The Sacred as a necessary condition of a symbol in the context of A. F. Losev's dialectical and henological approach

Smirnov Maxim Yurievich PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences and Humanities; Omsk State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation 644099, Russia, Omsk region, Omsk, Nekrasova str., 5 A, room 509 smirnov.m@list.ru Other publications by this author

Fedorov Sergei Vladimirovich PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor; Department of Philosophy, History, Economic Theory and Law; Omsk State Agrarian University named after P. A. Stolypin 644008, Russia, Omsk region, Omsk, Sibakovskaya str., 4, room 235 jettull@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The relevance of the topic. Problem statement

The purpose of our research is to consider the sacred as a necessary condition of the symbol. To reveal the role of the sacred in the symbol, we use the dialectical-genological approach of A. F. Loseva. In our opinion, unlike meanings and any other cultural phenomena, the sacred is an obligatory component of the symbol. The subject of our research, therefore, is the sacred and its role in symbol formation. The relevance of this research is determined by the growing crisis phenomena in the development of modern humanity. Since the Modern era, one can observe the process of desymbolization and demythologization of Western culture, associated with the loss of the sacred sphere in human life. This process is caused by the growth of nihilistic tendencies around the world, in which a person is seen as a completely rational being who always follows "calculating" reasoning, his benefits and technological progress. This trend is also closely related to the development of the capitalist economy. From that time on, everything irrational in man begins to be associated with a purely animal nature and must be clarified and eliminated. The result of this process may be the loss of a person's human essence, which, in our opinion, is associated with the sphere of the sovereign (i.e., sacred), and the transformation of a person into an animal or robot.

Science, which arose at this time, begins not only to rationally cognize a person, but also to impose on him the results of his own knowledge, marginalizing religion, mythology, i.e. any unscientific worldview, thereby driving a person into the Procrustean bed of positive knowledge. All this leads to the fact that in the modern world we see an increase in trends towards a fundamental change in the very nature of man, turning him into a cyborg and an appendage of computer technology. The manifestation of these trends is the widespread use of operations for the arbitrary transformation of people's physical bodies, the destruction and transformation of all traditional social institutions (religion, family, traditional values), the development of communications and mass communication, leading to increased control over humans, the implantation of various devices into the human body that can affect, among other things, the work of his consciousness.. All these changes are rationalized. People are encouraged to keep pace with progress, breaking all established traditional institutions and institutions.

This trend in the development of mankind has been noted in the works of many researchers. Thus, K. Marx notes in the Manifesto of the Communist Party that "the bourgeoisie has stripped all kinds of activities of their sacred halo," and "everything sacred is being desecrated, and people finally come to the need to look with sober eyes at their living situation and their mutual relations" ^{[1, 144-145]}. "The world is disenchanted," writes M. Weber, describing the consequences of the development of the capitalist economy ^{[2, 714]}. The development of capitalism based on rational labor and accumulation, which seeks to minimize all irrational spending, leads to the gradual loss of the sacred sphere in the life of human society and the transformation of man into a thing, according to J. Bataille ^[3]. "The goal was the inglorious prosperity of the cause, the benefit became the basis of moral values. The factory became the measure of man; he took the place of everything else, recognizing everything else as vanity. He was not a Behemoth at all, there was nothing sacred or monstrous about him; from the very beginning he represented a reasonable reality that could be reduced to accounting accounts and developed in accordance with general laws, along a path that leads from a person's available powers to the needs that he needs to satisfy," he wrote ^{[3, 257]}.

Are there limits to such changes, the passage of which can lead to the disappearance of the human in a person, turning him into a "zombie" or a "robot"? In the modern world, any sacred and sovereign areas that set this framework are gradually disappearing. Everything is subject to doubt, scientific study, discussion and change. Everything should be monitored, transparent, formalized, and controlled. All these measures, of course, are rationally justified (first of all, by security). Everything unpredictable, dangerous, and untraceable must be eliminated. The apocalyptic utopias of J. P. Morgan's society of the future no longer seem fantastic. Orwell, E. Zamyatin or V. Pelevin. The development of artificial intelligence and the subordination of all spheres of human life to it means the complete dominance of rationalism in the future world.

However, does rationalism express the whole essence of man? Already A. Schopenhauer in his famous work showed that the essence of man is manifested precisely in the ability to violate the law of sufficient reason, i.e. to be free from any kind of logic. This was pointed out by his followers, representatives of the philosophy of life, as well as existentialists, who discovered the human essence precisely in freedom. As the hero of F. M. Dostoevsky said in the story "Notes from Underground", "Should the Light fall through, or should I not drink tea? I'll say that the light will fail, but that I always drink tea." Despite this, the development of capitalist production and positivist science in the modern world is gradually depriving man of any freedom, turning him into an appendage of the machine and the market, into an entirely pragmatic and rational being. This is largely due to the language and scientific paradigms that science and education have been actively using since the Modern era. These paradigms are, first of all, rational, they are aimed at eliminating any vagueness and mystery, i.e. everything sacred from people's lives. At the same time, as we know, people's lives at all times assumed the existence of the sacred sphere, i.e. the realm of mystery. For example, sexual relations, as well as death, have always been a sphere dominated by mystery and mysticism. In modern Western schools, for example, we often encounter an unabashed rational and cynical study of these relationships, destroying their intimacy and intimacy.

Such rationalization of a person certainly deprives him of freedom and sovereignty. Logic assumes that there is nothing that cannot relate to something else. Therefore, everything is compared with everything, every sphere of human life is defined in comparison with other spheres, which means that there is no sphere with sovereignty. On the other hand, by rejecting logic and becoming absolutely free, a person becomes completely incapable of communication and conscious activity. This kind of extreme also deprives a person of many abilities and opportunities. Thus, man is both a free and a limited being, both rational and irrational. Evasion in one direction or the other deprives a person of his human essence.

The sacred and profane in archaic culture and human life

What is sacred, and what place does it occupy in human life? The theme of the sacred has been thoroughly explored in the works of E. Durkheim, M. Moss, J. Fraser, R. Cayua, J. Bataille, M. Eliade, R. Otto. These researchers noted that one of the key features of all religions and people of traditional culture in general is the division of the world into profane and sacred spheres. At the same time, the sacred sphere can be thought of "separately from the figure of any personal deity, not as a result of divine emanation, but as a product of people's cultural activities" ^{[4, 14]}. Thus, according to J. Bataille, the profane sphere is primarily characterized by work, which forms a stable, fragmented and discrete world of things, the definiteness of forms and language, i.e. the space of meanings. In the profane sphere, nothing is sovereign, nothing exists for its own sake, but always for the sake of something else ^{[5, 24-42]}. The sacred sphere is an extra-semantic sphere. It is an undifferentiated continuous non-stop stream, reminiscent of A. Bergson's duration. Animal existence expresses this sphere as much as possible. After all, an animal, according to Bataille, does not isolate or oppose itself or anything else to nature, but "remains in its environment like a stream of water in the water element" ^{[5, 16]}. Bataille calls transgression by stopping this uncontrollable unconscious flow that forms culture, and then overcoming the prohibition, leading to an increase in this flow ^[6]. It is transgression, according to Bataille, that forms the sacred in culture and people's lives. At the same time, the sacred is characterized in the works of Bataille and many other authors as ineffable, continuous, ambivalent. In general, it appears as energy ^{[4, 397-414]}.

By carrying out an activity, a person loses sovereignty, since each moment of activity exists not for its own sake, but for the sake of an upcoming goal, which in turn exists for another purpose. All actions and things in an activity must have a stable meaning, relate to each other and to the purpose of the activity. In this case, activity appears as a machine, of which a person becomes a cog. In this regard, entering the sacred presupposes withdrawal from activity, loss of goals and relative meanings. Therefore, such an exit implies the destruction of the activity, the waste of all that has been accumulated in it. Such an exit in archaic cultures occurred at the time of the holidays, when everything that was created in the activity was eaten and drunk. Moreover, manufactured items and tools were broken. This symbolized entering the space of freedom (sovereignty) ^{[5, 43]}.

Such freedom presupposes the destruction of the power of space and time over a person, overcoming the division into subject and object, individual and collective. A. Schopenhauer called this kind of state will in itself, and J. Bataille called rage. This kind of exit in traditional cultures is often associated with the tradition of exchanging gifts (for example, potlatch), marriage, New Year celebrations, ritual games, and sacrifices. Things, people, and places associated with such an outlet could carry the energy of the sacred and were therefore excluded from the profane production process.

The full-fledged implementation of an activity presupposes the subjectivity of a person in relation to it, i.e. it is not the person who should depend on the activity, but the activity that should depend on him. A person should be able to stop activities at any time, set new goals, and start a new activity. Therefore, he needs a sphere of freedom in which he can be reborn as a subject of a new activity. This sphere of freedom forms the essence of man. The sacred in people's lives appears as a sphere of freedom that cannot be fully expressed on a semantic level, but always has an inexpressible hidden side.

According to the researchers, in the consciousness of an archaic person, the sacred sphere reproduces the state preceding the creation of our world (the so-called "Golden Age"). R. Kayua writes about this as follows: "In various parts of the primitive age is described with extraordinary unanimity. It is an ideal place of transformations and miracles. Nothing has stabilized yet, no rules have been issued, no forms have been fixed. What has since become impossible was feasible then. Things moved by themselves, boats flew through the air, people turned into animals and vice versa. Instead of aging and dying, they just changed their skin. The universe was plastic, fluid, and inexhaustible" ^{[7, 224]}.

In our opinion, the sacred in archaic culture is the experience of the limit, in which the semantic and non-semantic sides of all things and the world as a whole merge. It is the presence of the sacred (i.e., a mystery that is completely ineffable in the sphere of meaning) that makes a particular thing a symbol. Such sacredness is formed by the entire system of practices of archaic culture, which includes, for example, sacrifices, taboos, initiation, archaic marriage and kinship system, potlatch, archaic celebration, etc. (See the works of M. Moss, R. Kayua, J. Bataille). Once in the space of such practice, any thing reveals its hidden sacred side, which complements and makes its open, semantic, and communicable part as clear as possible. The loss of the sacred leads to the desymbolization of the world and things, the transformation of man into a lifeless schematic robot, to a simplified view of the world. The loss of the sacred means the loss of a symbol, and hence of human existence.

Thus, the sacred may or may not be present in a person's life and consciousness. Human consciousness functions through various signs (primarily language), so the question of the relationship between language and the sacred becomes an important question. Is language capable of expressing the sacred, or is the sacred inaccessible to language? From our point of view, the expression of the sacred in signs turns signs into symbols. The symbol combines the supersensory (actually sacred) with a semantic one. In the event that a sign loses its sacred dimension, it turns from a symbol into an ordinary sign.

The sacred as the basis of the symbolic

In this regard, P. Riker's work "Manifestation and Proclamation" is of interest, in which he identifies two trends in human interaction with the sacred, observed in the last three millennia ^[8]. According to P. Riker, the sacred is revealed, first of all, in manifestation, when the sacred appears to a person in the events and objects surrounding him. Such a phenomenon is a visual fascinating experience of the irrational, "which is not reduced to the categories of logos, proclamation, its transmission and interpretation." "The numinous principle is basically not a language," he writes, "and perhaps it will never become one ^{[8, 179]}. We cannot define the sacred, but we can describe the experience of its manifestation. P. Riker calls all that is sacred in hierophany. Since the manifestations of the sacred have a form, structure, and expression, its phenomenology is possible. Another trend in relations with the sacred is proclamation, i.e. communication about the sacred through texts. Here we are dealing with the constant interpretation of texts in culture, i.e. with hermeneutics. It is the second trend, according to P. Riker, that detaches people's consciousness and lives from the sacred and forms the phenomenon of nihilism. At the same time, symbolism tries to bridge this gap between language and the sacred. "Symbols come into language only to the extent that the elements of the world themselves become transparent, that is, permeable to the transcendent. This "connectedness" of symbolism, its accompanying character, makes up the difference between a symbol and a metaphor. Metaphor is a pure product of speech, while symbolism is associated with the structure of the cosmos" ^{[8, 183]}.

Thus, in the history of human thought we see a struggle between two traditions. One tradition detaches the sign from the sacred, considers it only as a pure meaning that can be easily transmitted to other people and even divorced from reality. The sign is a tool for transmitting information that can be improved for the sake of greater transparency and manageability in life. The sign can be interpreted in different ways. Another tradition considers the signs of language in connection with the completely indescribable sacred content. In this case, the sign does not just transmit information, but also connects a person with a completely ineffable sacred on a semantic level. Therefore, no interpretation can fully exhaust the content of such a sign. This sign is therefore considered a symbol.

Such a consideration of signs as symbols in the history of philosophical thought is found, first of all, in the works of the pre-Socratics, who "highlight the mysterious meaning of the symbol (Pythagoreans), its generalization, given in a collapsed form when designating an object (Democritus), understanding it as a kind of indivisible unity (Empedocles)" ^{[9, 335]}. Plato outlines the contours of the theory of the symbol as an expression of essence, namely, the symbol as a manifestation of a deeper level of reality, the cognition of which requires special efforts, seems to be a movement towards the transcendent. In this understanding, the symbol cannot be reduced to an ordinary sign, it connects qualitatively different levels of reality ^{[10, 198]}. And since these levels cannot be fully reproduced in each other, the symbol carries with it something inexhaustible, inexpressible, mysterious. Following C. Todorov, we will call this property of the symbol "non-transitivity" ^{[11, 205]}.

Empedocles and Plato's understanding of the symbol was shaped and justified by the Neoplatonists. For Neoplatonists, thinking symbolically means moving from a phenomenon to a transcendent essence. Therefore, the symbol is infinite and profoundly inexpressible, it is characterized by inexhaustibility. Plotinus systematically uses symbolic interpretation of myths in his philosophical constructions. Putting forward the doctrine of Unity, Mind and Soul, he refers to the myths of Uranus, Kronos and Zeus. He calls the Universal Soul Aphrodite (V. 8, 13). This understanding cannot be reduced to an allegorical one, since Plotinus reveals many layers of meaning in the myths cited, inexhaustible symbolism. Porfiry already systematically uses the term "symbol" itself, for example, in his work "On the Cave of the Nymphs". He distinguishes between historical description of facts, arbitrary fiction and symbolic presentation. The symbol expresses ancient wisdom, hidden meaning, and secret essence. Studying the Pythagorean symbolism of numbers, Iamblichus distinguishes between mathematical and symbolic paths of cognition. Ineffable symbols come from the gods ^{[9, 348]}.

Olympiodorus writes that the symbol expresses the essence not directly, but in a mysterious way, by some riddles. A symbol cannot be reduced to a sign, as it expresses something internal, essential, and sacred. For example, "Olympiodorus notes that a true philosopher, making cleansing sacrifices, should perform them, not perceiving only the shell of the sacrament, but experiencing it as a symbol" ^{[9, 349]}. In general, the Neoplatonic doctrine of the symbol can be summarized by the conclusion that the symbol is an expression of the sacred super–being and super-intelligent One, that is, a qualitatively different level of reality.

In the Middle Ages, the Neoplatonic understanding of the symbol was developed by the Areopagites, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory Palamas. In the Western Church, a similar understanding was developed by John Scotus Eriugena and John Duns Scotus.

Romantic symbolism begins with understanding the nature of art. Already K. F. Moritz writes that art carries with it something more than imitation. A symbolic work of art is a complete whole, it is a microcosm expressing the macrocosm ^{[11, 184]}. From this point of view, a symbol, unlike a sign, is not reduced to a utilitarian use. He carries something valuable in himself, he has a purpose in himself, he is a being for himself. A symbol is non-transitive because it expresses something that cannot be expressed in any other way. A work of art cannot be fully translated into the language of scientific concepts. The romantic V.G. Wackenroder compares art with religion. The symbolism of these spheres allows a person to interact with the inexpressible, invisible, and continuous ^{[11, 225]}. Ts. Todorov summarizes romantic ideas about the symbol, highlighting five key ideas: the non-transitivity of the symbol, synthetism, its internal coherence (for example, the interpenetration of parts and the whole), the expression of the "ineffable" in the symbol, and processuality ^{[11, 255]}.

F. Schelling, following the Neoplatonists, understands the symbol as an expression of the transcendent One, namely, "the image of the absolute with the absolute indistinguishability of the common and the special in the special" ^{[12, 106]}. If the special had dominated, it would have been an allegory. If the general prevailed, the result would be a scheme. A symbol is a harmonious interpenetration of the common and the special. Their unity is given in the symbol as a concrete living organism, not a mechanism. That is, as the interpenetration of parts and the whole, the presence of the whole in each part. The organic symbol is an expression of the transcendent One. From this point of view, the whole world is a hierarchy of symbols-organisms. According to Schelling, it is symbols that are able to express the "true primordial forms", therefore, he puts knowledge through art above scientific knowledge.

Russian religious philosophy develops many of the provisions of the symbolism of Schelling and the Neoplatonists. V. Solovyov focuses on integral knowledge, in which "abstract principles" are overcome. He writes about the "mystical" knowledge of the One, which underlies any other knowledge. Everything is a symbol of the all-one being. These ideas are developed by S. Frank, S. Bulgakov, V. Ern, A. Losev. According to P. Florensky, the specificity of the symbol is the presence of the energies of some other reality in it, therefore the symbol is "a being that is greater than itself" ^{[13, 257]}. It is the immanent, in which the energies of the transcendent are present. In this regard, the symbol is not invented by man, but is revealed to him in a spiritual experience. The symbol is an organic whole, and at the same time it is twofold, antinomic. He carries within himself another world, which cannot be translated into the language of the immanent world.

Aristotle is the founder of the tradition of understanding a symbol only as a sign. In his case, the symbol is a sign indicating a phenomenon, a sign of another kind or another language. The level of reality can be the same. The nature of the symbol, according to Aristotle, is conventional. The meaning of the symbol is completely exhaustive, transitive. According to Ts. Todorov, Aristotle distinguished between "symbols" and "signs". Symbols include both conventional names and natural signs ^{[11, 5]}. That is, signs are a special case of symbols, namely natural, natural symbols. However, we will ignore this distinction, since both the "symbols" and "signs" of Aristotle connect phenomena of the same level of reality, they are transitive.

This tradition prevailed in Modern times and in the age of Enlightenment. The cult of reason, the belief in progress and in the power of science and technology, the mechanistic picture of the world – the whole complex of these views, as a rule, did not presuppose the existence of different levels of being and symbolic communication between them. The non-transitivity of the symbol was not combined with the belief in the omnipotence of reason, which should achieve transparency and openness of all the mysteries of existence and consciousness. I. Kant proceeds from the fact that things-in-themselves are unknowable. Therefore, his symbol cannot combine different levels of being. He explains the expression of the "ineffable" in a symbol and its non–transitivity by the fact that a symbol is an indirect image by analogy, and not a scheme in which the concept is depicted directly. In other words, a symbol is an instrument of "vague" cognition, used because of a lack of means to express concepts. Or it is a tool with which to express an aesthetic idea that is inexpressible in other ways ^{[14, 158]}. G. Hegel, following Kant, sees in the symbol a primitive form of expression of the concept, inferior to rational forms of conceptual thinking.

Recently, the tradition of the antisymbolic understanding of the sign has prevailed. In the modern world, they strive to make any sign absolutely conventional, transparent, and transitive. There is a tendency in the culture itself to formalize and digitalize any content. In this regard, words turn only into signs devoid of any sacred content, which leads to people losing the sphere of the sacred as such. This generates relativism and the loss of any stable life coordinates. Another radical trend of modernity is the rejection of any rationality related to language and a complete lapse into the element of the irrational (for example, religious dogmatism and fanaticism). In our opinion, A.F. Losev's dialectical-genological approach makes it possible to solve this problem and integrate the rational (semantic) and irrational (sacred) sides of human life.

Sacred and symbolic in the context of A. F. Losev's dialectical-genological approach

According to A. F. According to Losev, the symbol is the unity of two main planes: semantic and non-semantic. Any thing viewed in this way appears as a symbol. Moreover, it is in this approach that the thing is given as a thing, and not something else. Therefore, we can call such a symbolic view the most realistic and concrete, that is, the most comprehensive approach.

As A. F. quite rightly points out. Losev, in any thing we can identify, first of all, its semantic plan. This semantic plane represents a stable image of a thing. As Losev writes, "the meaning of a thing is ... the thing itself, but only taken in identity with itself" ^{[15, 103]}. Unlike the unstable, indefinite, non-identical non-semantic sphere, which is also present in things, the semantic sphere has stability and self-identity. A person always sees a thing as something stable and predictable, despite constant changes, both in the thing itself and beyond. But in order to be identical to itself, a thing must be different from everything else. The dialectic of identity and difference generates a multiplicity of features of a thing and its structure. We always see the stable structure of a thing, its shape, but it must be remembered that the thing itself is not its shape and structure. This is only the semantic plane of a thing, which can be considered outside of the thing itself as such ^{[16, 115-116]}.

According to Losev, any meaning is based on the unity of identity and difference. "The meaning of a thing," he writes, "is that by which it differs from everything else and by which it identifies with itself, i.e. identifies with itself all those moments that are marked in it as distinguishing it from everything else. The meaning of a thing is born at the very moment when the categories of identity and difference become applicable to it" ^{[17, 488]}. In this regard, Losev defines meaning as "self-identical difference, or self-distinguishing identity" ^{[17, 506]}. The world appears to us, first of all, in a semantic way, i.e. we see it as outlined by boundaries, defined and regular. People communicate through meanings. The semantic sphere is the sphere of the transitive (in Todorov's terminology). The symbol has a plan that can be passed on, communicated to others. However, this is only one of the plans of any thing and the world as a whole.

Things and the world as a whole are not limited to the semantic sphere only. In any case, the fate of every thing cannot be fully deduced rationally and predicted. The fate of any thing, like itself, is determined by a multitude of coincidences. The meaning of a thing cannot be broken or destroyed, but all this can be done with a specific thing. After destroying a thing, we can keep its image and meaning in our minds. This means that, in addition to the semantic sphere, a thing is also determined by the sphere of non-semantic (material), which is uncommunicable, non-transitive. The thing represents the unity of these two spheres. Taken by itself, the supersensory unity of any thing, Losev calls "the most important thing." This teaching of Losev is a development of Neoplatonic "genology" (the doctrine of the One) ^[18].

So, what is the thing itself, the "very thing"? First of all, Losev notes, a thing cannot be reduced to the totality of its features and even to its structurality. The attributes of a thing (as well as the structure of a thing) are not the thing itself. This means that a thing as a thing itself cannot be defined by its signs ^{[17, 313]}. The signs of a thing are the reality of a thing in its otherness ^{[17, 309]}. Even a sign of existence does not define a thing as itself ^{[17, 321]}. He is only a manifestation of a thing outside of itself. Every thing is the unity of all its signs, i.e. at some point all the signs of a thing are completely identified with each other up to complete indistinguishability (or "non-discrimination", as Losev writes ^{[19, 560]}), otherwise the thing will lose its unity and cease to be a thing. In this regard, any thing is an individuality ^{[17, 322]}. The individuality of a thing precedes its being, since being is inherent not only in this thing, but also in all other things, and therefore does not distinguish it from other things as an individuality. The existence of a thing is something secondary to its unique unity, i.e. to itself ^{[17, 321]}. In this regard, any correlation of a thing with other things and with oneself, the identification of the signs of a thing (i.e., the semantic sphere of a thing) is preceded by the indefinite "very self" of the thing. "Only such a thing, completely devoid of any signs and predicates, is its absolute individuality, its very self" ^{[17, 323]}.

Any thing, like the world as a whole, represents an individuality (itself) that is completely inexpressible in the sphere of meanings (i.e. generalizations). Therefore, things (as well as the world as a whole) include not only semantic, but also non-semantic (empirical, material) plans. Any given thing is only one or another degree of expression of its individuality (i.e., itself) in its otherness. The completeness of the expression of the thing itself forms the level of its symbolism ^{[20, 184]}. The ultimate expression of the self is the symbol in its entirety. "Every symbol of the most," Losev writes, –is an infinitely powerful symbol, or a symbol given as an actual infinity, or a symbol given as the limit of a corresponding infinite series of interpretations" ^{[17, 348]}. Thus, any thing is a symbol if we take it in the fullness of all its semantic and non-semantic manifestations, i.e. in its limit.

Thus, according to Losev, any symbol is a rationally irreducible coincidence of two planes of reality – semantic (definite, discrete, figurative, transitive) and nonsensical (indefinite, continuous, background, non-transitive). Let us recall that the characteristics of the second plan we have named coincide with the characteristics of the sacred one we discussed earlier. "A symbol is where, on the one hand, there are two layers of being that have absolutely nothing in common with each other and are compared purely externally, mechanically, without the slightest internal correlation (such as distinctness and indistinguishability), and on the other, it turns out that these two layers of being are one and the same the layer between them is a complete identity, both substantial and semantic (such as the identity of distinctness and indistinguishability in every living becoming)" ^{[17, 344]}. As Losev writes, "the uncertainty and definiteness of a thing, being completely incommensurable, turn out to be clearly combined in one and the same thing here. This cannot be understood either logically or sensually, but only symbolically" ^{[17, 346]}. "The indistinguishability, the continuity of the self and its distinctness, the clearly delineated individuality are moments that negate each other, incommensurable with each other and juxtaposed in all their mutual impenetrability and randomness, and, on the other hand, their mutual position, penetration and even identity is quite understandable and meaningful. This identification of differences, or the coincidence of opposites, is a symbol" ^{[17, 347]}.

In the approach of A. F. According to Losev, we return to the original meaning of the word "symbol", which denoted the union of two halves of the whole. The unity of semantic and non-semantic spheres in human existence is its main characteristic. This is how human existence differs from the existence of a robot, which is primarily an expression of a semantic sphere, and the existence of an animal, which expresses mainly an extra-semantic sphere. The symbolism of human existence lies precisely in its borderline position between semantic and non-semantic spheres. Human existence is at the limit where the semantic and non-semantic aspects of the world coincide.

This experience of limit and symbolism is most vividly represented in archaic cultures. Losev's dialectical approach to the study of symbol and myth in this regard allows us to better understand the human being of archaic and traditional culture, which is entirely symbolic ^{[21, 96]}. Losev declares that a symbol takes place only when a thing reveals to us not only its structural and rational plan, but also its hidden, completely ineffable and inexhaustible plan, i.e., itself. But this very self of any thing is the sacred that we find in archaic cultures.

How does Losev characterize himself? «1. Everything that exists and does not exist, real and imaginable, possible and impossible, necessary and accidental – in short, everything that exists is absolutely individual. 2. The absolute individuality of a thing, or its very self, excludes any coincidence with anything. 3. The very self, or the absolute individuality of a thing, is absolutely inexpressible. So, either A is absolutely different from any non-A, or there is no A at all" ^{[17, 314]}. "If a given thing really is itself, then it is a kind of absolute individuality that cannot be reduced to anything else... A thing is definable only from itself – that's the postulate of an absolute individual thing. But this means that the thing is not definable in any way. The thing goes into the abyss of its own individuality and escapes from any slightest capture and designation" ^{[17, 322]}. Losev defines the self as an absolutely indistinguishable unity of a thing (i.e., a continuous unity) ^{[17, 326]}. Every moment of time, every thing, despite its changes, is itself, which means "the very thing itself is out-of-time and out-of-space" ^{[17, 329]}. "The absolute indistinguishability of a thing accompanies this thing decisively at every moment of its existence" ^{[17, 342-343]}. "The very self is the most authentic, the most irresistible, the most terrifying and powerful reality that can exist" ^{[17, 333]}.

If we deny the self of a thing, the thing itself breaks up into many signs, which in turn break up into other signs, etc. It means that either we recognize a secret, sacred and completely ineffable side of any thing, or we will not see any thing. So, any thing, according to Losev, is a symbol. If we do not consider a thing as a thing, but only extract from it signs common to other things, then we consider it not symbolically, but abstractly and schematically. Symbolic consideration of a thing suggests that we see an abyss in it, "from which the relentless power of infinitely diverse designs beats and splashes" ^{[17, 355]}. "For many, the starry sky is just a numerical scheme; however, some machines are not always in good working order" ^{[17, 356]}. For others, it is a mystery and a miracle. Thus, for a correct understanding of the world, which is provided only by a symbol, our thought requires the presence of the most sacred in everything. In this regard, the sacred is a necessary condition of the symbol.

Conclusion

Thus, the concept of a symbol helps to reveal the essence of a two-dimensional human existence. On the one hand, a person has the ability to analyze the world, establish cause-and-effect relationships and patterns in it, i.e. to stay in the world of meanings. On the other hand, a person is characterized by an extra-semantic space of irrational freedom and chaos, observed at the time of archaic celebrations and generated by transgression (sacred). In the history of human thought, these two spheres of man often appear as separate, incommunicable from each other. Sometimes a doctrine is proclaimed that aims to destroy one of these parties. A person is called upon to abandon everything irrational and completely submit to common sense, or to abandon language and all forms of culture, completely plunging into the darkness of the inexpressible. In this regard, the teaching of A. F. Loseva's idea of a symbol allows us to take a holistic look at a person and his essence, revealing the communication and unity of these two spheres of human existence. The sacred side of the symbol cannot be fully expressed in the sphere of meaning, but it can be expressed endlessly. This is how it differs from the Kantian thing-in-itself, about which nothing can be said at all. In this regard, the sacred is not only a necessary condition for a symbol, but also a necessary condition for human freedom, creativity and individuality.