On the crisis situation in the theoretical-methodological apparatus of science

1. PEREL IN THE NINA OF THE NATURAL OF MYTHS

With the following methodological requirements, it is usually reduced to the equalment of scientists of the most different profiles to a certain, as authoritative for them as much as authoritative for them, the “conceptual bar” is met by the criterion of the scientific or artifacts of certain artifacts, judgments and more private hypotheses. The formula of this understanding of methodology gave A. N. Whitehead (1861-1947). This prominent English philosopher, speaking of the method, which generates significant knowledge, explained it as a necessity to reliance on the “connective logical and necessary system of general ideas,” in terms of which each element of our experience could be interpreted. And the problematicness of this understanding of methodologicalism is associated with a possible inconsistency of the “connective logical and necessary system of general ideas” real factology, and, therefore, the requirements of scientificity.

In the Soviet academic science of the Soviet period, the general scientific “conceptual bar” or “connective logical and necessary system of general ideas” was the worldview of historical materialism in its Marxist interpretation. And this worldview, without reference to Marxism, continues to determine the way of thinking of the vast majority of modern, both Russian and Western, scientists.

But how do you see that it satisfies the criterion of scientificity as much as possible? In reality, we see something completely different. Namely: the interpretation of this worldview of the oldest forms of spiritual culture as the center of the so-called nonsense and prejudices [2] is absolutely inconsistent with the latest empirical data on the semantic organization of culture, and, therefore, cannot be considered scientific.

By “imformity with the latest empirical data” means the following.

The main “prejudice,” the primary source of all the others, including religious “prejudices” – is, according to the Istamine preconditions, the mythological tradition that enchanting man. And with it, there was an unforeseen materialistic-oriented scientific metamorphosis by historians. If in the XVIII x-IX centuries. literature was demythologized, and science was dominated by the positivist notion of myths as the fruits of immature thought, inept, false generalizations and relics of the undeveloped consciousness, the Ethnology of the 20th century, began to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malinowski, F. Boasa, J. The miller and pupils of the last – so-called “Cambridge School,” showed the fundamental role of myth and ritual in the life of archaic society and the genesis of social institutions. Resurrection to Nietzsche – the philosophy of life (especially… The role of Henri Bergson) paved the way to the perception of the myth not as a semi-forgotten episode of the prehistory of culture, but as an eternal, time-life living essence of culture. A deep understanding of the myth as the most important “symbolic form of human activity with its special specifics” non-penny was shown by the non-Kaniana of the Marburg school Ernst Cassirer. Unlike the French Sociological School L. Levi-Brule, who emphasized the irrational nature of the myths, Cassirer also revealed their rational elements.

All subsequent research in this field of knowledge finally confirmed the correctness of the view of the mythological tradition as the foundation and soil of world culture. The empirical material accumulated to this day makes us see in myths not separate fantastic representations and narratives, but a universal worldview in its ancient forms, which gave rise to absolutely all the later manifestations of language thinking: folklore, religion, philosophy, science, art, literature, etc. Accordingly, myths in this new situation have already become perceived not as the sum of errors and misconceptions in the general process of the formation of public consciousness, but as a prerequisite information fund of human culture – as the primary arsenal of its visual means and worldview attitudes.

In the rank to put it, the myths turned out to be the “our treasurer” of meanings, which is ignoring, which is tantamount to the rejection of culture itself. So it is no coincidence that Christianity, which was the first to subject the prejudices to radical criticism, was itself later in the role of a victim who had done his fateful work on accelerating the arrival of the Enlightenment hostile to him. And it is no coincidence that it is the overcoming of all prejudices, this is the most general requirement of the Enlightenment, and itself begins to expose itself as a prejudice. Historic-conceptual analysis shows that only thanks to the Enlightenment, the concept of prejudice receives the usual negative color for us. The word “prejudice” itself (Vorurteil) means a pre-judgment, that is, a judgment (Urteil) made before the final verification of all the defiant moments.

2. 2. A NEW LOOK AT THE ISTORIS

Not left aside from the process of remyfologization of culture and domestic science. In 1980, the publishing house of the Soviet Encyclopedia published a fundamental two-volume “Myths of the peoples of the world” in the foreword to which we read: Mythology acts as the earliest, corresponding to the ancient and especially primitive society form of worldview, “as the original form of the spiritual culture of mankind.” A scientific approach to the study of world religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) showed that they are filled with myths. As a system of primitive world-recognisation, mythology included as an indissoluble, synthetic unity of the beginning not only of religion, but also of philosophy, political theories, and prescientific ideas about the world and man, as well as … of different forms of art, first of all verbal. Moreover, it turned out that not only the beginnings of science, but also it itself as such still reveals the properties of “scientific mythology.” Science, as such, cannot destroy myths from any side. It is only he who understands it and removes from him a certain reason, for example, logical or numerical plan. And the general conclusion: the Myth consciously or unconsciously guides all thought, and the myth is as if the ideal structure of life, the semantic skeleton of action.

An example of how from the practice of ritual measurements and numerical briolage there were early variants of mathematical science, from the mythopoetic the ethomorphic-vegetative classifications arose zoology and botany, from the teachings about cosmic elements and the composition of the body – medicine, from the opening of the last stage in the texts of the act of creation, the history of the speculations and the history of the .The beginnings of logic, the language of science and linguistics are well known and repeatedly described. In any case, the ancient Greek natural philosophy in the person of Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, the history of Herodotus, the logic and mathematics in the person of Aristotle and Euclid (and the same Pythagoras) retain lively with the legacy of the mytho-poetic era. And even more so, the same can be said of what is called the principles of science in ancient India or China.

The fact of the mythological roots of historical science deserves the first attention here: it turns out to be the realization that the modern scientific concept of “historicism” is nothing more than a superficially-study mythological presumption of origin, inherited by later philosophy and science. The pioneers in this understanding of “Istorism” appeared in the West. Cassirer, and in Russia – V. And I. It’s Vernadsky. The first in his main work – The philosophy of symbolic forms wrote: “The problem of genesis is the common heritage of science and myth, but the way and character, the modality of considering this problem change when moving from one sphere to another: instead of implying by the “the origin” of mythological potency, we begin to see in it a scientific principle and how we learn to understand it. A V. And I. Vernadsky clearly explained that the mythological presumption of “origination” in his terminology the idea of the beginning of the World – adopted in European-American science, not without the influence of I. Kant, the form of the notion of the “natural process” is only by the end of the XVIII – early XIX century. [15]

3. PROGRAMME SUPPORT OF CULTURE

The new – empirical – the view of myths no longer as a noise support for the general rational commensurance of reality, but as an initial form of spiritual culture, remains today the property of a narrow circle of specialists; it is practically unknown to the mass consciousness. This can be seen from the fact that in modern speech practice the habit of calling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is nothing to be surprised here: the consequences arising from a new scientific view of the essence of myths are so unusual that they still do not fit not only in the mass, but often in the professional scientific consciousness.

It is meant that these consequences are the need for a radical revision of those that retain the appearance of “communicency,” methodological prerequisites on which the modern idea of culturogenesis is based. The fact is that with the awareness of “prejudice” as “prejudice” becomes finally clear insolvency of the “progressive-enlighten” view of the historical dynamics of culture. The reliably established “the relationship of the historical beginning” with the mythological [16] extremely exposed the tautlogism of the statement, according to which the Causes by which myths were to arise at all. But “scientific evidence is not entitled to have the precondition that it is to substantiate that his task is, otherwise we get the situation in the evidence. And in this situation, the occupation of historiographical interpretation is a priori expelled from the sphere of strict knowledge.

At the level of communion of consciousness, the essence of the circle is easily explained by the anecdome about the prosecutor and the briber: “Where is the money from?” From the nightstand. – And in the nightstand where? The woman is putting. – Where’s the wife from? I’m giving you. – Where do you have? From the nightstand. At the level of scientific consciousness, everything is much more difficult. For example, the theory of natural selection from a purely logical point of view is a senseless tautology, because, as K has rightly noted. Popper, the statement “survives the most adapted” is equivalent to the claim “survival of the survivors.” However, the theory of natural selection still continues to be considered the necessary element of the school curriculum to form the worldview of students, which inevitably leads to either the sad or conspiracy (i.e. even more sad) thoughts.

The difficulty of understanding the methodological problem of the “circle” is that its true scientific scale cannot reach its true volume to the mass-intrical consciousness of the progressive. This can be seen from two points: 1 is perceived as a consequence of the imperfection of the evidence; it is believed that if this procedure is improved, then the circle will disappear; 2 is perceived in the spirit of fashionable postmodernism today: as another, derived from the game in words simulacified (J. “Badryar and others).

In fact, it means that it is impossible to penetrate the roots of human culture deeper than myths in principle, and that the beginning of culture should therefore be deduced not from the “zero-point” “zero-point” in which everything that distinguishes people from animals, but from the oldest, initially complex in the form of a sense of its sense of, is supposedly complicated. Why do you have to think that the idea of a hypothetical “zero,” albeit strongly stretched in historical time, the point of reference, from which the process of complication of the spiritual culture is supposedly gaining momentum, is nothing more than a speculative product of the “progressive” style of thinking. And as a scientific alternative, the “zero point” the idea of the “premise” the cultural information fund, which has the form of a system of mythological ideas about the world, is gradually forming. And the situation looks as if this preconditional information fund performed in the history of culture the function of its “programme.”

Accordingly, there is an understanding that the view imposed on us by the “progressive-enlighten” understanding of historicalism as the creators and masters of their own culture has finally outlived itself. In light of empirical data, we find ourselves similar to the programmed culture and children playing it. In addition, those who play not by their own arbitrariness and the will, as the vast majority of the representatives of the scientific community, bruised by progression, and the rules set by the culture itself (her own, dynamics and functions) are still convinced.

The fact that the situation is exactly the same, I guessed B. von Humboldt: “How natural it may seem, the assumption of the gradual formation of languages, we read it – they could only arise immediately. Man is only man by language; in order to create language, he must be a man. And today the same idea is consonant with the “presidual structure of understanding.” Heidegger [21], and “Domain Prerequisites” A. Gouldner [22], and “premature knowledge.” And I. Gribanova [23], and the “Dobroflexive infrastructure of implicit assumptions” A. P. Ogurtsova [24], and “ununpacked semantic continuum” V. Nalimov [25]. All these newest concepts show that the concept of the world is a manifestation of all the potentially laid in it, and the role of man is involved in this cosmogonic process. We know more (bye, more C. (b) not given by [26].

4. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE POWER

The subsidulation of the original complex phase of culture as a scientific fact is a classical empirical generalization. This term was coined in the scientific use of V. And I. Vernadsky, who pointed to the desire, which is increasingly predominant in scientific searches … to approach the study of the phenomena of life purely empirically, to reckon with the inability to give it an explanation, that is . Oh, um. give it a place in our abstract cosmos, scientifically built of models-hypothesis. “Empirical generalization,” he wrote, “if it is precisely derived from the facts, it does not require verification. It can exist and be the basis of scientific work, even if it is incomprehensible and contradicts the prevailing theories and hypotheses. The empirical generalization is based on facts collected by inductively, without going beyond them or worrying about the consent or disagreement of the conclusion received with other existing ideas about nature. In this respect, empirical generalizations do not differ from scientifically established facts: their coincidence with our scientific ideas about nature does not interest us, their contradiction with them is a scientific discovery.

From the statements given, it does not imply that Vernadsky was not interested in the problem of holistic and coherent knowledge. The empyretic generalization, “We read in his work “Bioosphere” – for all his incomprehensibleness, can still have a great beneficial effect on the study of the phenomena of nature, because one day the moment comes when it suddenly begins to be illuminated by a new light, becomes the field of hypotheses, begins to change our schemes of the universe and change itself. Very often then it turns out that in the empirical generalization we did not have what we thought, or had in reality much more than we thought.

In turn, the phenomenon of the original complex phase of culture forces a re-seeing not only the initial stage of culture, but also the interpretation of the entire further historical process. Namely: contrary to the vulgar-mechanistic scheme – from simple to complex, from lower to higher, with its speculative hypotheses of the Big Explosion, “Abiogenesis”, “natural selection”, anthropogenesis, anthropogenesis, “Electrical” and “social progress”, we, the spreading), which initially involves a complex “cease” (washing, twisting, wovenness) of what is developing.

Indeed, the understanding of “development” as an initially complex process explains today almost everything observed in nature and in society phenomena. It is known, for example, that the entire preconditional basis of the works of B. And I. Vernadsky is reduced to the idea of eternity and the vagueness of life. The evolutionary process – we read in his – “everything” is already going on inside the biosphere, the so on. Oh, um. in a living of the finished nature [31]. And the same course of thought is picked up and developed by representatives of the direction known in Soviet science under the name of the “nomogenetic” (L.S. Berg, D.N. Sobolev, A.A. Lovers and others). In this direction, the significance of randomness in evolution was denied (i.e. Oh, um. natural selection) and the ideas of phylogenetic preformism were affirmed, according to which evolution is the deployment of pre-existing the beetrophic ceremonies.

The consonance of Vernadsky’s ideas was also revealed in the General Theory of Systems – with the ideas of its original order, organization, integrity, teleology, and others, which, according to the author of the L. von Berthalanfi, “demonstratively excluded from the consideration in mechanistic science.” And modern humanities were represented by a whole range of models of thinking that have nothing to do with complexity. This is the translation of unconsciously-mythological forms of collective thinking into their consciously-reflexive forms (G. Jung), and the transformation of symbols into symbols. Freudenberg), and dialogue models (M.M. Bakhtin, A. Toynbee), and a variety of options for invariant (V. V. Ivanov, V. N. The axes). I am not talking about the probabilistic theory of meanings B. V. Nalimova, according to which Yodrama, which is performed in eternity, is now presented to us as a giant experiment aimed at unpacking the original meanings of the World.

All this, I repeat, is almost unknown to the mass consciousness, because the new view of myths today has a kind of a set of disparate empirical generalizations that do not fit into the evolutionary-historical picture of the world and seem to be something random and incomprehensible. And the pictures of the world, adequate to the accumulated array of empirical factology, have not yet been created; in the mass scientific consciousness, its Ista, evolutionary and historical, is still predominant. What he wrote about, as the main problem of general scientific methodology, B. And I. Vernadsky: It sounds paradox, but this is so: the spread of the scientific worldview can even sometimes interfere with scientific work and scientific creativity, since it inevitably fixes the scientific errors of this time, gives temporary scientific provisions more authenticity than they actually have. It is always imbued with third-party science by the construction of philosophy, religion, social life, and artistic creation. This spread of the temporal and often erroneous scientific worldview was one of the reasons for the local or world periods of decline that has been observed in the history of science.

5. PROGRESSIST ILLUSIS

One of the typical manifestations of such a Upadka can be considered the fact that in modern philosophical and scientific minds continues to prevail the thoughtless inertia of the once authoritative assertion of the classics of historical materialism, according to which the thoughts, or language do not form in itself a special kingdom, … they are only manifestations of real life … they have no history, no development.

This, absolutely untrue in the history of science, the statement still lives in the scientific and mass consciousness in the form of zombishing mantras, the existence determines the consciousness and the primary, the consciousness of the second. About them sharply critical, but quite fair, said in his diary records the same B. And I. Vernadsky: … oppresses the lack of talent of new philosophical searches with the gift of the people. Astoundunly ignorant and unskilled are the “philosophical” works of trusting thinkers. It is impossible to – sick, ignorant. For a psychiatrist. A picture of moral decomposition. Psychoses are now clearly manifested. Some of the diamats and dialectics seem to be mentally ill. I am often painted vividly: Russian scientists must work, carrying the burden of ignorant and sick diamats and so-called public workers, which interfere with the scientific work possible. Late learning and dangerous conclusions for reality. The process makes you look to the future with concern.

Vernadsky’s thoughts on the quality of modern domestic philosophical thought directly echoes today’s, increasingly frequent, criticism of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. They are echoed because the worldview positions of the majority of the members of the IF RAS reveal their diametric opposite of the rehabilitating the Great Tradition, the position formulated in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 809 on the preservation and strengthening of traditional spiritual and moral values (in this regard, the overclocking comments on the last scandal in the IF RAS are very indicative. Despite the fact that the opposite of the ideological positions does not need evidence, because the essence of the modern inter-civilizational confrontation is precisely reduced to two mutually exclusive tendencies: to the one that is focused on the saving of traditional values, and to the one that fundamentally rejects them. And the complete expression of the second trend is, as is known, the Istmatov’s death of the old and the birth of a new one, for which, as the usual “scientific float,” continues to hold the majority of the members of the IF RAS.

Meanwhile, for self-thinking researchers, it has long been no secret that the basis of “float” is vulgar-mechanistic and absolutely unscientific scheme of development – from simple to complex, from lower to higher. Even C itself. Darwin, in whose writing this scheme first acquired a reputation as a “scientific,” wrote itself-critically of it: “I know that it is hardly possible to determine clearly what is, of course under a higher or lower organization; it is an area of a very confusing question. And Darwin’s professional opponents from among his contemporaries also understood that Darwinism was not so much biological as philosophical teaching, the vertex manifestation of mechanistic materialism. For example, I thought N. It’s me. Danilevsky [41]. Au. Florensky called Darvinism the Butaphor Palace of Scientific Understanding.

Nevertheless, it was Darwinism that formed the basis for the further development of historical and materialistic thought and with the help of different uro da Da Da “dialectical” tensions, which diverted attention from the primitive scheme of development, was presented to the public as a natural scientific prerequisite for the creation of a model of historical dynamics of the “progressive” sense. In the letter to K. Marx F. Engels of December 19, 1860 we read: I … this (Darvinovskaya S. (b) The book gives a natural historical basis for our views. The same in the letter F. Engels P. L.M. Lavrov: In Darwin’s teaching, I accept the theory of development. And in the 20th century, the Ithmatian theory has acquired the status of a general scientific evolutionary-historical worldview – the pinnacle of that direction of materialist thought, the foundations of which were laid by the Enlightenment epoch.

According to the basic provisions of this worldview, man is the final product of the development of nature, and, therefore, the king, not limited in the manifestations of his will, is nothing but other than other people’s vols (which, as the bearer of progress, have the right to suppress, if they are not progressive enough). And it is an independent and self-sufficient subject, endowed with cognition and transforming function of the object. Hence the key attitudes of the “progressive style of thinking: the cult of the yeah, the absolutization of “freedom” and hatred of the restrictive requirements of tradition. And from this, the power over the minds of the phenomenon, which has received in the writings of some philosophers the name of the “progressive utopias” (Communist or liberal-democratic – does not matter.

Progressive utopias are pseudo-scientific programs of social development, explaining, in the spirit of the vulgar-mechanistic scheme, from the simple to complex, from the lowest, historical process as a movement from the dark past to a bright future. Such, materialistic, in their preconditional basis, utopia, being the source of social illusions, become in the hands of political manipulators the most powerful racializing technologies. Their attitude to traditions as delusions and prejudices reduces public consciousness to the level of animal reflexes, and their interpretation of the ideals of conscience and justice as “contributive” (conditional, not really existing) subconsciously stimulates social disunity and nihilism.

It is only encouraging that the disagreement with the principle of development – the simple to the complex, from the lower to the highest, is beginning today to be realized as more than an alternative opinion. There is a ripe for the understanding that the impression of complexity or simplicity depends on what “permitting capacity” of the mind is intuitively taken for sufficient to solve the problem. The complexity or simplicity of any object or phenomenon depends only on our approach, arbitrary or forced, on what tasks we set. In nature, there is nothing complicated and nothing simple, as well as everything is difficult and everything is simple. The stone is simple if we need to raise it and throw it, and complex, if we want to comprehend its crystalline structure … Man as a causal system is infinitely complex for a psychologist and as two or two (in ordinary logic) is simple for a bureaucrat who looks at the visitor through a mudden glass. Microcopsy are the device’s “resolution” capability. Under the dust tag. Give an increase stronger, and it already turns out that this is a living organism, some kind of infusoria. Even stronger than that and this is an immensely huge aggregate of organic molecules. [48].

6. CRISIS OF THE STMATIVE METHODOLOGY

The question is: why is historical materialism, for all its vulgar mechanistics, principled tautology and general hopeless obsolescence, is still there to be afloat?

First, it is floating because it is common to both the Communists and the liberals. That’s what A noted. C. Panarin, in his analytic review: “The people without the elite”: “Historical materialism” (as well as its facilitated political scientific version of communism) relied on the same presumptions as classical liberalism: the objective interests of various social groups, that these interests are adequately reflected in the political consciousness that forms its social orders and political projects, on the strict and strict process of social and political evolution. p.m. The difference with liberalism concerned not so much the world-class-methodological presumptions relating to the social reality, but class sympathies and antipathies.

Secondly, historical materialism is still afloat because its critical discussion affects the interests of not-only scientists with their personally professional ambitions, corporate attitudes and political and ideological orientations. It also affects the interests of those more cynical, conductors of world (including scientific) politicians who understand that the materialistic worldview with all its claims to dialectika is just a step on the path to complete economiccentrism. That is, first – compromising spirituality by its declaration of “nebasis,” “Adastropy,” and then the creation of an economic person, who is indifferent to everything that has no commercial status and exchange value. An economic person is attractive to the authorities precisely in that it is much easier to manage it than self-interested people.

But to say that the cynicism of such a managerial practice no one understands, it is also impossible. Hence the increasing distancing of many philosophers and scientists from the methodology of historical materialism. Unfortunately, there are a number of problems that objectively weaken history as a discipline, make it not very scientific. First, our history as a science in the last twenty-five years is acephatic history, headless. In Soviet times, the historian was good in the sense that he was not required to do theory. I… but it’s all over. Together with Marxism, the theory went away, that is, the child splashed out along with water, and the last 20-25 years is in general atheromatic research, descriptions of case-studies. And if these are descriptions of events, then there is a problem: if you do not have a theory, what language will you describe? And then it turns out that everything is crumbled into events. And as Brodel said: “Event” is dust, meaning that an event can only be understood within the conjuncture, and a theory is needed to understand the situation. The fact that we have the last 25 years of the theory in the zagon, that we repeat the backs of Western theory and the misleading of the 50s and 70s, is a very serious thing. Therefore, here the historian is immediately deprived of a number of advantages that distinguish the scientist from the unscientific. And I. Furs [51]).

The final thought of A. And I. Fursova: There are many strong and sensible scientists in the academic community, but I don’t think it is worth counting on the academic community as a holistic form. It’s a corpse that you forgot to bury. And in this respect, there is no illusions to be experienced.

The same, but more flexible assessment of historical materialism is given in the reference book “Theory and Methodology of Historical Science.” ed. . Academician A. Oh. Chubaryan). The process of reducing the status of historical science, the devaluation of the craft and, accordingly, the professional language of the historian, common to the world scientific community, were burdened with domestic historiography by the veryr.

The notion of such statements is that their essence is already becoming the subject of attention not only in the academic environment. Here, for example, the thoughts of the monk Savvati Titkov, the villager of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra and at the same time a master’s degree of the Institute of History and Politics of the Moscow State University. It is especially interesting to understand that any religious tradition is always a mythological tradition – the source of the idea of life, subject to scientific study, is always the historical roots of the idea of the meaning of life. One of the main principles of historical science is the principle of historicalism, which until recently in historical science tried to explain all the historical processes in the world, according to a number of modern scientists, is currently experiencing a serious crisis. The crisis of historicism is primarily noted by the fact of the hidden and obvious departure of many scientists from the methodology of historical materialism. Within the framework of the prevailing evolutionary-historical (progressive) paradigm, the position of the methodological vicious circle within the concept of historicalism is especially noticeable. As a result, it turned out that the “progressive” model of thinking narrowed the ideas of science about the reality and reality of the world around me, devisited the very meaning of its existence. An attempt to reject the mythological tradition, to break the world, rationally to explain it, as a result of such a breaking way led to the fact that man lost the meaning of his existence in this world.

I am not talking about frankly humiliating assessments of the situation with historicism: the country’s sterical community has been destroyed, and history has turned from science into a ridicule. And I. The capakidi). What was immediately picked up by the satirists themselves: “As soon as the power changes, so history is rewritten to the contrary (M. N. Zadornov).

In such a mental atmosphere, the distancing of serious specialists from the methodology of historical materialism is no longer surprising. Moreover, it is pointed out by the appearance of philosophical dictionaries, in which there is no article “Historism” [55], or articles “Historical materialism.” And where the second concept is still preserved, it is sometimes given a destructive definition:

The ambitions of theorists and apologists of historical materialism to give it the status of a universal paradigm of social philosophy and sociology, based on positivist methodologies, naturalism in the interpretation of society and the causal-mechanical model of world-explanation, were refuted by the achievements of the scientific and humanities of the twentieth century – the latest macroeconomic models, the general theories about the data of the mass sciences. At the same time, the collapse of socialism in Europe, the most common sanction of which at the theoretical level was historical materialism, clearly demonstrated the real advantages of modern non-orthodox sociological, political, psychohistorical and other methods of adequate display and prospective reconstruction of the course of the historical process. Serious doubts … in the legitimacy of the concept of unrestricted social progress (heart and soul of historical materialism) also contributed to the swaying of this once fashionable ideological doctrine of the socio-philosophical sense.

7. MEETING CONTARINE OF CULTURE

Another unexpected (from the point of view of the usual “historianism”) aspect of methodological problems is related to the fact that the consequences arising from an empirical view of the history of mankind, forced to look at the culture as a carrier of some potential, subject to the future of its identification, meaning. Specifically, we are talking about those senses that are implied by the evangelical formula “book kills, and the Spirit of the belly” (II Cor., 3: 6), and purely scientific models of the type “textual variants” – invariant or language-objects. Therefore, I will repeat it again and we read with Nalimov: “The drama, which is being carried out in eternity, is now appearing before us as a giant experiment aimed at unpacking the originally existing meanings of the World.

Under the “dismacation of the originally existing meanings of the World” means the entry into the meteorological content of the semantic organization of culture. A preliminary explanation is needed here.

From the point of view of the traditional view of language as an objective reflection of reality, the meteorological content of spiritual culture is nothing more than its superficial layer [59], the final stage of linguistic analysis. From the empirical point of view on the history of the linguistic aspect of culture, the potential (thay language) content of its oldest form promises to be something completely new and extremely unusual. In particular, at B. N. Toporova, the largest specialist in the study of myths, we read: “It is highly characteristic that modern science comes to an exceptionally high assessment of the operational value and the cognitive strength of primitive knowledge in the most recent years.

The same thing is in H.-G. If you uncover the historical and scientific collection of de Vrie, the history of the study of mythology, you will get the same impression as from the “Crizis of Historism,” it has affected the new revival of interest in mythology. The fact that Walter F is of particular attention to be recognized. Otto and Carl Kerenya are the discoverers of a new research area, taking myths seriously. About the same – W. V. Nalimov: Strangely, but now we have to think about the concepts of the distant past. And the same thing, but in a more abstract, theorized form – M. Heidegger: … The onetological preconditions of historiographical knowledge fundamentally surpass the idea of the rigor of the most accurate sciences. Mathematics is not stricter than historiography, but simply narrower in relation to the circle of existential grounds relevant to it.

In the light of such predictions, mastering the meteorological content of spiritual culture means to understand what is potentially present in the “Chief” literalism of its various manifestations. But such a mastery still remains at the level of dreams of interdisciplinary, because the current state of the semantic organization of culture is a violation of its original order: the disintegration of the mythological system of representations on the folklore, religion, science, literature, etc. The d. The oldest orderliness of the semantic organization of culture is preserved only at its initial, mythological stage and finds itself in the so-called mythological motifs. And in the situation, mythological repeatability should no longer be understood historically (as a consequence of kinship by origin, or as a result of similar conditions of social development, or as a product of mutual influences and borrowings), and typologically: as a manifestation of the invariant, preserved in any transformations. What creates a real prospect of access to the meteorological content of culture.

Much has been written about the methods of such an issue by the author of this article, starting in 1985 [66]; therefore, it makes no sense to stay on this topic. Here suffice it to say that the problem of accessing the meteorological content of culture is scouring research attention on the realization that we are not masters of our words at all and that our power over them is illusory. And one of the first to this fact drew attention to this fact again B. And I. Vernadsky (It happens, when you understand, but to convey, to say, you can not tell others… [68]).

As a result, we begin to guess that our consciousness is under the “colpa” of the linguistic thesaures – an interconnected system of semantic structures of a oriented nature. We find that language is not an activity or function, but something comparable to a restrictive grid of signs, as if thrown on our field of perception, activity, life. Ricker [69]). We are beginning to realize that we are built into the language and we will never be able to get out of it, that we speak not only in language, but also from it. Heidegger [70]). The same thing is at H-G. Gadamer: “Language is a way of world-interpreted by any act of reflection; “Glassing always moves in the track spoken by language … both the possibilities of thinking and its boundaries are given. We are always inside (language C. (b) The intraces by which we are aware of ourselves in the world.

The same with M. Eliade: … The world reveals itself as a language. About the same – W. V. Kolesova: Whether we like it or not, but we see the world through the glasses of language. By M. Oh, um. Bakhtina, man is aband into the world of infinitely demanding meaning; [75]; V. Nalimov, he exists only to the extent that he is immersed in the world of meanings. By M. Polani, the last basis of our beliefs is our very conviction, the whole system of premises that logically precede any particular knowledge.

All this ultimately means that the claim of modern science to the objective perception of reality, especially historical – only “naive methodologicalism” and “naive historical” and “naive historical objectivism.” The nasty nature of so-called historicism is that he, relying on the methodology of his approach, forgets about his own historicality. A true historical thinking must also think of its own historicity. Only in this case it will stop chasing the ghost of a historical object.

8. THE WORLD ORGROWN PARADIGM CHANGE

Today, the task of any thinking person is to demostify models and analyze their origins. We must go to the very foundations of the allegations on which they are based and to which we get used to because of indoctrination in school and in the media.

In the general theory, we are talking about a phenomenon that in different directions of search thought is called differently. For example, in the direction that is genetically related to classical German (mainly the kantian) philosophy is called the “universal religion of reason.” And this is a phenomenon according to tradition, going back to the scientific heritage of B. And I. Vernadsky, it is called “the dyes of the worldview paradigm.”

Let me remind you that Vernadsky himself spoke of it: “What seemed logically and scientifically inevitable, in the end turned out to be an illusion, and the phenomenon appears to us in such forms that were not expected by any means; we approach a very responsible time, to a radical change in our scientific worldview; it is clear that the life of the life is not expected, and it should be greatly reflected in the scientific history. The idea of the eternity and turmoil of life – in addition to its cosmic representations – has long penetrated the scientific worldview of individual naturalists … But now this idea is of special importance in science, since the moment of the history of thought is coming, when it is advanced forward as an important and profound basis of the folding new scientific worldview of the future.

These anticipations echo those considerations of Vernadsky, which concern the role of the human factor in the new picture of the world: “The longevity of human thought is quite similar to natural processes, that is, done not according to the laws of human logic, but in its unknown and inforeseen ways. Maybe a thought, the basis of the personality, immortal. And we see a similar direction of thoughts in other specialists. In particular, A. Au. Now we are weeding: The universe is not chaos, but Cosmos; evolution is based not on the struggle of chaotic changes, but on … the presence of a similar consciousness of the creative principle. Steps in this direction were made by K. A. Uh. von Baer, S. Maiwart, A. Keller, S. And I. Korzhinsky, E. Cop, K. The K. Schneider, A. Bergson, L. C. Berg, P. Theaillard de Chardin, O. Shinderwolf and many. dr. [86]

About the same – W. V. Nalimova (mathematics, cybernetics, specialist in the field of language and thinking learning): The origin or evolution of the universe can largely depend on its compatibility with intelligence. It is paradoxical that while physicists find it impossible to discuss the dynamics of the universe without addressing the human consciousness directly involved in it, the materialist philosophers still claim that consciousness is just a mechanic doc of the machine. All the failures in an attempt to build a meaningful model of consciousness lie in fear of being called an idealist. It is not possible to say anything serious about consciousness without posting the original existence of unmanifested semantics. This is perhaps the main conclusion of our years of reflection on the problem of consciousness.

But the original existence of unmanifested semantics presupposes its subsequent manifestation – the historical variability of the semantic organization of culture. What, oddly enough, was known to the Russian theologian of the XVI century Joseph Volotsky: … The words of different people at different times about the same subject has different meanings. And the same historical variability of the semantic organization of the language of culture is increasingly being said today: “At different stages and in different historical conditions, the same concepts could change their contents.

For this reason, modern humanities is hermeneutics, the science of interpretation of the text. For the same reason, Russia is now in the deepest systemic crisis and faces a serious challenge that has been challenged by modern globalization processes: either overcoming the systemic crisis through a conservative revolution, or the complete destruction of the country and its transformation into a colony. Therefore, in the near scientific perspective, in historiography, a change in the worldview paradigm is necessary.

9. LIVING THE ALL

The essence of the change of the worldview paradigm is a radical revision of the view of the spiritual culture: in the light of empirical facts, it begins to look not as a secondary “adjustment over the base” but as having its own ontology and its own functional specificity – sensible reality in its interaction with material reality. Psychologists are increasingly beginning to talk about this understanding of spiritual culture: “It is necessary first of all to try to meaningfully understand the specific nature and ontology of semantic reality as a reality of a special kind; “The concept of meaning hides … complex and multifaceted semantic reality.

And not only in psychologists, this reality becomes the object of close attention. In the broadest sense, we must already say that the reality surrounding us and the reality that includes us – this is not a dead space-time of materialistic-thinking physicists, supplemented by “instances” in it, evolutionarily arising biological (including intelligent) formations, but some inextricable, similar to the quantum, unity of the observed and observing parts of reality, that is, living organization. This is not only the scientific heritage of B. And I. Vernadsky [93], but also the Anthropic principle in cosmology, according to which the parameters of the universe are exactly as necessary for the original existence of intelligent life in it.

All this makes us think that we are standing on the very threshold of the break of the pseudo-election between faith and knowledge – a trap created and the belief in the “killing literalism” of religious texts (II Cor., 3:6), and the materialistic understanding of the world order as the pinnacle of scientificity. Behind the threshold of the breakout is the way out of the understanding of the universe as a living organization.

But any form of living, including intelligent organization, are forms with the cyclic dynamics of their existence (meaning self-replic, it is also a matrix, principle). And in the context of cyclical dynamics, the task of revising the view of humanity is inevitably the task of revising the historical past of humanity – the task of returning to the understanding of this past as something like Plato’s remembrance. That is, we have to understand that the historical process is not progress and not regression, but rather the Yadamer self-learning, perceived as an example or a warning. This is P. To remember the pagan ancestors is to do the Christian duty towards them. This is M’s message. Oh, um. Bakhtina: A new philosophical surprise is needed before everyone… We must remember the world, as they remember their childhood. And this is a daring conjecture that the idea of “Pasterns” apply not only to the ontogenetic level of organization of life, but also to its phylogenetic level.

10. PHENOLOM OF PHILOGENIC PARENTS

The last thought, because of its principled novelty, needs clarification.

The need to introduce into the scientific circulation the idea of “phylogenetic parents” logically follows from the consistent interpretation of the biogenetic law of Heckel-Muller – about the subsidization of the processes of ontogenesis and phylogenesis by some unified rules of their historical deployment. Despite the fact that in the law of Heckel-Muller there is no such sequence; in it the beginning of ontogenesis implies the default phase of “intriupulence.” Oh, um. The phase of the potential existence of parents, and in phylogeny, interpreted by evolutionist, such a phase is excluded. Although a consistent interpretation of the biogenetic law should assume it only because this law itself is a claim to the expression of the principle of isomorphism of levels. (On this principle, for all levels of the organization of living matter, see the in the work of N. V. Timofeeva – Resovsky, A. Au. Lyapunova, V. N. Beklemisheva and others. [97]).

As for the empirical data on the parental phase in phylogeny, its presence was confirmed by the experience of solving the problem of the circle proposed by the author of this article. Specifically, the solution of this problem has shown that the meteorological content of the mythological model of the world is reduced to the description of the self-replicatory (matryar, from the root of the mother) principle – the basis and conditions of existence of any living organization. In the context of this experience, the function of “phylogenetic parents” was inherent in those characters of ancient texts, which in the mythological religious tradition are called “godgami,” and in the science of myths – first arrogators, “cultural heroes” and “people of the ancient people” (people of the previous life cycle).

The indirect memory of “phylogenetic parents” still lives in those mysterious phenomena of the history of culture, which are also represented by the ancient practice of the leader’s call from the side (a practitioner known not only for its Slavic version [100]), and described in the classical work of D. – D. The milling institute of the sacred power of the priest kings [101]. And in the light of such and many other similar phenomena, the idea of “phylogenetic parents” is no longer an exotic fantasy, but a meaning-forming element of the theory that – if you use the famous aphorism of Nils Bohr – is insane enough to be correct (satisfying the most stringent requirements of scientificity).

Link to the aphorism of N. Bora is more appropriate that only on the basis of the idea of “phylogenetic parents” it becomes possible to read the metalyk content of myths in all its holistic completeness. For example, the question: what does the concept of a “Scope world” common in the mythological memory of absolutely all the peoples of the Earth, mean, populated by the mythical first ancestors-demiurges, “people of the ancient people” and the secondary and tertiary religions? Is it not obvious that it is precisely the existence in the historical past of our biosphere of its “matry” (parent to it) variant and the “matrius” (parent in relation to the present humanity) biocenosis?

Or: why in early historical cultural traditions, time was considered to be dividing into the so-called “mythological” and the subsequent “historical”? Is it not because it is this division that is functionally corresponding, conditionally speaking, to the “intriutumrob” and the subsequent stages of the development of mankind in its phylogeny?

Or: why do the so-called “world tree”, the various modifications of which perform in myths the function of the point of contact and the channel of communication between the other and the now existing world, by the time of the completion of the mythological time ceases to exist? – Is not because it is in this case – again conditionally speaking – about the phenomenon, functionally identical to the “pupus”?

Or when did this symbolic “puppina” break? Is not the answer to this question hidden in the scientific tradition to associate with the end of the Pleistocene some cataclysm of a planetary nature (meaning the term “diludes” from the lats. “Flood, “Flood” comparable, by the way, with the “drivergence of water” during pregnancy)? Do not the same question answer the archaeological data on the difference between the cultures of the Paleolithic and Neolithic, chronologically coinciding with the data on the difference between the Pleistocene and the Holocene? And is not the universal mythopoetic symbol known in the science of myths called “Omphal” – “Pup” rises to the memory of the earth?

Or how to explain that the actual-historical stage of the development of mankind begins with the unknown from the appearance and complex in its semantic organization of the mythological provision of culture, which then unfolds in what is called the culture itself? Is there a direct analogy with a newborn child, who from the moment of his birth is involved in the parental semantic field, really incomprehensible, but available to the initial development through the forms of communication that meet his infant abilities (a for arouse, fairy tales, etc.). d.)?

Or: how to understand that on the “progressive-enlighten-enlightenal stage of their historical development, people suddenly begin to abandon the memory of their mythological parents, the branding of this memory as “prejudices and “the delusions of an undeveloped consciousness”? Is there not a direct analogy with teenage rebelism against boring parental care, according to the well-known script in the pedagogy? And is it not time for us to start redirecting this renoun, in a positive direction: in the introduction of human teenagers to the heritage of “phylogenetic parents” – to the mythical content of the culture with all the hidden promises of the impossible as possible?

By the way, the introduction to this heritage has a purely practical meaning: only it is able to provide today’s Russia with the worldview sovereignty that is the only reliable means of protection against manipulative technologies, information sabotage and debilitating trends.

11. WHAT OUTSHIBES

And why did scientific materialism not ensured Russia by such sovereignty?

Let’s try to explain.

Firstly, being borrowed, as is known, in the West, scientific materialism forces Russia to play according to the rules imposed by the West, that is, to believe that absolutely all the main issues of human existence are solved exclusively by the sphere of production forces and relations. Despite the fact that no less materialistic, but more expensive West created in France the Institute of the Great Revolution – to study the thoughts of people, why, unlike Russia, in the development of manipulative technologies. And it is no coincidence that the Soviet philosophy has never been emphasized by the statement of K. Marx, according to which the materialist understanding of history was based on the study of the history of England and is fully applicable only to it. More than once wrote Marx and that in the countries of Asia the situation was fundamentally different. In any case, it is indicative that those representatives of the Western philosophy of history, who sought to build on the understanding of the experience not only of the West, but also the world as a whole, as, for example, the well-known Englishman Arnold Toynbee, were not inclined to the political and economic explanation of the specifics of the historical development of Russia.

Secondly, historical materialism was not at all its only theoretical support for the Soviet power. She also used, as such a support for herself, and the idea of social justice, organically inherent in the previous Orthodox tradition. But in the conditions of the fundamental incompatibility of religious world understanding with the scientific-materialistic idea of social justice began to be considered (and still inertia is considered) an integral part of Marxist theory.

In fact, it is connected with this theory purely formally. And to be to the end frank, the connection of the idea of social justice with the theory of scientific materialism, which reduces social ideals to a secondary “adstroke,” except as an eclectic and will not be called. On this account, the classics of scientific materialism were expressed very clearly, calling for the answer to the question of justice to not to the science of morality or the right and not to the sentimental feelings of humanity, justice or at least mercy… Social justice or injustice is determined by only one science, namely, science, which deals with the material facts of production and the exchange of the science of political economy. Also at K. Marx: “Speaking… about “natural justice” is nonsense.

Let’s look at the paradoxical situation: the theoretical provision of the construction of a society of social justice in Russia was a theory, the creator of which considered justice to be nonsense! And is it not obvious that a society in which the demand for social justice not only did not have an adequate scientific justification, but also entered into an irreconcilable contradiction with scientific materialism, was originally doomed to internal decomposition and final extinction?

The rectification of the two worldview positions, forcibly reduced into a single eclectic structure, and ultimately destroyed the Soviet project. At the same time, the “personal, “purely of human reservations” (classicists – C. (b) They did not change anything in the official monologue of Marxism, which turned out to be adamant in their dogmatic optimism. Panarin). That is, everything happened in full accordance with the saying “hooked how best,” and it turned out as always.

The fact that the “marriage” in the theoretical support of the Soviet project was not immediately found is explained simply: until the time of eclecticism was not noticeable. While the illiterate people strained on construction sites and died on wars, the leaders believed the word – was not the theories. And the post-war difficult situation did not have to them. But there were more calm and well-fed times (so-called. stagnant), a new, more educated generation has grown, in whose mind the unnatural combination of heterogeneous worldview positions began to gradually fail. That is, the new generation, if not yet understood, then it already intuitively felt that in their real forms the Soviet project is determined not so much by the officially stated ideal of social justice as by its scientific justification – a materialistic worldview. The worldview, but this, alien to the relative in its interpretation of value concepts, imputably guided the mass consciousness on the behavioral attitudes that are fundamentally incompatible with high ideals: politics, economics, science – separately, morality separately.

In such a situation, the country’s leaders were faced with the question of adjudging the ideals to the worldview. Here the party leadership and his philosophical servants had to be strained seriously: to invent, on the one hand, the Marxist-Leninist ethics, and on the other – to curb the growing youth cynicism with the help of another hastily slapped lever of control – the Moral code of the builder of communism. But, as you know, none of these measures have justified themselves. The ordered vocauring of the Soviet philosophers was already frankly annoyed, and plagiarism from the New Testament texts only strengthened public niligism.

This nigilysm, which by the end of the twentieth century impregnated the consciousness of a huge part of Soviet society and completely its top, and riskated it. And he openly declared his right to exist in 1993, when they were brought to its logical conclusion and legally legalized all the hidden, subconscious tendencies of the previous political system. All the rest – frustration in ideals, betrayal of the elites, etc. natural consequences from the current situation. In the era of “perestroying,” these investigations were brought to their logical conclusion and legally legalized.

To make sure that such an explanation for the collapse of the Soviet Union is correct, it is enough to ask: why the insignificant privileges of the communist leaders of the country caused the people a real anger against them, and the power that came to replace the Communists in the nineties, despite its undisguised criminal-oligarchic character, similar in the (by the power of the external manifestation) the reaction in the people does not cause?

The answer is obvious: popular anger was not amenortion at all, but only the fact that they were used by people who claimed – without any moral grounds – the role of the leaders of the ideology of social justice. The new power in its form, in which it developed in the 90s, for the role of the ideologue of social justice has never claimed, and no one (of sober-thinking people) expected this from it. And he’s not waiting right now. Everyone is aware of what is happening, everyone is watching the same bandit series on TV, and everyone is hearing the political and technological formula that was heard in one of these series: young people should have ideals, and the old people have deserved.

“We will never correctly understand Marxist materialism, unless we are to unrustrated that the demonic energy of beledding moral, spiritual, aesthetic and other motives – the word, the romantic irony that has reached demonic extremes is hidden. In the materialist sits … the spirit of the nihiistic negation of the shrines and the devastation of the pantheons. The nihiistic materialists are deceived and deceived enthusiasts. … hence the methodical from which the game is conducted to the lowering is everywhere (where materialism is dominated by C. y.), even in everyday domestic communication. Figuratively speaking, and Y’sathan himself is quite a materialist and even a Marxist, for he is constantly looking for low-lying “basis” motives in the most sublime, the sublime, the “sadstroy” forms are constantly searches.

In this sense, it is not an exaggeration to say that the scientific and materialistic teaching was not only an ideal stepping stone in the transition from the socialist model of life order to the liberal-democratic, but also for the first time in the history of human thought, the scientifically substantiated the right of man and society to dishonesty and immorality. As a creative theory, it was absolutely untenable. Therefore, those who ascribe to Bolsauticism traditionalist roots that are supposedly inland of the communal archetype, either do not understand anything in the Bolshevik “dialectic” or hide some ends in the water. The post-Soviet political elite, therefore, with such ease, mastered the lessons of postmodern that her former experience as a party of augurs, who are bred behind the people, prepared quite for this.

Given all that has been said, it is time to recognize that the restoration of socialism in Russia on the former scientific and materialistic basis would be the biggest and irreparable mistake that can be imagined. But at the same time, it is not necessary to draw a hasty conclusion from here, as if any person who considers himself a materialist – a cynic and a nihi. In real life, the divergence of ideals with a historically variegating worldview always manifests itself with a delay, – the consequences of this discrepancy reveal themselves not immediately. A person who imagines himself as a materialist, in fact, can be such not because on his own life experience he suffered this worldview, but because he thoughtlessly mastered it at school and at the institute (the vast majority, by the way). In personal terms, he can for a very long time follow ideals inherited from parents, friends and environment for a very long time.

And how real is the prospect of building an ideal social order by methods associated with the hope of another worldview extreme – on thoughtless religiosity?

In the summer of 2007, ten academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences were sent to the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin opened letter, reprinted at the same time by many media [108]. As the commentators wrote, the letter clearly demonstrates the state of the minds of the luminaries of Russian science and wider – a whole class of technology scientists with a special view of life, on the worldview, on social processes. At first glance, it seems to be a demand to curb the “clericalization,” but, in essence, it is an expression of fear of attempts to shake the monopoly of the materialist explanation of nature and society.

It is possible to agree with the commentators – the preservation of their monopoly on the explanation of nature and society worries academics much more than the quality of the explanation itself. For those who are well acquainted with the history of science, it is quite obvious that the materialist worldview does not overcome and does not refute, as is commonly believed, religion, but simply ignores, under the pretext of “prejureness” and obscurantism, its real problems.

But it is no less obvious that the actual and religious issues are not among the widely discussed. Moreover, today’s, frankly euphoric atmosphere of revival of Orthodox values unwittingly contributes to the impression that this problem does not exist. And yet a lot in this problem deserves the closest attention to yourself. It is enough to point out the loss by the church of a reliable worldview ground under its feet, to which the main problem of the modern church (it is impossible to seriously continue to consider such a soil “the second,” according to the modern scientific classification, the Old Testament mythology – the Old Testament mythology). Therefore, the modern church is forced to eclectically combine in its teaching two incompatible tendencies with each other: the one that is expressed in the words of the book kills, and the spirit of the life-bearing. 3, 6), and the one that makes it difficult to follow these words in practical purposes – makes it blindly to believe in the letter of the Scriptures (then we have already touched on this topic).

However, it is customary to think that only the Orthodox Church can effectively withstand the materialistic way of thinking. But, as I did, F. Oh, um. Dostoevsky, “Churkiv” is in paralysis since the time of Peter the Great. And its continuing influence on the minds is explained rather by historical inertia and inherited from previous generations by unconscious mental attitudes, rather than a genuine convincing force. Moreover, in its entire thousand-year history, the church has not been able to elevate the quality of mass consciousness from the level of faith in the “Stolen” letter of its teaching to the level of infusion of the living Spirit; it is still dominated by the belief in the “book of sacred texts” and beautiful ritual.

As a consequence, the church today is an institution that performs the inertial function of preserving the spiritual and moral tradition – an extremely important function that protects society from its final transformation into a vid. But the very restriction of church activity by the inertial function of “preservation” reduces the church from the level of spiritual and moral guidance to the level of the reserve for the letter of the scriptures. And the reserve can only be protected; it is impossible to live in it fully.

Why is it impossible? Yes, because the religious aspect of culture is its historical form, the development of which was temporarily inhibited on the basis of the idea of God’s unrecognition. Ideas are not necessarily for a real religious consciousness. The Reverend Maximus the Confessor says that if we have a mind in the image of God, we must become wise as the wise God. And if man is created in the image and likeness of God, then in the likeness of the trait of the image of God must be revealed, developed and attained his perfection. Accordingly, the meaning of life should in this case be understood as the desire to achieve such perfection. Moreover, I will remind the semantic analogues of religious antithesis, the “Currifying letter” – the life-giving Spirit – are strictly scientific antitheses – text variants – invariant or language-objects – language.

God, in the context of such semantic analogies, is a religious concept, which in scientific language corresponds to the concept of the original complexity and reasonableness of the world. He is the personification of this complexity and reasonableness in the form of a self-conscious one mind – in the form of the beloved and loving Sophia, volthe. Oh, um. Philosophy [113]. What explains the words B. And Vernadsky: I consider myself a deeply religious person. I don’t need a church or a prayer. I don’t need words and images. God is a concept and an image that is too full of human imperfections. The religious revelations … seem to me insignificant compared to what is being experienced during the scientific work. And we see a similar example of “Inchurgue religiosity.” P. Chekhov: I believe that nothing goes without a trace and that every slightest step is important for the present and the future. My life (the story of the province)

12. PROSPECTS . . . . . .

The fact that Russia does not have the most important – world-view – sovereignty, is evident, firstly, from the fact that Russia still does not understand itself, because it has not yet realized the fundamental incompatibility of two different concepts: socialism and its scientific and materialistic justification. Secondly, it is evident from the fact that by building their relations with the “civilized world” in the same worldview (materialistic) basis, the Russian authorities constantly demonstrate their mental complexity and unequalness. Namely: she constantly complains that, taking advantage of her surquirantity, Western partners are always violating their agreements with her, forever deceive her. This was the case in the early 90s of the last century, when the Russian authorities, wanting to get close to the West, went to surrender all its political and economic resources and interests, and in response received NATO bases on their borders. The same unscrupulousness on the part of the West manifested, as is known, in the situation with the Minsk agreements, when Russia for eight years looked a forcake, but ignored by the West. And the same is true today, when the Western media are intensively forming the image of Russia as a symbol of “world’s evil,” and it itself only justifies that this, they say, is not true, – instead of getting to close to the problem of the “criterion” and “Grand.”

The conclusion from all this is one begging: Russia desperately needs a reliance on its own worldview sovereignty. The very first and most necessary step in the process of its acquisition should be the cessation of the silence of the main methodological problem of modern science – the problem of the “circle.” And all the rest will start in spiritual work itself. It is not necessary to put a mark of equality between the words “everything else” and “secondary.” The situation, rather, is the opposite: if the materialistic paradigm dominant in modern minds has encapsulated all the value problems in the “overstroy” Oh, um. in one that is quite permissible to be neglected, then in the new paradigm, this problem, it seems, will very seem to be the main – capable of forming in the mass consciousness a fundamentally new, unruly decomposing nigilym, mentality.

For the way, the reality surrounding us is not what it was presented to classical science, and that the image of man must be different from his image in the world of physical particles, where random events act as the last and only Scientist. The world of symbols, values, social and cultural entities in this case seems much more real, and its built-in space order will be the right bridge between … science and the humanities, technology and history, natural and social sciences, or sides of any other antithesis formulated on a similar principle.

In other words: if the world originally exists in its original forms of manifestation, then human history will have to be revealed to us as something much more interesting and important than self-complicating progress. If culture is not reduced to the results of people’s struggles for survival, then our thoughts, goals, and ideals may ultimately be something much more than a function of highly developed matter. If the place of the individual in the world is commensurate with the world itself, we will have to radically reconsider our current understanding of “rationality.” If the individual human being is not an isolated period of time between birth and death, but in a special way organized by the “quantum” in the structure of information and energy interactions that has no beginning and end, then everyone who makes his own – in this world the highest vital value will be fatally deceived. And if the birth and death themselves are the doors through which indestructible information about ourselves is translated from one of our potential storages to others, then it is possible that being conscientious in this life is beneficial for ourselves. That is, it is possible that absolutely everything that is done in this life has an account, and that therefore such an ordinary opposition to each other today the belief and knowledge, truth and rights, ideals and interests is only an annoying, historically exceeding the cost of our present scientific and materialist semi-knowledge.

USED LITERATURE:

1 – Whitehead A. N. Selected works on philosophy. M.: “Progress” is, 1990. C. 272.

Marx, K., Engels F. Works, ed. The second. T. The 37. C. The 420.

3 – Goryunkov S. V. On the problems of studying the semantic organization of culture // Horizons of humanitarian knowledge. M.: I. Moscow Humanitarian University, 2019, No. 1.

4. Meletinsky E. It’s M. Analytical psychology and the problem of the origin of archetypal subjects // Unconscious. Novocherkassk, 1994. C. 159 – 160.

5 Gadamer X. & G. Relevance of the beautiful. M.: Art, 1991. C. 93 x 94.

6 – Gadamer H.-G. The Truth and Method. The basics of philosophical hermeneutics. M.: “Progress”, 1988. C. 328.

7 – Ibid. C. 322.

8 to Tokarev S. A., Meletinsky E. Oh, um. Mythology // Myths of the World: 2 vol. The Soviet Encyclopedia, 1980. T. The I. C. 12.

9 is there. C. 11.

10 – Ibid. C. 14.

11 – Losev A. The F. The philosophy. The mythology. The culture. M.: ?Politizdat, 1991. C. 29 – 34.

12 – Losev A. The F. Ekastics of antique symbolism and mythology. M.: – Thought, 1993. C. 674, 729.

13 – Topors B. N. Primitive ideas about the world: a general view // E-Assessions on the history of natural scientific knowledge in ancient times. M.: Science, 1982. C. It’s 35.

14 – Cassirer E. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: In 3 vols. M., St. Petersburg: “University Book” 2002. T. 1. C. 31 to 32.

15 – Vernadsky V. And I. The chemical structure of the Earth’s biosphere and its surroundings. M.: “Science” (1987) C. 313 – 314.

16 – Topors of V. N. History and Myths: Myths of the Peoples of the World. T. The I. C. 572.

17 – Tokarev S.A., Meletinsky E.M. Mythology… C. 12.

18 – Heidegger M. The time and being. St. Petersburg: Science, 2006. C. 152.

19 – Goryunkov S. V. On the problems of studying the semantic organization of culture // Horizons of humanitarian knowledge. M.: I. Moscow Humanitarian University, 2019, No. 1 / https://journals.mosgu.ru/ggz/article/view/955.

20 – Humboldt V. The background. Selected works on linguistics. M.: Science, 1984. C. 314.

21 – Heidegger M. The time and being. C. 150 to 151.

22 – Gouldner A. The crisis of Western sociology. It’s St. Petersburg. : Science, 2003. C. 76×79, 458, 491, 496×497.

23 – Gribanov N. And I. Philosophical foundations of science and the phenomenon of preconditional knowledge. Samara, 1996.

24 – Cucumbers A. P. Social History of Science: Two Research Strategies // Philosophy, Science, Civilization / Ostv. ED. V. V. The Kazutinsky. M.: URSS Editorial, 1999. C. The 81.

25 – Nalimov V. V. Spontaneity of Consciousness: Probabilistic Theory of Meanings and the Messian Architectural. Paradigm: Academic Project, 2011. C. 290, 325.

26 – Ibid. C. 326.

27 of Vernadsky V. And I. The bosphere. M.: – Thought, 1967. C. 237.

28 of Vernadsky V. And I. Reflections of the naturalist. Space and time in inani and living nature. M.: “Science” , 1975. C. The 71.

29 of Vernadsky V. And I. The bosphere. C. 238.

30 – Vernadsky V. And I. Reflections of the naturalist. Space and time in inani and living nature. M.: “Science” , 1975. C. 237 x 238.

31 – Vernadsky V. And I. About the conditions of the appearance of life on the earth // Izvestia Academy of Sciences of the USSR. VII c. No. 5. M.-L. Science, 1931.

32 – Zavadsky K.M., Yermolenko M.T. To the Critique of theomhenesis // Philosophical Problems of Modern Biology. Collection of articles. M.; L., 1966.

33 – Berthalanfi L. General theory of systems – review of problems and results // System studies: Yearbook. M.: “Science” in 1969. C. 37 to 38.

34 – Nalimov, V. V. The Spontaneity of Consciousness. M.: “Paradigma”, “Academical project.” in 2011. C. 299, 325.

35 – Vernadsky V. And I. Beginning and eternity of life. C. 431 to 432.

Marx C., Engels F. It’s full. It’s slo. op.: At 39 vol. T. 30. II of ed. M.: Mr. the hud politic. Literature, 1963. C. It’s 25.

37 – Vernadsky V. And I. The diaries. 1926 – 1938. M.: – Science, 2001. C. 212, 258, 267, etc.

38 – Scandal around the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences… // https://dzen.ru/a/ZYmUKPee-G3BEitO

39 on the nature of inter-civilizational confrontation as a form of Bakhta idialogue – the ratio of “different worldview positions” in relation to higher values. V. The Dialogical apparatus of culture // it is. The mystery of Russian inadmissility: “on the strategic objectives of Russia’s cultural policy). St. Petersburg: I’m POLITEH-PRESS, 2023. C. 74 – 77; but he. About the history of the concepts of the concepts of “debruary” and “Grand.” // Research Center “Methodological Performat” / https://sci.ast.social/resheniya/390-nkvgst011.html.

40 – Darwin C. Works / under the community. ed. . L.M. L.M. Berg, A. A. Borisyaka, N. And I. Vavilov and others. M.; L.: Publishing-aution of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1939. T. 3. C. 359, 659.

41 – Danilevsky N. It’s a tyre. Darwinianism. Critical study: At 2 vol. St. Petersburg, 1885. C. 7-10.

42 – Florensky P. Au. Works: in 4 t. M.: Thought, 1999. T. 3(1). C. The 104.

Marx K., Engels F. Complete collection of works: 39 vols. T. 30. II edition. M.: Mr. from the polit. Literature, 1963. C. 102.

44 Marx K., Engels F., Lenin V. And I. On dialectical and historical materialism. M., 1984. C. 245.

45 – Panarin A. C. The philosophy of history. M.: *Guardariki. 1999. C. It’s 52.

46 – Levi L. Hunting for Thought (el. resource) // http://knigosite.org/library/read/614

47 – Ibid., Ibid.

48 – Ibid., Ibid.

49 – Panarin A N. People without the elite. M.: “Algorithm” in 2006. C. It’s 64.

50 . . . . . C. 24 to 25.

51 of the speech A. And I. Fursova on the Round Table – Interpretation of History as a technology of social design. resource) // https://izborsk-club.ru/538

52 – Ibid., Ibid.

53 Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminology dictionary. / Ost. ed. . A. Oh. Chubaryan. M., 2014.

54 – Titkov L.V. Tradition and its axiological installations in the context of the new historical paradigm // https://stsl.ru/news/all/traditsiya-i-ee-aksiologichestanovki-v-kontekste-nonoististoricheskoy-paradigmy

55 – Philosophical Dictionary / Ed. P. C. Gurevich. M.: IOlympus, 1997; Philosophical dictionary: reference of student / Ed. & G. & G. Kirilenko, E. V. It’s Shevtsova. M.: ?WORLD, ?ASTE, 2002.

The New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 Vol. T. 2 / Hand. Project B. C. Stepin, V. &g, G. Semigin, M., 2011.

57 – The newest philosophical dictionary / Edited. Au. Au. The garicas. Minsk, 2002. C. The 450.

58 – Nalimov, V. V. The Spontaneousness of Consciousness. Probabilistic theory of meanings and semantic architecture of the personality. M., 2011. C. 299, 325.

59 – Ivannikov E. It’s B. Meta-language consciousness: the structure and content of the concept // El. The resource.

60 – Guishiani N. It’s B. To the question of the meteorological language of linguistics // “Questions of linguistics” in 1983. No. 2. C. It’s 65.

61 – Topors B. N. Primitive ideas about the world: a general view // E-Assessions of the history of natural and scientific knowledge in ancient times. M.: Science, 1982. C. The 37.

62 ? Gadamer H.-G. The Truth and Method. C. 583.

63 – Nalimov V. V. Continuousness against discreteness in language and thinking. Tbilisi, 1978. C. It was 69.

64 – Heidegger M. The time and being. C. 153.

65 – Ivanov Vyach. Wes, Axeors V. N. Invariant and Transformation in Mythological and Folklore Texts // Typological studies on folklore. M.: “Science,” 1975. C. 50.

66 – Goryunkov S.V. Self-reproduction and mythology // Worldview of the peoples of Zap. Siberia on archaeological and ethnographic data. Tomsk: Izd. Tomsk University, 1985. C. 5 – 7; but he. On the ratio of mythology and ontology (in the light of the ideas of B. And I. Vernadsky) // Noosphere and artistic creativity. M.: “Science” is 1991. C. 88-100; he is. About life, death and immortality as about the metalanguage content of myths. It’s death. Immortality. Proceedings of the scientific conference. St. Petersburg: Publication of the State Museum of the History of Religion, 1993. C. 16-18; but he is. The global crisis is a chance to be smarter. St. Petersburg: Izd. The House of Moral World, 2009; he is. Meta codes of culture. SPb: LLC “Contrast” 2014; he is also. On the problems of studying the semantic organization of culture // Horizons of humanitarian knowledge – interdisciplinary scientific electronic journal of the Moscow Humanitarian University, 2019, No 1, and mn. The other.

67 – Goryunkov S. V. In slavery in the words : to the problem of the quality of humanitarian expertise // Information humanitarian portal “Knowing.” Understanding with it. Small, 2011, No. 2. http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2011/2/

68 – Vernadsky V. And I. Pages of autobiography of V. And I. It’s Vernadsky. M.: “Science” is 1981. C. 134.

69 – Riquer P. Conflict of interpretation. Evils about hermeneutics. M.: “Media” (Medium, 1995). C. 380.

70 – Heidegger M. Time and Being. Articles and speeches. Moscow: The Republic, 1993. C. 272, 266.

71 ? Gadamer H.-G. Relevance of the beautiful. C. 24.

72 – Gadamer H.-G. The Truth and Method. C. 335.

73 – Eliade M. Aspects of myth. M.: “Academic Project” 2000. C. 136.

74 – Wheels V. V. Russian speech. Yesterday. It’s today. It’s tomorrow. St. Petersburg, 1998. C. 237.

75 – Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Art, 1986. C. It’s 115.

76 – Nalimov V. V. Is it possible to teach man in a single theory of knowledge? The Man in the System of Science. M.: Science, 1989. C. 247.

77 Nalimov V. V. The Spontaneity of Consciousness. C. 210.

78 – Gadamer H.-G. The Truth and Method. C. 354 – 355, 581 – 584.

79 – Kara-Murza S. &g, G. The ideology and the mother of science. M.: Izdvo “Exmo” 2002. C. The 118.

80 – Lomonosov A. &g, G. The Road to Sophia. Evilions of the phenomenology of the Russian spirit. St. Petersburg: RKHGA Publishing House, 2014. C. The 17.

81 of Vernadsky V. And I. The bosphere. M.: – Thought, 1967. C. 236 . . .

82 – Vernadsky V. And I. Study of the Phenomena of Life and the New Physics // Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1931. Episode 7, No. 3, C. 417.

83 – Vernadsky V. And I. Beginning and eternity of life. Moscow: Soviet Russia, 1989. C. 112 x 113.

84 – Vernadsky V. And I. Philosophical thoughts of a naturalist. M.: Science, 1988. C. 221.

85 pages of autobiography V. And I. It’s Vernadsky. M.: “Science” is 1981. C. 78.

86 – Lyubishchev A. Au. Problems of form, systematics and evolution of organisms. M.: Science, 1982. C. 196.

87 – Nalimov V.V. The Spontaneity of Consciousness. C. 299.

88 – Prep. Joseph Volotsky. The illuminator. M.: I. Transfiguration of the Valaam Monastery, 1993. C. 131.

89 Bows Vl. Au. Subject Cultural Studies // Electronic Journal – Knowledge. Understanding with that. The ability. & 2017. No. 4. URL: http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e- zpu/2008/4/Lukov_culturology/

90 – Wheels V. V. Russian speech. Yesterday. It’s today. It’s tomorrow. St. Petersburg: “Yunah,” 1998. C. 207.

91 – Titkov L.V. Tradition and its axiological attitudes in the context of a new historical paradigm.

92 – Leontiev D. A. The psychology of meaning: nature, structure and dynamics of semantic reality. M.: A sense of 2019.

93 – Vernadsky V. And I. Study of the phenomena of life and new physics // Izvestia Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1931. C. 411, 436.]

94 – Carter B. The coincidence of large numbers and the anthropological principle in cosmology. Theories and observations. M., 1978. C. 369 to 370.

95 ? Goryunkov S.V. Introduction to the mythological theory of culturogenesis. Part 3. The metalanguage of myths and the matrix principle // Information humanitarian portal “Knowledge.” Understanding with it. The ability. in 2011. No. 5. URL: http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2011/5/Goriunkov_Metalanguage_ofMyth/; it is also. A change in the worldview paradigm as a strategic task of Russia’s cultural policy. Part III. Evolution as an epiphenomenon of the matrix principle // Scientific-theoretical journal – Society. It’s Wednesday. The development. No. 4, 2022. C. 15 to 26.

96 – Goryunkov S. V. The mystery of Russian inadmissility. C. 183.

97 – Goryunkov S. V. Meta codes of culture. SPb: LLC “Contrast” Ltd., 2014. C. 80 to 99.

98 . . . . . . . References 66, 95, 96.

99 – Goryunkov S. V. The mystery of Russian inadmissility. C. 183.

100 – Goryunkov S. V. Meta codes of culture. C. 279 – 303.

101 – Miller D. – D. Golden branch. M.: Publishing house of political literature, 1983.

102 – Kara-Murza S. &g, G. The ideology and the mother of science. M.: Algorithm, 2002. C. 6.

103 – Kozhinov V. V. Victory and troubles of Russia. M: *Algorithm, 2000. C. 32 to 33.

104 Marx C., Engels F. Soch., II ed. M., 1955. T. The 18. C. 171.

105 – Karchagin E. V. Justice and Revolution in Social Philosophy K. Marx // Logos et praxis. in 2018. T. The 17. No. 4. C. 121.

106 – Panarin A. C. Russian culture before the challenge of postmodernism. M., 2005. C. 75-76. 188 s.

107 ? Panarin. A. C. People without the elite. C. It’s 76.

108 ?Novaya tasad, appendix “Centaur,” 22.07. in 2007.

109 – Tukmakov D. Letter from academics. No. 31 (715), Aug. in 2007.

110 – Kuraev A. “Philiki against the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 to 7 Aug. in 2007. No. 31.

111 – Orthodox faith, No 17 (445), August, 2011.

112 . . . . .

113 – Lomonosov A. &g, G. The Road to Sophia. Evilions of the phenomenology of the Russian spirit. St. Petersburg: RKhGA Publishing, 2014. C. 228.

114 – Vernadsky V. And I. Diaries: March 1921 – August 1925. M.: Science, 1999 (rewreaks for 1922-1924).

115 from the diaries of B. And I. Vernadsky for 1926-1938.

116 – Goryunkov S. V. On the history of the concepts “doubra” and “Gazla” / https://sci.ast.social/resheniya/390-nkvgst011.html

117 – Bertalanfi L. History and status of general system theory. M.: – Science. In 1973. C. It’s 36.