Search
| # | Search | Downloads | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In this article a question of finding appropriate methodological principles of myth analysis in philosophy is raised. “Mythic” is an ambivalent dynamic phenomenon of culture and a structural unit of consciousness and self-consciousness experience. The distinction’s strategy reveals a complex structural dynamics of myth; it combines post-metaphysical modifications of phenomenology, hermeneutics and semiotics. How to define “Myth” in a variety of theoretical models? The Myth in the article is designed as an ontological structure of consciousness experience and as a transcendental imagination, that is used to open a “prototype of existence” and generate formers of every practice of interpretation of objective reality. Myth is not static category but dynamic principle of understanding. It causes difficulties of identification and explanation of nature and functions of myth. A mythological consciousness is neither a rudiment of primitive phase of phylogenetic development of consciousness, nor a chaotic or irrational production of imagination. The mythological consciousness is specified, first of all, by syncretism, involvement of propositional, normative and expressive meanings of experience. At the second place it is also specified by undifferentiated phenomena of contemplation, experience and thinking. All phenomena are united in discourse and actions. And at the third place it’s specified by absence of critical-reflexive position towards these elements of experience. “Myth” as an experience of understanding and a fact couldn’t be reduced to “Mythology” as a systematization of narratively arranged myths. Different levels of mythological discourse and thinking connected with processes of demythologization and remythologization. Keywords: myth, mythological consciousness, distinction, experience, communication | 2410 | ||||