УДК 13:159.964

MYTH AS PROJECTION OF UNCONSCIOUS

Barmashova T.I., Cand. Philosophy., Professor

Krasnoyarsk State Agrarian University,

Yurdanova V.N.

Krasnoyarsk Siberian Federal University

Abstract

The basic idea of the paper is connected to the statement of unconscious in myth. It is impossible to understand culture without studying myths that accumulated thousands years of national history. Despite the fact that the phenomenon of myth has been studied quite extensively in various sciences, including philosophy, it still remains a poorly investigated aspect of the problem that is the mythological reflection of reality, as a projection of unconscious in myths. It currently determines the relevance of the theme and creates the need of philosophical reflection of this controversial issue.

As a historical type of world-outlook myth actually exists from the moment of human society formation, appearing already in fetishistic forms reflected by ancient people. Primitive men did not even isolate themselves from the outside world, and therefore, there was no ability to distinguish between subject and object. In undifferentiated, syncretic consciousness reflection is carried out only at a level of a primitive mind. On the background of evolving consciousness of primitive people remained dominant feature, that is reflective unawareness.

Mythological stage in the development of social consciousness was a special stage which was characterized by a predominance of unawareness. Even a myth with its attempt to somehow comprehend and grasp the reality is essentially the field of unconsciousness. The Spanish scientist F. Cabrero reasonably believes that in the myth are recorded unconscious and irrational levels of human life. And he connects these features not only to the myth of the archaic era of human existence, but also believes that in our time there is a process of mythologizing just unconscious and irrational [1, 9].

In the early stages of human society myth often personified unawareness of practical application. In fact, this is mentioned by D. Frazer in "Golden Bough": "... alongside with Diana Tauricheskaya, who can only be appeased by human blood, he (Orestes) was needed in order to explain the bloody rule of succession in the priesthood Aricia" [2, 14]. However, this practical conditionality shows that myth is not realized by its creators.

Analyzing the content of myths, one should take into account that myths are not always a source containing direct information about life, organization, traditions of a particular society. They can represent an expression of unconscious contents of the psyche. Yet at the time of Levi - Strauss noted that there was a relationship between myth and reality, but not in the form of representation. These relations had dialectical nature, described in myths institutions may depict real contrast institutions. On the example of the North American Indian myth Asdivale Claude Levi-Strauss has confirmed this idea. Legend misled major American ethnologists because it Waux is designated as his father's legacy of hunting areas, while other texts and direct observations, indicate that the property men, including his hunting areas passes to son of his sister, which means that men inherit from one man to the other man on the maternal side. The thought of his father's inheritance, represented in the story, reflects a little the actual situation as his father’s matrilocal marriages.

Thus, mythical speculations concern not real state of affairs in a given society and is rooted in the structure of its latent possibilities. Thorough analysis implies that they did not want to describe reality the myth, moreover, trying to create a distorted picture of reality. The scientist comes to the assumptions that in the secret language of myth taken to extremes social practice are shown insoluble contradictions, which like the hero of the myth itself, just cannot understand the society and therefore wishes better to forget it. In the understanding of Levi - Strauss, like the relationship between myth and reality restricts the use of myths as documentary sources. But this view, according to the scientist, offers both opportunities: "If we refuse to see the myth imprint ethnographic reality, we get it as an auxiliary means by which we can penetrate into the sphere of the subconscious» [3, 183].

To understand the myth, it is necessary to consider the unconscious nature of myth-making of its creators. In turn, to understand the contents of the unconscious myth makers, it is necessary to know the factors that gave rise to it, that is, ultimately, to take into account the socio - historical conditions of its occurrence. By keeping it on the unconscious in mythological thinking, it is important to distinguish between myth as a form of knowledge, bearing cognitive function (as the ancient religious and literary narrative form of gods and heroes), and myth as a way of acting, rather than a cognitive model of the world [4, 168 -173]. In the first case, the myth is of such a nature and such social forms, which themselves have unconsciously artistic way of recycled popular imagination [5, 47- 48]. In the second case, the myth serves as the mythological perception, uplifted over reality fantasy, the embodiment of the desired or intended. As such, it is a feature of modern man myth-thinking.

In epistemological terms like myths, in any case, a mythological way of thinking is an expression of inadequate, illusory and distorted reflection of reality with a considerable degree of unconsciousness. But their place and role in the cultural and historical experiences are not equivalent. It is wrong to put on a par ancient myth of cultural significance, and modern myths deformed consciousness with their reactionary direction. Despite a number of common mechanisms, the use of similar techniques, myths perform various social functions which are not identical and the motives underlying the creation of myths are different. Ancient myths can be seen as an expression of creative and cognitive potentials of social community.

Different in nature are myths of hopelessness of modern civilization. Noting the essence of the past, we can agree with E. Anchel that the lack of "hope grows into a myth.... Typical of mythological thinking drawing analogies and exaggerated generalization leads to the fact that the troubles of society, always concrete and urgent today, or they are treated as the essence of the world, or their causes are sought in unmodifiable inner human nature" [6, 8 - 9]. Modern myth-thinking is closer to superstition, prejudice, somehow expresses the costs of development of the company or entity, sometimes they are considered both at the same time. Modern myths are often the product of ideology, politics, forming the image of the perceived enemy, describing the type of relationship or extolling the virtues of an imaginary entity or system. These processes are often initiated by the unconscious mind.

Unawareness on modern mythological consciousness is also pointed by K. Mannheim, talking about the problem of diversity of thinking styles and detecting previously hidden motives of the collective unconscious. Similarly, K. Jung, the researcher, believes that life without collective myths is difficult to tolerate. The wide spread of rational thinking does not lead automatically to completeness penetration of knowledge to the wide layers of society, and is not accompanied by such a change in the social position of interested in it layers, which would lead to customize forms of life and thinking. Scientist actually tells us about the varying degrees of awareness of social actors. If the "merchant, entrepreneur, intellectual ... occupies a position that requires rational decisions in the affairs of everyday life", it "does not apply to ... the peasants or the lower layer ... employees - "white collars", their position does not require any demonstration of initiative or ... foresight. Their behavior to a certain extent is governed by myths, traditions and belief in their leader "[7, 48].

Thus, the myth may largely affect many areas of civilized society life. A number of representations, attitudes, stereotypes of everyday consciousness including mythological ones may unconsciously be projected even on scientific knowledge. Wundt, analyzing the mechanism of occurrence of legends and historical sciences, notes that there is a natural characteristic of the naive outlook tendency to attribute personality as a creator of all valuable, significant inventions. He sees this feature in primitive myth, created the image of the "savior of mankind ", which brought the fire, invented the weapons and tools, has introduced a religious ceremony, the cult. In more recent times the place of these mythical heroes takes chosen nation or culture [8, 73].

Such an unconscious mechanism according to V. Wundt, can be projected on a scientific approach to the theoretical models. Thus, the biblical tale of the creation of our world and the early history of mankind from the cradle of culture in India, Egypt and Babylon, wittingly or unwittingly affect the performances of modern science. Tendency to consider such a cradle of culture as starting point of any religion, art and science scientist believes that "unconscious returns to the circle of biblical ideas about the origin..." [9, 74]. In this case, at the level of unawareness of theoretical consciousness is partial. Leading talk about projections of the unconscious in myths, it should be emphasized that there is no absolute consciousness and absolute unawareness at all levels of human activity.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the study of myths involves a dialectical approach. Creating a scientific picture of this complex phenomenon is only possible if it is considered as dialectical contradiction and unity of its different sides, properties, varieties of functions. In this respect, it is necessary to explicate the myth in planes of problems concerning: 1) the reflective features of the myth in the context of conscious and unconscious; 2) the specifics of its genesis and functions applicable to a particular historical situation; 3) Distribution of mythological consciousness on all spheres of public life.

References:

1. Jacobi , I. Psychological teaching K.G. Jung / I. Jacobi / / KG Jung . Spirit and life. - M. : Practice , 1996 .

2. Frazer, D.D. The Golden Bough / D.D. Frazer. - M. Politizdat , 1983 .

3. Levi - Strauss, C. Die Sage von Asdival / / Religions - Ethnologie. - Frankfurt a. M., 1964.

4. Guliga, A. Myth and Modernity / A. Guliga / / foreign. lit-er. - 1984. - № 2. - S. 168 - 173.

5. Marx, K. Economic Manuscripts 1857 – 1859 / K. Marx / / K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch. - 2nd ed. - T. 46. - Part 1.

6. Anchel, E. Myths shocked consciousness / E. Anchel. - M. Politizdat, 1979.

7. Mannheim, K. Control of the collective unconscious as a problem of our time / K. Mannheim / / Religion and Society. In 2 parts - Part 2. - Moscow: Nauka, 1994.

8. Wundt, V. Psychology, Problems of People/ V. Wundt . - St. Petersburg. : Piter, 2001.

9. The same. P. 74.