Logocentrism and Logocentrics (Part 1)

Abstract. Part 1 covers reasons of the crisis and the decline of the mythoritual system of conciseness, formation of the logocentric system, features of logocetrism as a world view paradigm, combining binar opposition of Good and Evil, Is and Ought with the principle of  unity of man and spiritual Absolute, as well as the logocentric man, living in accordance with these views.

Keywords. History, culture, mythoritual system, logocentric system, Good and Evil, Is and Ought, devotion, spiritual Absolute.

[1] See: Pelipenko А. The Mythoritual System of Culture // Culture of Culture. 2014. № 3 URL: http://cult-cult.ru/miforitualinaya-sistema-kulitury/ Access date: 7.12.2014; See also: Pelipenko А. Dualistic Revolution and Meaning Genesis in History. Moscow: URSS. 2010.
[2] For the majority of communities the generic principle dominated both in 2d and 1st century BC, i.e. in the midstream of the dualistic revolution. It never vanishes, just driving back to the periphery of the system.
[3] The expression of K. Jaspers, used in 1932 for another occasion.
[4] In this sense, the golden age of myth falls on the Neolithic era, when the structure, nature and ways of transmission of myth were comprehensive and corresponded to the forms of social existence.
[5] That’s why the certain historical period is called “Dualistic Revolution” in the framework of periodization of meaning genesis.
[6] Compliance of European conscience with these features is a separate issue.
[7] The 7th century is given as a chronological landmark, since it ushers in the last, most sustained and strongly pronounced logocentric culture – Islam.
[8] “Infiltration” of a certain phsycospheric formation (shamanic disease, etc.) into the neurodynamic system of person is a distinct possibility, but in this case we are dealing with another phenomena.
[9] For example, being a highly advanced professional expert, one can still keep archaic system-level concerning his world outlook and behavior role play scenarios.
[10] Generally speaking, the illusion that culture itself and cultural consciousness for some reasons have to obey logical laws will cost a lot. Until now it hasn’t yet been realized.
[11] Not to overload the text with boring details, I use the term “the ancient world” in an extended sense, including both savagery and antiquity in it.
[12] I’m not reviewing interpretations of is-concept in philosophical and historical cultural traditions in this article.
[13] For example, in the Middle Ages it was always outlined that the devil and God were not equal and mirror-inverted, with Manichean gnostic dualism which evened them being considered to be one of the most dangerous heresies.
[14] Let me remember Hegel’s masterfully revealing lameness and inauthenticity of the directly observed world when he began to develop his philosophical ontology. He considered the reality to be supreme and true when it is got at via philosophical logical speculation. For an ordinary logocentric person it is discovered mainly through a religious myth.
[15] The Medieval religious semantics of ought was gradually replaced by a secular one in the Modern Age, which didn’t change its cultural function.
[16] Elements of non-cyclical view of time in ancient times require to be specially focused on.
[17] There is no need to explain in details that this idea doesn’t belong to the Christians, its being widely ranged in diverse logocentric traditions and, first and foremost, in soteriological dogmas and religions.
[18] See works of John Campbell.
[19] I don’t discuss here a rare type of holy ascetic who achieves full soul harmony and placidity.
[20] In this connection, a logocentric person lost any interest for nature and everything external and absorbed into inner moral and spiritual collisions. That change was sometimes expressed bluntly by Christian authors like Augustin.  
[21] I would like to outline once again: neither realization of sin, nor conscience are immanent and constant characteristic of cultural consciousness.   They are fully logocentric acquirements.
[22] Regarding collective behavior things were not in a bad way.
[23] There is a remarkable Russian proverb concerning this subject: “All have sinned except God and Tsar”.
[24] Relatively, as a logocentric person’s choice is limited to a comparatively small number of alternatives strictly defined by a cultural norm. He is not able to synthesize meanings which can produce independent creative alternatives not being envisaged by culture ahead. Only a succeeding type of culturally-anthropological type – personality – is capable of it.
[25] According to a logocentic person, any particular display of evil comes from World Evil. For the Middle Age citizen devil existed even in the smallest sin. Stalinists thought that even ordinary slovenliness brought grist to their enemies’ mill, etc.
[26] Frankly speaking, there was an eversive of myth about the Middle Ages, which for obvious reasons emerged in the Renaissance.