes, identified mental images with certain physical processes in the brain, and P. Cabanis is credited with the form “The brain secretes thought in the same way as the liver secretes bile.” In this case, the brain itself should be recognized as the subject of thinking; a famous French proverb says: “Think? Why? After all, our brain does it for us!”; at the same time, in this case it is difficult to admit that the material mental secretions of the brain (thinking as a function of the brain) are copies of any external things, although their triggering cause may be rooted in external stimuli. Finally, materialists (for example, Marxists), who agree with L. Feuerbach’s formula about consciousness as a subjective image of the objective world, most often pass over in silence the problem of the spatiality of the image and prefer to say that the subjective image does not contain a single grain of the substance of the reflected object, and from what it consists of itself - unknown. In the light of this approach, the subject of the conscious O. world is a whole person, and not just his brain, and especially not some objective copy ideas flying in the air.
Spiritualists and idealists who share the Aristotelian theory of images attribute to images the characteristics of ethereality and non-extension. The image is a “resident” of the formal (essential), and not the material (phenomenal) world. Thus, in Hegel’s theory of reflection (mutual reflection of opposites), which he outlined primarily in “The Science of Logic,” the image is described as a product of dematerialization (dialectical sublation) of a part of otherness within self-existence and the transformation of the sublated content into a virtual “one’s other” - into one of the many incorporeal and non-metrically developing possibilities in the sphere of the supersensible essence.
Finally, critics of the philosophical principle of O. try to close the problem under discussion by referring to the self-refutation and meaninglessness of the theory of images. Of the number of counterarguments they put forward, the strongest is the following, which, according to R.L. Gregory, goes back to Theophrastus. If we assume that inside us - say, in the skull - there are physical copies of external things, then who needs them there and why, who or what examines them from the inside in the darkness of the brain? Involuntarily we will have to invoke for the explanation either some “inner eye”, which will have to look at these images, or the idea of an “inner hand” feeling them, so that we can judge from them what the external world is like. But what will be the product of the “inner gaze” or the “inner hand” - another image? This logic leads to the conclusion about an endless string of homunculi nested within each other, contemplating the images of each other. And such a conclusion seems absurd and indirectly indicates the significant vulnerability of the theory of O. Theophrastus’s objection remains valid even if the “copy” is not interpreted literally, but as something composed of electromagnetic fields (R. L. Gregory),
or even as generally ethereal, since it remains unclear why it is necessary to double the world into the world of things and the world of their internal copies, unknown as “consumed” by the recipients of these copies. Another argument against the theory of O. was put forward by behaviorists: the referent of the “image” is accessible only introspectively and is not detected experimentally (D. Watson, W. Quine); Isn’t it better to eliminate the concept of image from psychology altogether and limit ourselves to studying the relationships between stimulus and response, stimulus and behavior? At the same time, behaviorism does not completely eliminate the principle of O., but reduces it to a statement about the existence of a correspondence between stimulus and behavior, so that the behavior (reaction) itself becomes in some way an “image” or “function” of the stimulating influence. It is not at all necessary to insist that O. is only an internal process and that the image is stored, as in a museum, in the depths of the reflective, in its internal structure. It is possible to reproduce and retain the “other in one’s own” externally(seal on wax), so it is not unreasonable to attempt to identify the philosophical concept of O. with the reaction of the reflector to the influence of the reflected.
(2) Most often, philosophical interest in the topic of philosophy is not independent, but is determined by considerations of constructing this or that doctrine of human cognition. Accepting the idea of the brain as a mirror of nature, naive realism in epistemology concludes that the generic man sees the world as this world is in itself, i.e. the image of a (A) is generally conditioned by the reflected A. For example, in solidarity with materialistic sensationalism XVII - XVIII centuries, V.I. Lenin argued that over millions of years of evolution, human senses have adapted to truly reflect the outside world and that our consciousness copies, photographs objective reality. I. Kant contrasted the metaphor of cognition as a “mirror of nature” developed by Descartes with the metaphor of cognition as a person’s exploration of traces that the person himself left on an object (“the subject recognizes his own determinations in the object”). Starting from the Kantian idea of a concept as a “scheme of action,” operationalism approved the “activity approach” in philosophy and psychology: a cognitive image is a special product of the interaction of A and B, and it primarily embodies the history of interaction, and not the essence of separately taken subject and object; the epistemological correspondence of the image to the prototype is rejected, and the image is endowed with predominantly operational meaning (P. Bridgman, J. Piaget, L. S. Vygotsky). Finally, in classical subjective idealism there is a strong motive that sensations cannot in any way be copies of things, because they are not similar to the stimuli that give rise to them; "images" are our experiences, they express the quality of our inner life and can only resemble other “images”, but not at all some “primary qualities” (J. Berkeley, “physiological idealism” by I. Muller and Charles Bell, etc.).
No matter how one understands the relation a(A) to A in the categories of similarity and dissimilarity (the image is picture-like, little similar or not at all similar to the original), nevertheless, in all cases it can be designated by the general concept of “correspondence” - after all, in accordance Even sets of elements that are not at all similar to each other can be placed (for example, many coats and many hooks in a wardrobe). The correspondence of the image to the prototype has its own degrees and is specified mathematical concepts isomorphism, homomorphism and automorphism.
(3) In materialistic concepts of oxygen, based on the principle of the evolution of nature, the idea is advanced of a gradual increase in activity a(A) in the composition of B as matter self-develops. The typology of the main forms of oxygen in these concepts generally repeats the typology of souls in ancient hylozoism: the properties of oxygen in inanimate nature are similar to the properties of the mineral soul, the irritability of the simplest unicellular organisms and plants is similar to the properties of the plant soul, sensitivity is similar to the characteristics of the animal soul, and thinking is on the characteristics of the rational soul. In inanimate nature, the trace of the influence of A on B is described as passive O., that is, as something that does not awaken the special activity of B (like the indifference of a mirror to what is reflected in it). In living nature, oxygen has an active character and is used to orient the organism in the world and to forestall undesirable environmental influences (P.K. Anokhin’s theory of anticipatory vision, the theory of informational vision). The ability of reflecting B to use a(A) as a means for his survival and “pre-tuning” in relation to the future is the essence of information-signal O., when it is information that becomes the content of the image.
At the same time, by focusing on the “mirroring” of O., materialism does not explain consistently enough why it is possible to “reflect” something that does not yet exist or no longer exists, and why human consciousness not only reflects, but also creates the world. The principle of O. in many ways remains opposite to the principle of creativity and in a very external way (for example, in Marxism) is juxtaposed with the ontological problems of development and dialectics.
On the contrary, in Hegel’s theory of reflection, the mutual reflection of qualities is declared the source of all development. At the first moment of invasion into B, a(A) retains its resemblance to the prototype A, i.e., it is a copy of A. Gradually, a(A) begins to master B, trying to subjugate the latter to itself. In turn, the base B seeks to restore its selfhood and masters a(A), dropping into it part of its active content in(B); at the first moment, a(B) is also a copy of B. Alternately seizing the initiative from each other, a(A), B and b(B) mutually change each other until there is still any significant difference between them. Invisible to external eyes, quantitative changes within B will ultimately lead to a creative act: instead of B, a new quality C will arise, formed by reifying the past B and a(A) that have merged - through mutual change. The creation of emergent C is explained by Hegel as the result of the active confrontation between the reflecting and the image and the formation of a special identity of these internal opposites of any existing being - the project of a future new thing. Consequently, according to Hegel, any mutual reflection of qualities is active and intense; the image quickly ceases to be a copy of its prototype as soon as it interacts with the reflecting quality, but nevertheless, until a radical change in the quality of B remains inside B as a representative of another being, “its other.” It is no coincidence that they say that in Hegel logic, dialectics and theory of knowledge are one; the principles of reflection and creativity in his system coincide with each other.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
A. KALININ.
Science and life // Illustrations
The word "Hate" on the girl's T-shirt turned into the word "Love" in the mirror.
The photograph serves as a solution to an ancient riddle: “I am a tiny word and I am ready to express sadness, fear, bad success. Now turn me over and laughter will come out.” (From the “Literary Addendum to the Russian Invalid”. 1830s.)
Transfer from English text at the bottom of the postcard: “It’s not difficult to read my letter if you take a mirror.” Message in the mirror: "Will you be mine?" Postcard, USA, early 20th century. From the collection of Alain Rolfes (USA).
The text is located horizontally, the mirror is at the bottom. The name on the scarf turned into the word "joke". Sergey Fedin. 2006
English word"teach" in the mirror is read as "learn" ("learn"). Scott Kim. Around 2000.
The text is written in a column, the mirror is on the side. The doll's name "Tanya" became "tank". The author of the looking glass is Sergei Fedin, the doll's costume is Svetlana Zvonareva. 2006
The text is written in a column, the mirror is located at the top (or bottom). The hand writes the word "nose", in the mirror we see "dream".
None of the three words changed after being reflected in the mirror. Only the lines were rearranged - and the phrase acquired a new meaning.
By hiding half of the word “AX” behind the mirror, we get the palindrome “STAMP”.
An old childhood game gave rise to the idea of the mirror palindrome above.
The reflection of the word "DON" in the corner mirror gave rise to three new words: "TON", "GCD" ("greatest common divisor") and "NOT" ("scientific organization of labor"). Sergey Fedin. 2006
Leonardo da Vinci encrypted his notes in mirror font. From the book: R. Wallace. Leonardo's world. - M., 1997.
An ancient riddle written in mirror font. There is a mirror to the right of the inscription; the “deciphered” text is visible in it. The riddle has two correct answers. One of them is "mirror". What about the other one?
Looking at your reflection in the mirror, you can’t help but wonder: why does the mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Let's try to figure this out, although, as they say, “the question is not a simple one.” “Science and Life” already understood this (see “Science and Life” No. 12, 1962, p. 98), Professor Ya. A. Smorodinsky explained that the answer lies not in the field of elementary geometry, but rather in the field psychology. What we call top and bottom does not exist for a mirror. The top and bottom change places in the drawn image if the mirror is positioned accordingly.
Another example. Let there be a wall of the room behind us. In the mirror, the same wall is visible in front of us. We talked about left and right, about up and down, but the mirror, it turns out, moves forward what is behind us. If we now add up the properties of the mirror that we have become acquainted with, we can come to the conclusion that the mirror does not rearrange the sides of the image, but, as it were, turns everything that is in front of it inside out. At the same time, the floor, walls, and ceiling in reflection look exactly the same as in reality. What has changed?
Let's turn to experience again. Take a thin glove and turn it inside out. What will happen? It’s also a glove, and if it is without seams, for example rubber, then it will look exactly the same as it did before our experience. But try putting it on, and then you will understand what happened: if you took the right glove, it became the left one, and vice versa! The same thing happens in the mirror with any object. For example, the right glove worn on right hand, in the mirror it will appear on the left hand of your reflection.
Man came up with the words “top”, “bottom”, “front”, “behind”, “left”, “right” in order to indicate the position of objects relative to each other and the direction of movement. All six words retain these meanings to this day. However, we use the words “left” and “right” not only to indicate directions, but also as terms. With their help, we distinguish some paired objects. Just the kind that “turn” into each other when reflected in a mirror: left and right glove, left and right thread (or screw), left and right hand (or leg). Therefore, sometimes there is a confusion of concepts. To avoid confusion, the term “mirror symmetry” is used in science. And the answer to the question posed may be this: in the mirror we see not an exact copy of the object, but its mirror-symmetrical reflection. Moreover, if the name of an object contains the word “right”, for example “right hand”, then the word “left” is used to characterize its mirror image.
The shortest explanation of what happens in the mirror is given by mathematicians: three-dimensional space can be represented in two coordinate systems - the right triple of XYZ axes and the left triple of YXZ. No rotations or parallel translations transform the right coordinate system into the left one. But if the right three is placed in front of a mirror, then the reflected system will be left, and vice versa.
Wear a T-shirt with a message on the chest and look at yourself in the mirror. You will immediately notice that, with rare exceptions, which will be discussed later, the words on the T-shirt have turned into a meaningless set of letters. Surely people noticed this before they thought of putting inscriptions on clothes. More than five hundred years ago, they found a useful use for mirror reflections - they began to record secret messages with their help, so that these records could not be read by outsiders who were not privy to the secret of the code. Leonardo da Vinci classified his diaries and personal notes in this way. In addition, he was left-handed, and it was convenient for him to write from right to left - his hand did not block what was written and did not smear the ink. Later, people came up with more sophisticated ciphers, and mirror notes migrated from secret papers to collections of games, entertainment and puzzles.
As for the letters and inscriptions reflected in the mirror, not all of them look inside out or upside down. Some letters do not change their appearance, for example Ж, Н, О and others. Therefore, they can be used to compose inscriptions that coincide with the reflection. True, there will be no duality in them.
The idea of “fooling the mirror” and coming up with inscriptions that are not only read in the mirror, but also change the meaning, first arose among puzzle lovers from several countries in different years of the second half of the twentieth century. Look at the photo of the girl in the red T-shirt. She has "Hate" written on her chest. In the mirror we see the same girl in a T-shirt with an inscription of the opposite meaning: “Love”.
The first person to search for Russian words that change their meaning when reflected in a mirror was the writer, author of entertaining problems and many articles in the journal Science and Life, Sergei Nikolaevich Fedin. He called them looking glasses.
A looking glass is a text whose second meaning is visible when reflected in a mirror. They are also called “clearance”, since you can turn a sheet of paper with a mirror back to yourself and read the second meaning of the words against the light, as if being in the space of imagination.
It turned out that there are at least six types of mirrors.
The first type of mirror - the text is written horizontally, the mirror is on the side. In this case, the inscription "HA - HA" turns into "AH - AH". These two short words were probably the very first Russian to look through. He is known since early XIX century, when it was published as a riddle.
The second type of mirror - the text is written horizontally, the mirror is below (or above). You can see an example in the photograph of a girl wearing a headscarf (bandana). Reflected in the mirror, the word “Mashka” turns into the word “joke”.
The third type - the text is written vertically, the mirror is on the side. As a result, the “Tanya” doll can turn into a “tank”! Of course, this refers to her character.
The fourth type - the text is written vertically, the mirror is on top (or below). Then we write “NOSE” on paper, and in the mirror we see “DREAM”.
Reflection of text consisting of several lines also belongs to this type. In the mirror, the top and bottom lines are swapped, as a result the meaning of the sentence changes. For example, you write: “the law is like a wife,” but in the mirror it will read: “the wife is like a law.”
Fifth type - a mirror is placed inside the inscription, dividing it into two parts. This method can be used to obtain palindromes - words that are read the same from left to right and from right to left. From the word "AXE" we get "STAMP". By placing a mirror in the name "ANTON" in front of the letter T, we will see a palindrome - female name"ANNA".
The sixth type of looking glass is the most interesting and rarest. It's called a "treillage". Near such words, the mirror can be placed in any position - from the side or from above. And every time a new word will appear. To get a trellis, the easiest way is to use letters that are symmetrical about two axes: vertical and horizontal. But there are only five such letters: Zh, N, O, F and X. It seems that at least one trellis is easy to create - you need to take the word “OH”. Then in the first mirror we will read: “BUT”. And in the second? "HE" again. Then it's not a trellis, because it should have three different words! The only way remains is to draw letters that do not transform into themselves, but into others that are necessary in meaning. I turned to Sergei Fedin with this task. The next day he showed me his first find. The word “DON” was written in such a way that in the mirror placed on top it read “TON”, and in the mirror on the side it read “NOD”. For readers who have long since graduated from school, the last word may not be clear. Although in the sixth grade they probably knew that the Greatest Common Divisor is a number that helps add fractions. The trellis invented by Fedin gave a surprise when we placed a corner mirror next to it. Because of the double reflection, a fourth word suddenly appeared - "NOT" (in the 1920s and 1970s, the abbreviation NOT was widely known and meant "scientific organization of labor"). If you stand in front of a corner mirror, you can make sure that it does not reverse left and right. It is enough to extend your right hand to your reflection (for a handshake), and it will also extend its right hand to you, and not its left, as in an ordinary mirror.
But here’s a paradox: there are many types of looking glass, but not enough looking glass themselves. This is explained not only by the novelty of the genre, but also by the peculiarities of the Russian alphabet. When a mirror is placed on the side (side mirrors), letters that are symmetrical about the vertical axis are reflected in it without distortion. There are twelve such Russian letters, that is, a third of the alphabet: A, D, ZH, L, M, N, O, P, T, F, X, Sh, but among them there are only two vowels. And there is not one block letter, which, when reflected in a mirror, would turn into something else. These difficulties are overcome by moving on to drawn letters. In the mirror they turn into other letters of the alphabet. This significantly expands the limits of writing. True, there are difficulties with reading the drawn text. Here everything depends on the skill of the artist.
When a mirror is placed above the word (or, what is the same, below), then we see the letters turned upside down. Most of them are distorted and cease to be understandable. The exceptions are P, which turns into b, and letters that are symmetrical about the horizontal axis. There are twelve of them: V, E, F, Z, K, N, O, S, F, X, E, Yu. Words made up of the indicated letters do not change after reflection in the mirror, but they are not enough to invent original looking glasses. In this case, specially invented, drawn letters help us out again.
From painted mirrors, let's return to handwritten texts and the encrypted recording method used by Leonardo da Vinci. The great artist mastered special kind letters, which, however, with a certain patience and perseverance is within the power of everyone.
Place a mirror in front of a sheet of paper and write, looking not at the paper, but at its reflection. You are unlikely to succeed on your first try. We are accustomed to the fact that hand movements follow the gaze and are checked by it. The hand leads the line to the right, the gaze follows the line and also moves to the right. In the mirror it's the other way around. The pencil moves to the right, the line in the mirror is drawn to the left, you move the pencil down, and the line creeps up. Therefore, learning will have to begin, as in the first grade, with writing individual letters. The easiest way to master the printed ones, consisting of horizontal and vertical dashes. After some time, the hand gets used to the new method, it remembers that the pen must be moved from right to left and from bottom to top, and not vice versa, as usual. Eventually, you will learn to write down phrases that you understand, but which will look like scribbles to outsiders. Professional typesetters in printing houses easily read the mirror text of font matrices, even “upside down”.
Mastering writing “while looking in the mirror” is very useful for developing willpower and self-confidence. But it is unlikely that Leonardo da Vinci needed this, and it is unlikely that he wrote and read using a mirror. Most likely, during his studies, Leonardo found a simpler way - he learned to write and read mirror texts without looking in the mirror. To do this, it is enough to practice writing twenty-one inverted letters, since the remaining twelve of the thirty-three letters of the Russian alphabet do not change when reflected. Filling out lines from right to left is not at all difficult if you look at the paper and not in the mirror. Try it and see for yourself. You can see the result of my experiments in the photograph. In two lines I encrypted an old riddle that has two correct answers. You will guess one thing right away. For another, I’ll give you a hint: scientists consider the eyes to be part of the brain, unlike, for example, the ear or nose. If this clue is not enough, then look for a four-letter word, the first letter is “d”.
Reflections, cf. 1. units only Action according to verb. reflect reflect. Repelling an attack. Reflection of accusations. 2. only units. Action according to verb. reflect reflected. Reflection of light. Reflection of influences. 3. An image of an object appearing on a smooth... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
A universal property of matter, which consists in reproducing the signs, properties and relationships of the reflected object. “...It is logical to assume that all matter has a property essentially related to sensation, the property of reflection...”... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
reflection- Fine-tuning to an entire part of another person's behavior. (See also: Adjustment and Mirroring). Brief explanatory psychological and psychiatric dictionary. Ed. igisheva. 2008 ... Great psychological encyclopedia
In philosophy, a property of matter that consists in reproducing the features of a reflected object or process. In various forms, reflection is inherent in bodies of inorganic nature (for example, a trace produced by the impact of one object on another),... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
REFLECTION, change in direction (partial or complete) of a wave. This happens when a wave, such as light or sound, hits a surface separating two different media, such as air and metal, and partially "bounces" back into... ... Scientific and technical encyclopedic dictionary
In water, stream, glass symbolizes the temporary phenomenal world. Can also symbolize truth. The moving image of eternity (Plato) ... Dictionary of symbols
History of Philosophy: Encyclopedia
A category of epistemology that acts as fundamental to the materialist tradition of cognitive optimism. O. characterizes the ability of material objects, in the process of interaction with other objects, to reproduce in their own... ... The latest philosophical dictionary
REFLECTION, I, cf. 1. see reflect, xia. 2. An image of an object that appears on a smooth surface that perceives light. See your o. in the mirror. 3. what. What is reflected, what is reproduced. Literature about. life. Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
- “REFLECTION”, Russia, ROSANNA, 1998, color, 94 min. Action. Someone from the powers that be wants to buy part of the protected forest. All the papers are completed, all you need is the signature of huntsman Vasiliev. And here the huntsman “found a scythe on a stone” even from a lot of money... ... Encyclopedia of Cinema
Books
- Reflection, Panov Vadim Yurievich. Six stories. Six verses from songs of famous rock bands. Six genres. And a multi-layered plot that, with mathematical precision, connects the short stories into a voluminous novel, weaving into our...
reproduction, recreation, expression, double reflection, mirror, beating, beating, reflection, rebound, response, display, parrying, reflection, reflection, parrying, repetition, radio reflection, radio echo, reverberation, reminiscence, shadow, thermal reflection, echo
Meaning
T.F. Efremova New dictionary Russian language. Explanatory and word-formative
reflection
reflection e knowledge
Wed1) The process of action according to meaning. verb: to reflect, to reflect, to be reflected, to be reflected.
2. An image of an object that appears on a smooth, light-receiving surface. See your o. in the mirror.
3. what. Something in which is reflected, reproduced. Literature about. life.
Small Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language
reflection
I, Wed
Action by value verb reflect - reflect And reflect - reflect.
Reflection of sound. Reflection of light. Reflection of life.
The dictatorship of the proletariat, as the only fully revolutionary class, is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and repel its counter-revolutionary attempts. Lenin, On the caricature of Marxism and “imperialist economism.”
Anya came when he returned after repelling another German attack. Simonov, Days and Nights.
An image produced on a smooth, shiny surface due to the refraction of light rays.
The reflections of the stars fluttered in the waves. Polonsky, Complaints of the Muse.
(Alexandra Mikhailovna) slowly glanced sideways at her reflection in the mirrored glass of the shops. Veresaev, Two ends.
Something that is a representation or reproduction of something.
The reason here lies not in literature itself, but again in the society of which it serves as a reflection. Dobrolyubov, Literary trifles of last year.
Andrei saw that the former ideal of his woman and wife was unattainable, but he was happy and a pale reflection of it in Olga. I. Goncharov, Oblomov.
These works are a vivid reflection of the time in which they were written. Isakovsky, On poetic skill.
Something in which traces of influence or influence of something are found.
Herzen's spiritual drama was a product and reflection of that world-historical era when the revolutionary spirit of bourgeois democracy already was dying (in Europe), and the revolutionary spirit of the socialist proletariat more not ripe. Lenin, In Memory of Herzen.
That which is the outer expression, manifestation of something.
His face was pale and breathed a reflection of happiness and pride. Kuprin, Liquid sun.
A reflection of acute suffering ran across the patient’s face. Korolenko, Blind musician.
4. Philosophy
The universal property of matter, which consists in the ability of material bodies through internal changes reproduce in a different form the features of material bodies interacting with them.
So, the materialist theory, the theory of the reflection of objects by thought, is presented here (by Engels) with complete clarity: things exist outside of us. Our perceptions and ideas are their images. Lenin, Materialism and empirio-criticism.