Tradition is a transcendent superhuman wisdom of the superhuman, divine knowledge transmitted to humanity through revelation, messages, sacred texts, fixed in the historical traditions of different peoples, in languages, rituals, customs, rules of conduct and morality, rituals, mysteries, reflected in metaphysics, philosophy, social structure, politics, statehood, art, etc.
Traditionalism as a direction of thought arose at the end of the 19th century, its founder was Gene Guenon (Abdul-Wahid Yahya), who developed a fundamental intellectual scheme, which he expressed in the idea of the unity and universality of the language paradigm of the original Tradition and its diametrical opposition to the paradigm of the modern world . [1]
Traditionalism is associated with a fundamental distinction (diacresis) between the societies of Tradition and the societies of Modernity . R. Guenon showed that the basis of the dissimilarity of the two types of societies is not so much individual ideas, single mythologems and categories, but the fundamental antagonism of the very paradigms of thinking and language structures that form a conflict of worldviews – worldviews.R. Guénon drew attention to the fact that, for example, the principle of progress , which guides the societies of the Modern, is nothing more than an artificial ideological construction of the New Age., and ancient societies do not share this principle at all, not being on the same line of development with modern civilization. Following the ideas of R. Guénon, the Russian traditionalist Alexander Dugin shows that Tradition and modernity are not so much ideological complexes diachronically following each other, but eternal synchronic paradigms [2] , coexisting in human history simultaneously and antagonistically competing with each other on throughout the entire historical process.
A. Dugin emphasizes that R. Guenon managed to distance himself from the phenomenal side of the so-called. ” modern society” and the diversity of what has survived from traditional societies, and to see a rather conflicting coexistence of at least two types of languages spoken by societies of different types – the language of tradition and the language of modernity . Guénon singled out and pushed together the linguistic paradigms of Tradition and Modernity and described them as two contrasting, opposing languages, forming two antagonistic thesauri.
The fixation by R. Guenon (and the traditionalists following him) of the differential between the mental complexes of Tradition and Modernity, as well as Modernity and Postmodernity (Great Parody), is, according to A. Dugin, an intellectual discovery and a miracle, since Modernity has always positioned its paradigm as total and non-alternative. Modernity, according to traditionalism, is a metalinguistic paradigm that determines the diversity of discourses starting from the 17th century, in which most of humanity still remains non-reflexively, without thinking and not being aware of the existence of other languages and paradigms of thinking. R. Guenon astutely noted that modernity (its appearance as a concept) – is a product of the ideological and methodological efforts of scientists and philosophers of modern times, and it is precisely the Western sector of humanity, and that this artificial construction claims to be chosen, exclusive and universal.
A. Dugin, developing the logic of traditionalism, argues that the Paradigm of Modernity today has become an operating system that acts as a familiar, unproblematic background of thinking and is not actually noticed or disputed by its users. Today, a person is born into modernity as into the Matrix, emerging from which is a difficult task, since along with the assimilation of a modern language, a range of human statements and at the same time the boundaries of his world, his ontology, structures, priorities, orientations are formed. R. Guenon managed to “build a distance in relation to the contemporal (modern) moment” [3], he fearlessly showed that the operating system of modernity is a man-made and, in a certain sense, imposed on us project of thinking, and ultimately represents a certain manipulation, artificial construction and anomaly. This model of the world order is a kind of project of the period of bourgeois revolutions, anticipated by the breakdown of traditional vertical structures of thinking, in philosophy associated with individualism – that is, the emphasis on the individual – a single individual, as opposed to the traditional taxonomy “genus-species-individual”, in the rejection of the general ( genus and type) in the interpretation of the special and giving the general the status of flatus vocis – an “empty sound”, which was fixed in itself by “nominalism”, which became a refuge for a new class of bourgeois (townspeople), thrown out of the traditional collective life of estates and trying to get rid of all the burdens and restrictions associated with hierarchies, and gain unlimited freedoms from all structures.
Traditionalism and tradition
Traditionalism , which arose in the 20th century, is not the Tradition itself, which prevailed in the most ancient societies, in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Traditionalism is only movement, will, striving for Tradition, just as philosophy is not yet fully wisdom, but only love, striving for it. Traditionalism arises at the moment when Tradition diminishes, comes to decline in “dark times” (as defined by R. Guenon), in the conditions of the usurpation of the universal discourse by the paradigm of modernity, along with the tendency to turn humanity into “One World”. Traditionalism is engaged not only in the restoration of historical traditions, comparative studies and revealing their common grounds, revealing the fundamental relationship and simultaneous non-identity of different traditions with each other, but precisely revealing the common core, the universal nature of all traditions, their paradigm, identical structures and a single conceptual language. At first glance, it seems that any particular Tradition is more important than traditionalism, since it puts a person in the depths of the living fabric of the worldview, and traditionalism, it seems, considers different Traditions from the outside, from the outside, as if comparing their operating systems with each other and tries to find their similarities, fundamental affinities . In other words, the traditionalist singles out a common platform, sees the related principles of different historical Traditions, the unity of foundations with a variety of external forms, that is, he works precisely with the formula or paradigm any tradition.
Traditionalism as a method is born not within a flourishing historical Tradition in its calm and consistent phase, but precisely in its contrast with the aggressive environment of modernity , in counterpoint with the profane essence of the latter, from an understanding of the urgent need to give a consolidated rebuff to modernity in unity with all sacred traditions. Philosophy in general is possible only at the border, “at the stage of phase transition” (A. Dugin), “in the face of the abyss” (F. Nietzsche), on the “frontier”, as Daria Dugin wrote in her philosophical notes. The philosophy of traditionalism is born before the horror of the profanity of modern humanity, the impoverishment of the human mind in recent times, in the realization of the abyss between the meaning and language of Tradition. and the lost meanings and linguistic impotence of Modernity, which intends to definitively belittle the dignity of man and erase him from history, replacing him with an electronic unit or a chimera of a man-machine or a man-beast.
The Tradition paradigm is based on the fact that the modern Western world is a liberal civilization based on the oblivion of God, Spirit, Being, hierarchy, on the principles of absolute dominance of matter, quantity, on the principles of linear progress, individualism, nominalism, economism, consumerism. This civilization is extremely monolithic and wages a consistent, open and secret, war with societies of traditional foundations, which, as history shows, turn out to be the last strongholds of the Spirit and culture, the paradoxical unity of true theology and humanism. Modern civilization was built on unleashing destructive wars, bribing, pitting and destroying historical elites, planting myths of consumption, strategies for the atheization of humanity, the decomposition of religions and the production of simulacra of everything – pseudo-religions, pseudo-philosophies,
Wars of the Mind: Modern vs. Premodern
R. Guénon devoted his works to analyzing the proportions of the spirit of modernity and the spirit of Tradition. Paradigm Tradition is organized on the principles of theocentrism, divine creation, teleology, eschatology, ontological vertical, hierarchy, privileged place of man in the universe and his responsibility before God, sacred society, priority of eternity over time, quality space with sacred orientations. Having existed in the history of mankind for many millennia, it only in the 17th century gave way to Modernity, which managed to overturn the traditional paradigm, launching a furious attack on it as an imperfect past of mankind with an exhausted and unproductive potential, and replacing it with a kind of parody of the worldview, tailored according to opposite patterns. . Everything that was considered with a “plus” sign in the Tradition was marked with a “minus” sign in the Modern. It was built on the rejection of the Supreme Principle, on the collapse of the vertical hierarchy into the horizontal, on the negation of qualitative space, teleology and eschatology; on the approval of the principles of individualism, more precisely individual centrism, unidirectional time, independence of the momentary becoming from eternity, etc. In the middle of the 20th century, Modern, however, underwent a metamorphosis and set about building a new epistemological paradigm, called “Postmodern”. R. Guenon did not find the Postmodern, but intuitively foresaw the possibility of such a deviation of the Modern. Today, Postmodern is widely studied by Russian traditionalists, using reflective strategies for studying the mechanisms of production of modern knowledge and ontologies. One of the most important works on this topic is A. Dugin’s fundamental study “Postphilosophy”. [4]
Post-genonism: paradigms of the Russian school of traditionalism
The Russian school of post-Guénonian traditionalism began in the 1960s with an in-depth study of the paradigmatic language of Tradition and R. Guénon’s traditionalism as a methodology, paradigm, and language of Tradition. It does not fully share the thesis of the French thinker about the primordial metaphysical unity of Traditions , but emphasizes the universal applicability of the paradigm approach to all historical forms of tradition: their unity is conceived in a radical conflict with the language of modernity , with its conceptual core and ontologies. The Paradigm of Modernity and the Paradigm of Tradition are not convertible into each other, they have a conflict of basic attitudes, ontological axes. Russian traditionalism speaks of a deep division of the noological space into two opposing camps – the party of modernity and the party of Tradition .
A. Dugin in his book “Philosophy of Traditionalism” [5] , emphasizes that the vision in the works of R. Guenon is not just a series of deep traditional discourses, but precisely the language, methodology, paradigm of Tradition carries the revolutionary potential of dividing humanity for the noological battle of the last times in which the fate of the world and man will be decided, the meanings of the future will be found. Possession of paradigms of thinking is comparable to being at an “observation post”, at a command post for military operations. Who owns the interpretive paradigm, and further, who determines it, he rules. Tradition Paradigm can be the command post of the modern onto-epistemological war against anti-tradition, not to mention the fact that it acts as a standard for the examination of authenticity and tracking the deformations of traditional complexes in historical dynamics under the onslaught of the operating system of modernity. The paradigm method is invaluable in developing ways to counter the strategies of the modern epistemological elite in the ideological war of the last times.
The paradigm method claims that a traditionalist in the modern world is even more valuable than a representative of a specific historical Tradition. Having mastered the metalanguage of Tradition, he more acutely experiences the internal conflicts of living tradition; by practicing intellectual alertness and being at the forefront of paradigm battles, he is more clearly aware of the hypnotic danger of the two-faced ideological and linguistic strategies of modernity. The paradigm of Tradition can be used to verify the bizarre transformations of historical religions, mythologies and philosophies, to evaluate new trends in modern thought and social life. It is the paradigm of Tradition allows, through the phenomenal layer of vocabulary, to actualize the essential core of modern intellectual trends, to qualify the ups and downs of the mental anomalies of modernity and to raise the banner of a collective battle with sophisticated forms of anti-tradition , which is difficult to resist without mastering paradigm analysis. The paradigm of Tradition is an intellectual body of rebellion against modernity, it is an instrument of revolution against the modern world in its most unhealthy, ugly, corrupt, pathological encroachments on true thought and divine order, on culture, the diversity of civilizations and, most importantly, on Man.
Paradigm mapping of Russian traditionalism. Challenge of the synchronistic paradigm. Philosophical Gardens of Eternity
The Russian school of traditionalism insists on the priority of the method of paradigms in the study of the history of philosophy, religion, cultures and civilizations. The Russian traditionalists of the last decades were faced with the task of re- discovering (after a seventy-year period of dominance of materialism in the USSR) the history of thought and creating a large narrative of a meaningful historical and philosophical process, with the development of a new approach that would allow any philosophical statement, thesis, doctrine, concept to be deconstructed and put in the appropriate context: after all, the concepts of Spirit, Absolute, consciousness, subject, person, object have different meanings in different contexts, models of understanding the world, in different linguistic entities – or in different paradigms.
The new position of the Russian traditionalist school is the idea of A. Dugin that one should abandon only the diachronic approach in the spirit of Windelband and Hegel in understanding the philosophical heritage and apply an alternative – synchronistic paradigm approach . It proposes to abandon evolutionism and the concept of rectilinear progress in the interpretation of the history of thought. The task is to arrange any philosophical (theological) statement, word, thesis, text, author, any intellectual school into distinct semantic zones, strict paradigm cells corresponding to different worldview complexes. The synchronic-paradigm reading of the history of philosophy identifies three paradigms – Premodern (Tradition), Modern(New time) and Postmodern which are affirmed both in a diachronic sequence, and as phenomena co-present in history, as from the structure of eternity, existing simultaneously and in parallel with each other. According to this approach, Platonism and Neoplatonism are not local schools of ancient Greece, but structures of thought that permeate the entire human history and emerge through the philosophical and theological systems of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and even the Modern and Postmodern. From the standpoint of A. Dugin, if we put aside the chronocentrism of Modernity (the idea of the dominant position of time and becoming), we will see that both Premodern and Postmodern as paradigms have always existed. The history of philosophy is not determined by the principle of unidirectional progress, there is not a single stream of thought, like a river flowing in one direction. It is much more plausible to see in it several simultaneous autonomous flows, zones, territories, enclaves of thinking with their own principles, schemes, languages. In this case, the history of thought can be comprehended not as a monotonous movement of the mind according to the laws of Fate, but as a variety of different territories and trajectories of thinking, as a pluralistic multi-colored philosophical gardens. In other words, instead of a unilinear progress of thought, we will see a pluralism of synchronic fields of thought, with their own laws and logic. [6] In such a polyphony of thought, humanity always has a philosophical choice, and the paradigms of Modern, Postmodern and Premodern can be seen as preferred “comfort” zones, as a kind of “interest clubs” (to use a modern term). With the parallel existence of paradigms of thought, there is always freedom of choice.
In case we choose the Tradition paradigm, built around the idea of God, eternity, vertical, immortality of the soul, then we consistently recognize that the soul is a spark of eternity, and bodily existence is only an episode of the life of the soul; we agree with the statement of the highest point of the transcendent Heaven, the Supreme One, the Father, the Absolute, and we will reflect on the Creation of the world and man, listen to the Divine word, revelation, think about archetypes and ideas. If in this coordinate system one looks down, then on the lower periphery there will be earth – a place where becoming unfolds, subject to spiritual patterns. The visual image of such a paradigm in some traditions is a downward-pointing triangle, indicating the fullness of being in Heaven and poverty below. In the Premodern paradigm, the world is built around the axis of eternity, and time is relativized, a person is thought of as a “flying” or diurnic being (diurn, according to J. Durand, an active, light, vertical dimension of the human imagination), aspiring to the sky or falling down due to the inferiority (error) of a human being, while his choice of a spiritual path will turn out to be not predestination, but freedom. Choosing the model of Tradition, we summarize it in the thesis “from one to many”, and we put a person in a relatively privileged position in the universe as the heir and keeper of a spark of the spiritual principle. Everything in Tradition – the creation of the world, the eternal system of holidays, and the nuances of man’s relationship with God (specific in different traditions) – is the possibility of entering eternity. at the same time, his choice of the spiritual path will turn out to be not predestination, but freedom. Choosing the model of Tradition, we summarize it in the thesis “from one to many”, and we put a person in a relatively privileged position in the universe as the heir and keeper of a spark of the spiritual principle. Everything in Tradition – the creation of the world, the eternal system of holidays, and the nuances of man’s relationship with God (specific in different traditions) – is the possibility of entering eternity. at the same time, his choice of the spiritual path will turn out to be not predestination, but freedom. Choosing the model of Tradition, we summarize it in the thesis “from one to many”, and we put a person in a relatively privileged position in the universe as the heir and keeper of a spark of the spiritual principle. Everything in Tradition – the creation of the world, the eternal system of holidays, and the nuances of man’s relationship with God (specific in different traditions) – is the possibility of entering eternity.
And although it was believed that in the history of mankind the paradigm of Tradition dominated only until the beginning of the New Age, today its remnants are still present in the world and affect religions and other forms of the traditional worldview – sometimes hidden and secret, sometimes aggressively and simplified, but Tradition present in the world
The method of synchronic paradigms proceeds from the actual plural coexistence of different types of worldviews and from the free choice of the tradition paradigm as a conscious worldview decision of each person, as well as peoples and communities, and decisions not in the past, but today, here and now . This position allows any person and nation to fundamentally disagree with modernity in assessing theological or mytho-poetic thinking as obsolete prejudices or a tribute to antiquity without significant ontological content. Recognition of the actual pluralism of paradigms allows us to start a justified rebellion against the universality of the paradigm of modernity that is being imposed on us., against the epistemological dictatorship of one part of humanity – the modern West – over another part of it. Reflection on the structure of the worldviews themselves, on the codes of thinking, language, on the paradigms of the Mind, allows for something like the decolonization of the thinking of peoples who have fallen under the hypnosis of the Western standard of thinking – to form an alternative pole of spirituality, to start a battle for other, outdated epistemologies, to create projects of the future alternative to the West , to try to return humanity to traditional ideas about teleology, soteriology, divine destiny and the meaning of man and mankind.
The fading paradigm of modernity
At one time Modernity ridiculed and spat upon the paradigm of Tradition. But within the framework of the synchronistic paradigm, Modern no longer looks like the “fate” and “duty” of a person, but can be considered as a local (mainly Western) fading territory, a separate zone, many times inferior in energy, freshness, content and optimism to the Premodern paradigm. If you look at the correlation of the two paradigms with a calm, cold look, it becomes obvious that the prospects for the Modern and its offspring – Postmodern – look depressing. Entering the arena of world history in the 17th century, Modernity overturned the basic principles of Tradition, challenged the idea of God, leaving him the role of a watchmaker who corrects the orbits of the planets (I. Newton), flunked the vertical and hierarchy, engaged in the unrestrained liberation of man, establishing an individual without reliance on the Higher Creatures of the kind and kind of man,
Modern completely perverted the paradigm of Premodern. He turned the symbolic triangle of Tradition and cut off its top, turning it into a trapezoid, canceled the idea of eternity, identified Heaven and Earth, forbade the sacred orientations of space and the parity of Aristotelian levitation and gravity, relied on material gravity, falling down.
A. Dugin emphasizes that the revolution against Tradition in the New Age was by no means the first outburst of the ideological subversion of Modernity. In ancient Greece, the materialists Democritus and Epicurus worked; in ancient Rome, Lucretius Carus. [7]It was they who first spoke about the principles of the modern picture of the world – atoms and emptiness, evolution, the absence of a vertical, the mortality of souls and gods, etc. Modernity hid in antiquity, existed next to the traditional knowledge of Europe in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, which confirms the concept of synchronicity of paradigms. It is also important, notes A. Dugin, that the change of paradigms in the New Age was, as a rule, not justified logically and was provided exclusively by the rhetoric and “hypnotizing” gesture of scientists and philosophers, as well as the plundering practice of the initial accumulation of capital, the colonization of archaic peoples, and the pragmatic agility of the new bourgeois class , not burdened by either class restrictions or moral norms and therefore aggressively promoting the desacralized picture of the world of Modern and the utilitarian morality born from it.
We can say that Modern came to the world of Western Europe as a sea robber, without rules and regrets, shamelessly, assertively and eloquently. The rhetorical component in the coming onto the stage of the history of Modern seems to us to be very significant. From a philosophical point of view, the paradigms are juxtaposed. Being inside the paradigm of the Modern, the society of the New Age misinterpreted rhetoric as a philosophical argument. Mankind did not choose Modern, but uncritically accepted its rules. The transition from Premodern to Modern was not fate, but was a man-made rhetorical victory of one active group of thinkers and visionaries (the epistemological elite) over the unconsolidated majority. It was a frenetic stuffing of an extravagant mental construction for those times with the substitution of evidence with rhetoric, sign language and hypnosis. [8]
The idea of synchronic paradigms gives mankind fundamental grounds today to choose alternative paradigms to Modernity, to create other poles of the epistemological projection of the future, different from the Western hegemonic globalist projection.
The grin of Postmodern. Man’s last refuge
The meaning of the Modern paradigm relies on the formation, change, evolution, independent of eternity, the whole, structure, meanings, Spirit. Modern is changing, transforming into Postmodern. But not knowing the vertical, the spiritual principle, it degrades: the system of its anomalies looks more and more monstrous with time. The modern world is becoming more and more “modern”: it hysterically disputes and expels from itself everything that is not modern. The Western world has long ridiculed religion, mythology, dealt with the ideologies of the Third Way and communism, securing the right to global dictate and censorship for the militant liberal discourse. Under the threat of liberal nihilism — culture and man . As D. Bell argued in the 1970s, culture can become the main obstacle to post-industrial liberalism [9]. And so it happened. The West has long been talking about the end of history (F. Fukuyama), about post-history, in which all discourse has been exhausted and a ban on any project and any utopia has been imposed, [10] and thought should be reduced to quoting and recycling what has been said. M. Heidegger argued that “the insignificant destroys” (“Nichts nichtet”). Emptiness eats Modern from within. The utopia of Modernity revealed its nihilistic essence before our eyes, at the moment of the victory of liberalism on a global scale and the transition to a unipolar world in 1991.
Today the world is in a state of active phase transition to the next stage – Postmodern , the contours of which were described by French thinkers in the middle of the 20th century. Main Claims of Postmodernand to Modernity they were that the individual, despite the strategies of liberation, remained a refuge for totalitarianism and lack of freedom. At the Modern stage, he abandoned God, the church, the state, social props, but he is still not free in the choice of language and gender, race and ethnicity, in liberation from the hierarchy of internal organs and the dominance of reason, consciousness over the unconscious, limited by upright walking. J. Deleuze considered the “rhizome” – a tuber that does not have a center and spatial preferences and grows in an arbitrary direction – to be the iconic figure of Postmodernity and recommended it as a model of human strategy.
In Postmodernity, the world has indeed lost its center. The earth ceased to be the pole of the world already in Modern, after the insights of Galileo and Copernicus. The sun lost its central role with the invention of lenses by A. Leeuwenhoek. The individual, humanity, already late Modern, tired of the optimistic relations of its philosophical forerunners, saw it as an insignificant part of the material Universe, lost in the infinite spaces of the Galaxy, without meaning and telos, because the target reason of Aristotle was withdrawn from his discourse by censorship from the very beginning of Modern.
Man has not been at the center of things and events for a long time. It lives without an assemblage point within itself and can disintegrate into autonomous incoherent parts, “dividuals”. These parts are probably the “liberated organs” that the modern world cynically sells in the world’s underground markets.
A New Turn of the Postmodern: The Collapse of the Subject and the Project of Human Elimination
Today, according to avant-garde epistemological centers, it is the turn of a new stage in the dehumanization of man : modern philosophy is massively preparing an operation that can rightfully be called a total attack on man . Nowadays, the schools of object-oriented ontology and the Black Enlightenment are purposefully working on the intellectual design of the avant-garde dimensions of the Postmodern . We are witnesses of the last bursts of human subjectivity, the last chords of humanity and the ideology of humanism, which has so far accompanied the history of man’s stay on Earth. Russian traditionalists, one of the few in our day, are close witnesses and radical opponents of the new turn in the fate of a person being prepared in the laboratories of modern elites.
The modern Postmodern organizes a growing wave of inhumanism . Today, it is “not in trend” to talk positively about the human subject: they talk and write about decomposed subjects or about objects, which are also falling apart, “weak” – they paint about dust, porous lava, stone, rot, mucus, oil, or not at all human ” agency”, which, according to the object-oriented ontology, decisively displaces the human subject from his former positions. Animals, mushrooms, forests, plants, leopards, and even landfills, power lines and plastic bags, possessing a different nature than humans, live a complex and fulfilling life and are no different, and in many cases even superior to humans. According to the monoculturalist philosopher E. V. de Castro, jaguars, satiating themselves with the blood of their victims, consider themselves by analogy with people drinking cassava beer at a friendly feast [11] . Streams of odors and rot from a landfill within the city can provoke discontent, spontaneous rebellion, chaos, destruction, that is, act as something like passive agents of a mini-revolution.
In the history of mankind, the subject has changed its status in descending order. The Absolute Subject of Tradition – God – created man on earth as his vicegerent: theocentrism was accompanied by the idea of a privileged position of man in the world. The Man of Tradition set himself great tasks due to his central and vertical position in the circle of being: in addition, he thought of himself not as an autonomous individual, but as a person ascending to the horizon of the family, the community of associates and sacred history. The subject of Tradition was given the highest commandment to learn, create, think, philosophize, fight and serve the Lord. The subjectivity of the man of the traditional world could be called “strong”.
In Modern there is a “weakening” of the subject. My daughter, Daria Dugina, who was killed by Western intelligence agencies, at the age of 14 wrote a small essay about a “weak” and even “weak” subject, whom she even felt sorry for. Yes, pity for the weakness of a human being is quite appropriate today. We remember that statements about a liberated, liberated individual were associated with the destruction of the traditional vertical of subjectivity by Modern. And then throughout the entire Modern there was a collapse, blurring, dissolution, evaporation of the subject. Today, world elites, world financial groups, profiting from the dissolved subjectivity of humanity, this humanity is cynically manipulated, throwing it into individual chilling epics of changing gender identity with a slight gesture of propaganda,
Today, the plans of modern elites are not just decomposition, but the final overcoming and elimination (elimination) of the human subject. The Iranian philosopher Reza Negarestani, adept of the Black Enlightenment” and Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO), in his book “Cyclonopedia”, which was recently translated in Russia, speaks of the dubiousness of such a unit as the human subject. In his opinion, oil, not man, is the main character and witness of history, the meaning of all stories about the Earth, in which the most central is the plot of the confrontation between the sun and the earth’s core. The task of the O-OO adepts is to save the core from suffering, and release the red-hot magma, releasing it to the surface of the Earth, destroying life and man.
According to the thinkers of object-oriented ontology, a person is delusional, imagining himself too much: for a long time already “not people use the planet, but the planet put people at the service”, which are the mechanisms exploited by the planet for its own reproduction. The object and subject of Modern changed places.
One more line of pre-preparation of the sunset of a person is interesting . The initiators of Postmodernity J. Lyotard, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari, offering to free a person from reason, consciousness, internal order and offering him to let in a new polyphonic schizophrenic thinking, based on the “parliament of organs”, deliberately inspired the understanding of a person as a product of decentralization, decay, dissolution and dying.
According to both a group of French postmodernists and object-oriented ontologists (Nick Land, Quentin Meillassoux, Graham Harman, Reza Negarestani, etc.), modernity is a world of beings and objects that have rebelled against a Human who has lost his dignity, has become shallow, impoverished, and has disintegrated within himself. who ingloriously played his role and became no longer interesting to history. The meaning of object-oriented ontology and the Black Enlightenment is a revolt of things and machines not only against the vertical man of Tradition or against the almost disintegrated in the horizon of “nothingness” of the human individuality of Modernity, but also against the last bursts of small ovaries of subjectivity or agency of modern consumers of comfort. Today, the objects (agents) of the new ontology are whirlwinds, flows of infections, bacteria, dirt, debris, decay, demonic entities, rat packs, cellophane bags. They are called upon to cover the last traces of Man in the world.
Overcoming the Anthropocene: the strong survive, the weak must die
Do you need additional evidence? So. The task of the postmodern inhumanistic structure – the “Cybernetic Culture Research Group” [12] , headed by the aforementioned Nick Land, is a program to overcome the “anthropocene oppression”, using science and facts. Anthropocene is the newest term for a geological epoch with a high level of human activity, transforming nature and playing a significant role in the Earth’s ecosystem. It is interesting that the well-known Western cultural critic Boris Groys complains that the use of the term “Anthropocene” today is an absolute guarantee of the financing of any humanitarian project by Western scientific centers, especially if it contains references to the names of B. Latour, C. Meillassoux and G. Harman. [13]
Nick Lund believes that the depressing quality of human subjectness is treated with the help of recipes for social Darwinism and anti-humanism. Both capitalism and venture risk are solar mechanisms of natural selection, lofty strategies to purge the human collective of worthless material. If an individual does not survive in the environment of the global market, does not pass the test of the “Outside”, the object world, the world of machines and alienated social forms, he has no right to exist and must be sent to the dump. [14] According to Land, mankind has been creating a Human Security System for centuries, associated with the Order of One God (monotheism, Christianity) and fixated on teleology, humanism, support for unproductive social projects like socialism and helping the poor. And completely in vain, says Land and the modern world elite. Today this system must be destroyed: the strong win and survive, the weak must die, declares this representative of the League of Dark Enlightenment. Indignant protests of the public Nick Lund meets with a cold rhetorical question: “Like, how else can one relate to them – people? How about souls? Spirits? Subjects of history? Maybe how to Dasein? The answer for Nick Land is obvious – this is an absurd and infantile delirium of insolvent humanity.
R. Negarestani believes that the right to be a human is no longer given at birth, and the title “human” in a situation of disintegrating subjectivity can be intercepted from a person by any creatures or processes, be it an animal or a machine, that is, those who are able to meet the criteria of a thinking and reasonable agency [15] . Man must not only be overcome, as Nietzsche suggested: the human, especially in the form in which it resides on Earth, will certainly be overcome [16] .
Today, traditionalists are faced with a serious question: “Are we human beings worthy of being treated as souls, subjects of history, as Dasein?”
And the world’s elites, at best, tell us that our right to be human is a quest to be completed. Within the framework of the Tradition, a person has always faced the most important task of becoming a perfect person. A person of modern consumer “swinepolises” prefers not thought, but consumer happiness, not stopping a senseless run to think about his Self, God, being, death, existence, but speed, velocity, incessant rut in conditions of atheistic nonsense and horror is nothing …
Russian nocturne through the eyes of Yuri Mamleev
In Russian culture, such a run or, conversely, the freezing of a person in front of the emptiness of the world, the horror of experiencing the semantic insignificance of life is the trigger for a spiritual test and the subsequent transformation of the hero of the plots of Russian writers and philosophers. The Russian traditionalist writer Yury Vitalyevich Mamleev, the founder of the traditionalist school of Yuzhinsky Lane in Moscow in the 1960s, speaks about the awe of man in front of the nihilistic scythe of Modernity, who even then stared piercingly into the essence of inhumanistic problems.
In the writer’s early story “Happiness” [17] two village friends are talking about this elusive subject. One of the friends is sure that happiness resides somewhere in the region of exquisite, Russian-scented consumption – between the sphere of carnal sensual well-being and the area of subtle physicality – “a cow, a hut with a roof, four women, a bathhouse … and moonlight …” Another , Gregory, feels that this somehow does not correspond to the idea of \u200b\u200ba man: “Only all this is petty, not in size, but in soul,” Gregory throws tongue-tied. “Happiness,” the first, Mikhailo, objects to him, “is contentment and no thoughts.” But the first hero measures life by the scale of the soul and complains about its insignificant actual state. The hero experiences the touch “Nothing”, this paradoxical touch gives rise to the thought in him: “Empty, empty – and suddenly a thought.” The thought of death. Therefore, Gregory is scared. “I will go to a sect,” he decides.
The Russian traditionalists of Yuzhinsky Lane of the 1960s forever shared happiness and thought. They saw thought as pain, as a gap, as death, as a special point in being, where the Subject is born – the one who takes this pain upon himself. In the story, the nascent subject – still too ephemeral, weak, scattered, little able to bear the burden of thought – absurdly proclaims his departure to the sect, so that his fragile “I”, an unformed weak subject, would share the responsibility for the horror of thought with others of the same kind, marked by anxiety and horror, the people of the sect.
This is the moment of the birth of the Subject, more precisely, a hint at its outline.
But the first fluttering of subjectivity is only like a helpless cry of an infant. How much this breakthrough of the turbid dream of the Russian peasant of the 20th century is weaker than the acute experience of “Cogito ergo sum” by Descartes of the 17th century, where a brightly flashed spark of thought decisively calls into question everything in a row – God, nature, matter, knowledge, experience. Since the time of the early Modernity, human subjectivity has impressively degraded, and in the modern world it has been radically called into question.
Grigory’s friend from Mamleev’s story, Mikhailo, suggests happiness instead of a thought: “They say that there are doctors in the city who cut out their brains, and they say that there is even a line for them.”
Modern object-oriented ontologists have no doubt that if a person agrees with the “amputation” of his own consciousness, then why should his life be given any meaning? Maybe, then, it is really better to rely on the “agency” of animals, things, forests, stones, dumps, the core inside the earth? Moreover, there are too many people, and the system of the most rational capitalism and liberalism is bursting at the seams – it cannot withstand the pressure of the human mass. How convenient is it in this situation to admit that a person is accidental, and life on Earth is just a projection of the great war between the Sun and the planet Earth, which ended in a “geotrauma” that drove an ocean of hot steel core into the core of the Earth? If the world is contingent, random, is it possible to guarantee the life of a person, as well as the life of stars and galaxies? This is how the modern Western globalist manager thinks.[18].
One of the interesting reflections of object-oriented ontologists on paradigms is offered by R. Negarestani, who believes that an ordinary person, left to himself, if he thinks, does not think about how he thinks , that is, he thinks non-reflectively. And Negarestani proclaims an idea very similar to Russian traditionalism: if one recognizes and thinks about the very mechanism of knowledge production, one can single out its paradigm, then it is possible to consciously change the very conditions for the production of concepts and meanings and create a new epistemology, and in the future – a new reality, other space and time, a different person or non-human. Here, however, unlike the Russian traditionalists, Negarestani thoroughly transcends boundaries, fantasizing without restrictions, humanistic shores, moral and theological prohibitions:
if the cognitive Rubicon of mastering paradigms is crossed, Negarestani believes, humanity will be able to move on to new epistemologies and ontologies – non-human, inorganic, machine, etc. And the entrance ticket here will, apparently, be agreement with the need to annihilate a person and transition to a non-human network subject.
Journey into the meaning of civilizations. Paradigms of the three Logoi
The twenty-four-volume philosophical cycle “Noomachia” (“Wars of the Mind”) by Alexander Dugin [19] is devoted to the study of world civilizations and is based on the unique method of the Three Logoi. The author, as it were, strings civilizations into coordinate systems, which are based on three Logos, three models of thinking, three worldviews. Modernity inspired us that rationality is one, has a unitary structure. This view, confident in the superiority of the rationalism of the New Age over other types of thinking, that is, in the predominant value of the paradigm of the New Age, Modern, was challenged in the 20th century. F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, K. Levi-Strauss, structuralists, phenomenologists, ethnologists and anthropologists. Levy-Bruhl, showed that the primitive mytho-thinking of “mystical participation” competes with the rational Western mentality.
(“mystical participation”), in which a person rather than divides and distinguishes6 but merges and experiences the integrity of the world. Thinking turned out to be more complex and diverse than the model of rationalists of the 17th century, and the thesis of the unity of rationality began to be interpreted as an arbitrary dogma of the Modern.
According to the methodology of the Three Logoi of A. Dugin [20], there are three types, three paradigms of rationality – the Logos of Apollo, the Logos of Dionysus and the Logos of Cybele. The three Greek deities serve as gestalts for three styles of thought. The fact that Logos, Sophian thinking is compared with the mythological narrative and uses mythological zoning is quite legitimate, since both mythos and logos have a common source – Um, Nus (νοῦς). “Noomachy” means “wars of the mind” or “wars within the mind”, which is intended to emphasize the conflicting nature of the logos structures. Thinking is the field of warfare. Arthur Rimbaud believed that “a spiritual battle is as fierce as the battle of armies.”
The Apollonian style of thinking, the Logos of Apollo is built on the privative opposition of “one and the other”, on absolute “yes” and “no”, light and darkness, between which there are no intersections and constant conflict. The establishment of strict boundaries is the basis of the justice of Apollo – an impartial judge who separates light and darkness radically, without halftones. This is the basis of the classical Logos of Platonism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism. The principles of Aristotelian logic (with its laws of identity, contradiction and excluded middle) are based on the Apollonian Logos, which are still in force today.
For a long time it seemed that the Western European civilization lived in the shadow of Apollo’s Logos. In the 19th century, F. Nietzsche discovered another dimension of thinking and presented to the rational Modernity of Europe the Logos of Dionysus, which operates with a different form of oppositions – without privativity, where there is a flexible dialectic between “this” and “other”, top and bottom. It also turned out that although Aristotle’s logic is based on Apollonism, his physics, where in every thing there is a form and matter (hule), i.e. in “one” there is “two”, and this bundle cannot be cut without losing the thing itself,
— built on Dionysian thinking. The Logos of Dionysus represents a rationality other than the Logos of Apollo. It is the pulsating living heart of life itself. Such thinking is reminiscent of tango, where one partner turns out to be the leader, then the other, and each subsequent gesture of love and hatred, contempt and submission, adoration and worship replace each other in the harmony of a specific rhythm. The Logos of Dionysus embodies the abundance and tragedy of the life principle, it is not chaos, but also not the frozen order of Apollo. This is a playful combination of both, the flickering of meanings, the mind on the border of madness, and madness cured in an impulse to the higher Mind. Dionysus is changeable in the structure of his epiphany, ambivalent. This is the god of transformations, metamorphoses, the binding of opposites, the god who comes to people, transforming rudeness into the sacred , low into the highest in the mysteries of the Dionysian processions, directing the possessed Bacchantes, striving for Parnassus, to kill men. In Dionysism, there is a breakdown of the Apollonian law, although in the Greek context this occurs within the framework of a holistic Olympian worldview. Dionysus is a complex sacred complex that gives the impression of being chthonic, earthly and corporeal, but in fact representing the paradoxical, ambivalent side of the Divine itself. It is no coincidence that the symbol of Dionysus is a mask – as a border connecting life and death, traditionally hiding a person’s face from spirits and revealing the world of the dead to him.
The main thing in the “Noomachia” method, according to A. Dugin, is the discovery of the Third Logos – the Logos of Cybele. The geometry of the universe of the Great Mother can be represented as an overturned image of the Universal Mountain, turned into a cosmic funnel. Poet and culturologist of the Silver Age Vyacheslav Iv. Ivanov in his work “Pradionysianism” included the Dionysian Logos in the matriarchal cults of the Mediterranean. But Dionysianism is something else than Cybelism. And if the rationality of Cybele is a special materialism, then Dionysianism is not materialism, but immanentism without materialism; not the principle of the Earth, but the dialectic of Heaven and Earth, God and man. Dionysus is a paradigm man, life in a tense fusion of soul and body. The Logos of Cybele is different from the Logos of Dionysus and is diametrically opposed to the Logos of Apollo: it is a world of flesh, heaviness, the dominant maternal feminine, excellently described in Porphyry’s Cave of the Nymphs, where the bubbling underground flesh reinterprets the worlds of light, turning them into its own dark projections. Cybele is the Earth, giving birth to her sons without a masculine principle, without fertilization by Heaven. This is the territory of the titans, time reigns here, and there is no “eternal moment now”, but always only “too early” or “too late”. Here everything is repeated, not reaching the goal (Tantalus, Sisyphus); there are no orientations, straight lines, everything merges into an indistinguishable mass that dissolves forms, divides into atoms and connects the parts again, ugly and monstrously, thought is indistinct and confused here.
According to Dugin’s “Noomachia”, the Logos of Cybele is the root of European Modernity: it reigns and dictates the agenda today, it also existed in ancient times at the origins of Greek philosophy – in the atomism of Democritus, Leucippus, Epicurus, Lucretius, and some natural philosophers. According to the myth, Plato ordered the works of Democritus to be burned on the square in front of the Academy as violating the bright principles of Apollonism.
Russian civilization: the state of Apollo against the peasant Dionysus. Horizons of the Great Matri.
Any culture, according to A. Dugin, consists of moments of combination and dialectical confrontation of three Logoi. Accounting for the confrontation or conflict of interpretations gives civilizations a voluminous and complex character, and through the description of the confrontation of the Logoi, we come closer to understanding the “blooming complexity” of cultures and civilizations.
If we consider Russian civilization in this way, then the picture of noological oppositions will look as follows. Russia is geographically located on the territory of the Great Steppe and has continuity with the Apollonian Turanian horizon, which brings with it the Indo-European structure with a vertical organization of the world and politics, with a militant androcracy and a three-functional (according to Dumézil) system. The second element of the Russian horizon is the Paleo-Asiatic cultures of the Great Mother. Greek and Byzantine culture also had an impact on Russian identity. At the same time, according to A. Dugin, the ancient pre-Indo-European civilization of the Great Mother (Logos of Cybele), localized in Anatolia (XXI-VI millennium BC), also influenced the Russian cultural space through the Hellenic civilization (XXI-VI millennium BC), which later came into conflict with Indo-European patriarchy during its conquest by the Turanian nomads. This conflict, transmitted to Russia through Hellenism, is seen by Dugin as an important hermeneutic code for the noological decipherment of the Russian tradition. The Iranian tradition also had an influence on the Russian mentality, both directly (the Russian word for “god” is of Iranian origin) and through Iranized post-Babylonian Judaism, which emphasizes the themes of dualism, unidirectional time, eschatology, and the Savior. Moreover, it is important that Russia is the most peasant civilization among the rest, which is explained by the strong influence of Eastern Europe on it, which for many millennia was the center of the most ancient matriarchal agricultural civilization. Russians are an integral part of the Eastern European horizon as the cradle of the European peasantry, reaching its climax precisely in Russia.
Noological Pattern of Russian Civilization: Three Intertwined Logos
The noological analysis of Russian civilization by A. Dugin shows that the Russians carry within themselves all three Logos—Apollo, Dionysus, and Cybele. Starting from the 17th century, the images of Russian thought turn out to be tripartite, intertwining with each other in a complex cultural dialectic that cannot be reduced to simplified and linear models that have prevailed in studies of Russian culture to this day.
More specifically, the three Logoi are represented by the Russians as follows
manner. The main part of the Russians – the people themselves – have peasant
roots and acts as the bearer of a special sedentary agrarian culture, in which the Logos of Dionysus prevails. However, the Logos of Dionysus from the era of the birth of the Slavs themselves as an Indo-European people and long before the emergence of the Russian state was under the fundamental influence of the Logos of Apollo, which found its expression: 1) in patriarchy, 2) in a three-functional model of the organization of society and 3) in the Russian language itself, belonging to the Indo-European family. The Logos of Apollo finds its full expression in the Russian state, where Indo-European vertical structures are clearly represented. This is best seen in the era of traditional society, that is, before the moment of intensive modernization and Westernization of Russia.
From Kievan Rus to the split of the 17th century, the Russian state is a pronounced Apollonian phenomenon with a corresponding
order and organization. Moreover, the adoption of Christianity by Prince Vladimir (c. 960-1015) only strengthened the Apollonian vertical,
giving it a final religious and ideological form. But
the Logos of Apollo himself influenced the Slavic sedentary farmers
and in more ancient eras – both after the creation of the Russian state by Rurik (? – 879), and in the era of the Goths, Sarmatians, Scythians, etc. Thus, in the very Dionysian identity of the Russian people (peasantry)
we see impressive traces of the influence of the Logos of Apollo in its Indo-European version. Accordingly, the relationship between the people and the state can be reduced to a dialogue of two Logoi – Dionysus and Apollo, but with the amendment that the people’s Dionysianism itself was closely intertwined with patriarchal – solar-heavenly – Apollonism. Therefore, one should take into account both the profound difference between the two Logoi and their diffusion, which in most cases was a one-sided impact of the more rigid and exclusive Logos of Apollo on the root worldview of the peasant communities, prone, on the contrary, to inclusiveness and Dionysian balance. Therefore, the reciprocal influence of the popular Logos of Dionysus on the state culture was asymmetrical – more indirect, rhetorical and soft, which is a characteristic feature of the Logos of Dionysus.
The third Logos – the Logos of Cybele – is also a noological constant of the Russian principle. The Logos of Cybele is presented on the largest scale in the most ancient periods, rooted in the Tripoli agricultural matriarchy, which preceded the arrival from the depths of Turan.
Indo-European bearers of the Kurgan culture, and in the most recent
era – under the influence of Western European Modernity, where the ancient materialistic worldview of the Great Mother achieved revenge and managed to overthrow the millennia-old domination of Indo-European Apollonism. The logos of Cybele in Russian culture is both the most ancient and the newest, modern,
that is, the preface and afterword to the Russian historical. As the influences of Western European Modernity penetrated into Russia, the Logos of Cybele began to increase its power — through the church schism of the 17th century, a series of “Antichrist” tsars — from Peter (1672–1725) to Catherine II (1729–1796) — and up to the Bolsheviks and post-Soviet liberals in the 1990s.
According to A. Dugin, this noological pattern determines the semantics of Russian history and the sequence of episodes of Russian civilization.
The meaning of modern traditionalism is the battle for man
Today, the stereotypes of modern Western liberalism are gradually spreading to Eastern societies. The West brings with it flat clichés of materialism, technocracy, economism, rampant consumerism, individualism, atheism, simulacra of philosophy, art, and neo-spiritualism. Unlike liberal thought managers, traditionalists are the heirs of the huge metaphysical, theological, philosophical potential of the Tradition, with a voluminous corpus of its sacred texts, theological works of the Church Fathers, texts on theology, philosophy, metaphysics, teleology, soteriology, ethics, social problems. And although within the Tradition itself there are differences and mutual claims of different versions of historical traditions, in general, the pole of Tradition has a tremendous advantage over the pole of modernity .
Today, Russian traditionalists are fixing a new quality and a change in formulas the modern epistemological avant-garde of the Postmodern, which from now on openly declares the nihilistic background of its worldview, the impossibility of offering humanity positive prospects for the future, a pessimistic forecast regarding the future of man and directly declares its anti-humanism. Western elites, imposing on the world the failed scenario of the liberal “One world”, while inhibiting and prohibiting them in every possible way, refuse to develop new social projects, threaten to be excommunicated from sources of livelihood, from culture, from society, from publications, from teaching part of the Western intelligentsia, thinking about the fate of mankind and its spiritual destiny. Western liberal management has reached a point where verbal warnings are not enough for modern thinkers: Western censors terrorize and kill objectionable thinkers who propose alternative, non-globalist, projects for the development of civilizations. According to the Western liberal global project, the fate of a significant part of humanity is to dissolve in the poverty of the “precariat”, in the everyday life of local chemical and bacteriological wars, to rot in the arms of the “Etruscan bride”[21] . This discourse is supported by the infracorporeal mythology of Lovecraftian underground gods-idiots and the arrival of Cthulhutsen , [22] rapidly replacing the Anthropocene , announced by feminist Donna Haraway and R. Negarestani .
Today it is more and more obvious that the liberal elite is incapable of developing social projects that previously attracted humanity with pictures of “post-industrial”, “open”, “technocratic” and other “good” societies, is powerless in inspiring scientific discoveries and searching for new sources of intellectual solutions. The ruling elites of the West are inclined to transfer most of humanity to the level of the lowest levels of existence/non-existence. Postmodern has become a tool in the hands of Western elites in bringing humanity to the abyss of entropy and the final destruction of man. In the face of this threat, realizing the eschatological nature of the modern Battle of the Minds (Noomachia) on a planetary scale and having the keys to its paradigms, traditionalists are called upon to unite their efforts in the battle for humanity, for the life and dignity of Man,
[1] In the XX century. the idea of confrontation between traditional and modern societies was concretized by the followers of R. Guenon, such as J. Evola, M. Eliade, A. Corbin, J. Dumezil, T. Buchhardt, G. di George, F. Schuon, M. Valzan, C. Maurras, L. Daudet, A. Gide, A. Artaud, E. Pound, J. Parvulesco, E. Roemer and others. In modern Russia, traditionalism is represented the work of philosophers and thinkers of the Yuzhinsky Circle, starting from the 1960s. to date – Yuri Mamleev, Evgeny Golovin, Geidar Dzhemal and Alexander Dugin.
[2] A paradigm is a system of guidelines, values, preferences, structures that precedes any statement, discourse, acting as an array of a whole language that embraces any statement. The Tradition paradigm is a thesaurus of thought forms, principles of being-thinking that govern the production of knowledge, the praxis of a conglomerate of societies, determine the set of ideologies (mythologemes, philosophemes, etc.) that are produced and used in it; it is an autonomous sovereign continuum of principles, higher foundations that determine the forms of contemplation, creativity, craft, social and political action, etc. Behind every society, knowledge, theory, idea in history lie paradigms, patterns according to which these societies are organized, within which they function, and which can remain hidden and unreflected.
[3] Dugin A. Noomachia. Mind Wars. Three logoi: Apollo, Dionysus, Cybele. M.: Academic project, 2014, p. 31 .
[4] Dugin A. Postphilosophy. Moscow: Eurasian movement, 2009.
[5] Dugin A. Philosophy of Traditionalism. Moscow: Arktogeya-Center, 2002.
[6] Similar views were expressed by many social anthropologists, from the middle of the XIX century. exploring the culture of the so-called. “primitives” (F. Boas, K. Levi-Strauss, M. Mead, R. Benedict, B. Malinovsky, A. Radcliffe-Brown, M. Moss, K. Girtz, and others). They showed that these cultures were no less complex and differentiated than Western cultures, and called on Western humanity to carry out a “decolonization of thought”.
[7] Dugin A. In Search of the Dark Logos. M.: Academic project, 2013
[8] Latour B. Give me a laboratory and I will turn the world / / Logos. 2002. No. 5-6 (35), Latour B. There was no new time. Essay on symmetrical anthropology. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg, 2006.
[9] “The sphere of culture, with its irrational and hedonistic modernism, may be in conflict with the “axial principle” of the economy, focused on efficiency and instrumental rationality.” Bell D. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. NY: Basic Books, 1976.
[10] Popper K. Open society and its enemies. T. 1-2. Moscow: Phoenix, International Foundation “CULTURAL INITIATIVE”, 1992.
[11] Castru V. de. Cannibal metaphysics. Frontiers of post-structural anthropology. M.: Garage, 2018.
[12] CCRU (Cybernetic Culture Research Unit) was created in the 1990s on the basis of the University of Warwick in the UK. Sadie Plant, Nick Land, Mark Fisher, Robin McKay, Kodwo Eshun, Matthew Fuller, Ian Grant and others have been associated with her.
[13] Groys B. Quentin Meillassoux is pure Stalin. Interview. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kventin-meyyasu-eto-v-chistom-vide-sta…
[14] Land N. Cybergothics. Perm, Gile-press, 2019.
[15] Negarestani R. Cyclonopedia. Moscow: Nosorog, 2019.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Mamleev Yu.V. Collected works in 4 vols. Moscow: Eksmo, 2017.
[18] Meillassoux K. After finiteness: an essay on the need for contingency. Ekaterinburg ; Moscow: Armchair scientist, 2015. Negarestani R. Cyclonopedia: complicity with anonymous materials. M.: Rhinoceros, 2018
[19] Dugin A. G. In Search of the Dark Logos. M.: Academic project, 2014, Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Three Logos. M.: Academic project, 2014., Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Geosophy. Horizons and Civilizations. M.: Academic project, 2017., Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Logos of Turan. Indo-European ideology of the vertical. M.: Academic project, 2017., Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Horizons and civilizations of Eurasia. Indo-European heritage and traces of the Great Mother. M.: Academic project, 2017., Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Iranian Logos. Light war and the culture of waiting. M.: Academic project, 2016., Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Great India. Civilization of the Absolute. M.: Academic project, 2017, Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Hellenic Logos. Valley of Truth. M.: Academic project, 2016. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Byzantine Logos. Hellenism and Empire. M.: Academic project, 2016. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Latin Logos. Sun and Cross. M.: Academic project 2016, Dugin A.G. Noomachia. German logo. Apophatic man. M.: Academic project, 2015. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. French logo. Orpheus and Melusina. M.: Academic project, 2015, Dugin A.G. Noomachia. England or Britain? Sea power and a positive subject. M.: Academic project, 2015, Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Civilizations of the New World. The pragmatics of dreams and the expansion of horizons. M.: Academic project, 2017. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Latin Logos. Sun and Cross. M.: Academic project, 2016.
[20] Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Eastern Europe. Slavic Logos: Balkan Nav and Sarmatian style. M.: Academic project, 2018. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Non-Slavic Horizons of Eastern Europe: Song of the Ghoul and the Voice of the Deep. M.: Academic project, 2018. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Kingdom of the Earth. The structure of Russian identity. M.: Academic project, 2019. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Russian historian. The people and the state in search of a subject. M.: Academic project, 2019. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Images of Russian thought. The Sun King, the glare of Sophia and Underground Rus’. M.: Academic project, 2019. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Semites. Monotheism of the Moon and the Gestalt of Ba’al. M.: Academic project, 2017. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Hamites. Civilizations of the African Nord. M.: Academic project, 2018. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. African logo. People of the black sun. M.: Academic project, 2018. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Yellow Dragon. Civilizations of the Far East. China. Korea. Japan. Indochina. M.: Academic project, 2017. Dugin A.G. Noomachia. Oceania. Water Challenge. M.: Academic project, 2018.
[21] The precariat – a new impoverished class, unlike the proletariat, is ready to endlessly adapt to inhuman living conditions and live for decades beyond the subsistence level.
The “Etruscan bride” is a terrifying execution practiced in ancient times by Etruscan feasts, in which the offender was tightly tied face to face to a corpse and left to rot until the worms from the rotting body moved to the fresh one. The image of the “Etruscan wedding”, which remotely parodies the concept of the alchemical wedding of Hermeticism, is a favorite picture of objectively oriented ontologists to illustrate the status and destiny of modern man.
[22] Cthulhutzen is a myth of modern object-oriented philosophy” about the coming era of the transition of the initiative of life and world order from a person to the inhabitants of an objective sub-material reality, represented by superdense entities of the infernal hierarchies of hell, like the ancient “blind idiot gods” Cthulhu, Yog-sothoth , Dagon, – described in the works of H. F. Lovecraft. Today, Lovecraft’s world has become a philosophical illustration of the ideas of object ontology and speculative realism about the need to free the world from people with their subjectivity and turn to the world of objects as such with their contingency and the free flow of mineral life.