UDC

130.2

Authors

Vladislav B. Malyshev
Samara State Technical University;
ul. Tsiolkovskogo 1, korp. 10, Samara, 443100, Russian Federation;
e-mail: vlmaly@yandex.ru

Abstract

Basic images of the European imaginary once fundamentally reflected the original reality itself; today, however, they are no longer directly related to any reality, while simulating it in various media structures. Perhaps, Plato’s ideas are not so much certain “abstract entities” as prototypes of things assembling the holistic inner world of a person. Such an assembly is possible only through a return to the original archetypal schemes of European culture, capable of making it function by analogy with a certain cosmogonic process. The methodology of our research is comprehensive and includes the following: phenomenological method, semiotic methods, structural-functional method, and works in the field of mythopoetics. The latter are valuable as the storyline of myth interweaves the basic images of the imaginary in the collective worldview. Myth is bipolar, its narration is a ritual in itself; here the activity aspect of the life of culture (culture as activity) needs to be close to and interact with the sign representation of its meanings (culture as a sign system). One can be introduced to the original semantics of the world of culture by turning to its key mythologemes, primordial images, unjustly overlooked in the era of mosaic thinking. By primordial images we mean the representations of the transcendental bases of the modes of activity inherent in a certain epoch and manifested in the language. The closest concept reflecting these bases is the concept of primary modalities of culture. These modalities are the ultimate ontological distinction, which determines the level of perception of the world in one or another era. The process of renewing the architectonic elements of culture consists in the optimal correlation between the definite shape and variability, chaos and order.

Keywords

prototypes of the European imaginary, semiotics of culture, mythologeme, archetype, definite shape and variability, chaos and order

References

1. Baudrillard J. Simulacres et simulation. Paris, 1981 (Russ. ed.: Bodriyyar Zh. Simulyakry i simulyatsiya. Moscow, 2016. 240 p.).
   
2. Vezin F., Fédier F. Filosofiya frantsuzskaya i filosofiya nemetskaya. Voobrazhaemoe. Vlast’ [French and German Philosophy. The Imaginary. Power]. Moscow, 2002. 152 p.
   
3. Baudrillard J., Jaspers K. Prizrak tolpy [Phantom of the Crowd]. Moscow, 2008. 272 p.
   
4. Burkert W. Homo Necans. Zhertvoprinoshenie v drevnegrecheskom rituale i mife [Homo necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth]. Zhertvoprinoshenie: ritual v kul’ture i iskusstve ot drevnosti do nashikh dney [Sacrifice: Ritual in Culture and Art from Old Times to the Present Day]. Moscow, 2000, pp. 405–480.
   
5. Shchepanovskaya E.M. Genezis i klassifikatsiya mifologicheskikh arkhetipov: kul’turfilosofskiy podkhod [Genesis and Classification of Mythological Archetypes: The Cultural and Philosophical Approach]. St. Petersburg, 2011. 273 p.
   
6. Romanenko Yu.M. Ontologiya mifa [The Ontology of Myth]. St. Petersburg, 2006. 144 p.
   
7. Le Goff J. Srednevekovyy mir voobrazhaemogo [Mediaeval World of the Imaginary]. Moscow, 2001. 440 p.
   
8. Toporov V.N. Issledovaniya po etimologii i semantike [Studies on Etymology and Semantics]. Moscow, 2004. 816 p.
   
9. Lotman Yu.M. Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. St. Petersburg, 2000. 704 p. 10. Evzlin M.M. Kosmogoniya i ritual [Cosmogony and Ritual]. Moscow, 1993. 344 p.