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


Andrey Anatolyevich Pelipenko,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

The subject and civilization after the Dualistic Revolution [1]

Abstract: The article is based on the concept of a Dualistic revolution. Its essence is that between the worldview of the primitive and ancient early class epochs, in which "good" and "evil" differed little, and the monotheistic picture of the world of Modern times, in which "good" was strategically more important than "evil", there was a period of dualistic worldview, in which "good" and "evil" were they were equally influential, were in binary opposition to each other, with equal sacredness of both. Monism actually grew out of dualism. This was the period of the formation of logocentrism, in which the Word already possessed the highest sacredness and was the main instrument of meaning formation in culture. The article is devoted to the analysis of the stages of the formation of logocentrism, monistic worldview.

Keywords: Consciousness, worldview, dualism, monotheism, logocentrism, binary oppositions, good and evil, mediation, inversion.

[1] The article was published in 2004. See: Pelipenko A.A. The subject and civilization after the Dualistic revolution // The subject's life spaces: Unity and multidimensionality of the subject-forming social evolution / Ed. by E.V. Sayko. M., 2004. pp. 187-228.
[2] Jung K.-G. On the psychology of Eastern religions and philosophy.M., 1994.p. 130.
[3] Cf. K.-G. Jung's remark that "The East cultivates the psychic aspect of primitiveness, coupled with an exorbitant amount of speculation": Jung K.-G. Decree.op. p. 133.
[4] So according to the Rigveda, Purusha, as an unconditional and unchangeable entity, represents the whole world: the past and the future. From him is born the cosmic mind – Viraj, and from Viraj – Purusha in the aspect of the prototype of man.
[5] "History has shown that in the life and culture of China, the primordial Confucianism, as if opposing Taoism, is essentially inseparable." Eidlin L.Z. On the history of the development of Chinese literature in the III-XIII centuries / The Study of Chinese literature in the USSR.M., 1973.p. 351.
[6] Russell J.B. Satan. Perception of evil in the early Christian tradition.St. Petersburg, 2001.p. 32.
[7] M.K. Trofimova writes about Gnostics: "Speaking of gnosis, we constantly have to resort to such expressions as experience, wholeness, the inseparability of the knower from the known. At first glance, all this surprisingly resembles our idea of primitive consciousness, reconstructing which scientists tend to see it in the subject-object separateness, its most essential quality." And further: "there was an attitude to overcome the rejection of the knower from the known. Gnostics (and not only them.– A.P.)wanted to get rid of this achievement of the analytical method of cognition, cursed it, associated it with the image of the world they hated, but, thinking about it, paid tribute to the very method of cognition from which they so persistently sought to escape. So, if such indivisibility was natural to me of primitive consciousness, experienced and not perceived from the outside, then for the Gnostics it turned into a desired goal, into a kind of antipode to their current existence." See: Trofimova M.K. Historical and philosophical issues of Gnosticism. M., 1979. p. 41.
[8] "Strictly speaking, the Gnostic model was born from two opposite elements that suddenly took over the human mind. One of them is the fear of a split world, of a night that hid the light, of loneliness that brought a person back to himself. The second is the joyful freedom to create worlds, the single principle of creativity revealed to the individual, which turned him from an element of the social body into a creator of thought worlds, possessing will and realizing what until recently was considered the undivided secret of the gods. For the first time, a person felt like a carrier of creative, creative power, in other words, he realized himself as a Demiurge." (Sergeev K.V. Cognitive models and the formation of religious institutions: ancient protognosticism // Polis. 2002. No. 5. p. 91).
[9] Burkhardt T. Sacred art of the East and West.Principles and methods.M., 1999.p. 146.



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: