高手帮忙 专业翻译

K.Kosik can thus write:✀Human consciousness is at once a "relection"✀ and a "project", it registers as well as constructs ... Is both receptive and active(op. Cit ., p.12) and when he calls social realit a ✀unity of being and meanings, of reality and sense ✀ , he rejects an idealism which separates meaning from material reality, turning it into an independent reality, as well as a naturalistic positivism which robs reality of all meaning and thus mystifies ti.(ibid., p.148).The neglect of meaning leads to an inarticulate mass, the neglect of reality to an incomprehensible emptiness. Pure facts without significance and pure meaning without reference to facts are only conceivable as limiting cases which we can approach by means of abstractive procedures and lived abstractions. If we attempt to escape fully the dialectic of meaning and reality, the human world in which we make ourselves understood disappears, and along with it the foundation for such abstractions.Meaning and the field of meaning. If something is not simply there for us, but rather appears and is intended as something, this something in its signification is never fully determinate. The given sigification allows for further determinations, internal and external determinations which are co-prsetnt as inner and outer horizons. In other words, the meaning sketches out a general framework that is more or less determinate. The further course of experience is thus traced out in advance, but not unambiguously. In this context Husserl speaks of a ✀ determinate structure ✀, of ✀ structural types✀, of a ✀ rule structure ✀ ( Cartesian Mediatations, 19-22). The meaning thus opens up a field of meaning which extends to the world as the universal horizon of actual experience.The additional. Potential determinations are referential contexts(Verweisungszusammenhange)which spring from the meant itself; that which is intended refers beyond itself, and it is only in so doing that it is itself. ✀ Grasping is a grasping-out, each perceived object has an experiential background ✀(Ideas I,my translation-jce).the result is a dialectic of the individual and the whole. The totality is not something really at hand ( totality as the sum total of individual facts); it is also not something which is ideally added by thought (totality as idea, as abstract universal), but is co-present, co-experienced, co-intended (totality as horizon).Since the whole is never itself an object, it is an open whole, a ✀ field ✀ in which the individual is determined. What we are confronted with here is a vertical mediation of particular and universal.