Culture of culture

Scientific peer-reviewed electronic periodical
Since 2014




A.Ya. Flier. A systematic model of the social functions of culture




A.V. Kostina, A.Ya. Flier. Ternary functional model of culture (continued)

V.M. Rozin. Features and constitution of musical reality

N.A. Khrenov. Russian culture at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries: the Gnostic "Renaissance" in the context of symbolism (continued)




I.V. Kondakov. The cat as a cultural hero: from Puss in Boots to Schrodinger's Cat

N.A. Khrenov. A Century later: the tragic experience of Soviet Culture (continued)

I.E. Isakas. Hypothesis. The Christmas tree is a symbol of the second coming of Christ


A.Ya. Flier. Is culture inevitable? (on the limits of the social usefulness of culture) (Philosophical dystopia)

A.A. Pelipenko. Culture as an inevitability (on the subjective status of culture)

Announcement of the next issue


Pelipenko Andrey Anatolievich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
Chief Researcher Worker, Research Center of
Moscow University of Psychology and Social Sciences.

A Semiogenetic Theory of Culture: General Points

Abstract. The article describes major points of the author's semiogenetic theory of the origin and the essence of culture, based on binarizm of imiplicative and explicative worlds synthesized by psychosphere mediation processes in which human brain generates meanings as basic elements of culture.

Keywords. Culture, anthropogenesis, psyche, left-hemisphere and the right hemisphere areas, mediation, psychosphere, consciousness, meaning.

[1] "Implantation" of the dual principle in human brain is manifested by the fact that consciousness, at least in its "normal" state, divides a bundle of simultaneous perceptions into opposition couples and focuses on them.
[2] However, not all changes should be regarded as evolutional.
[3] This refers to Bhom’s term of “implicate order”.
[4] Brian R. Greene. The fabric of the cosmos: space, time and the texture of reality. N.Y.: Random House Audio Publishing Group, 2004. P. 23.
[5] This reminds of Hegel's definition of quality as identity equal to the being of an object.
[6] I consciously do say “in consciousness”, because such kind of perceptions comes into psyche mainly through the channels of unconsciousness.
[7] For more details on terms “engram” and “psychic matrix” see: Pelipenko A.A. Culture and Meaning. Pelipenko A.A. // Selected Works on Theory of Culture. M.: Soglasie-Artem, 2014, Chapter 3.
[8] Feigin O. Paradoxes of the Quantum World. M.: Eksmo, 2012. P. 127-128.
[9] I will not refer here to J. Derrida’s reasoning and his concept of “differance”.
[10] This brings to mind Hegel’s saying that everyone sees only what he is capable to understand.
[11] A specific class of situations associated with magical effects is an exception. Participation of consciousness in situations of quantum paradoxes will not be considered.
[12] However, in a certain range intentional impacts of consciousness on the physical reality with the help of magical techniques are still possible.
[13] At that, not localized undeveloped spectrum of quantum fields tangled due to various polarization configurations of atoms does not disappear, "representing" invisible, transcendent, pure potential mode of any empirical fact. It is not by chance that any physical object is surrounded by a quantum halo.
[14] It is not by chance that emergence of organs of vision is considered to be the most important stage bioevolution. It is a crucially important, though a special case.
[15] In the language of quantum mechanics, the terminological correlate of this process is decoherence-recoherence of quantum superpositions.
[16] Sahlins M. D. Evolution: Specific and General // Evolution and Culture / Ed. by M. D. Sahlins, E. R. Service. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 1960. Р. 35.
[17] For more details on the category of complexity see: Pelipenko A.A. Evolutional dynamics in light of mediational paradigm // Culture of Culture N 2. Access date: 16.02.2015.
[18] Rejection of this finiteness by the human consciousness  and its aspire to break out of its borders, in monotheism has given rise to the concept of "form of forms" as an attribute of the divine Absolute.
[19] For example, in biological systems, the narrower adaptive of specialization a species is, the more vulnerable and defenseless it is in case of spontaneous changes in ecological environment. The same in culture.
[20] Kostandov E.A. Functional Asymmetry of Cerebral Hemispheres and Uunconscious Perception. M.: Science, 1983.
[21] Hemispheric asymmetry was characteristic for homo erectus, the makers of Acheulean silicon chopping tools, however, according to most experts, they had no articulate speech.
[22] Bianchi V.L. The Asymmetry of  Animals Brain. Leningrad.: Science, 1985. P. 169.
[23] Here I present this scheme once again because its cultural-genetic importance is extremely high.
[24] Bianchi V.L. Ibidem. P. 112, 122.
[25] According to J. Eccles, functions of a more ancient right hemisphere are practically the same both for humans and animals. Eccles J.C., Tzeng O.J.L., Wang W.S.U., Search for the common nturocognitive mechanism for language and movement // Amer J. Phyiol. 1984. V. 246. N 6.
[26] On reasons of temporal distance between appearance of new species and cultural revolutions see: Pelipenko A.A. Culture and Meaning // Pelipenko A.A. Selected Works on Theory of Culture. M.: Soglasie-Artem, 2014, Chapter 2.
[27] Not coincidentally homo habilis were the first hominids to show signs of evolutionary movement towards the development of speech, which was recognised by Broca’s area growth in the left hemisphere.
[28] Openness of sense, its inequality to itself and any imposed it on semantic boundaries is a feature inherited genetically from primary right-brain gestalt of early cultural genesis.
[29] It is mostly about autosuggestion and the impact on physiological processes in the body, which animals do not have.
[30] In the seniogenetic theory this era is associated with dualistic revolution.
[31] The term “sacredness” applied to the Lower Paleolithic is a necessary modernization.
[32] The ability of semantic structures to complicating self-reproduction proves that culture is an autonomous self-developing system.
[33] Thus, the phenomenon of sense as a discrete unit of cognitive operations initiates a complex dialectics of static and dynamic origins not only in thought, but also in the cultural being. Such dialectics underlies any sign systems and languages of culture without exception. This dialectical counterpoint came to the field of reflection of Greeks in Zeno’s aprioris with their inability to fixate the movement logically. But those were the problems of logocentrism already aware of its opportunities. Such problems did not exist in mythos-ritual era.
[34] Participation is an existential relation.
[35] The ability of self-reflexivity, self-reference, according to the general theory of systems and Godel's theorem, is inherent to any complex system with non-linear hierarchy. These properties reflect the subjectivity growing along with evolutionary complicacy of systems, the higher level of which is achieved in culture.
[36] The criterion of stages in the semiogenetic theory is determined solely by the place of this or that form in the mentioned line.
[37] More precisely, different subdisciplines have different validity status: from purely speculative hypotheses to provisions confirmed by facts.



ISSN 2311-3723

OOO «Soglasie» publisher

Scientific Association of Culture Researchers

Official registration № ЭЛ № ФС 77 – 56414 от 11.12.2013

The magazine is indexed:

Issued quarterly in electronic form only


Issue produced by:

Editorial Director
A. Flier

Editor in Chief
T. Glazkova

Head of IT Center
A. Lukyanov


Our banner:

Our e-mail: