Myth as a manifestation of the functional asymmetry of the human

Stavitskiy Andrey Vladimirovich ORCID: 0000-0002-9670-1105 PhD in Philosophy Docent, the department of History of International Relations, Sevastopol Branch of M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University 299001, Russia, Respublika Krym avtonomnaya oblast', g. Sevastopol', ul. Geroev Sevastopolya, 7 stavis@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

One of the most promising topics in the light of the development of non-classical mythology is the problem of the functioning of myth in the socio-cultural space in the context of brain, mental, cultural, scientific, mythological and semiotic asymmetry [See: 8]. Similarly, myth and science are built in combinations: mind and soul, mind and psyche, rational and mythical thinking, left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere thinking, where they compete, but do not exclude each other, often mutually combining on the principles of mutual complementarity ^[12]. The purpose of the study is to consider the functioning of the myth in the context of the functional asymmetry of the human, which manifests itself both in human physiology and in the existence of cultures working on the principle of mutual complementarity ^[14]. The object of this study is the functional asymmetry of the human declared by M. S. Kagan. The subject is myth as a universal culture and myth-making as a property and function of consciousness.           

"One of the greatest discoveries of science of the twentieth century – the functional asymmetry of the human – allows us to raise the study of myth to a new level" ^[3], M. S. Kagan believed, not without reason. And this means that the development of human intelligence has reached a level where it becomes clear that in order to understand the world in its entirety and integrity, reason sometimes has to call on the irrational to help, and science has to rely on mythology containing the experience of centuries. However, unfortunately, there have been no noticeable successes in this direction so far. However, the very correlation of the functional asymmetry of the human brain with the functional asymmetry of both culture and thinking allows us to understand and accept the myth as an important and inevitable element of both culture and human consciousness, without the activation of which the rationality opposing it within the whole will not function productively ^[9].      

In this regard, it should be noted that it seems premature to assume that the structure of mythological consciousness has already been revealed. But the emphasis on the functional asymmetry of human consciousness, made in the course of research, allows us to better understand the role and place of myth in the functioning of culture and consciousness. In this regard, M. S. Kagan identifies four main factors in accordance with the "asymmetry of human interaction": "the ratio of rational and figurative-emotional in mythological consciousness; the artistic and figurative structure of myth and its inadequate awareness in antiquity; isomorphism of mythological consciousness in its phylogenetic and ontogenetic forms; the regularity of the spontaneous revival of mythologism in the mass consciousness of people of the twentieth century and its purposeful use by ideologists" ^[3].

Paying tribute to the problems correctly posed and formulated within the framework of culturology, it seems necessary to correct it in relation to myth and myth-making, focusing on the first problem and formulating it as the ratio of rational and mythological (figurative-emotional) in consciousness within the framework of the functional asymmetry of the human, which was written by F. Schelling ^[15]. What does it give and what does it change? Then all other problems will inevitably be actualized within the framework of the first, obeying it or removing the rest through it. As a result, the proposed problems will not "run away", reducing the study of myth to the analysis of infinite particulars, and will gain a cumulative effect when the problems of evolution and transformation of the "structure of myth", "isomorphism of mythological consciousness" and "spontaneous revival of mythologism in mass consciousness" will not only be perceived as components of one common problem, but also they will sound different.

So, in particular, what most scientists perceive as a "spontaneous revival of mythologism in the mass consciousness" will be perceived somewhat differently in this key, since there is no "spontaneous revival of mythologism", but there is a gradual realization by science that the myth has not disappeared, has not been eradicated and has not even been overcome at the expense of the sung but it turned out to be a myth of the triumph of rationality, and it has always existed and will exist, because due to the "asymmetry of the human" it is not only irremediable from consciousness, but also necessary for its normal functioning ^[13].

Moreover, let's make a reservation, the consciousness of any, and not just mass, as M. S. Kagan assured. It's just that the measure and ratio of the rational and mythological in each individual's mind will be different. In other words, it is not the myth that returns, much less is reborn, but we come to it. And the references to "mass consciousness" in this case are the result of a shamefaced understanding that it was not possible to cope with the myth, since it will always find shelter in the mass consciousness. In fact, there is an elementary inability and unwillingness to recognize that the mythological is inherent in any consciousness and cannot be removed from it ^[4]. We can only fence ourselves off from it with a "screen" of rationality, which in fact will serve our personal myth about the victory of our mind over the myth in one particular consciousness. Thus, our own rationality will help us to maintain the mythical illusion that we, thanks to our knowledge and thinking, have defeated the myth in ourselves. However, perhaps it will be so. But on one condition: if we manage to "kill" in ourselves not only all feelings and taste sensations, but also the very ability to think artistically perceived and symbolically saturated images. If we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to think associatively and close ourselves within the framework of formal logical thinking, which is equivalent to the fact that we will be unable to perceive the world as vividly and richly as possible in its metaphorical paradoxicity, depriving ourselves of the luxury of being full-fledged people. So, this will be the price that a person who is "liberated" from the myth will pay.  But will he remain human at the same time? Very doubtful.

In the light of what has been said, it should be noted that the problem of cultural asymmetry, partly expressed in the confrontation between mythology and science, to some extent resembles the asymmetry of the human brain [See: 2; 10], which makes the "confrontation" life-giving – fueling and transforming itself – ensuring the internal dialogicity of culture as a whole. The "split brain" syndrome, caused by a violation of the connection between the two cerebral hemispheres, in humans manifests itself in a violation of sensory, speech, motor and constructive-spatial functions. But with regard to the splitting of culture, the situation does not look so tragic, because, despite the predominantly one-sided connection, myth manages to provide science with everything necessary for its functioning, including images, ideas and hypotheses, which in this case depends on it, despite the negative attitude towards it.     

Considering the bipolarity of human intellectual activity allows us to understand a lot about the functioning of myth in society and its relationship with science. Thus, discrete-linear and homeomorphic-continuum principles in the organization of human intellectual activity form oppositional pairs associated with left-hemisphere and right-hemisphere principles of individual thinking. In this regard, Yu. M. Lotman proposed a number of similar pairs: child consciousness – adult consciousness, mythological consciousness – historical consciousness, iconic thinking – verbal thinking, action – narration, poetry – prose ^{[7, p. 572]}. And we can add to them the opposition "science is a myth".

The bipolar organization of the brain, thinking, culture builds on the opposition of two main elements such a system of interaction, which forms the basis of the mechanism of development of the object as a whole, making it self-sufficient and viable. Without such bipolarity, this structure will be deprived of internal dynamics and will lose the ability to reproduce and transform itself. In this regard, it is not surprising that the analysis of the interaction of myth and science within the body of culture clearly shows that "the absolute victory of any of these poles is theoretically impossible, but practically fatal" ^{[7, p. 17]}, since it follows from the nature of the culture created by man, the sociopsychological nature and structure of society and social relations, from the essence of the process of accumulation and processing of information, information interaction as such. Moreover, in this case we are talking not just about connections, but about a complex system of dependencies, without which none of these elements can function normally ^[12].

O. Balla makes an interesting observation about the interaction of science and myth in one of his works: "The centuries-old, persistent struggle of Reason with myth was not in vain. If the myth, dying in some of its forms, was constantly revived in others, it means that the point here is not at all in the forms, but in something deeper – and irremediable. For example, in the generative principle of every culture. European culture, like perhaps no other, has revealed this foundation in itself – precisely by the fact that throughout its history it has been fundamentally, consistently repelled from it, finding and creating itself in this repulsion" ^{[1, p. 93]}.  From her conclusions it follows not only that myth is in principle ineradicable, but also a more important, deep phenomenon that reveals the role and place of myth in the overall process of cultural development, in which the rejection of myth by science during their active interaction is one of the conditions for building a constructive dialogue with it for the purpose of further development of science, and culture in general. Rejecting the myth, science starts from it. Pushing off, overcomes. Overcoming, it becomes different. And since the overcoming of the myth takes place not only outside of science, but also in science itself, science thereby preserves the state of self-development without which it cannot exist ^[12].

Thus, the bipolar structure of culture is the source of its viability, where bipolarity acts as a minimal and in principle self-sufficient structure of the organization of the intellectual life of man and humanity at any of their levels. The active interaction of its main "poles" throughout human history has been marked by the periodic dominance of one of them. But this dominance did not lead to the disappearance of another "pole", only revealing its development possibilities due to the transition to more complex and secondary forms of relations and clearly showing the impossibility of turning the dominant "pole" from the dominant into the only one ^[11]. So, in particular, the researcher of mythopoetics D. P. Kozolupenko is sure that "the change of the dominant type of worldview is inevitably accompanied by a change in the type of management and the type of dominant social forms and relationships, and vice versa" ^[5], which seems to imply that a person changes the types of worldview according to the types of management. It should be noted that such a position, built on the principles of determinism, is quite typical of positivism, assuming a fundamental difference between the views of the inhabitants of the village and cities or the bourgeois and the Roman aristocrat. At the same time, it cannot be said that it is not justified. But it is also equally important to understand that the type of human perception of the world has its limits, and they are associated with the psychophysiological features of the functioning of the brain. And this means that no matter how the types of management a person changes, his left and right hemispheres will function in accordance with physiology, where the left hemisphere will be responsible for abstract-logical thinking, and the right hemisphere for figurative-symbolic. The left hemisphere will control speech, and the right hemisphere will stimulate intuition. And what kind of cardinal change of types of world perception is possible here with any variant of changing types of management? After all, the left hemisphere will not fully take over the functions of the right and vice versa. In addition, if we take into account that the asymmetry of the functioning of the brain ensures the harmonious inclusion of those functions that are currently most in demand, it is a great naivety to assume that with a change in the type of management a person will think exclusively logically or only figuratively.                    

It would be interesting to see a culture where the "non-mythological type of worldview" really dominates in all respects. And it is even more interesting to consider how this society, ideal from the point of view of rationality, engages in myth–making in all spheres of its existence: from history and the identity of the nation based on the cult of its values to education and upbringing of children. It follows from this that the mass impersonal creativity of the people-poet never ceases, manifesting itself in a variety of forms on any issues and occasions: from the attitude to power to dandruff on the head. Its result is cast in catch phrases, anecdotes, slogans, poetic lines, caustic and funny metaphors. In other words, whatever significant happens in society, it will be reflected in its representations. Moreover, it is reflected not in an analytical form, but in a figurative-symbolic one. The form of thinking that forms the basis of any mythology, wherever it functions. 

Unfortunately, in science there is still a position of rejection of the myth by science, which is a form of its active misunderstanding. At the same time, scientists often reproach that the myth is closed, hermetic, impenetrable. And this is partly true. But only regarding the ability of science to accept and understand it. In this sense, the myth is always open to new development, comprehension and interpretation. It is open to those who are able to accept it psychologically and understand it intellectually. For them, the myth appears simultaneously as said, done and revealed, in which the event is perceived as co-existence, perceived by the observer through co-participation. And it was consonant with the Eleusinian mysteries, where a person had to go through, feel and experience three stages of cognition: "said", "done" and "revealed", which at the final stage assumed that, having experienced deep purification (catharsis), he receives that personally experienced experience, without which he will not be able to live meaningfully. Perhaps that is why the myth is consonant and correlated with the metaphor of the human soul, which, as it develops and self-knowledge, must experience a personal catharsis.

On the other hand, how can a myth be "grasped in concepts" and be precise and consistent with it, if it is presented as a living, functioning continuum uncertainty? What if the laws of traditional logic reflecting the ontology of being in its definiteness do not affect the myth, since human development of the world is not reduced to its rational-conceptual variety and cannot exhaust the semantic diversity of being by any rationality? In relation to the myth of the laws of logic , A. F. Losev wrote: "If dialectics really is not formal logic, then it must be outside the laws of identity and contradiction, i.e. it must be the logic of contradiction. It must be a system of naturally and necessarily deducible antinomies ... and synthetic conjugations of all antinomic constructions of meaning" ^{[6, p. 33]}. But is even dialectical logic capable of solving the problem of myth cognition without semantic losses? Suggesting "conducting a special philosophical and psychological study of the specifics of children's worldview in connection with the dominance of the mythopoetic type of worldview in it and the problem of changing it to an analytical dominant at school age, as well as issues of coordination with the worldview of an adult" ^[5], in which mythological ideas simply have to be completely supplanted by analytical thinking, D. P. Kozolupenko, in fact, it only confirms the paradigm that still prevails in science, according to which the myth must know its place. The place that science and public opinion have given him. And this means: let children and partly teenagers get carried away with it, but not adults, especially pundits. Only how much does this installation correspond to reality? Perhaps no more than a successful "study" conducted in the era of the so–called "developed socialism" on increasing the consciousness of the workers of the irrigation systems of the Crimea or modern "scientific" developments "proving" that the policy of European integration is not only a prerequisite for the prosperity of Ukraine, but also the main factor of its national security.

 It is clear that in both cases, the study is tailored to the ready answer. It is clear that this not only does not correspond to scientific principles, but in turn raises the question of the need for "conducting a special philosophical and psychological study" studying the approaches and motivations of those scientists who, under the guise of science, allow themselves such methodological and ethical violations. However, we will not insist on this, but with regard to the myth, we emphasize once again that such attempts to link the degree of the mythical in people's consciousness and perception with their age and level of education, and with regard to national cultures, with their degree and quality of development, are extremely controversial. After all, an adult who renounced the illusions of childhood and youth did not really live solely by reason, but simply changed some myths to others. Consequently, at this stage of his development, he is able to renounce the old "illusions", because he has new ones. And since the old no longer has power over him, he can afford to treat it as "childish myths".

As for the idea of a consistent and regular change of forms of thinking in a person as he grows up, let us clarify that, regardless of mind, age and education, a person in principle does not give up those forms of thinking that are inherent in his life. And he cannot refuse, even if he has convinced himself of this, just as he cannot order the left or right hemisphere of his brain not to interfere with his thinking. But, depending on his emotional state, he will not hesitate to resort to them, using all his intellectual potential, thinking either analytically, then figuratively-symbolically, depending on which option is more suitable for this situation. Moreover, he will not even be aware of this. Perhaps this particular way of thinking is the reason why adults, if their restraining social attitudes are temporarily removed, so easily "fall into childhood", committing such acts that under other circumstances they would never have committed. Actually, it is this problem, usually hidden, but sometimes violently making itself felt, that is being studied by such an extremely popular science as mass psychology.    

No wonder M. S. Kagan wrote: "The specific structure in which the ... emotional-intellectual, cognitive-evaluative transformation of reality takes place is an artistic image" ^[3]. But what is an artistic image, if not a concrete embodiment of a certain mythology? In any case, the myth, as in the figurative and symbolic form reflected by the consciousness of reality, which non-classical mythology insists on, all these qualities of the artistic image listed above by M. S. Kagan correspond to the fullest possible form, allowing emotions to be combined with reason, and cognition with transformation. This is how the dialectical unity of science and myth manifests itself within the framework of culture, creating conditions for its maximum self-realization. 

Thus, it can be argued that the key approaches of non-classical mythology, proceeding from the fact that myth is a cultural universal responsible for the field of value meanings, allow us to consider myth as a manifestation of the functional asymmetry of the human, and myth-making as an extremely important aspect and condition for the productive work of culture and consciousness, where science and myth coexist in the common space of culture according to the principle of mutual complementarity, complementing and enriching each other.