1

NOOMAKHIA

Alexandre Douguine

Lecture 1. The introduction.

1. The Noology as the science of the multiplicity of the human thought.

The philosophic basis of multipolarity.

The self reflection of cultures and the territory of possible dialogue and polylogue.

The noology is the essential basis of the Theory of Multipolar World and Fourth Political theory.

1. The noology deals with the multilevel concepts that includes

· philosophy,

· history of religions,

· geopolitics,

· world history,

· sociology,

· anthropology,

· ethnosociology,

· the theory of imagination,

· the phenomenology,

· the structuralism.
 2

1. It uses the existential analysis of Heidegger, the traditionalism (Guenon, Evola), the
concepts of Bachofen, the structuralism of Dumezil and Levy-Strauss.

2. The main concept is Nous greek word for Intellect, Intelligence, Mind, Thought,
Consciousness. It is united in itself and represents the Human. The Nous is the Human.
The thought is a Man. Everything that belongs to human being exclusively is the
Thought. All the rest the man shares with others.

3. The Nous is threefold. It can exist as such it exist as its figures, forms, manifestations.
Noology calls these very manifestations Logos.

4. The basic idea of Noology is: there are three main Logos that include in them countless
variants.

5. The Logos of Apollo. Definition. Light. Verticality. Pure patriarchy. Androcraty. The
Gilbert Durand’s concept of regime of diurne. The day, the Heaven. Platonism. The God
Father. Law. Straight line. From top to the bottom.

6. The Logos of Dionysus. Definition. Semilight, dawn, duality, dialectic. Earth and Heaven.
Pair. Man and woman. Androgyne. The dance. The rhythm. The circle. The curve.

7. The Logos of Cybele. The Great Mother. Matriarchy. The Earth and hell. Underworld,
Tartarous. Hades. Materialism, growth, progress. From the bottom to top.

8. The main principle of Noomahia: three Logos are in insoluble conflict, they fight. They
fight for the form of Nous that would dominate over culture.

The fight of three Logos is the key for the inner structure of culture, civilization and identity of
society. And the explanation of the intercultural interethnic relations. Noomahia explains
everything what is human, and explains how the human explains what is not human.

Dear friends: it is the final part of our geopolitical Serbian School experimental course. That is
based on the previous lecture courses that are already made. I presume that you have
understood well the previous courses. They are necessary to understand this final metaphysical
and philosophical summary of multipolar approach to understand the very essence of modern
situation concerning cultures, civilizations, societies, globalizations, and the place of identity in
this context. Noology is the new philosophical discipline or approach developed by Romanian
and Russian school of thought. There are two branches in noology; one Romanian and one
 3

Russian. Romanian is represented by philosopher Lucian Blaga and his kind of continuator,
modern Professor Badescu. Russian noology is completely different but having the same
sources of inspiration as developed in my person and my friends. I have published already 18
volumes of Noomahia, more or less 800 pages each one. So that is a kind of already made work.
It is not finished yet. I’m working on the 20th book now. But it will have 21, maybe 22 volumes
in all. So that is the project that is based on the special philosophical, metaphysical approach I
try to explain in this course, in the ten lectures. They are very important because they are a
kind of summary of everything said and done before. Excuse me for speaking English but the
problem is not only that we lack the qualified translator from Russian to Serbian but there are
kind of new created terms as well in Russian. For Russian to understand noomahia in Russian is
difficult. For Serbia, it’s almost impossible because nobody can make a correct translation. If I
would know Serbian well enough, I would prefer to make this lecture in Serbian but I doubt that
there is someone besides myself that could make such philosophical translation. So excuse me
for English in this course but I could stop or return to the point if you miss something. If you
miss something you could ask if you don’t understand an important term, ask myself or
Jovana. We will try to translate in Serbian to find the correct term because the philosophical
terminology is not sufficiently developed neither in Russian nor in Serbian. We are always
having in mind German or English or French words in order to transmit the concepts. I use
English in the conceptual way in order to transmit the concepts, not the terms of our native
languages.

We will have ten lectures during these days, up to Friday. It’s very important to be
present because if you miss something you could never get what is going on in the next one.
Today we will have two lectures (introduction) but they are the most important among all the
others. So we need to concentrate today and to try to put other concerns aside in order to
concentrate on that. If you get that, you will understand and have the keys to open any
intellectual doors in this course. If not, that will be the problem. So I invite you to concentrate.
Thank you for your presence.

Today’s first lecture is introduction of what is noology. Noology is a new term. The term
noology consists of two roots; ‘nous' (Greek word) and ‘logy' (logic, logos, science, teaching).
So noology is the teaching of ‘nous.’ What is the ‘nous’ in Greek? That is very serious word and
if you try to translate it, it could be ‘ум' in Russian. It is intelligence and intellect. It is as well
mind, order, thought, or a kind of consciousness. In German it is ‘Bewusstsein.' It is something
that lies at the depth of the human thought. But what is human? Human is the being that is
different from any other being in the world, when one thinks. It is thinking being. Every other
qualities, we share with other beings but thought is the same as to be human, to be thinking.
Thinking creature and thinking being is human. So the thought is the human. To think is to be
human. We have bodies and we have instincts and pain, suffering, or joy. But the other
creatures as well have the same. But nobody except us, in the living world, have thought. So
the thought, or nous, is the essence of the man. The man is thought. All the rest is man and not
 4

only. But the thought is the only aspect of man that makes us human. To be human is to be
thinking. So the nous as a kind of thought and mind is the deepest root of human being, of
human-ness, of mankind. We are human because of thinking and because of nous. We are
ourselves because there is the nous. Without nous, there is no human. We are human because
there is the nous. So thinking about the nous and trying to explore noology is the same as to
explore ourselves. It’s not the kind of alienated objected. To think about nous is the same as to
think about us and about our deepest nature. It is not abstract. It is a kind of introspection. We
are speaking and learning our depth. We are learning human-ness of human beings. That is the
nous.

We could present human being from different point of view. Noology presents human
being from one point of view, from its essential point of view. It is the study of the thought as
such. That is very very important. Noology as well is philosophical basis of multipolarity. Why
multipolarity? Because the idea of noology is that there is not only one kind of thinking that is
universal and common for all of humanity. There are differences. So when we try to study nous,
the intellect, the mind, the thought carefully, we discover how much the process of thinking
depends on culture. If you are thinking in one culture, you think in one way. If you belong to
the other culture, to the other ethnical group, to the other religion, to the other age, you think
completely differently. But you are still human. You are still Serb, Russian, French, English,
Chinese, or African. But belonging to different cultures and spaces and times, you think
differently. So if we want to study nous and the thought as such, we need to take into account
these differences. And without studying the differences of way of thinking, we could not arrive
at the essence of thinking. For example, if we presume that everybody thinks as ourselves, we
will study our thought. But it is only part. Because for example, Croatians, or Albanians, or
Russians, or English, or American, or African, or Chinese, or Muslims think differently not only
about secondary aspects but they think differently about the nature of human, about life,
death, family, gender, history, time, space, God, matter, world, about everything. Noology is a
kind of phenomenology of the mind. We don’t prescribe how the nous should be or what the
thought must be. We try to explore how it is, how thought works, and presents itself in different
contexts. And this recognition of the differences without any normative prescription of how
the man should normally think is the special feature of noology. So we are starting from the
recognition of the differences and we are trying to understand better and deeper, the
differences and not trying to unite or impose something as universal but trying to discover. That
is very important feature. That is why noology is dedicated to the study of the concrete cultures.
In my books in the project of noology, most of them are dedicated to European culture, for
French Logos, English Logos, Eastern European Logos, Russian Logos, American Logos, Chinese
Logos, Iranian Logos, and so on. We are studying cultures and basing on the cultures, we are
deducing from these cultures their way of thinking. In that way, we are arriving to have the
complete vision of the human thought. We are not saying ‘human should be as for example,
modern European, white, atheist, materialist, and liberal.’ That is a concrete result of Anglo-
Saxon European civilization. It is geographically and historically limited and it is not universal. It
 5

is English way of developing their English, American, European history. And if we go to Eastern
Europe, Slavic world, Russian world, Chinese world, or Muslim world, we discover that they
don’t go that American or English or European way. Everybody goes its own ways.

There is the conflict of civilizations as well the key to understand what is going on now
with your country or our country, how we are dealing with the west, how they treat us, why
they treat us so, why we respond, why we resist, or why we submit. The essence of noology is
recognition of the plurality of the minds of the cultures. Plurality means that there is not only
one universal, normative way of development of mind. There are minds and not the mind. Or
there are different manifestations of one mind, nous, but so differently and specially that we
need to study carefully each case; Serbian case, Russian case, French case, German case. It is
not to create hierarchy or to say ‘it’s more developed or it’s less developed’ but to understand
how everybody thinks in different conditions. That is noology.

Noology is multilevel analysis. In noology we are using philosophy. The minimal

knowledge of philosophy is necessary to understand what is going on because the philosophy
is the mirror of the thought. Studying philosophy, we are saving time to study the other, politics
and history, because in philosophy, everything is in contact with it. It is simultaneously
presented in the philosophy. So if we are reading the history of philosophy, we are reading the
history of humanity. Why? Because to think is to be human. And philosophers consecrate all
their life and all their efforts to thinking. So they are more human than other. They are more
clear human than other. They are making the same thing as everybody but in special way. They
are concentrated on this human-ness of human. And the other as well participate. We could
say that every man is philosopher. But the philosopher is complete, accomplished, and perfect
man. They are dedicated to the main goal of human, to think. That is why philosophy is so
important in noology. History of religions is very important because religion is the other way to
think. Religion is based on the premises of the thought. So without at least some knowledge of
different religions, we could not understand noology because religion is as well the mirror of
the thought. There is projection of our thought on the gods, on the relations between the
reason of being and the source of being, creation, god, time, and many other things in religion
that reflect the structure of nous. So in noology, we need to know a little bit of religion.

What is important is that, in noology, we need to have some knowledge of geopolitics

because geopolitics is concretization of civilization. So that is a kind of generalization and if we
discovered geopolitical position of thinker, we could not understand what he means because
we are defined by philosophical tradition and religious tradition but we are as well defined by
our position in the world and our way of thinking. Our own cultural noology is defined by our
geopolitical position. If you belong to the civilization of the sea (sea power) or the civilization
of the earth, you think differently. That is very important difference. Position on the geopolitical
map of the world is very important to interpret concretely the thought. So geopolitics is
absolutely unavoidable. World history is main topic. We need to know the history of different
 6

peoples and cultures. We also need to know basic knowledge of sociology because sociology is
the discipline that shows how much the way of our being is defined by society. So that is very
important because society is very important way of self reflection because if we know how
much society and its principles are inside us, we will discover that our individuality and
originality is almost zero, is almost non-existent quantity. Everything in us is put by the society.
We think ‘I’m thinking that.’ It is not ‘I’ that thinks. Society through me thinks. Sociology is very
important. Anthropology and above all, the new anthropological school from Franz Boas and
Claude Lévi-Strauss and the other tradition. And I suggest that in development of our course,
we absolutely need to have a kind of anthropological course about anthropology. It is a very
important part. And modern anthropology shows ethnical tradition and condition of the living
and the nature and the culture and the balance between the nature and culture defines the
values of the society and how different the societies are. That is very important gain of modern
anthropology. Old anthropology of 19th century was based on the evolutionary theory. So
everybody is developing. There are developed society and underdeveloped societies. Modern
anthropology shows there are no such things as development. There are differences. And in
order to study archaic society, we could discover the society more complicated and more
complex than our society but they are different. They are not underdeveloped. They are not
childish stage of the same culture. That is maybe mature, maybe childish, maybe old stage of
different culture that we need to study carefully without projecting our own ideas on them.
That is the gain of modern anthropology. That is one of the main principles of noology and
noomahia.

There is ethno-sociology that puts together ethnology and sociology. You had a course
already about ethno-sociology. It’s very important and key course. The theory of imagination -
I would suggest strongly to read the books of Carl Gustav Jung, Gaston Bachelard, but above all
Gilbert Durand (French author) about sociology of imagination. That is very important. His
methods and his teachings will be used in our course as a kind of methodological basis. I will
explain in short terms what is sociology of imagination of Gilbert Durand. I have made doctrine
on sociology of imagination and it will be of use. Phenomenology - I would recommend you to
study Heidegger and Husserl. The most important idea of phenomenology is that the thing we
are thinking of exists in our mind. All the qualities of the things belong to our mind. So what the
thing is beyond our mind is something we could guess. There is no evidence and no quality. It’s
almost nothing. For example, existence or not existence of the thing outside of our perception
changes absolutely nothing in our relations with the thing. That is the main law of
phenomenology. The things are present inside of our thought and our thinking process. That is
the main law of phenomenology developed by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger and
other philosophers of the same line.

The structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, and Paul Ricoeur is very important as
well because structuralism is philosophical method that explains that everything exists in the
structures. Structure is something invisible but that defines the meaning. So the language is
 7

much more important than the discourse or the things that are said in the language. The
language predefines what we are going to say. So what we are saying are citations from the
language and from the dictionary. So it is our speech that we are so proud of thinking that it is
something original. ‘Let’s go to the cinema’ for example, we say as if let’s be the world, let’s be
the light, God’s announcement from nothing, from the void but it is pure citation of what many
other men and women say to each other. ‘Lets go to the cinema.’ That is citation and that is
defined by the structure of the language. There is nothing, zero originality in that. And with all
our judgments the same, all our words and discourses, we are repeating the things that were
said many millions and millions of times before us by the other. And there is no author. There
is repetition of the structure. That is the language that speaks by itself. That is the concept and
philosophy of structuralism. It is very interesting and very important methodological aspect
that we use in noomahia.

I suggest reading Heidegger as in Fourth Political Theory. I suggest reading traditionalist

philosophers of the school of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. They are very important. I suggest
reading Bachofen about the gender and the matriarchy. It’s very important because the study
of matriarchy is the essential part of noomahia. I will explain why. Bachofen has written the
book that is called ‘Muterrecht’ (‘The Law of Mother’). That is classic book about how pre-Indo-
European mediterranean matriarchy was. That is very important and it is basic classical work.
We will mention, as well, structuralist author Georges Dumezil and Claude Levi-Strauss, as I
have said, about modern structuralist anthropology and ethnology. There are more or less the
kind of fields or methods of schools we are using in noology. But there are many many studies,
pluri-disciplinary studies of such kind so there is nothing new or nothing concrete in everything
I have just said. And what is originality of noomahia as such? That is the most important point.
All the mentioned disciplines and methods and fields of studies are auxiliary. They help us to
understand. They are tools. But what is the main method? The main method is the concept that
this time is something partly new (and I will explain why) about existence of three Logos.

What is three Logos? My idea is that the nous as a thought or mind or intellect manifests
itself in three distinguished, different forms. In three - no less and no more. That is
approximation as any methodological approach. But that is what the French call 'grilles de
lecture.’ That is a kind of reading. If we accept that, everything will be put in the context of this
methodological approach. So one mind and three major forms with many subdivisions, many
other forms included in this main global general forms of the process of the thought that I’m
calling Logos. So there is one nous and three Logos. How three Logos relate to the nous, we put
out of the question. That is too metaphysical and is not so important for us. The most important
idea is that the nous cannot manifest itself without passing through these three Logos. There
is no thought outside of these three Logos. But these three Logos, we could find in any culture.
They have no destiny for one of them. There is no hierarchy between these three Logos. And
we find all three Logos necessary in any kind of culture. So that is the result of my work and the
result of the studies and research. I started from the hypothesis that maybe we will find them
 8

in any culture and maybe not. After studying any culture in the world, including most archaic
one in Oceania, in Africa, in Indian of Southern and Northern America, I have arrived at the
point where this hypothesis was confirmed. In any culture and in any society, archaic or modern
or postmodern or European or not European, in any time in any form of society, we could
discover these three Logos in different proportions and in different balance. They could be
combined in many ways, in million ways. And that is dynamic. I will explain this balance of the
Logos and how they are changing. But they are present everywhere. No culture, no people, no
religion, and no region could say ‘we have this Logos and only this, or these two.’ Every culture
has three Logos. That is very important. That shows that we could not reconstruct the hierarchy
between the culture or people, because the three Logos combine with each other in completely
special way. And the way of combination is proper to each culture. So that is kind of our history.
Our deep identity of the people, of the culture, of the religion consists precisely in this
combination and the changes of the balance of these three Logos. Because there are so many
forms to combine them, there are unlimited possibilities of the human society and no way to
create hierarchy because the archaic society can be with domination of one Logos and modern
with other and vice versa. There is no general rule that could be universal.

And that is very important point because that shows that we are dealing in our science,
in our methodology, in our politics, and in our culture with a kind of racist colonial approach in
any culture. We are just projecting our own Logos as something universal. Careful study of the
culture shows that that is illegitimate. Racism is the idea to say ‘my Logos or my special culture
is universal’ without studying the other and without asking the other. And after that, after
declaring that our culture is universal one, we put ourselves as example for the other. The other
are either the same as ourselves or are less developed. And that is the case of modern European
civilization and of us in the way we belong to it. If we accept that, we are entering into this
racist attitude toward the history, toward the past, toward ourselves. And we are declaring
'that is universal, that is the only way to develop and everybody is going that way. There is only
one culture and one Logos. And our Logos is universal and the measure of the things.’ That is
completely wrong and is based on exaggeration of our own self. And that is something I will
show that is completely illegitimate. And there is not only open biological racism. Modern
liberalism, communism, and any kind of globalization are absolutely racist because they are
basing on the universalism of the historic experience of the part of the humanity put as the
whole of the humanity and as the goal. For example, who is in the eyes of globalists African
negro? He is the man on the way to be white, modern, capitalist, liberal, European, Euro-centric
man. He is a kind of underdeveloped European. He is not the representative of the culture going
its own way. It’s something that is undeveloped. And modern idea of tolerance that we need
to tolerate him precisely as something imperfect, something invalid, something on the way to
be as ourselves is completely racist. We don’t recognize the other as complete and perfect
human being different than us. We think that they are going our way and they are obliged to
be and there is no other way, and we have pity on them. There is very nice film by Werner
Herzog, ‘Where the Green Ants Dream.’ He shows that the people of Australia not only cannot
 9

follow Western example but they don’t want to do that. They are going their own way different
from Western and that is their decision of their culture. And this clash of Anglo-Saxon racist
version of the history and this aboriginal Australian vision of their own identity. They are not
the Westerner of the second sort. They are Australian of the first sort for themselves.

That is ethical aspect of noology. Noology is a fight for the human dignity for any society,
without hierarchy and without this projection. It is the basis of anti-colonial metaphysics. Many
teachings pretended historically to be anti-colonial (Marxism and liberalism as well). But they
were based on the universal version of the history. For Marxism, we need to develop African
society in order to make them Socialists and they will be equal but destroying their values and
their system regarding them as underdeveloped in their natural state. The same for liberalism.
Liberalism and Communism are in the same way as racist as racism of Hitler. That is main basis
for fourth political theory, that we need to find some other way outside of three political
ideologies. Noology is the metaphysical basis of why it is so needed, because doing differently
and treating the other people differently, we are projecting our racist approach and we are
making equation between ours and normative and universal. But that is a violation of the truth.
It’s pure colonialist struggle for power and not understanding not knowledge, not wisdom, and
not the truth. It’s something completely different. So that is why noology is so important. It is
the philosophical and metaphysical basis of multi-polar world. And the concept of three Logos
shows the differences that could exist in combination and in different cultures.

Now what these three Logos are - here we could remind Nietzschean concept of the
Greek God Apollo and the Greek God Dionysus. Apollo and Dionysus are two Greek Gods but
Friedrich Nietzsche has interpreted them not as object of cult or worship. They were taken as
metaphors, as kind of symbols or figures. So you should not be worshippers of Apollo to be
Apollonian. You should not be worshipper of Dionysus and participate in the orgies to be
Dionysian. To be Dionysian or Apollonian for Nietzsche was completely different meaning. To
be Apollonian was to be hierarchical, to belong to the logical way to understand the world and
to be Dionysian was to be irrational and intuitive understanding of the world. That is a kind of
day way of thinking in Nietzsche (Apollonian) and night, dawn, dusk way of thinking (Dionysian).
Nietzsche divided the cultures into Apollonian and Dionysian. So the cultures of Nietzsche were
of two kinds. That was taken from Nietzsche and developed by many many other authors and
now it is almost commonplace in the history and study of cultures. We say Dionysian style and
Apollonian style following Nietzsche but going further. And I accept that and I think that we
could affirm that there is the Logos of Apollo and there is the Logos of Dionysus. The nous
(mind, thought) expresses itself through Apollonian or Dionysian Logos. That is very important.
That sounds like Nietzschean approach and it is because I am inspired by Nietzsche in that way.

Trying to discover Dionysian Logos more, I have written a kind of prequel for Noomahia
that is called ‘In Search of the Dark Logos.’ My idea was to regard history of philosophy not
from Apollonian point of view that is prevailing and dominating, but from the second Logos, to
 10

construct the history of philosophy basing on Dionysian reading. We know exactly how
Apollonian reading of the history of philosophy is. That coincides with the history of philosophy
always. We know what Apollo thought because the history of philosophy is Apollonian thought
so Apollo thought precisely as a philosopher thought during the ages. And my idea was to
discover how Dionysus would think regarding the same topics, the same categories, the same
opposition and relations. That was as well a kind of invitation of Nietzsche and a little bit of
Heidegger and many postmodern thinkers tried to do the same, tried to apply this Dionysian
approach in order to decipher the history of philosophy. It is not so unique but I tried by myself.
I have called it dark Logos because it is clear for me that Apollonian Logos is light and Dionysus
is night or shadow or darkness. Going into the field of this dark Logos and trying to read with
the eyes of dark Logos Hegel, Heidegger, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, and the others (and all that is
described more or less in my book 'In Search for Dark Logos’ that is prequel or 0 volume of
noomahia), in the kind of field research in metaphysics and not in the idea I had before, but
working with this task to imagine the alternative history of philosophy based on Dionysian
approach, I have discovered in the practical way very important basis of all noomahia. There
are some phenomena including in culture, in religion, in philosophy, in history of philosophy, in
science, in art, in human psychology, in unconsciousness that could not enter in the field of
Dionysian Logos. So something fits but there is a new field that is outside that could not fit into
the Apollonian Logos clearly but could not fit as well into the Dionysian Logos. That was a kind
of practical empirical discovery in the field of metaphysics because there was some conceptual
field, for example the philosophy of Heraclitus or Democritus, atomic theory, or the theory of
modern science, that are absolutely not Apollonian or Dionysian. Searching dark Logos, I have
arrived to the point that there is something outside of this new Logos. There is the third one.
Behind the Logos of Dionysus was hidden something else that was in the shadow of Dionysus.
If Dionysus is the shadow of Apollo, there is the other shadow of the shadow.

That I have called in my studies the Logos of Cybele. Cybele is the name for very ancient
Anatolian Goddess (the same as Greek Rhea). Cybele was the name of the mother Goddess of
ancient Anatolia. It was before Hittites, there was the very special pre-indo-European people
of Hattians, and Hittites Indo-European language has taken this Goddess and integrated into
their own religious context and after that the Phrygian have as well and developed the cult of
Cybele. And that was very interesting circle of the concept basing on the ritual castration of the
man and the rule of the Great Mother. So the priests of Cybele were castrated and turned into
the eunuch. So that was the emasculation of the man and that was the part of the great vision
of matriarchy when the position of the man is completely different than we know. It is
completely different from the Dionysian position because Dionysus in his cult is the center of
interaction of the Bacchae, of the women, but as well of the men. That is the presence of the
man in the center of the human existence. Dionysus is not transcendent Dionysus. He is
immanent but he is man. That is immanence of the man, man-God, God as a man, man, not
human. And this presence is a kind of immanent presence of transcendence. Dionysus is not
the darkness, not black Logos. It is the presence of the light in the darkness. That is a kind of
 11

sun of the night. It is the man inside of the middle of the immanent, chthonic, feminine
existence. So that is the male point in female reality. It is a kind of ray of the sun that goes
through the darkness and that comes to the center of the darkness in order to create new
dawn. That is Dionysus. And it could not be identified with darkness or with chaos. And all the
orgies and all the rites and worships and all the topics linked to Dionysus were not so easy to
interpret. That is not reversal of the normal Apollonian order. It was not a kind of revolution.
Dionysus is the same as Apollo but coming not in the day but in the night. That was the male in
the night, the light in the darkness, but ‘in’ the darkness. That is a kind of sun that comes down
in the evening in order to appear anew in the morning. But when he passes, the moment of
midnight, he is invisible, he is hidden, and there is no sun in the middle of the night but the sun
is. If he will be absolutely absent, there will be no morning and no dawn. It is not the day but it
is the sun of the night. The sun of the day is the same as Apollo or Helios. Where is the sun
when there is no sun? Where is the heaven when there is no heaven? Where is the male when
there is no male and only darkness, earth, immanence, matter, and female principle? He is
hidden but he is. That is Dionysian Logos. It’s very special. He creates the new kind of dynamic
vision, a kind of balance of the genders and metaphysics, the balance of transcendence and
immanence, of heaven and the earth. It is the heaven in the earth and that is heavenly earth,
earth in the heaven. So that is a combination of opposition. It is dialectics. That is Dionysian
Logos.

But in order to understand correctly what is the Logos of Dionysus, we need to introduce
third Logos and that is something that changes completely all the other concepts and theories
that existed before and that are principles or tools of modern culture, the history of cultures,
and culturology. So the third Logos is absolutely new. That is a kind of essential feature of
noology that there is the third Logos, the black one, the Logos of Cybele. Why was the Logos of
Cybele discovered so late? Why did everybody before not speak about three Logos? When I
started to try to understand, to solve this metaphysical problem, I have discovered a very
interesting thing. For the dominating Logos of Apollo, this Logos cannot exist because seeing
the situation from the purely Apollonian point of view, there could not be the other Logos
beyond the Apollonian one because the Apollonian concept is exclusivist and purely male and
based on a kind of equivalence; the man as male is a man and man is human, so to be man and
to be human is the same and everything that doesn’t fit into this concept has no right to pretend
to be called Logos. So Logos is Apollo, man and human. And everything that is not male (female
for example), that is not logical doesn’t belong to Logos and doesn’t belong to human. And that
is a kind of beast or some object and not the subject. Subject could be only Apollonian. And the
Nietzschean idea to enlarge the concept of Logos and to give the status of Logos to Dionysus
was already revolution because that has shown that it could be different approach to the Logos.
That is absolutely crucial. And with Dionysus we have discovered that there could be Apollonian
approach and there could be other approach. But together, Apollonian approach and Dionysian
approach, they could not let the third Logos be because both of them are male, open as
Apollonian or hidden as Dionysian, exclusive as Apollonian or inclusive as Dionysian, but they
 12

are male Logos. And the Logos of Cybele is not male. And from the male prevailing point of
view, it could not be Logos. So it pass without being remarked. It is a kind of noise. It is not
words. It is not speech. For the metaphysical male’s ears, what the woman says is noise and
not speech. It is something as the sound of the nature for example. It can be beautiful or less
beautiful, that depends.

That is idea that Platonism is purely Apollonian philosophy. There are ideas that are
above and there are images and icons that are below. There is verticality. There is the father
that is eternal example and paradigm and there is the son that is a kind of phenomenological
imitation of the father and nothing, khora, matter that has no quality. And the most important
definition of Apollonian approach to the Logos is that beyond the Logos is nothing. Beyond
father or son or matter that has no quality, so nothing, no being, darkness. Without quality, not
Logos but what is important not Logos. There is the Logos of the father that is Apollonian. There
is the Logos of the sun, immanent, that is the Logos of Dionysus and there is no Logos, because
we are completely machist, we are patriarchal tradition, so we don’t let the other part of the
reality to have Logos. So we deny that and that is why it was so hidden. And only starting to
apply, to create, to describe a kind of approach to Dionysian history of philosophy, we
discovered there is something below the lower border of Dionysian vision because Dionysian
approach is not the castration. It is not the kind of dissolution of the great mother. It is the
reach of the depth of hell in order to resurrect (Dionysian idea), to descend in order to ascend,
to go down in order to go back to Heaven. It is the sacrifice and it is the death but in order to
be resurrected. It is completely different. It is going from the top to the bottom in order to
return to the top. Dionysus is the extreme version of Apollonian Logos that is different
completely and creates different structure. So that is the other inclination of nous. Maybe the
nous is the same but the form is completely different. But starting to work with Dionysian Logos
seriously, I have discovered that there is something else. And that was a kind of metaphysical
discovery that first of all was a kind of illumination and revelation in a philosophical sense but
after thinking about that, I have arrived to the point that we could instrumentalize that. We
could go beyond the Apollonian and Dionysian border and recognize this attitude as the Logos,
as third form of the nous or the third Logos, the Logos of Cybele. And after that everything
comes into harmony. After that we have complete explanation of all the possible versions of
cultures, of philosophies, of religions, and relations between them.

So we could imagine how the nous is divided in three ways in three Logos. These three
Logos, each one of them, creates a world or the worlds by itself. So we can live in many
Apollonian worlds, in many Dionysian worlds, and we could live in many Cybelian worlds. There
is not only one world. There are multitudes, multiplicity, plurality of Apollonian worlds,
Dionysian worlds, and Cybelian worlds. And they are embedded in each other, they are merged
in each other, and they represent so rich content of the cultures, of the thought, of the art, of
the history that we discover immediately the spiritual treasury of the human mind. But it is not
the chaos. That is a kind of inner relations between them because we could describe pure forms
 13

of these three Logos. For example, what is the universe of Apollo? It is the idea that everything
is created from the top to the bottom. Everything is a kind of descending process. Platonic
philosophy is so actual and was always absolutely actual because it is the most perfect form to
perfect this Apollonian Logos. Platonism is the same as Apollonian Logos. So in any kind of Logos
of Apollo, in any culture, having the contact with Greek Platonism or having no contact with
Platonism will create the same Apollonian version. I have discovered that, for example, in
the Nilo-Saharan of Africa, with no links with Greece, in the very archaic tradition, Logos of
Apollo, but exactly the same idea. There is the Father God that has created everything and the
people are the sons of the Father God and we are descending from the Heaven and we are
returning to that. There is no earth dimension in all that. The earth is the lowest line of going
down in order to get back. There is pure patriarchal attitude. Everything is based on the honor,
on the fight, the fight against the death and darkness, every man is a light man. That is a kind
of hierarchy inside of society based through this line. That is Platonic European feudal
traditional Serbian Russian vision of the society.

By the Shilluk, by the Nuer, by the Dinka tribes of Nilo-Saharan people or for example
the other African people of Western Africa in Yoruba people, we have the same purely Platonist
vision. Sometimes there are kind of examples existing in the stars and all that we are dealing
with are the reflections or phenomenological mirrors of what is going on above the stars. So
there is Platonism that is not only in the texts or dialogues of Plato but there is Apollonian
Logos. They have no contact with Plato. For example, Pharaonic tradition of Egypt was as well
the sun from above, from the top that goes down and creates this kind of pyramidal version of
the world. So the base is square and the top is unity. So there is purely Apollonian building in
pyramid. That is why fire was presented in Plato as pyramid. It’s fire in Greek. Pyramid is a kind
of fire that goes to the top. So fire is sacred and light is sacred and we are suns of the light and
from this point the patriarchy and absolute domination of male principle and submission of the
female principle and all Apollonian things. So the Logos of Apollo is not people who read Plato
and people who have applied the texts of Plato to their society. Partly that was the case but we
could not explain any Apollonian society with the reading of Plato. Plato was the part. I will
explain in the future lectures what was concretely the Plato philosophy. But what is important
now is that Apollonian Logos is Logos. It is not Platonic. Plato is reflection or mirror of this Logos.
It is excellent form to express it. It is perfect art or revelation of this Logos in the most complete
form. So it is the best introduction to the Apollonian Logos. But that is not creation of Plato. It
is creation of nous. It is the way how the Apollonian Logos in nous works and how it reveals and
manifests itself. That is very important. That is no artificial creation of some human mind.
Human mind can be following Apollo’s line and can be Platonic. We are born with Platonism.
We can be inner born Platonists if this Logos dominates in us, in our culture, in our religion, or
in our system of values. And that defines our world. We regard the Heaven more than earth.
So we are light. We have no weight. We worship the winged creatures and angels for example
or birds. Our Gods are transparent. They live in the air or in the Heaven or in the clouds. So for
our Christian Indo-European tradition, it’s Apollonic. Plato was a part of this culture. Almost all
 14

the Greek culture, before Plato, after Plato, not only Greek but Roman, Iranian, Indian, and
Slavic tradition were all Apollonic.

And for us, it’s so clear that we think that the world is such and there is no other world.
But we are living in the Apollonian world. Our tradition is based on the Apollonian vision. And
the discovery of the Logos of Dionysus is already spiritual metaphysical revolution. It could be
different. We could live in different world with different symmetry and different organization
not based on the worship of the transcendence. We could see this sacredness in the
immanence. Dionysian world is organized differently with different meaning of the same words,
of the same figures, and of the same Gods. In this Dionysian aspect of Christian tradition (we
will speak about that more) is the figure of Christ. That is the God and the man. He is
transcendent and he is immanent. He is eternal as in Apollonian world where everything is
eternal in essence, and he is historic, so he came into the time. If we regard in this way we don’t
oppose Apollonian Christianity or Dionysian Paganism. We understand better that in the same
tradition in Christianity we have both figures; transcendence of the trinity of the God and the
immanence of the Christ. So we have Apollonian and Dionysian aspect in very special situation.

In other traditions, we discover the same. There are many other, in different tradition,
the figure as Dionysus, not with the same name but with the same function, with some ecstatic
liberation because the name of Dionysus in Roman culture was Liber (liberation, freedom). So
this was liberation from the weight of the matter, from this chtonic aspect of human presence.
And that is a kind of leap into the freedom of God. It is the leap from the human to divine, from
the time into eternity. That is the essence of Dionysian cult. It is a kind of heresy in our Christian
tradition. So we are in time and with bodies. We are coming into touch with the eternal that is
God. That is a kind of metaphysical, anthropological, and ontological leap. So that is the essence
of Dionysian tradition. And that is not the case that Eucharist in our church is made with the
wine, with the blood of God, and with the grain, because the bread and wine were two symbols
of Eleusinian Mysteries where Dionysus and Demeter were in the center of that. That is
continuation of the special symbolical tradition based on Dionysus and Apollo. And when we
see the world through the Logos of Dionysus, we have one world. If we see the world with the
Logos of Apollo, we are dealing with different world. And there are different symmetries and
different metaphysics. For example, Dionysus is the cycle. It is the kind of cycle around the point
of eternity. And Apollonian Logos is eternity itself. It is eternity. So we are going from eternity
and are returning to eternity. That is what is most important in the Apollonian idea. From then,
in the everlasting law, the tradition, something should not be changed. The eternity of the ethic,
of the cult is the belief in the eternity that pretends to be eternal itself. That is something
eternal that is outside of the process of the time. And the time is not important. Only the time
of the return is important. The only time that is important in the case of the Apollonian is the
return to the eternity because the time itself is the reflection. As Plato says ‘it is the mirror of
eternity.’ The ethics of Apollonian Logos is return, the reflection to the reflected object. That is
idea that is the archetype, paradigm for eternity.
 15

The world we are living in defined by the Logos of Apollo is precisely based on some idea
for example that we are using for example the words in our speech as if the essence of them
were eternal. So we don’t name any time the different but similar things with new names. We
say ‘this book.’ ‘This book,’ all that are books. And books as concept exist eternally. That is
eternal books. And in our religion, it is a kind of pure projection. There is the Bible as eternal
book that was created and written in the eternity. Everything is eternal; everything in the book,
and the book is eternal. So every name we mention is eternal in itself. It always existed in the
time of Adam. So that is a kind of Apollonian world that is very famous for us. We think the
world is Apollonian in our traditional education. We are educated in Apollonian culture. We are
dealing with logic. But logic of Aristotle is based precisely on the laws of the eternity. He says A
is A. Or if there is no A there’s a second Law, or A or not A, third law of logic. But in the world
around us, there is no such things. Everything is double. Something exists and not exists, dies
and is born. So in the physics, there is no logic. Logic is something that describes Apollonian
world, the world that we take for granted, we are dealing with but that doesn’t exist. It is a kind
of revelation. Logic is a revelation. The A is A. Only God is God. Everything is some half created
by God and half nothing. So there is no point in the universe where the A is A. A=A never,
nowhere. So only God is God. That was logic, something for us that is so natural, something
absolutely transcendental. It is the essence of Apollonian Logos that is working inside of our
brain because it is working inside of our culture forming the semantical axis, the paradigm of
our way of thinking. That is Logos of Apollo.

So what is the Logos of Dionysus? That is interesting. When we are staying in Aristotle,
we are coming to the other branches of his description of the sciences; we discover that for
example, dealing with physics, Aristotle said every thing (heused the word ὄν, being) is double.
It has form and matter. That is anti-logical concept that unity is double. Something that is
united, everything that exists is double. You see one thing but in the reality, there are two things
in one thing; matter and form. And if you separate them, there is nothing. That is Aristotelian
physics. That is completely different Dionysian approach to the world. And that is described not
by the logic but is described by the rhetoric because it is one but not exactly one, not as in the
logic one, because there is double. There are two things in one thing; the form and the matter.
And Dionysian way of thinking, Dionysian Logos is manifested by the capacity to think
dialectically, to conceive one thing as two things at the same time, one and two, but in the logic,
one or two. But in Dionysian world, no, one and two. There is not ‘here man, here woman. One
and one.’ No. There is androgyne. Androgyne is something that is not a kind of sum of man and
woman. It is not addition. 'We are taking man and we are adding woman and there is
androgyne.’ No. There is something that precedes in Dionysian Logos to existence of male and
female. The androgyne is not the result of combination. That is the source of the gender. That
is not Apollonian way to think. That’s Dionysian way. Androgyne is the figure of Dionysus. There
is two in one before there is two. There is in the middle, in the center before there are poles.
For example, in Apollonian world, there is one pole and there is other pole and what is between
is the secondary. It’s defined by limits, by poles. In Dionysian worlds is something completely
 16

different. There is what is between and its projections create poles. So we could live in the
world, in the culture, in the religion of dialectical Dionysian approach; the two nature in Christ
(the God and man). It is something that is irrational for the Dionysian version. Or how it could
be the same and not the same, for example, in the holy trinity. So there is a kind of dialectical
approach that creates a completely new symmetry in religion, in art, and in philosophy.

And this Dionysian Logos is possible but it is presented much more than in the philosophy in
poetry, in sacred, in art, in language, not in the mathematical language but in the human
language, in rhetoric, not in the logic. Logic is Apollonian. Rhetoric is Dionysian because the
rhetoric is precisely violation of the laws of the logic. What is rhetoric when we use some
rhetorical formula? We try to violate, to give the part as a whole (that is metonimia) and the
other. All the figures of rhetorics are based on this Dionysian Logos. And that is why literature,
art, poetry, and the other, mythology rather than philosophy is the privileged field of the
Dionysian Logos. And that is not the lesser Logos. That is important. Plato has said ‘lets put all
the poets out of our ideal state’ because it is Apollonian understanding of what is Dionysian.
Apollo thinks that Dionysus is a kind of sub-Apollo, something that would be Apollo, something
incomplete. It is a little bit of Apollonian ethnocentrism, Apollonian racism. He thinks that he
himself is the whole and all the rest is part of himself or the kind of images, sometimes
perverted. So Plato said ‘lets put poets and mythologists out of our purely philosophical
Apollonian state because they belong to the world of Dionysus and they have no place in the
Apollo republic.’ Plato’s republic is Apollo’s republic. They should be put out because they are
considered to be impure because they are rhetoric. They are dealing with inclination, not with
the straight line but with the curves. They are dealing with combination of the structured
elements in very very fantastic way. And that is the kind of creative spirit of the art that is
Dionysian. But as well we could find in art, Apollonian line, but the majority of the art and the
poetry is purely Dionysian and that is the realm of the immanence and of rhetoric.

And there could be the philosophy of Dionysian style. In the modern philosophy,
phenomenology is purely Dionysian. I have discovered finally, studying Heidegger for many
years that Heidegger tried to create Dionysian philosophy. He tried and he succeeded in that.
He developed this phenomenological aspect and his concept of dasein in purely Dionysian, is a
kind of immanence. It should be regarded not as a kind of, in Apollonian way, a kind of
projection of dasein, of the being. The being is Apollonian. But dasein (t/here being) is in Serbian
‘ту биће.’ But what is interesting is that in German ‘da’ is not there (ту, тамо). ‘Da’ is not here,
not there, neither ту or тамо but in between. ‘Da’ is in between - not here and not there. And
in Old Slavonic language there was the form that is conserved in present Serbia - овде биће
(овде - neither ту or тамо - between). So dasein is being not there, not here, but in between
because there and here we could strictly define without us but between is precisely the point
where the Dionysus exists. Dionysus is in between (овде). He is not there as Apollo. He is not
here as something immanent. He is in between, always in between in the middle. So dasein is
very Dionysian term in itself. овде биће - neither тамо биће nor ту биће. овде. In Russian we
 17

have lost this third grammatical form and maybe its a kind of luck that in Serbian you have
conserved of this name in your language in order to understand better Heidegger, in order to
understand better this Dionysian possibility of philosophy, to think not from the top, not from
the bottom, but from the middle, nor from the two poles and after there is something that is
the center. No. Thinking from the center, from between. And trying to express the idea of
Heidegger in English, sometimes the philosopher translates as such - t/here being. Not there.
Not here. Because they have no ‘овде’ as your rich Serbs.

So the idea is that third Logos and more fascinating is third Logos. I think that already to
compare two Logos, Apollo and Dionysus, in full measure was so revealing for creation of not
one history of philosophy but two versions. So you could consult not only Apollonian bookshelf
but as well Dionysian. And if we apply this method, we will be not obliged to write all these
volumes anew but we could make a kind of combination of existing works, of existing
philosophical and religious tradition, and to reorganize our intellectual space, to reveal, to
reshape our understanding of the history of the philosophy. And the history of philosophy is
the history of our society and the history of humanity.

So next point of noology is that we could find the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of
Dionysus in any culture as well. So every people, every culture knows these two Logos. It’s very
important. So there is no people of Apollo or people of Dionysus. There are Logos of Apollo and
Dionysus in any human culture. But if we remark their relations, they are not so good relations,
because Apollo thinks in one way, he creates this world with verticality, with this patriarchal
symmetry, and he puts out poets or Dionysian. There is a kind of fight between two Logos, one
nous, two Logos. And they fight against each other. We are approaching why noomahia,
because noomahia is the fight of the nous or the fight inside of the nous. But the real dramatic
aspect all this obtains when we come to the third Logos because there is the third new world
that creates not from the top to the bottom, not from the center, but from the bottom to the
top. It is a new symmetry. And this is lost Logos lost and denied by both Logos of Apollo and in
the lesser scale by the Logos of Dionysus. And what could be such a universe and such a world
created on this symmetry, on this Logos of Cybele.

The world of Cybele and Logos of Cybele, it is the great mother that creates everything from
herself. That is very important. That is absence of any male principle outside of the great
mother. It’s absolute inclusiveness. So there is no God but the great mother. There is nobody
but the great mother. There is only great mother earth that creates everything from herself
and kills everything because she is at the same time the tomb and the cradle. So there is no
two point of line. There is one and the same point of death and life. For example, the Goddess
of death and the Goddess of life is only one mother that creates, gives life, and kills. So she
creates the sun, the male principle, from herself without father, she uses it as a lover, and she
emasculates, castrates, and kills it and make its revival once more. So that is Cybelian method
that is explained in many forms in many cults in many worships but there is a kind of philosophy
 18

inside that is very interesting and very profound philosophy. There is no transcendence at all.
There is no heaven. The heaven is the kind of mirror of the earth. So any kind of heaven is only
reflection of the same of the matter. And we are coming to absolute materialistic immanence
because immanence of Dionysus was not materialistic, it was spiritualist immanence, it was
almost always in the middle, half spirit and half matter, and this half is before. It’s not the sum
but before that exists before the matter and the spirit. And the great mother and the Logos of
great mother is the idea that great mother creates and kills everything. And it is not the eternity
or the cycle. It is something that is going in its way with the blind and absolute power. So there
is a kind of progress that is the growth from the bottom to the top. It is also in the Apollonian
way a titanic battle of the chthonian powers and forces directed against the heaven and the
rule of the male Logos of Apollo. So Cybelian Logos is the third creation of the new world that
is titanic, chtonic, and feminist in some way, not because there is equivalence between man
and woman (that is much more Dionysian), but it is absolute domination of the mother over
everything else.

So we will follow this later. In order to conclude this first lecture, what is important is
that three Logos I have explained stay in the absolute fight because they create the world, the
system, the society, the cultures, the religions, the cults, the relations, the values, the political
systems that are based on completely different approaches. They are in conflict and that is
noomahia. There is already a kind of contradiction between Apollo and Dionysus but with
Cybele and Apollo, contradiction reaches its utmost highest point because there is a serious
titanomachy or gigantomachy between two versions of the vision because there are two Logos
fighting seriously. The titans, the autochtonic sons of Cybele try to storm the Heaven and the
Apollonian Gods try to defend it. And what is in philosophical way is Democritus with his idea,
is purely Cybelian philosophy. It is Epicurus. And that is our scientific modern European science
of Modernity that is purely Cybelian. And that is a kind of revenge of the Logos of Cybele after
the thousands of years of domination of Apollo with Dionysus. So there is a kind of Cybelian
eschatology we are living in. So if we consider now, not our spiritual tradition, cultural tradition,
religious tradition, ethical tradition, but our scientific vision, it is purely atomistic, materialistic,
progressivist, and based on this symmetry from the bottom to the top. So the Cybele doesn’t
belong to the past, to the archaic time. The Logos of Cybele is something we are dealing with.
And this Cybelian world vision we could find in as well in the ancient times, in our civilization,
in other civilization. There is not Cybelian civilization. In any form of civilization, we could find
all three Logos and they are fighting everywhere and we are living inside of this noomahia. It is
not something that is purely theoretical. We are living that. And this noomahia is going through
us, through our politics, through our culture, through our science, through our identity, and
through our culture. And that is a kind of the end of the first lecture and that is most important
part and most important principles of what is noomahia as a basis of theory of multipolar
world.
 19

Lecture 2. Geosophy

1. Geosophy is the field of application of Noology (the Noomahia principle) to the study of
cultures, peoples and civilizations. Its is deepest level of ethnosociology.

2. The basic idea of geosophy is that there are different organization of the balance of
three Logos that defines the identity of concrete human society. Apollonian culture,
Cybelean culture and so on.

3. The society where the Logos dominates can change its form in space and time. The
balance of Noomahia can change also. Here Apollo rules, there Cybele. Now here
Dionysus dominates, then Apollo outbalances it. SO Noomahia is essentially dynamic,
the process.

4. The borders of people or cultures in the moment of Noomahia in space are defined
as existential horizon. It is multilevel structure close to Dasein concept. It is the basis of
people, its roots. The Logos is build and founded over the existential horizon. It is living
space. Da-sein, being t/here being in concrete world organized with the help of
dominating Logos. So it is also ontho-logical space. There is no universal space. Space is
existential and understood and studied through dominating Logos.

5. The borders of people or cultures in the moment of Noomahia in time are defined as
the Historical (not the historic). The French term l’historial. H.Corbin has translated so
the heideggerian term das Seynsgeschichtliche or simply da Geschichtliche in
opposition to das Historische. So the history of people is defined by the ruling Logos.
The history is not the consequence of facts but the consequence of meanings, senses.
The history is semantic chain, the structure. So in the history – as semantic history or
ontohistory , the history of being we can trace the manifestation of dominating Logos.
There is no universal time. Time is existential and understood and studied through
dominating Logos.

6. The main principle of geosophy is perspectivism. We are dealing not with unique space
and time differently understood by with different times and spaces because they have
no existence outside of their interpretation in the context of concrete – factual –
culture. We think otherwise just because we are under over overwhelming influence of
modern (in the historical sense) and western (in the existential horizon sense) culture.
We think that the modern western understanding of nature of space and time is
universal. Every man of every space and time thinks the same. It is ethnocentrism.
 20

7. The geosophy doesn’t fight the ethnocentrism: without it there is no human. To be

ethnocentric is the same as to have Da in Dasein, to be t/here. Da is defined by ethnos
– ethos, culture, people, language. But geosophy reflects the ethnocentric nature of any
thought. So it is perspectivism: there is no one world there are many worlds imbedded
in each other – as many as there are peoples. We can not be and think without cultural
structure that is ethnocentric. We need understand it in full measure.

8. The geosophy as perspectivism is not anti-ethnocentric: it is anti-racist and anti-

universalist. We accept plurality of ethnocentrism as something factual, as given as
unavoidable condition. But we need to fix the borders or limits. The univeralism is in
itself titanic. It seeks to transcend the borders of Apollo. Hybris the essential sin of
titans, it is excessive. So ethnocentrism is legitimate until it recognizes the limits. When
is pass the borders it becomes racist and universalist. So it looses its legitimity.

What is geosophy? It is application of the principles of noology to the study of the concrete
culture and societies. It is a kind of civilizational analysis with the help of the methods of three
Logois. So the idea of geosophy is the following - it is close to what is called in philosophy and
anthropology, ‘perspectivism.’ There is an interesting Brazilian anthropologist Viveiros de
Castro that has developed this attitude of perspectivism. Perspectivism is the idea that we
consider, for example, modern western man thinks there is one physical world and there is one
culture of understanding of this world. That is modern western European culture. That is the
kind of truth. There is the world and more and more correct understanding of this one world,
one truth, and western culture as a kind of one way from this one world to one truth of this
world. So that is a kind of pure genocide of other cultures because everybody who is not on
this way is out, considered to be undeveloped and should be colonized and taught to follow the
white man’s example. It is colonial vision.

Against that, there is so called multicultural position or postmodern position that affirms
that 'there is one world. Let it be. But there are multiple interpretations of this one world.’ That
is multiculturalism. It is already not so bad because it gives the possibility to other to think
differently. But some anthropologists remarked that 'what is going with this one world with
different interpretations? Why are we so sure there is one world? What is the ontological basis
of this one world that is differently interpreted?’ And they have remarked finally that this one
world is the projection of the modern western European mind on the nature. And the concept
of nature is European and the interpretation of nature is modern European scientific world that
we have taken as granted, as some objective reality that is differently and subjectively
interpreted. That is multiculturalism. These new anthropologists started creating a kind of
cannibal metaphysics. They tried to destroy this concept of this one world differently
interpreted and replace by different worlds. So they invite us to believe to what the people of
different cultures say about worlds. Not to say ‘that is their interpretation of this world.’ No.
That is correct description of what they see and feel and what they live in. So that is completely
 21

new attitude. And noology and geosophy is most radical example of this recognition of the
multitude of the worlds. We have spoken in the first lecture about three universes that are
linked to the three Logos. But we could put it on the vertical axis because we see this Logos in
any culture. So we could in any culture, explain with these three Logos the verticality. But
geosophy is application of this verticality to the horizontal aspect. It is not vertical interpretation
but horizontal interpretation.

Geosophy is based on the principle that any culture creates the world of its own. And
that does not explain the universal world around earth, turning around the axis. But living in
different worlds, with maybe flat earth, or concave earth, and if they think they are living there,
we need to accept that and not consider from the beginning that it is not correct interpretation
of the reality, we know better than them. Because in multiculturalism, there is the old racism
of ‘we know better than you but we let you to stay with your illusions.’ That is multiculturalism.
And that is multi naturalism. ‘You are living in the world that is real for you and because we
could not project on you our own vision, your world is correct for you. You’re living inside this
world and not in your interpretation of world we know better than you.’ That is a kind of new
anthropological approach based on the recognition of the dignity of any culture. So if you think
so, it is so for you. And in order to understand you and to speak with you and to deal with you,
we need to understand not your illusions but your truth, and to put ourselves in your position.
That is very important and geosophy is based on that. That is the idea that we have not one
space, one time, and one timeline. People by different cultures interpret their landscape, their
history and so on in different ways. ‘We know better but let them have their illusion.’ No.
Geosophy is based on that passing from our civilization, our people, our culture to the other,
we need first of all to ask these people how they understand the world and not to explain to
them what the reality of the world is.

So that is geosophy. Geosophy is not our understanding of the earth (geo, our understanding).
It is the idea that in any culture, in any point, there are different worlds coexisting in the same
context. Deleuze and Guattari, in one book, tried to apply this but from their postmodernist,
leftist, liberalist, western center way, speaking about geo-philosophy. In order to make a
difference in their approach that is too dogmatic and open approach of noology, I have
introduced the word ‘geosophy’ (not geo-philosophy but geosophy), in order to make a
difference. The concept of geosophy is studying the other culture, we need to believe
absolutely in what they believe the world is. When we are coming back we could return to our
belief, but dealing with them and studying them, we should not impose on them or project on
them our vision about subjective and objective aspect of reality but to try to understand what
for this culture, archaic or developed, North American or Oceanic (Australian for example) what
the world is for them, objectively and subjectively, if they have something like that. Maybe they
have no object and subject. The wisdom for them will be absence of object or subject. And I
have discovered some cultures with very particular absence of subject. For example in the
Paleo-Asiatic groups of very archaic people living in the extreme north of Chukotko-Kamchatka
 22

in Eurasia in the North of Russia, and as well in the North American tribes, there are cultures
with no concept of subject. For us it is incredible. For Africans as well, because the majority of
African culture is based around subject of different kind, completely different from our subject,
as a ghost or as a returning ancestor but the subject is. In their way, no. In every culture, no.

But there are so many different cultures that we could not imagine. And we need to
accept them as such and not judge them, not try to hierarchize them, for example; animism,
fetishism, not yet animism, already fetishism, as in evolutionist anthropology. But we need to
accept them as they think the things are. And that will create a new vision of earth. Not
civilization where the same try to get the power, the resources, and fighting against each other
as we do. But for example, some people are fighting, and the other not. For example, arrow.
The people in civilization living beside them refuse to use arrow. For example, Australian
aborigines. Because it is immoral to kill someone in one way movement. You kill, you are not
killed. So the boomerang is something that can kill you. You hit and it returns. That is idea of
reciprocity, of killing and being killed. That is against the arrow. Such simple things as arrow
could be negated, could be denied on the moral consideration. And that is difference between
Melanesian and Australian population. There are so many things because the ethics between
black and very similar Papua type of civilization, they have completely different Logos and
completely different reality and they are living in different worlds and we should not judge
them who is more developed, with arrow or without arrow. We should understand both. We
should understand them in the same way, North American. What are they doing here and why
are they bombing Belgrade? It is not so easy. ‘Because they hate us’ is not an explanation. How
do they understand the world? Maybe in this case we know better how they understand the
world. But there are so many people thinking completely different, living in completely different
worlds, that we will be astonished when we will know that. The richness of geosophy is not only
Americans against everybody, everybody good and Americans bad and so on. No such things.
There is rich reality without good and bad, but with not only different re-interpretations of
reality. There are realities inside of the world. And that is the mankind. Mankind is not only one
way to one thought. It is many thoughts coexisting in different ways. Sometimes dramatically
opposed and conflictual and sometimes very peaceful. So geosophy is methodology of how to
describe the civilizations.

In the first volume I’ve made a kind of surveyal, full existing, of almost all the main
schools to study civilizations in the plural (not one civilization but civilizations) starting from
Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, Huntington (modern American) and many others. The idea is
that we should recognize civilizations as cultures and as worlds, worlds absolutely defined by
the living people and not by us. So that is a kind of introduction to other volumes where
concrete worlds or civilizations are studied. What is important here as in the sense of
methodology? First of all I have remarked that any civilization or people or some entity that
shares the main aspects of culture, some community, we could call it people, we could it call it
society, or culture, something where the people are living more or less in the same world,
 23

because there are borders between the worlds, not the same as between individuals. They are
linked to the language for example, to the religions, and to other things. There are many
borders but one of the entities we are dealing with, speaking about civilization or geosophy is
people, or kind of cultures or civilizations more or less the same without differences, where
there is organic community of language, of value, the same world. Maybe it is very small as
tribe. Sometimes it is great civilization with millions of people inside. But that is not so
important the quantity. The quality of this world is what is important. Some collective
community sharing the same world vision and living in the same world. That is civilization.

And studying these entities and trying to make a kind of list of these entities, to find a
kind of measure what we could treat as entity or part or supra-entity. That is the question as
well as nomenclature here discussed in this book. And I have arrived to more important
conclusion that dealing with entity, we always see the moment of noomahia. The concept
arrives. What is moment of noomahia? That is concrete balance of the fight of the three Logos.
Three Logos are in fight. It’s clear. And the concrete moment of this fight is the concrete identity
of such entity as culture or civilization. For example, Greek culture. That is based on the
domination and the victory of the Logos of Apollo over Logos of Cybele. All Greek culture is
based on that. There was Pelasgian pre-Greek tradition of Great Mother represented in
Mycenaean and Minoan culture. And there was the Hellenic invasion with completely different
Apollonian values. And what is the identity of Greek culture? We understand of the Greek, the
moment of noomahia where this Logos of Apollo as in Diós overcomes Python and kills Python.
That was the oracle of the Great Mother. That is moment when Logos of Apollo overcomes,
outweighs the Logos of Great Mother. It is a kind of victory in titanomachy. Greek civilization is
based on the moment of the victory of titanomachy. Titans, the sons of Great Mother, attack
Gods. Gods fight back and they win. The Gods win. It’s not always the case. In Greek civilization,
Gods win. Olympian Gods, Apollo wins over Cybele.

And that is as well the war of interpretation. It is the war of the thought and over
interpretation of any kind of religious, cultural symbol, or political organization and so on. So
that is patriarchy that has won over matriarchy. And that is to be Greek in concrete moment.
Greek civilization is based on the moment of noomahia. The other civilization, for example
Iranian civilization, is based on the idea very similar to Greek because that is the victory of
Ohrmazd (the God of light) over Ahriman (the God of darkness). So two different names but
the same symmetry, the same titanomachy, and the same victory. So two kind of different
civilizations based on the similar moment of noomahia and with other culture the same. So in
order to find what is the Logos in the horizontal way, in the horizon of concrete Hellenic
civilization, we need to define what Logos, where we are in the noomahia. For example,
because we are citing the majority of Indo-European society (German, Celt, Roman, Greek,
Iranian, and Indian) are based on the same moment of Noomahia. It is the victory of the Logos
of Apollo over the Logos of Cybele. We have the idea that every civilization is based on the
same moment. Not at all. A very important example in this situation is Chinese civilization.
 24

Chinese civilization is quite different. It is the purely Dionysian civilization where there is the
balance between the Yin and Yang, between male and female, between heaven and earth, and
not the domination of heaven over earth as the value and the norm. The norm is the balance.
When there is too much heaven, there appears arrower with arrows that kills the suns, heaven.
There begins the flute and there appears the new hero that tries to diminish the quantity of
the cold water. So the balance is norm and not the victory of the Gods over the Titans. So zero
result is the norm of Chinese civilization. It is completely different logic. There is no linear
Apollonian Logos. There is always Dionysian civilization. It is not always so but everything we
know about Chinese civilization from the first so called Jade Emperor up to now, to Hu Jintao
(actual leader of China), that is this Dionysian moment. And any change of balance is inside of
this Dionysian version. So the Chinese are living in Dionysian world, with a little more Apollonian
in some moments and more Cybelian in other, but inside of this moment. That is not the destiny
of the Chinese. We should not say ‘that will last forever.’ We don’t know. Maybe there will be
the change, maybe not so always. But we constate. It is constation. It’s not rule. It’s not law. It’s
not the final truth. It is moment of noomahia.

So we need, in order to deal with different civilizations, to define the moment of

noomahia. That is first. After that we should presume that the moment of noomahia could
change. It is not frozen moment. Noomahia is going inside. For example, in order to keep
Dionysian balance, Chinese culture during many thousands of years applied and applied all the
efforts, all the powers to conserve, to guard, to save this balance, because if they for example
sit back and let the thing be, the Dionysian balance could be overthrown. So it is not easy and
taken for granted that they will be always Dionysian. If they stop to be Chinese, they could stop
to be Dionysian. If they will be for example colonized or destroyed from inside, they could stop
to pay all their existential efforts in order to keep things going in that way of not too much Yang
and not too much Yin. It’s very important. It’s almost fight for the Logos of Dionysus (Yellow
Dionysus I’m calling this book about Chinese civilization). In Indo-European as well, if we stop
to fight for Apollo there will appear Cybele immediately because she is always there. She will
attack immediately when we stop to impose this Apollonian will over matter. So that is very
important. The moment of noomahia shouldn’t be considered as a kind of eternal and taken
for granted identity of the culture of civilization. It could change.

That is the meaning of the history because the history is the fight of the Logos. And every
people has its own version of this fight. And every people, every culture is in the different
moments of this noomahia defined by its own proportions. There are people with domination
of Cybelian or for example, Afro-Asiatic people as Semitic, Egyptian, and Berber people or
Kushit people, there is the huge influence and power of Cybele. They could overcome it from
time to time but that is a kind of natural inclination. But it is not the fate. They could change
that and they could create something completely different. But identity is the process. Identity
of the people is changing and is dynamic. So the moment of noomahia could be the same or
could change. Proportion of the three Logos in the same people and same society could be
 25

different from the other society and could change during the history of the same people
without ethnical or social change. So we receive at the end, very dynamic and multi-level
structure of geosophy. So there are horizontal differences between one society and the other
society living in the other geographical space but they have the same or the different moments
of noomahia. They have different identity. Including if they share some moments, they could
be expressed differently. In the relations between them, all that is very important. The relation
of Greeks with moment of noomahia where Apollonian aspect has victory over Cybelian, with
Iranians with the same moment of noomahia where the Apollonian has victory over Cybelian,
were conflictual. Those were two forms of Apollonian Logos. Because the balances,
proportions, and combinations were different. So if there is more or less the same moment of
noomahia that doesn’t mean that there will be completely agreement and correspondence. So,
the situation is different.

At the same time, in any culture or geosophical entity we take into consideration, could
be historical change. And the change of this element of noomahia, domination of Logos of
Apollo over Logos of Cybele or the Logos of Cybele over Logos of Dionysus or Dionysus
domination over both and so on could change. So the history and the direction of this change
is not universal. It is kind of the product of the inner dynamic of the people. So we have many
civilizations going with many worlds, with many different moments of noomahia, going in
different ways. So there is no way for example. We don’t all go to Cybele or Apollo. Everybody
is going its own way. So that is geosophy. Geosophy is recognition of multiplicity of the culture
in any sense in the space and in time. So everybody is different, going in different directions
with different speed, and with open end. Compare that with the major existing concept of the
history. There is only one goal, for example, in Christian way or Muslim way, there is only one
truth, there is maybe one or two possibilities or ways to reach this truth, one wrong and the
other right, and that’s all, and there is universal norm. And there is one space, one time, one
object, maybe more than one subject, one better than the other, liberal better and not liberal
worse, and that’s all. And compare that narrow, purely racist, purely ethno-centrist
understanding of the human history with what geosophy proposes. Geosophy proposes to
discover so many worlds without quitting the earth. The new worlds, the other worlds are living
here beside ourselves, new to us. But we don’t remark them because we are projecting our
own narrow vision about that. For example, Russian author and Eurasianist Count Trubetzkoy
has said once ‘if we consider, for example, the structure of book written about law in the west,
how it is universal law. There is Roman law. It is thousand pages dedicated to Roman law and
its development and two pages about Chinese law.' And that is universal law with no
mentioning of other kind of law. That is more or less comparable situation with for example;
Roman law is law of law. But to be universal is not enough to put very profoundly studied
Roman law, compared with very superficially observation of Chinese law from the Roman law
point of view and that is universal law. It is not universal law at all. It is Roman law with two
pages of Chinese law interpreted from Roman law point of view and there’s nothing universal
in that.
 26

So geosophy is invitation to the real universality, to the real acceptance of the richness
of any people, any society, and any civilization in the serious way. It is serious multipolarity and
serious tolerance. It is not this kind of disguised racism that is modern liberal globalization that
projects the result of only one civilization, western civilization, as universal, one of everybody
else, pretending that is universal because it’s not so white based on the mixture. It is not enough
because everything we see in the mixture of the culture is the western culture with something
taint skin. Obama is absolutely white. He is white supremacist. He is white as Hitler. He has
nothing African about him. He has nothing black. He is purely W.A.S.P. because there is nothing
that would be outside from his American Anglo-Saxon mentality. It is semi-black puppet of
white man. And all globalization is the same. It is transmission of the same very narrow result
of the modern and post-modern western culture over humanity. It is not dialogue, it is not
multiplicity, it is not pluralism, it is not tolerance. It’s pure colinizatory racism based on the most
savage prejudices and that is what we are dealing with.

So geosophy obtains in this situation, revolutionary mission to destroy this attitude, to

rediscover the world, to decolonize any kind of civilization, in order to give the right to the other
to be other, without asking permission from globalists, from Soros, from Americans, and to
affirm identities how these identities are, bad or good, accepted or rejected, radical, extremist,
archaic, based on human rights or not based on human rights, no matter. Human rights is purely
racist concept because in human and in rights; that's Roman rights in the modern interpretation
and the western understanding of what is human (so individual). So it is liberal totalitarian idea
of human rights, because they don’t ask no one what you think. For example, ‘you Chinese -
what is human?’ No asking only question. ‘You should be more strictly in the same granting
human rights for your Chinese dissidents.’ That’s all. That is complete colonizational attitude.
Nobody asks Chinese what is human for them, nobody cares. Because the globalists know
better what is human because they are human and they put the norms what is human. What
all that has to in the real pluralism or real democracy or real human, there is pure racism. So
geosophy is against that, not ethically but methodologically because it is perspectivism that is
based on careful study of civilization without prejudices. So for example, you are Serbian, we
are Russians. We are Orthodox. We are past all the Christian Indo-European civilization. We are
going to Cannibal society. We are projecting our idea. That is bad society because they eat each
other. It is satanic, daemonic, devilish, or underdeveloped. We don’t ask that. We try to change
them immediately with our understanding. And that is the same practice. We are dealing with
neighbors, with far or near people living around us and that is the source of misunderstanding
and source of almost all errors. Maybe it’s natural but it’s erroneous, erroneous human but
nevertheless the error. So we need to change that and the idea is to study the society, accepting
what the members of the society think the reality and the values and the nature, the subject,
the object, the history is.

But here we encounter a serious methodological problem. How could we study different
society with the same languages, for example, with the same criteria? So we need at least small
 27

things of common criteria that we could try to apply to different society in order to see whether
there is some correspondence or not, in open way. So three Logos as I have explained, I have
tried to apply to any civilization, any culture that I have studied, and everywhere I have
encountered the clear traces of all of them. So that is something seriously universal but in open
combination. There is no one law but they are present and they are fighting. So maybe that is
something universal that there are three Logos. And there is the fight and there is open end of
that. And in geosophy, I have tried to find the other criterion that could be useful in studying
the civilizations, in order to have something in common between them. And first of all, following
Heidegger and phenomenology, I have chosen the concept of existential horizon, or existential
space. What is existential space? It is ‘Da’ of Dasein. It is space, where in German ‘Da.’ That is
space but that is not the space of the science, not the space as a concept. It is the space where
the being is. The existential space is the space where the thinking, living human being is. And
this space doesn’t exist without this living thinking being. So it is special. It is not geographical.
It is existential. If there is the thinking man and collectivity with languages, with culture, with
roots, with some symbolic system, there is this existential space, existential horizon. And where
we have the same structure of existential horizon, we have the same existential space, we have
the same Dasein, and we have the same people or the same culture. Where is the border?
There begins the other.

So that is very important in order how to separate, how to create a nomenclature of

peoples, of cultures, of civilizations. If we apply the other criterion, more sophisticated, more
developed, we will be dealing with secondary results of what is already constructed over this
existential space. So this existential space is very important. And that is linked to the concept
of the multiplicity of Daseins. I have spoken with the direct student of Heidegger and his
continuator, Professor Herrmann (in Freiburg, Germany). We have spoken about the
multiplicity of Daseins. He has said that Heidegger thought that the Dasein was universal, that
there is only one Dasein (because he was racist). He thought that German, European, Greco-
Roman Dasein was the only one. And he carefully put aside the other Dasein as something not
Dasein. For him the Dasein was only one as philosophy was only one, as Logos was only one.
That was Western European Logos. It’s normal for you to recognize that as absolutely legitimate
ethnocentrism. Herrmann has said ‘but Dasein was defined by Heidegger as the relations to the
death and that death is the same for every living human being.’ I have responded ‘not at all.
Absolutely not at all. In nothing the same.’ Every culture, every Dasein has its own relation to
death. And precisely, in this relation to death, which I agree is the most important characteristic
of Dasein, represent a particularity and originality of Dasein. And I have studied that in my book
on Heidegger. I have written four books on Heidegger. The second one is called Martin
Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, where I have applied Heidegger’s criterium,
existentiells (with s), to the Russian Dasein. And I have discovered that the majority of them
don’t work in Russian situation. We have different relations to very core of existential realities
with death, with God, with each other, with the place of human. So Daseins are multiple. That
is very important. And existential horizon defines the natural border of Dasein. That
 28

corresponds, some partly, with geographical borders. That is normal because the people live in
some concrete space.

And we could regard this existential horizon as space where the people live, Lebensraum.
But at the same time, it could not exist without human being, without people, without
language, without tradition. If you put the mixed population in some space you don’t get this
existential space. It is not Dasein. And that is very difficult example in our history - Kalingrad
people by Russian that was Prussia people by Baltic tribes, invaded by Germans, assimilated,
and after that taken by us and we have put the Germans aside. So that is space Russian, not so
German, no, Baltic, no. There is the place, the people there living, the culture, and the history
but there is no Dasein. So a part of territory of the space is evacuated from existential aspect.
It’s very special conditions. I have studied Serbian history and that is kind of this idea of
migration of Serbs that created the similar idea where are the borders of Serbia. Where is
Serbians, the bearers of Serbia? Or could the Serbs exist without Serbian motherland or not? It
is open question. So that is a kind of exilic tradition. So it deals with the problem of existential
Dasein. Existential Dasein is not the territory. And that is not only the people. It is the relation,
the Sein (being) to the place, existential relations of the being to the place that passes through
the people, through the cultures, through the humans, through the thought. It’s very particular
concept but it’s very important to geosophy because geosophy studies precisely existential
horizons. It is the relations of the being to the space that goes through the culture, through the
language, through the tradition, through the identity. So that is very important category of
geosophy.

We can say we are studying the people but not the people as ethnology studies the
people because ethnology studies that from some demographical aspect or some statistical or
some formal material. This is a study of Dasein. For example if we are studying Serbs, we should
put first the question, 'what means to be Serb?’ It’s not easy. Any formal answer is not enough.
Or Russians. And here begins our poetry, our philosophy, our imagination, our political
aspirations, everything is here. 'What it means to Serb.' 'What it means to be Russian.’ And it is
not abstract. We could not say ‘these things to be Serb, these things to be Russian.’ No. We are
giving the answer through all our history, through our victories. For example, we could say this
is our empire. But empire grows and diminishes and to be Russian, what borders? And our
defeats and our errors can be our answer to what it means to be Serbian or Russian. So it is
existential horizon linked to the space, linked to the people, but not to them in material way.
So nobody can answer this question of what it means to be Serb. Neither Englishman nor
Russian can give the satisfactory answer. Maybe Serbs as well cannot respond. But that is the
process. That is open question of identity, understood existentially.

So practical result from geosophy, we need to begin to study what is Serbian Dasein. Put
the question in these terms, not to try to find our Slavs identical term. We will be lost in this
way. We could accept that technically. Heidegger thought that Dasein is unique. We agree that
 29

we have multiplicity, multiple Daseins. And starting with this, we could concretely put the
question ‘what does it mean to be Serb?’ And that is not a futile question. It is not only a slogan.
It is something that you and your ancestors have paid with the blood, with the body, with
Kosovo, with King Lazar, with all your history, all your existence is kind of solving this problem
of what it means to be Serb. And the future is here. And the future of Kosovo and Metohija is
here and the future of the Serbian identity is here. And the answer doesn’t belong to the past
or only to the present. It is eternal question. You are Serb because you are inside of this
existential horizon because you are solving this problem. Maybe not solve, but you are part of
this. And the culture and the language, and the tradition, and the values, and as well maybe the
body are the parts of this. So creation of ancestors, and the future, and the children, and the
families all are inscribed in this existential horizon.

But I think that why we so badly need this concept of existential horizon is because
without that we could not correctly put the right questions we need to solve now. Because
seeing as population or for example, GDP, for how much income we have or where is better to
live and where is more possibility for social mobility. If we consider Serbs for example, Russian
in that way, we receive completely different answer that could not explain absolutely nothing
in our history. So existential horizon is key concept for geosophy and without that we could not
come into real study of deep identity of the entities we are trying to study. Existential horizon
is basic methodological principle of noology and geosophy. And the second term is as well very
important. If existential horizon deals with so-called space but space in the sense of the
‘between,’ somewhere where the human thinking presence is. It is existential space. So we
should deal as well with existential time. That is second category of geosophy. That is as well
Heideggerian in its origin. Heidegger in his Sein und Zeit (time and being) has made distinction
between two German terms; ‘Geschichte' and ‘historische.' It is translated the same.
'Geschichte' is history and 'historisch' is historic. Sometimes Heidegger uses as well the term
‘Seinsgeschichte.' That is onto-history, the history of being. And that is already a kind of
important clarification of the term. So ‘Geschichte’ or ‘Seinsgeschichte’ in German is time that
is linked to the being. If for example ‘da’ is space linked to the being, ‘Geschichte' is time linked
to the being. So it is the time of being or existential time we could name it.

And interesting that the continuator of Heidegger, great French philosopher Henry Corbin that
is best specialist in the Islamic esoteric tradition, trying to translate difference between
‘historisch’ and ‘Geschichte' in French has introduced two words in French; historique
(historische) and l’historial (Geschichte). In English there is no such difference. In Russian and
Serbian as well, everything is conceptual, we are dealing with concept. So we could try to use
historical and historic. The historical substantive, and the historic. It’s purely pragmatic but the
meaning is different. Let’s call historical the kind of history of being. So it is the history of the
Sein. It is not the consequence of the facts but the consequence of the meanings. So the
historical is a kind of intellectual existential reading of historic. Historical is ontological aspect
of historic. Historic is a fact that is documented. But historical is the explanation of fact. But
 30

when we are living through the historical, we are not explaining afterwards. Living in the history,
we are committing the deeds that could be historic or could be historical. If they’re historical
they have to do something with Dasein, with our identity, with our deep roots. We are existing
historically. And historic, all elements seen from outside are documented.

So historic is something that has to do with the facts and historical is something that has
to do with the meaning and with the being. And in French, Corbin uses this l’historial (historical)
as substantive (l’historial - the historical). I am using in Russian, the term ‘историал.’ It's very
strange word but that has concrete meaning in geosophy, in noomahia. So we have existential
horizon, existential space, and we have existential time. Existential time is our interpretation of
our history. And that is our interpretation of our history. For example, the facts in this
interpretation of the history speak to us, to our soul, to our blood, to our spirit, everything. And
to other, that could be the event with no significance. So formal events, the other measure this
event with their measure. And we are measuring these events not materially, not
quantitatively, but we are living through them. For example, the struggle in Kosovo field is
Serbian event. It is key part of Serbian historical, not historic. Historic we could say is one battle
against the other and King Lazar was not so great and so on. But in your methodological
understanding of what it means to be Serb, the key moment that is basis of being after Kosovo
and before Kosovo, because Kosovo was the end of something and beginning of something and
eternal Kosovo fight. And the eternity of this event has something to do with the existential
aspect of Serbian Dasein. For us it’s the same, for example, of the Kalka fight, or Poltava, or
Second World War. So there is not only one meaning of that. The meaning to this event belongs
to the people, belongs to the Dasein, to the Serbian Dasein, to the Russian Dasein, to the
American Dasein, to the French Dasein, to Chinese Dasein. And the meaning and the reality of
what is, was, and will be depends directly on this existential relations to the time.

Husserl said time is like a melody. If you hear one note and after that the other note and
other note, there is logic. So you know tonality, you know chords, and when the note is not
correct, you are shocked by that. You try to improve, to play the right note if there is not the
correct note. And the next note is predefined by previous notes. Because history is not the fact,
fact, fact. There is melody. It is logical. And we could miss the note or we could delay. For
example there should be chords and there is no chord. And we are living, waiting for the chords
that we already are anticipating. So that is the history that should happen. If that doesn’t
happen that is as well maybe a kind of introduction of silence in the melody, of new
Stockhausen version of melody. But that is the music. The history is music. And only the people
or Dasein can understand this historical music. It is not universal. You could not say hear
something and everybody deciphers from the noise on the special frequency. So the historical
of any people has its own frequency. Russians are hearing our Russian melody and we
understand it very well. And you hear your Serbian melody but they are played on different
frequencies. So from outside, it is difficult to say whether you are at good stage, bad stage, you
are developing or you are in decadence. So there are no universal criteria in the historical,
 31

because relations to the time is existential property of Dasein. And after that it is a kind of all
that, existential horizon and existential time (the historical) are defined by noomahia because
in any moment you could not express your melody in the history or your identity as a people
placed in the space without three Logos. You use them or they use you.

So that is a kind of balance in dynamic of the Logos. So if your Logos for example is
centered around Apollo and there is for example coming Cybelian moment, this moment is for
you, if you stay loyal to your previous Logos you consider to be essential. It is a kind of
experience, the test, you pass through, you don’t assimilate. And that separates Bosniaks from
Serbs. Where the Turks came, the part of the Serbian people have decided that you should
integrate in the new condition. That is forever. And the other made, as King Lazar, the different
decision. You should stay with Orthodoxy, with the previous identity and defend it through the
night of the Turkish rule. Two decisions; to give in or to stay with the Logos. That is decision of
the people. And two people, Bosnian and Serbian, appeared after that. So the distinction is on
the weight of one Logos. It is very concrete thing. I am speaking about how we go from the
same melody but after one moment we could split and the people could split; Ukrainian,
Russian, Belarusian, and Anglo-Saxon. So there are many interesting points of this bifurcation
of this melody. So creation of new Dasein, of new people. And all that is linked to the noomahia
as a fight between three Logos. So we could explain the historical of every people and the
existential horizon of every people as a kind of element, they are expressed with the help of
the Three Logos or we could use the other image. We could represent Three Logos as three
grain put in the existential fields and these grains grow. And some of them prevail, some is in
the shadow, some win, the other fails. So this existential ground could exist and grow different
fruits but grains are always there in this existential horizon. And dynamic of their growth,
combinations, and conflicts is always different and is proper only to one people with only one
historical. So that is the people’s history (народа история) as special thing that could not be
explained or understood from outside. Noomahia is not something artificial. It is the process
we are living through. It is kind of our identity. And that is the second very important aspect of
geosophy.

And the last thing that I would like to explain here is that we are living with very
interesting contradiction because if we have many worlds, and many cultures, and many
identities that are developing in different directions, in different ways, with different results,
how we could really understand that because we, for example, Russians, are absolutely defined
by Russian Dasein and I could be nobody but Russian. I represent Russian Dasein. I have only
one vision - Russian vision, because I belong to my existential horizon. I am living in the moment
of my Russian melody, how we as existential being understand that. And I could judge, for
example, what is going on outside of Russia only with my eyes. Exactly the same with Serbs.
You could not imagine yourself to be Albanians, against possibility including game playing. We
are trying to use Ossetian in one ethno-sociological school. We have said ‘lets imagine you are
the enemy, you are the other. Let’s imagine you are Georgian.’ They could not accept that
 32

including in the game playing, in the role playing. No. There was no Georgian. Everybody will
play Ossetes. It is ethnocentric aspect that is embedded in the searcher mind. For example, it
is logical to presume that all noomahia is Russian vision of everything. It reflects Russian
ethnocentrism. That is very comfortable for Serbs but maybe will be not so much comfortable
for Croats, or Polish, or Americans, or Chechens. So how could we solve in that situation the
problem that we are defined by own Dasein and how could we deal with other Dasein being
the part of this Dasein? So that is very difficult methodological question but without answering
that we could not come to geosophy. That will be only pure hallucination about the multiplicity.
So the idea is the measure. So if we, for example, insist on pure universality, and if we try to
overcome any ethnocentrism, we come to nothing. We have no position. There is no such
existential space and there is no such melody that could be the earth for all of humanity or
universal history. That will be the same as in Trubetzkoy's example. That will be a thousand
pages about our civilization history and two pages about everything else. So that will be just
our own «objective» understanding of multiplicity of Dasein. That will be absolutely
ethnocentric and therefore wrong. So if we pretend to create the system without
ethnocentrism, universal, that will be our ethnocentrism in some perverted, titanic, gigantic
version.

So the problem how I solve it, it recognizes the right for ethnocentrism. We could not
exist without ethnocentrism and trying to deny that, we become more ethnocentrism. That is
because globalism and liberalism is much more racist than National Socialism because it thinks
one fate, one destiny for everybody. And Germans were racist but they tried to impose their
Germanity over more or less limited quantity of the people. The people were against. They
fought against. We have fought against and we have won. And that was more or less with limit.
Globalists try to do the same on the global scale, to impose their identity, to turn everybody
into globalists without distinction. Trying to avoid racism, under pretext to be anti-fascist, they
became the real fascists, the serious fascists, the hyper fascists because they tried to impose in
a very racist way their understanding of what is human, what is good, what is progress, what is
time, what is technology and so on. So we could not pretend that we are universalists. But we
could not stay ethnocentric. Because that will not be noomahia but history of Russian Dasein
or Serbian Dasein. The idea how to solve that is to recognize the natural limits of this existential
space and positive appreciation of the Dasein of the other. Positive doesn’t mean that we
should exchange our Dasein against the Daseins of others. But positive appreciation recognizes
the rights of the other to be completely different without no hierarchy. Difference could
sometimes provoke conflicts but if there is not conflicts, it’s not the destiny of the difference.
So we shouldn’t eliminate the differences in the so-called universalist direction but we
shouldn’t overgrow, we shouldn’t put our own recognized ethnocentric identity as something
that should be imposed over other. And that is very interesting. What I’m speaking about is
borders that should not be fixed once for all, that could change because the people could
develop, they could change their identity. They are dynamic entities. They are inside of the
historical (not historic) process of the balance of their noomahia. They are fighting with each
 33

other. They are changing religions. They are open in any way, in positive or negative way, in any
way, in conflicts, in war and peace (war and peace of Tolstoy). There are always possibilities.
War and peace, changing. And this changing situation, the identity could change. We are not
obliged to stay absolutely with one and the same moment of noomahia. It depends on so many
factors that it is always open question.

And if we consider a kind of concert of these ethnocentric groups, if we recognize the

right to be ethnocentric in some borders, not overcoming them, not in the universalist nor in
the purely chauvinist xenophobic way, if we are staying clung to our own identity, defending it
sometimes, imposing it when its the possibility, but at the same time if we recognize the inner
right of difference to the other, we don’t eliminate ethnocentrism, we don’t overcome
ethnocentrism, and we don’t glorify excessively ethnocentrism. And that is Apollonian
methods, because as Friedrich Jünger, the brother of Ernst Jünger, has described it in his
famous book about Greek Gods, 'the essence of titanism, of this Cybelian Logos, is not knowing
the measure.' So if you are ethnocentric, you are imperialist colonialist. You impose your
ethnocentrism over everybody. If you are universalist it is the same. It is titanism. If we stay in
the borders we could not over-reach that, not to fall in one or the other, not pretend to be the
center of the world but we are center of the world, everyone of us. If we are not center of the
world, we are not in Dasein. If we do not have the center of our identity, of our sacred territory,
of our tradition, of our symbols without churches and sacred places, we are not people. We
should be center of the world but we should recognize the right to the other to be center of
the world as well in their eyes, in their world, in their borders. And the borders should not be
just. They’re always unjust, because we are living beings. These existential horizons are living.
So we could not say ‘lets be the Great Russia and nobody will pass.’ There comes the time when
someone other pass the border. And the borders should not be titanic. They should be open as
well. We should fight for our borders. We should live with our borders because our borders are
kind of our bodies, our skin. We are living in that. They should let something in, something out,
as the skin. They should be different. But they should exist. They should be recognized in the
clear and the logical and the metaphysical way; so the borders between one horizon and the
other, without pretending to creature the common measure, to put them together, to
overcome our ethnocentrism.

We could call it self-reflecting ethnocentrism. We understand that we are the center of the
world and we are happy with that. But we understand and we should recognize the right to
think the same and to be the same in the other borders of the other. That is very important.
That is the only solution to create balanced geosophy and the world based on multipolarity
because otherwise we will come to completely kind of humanism without the essence, without
the nature, without the content, pure form. That will be at the end of the day pure racism, the
other side of pure racism as pure humanism, because if you don’t agree with the values of this
liberal humanism, you are not human and finally you should be destroyed, as is the case with
 34

Muslims or with Slavs in Anglo-Saxon version. Or we try to impose our own ethnocentrism
without understanding the measure.

So maybe we could call it measured ethnocentrism, self-reflecting ethnocentrism that

recognizes the dignity of this existential entity of these people but recognizing the right to have
the same for those who we like or we don’t like as well. With those who we like, it’s no problem
but with those who we don’t like at all, it’s the problem. For example, following this path in
concrete, in writing noomahia, I have written and published the book on North America, North
American Logos. You can imagine my relation to North American culture. I simply hate it. But
dealing with North American Logos, I have discovered that was a challenge for myself. Because
if I would write Russian version of criticism of American imperialism and so on, that will be
caricature. That will not be American Logos. It’s pity but that will not be noomahia. And going
into depth of American Logos, I have discovered completely different things. I started to
understand them. I don’t approve them but now I understand them. I understand what they
are doing because everything fits in their context. And they are kind of consequential in their
attitude, in their titanism, in their creation of artificial, post-traditional civilization. They are
doing what they should do. They are creating some kind of American society on the global scale
because it was based on this universalism from the very beginning. I don’t approve that but
that is quite logical if we consider that there is American world and there is the Logos of
American world. And I have identified that in the pragmatist philosophy, a very special
philosophy, very different from European philosophy. It’s not good, not bad but it’s purely
American. It’s based on inexistence of object and subject. Very interesting. I have passed the
test I think. Because dealing with American Logos, I didn’t write a caricatural critical volume of
how awful they are and how we should fight against them but it was written with some
sympathy for them. For me it was really a challenge. After that, I could write a volume of
Noomahia on any people after overcoming this challenge. For example, after this test, I have
discovered the logic of Croats, of Polish, and with great astonishment I have found that the
Slavophile tendency and tradition was started not by Russian but by Croats. Croats were the
first Slavophiles. And Czechs, and there was a Slavophile tendency in Polish tradition. Not for
Russia but Croatian was pro-Russia. It’s very strange.

So there are so many things that we could discover overcoming our ethnocentrism and
at the same time destroying completely universalism imposed by globalists. So that is new way.
It is not rehabilitation of nationalism. It is not the return to the nation states. It is not pure
revanchism noomahia. It is new way of thinking that is new for Russian, for myself. And I think
that if we learn to use that methodologically, we could solve many details in political, cultural,
scientific, in any sense, and very concrete challenges. So that’s for today. We have covered
today, two most important methodological aspects of noology as a philosophical discipline. We
have spoken about three Logos and geosophy with most important terms and concepts
introduced in two first lectures. And I invite you to think about that, to try to use that in
concrete aspect, and follow next eight lectures because in the next eight lectures, we will apply
 35

what we have spoken about today to the concrete cases, as examples to show how that works,
because it works as concrete tools. If they are tools they should help us to do something with
that. That is all for today.

Lecture 3. Logos of Indo-european civilization.

1. Existential space and its classes. Big and small existential spaces. The linguistic factor.
Language as house of being.

2. Biggest existential space. Indo-European space. The Indo-European Dasein. The

borders.

3. What is Turan? Iran and Turan in Firdowsi. Ancient name Avesta. Indo-European
nomadic people and indo-european sedentary people.

4. The indo-european motherland. Craddle of Indo-europeans. Turan and Eurasia. Mary

Gymbutas kurgan theory. Oswald Spengler three civilizations Atlantic, Kushitic and
Turanian.

5. The structure of Indo-European Logos. Patriarchy. The theory of George Dumezil. Three
functions.

· priests Apollo

· warriors Apollo/ Dionysus

· simple pastoralists Apollo/Dionysus – more material.

1. The Indo-European ideology is based on three functions. All the myths, tales, the
historicals, political institutions, religions, rites are based on the tri-functional logic.

2. Pure verticality. The Father is transcendent. The Son is immanent. There is no

antagonism between them.

3. Indo-European world is nomadic. But there is the center that is eternal. The sacred
motherland.
 36

4. Symbol of sun – circle, wheel. Solar wheel. Chariot.

5. Plato – “Timy” three world: paradigms, images and khora – matter. Three species.
“Republic”: Priests – philosophers, Guardians, auxiliaries, assistants – warriors and
producers. “Pheadrus”: the soul has three principles black horse (epithymia ) white
horse (thymos) and charioteer (kybernautos).

6. Triade is in all Indo-European peoples – hittites, germans, celts, greeks, Thracians, latins,
slavs, balts, Iranians, Indians, illirians, Armenians and so on.

7. But the problem is that the third function is represented by sedentary peasants,
farmers. They were integrated into the Indo-European societies long ago. Sо they
became the third function with the pastoralists.

8. Here the Earth manifests Herself. Dionysus is now the grain, the vine grape.

Noomahia project is based on the in-depth studies of cultures, philosophical systems, arts,
religions and psychological features and characteristics of human civilizations. It reviews
ancient and modern, highly sophisticated and also the “primitive", from the highly
technologically developed to those lacking the written language. The ultimate aim is to
demonstrate and conclusively prove that no single culture can be regarded in hierarchical way
(developed/under-developed, higher /lower, modern/premodern, civilized/savage and so on).
Responsible evaluation of any human culture should be judged from within by those who
belong to it - without any imposition of outside biases (interpretation is always culturally
biased). Noomahia aims to achieve this by deconstructing, removing all elements of cultural
racism and ethnocentrism, that tend to be the key feature of every and any society – whether
it be liberal and traditional, religious or secular. Noomahia argues the case for the dignity of
humanity that lives within the incommensurability of all existing cultural forms.

a. The Three Logos approach

The starting point - and the main feature of Noomahia - is the concept of Three main Logos
(Noological paradigms) that define the structure of any culture. Three Logos are

· Apollonian (patriarchal, hierarchical, androcratic, vertical, exclusive, “heavenly”,

transcendent) – light Logos;
 37

· Dionysian (middle, androgyneous, ecstatic, immanent without materialism, balanced,

dialectic) – dark Logos;

· Cybelian (matriarchical, horizontal, gynekocratic, inclusive, chthonic, immanent,

materialistic) – black Logos.

The idea is the all three Logos are present in any culture, but are irreducible (invariants) that
always keep their distinct essence. Hence the concept of Noomahia – or the fight between the
Three Logos - is the dynamic of the creation of the moments of cultural and historic dialectic.
These are variable in the timeline of history of any culture and develop in differing stages and
phases. There is no universal rule that has or can define the succession and duration of these
phases and moments. Each culture and civilization has its own and unique sequence of the
process of Noomahia, with particularities of winning or defeated Logos that result in them
eventually changing their role. Therefore, each culture must be studied and assessed
separately, individually and with considerable care, avoiding any temptation to project the
structure of one own studied experience on other issues. The rejection of ethnocentrism should
be radical and brought to the last logical conclusion.

b. Plurality of civilizations (anthropology of big spaces and long cycles)

The second principle of Noomahia project is the defining of the field of research and the limits
of civilization. The concept of civilization is cultural and based on the presumption of the
coexistence among the people of the earth of different existential circles (or horizons)
identified as the plurality of Dasein’s.

The deep study of each civilization demands the questioning of previous interpretations of
history and the development of humankind: it is a kind of spiritual emigration to the study of
civilization that removes all the presumptions and pre-conceptions linked the personal cultural
nature of those who study this approach. It is the application of the anthropological method
(developed by F. Boaz and C. Levy-Strauss) to all human societies without exception – “civilized”
or “savage “.

After accepting the need to ‘clear the decks’ and remove the accepted mental clutter of
historical analysis; the next step will be clarification of the spatial concept of the culture of
studied civilization and the semantic sequence (“l’historial”, Seynsgeschichte) of the most
significant events interpreted in the optic of the concrete people and culture (and not by
outside observer).

2. Anthropological mapping of the world

 38

a. The necessity of revision of the concept universality

It has taken 10 years just to arrive at the point of being able to describe the plurality civilizations
of the world covering all continents and peoples, cultures and religions, societies and
philosophies. It is only the first rung of a long ladder but already there is a deep sense that we
are starting to discover ‘The Unusual’. This in itself shows that we need the completely revise
our concept of universality. It is clear that from these studies of Noomahia that is very evident
that to date we have not normally been dealing with the ‘real universalism’ (speaking about
human, rights, norms, life, sexes progress and so on) but with an ethno centrist projection of
our own (Western) culture and civilization taking it erroneously for being “universal”. This is
fundamental fault of the present-day globalization: it is deeply “racist” (in cultural sense),
projecting and imposing modern and post-modern Western set of values on the majority of the
rest of mankind. The real universalism can be reached by the way of projection but in dialogue
with ‘The Other’, who in turn is accepted with all its particularities, pecularities and originalities
(not depending on our own value judgement). We must not be selective in what we analyse.
We must all investigate with clear eyes and unprejudiced minds – and maintain this
understanding and impartiality going forward.

We are continuing our lectures dedicated to Noology, philosophical discipline about

consciousness, human mind, and the thought. Today we have two lectures. The third lecture
has the name ‘Logos of Indo-European Civilization.’ So now we are going to apply the
methodological principles explained in the previous two lectures to concrete objects and to
concrete civilizations. We have spoken about the three Logos theory and the concept of
existential horizon and the Historical. So now we are going to apply that to Indo-European
culture. First of all when we are speaking about existential space, we can apply this concept to
different scales, to small communities, to middle sized communities, or to big communities, for
example united by the similar or same linguistic origins. And now we are going to speak about
Indo-European existential space. What is Indo-European existential space? It is one of the
largest forms of unity. Indo-European existential space coincides with the space where people
speaking Indo-European languages live. What are Indo-European languages? That is Roman,
Latin, Greek, German, Celt, Slavic, Persian, Indian Sanskrit and the other Prakrit languages,
Hittite in Ancient Anatolia, Phrygian, Thracian, Illyrian (the ancestors of Albanians), and Balts
more or less. What is interesting is that gypsies as well belong to this linguistic community
because the language of the gypsy is also Indo-European. Their origins are uncertain but they
speak in Indo-European languages. As well, Yiddish, a Jewish language, (a German language
essentially) belongs to the European family. That is more or less the space populated by the
people speaking these languages that enter in this Indo-European ecumene, Indo-European
existential horizon. That is a huge amount of space, of peoples, of histories, very contradictory
 39

and conflictual, but at the same time that covers people speaking Indo-European languages.
That is existential space.

We have spoken yesterday that we are defining the cultures and people by existential horizon,
the space, and the historical. So we could speak about the Indo-European history or Indo-
European historical sequence of the events. We will see later what could be or what versions
of this main general Indo-European historical sequence can be but now we are going to discuss
what is the kind of main features of Indo-European existential horizon. What is Indo-European
Dasein? (t/here being) First of all, we need to concentrate on a very important concept. That is
the concept of Turan. Normally, we use the term Turan as a space where Turkish people lived.
But that is not so, because the term Turan is purely Iranian and it is much more ancient than
the appearance of the first Turkish tribes in Central Asia or in Eurasian steppes. The term
belongs to Avesta, to the ancient Zoroastrian Mazdaen religion and was used in the Iranian
tradition long before the manifestation or creation of the first Turkish tribes. So that is an Indo-
European term (Turan). And what is the meaning of the Indo-European term? We know very
well Ferdowsi, a Persian poet of the Middle Ages that has created a kind of poetry about the
Iranian historical sequence called Shahnameh poem. This Shahnameh is based on the duality
taken from Avesta, from ancient pre-Islamic sources, about duality and dualism and the fight
between Iran and Turan. Iran was sedentary people of Iranian descent. Iranians as we know
them living in Persia and in the Media to the north of the actual Persia, in the Caucasus. The
essential feature of Iran was sedentary. And Turan was the space where nomadic people lived.
But what is the meaning of the word ‘Turan’? The original meaning, root of this Indo-European
word was ‘tribe’ or ‘people.’ It is the same as in the case of ‘tautos' in Lithuanian (nation or
people). That was the name for the people of the steppes. And the meaning of Turan was the
space populated by the nomadic tribes. And these tribes, in the ancient Avestan time when this
term was used, these peoples were absolutely Indo-European as well. So we are dealing with
very interesting duality (dualism), cultural and civilizational. Iran and Turan signified in the
original time, two versions of Indo-European societies. Iran was the same as sedentary Indo-
European society and Turan was the name for nomadic Indo-European society. That is very
important because that has to do with the origins of the Indo-European peoples.
When we try and when we start to explore, from Iran and Turan, what kind of civilization or
society was more ancient, we come to the absolute conclusion that is the main position of any
historians that Turanian Indo-European tribes were first. So the Iranians that were at the source
of sedentary Iranian culture were the ex-nomadic tribes that turned into sedentary tribes. They
came from the same Turanian space. That is the main position. There are many many debates
and quarrels of where exactly in Turan was the center of this proto-Indo-European culture. But
almost everybody agrees that that was somewhere in Turan. There is position that was far to
the east or to the south of the Ural Mountains, or in the Caspian area, or to the north of the
Black Sea, but somewhere from Danube up to the southern Siberia. That was a large area but
somewhere there was the so-called motherland, or urheimat to use the German word, initial,
original motherland of the European people. So that is urheimat (in Russian прародина),
 40

something not motherland but pre-motherland. That is more or less the common position,
somewhere there. That is the main principle of the origins of the European civilization.
Second moment - if we have location somewhere in Turan, the second principle of the Indo-
European origins is that the first Indo-European cultures were nomadic, so strictly linked to the
pastoralism. They were pastoralist, nomadic, Turanian tribes. I would suggest the readings of
Marija Gimbutas (Lithuanian author), that have explained excellently and brilliantly the kind of
logic of this Indo-European expansion. The idea is that, according to Marija Gimbutas, and
according to the many Russian scientists and archaeologists as well, the origin of these Turanian
Indo-European tribes was somewhere to the south of the Ural, around Chelyabinsk city where
a very ancient city was recently discovered called Arkaim, because that was the typical Turanian
city of the nomadic Indo-European tribes.
You know that it is common wisdom and common scientific position that the first bearers of
Indian Vedas came as well from the north, from this same Turanian space. The ancestors of the
Iranians came from the same Turanian space. The ancestors of the Hellenic, Roman, Latin,
German, Celts, Slavs, Balts, and Hittites (one of the first of the more ancient tribes) came to
their places from the same urheimat, from the same Turanian space. And all of them were
bearers of the nomadic pastoralist culture. According to Marija Gimbutas, there were many
waves of these Indo-European tribes. Any wave brought with it new languages, new forms, new
mixtures of different dialects of Indo-European languages that were at the origin of the modern
Indo-European languages. They were bearers of the Kurgan culture. Kurgan culture is very
important for us. Now we could reconstruct a kind of archaeological historical sequence of the
phases of the creation of the Indo-European societies in that way. There was urheimat. There
was an Indo-European motherland somewhere. Let’s say to the south of the Ural. I don’t insist
on this concrete location but that is more or less as the majority or serious part of the historians
that agree about that. It was maybe to the east or maybe to the west but somewhere there.
The second point that is as well Kurganian hypothesis of Marija Gimbutas is that every Indo-
European people in the origin was nomadic and pastoralist. They were not farmers, not
sedentary. They created a kind of special city and they were warriors. They domesticated the
horse for the first time. The domestication of the horse came from precisely this Turanian
space. It’s normal they have domesticated horse. They moved through the steppes in order to
conquer the other spaces, going from this urheimat through India up to Britannic Islands. They
colonized Eurasia starting from that point. That is normal Kurganian hypothesis and that is the
origin of all Indo-European languages. Ancestors of any Indo-European tribe and people spoke
this Indo-European language living in the Turanian space, being nomads and pastoralists, and
elaborating a kind of culture, culture that is at the origin of any Indo-European society and Indo-
European civilization. We could speak about this proto-Indo-European culture and civilization
and we could localize it, situation it in the Turan, identify it with the nomadic way of life, with
the warrior type of being and ethic of the warrior and heroism, with domestication of the horse,
and very important moment with the solar circle as the main moment of this.
There is very interesting author, Leo Frobenius (German author) that explained the stages of
the culture in the following way. The first stage is fascination. If you are fascinated by something
 41

you are possessed by spirit, by beauty, by God, by inner feeling, by something. The second stage
of the culture is the expression of this possession. You liberate yourself from this possession,
trying to express in the images, in the exterior forms what possesses you, what fascinates you.
That is second. And after that, you apply the result of this expression technically. We could see
in the ancient Indo-European Turanian stage, all these three stages linked with the concept of
the circle. First of all, that is the sun; sun as deity, sun as the day, sun as Apollo. So, you are
fascinated by the sun. You are possessed by the sun. You worship the fire, the light, the sun,
the heaven. It is at the center of your fascination. After that you create the symbol of it. You
create the sign of the circle and you worship that as something that possesses you. That is kind
of your inner concentration. After that, you apply this technically in the third stage. And what
is this? That is the wheel and chariot created by the wheel. That is common wisdom as well.
The first charioteers and the first creators of chariots with the wheel and with the horses were
Indo-European. With the help of the chariots, they have conquered every space in Eurasia, from
the Britannic Islands up to India or Persia or Greek and Balkans. So Europe and all European
spaces were conquered by chariots with the horses and with this application of the sun (circle)
to the technical aspect. They were possessed by the sun. They worshipped the sun. And they
technically used the symbol of the sun in order to create the chariot. And with the chariot and
with their inner dynamic being like the sun, they have expanded the rays of the sun through
the Eurasian continent from the Turanian urheimat motherland.
That is more or less pre-historic Indo-European, the Historical sequence. So that is a kind of
destiny. That is to be like the sun, to shine, and to expand the fire and the light of the culture
from the starting point. So that is very important in order to grasp what is Indo-European
Dasein. And that is reflected in all Indo-European languages and Indo-European cultures. All
Indo-European peoples are heirs of this Indo-European Dasein because we are speaking, we
are thinking, we are defined, we are prefigured, we are pre-defined by this Indo-European solar
Dasein of this Turanian (not yet Iranian - Iranian culture is the second phase. First phase to be
Indo-European is to be Turanian, nomadic warrior tribe of the steppes.) That was common
origin of all Kurgan culture type of the society according to Marija Gimbutas and almost
everybody else. Kurgan is area. And the sign of that was the hill over the tomb. Kurgan is a kind
of artificial hill over a tomb. That is very important because it is a kind of verticality, a creation
of this vertical society. And as well the second sign is to put the weapon in the tomb. Because
in other cultures, there was not. And the horse. Horse, weapon, and the hill are the three signs
of this Kurganian type of culture. That is Indo-European Dasein.
We could trace, from the point of Turan, somewhere in Turan, maybe. Because the first wheels
were discovered precisely to the south of the Ural mountains and the first traces of the
domestication of the horse in more or less the same space. So that would be logical to presume
that the center of Turan was situated somewhere there in the Kazakh Russian steppes. (Actually
Russian, before that was Indo-European.) That was the heart of Turan. And from this point, that
was a kind of expansion, an expansion, not only physically in the search of the new field to feed
the horse and the cows, but as well that was a kind of imitation of the sun. So the earthly sun
was situated somewhere there in Turan and from this point there was a kind of expansion of
 42

the race. So we could presume that that was not only inertia or something casual but that was
idea that there is the center somewhere in Turan, (for example to the south of the Ural
mountains in the steppes) where there was a kind of sacred motherland of Indo-European
tradition, the center, the pole of Indo-European tradition, and from this pole there was
expansion in all possible directions. The main bearers of this Kurgan culture were nomadic Indo-
European tribes. And they have colonized almost all of the Eurasian continent, from the West
to India and through India to the Indian Ocean, expanding Buddhism as a kind of product of
Indian culture which was as well a continuation of the same cultural influence projected to
Chinese culture, that was completely different. So we have a kind of race everywhere. But the
most interesting conclusion from that, the pure type of this Indo-European culture, we need to
seek in the nomad Indo-European tribes as Afghanian or Ossetian (actual Afghanian Pashtuns)
or some Pakistani tribes (nomadic as Baluch in Iran and Pakistan) or actual Ossetians (Ossetes,
the direct descendants from Sarmatian Tribes). They turned into sedentary very recently and
they were continuators of this Turanian type of culture. Iranians were secondary and Turanians
were first. Their conflict (Turan against Iran) was very very secondary aspect of this history of
the first stage of the Indo-European history.
That was as well the idea of the late Oswald Spengler theories. There is posthumous writings
of Oswald Spengler, a recently published unfinished book that was called The Epic of Man. That
was unfinished. Only parts were written by Oswald Spengler (the author of The Decline of the
West). In this The Epic of Man, he developed this concept that, according to Spengler, there
existed three pre-civilizations; Atlantic with megalithic culture, Cushitic with Afro-Asiatic
covering Northern Africa and Near East (Ancient civilization), and the third was precisely named
Turanian civilization by Spengler. That fits well with Marija Gimbutas’ concept and with
archaeologists’ Kurgan hypothesis and with studies in Indo-European past because unity of all
Indo-European languages points out more or less to the same area where the Indo-European
peoples lived before being separated in the actual known Indo-European languages and
peoples. So Spengler, Gimbutas, linguistics, archaeology, everything points in that area.
How we could evaluate the structure or noology of this proto-Indo-European Turanian society,
there is an author that helps us very much that is called Georges Dumézil. I highly recommend
his works. (I don’t know whether they are published in Serbia. In Russia, we have one book
published about Latin religion and another about Indo-European Gods.) Georges Dumézil is a
French historian that has dedicated all his life to the brilliant exploration of the Indo-European
culture, comparing all kinds of mythologies, religions, tales, folk songs, and so on, symbolism in
the written or oral traditions in Indo-European culture. He has written many books. He has
written a very important text that is called Indo-European Ideology. That is a kind of summary
of his extensive books with many thousands of pages, comparing carefully with details, different
mythologies of Indo-European peoples. What is the result or summary of the studies of Indo-
European structure by Dumézil? That is the three functional theory. He has arrived at the
conclusion that all types of Indo-European cultures, ancient or modern, were based on the
concept of the three functional society.
Any Indo-European society consisted of three castes. First caste was the priests. They were
 43

sacred kings and priests. They were considered to belong to the heaven. They were divine. They
were considered to be deities, not man but divine beings, or the sacred kings and sacred priests.
Their traits were Brahman and Brahmin in Indian caste system. They had their own ethic and
metaphysic, the idea that they possessed a special kind of soul consisted from the light. The
rule of the priests and sacred kings was based on the same idea of the sun. Because they were
earthly sun, they were fire, they were light. And they represented light as the sun of God, of
heaven God. The second caste was warrior or 'Kshatriya' in Indian system, ‘raθaēštar’ in Iranian
system and ‘raθaēštar’ is staying on the chariot (warrior on the chariot). Because the chariot
with the wheels was the main symbol of expansion through Turanian space of these Indo-
European tribes. And the third caste were the simple pastoralists or masters of the animals, of
the cows, of the horses. And all society represented a kind of army, an army going through the
space in order to fight and to die, because there was no death in our understanding. There was
a kind of elevation. Every soul was considered to be heavenly sparks coming down to the earth
in order to return. So the quicker the better. If you die young, that is good because it is normal
to die young, to die in the fight, to die killing the enemies. Not to survive, but to die was the
goal of the warrior. And to be wise and not to live long was the task and the goal of the priests;
to be pure, to purify himself and everybody else. To be loyal and to be brave, to have many
horses and cows was the task of the third function.
And there was absolutely vertical hierarchy with the priests on the top, the warriors in the
middle, and the pastoralists at the bottom. Because pastoralists dealt with the material aspects
of the cows, horses, and sheep so they were considered less pure and less perfect. But they
strived to be the same to be wise as priests and kings and to be brave as warriors. So the value
system was based not on the simple pastoralists and their goals but in the center was the
concept of the priests and warriors and they defined as well the ethics of the third caste. But
everything was absolutely vertical and we could see that here in that situation, pure version of
Logos of Apollo in our noological understanding. That is the most brilliant, most expressive,
most clear Logos of Apollo, vertical, because all the living was considered a kind of coming down
of the light, of the sun into the sacred kings and priests, expanding going through the warriors,
and finishing with the pastoralists, in order to return to the heaven.
And what is interesting is the quality of the earth in the steppe in the Turan. The earth was
hard. It was not the type to put the seeds, to plant something there. That was a kind of space
in order to get to and to return back. There was no under-earth dimension in that vision in the
steppe. The most daemonic, most devilish, most negative creature symbolically was the mouse,
living under the surface of the space. The little hole of the mouse was considered to be
something as a Hell and that was the symbol of Satan in their tradition, or the snake living under
the surface of the Turanian steppes, but not deeper. That is tradition and society with no roots
because the roots are in heaven. That was completely different version. That is not something
growing from the earth but something growing from the sky, expanding its branches on the
earth precisely as Indo-European tribes and returning to the roots but to return to the roots is
to return to the Gods and to the fire. That is cremation rite to put the body of the dead man
into the fire in order to return through the fire to the sun, to the fire, and to heaven. So
 44

everything was quite opposite that we habituated. That was purely nomadic Indo-European
tradition. That was as well pure type of Apollonian Logos.
According to Dumezil, what is Indo-European? It is Apollonian we could say. It is exactly the
same as Logos of Apollo and any kind of normal, known by us, Indo-European society (Celtic,
German, Latin, Illyrian, Thracian, Hellenic, Greek, Hittite, Iranian, Indian, Scythians, Sarmatians,
Slavs, Balts), every kind of Indo-European culture was based originally on this Logos of Apollo.
The name was given by the Greeks but the same we could identify easily in Veda, in Avesta, in
German the Odin myths, in Celt legends and myths. And Georges Dumezil has put together all
these types of mythologies in order to compare them. That was clear when we are reading one
book after the other that that is absolutely founded. That is almost common sense. There is
nothing absolutely new. That is a kind of clear manner to explain that in the very transparent
way. That is his result of his writings. That was the school as well founded by him and continued
by Émile Benveniste, one of the best linguistic authorities of the 20th century. Émile Benveniste
has created a kind of dictionary of Indo-European terms that shows the correctness of the
Dumezilian concept theory that is now accepted.
And the second important thing in Dumezil is what he calls Indo-European ideology. Indo-
European ideology is a structure that is unchangeable and everlasting. That is represented in
the language, culture, symbols, and way of thinking of Indo-European people that is strictly the
same in the time of urheimat and modern Indo-European mind. So there are constant
principles. They affect us in our understanding of the cosmos, of the political society, and of the
history. This ideology is reading, grilles de lecture, interpretation, scale. Through this reading
we decipher and interpret what is going on. We consider the society. There is philosophers or
intelligentsia, there is military, and there is all the rest of the population. That is vertical and
hierarchical vision with the president or leader as a kind of ancient sacred king, military or
administrative groups, and population. It is unconscious in us but any Indo-European society is
based around this three functional axis (modern or ancient, Christian or Pagan, eastern in Indian
and Iranian or western in Celtic, German, Slav, French, Latin). So that is very interesting.
According to Dumezil, nothing changes in that. More than that, through this ideology, we
interpret the history; the history of the founding of Rome, the history of the founding of any
country, of any Indo-European state. There is always some messenger of God or some sacred
king coming from outside because the foundation of the kingdom was from outside, from Turan
coming these nomads somewhere, and founding there the city. But the city was a kind of
fortress. That was not a continuation of the village. That was something created from outside
with the kind of military man coming somewhere and creating the fortress (citadel) in order to
defend this military position. So it was a military conquest with some sacred heroes and leaders
coming from outside. That was the main scenario. And after that, there was a kind of these
three functions and relations, sometimes conflictual relations between priests and warriors,
their basic interests, and the mass of the population. All three functions were described in many
many ways through the chronicles, histories, myths, religious tales, folklores, songs, and so on.
That is the main content of Indo-European tradition, to establish this verticality.
That is interesting idea of the gender relations in this Turanian society (very important). When
 45

we study the relations between the sexes in the nomadic Indo-European society, we see a very
interesting idea. Gimbutas, in other occasion, has proposed the terms of a kind of equivalence
between men and women but in the matriarchal society. She proposed the concept of gylania.
It’s not domination of the woman over man but a kind of friendship but under the main concept
of the domination of matriarchy. Gylania was friendship and equality between man and woman
but seen from the female position. I proposed the opposite neologism, anelygynia. That is the
same, the kind of friendship between man and woman but from the male point of view, from
the Turanian Indo-European point of view. There are two neologisms - gylania and anelygynia.
(gylania : γυνή [Greek for woman], ἀνήρ [man]) That’s the same but Gimbutas puts woman first
but in the Turanian male patriarchal society, the male is first (anelygynia, ἀνήρ). But there was
not submission of the woman to the man but the friendship based on the concept that this
solar warrior and celestial sky concept is the domination. So men and women were friends
basing on the domination of this solar concept of the man nature. That was very interesting
because men always were in the war and the women with children cannot go to the war
normally. And they were left in the camps in the fortress. But that was not peaceful living
because everywhere were as well the same type of societies, very aggressive and very
expansive. And women were obliged to defend the cities. So they should be heroic and they
should be warriors as well. Otherwise they will be conquered by the other and they didn’t want
that. So they were as well the other type of warrior, with the same values as the man.
That was reflected in many Turanian traditions in the nomadic society. Before the marriage
there was a battle between the girl and boy. If the boy could not overcome the girl, the marriage
could not be concluded. He should testify his force, his power over her power. There was a kind
of competition in the fight but in order to fight, girls should be as well warriors. That is reflected
in Brunhild complex in psychoanalysis. When on the bed of marriage, there was a continuation
of the fight between man and woman. And woman can overcome and kill the man before the
marriage is made. That is the kind of trace of this anelygynia, of this military friendship based
on the recognition of the normative values of patriarchy. Amazonian type of society was not
feminist or not female. Amazonians were absolutely patriarchal because that was a kind of
projection of masculine, male type of culture and values over female society. That was a kind
of purity and braveness and force and power of the type of the society exactly as male type of
society but in the case of women. So Amazonian is not matriarchy. That was completely the last
victory of patriarchy because the women accepted all kind of male type of behavior. That is
anelygynia. We could say that is the extreme case in Amazonian society. But that is Turanian
type of society with powerful and very strong and independent women that could represent
not only a kind of possession of man. They were absolutely the citizens of these Turanian tribes
that could defend themselves against possible aggression. That is very important and that is
the pure patriarchy.
There were not so much Goddesses in this mythology or when they were present, they were
as men, as Greek Athens that was virgin. She was wise as a priest, and she was brave as warrior,
and she was virgin. That was not the mother type of woman. That was the warrior, and priests,
and virgin type of woman that is purely Turanian. So Greek Athens is the reflection of the male
 46

values. Wisdom is the most important male feature of the first caste, first function in the
Dumezilian version. And the bravery and heroic spirit and the fight, all the attributes of Athens
were as well wisdom and warrior heroism and no mothership, no purely earthly destiny of
woman, no children. That is very important anelygynia concept of the Turanian society. That is
the sources of the Logos of Apollo.
Here we can as well remind ourselves of Plato. Plato, as I have already said, is a purely Indo-
European thinker. He is the best known possible representative of the Logos of Apollo. He was
considered to be incarnation of the God Apollo by the followers. In three dialogues of Plato, we
see the clear images of this three functional cosmos, universe of purely Turanian and Indo-
European type. In Timaeus, there was the Platonic cosmology based on three species. First
example or paradigm, the father. The second was the image, icon, the son or child. And the
third that was very not clearly defined concept of the matter or khora or the space, not the
matter in our understanding nor the substance but space. It is khora, the third principle of
Plato’s dialogue Timaeus. Khora is the space. So there is the origin, the paradigm, father. There
is the son as the reflection of the father. And there is a kind of space where it is no more. That
was called not so much mother but the woman that nurtures, that nourishes, that is the figure
that gives the place in order for this reflection act to happen. So there are three levels of the
reality in Plato. In the last one, khora, that is country or space and nothing more. That is not
mother that gives birth to something. It is something that accepts the influence from the top
of the hierarchy, from paradigm, accepts and gives back. That is purely Indo-European version
of cosmology. And that is very very clearly defined so we could regard that as pure type of
Apollonian cosmology that was accepted as such in Christianity, in Middle Ages, in Roman
culture. Platonic Timaeus version of cosmology is normative for any Indo-European tradition.
We could compare that with Vedas. In Vedas, more or less the same, in Iranian version more
or less the same. There is a kind of three worlds; the highest, the middle, and the next very
poorly defined. The last third world is a kind of surface of the earth where begins return. In the
neoplatonic tradition that was the idea of the providence and return. So everything comes from
the sky, heavenly father, comes down, and that is epistrophê, return to the same. There is a
vertical cycle. The life is moment of the return and the death is not the end. It is the stage of
return. So when we are un-manifested in the earth, we exist in better conditions than in the
earth. The lowest point of the descent from our inner and paradigmatic position, from our own
spirit (Atman in Hinduism) from our immortal soul. So our soul descends in order to ascend, in
order to come back, and in order to go to the source. But the source is on the top, above. That
is in Timaeus.
In other dialogue, Plato’s Republic, there are three types of ideal state; philosophers (that is
equivalent of the priests traditionally), warriors, and all the other. And philosophers should rule
because they are dedicated to the highest contemplation of the sources, of the principles.
Because they go from the cave out to see the unity, to see the sun, to see the stars, the heavenly
lights. And he returns and has the right to rule because he is linked to the sky. So that is idea in
Plato’s Republic. The state should be as such. The philosophers, Brahmans, or sacred kings
contemplating the source of heavenly light and fire should govern over the other. The warriors
 47

should follow them and the others involved in material matters should obey to the philosophers
and to the warriors. We have three functional concept in Plato.
And the same Plato in the Phaedrus, Plato gives description of the soul. The soul has three parts
according to Plato. There is black horse that is epithymia that is a kind of desire, desire in a
more bodily sense, desire of something material, of sexual relations, of the nourishment, of
eating and so on. That is kind of tendency to the bottom, to the most material aspect. That is
black horse. There is white horse that is called thymos in Greek. That is desire for the glory.
That is purely warrior value. It is not the material things but to be known, to have the fame, to
be famous, to have glory. That was very important for Greek culture. That is purely Kshatriya
value. And there was a kind of charioteer of these two horses, black and white, that is
represented by the nous or by Logos in man. That is thought. That is priests in man and human
soul. That is thinking principle, the center of the soul. And we see in this metaphor, in Phaedrus,
once more chariot and horses, purely Indo-European signs and the soul is the same. It consists
from three parts, hierarchically, vertically organized where charioteer is the main, is the
Brahman, the priest. The white horse is the glorious warrior. And there is the material
inclination of the black horse that is the worst by all the definitions of Plato. So the soul, the
political system and the universe, and the cosmos, the world around us, all of them, cosmology,
politology, and psychology are based on the same Indo-European pattern.
And that is not the case as is said that all the European philosophy is only marks on the margin
of Plato. So Plato is the philosopher’s ‘par excellence.’ It is the absolute philosopher. So
everything is around Plato, or criticism of Plato, or development of Plato, or kind of debate with
Plato as in case of Aristotle. But Plato is the center and if we now consider the structure, what
is Indo-European structure, we could call it Platonism. Platonism is based on the concept of the
eternity. It could not be too old. It could not become too old because eternity is not the past.
Eternity is the past, present, and the future. There is the Platonism of the past, there could be
and should be Platonism of the present, and there could be Platonism of the future because it
is based on the strong belief in the eternity. It is based on our Indo-European Dasein. Being
Indo-European, we are Platonists. That was not only the past. It is as well our present Dasein.
We are Indo-European, using Indo-European languages, living in our history, being Platonists.
It is very important. Because in that Indo-European version of the Logos, there is no modern
understanding of time. There is vertical time in Platonism. The time is the reflection; the mirror
of eternity says Plato. So that is more or less Indo-European attitude. That is vertical time. We
are going here in order to go back. We are not developing in the earth. We are the witnesses
of the glory of God that will come. And in our Christian tradition, everything is present. It is pure
Platonism in any sense. That is very important.
What we could add here are some considerations. First of all, in Indo-European cultures, there
is not only one form of this vertical Logos of Apollo. Logos of Apollo can manifest itself in
different ways. And there are many types of this Logos of Apollo. We could, for example,
compare two main forms of it. In one form, there is a kind of absolute domination of the light.
And that is Platonic version. So there is no problematic. There is the light that goes from the
source, reaches the darkest point, the more distant point, the earth, the bottom line, and
 48

peacefully, joyfully returns to the source. There is nothing that could oppose the light. There is
nothing that could fight seriously against the sky, against God, against the sun. There are some
potential powers of the earth that would try not to let sun go back, return, or try to keep us on
the earth, not to let us go back, not let us die, not let us return. But in the Platonic
understanding that is something that is not so much important. We could easily overcome that
following discipline, ascetic tradition, following the orders, to integrate in the heroic society, to
have a kind of paideia in Greek (education) that teaches us how to return. All the educational
system in Platonic society is not only to obey formally but to accept the order, integrate the
order inside and following this help of the state, of the church, of the tradition, to become the
real Indo-European man and woman in order to follow this straight line of return.
In that optic, there is no evil. The evil as Platonists say, it is diminution of the good. That is only
form of diminishing good. There is not evil as nature. There could not exist something like evil
in this version because the good is the sun, is the origin, the good is the heaven and the God,
and distance from the God is necessary test, for example, for soul. It is not evil in such. So any
kind of evil, it’s only a test, an experience that tries to put obstacles in our way to return to
ourselves. There is Platonist version but there is as well a much more developed Indian Vedic
advaita metaphysic where there is this concept Advaita Vedanta (Indian metaphysics) that
stresses this point that we go from the reality and truth into the world of the illusion in order
to overcome the illusion and to return to ourselves because the essence of ourselves is God. So
we are Gods but we have forgotten about that, Indian says. So there is no problematic. There
is Advaita Vedanta non-dualistic version of Apollonian Logos. So everything that is not God is as
well God but not knowing it. So there is no darkness. The darkness is simply the absence of the
light and absolute darkness could not exist. There is only relative darkness that is kind of a
darkening of the light. And darkening of the light, as we know in our observations of nature, is
the first stage of the dawn, of the sunrise. If there is no darkening, there is no lightening. So
that is unproblematic. I’m calling that advaita Platonism sometimes. So there is no dvaita, no
duality. So it could be in Platonic or Indian.
But there is the other formulation of Logos of Apollo that is problematic. And we see that in
Iranian tradition. Iranian tradition is as well as Greek and Indian and Vedic, has the same
sources, has the same origin that came from the Turan, from Indo-European structure, from
Indo-European Dasein and is a kind of form, type of this Indo-European Dasein. But it considers
the opposite force as something much more important. And we could call that dvaita Platonism.
So there is a light and there is the darkness. The darkness in that version of Iranian dualistic
tradition is not only kind of smallness of the light. Darkness is something much more serious.
And that creates a kind of intense titanomachy and idea of the ethos of the fight of the light
against the darkness. But this time the fight is something much more serious. In Platonic advaita
perspective, it is a kind of illusion and we need to overcome the illusion. And in Iranian version,
we need to overcome the enemy because this time the evil is. It is not only illusion. In the end
of the day, it is illusion but not when we are in the reality. And that is a kind of much more
serious and intense opposition of Logos of Apollo against something other.
So in Platonic advaita Indo-European tradition, we have no opposition to that or the opposition
 49

is a kind of game. Plotinus has said once ‘the game is taken seriously only by puppets. The real
players understand that all that is game and it is not serious.’ But in the case of dvaita Platonism
or Iranian dualism, that is not the game. That is a fight. That is a war. And a war is serious
because the power of the darkness, of something that is opposite to Apollonian Logos, this time
is huge and is comparable with the power of the light. That is completely new attitude
(dualism). And we could see that here is something approaching to the Logos of Cybele. The
pure Logos of Apollo in the case of advaita non-dualist Platonism or Hinduism, they don’t know
the Logos of Cybele. They don’t consider it to be something important. It’s only the surface of
the earth that is very hard. You come down in order to come back. You could not fit into the
hole of the mouse. You are too big for that. You are too glorious for that. It is the fate to be like
the snake. Nobody can imagine that as a fate to come down to the earth, to come into the
earth, to be in the hole, to have something in common with the snake or mouse. So the Apollo
is represented in very archaic version staying over the figure of mouse or mole. The mole is
Satan in this version because he is blind and could not see the light.
And here appears something other. But in order to go further, go to this dualist version of Indo-
European structure and Indo-European society, we need to consider more what happens when
these Turanian nomadic tribes become sedentary because there is a kind of shift. Some tribes
that rest in the same state including up to now (Kalash population, Nuristani population,
Pashtun population in Afghanistan and Pakistan) are continuing to be nomadic Indo-European
tribes. So there were Scythes, Sarmatians, Alans, Iazyges, and Ossetes who were continuators
of this nomadic tradition. But what happens when the Indo-European tribes come to the
sedentary society, conquer them, and become as well sedentary? We will explore that in the
next lecture. And now I suggest a little break in order to follow this kind of detective story about
Indo-European Dasein and Indo-European existential horizon.

Lecture 4. Logos of Cybele.

1. The Indo-European warriors invaded the sedentary people the major part of them were
matriarchy society. Mary Gymbutas. Bachofen.

2. The concept of paleo-european. The European population before the arrival of Turanian
warriors.

3. The major centers of matriarchal civilization were in Anatoly and in Balkans. There was
ancient civilization of Cybele. The Mother Goddess had different names but the same
 50

Logos. The birth and death. So absence of features in the face and head of Goddess was
sign that was of no importance. There was a Power of manifestation.

4. The Goddes was immanent, chtonic, earthly. The male figures were absent. But there
were the beasts – mostly two on both sides of Great Mother. After they were
transformed in the half beast half human. They were possessions of Great Mother.

5. The figure of Attis. There was female Androgyne Agdytis that has given birth to beautiful
youth. Cybele has fallen in love with that youth. But he wanted to marry earthly woman.
Jealous Cybele has put the madness on him. He castrated himself and died. Cybele has
resurrected him. He is the priest of Her. The fate of man in the Cybelian world.

6. Other type of male figure in Great Mother world is Titan. It is chthonic creatures with
serpent features aggressing the Heaven. Dragon.

7. Matriarchy is not the female version of male (Indo-European) domination. It is special

type of society based on the euphimization, the use of euphemism. The death is life,
the darkness is light, the pain is joy, the passive is active. Nocturne regime in Gilbert
Durand sociology of imagination.

8. The peasantry. The peasantry was based on the power of Earth co create the stalk of
wheat, the stem of plant. The first farmers were women working as birth attendant
(doula) rather than fertilizer. The hoe not the plow was main instrument. No animal
horse neither bull was used.

9. So the peasantry corresponds to the paleo-european matriarchy.

10. When Indo-European invaders came from Turan to Anatoly and Balkans they have met
with Great Mother – Chatal-Huyuk , Lepenski Vir, Vincha. That was the decisive moment
of Noomahia. The struggle of heavenly gods with chtonic deities.

11. The result of battle is appearance of European peasantry. The Mother was dethroned
and submitted. The mixed society arrived. F.Junger says the divine order is created on
the tops of the defeated Titans. It is not on the void. It is based on the subordinate
nature of Great Mother.
 51

Transcript of Noomahia Lecture 4 - Logos of Cybele

In order to understand better how Indo-European culture came to the sedentary stage and
what happened during this shift and this change in the structure in the moment of Noomahia,
we must consider what was the existential horizon that was around Turan. So the Turanian
tribes came to Eastern Europe, to Anatolia, to Balkans, to territory of Elam in Iran (Persia), and
to Indian space. And these spaces were not empty or void. There existed some other
civilizations, some other existential horizons with different kind of (we presume, or maybe the
same but we will see now…) proper moment of Noomahia. What were these pre-indo-
European civilizations of Europe, Balkans, Anatolia, Persia, and India? I follow here, as well as
in the first and previous lecture, the concept of Marija Gimbutas, that affirmed that there
existed in Anatolia, Balkans, and Europe before the coming of the Indo-Europeans, a very
ancient civilization of the Great Goddess.

According to Marija Gimbutas, Lepenski Vir, Vinča, Karanavo Gumelnița, and other
archeological places belonged to the civilization of the Great Mother. This civilization was very
similar to Çatalhöyük site, in Anatolia, in Modern Day Turkey. The oldest levels of this civilization
belong to the 7-8,000 years before Christ. The first waves of the Turanian Indo-European
population was 3,000 years before Christ. And so this civilization existed before the appearance
of the Indo-Europeans. In the case of Europe, there is the name or concept used by Marija
Gimbutas of ‘Old Europe’ or ‘Paleo-European.’ (Paleo is a Greek word for ‘old.’) This was a
civilization, according to GImbutas, with the center in the Balkans, because the oldest findings
and archeological sites were discovered precisely in the Balkans, in the territory of Serbia and
Bulgaria and around there; Karanovo, Starčevo, Tisza, Körös, Pannonia, around there. And this
civilization was the civilization of the Mother. We see feminine figures and no male figures, and
the concept of the tombs, without weapons. These were sedentary type of ancient agricultural
societies with completely different structure than Turanian Indo-European tribes.

I suggest as well, Bachofen, who has written the book called ‘Muterrecht’ (‘The Law of Mother’),
a classical and absolutely necessary work. In this work of the 19th century, he explored all the
matriarchal topics in the tradition of the Greek civilization and the Anatolian civilizations;
Lydian, Lycian, Carian, Phrygian, Hattian, and so on. And if we consider Bachofen’s big volume,
or Marija Gimbutas, or many other authors, it is almost conventional wisdom. There are
debates on who were these Paleo-European? What modern people are the continuator of
them? The most probable is the pre-Indo-European Pelasgian population, Etruscan population,
Hattian population (Pre-Hittite population), as well as the modern Caucasian population of
Georgian, of Dagestanian, of Avar population, Chechen population, and Abkhazian population
were the continuator of this pre-Indo-European Paleo-European population.

But what is important is that everyone agrees that before these waves of Turanian Indo-
European Kurganian culture, there existed a different civilization with a different Logos. And
 52

when we study this Logos not only from the symbols but from some tales embedded in the
European Hittite or Phrygian or Hellenic or Latin civilization, we could reconstruct, in main
features, these pre-Indo-European cultures.

The main features of this culture are the following. First of all, it is Chthonian, Earthly
civilization. There is no idea of the Heavenly Father or the Light coming down from the Heaven.
There is the Birth of the Great Mother. That is Great Mother Earth and Water, that has given
the light to everything that exists. So the logic is quite opposite. There is a kind of primordial
substance, that gives birth to everything else. And the figure of the Mother, the most ancient
figures, they have the lower part of the body described in realistic way, but there is no head,
no face, no hands. So the upper part of the body is not described because it was not the center
of attention. The bearing belly of the Great Mother was the center of attention because it was
the origin and the end. That was the tomb as well as the belly that gives the life. That was the
center of this civilization and the center of sacrality.

And that kind of civilization, for example, had as well, big cities. Big cities with the cults and
sacred places in center but without a wall. That was a completely different city. If we consider
Indo-European cities, they were also with walls. This was a sign that it was a military
construction. It was not developed from the sedentary village or some different villages
growing, but was a kind of artificially created something in order to conquer the territory. So
there are 2 types of cities; Indo-European Turanian (with walls) and without walls (Logos of
Cybele). The city without walls, as something peaceful, sedentary, and agrarian. This was a sign
of that. Agrarian culture was made by women. There is the term ‘Hoe’ which is the instrument
to prepare the field for the seed, which was a purely female tool. The earth was labored by the
women. Because they were linked to the earth, they were considered to be the mother, the
creator. And they were the workers on the earth with these hoes. These hoes were not too
heavy and so were easy to manipulate. And there were no animals laboring the fields. The fields
were small and were labored by women. And so now we have pure type of the civilization based
on completely different structure. That is the sedentary civilization; not nomadic. Matriarchy;
not Patriarchy. Chthonian; not Heavenly. Based on the cult of the mother; not of the father.
Mother is earthly, Father is Heavenly. There is no heavenly father in this pure type of Cybelian
civilization. There is only Mother that creates, that nurtures, that destroys and that gives birth
again. So everything goes from the mother and returns to the mother. And that gives a
completely different image of the cosmos, where the inner space of the earth is the center. It
is something hidden. It is not the open space of the sky. It is not the fire, it is water. It is not the
day, it is night. It is not open, it is closed. It is not male, it is female, something that goes from
inside as the woman gives birth from inside to outside.

And the belly of the woman is the image of the cosmos, of the world. And the world is
constructed differently. It is a different world. The center is not above, it is beneath. It is under
earth. The earth is not a hard surface in order to come down and come back. It is a completely
 53

different vision. It is inconceivable for Platonist’s version because it is not Platonist's world. It is
a completely different picture of the world, different relations. There are roots, there are trees
growing from the earth, not from the sky. Everything is based on the construction that goes
from beneath the earth, from underground. It is not cremation, it is inhumation (putting in the
tomb). It is earthly and not heavenly. That is the Kingdom of Mothers and not the Kingdom of
Fathers. But that is not a direct opposition to it. It is a different perspective. For example, we
could not receive the concept of Matriarchy if we simply change plus and minus with Patriarchy.
It’s something different. For example, Patriarchy or Indo-European civilization is based on the
line or the ray of the sun. But here, everything is based on the curve or the spire. So, you go to
the center. You don’t kill by direct hit but you try to get into the trap and to suffocate in a mild
manner. It’s not a radical cut of the throat, it is purely unremarkable and comfortable
suffocation of the victim. So that is a completely different version of death and life. There is no
immortal soul coming from the sky. That is eternal birth and death of the same substance,
recombined in a different way. So that is matrilineal society as well, where the affiliation to the
family is defined by the Mother and the Father is unknown or the father is not so much
important. Because the father does not give life. The mother gives life. And in some radical
cases, there is no father, because the idea that the father is linked to the conception of the
child is a patriarchal one. In matriarchy, it was the woman who could bring the child, having
relations with winged creatures or with serpents or with invisible spirits, as incubus coming
through the night in the dreams. So, the conception of the child was considered to be very
special with no help of the father. The father didn’t exist in that as something important.

So the figures of the Great Mother were surrounded by the beasts; two beasts, on the left and
on the right of the Great Mother. Little by little, they obtained human features. They were half
beast half man, and after that they were man. So the man was a kind of development of the
ape, of the beast. So the creation was from the matter, the substance, the matriarchal giver of
life. And we have a completely different version of symbolism. The serpent was the same as
the male in that situation. The only concept of the male figure was the serpent. Something
living inside of the Great Mother, or the fish. The son was the serpent and the husband was the
serpent of this Great Mother, living inside of her, underground, and appearing on the surface
and disappearing anew. So the serpent was absolutely positive but the serpent was a kind of
absent male because in the concept of these purely matriarchal world visions as represented
in the Phrygian myth of Cybele, there was the concept of the female androgyne (Agdistis in
Greek). Agdistis was the female androgyne. She was female but why androgyne? Because she
did not need anybody in order to conceive the child. So she was as well the father. This is the
concept of the she-father, Agdistis in the Greek myth. And this Agdistis gave birth to Attis, the
Anatolian hero. And being mother of Attis, she has fallen in love with Attis. The incestuous
relations between mother and son are a basic feature of this matriarchal cycle and tale. But
when Attis grew up, he wanted to marry with a normal human woman. And this provoked the
revenge and great jealousy of the Great Mother and she put the madness on Attis and he
castrated himself and died. But in that time, Cybele in this myth, had sadness about the loss of
 54

Attis, and she resurrected Attis. And Attis became her priest. That was the origin of the
castrated priests, called Gallus in Anatolia. And they created the town of emasculated castrated
priesthood of the Great Mother. That was the origin of the orgies of the Great Mother, of
Cybele. That was a kind of civilization of sedentary peaceful type, with blood victims and bloody
sacrifices because the blood of the male priest was a kind of nourishment for the earth that
helped to give crops and plants to grow and so on.

We could see this existential horizon of Ancient Old Europe (Pre Turanian Europe) with centers
of civilization, with cities, with fields, with ceramics, with many objects and very developed
civilization, with worship, cults, temples of the Great Mother. In the south we see traces of it in
the stone, but we could imagine what was this civilization when all the buildings were from
wood. There could have existed huge center in the Balkans and other places. What is interesting
is that in Lepenski Vir, the people living around Lepenski Vir make the same floors as the time
of Lepenski Vir culture, more than 5-6,000 years before Christ. The serbs, villagers, and
peasants living in the same area now are making the same kind of floor. That is very interesting
how constant, how stable these structures can be.

At the same time, many levels of the mythology of the Great Mother enter into the Patriarchal
society, into the Greek mythology. This idea of castration of Cronus by Zeus as well is a part of
this Matriarchal cycle and dethronement of Patriarchal Zeus of Cronus of Saturn, the elder, the
oldest Titans. The Titans were a kind of matriarchal figures of the man in the previous tradition.
All of these topics are very stable and they continued into the mythology and folk tales up to
the present time. For example, there is an author called Gasparini (italian), who has written the
book (3 volumes) ‘On the Slavic Matriarchy’ and he has found many matriarchal aspects in Slavic
tradition; Balkanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Czechs, and so on. These topics, we could find
after thousands of years of domination of patriarchal Indo-European culture. So we are obliged
to recognize that we are dealing, in European society, with two levels. Two existential horizons;
one existential horizon we have identified as Turanian or Indo-European and we have described
more or less in the general features, the structure of this verticality in the Indo-European
system of values. And when the Indo-European tribes have conserved their nomadic tradition,
going through the steppes of Turan, they lacked this second level. They had only one level (the
level of their patriarchal civilization) but when they came through the Dnieper River, behind the
Dnieper there was the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture of matriarchal type. And this produced a
mixture between two existential horizons, and this was the kind of the moment of Noomahia,
an encounter, a meeting between the Logos of Apollo, represented by Indo-European type of
society, three functional and patriarchal, with the Logos of Cybele, represented by Paleo-
European population that lived behind the Dnieper. And that was interesting that Marija
Gimbutas affirms that that was precisely the border between two civilizations for many
 55

thousands of years. The Dnieper on the Eastern side was Turan and on the Western side began
these kingdoms of the Great Mother.

In the case of Anatolia, little Asia, that was more or less the same with maybe the same type of
Paleo-European population but to the West there was Dravidian population of a different kind.
But this Dravidian population of ancient Iran, Pre-Indo-European and Ancient India, as well was
of matriarchal type. Interesting. They were maybe from phenotype, they were different. Maybe
they were not Paleo-European or nobody knows. They say they had dark skin but maybe they
were darker type of the same Paleo-European, maybe they were completely different. But what
is interesting is that from the point of Noology, they belong to the same type of Logos of Cybele
that we could discover under the level of the Indo-European civilization, above all in India. In
India it’s clear that there is Vedic level of civilization and there is Pre-Vedic, which is matriarchy,
chtonic, with center of Titans and female Goddesses and so on.

But at the same time, in Italy, Spain, and British Isles, we could find the traces of this matriarchal
civilization. Or in Iberian Peninsula there is the Basques civilization, that is an origin of this
matriarchal Paleo-European type. So, any kind of sedentary Indo-European civilization known
now is the result of the mixture of two Noological types; the mixture of patriarchy and the Logos
of Apollo linked to the Indo-European level and something other, a pre-Indo-European
existential horizon. And we are dealing not only with the past but we are dealing with the
present because existential horizon is not something that belongs to the material aspect of the
things. Existential horizon is something that lives now. So we have this other very, very deep
and hidden matriarchal existential horizon of Paleo-European civilization that was a kind of
basis for sedentary Indo-European society. That is the most important result of Noological
analysis of Indo-European culture. Every Indo-European society is based on the superposition
of two existential horizons, so any existing Indo-European culture (Celtic, German, French,
Italian, Spanish, Slavic, Greek, Iranian, or Indian), all of them have two existential levels. They
are based on the Titanomachia, based on the Noomahia represented by this fight between the
Logos of Apollo and the hidden, neglected, ignored, secret you could say, Logos of Cybele.

Friedrich Jünger has said that the order of the Olympian Gods is constructed over the shoulders
and the heads of the Titans. So they are created not over nothing, or over a void, but there are
Titans living at the bases of the Indo-European heroic societies. That is a living Cybelian
existential horizon that we could find in European tradition, folk tales, myths, religions, rites,
and psychology. Our tradition is double. Officially, we are Indo-Europeans. We have patriarchy,
vertical structure of society. But secretly, in the night part of our society, we are matriarchal.
We belong to this existential horizon of the Great Mother with peaceful, pacifist, and as well
democratic and up to some situation matriarchal and democratic society, not organized by
vertical male domination but much more mild society. And our identity of Indo-European
peoples and culture should be regarded as double, essentially double.
 56

Without the recognition of this second Pre-Indo-European level, we could not explain anything
in our historical sequence because our European history, Iranian history, and Indian history is
the continuing fight between two Logos. That is our moment of Noomahia. The Logos of Apollo
came over the Logos of Cybele and that was the main event when Turanian nomadic tribes
conquered the sedentary societies. They created something new, a new kind of society. It was
officially Indo-European but secretly not so. That is the difference between Iran and Turan. Iran
had this matriarchal horizon and Turan didn’t have it. Iran against Turan in Ferdowsi, or
in Avesta, or ethno-sociological or noological sense is something other than it appears. It is the
sedentary nature of Indo-European society that shows that inevitably and necessarily there
should be an encounter and assimilation of this second existential horizon, second dasein. And
this dasein was conquered, was put under control, and was domesticated. It was a kind of
domestication of Cybele, a kind of conquering of the female power. And putting over this
female power, man as rulers. But patriarchy was the result of the very violent fight that still
continues, because we are living in sedentary societies and we have inside our cultures this
matriarchal Logos of Cybele that doesn’t belong only to the past. So we are living in this two
level society where the Titanomachia, the war between Gods and Titans, between Indo-
European and Pre-Indo-Europeans, is still continuing. That is the most important fact of this
noological analysis; that we are dealing with double level societies and cultures, not with uni-
level as Turanian civilization.

And we could follow and trace this extremely important line in analyzing third function of
Dumézil. Now we come back to this three functional theory. We see that the priests and the
warriors, lets say, were turned into the ruling class in the sedentary Indo-European societies as
they were. The warriors and our military are still Turanian. Our priests are still Turanians. They
are male ascetics, priests, and warriors. Up to the present, our priests, our Christian priests, our
army have continued to be morally and metaphysically Turanian. They are still purely
patriarchal society and they were not so much affected by the sedentary. They continued to
create the fortresses, to create the cult of the Sun God, the God of Father, the God of Sun. They
continued to defend the hierarchical system of our political states that are the continuation of
the same vertical structure. And they are not so much affected. They are affected but not so
much. The priests and warriors have imposed language on the conquered people. They have
imposed their Indo-European ideology. We are living under Indo-European ideology with the
ruling class a continuator of these Turanian conquerors, charioteers. And all our culture,
education, philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, everything, aesthetics of light, we are living officially
in the Apollonian society.

But if we come back to the third function, we see in the Turanian society as the pure type of
this Logos of Apollo, nomadic pastoralists. The people dealing with the big animals, with bulls,
cows, and horses. It’s very important because they are great, they are big. So in order to put
them under control, you should be very strong and you have to have the space in order to feed
them. So the pastoralist needs open space, needs the field, and the very strong male controller
 57

of them. But when they came to the sedentary way of life, these pastoralists, the third caste
were a kind of economical caste, because warriors could only destroy or consume. They
produced nothing. As well as priests, they produced nothing. Everything that was produced,
the richness, the economy, was in the hands of this third caste of cattlers and pastoralists. They
were masters of the material aspect. They gave food and everything to the chiefs, to chieftains,
to leaders, to the warriors and the priests. But they breed the cattle; they were occupied with
the cattle. The pastoralists and cattlers were an economical class. And when they conquered
the sedentary society, they introduced in this third caste all sedentary society. The peasants
were the main type of this matriarchal society. But the peasants in the pure matriarchal society
were women. Now that is the change of the sex of the gender of this sedentary society because
the woman was replaced by the man. And the woman with the hoe was replaced by the man
with the plow. And the field was labored by woman herself, but now it is done by the animal
(domesticated horse or cow or bull) with the heavy plow that it is impossible for the woman to
manage. And there is an iron end of the plow used in that. And so it is not gentle or mild relation
with the earth, but it is violent relations with earth. And this is the appearance of the male
figure in the agriculture, the male Indo-European peasant that replaced the previous peasant
woman of Pre-Indo-European society. That was very important from an economic point of view
because that was the shift from the cattle towards the grain, the wheat, and the plants. And
that was as well assimilation and creation of mixture in the third function of the pure Turanian
society and all the economical and as well social structure of Paleo-European society.

So we have very interest idea that origins of European peasantry, of all the sedentary peasants
in all of Europe, was the Balkans and Anatolia (including German Peasants, Celt Peasants, Latin
Peasants.) They came indirectly from the first poles of these matriarchal civilizations of Great
Mother on the Balkans and Anatolia. And after that it was expansion. First it was expansion on
the purely matriarchal civilization through all Europe. After that it was the wave of the European
societies that created first mixed and after sedentary European, Indo-European society with
the peasantry. But the origins and the sources of the old European peasantry were Balkanic
and matriarchal. And we could introduce a very important concept of peasant dasein of Europe.
In this peasant tradition that represented during history the absolute majority of our people,
because the nobles, the priests and warriors were a minority. The majority of people always
during all the stages were peasants. Peasantry had very serious and important aspect of the
Pre-Indo-European tradition. So there is a continuation of the tradition of the Great Mother in
European peasantry. That explains why, in our folk tales and traditions and so on, there are so
many matriarchal topics and figures, hidden or open. Because on the level of the European
peasantry, on the part of the third function of Indo-European society, was integrated many
tales about serpents, about queens, about fairies, about rusalki, and other types of female
spirits of different kinds (good or bad). All of them were kind of mirrors or sparks of the Great
Mother figure.
 58

It is important that when European tribes became sedentary, they assimilated this dimension,
this existential horizon in their structure. Officially, there was a historical pact between the
gainers and the losers. The civilization of the Great Mother had lost its Titanic battle against the
Gods. On this victory is based all the historical consequences of European history. That was the
history of how the Turanians had conquered the Old European (Paleo-European civilization),
and all our ethical system is based on it. But the conquered existential horizon, conquered
dasein still lives and lived inside of our society, in the third function, that is the majority our
society. We could try to write the history of European peasantry as a special civilization,
embedded in our official civilization. Our normal history is the deeds of our saints, our kings,
and our aristocracy. We know almost nothing about the everyday life of the peasants. We
celebrate only the highest level; the first two functions of Indo-European society. We know
almost nothing about the everyday life or way of thinking or ideology of our peasantry. But only
when there was a kind of renaissance of the national tradition in the fight against the Middle
Ages and feudalism, we started to collect folklore. It was only the 18th and 19th century, only
recently. And we have discovered that there was a huge amount of data of information of the
tales, of the topics, a huge universe of archaic peasant tradition. And now we know them. But
in the middle ages, that was outside of the sphere of interest of the learned castes and classes
of the population.

We could identity and individuate this peasant universe as a meeting point between two
existential horizons. Between the patriarchal horizon with the male figure that sows the grains
and seeds but in Eastern Europe up to the 19th century, to gather crop was the privilege of the
women. Not with great tools but with little tools (scythes and sickles). Only the weeds, the
males were obliged to cut for the cattle. But the crops belonged to the women and it was
necessary to cut with a sickle. So it was a continuation of the ancient tradition of the female.
As well, in Serbia there were special rites when there was not rain. The women should
accomplish special rites outside of man, outside of the villages, in order to provoke rain,
accomplishing special ritual movement. Many traditions are linked with this matriarchal
aspect.

In our European civilization, we have two existential horizons and two daseins. One is the Logos
of Apollo represented by the official ideology, three functional ideology, and the other is the
Logos of Cybele. That is very important in the shadow part, in our subconscious, in the mother
tradition. It is a part of the second parallel, hidden, or secret ideology. It is not the void. It is an
ideology that is present in our societies but is not obvious, is not explicit. It is an implicit Logos
of Cybele but is still alive because we are living in the civilization with the huge part of
agriculture system and economy because we continue to produce and to consume the
agriculture and food and we are sedentary. This level which we could individuate put the
concept of the Logos of Cybele, not to the ancient types, but the Logos of Cybele exists now
inside of ourselves, because our society is partly based precisely on this moment of noomahia.
But noomahia is a continuing process. We could not once and forever grant the victory of one
 59

logos. If the Logos of Apollo weakens, that means that some other pole will become stronger.
If the patriarchy dissolves (which is the case now in modernity), the other counter-current
begins to appear, becomes more and more explicit, not implicit. That is the most important
result of this noological analysis.

When we speak about that, we have defined now two existential horizons, that are common
to any Indo-European societies. We see that in the absolute majority of European society, that
is the situation. But there are exceptions. One exception is Phrygian culture because precisely
in Phrygian society there was a cult of the Great Mother of Cybele. Cybele was considered to
be a Great Goddess in Indo-European society. That is an extremely important sign that in Indo-
European context, the power of the Great Mother can be so strong that it could transform and
re-interpret the figures of Indo-European ideology in a completely different way. So we
shouldn’t be too confident in the victory of the Gods. There are examples that the Titans can
win, including in this common mixed type of the society with Indo-European domination. The
same with Lykian. They are not Thracian but they are a continuator of Indo-European Hittite
tradition. Lykian, Lycian, and Lydian, the other Anatolian people, they as well were matriarchal,
with the cult of the Great Mother as the Phrygian. So we know the cases where and when the
Great Mother wins. It is important that in Bachofen there are many examples precisely taken
from some Greek colonies. Ionian Greeks and Aeolian Greeks were as well, up to a certain point,
overcome by this pre-Greek tradition. When Dorian, the last from four Greek tribes, came to
the Balkans, to the Peloponnese, and to the Greek space, they were pure androcratic, pure
Turanians, Dorians. But previous Hellenistic tribes were more or less assimilated in this Minoan
and Mycenaean mixed civilization where we see walls around the towns (Turanian feature) but
with the temples of the Great Mother in the center as in ancient Mycenaean cities. So there is
a mixture with a kind of revenge of the Great Mother. And only Dorian who have destroyed any
achievement of this mixture of Ionian and Aeolian Greek civilization based on this mixture
between two horizons, only Dorian coming precisely from Macedonia, from the Balkans, have
brought with them something decisive element of the patriarchy. They were as fresh Turanians,
pastoralists, pure, with androcracy, with no compromise with the Logos of Cybele. Their coming
from the Northern Balkans to the South was 1200 years before Christ. But the first waves of
Hellenic tribes were much earlier.

We see that there is a fight, there is a noomahia continuing, everlasting noomahia, and when
you being absolutely Indo-European, you think that everything is already granted, you could
discover to be completely controlled by the Great Mother that is dealing from inside, not from
outside, but because it is assimilated in the sedentary type of culture, it begins the new
semantic war, the war of interpretation. For example, it is not the replacement of God by
Goddess or one God of the sky by the God of the underground of the Hell. Not at all. It would
be too simple. No. It is the interpretation of the same figures, of the same symbols, of the same
names. For example, there is Zeus, the great God, purely patriarchal, but there is the tale of the
Cretan Zeus that is completely matriarchal. So you take one and the same God and you re-
 60

interpret it in a different way. Or for example, the same on the other side. You could interpret
from the point of view, from the perspective of the Turanian horizon, the Goddess. I propose
for this case the special term "anelygynia" coined by me as mirror for term of Maria Gymbutas
"gylania" (from γυνή - woman, λύειν - tie together / λύω - and liberate ἀνήρ - man, male) the
term «anelygynia" means "male principle emphasized in woman archetype". The Goddess as
Athens, the Goddess purely of the male type, virgin, pure, fighting, and wise, completely
different with no links with mothership, with no links with this power of the Earth, with no
chthonian relations with the serpent. You can take the element from the horizon of the Logos
of Cybele and re-interpret in the Logos of Apollo but you could make opposite. You could take
Apollonian type, Zeus for example, and re-interpret it in the chthonic sense, in the case of the
Cretan Zeus. That is example of the mythology. That is the same for everything. There is a kind
of conflict of interpretation that is inherent, implicit in all the Indo-European sedentary
societies that is going on and on. It is a kind of lasting process because we have the Logos of
Cybele inside our culture. That was not the case for Turanians, pure Turanians. Living in their
nomadic space in Eurasia, they were free from that because they hadn’t contact.

There is, as well, a very important shift in the concept of the woman in these mixed types.
Turanians, dealing with new sedentary concept, they had discovered that there are two
women, not one. One woman they knew before, in the context of anelygynia, was the concept
of the woman as friend and as warrior. That was the friend from Turanian type. And there was
the completely other woman, earthy woman, not masculine, but feminine woman, completely
different type, that was considered as a kind of tribute, a kind of cradle, a kind of possession.
So the friend and possession was the kind of bifurcation of the shape, of the image of the
woman, coming from nomadic style of life to the sedentary style of life. There was woman as
the friend, and as more or less the equal, and there was woman as the kind of belonging that
belonged to you and maybe as well as a kind of enemy that you should submit and should
appropriate and control. And that is always double the split in the image of the woman. That is
reflected in the double kind of Goddess. The Goddess could be of one kind or other. They could
conserve Turanian features as Athens or Diana or Artemis. And they could turn into Cybelian
type as Demeter or Rhea or Gaia. Gaia is pure name for matriarchal type of woman. So there
are two strategies; the strategy of conquest, control and submission and the woman becomes
a kind of property, following ethical and juridical bases and laws. And there is the other woman,
woman as friend. There is a kind of split in this image that is reflected in the many institutions
of the society. And in any cases, this duality, for example, the chthonian deities were integrated
in the third function. The third function was presented by female deities in these mixed types
of cultures, Indo-European culture of the sedentary stage.

Now, we are prepared to understand what is the existential structure of the Old Indo-European
society. We know now that there are two existential horizons, mixed, superposed on each other
and what is important is that is a kind of conditions to study more any concrete Indo-European
society (European, West European, East European, Iranian, or Indian). I have finished all these
 61

studies and have dedicated to French Logos, German Logos, Latin Logos, Greek Logos 2 books,
English culture 1 book, Iranian culture 1 book, Indian culture 1 book. I have applied this concept
of two horizons in order to test how this hermeneutics, how this interpretation works in
concrete cases of each of these cultures. And how this superposition of two horizons affects
the content and semantics and meanings of each of these people and cultures. And I could say
that everywhere it works. Everywhere we could find both horizons. We could identify their
interrelations, interactions, we could see the aspect where one horizons prevails and the other
prevails in the other situations, in the concrete contexts, in the mythology, in the religion, in
the science, in the world vision, because Logos affects everything.

At the end of this lecture, I would like to say something as an introduction to the next lecture,
the fifth lecture, that maybe you could think about by yourself before tomorrow. If we put
together the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Cybele in the mixture type of society, and if we
could remember what I have said in the first lecture about the Logos of Dionysus, we could
presume that precisely in this mixture, this mixed type of civilization, it is the space or the place
where Dionysus appears, where Dionysus manifests itself, because that is precisely intersection
of two horizons; vertical Logos of Apollo with all its structural content, Turanian content in the
pure version, and the chthonian underground Logos of Cybele. When they meet, when they
fight there is precisely the moment of noomahia where Dionysus appears. So the next lecture
will be dedicated to the Logos of Dionysus.

Lecture 5. Logos of Dionysus.

1. The superposition of two existential horizons creates noological field of titanomachia.

The Logos of Apollo confronts the Logos of Cybele in third function – in the culture of
European peasantry.

2. That is the moment of Dionysus. The vine and the wheat. Short circuit. Bachofen
explains Dionysus as the form of patriarchal conquest of the matriarchal agrarian
society. The Heaven becomes immanent. There is in the story of Dionysus cult the call
of Dionysus. It is the moment when the bacchantes hear the distant call and fall into
madness. It is the madness of the male presence.
 62

3. Dionysus is the god of agrarian cycle. It is the god of integration of Cybele into the Indo-
European existential horizon.

4. The cult of Dionysus has no special features: all symbols and rites of Dionysus are taken
from the cult of Great Mother. It is called pre-dionysian rites. K.Kerenyi and Vyach.
Ivanov dedicated to this aspect important studies. Pre-dionysian is Cybelian. In the cult
of Dionysus there is the patriarchal interpretation of the matriarchal cult.

5. Dionysus is main figure with Demeter in Eleusis mysteries. The vine and the bread,
sprout of wheat. It is agrarian cult transformed with the presence of Dionysus into male
peasantry culture.

6. The figure of Demeter is not the same as Cybele. Demeter is the domesticated Mother,
included into patriarchy, in the hierarchy of three functions. There is underground
Mother (Cybele) and overground Mother – the cultivated soil submitted to heavenly
Father. The Dionysus is the seed.

7. In neoplatonic context Dionysus is the mind torn apart by titans and present as the spark
of the consciousness in the men. The goal is to restore the integrity of the Dionysus.

8. The transcendental Dionysus in the henology of Plotin?

9. The double of Dionysus. The figure of Dionysus in the perspective of Cybele is his black
double. The Cybele sees the figure of Dionysus as Attis, as Adonis. It is material and
chtonic simulacrum of Dionysus.

10. The level of Dionysus is the space where Noomachia reaches its most intensive moment.
Here Logos of Apollo touches Logos of Cybele. It is intermediary world, l’imaginaire.

In the structure of Indo-European sedentary – so mixed! – societies the zone of Dionysus

becomes the essential ground for metaphysical decision. Dionysus is Dasein in its pure state.

Transcript of Noomahia Lecture no. 5 – Logos of Dionysus

Now, in the geosophy perspective, we understand better what the Logos of Apollo and the
Logos of Cybele mean in the concrete sense and in the sense of the cultures and existential
horizons. So now we are going to speak about, not in the general sense, the Logos of Dionysus,
but in the concrete ethno-sociological, historical, sociological, and economical sense. We have
fixed the very important moment in European history that defined the main structure of
European Noomahia, European historical sequence of the events. The key to interpret
 63

European history in its ontological and existential dimension is to follow and observe how this
process of Noomahia or how this interaction between two opposite existential horizons
developed itself through the historical epochs and eras and cycles. We already have different
grilles de lecture - a reading system of interpretation, hermeneutic of European history, which
as we have seen, is based on the mutual reinterpretation of the same symbolic and
mythological structures, religious structures, and cultural structures from two contrary
perspectives. That is Noomahia in the purest sense. The Logos of Cybele tries to reinterpret the
same figure or impose its own figure in the context of the mixed civilization. And that is a kind
of fight for the gender of the deity, of the divinity, because divinity could be interpreted in the
materialistic Cybelian perspective or spiritualistic and patriarchal, heavenly, vertical, Indo-
European (in its original sense) way.

We have a kind of intersection or battlefield of European history between two Logos, which
demands an encounter, a meeting point between two existential spaces. And this battlefield
creates a kind of new structure, a third structure, because in the purest sense, the Logos of
Apollo is represented by Turanian nomadic society. In its purest sense the Logos of Cybele is
represented by agrarian, matriarchal, sedentary society. But there is a new dimension that is
created that is precisely the field or space of Dionysus, where the patriarchal concept of the
man is descending into the depth of the matter. That which belongs to the sky comes to the
earth and comes into the center of the earth, to the center of underground. Dionysus became
a king of Hell as Zagreus in the Greek myth. So there is a kind of differentiation of this Apollonian
structure. The pure Apollo has no direct contact with the matter of the Logos of Cybele. He
stays outside absolutely untouched. He belongs to the sky, to the day, to the light. He has no
contact. He is pure. Apollo’s order is the order of the father, of the purity, of the Logos, of the
logical, and of the metaphysical strictness. There is the law of Heaven, of Platonic ideas, of the
light, of the stars. But when the sun of the sky comes to the earth, that begins a new dimension
and this dimension is the dimension or level of the Dionysus. There is a completely new field of
reality. A new Logos is appearing. It could be regarded as a kind of result of the encounter,
meeting, or the battleground between two Logos but little by little it could be as well regarded
as something autonomous that is not the product of the encounter of two opposite Logos but
the third Logos as such.

We see that not in the European history but we see that in other cultures. For example; in
Chinese culture or in the Pygmies in Africa. Chinese and Pygmies have the Dionysian society in
the purest sense, and not as a result of a superposition of two existential horizons, but
something original and autonomous. We should preserve in this Logos. Why are we speaking
about three Logos and not about two? Because there is possibility in some societies, (not in the
Indo-European sedentary or nomadic) but in other societies, we have the structures based fully
on the absolute domination on this Dionysian Logos. But in the case of Indo-European culture,
there is always a battlefield. Dionysus is a battlefield. (In other societies, not necessarily.) We
need to take that into account in order to better understand what the Logos of Dionysus is. But
 64

in the Indo-European society, we are dealing precisely with the war between the Logos of
Apollo and the Logos of Cybele. In the ethno-sociological sense, it is translated by the
fundamental events and processes that were developing in the field of the third Indo-European
function where there was a synthesis between third function (pastoralists), cattlers function of
the Turanian pure Indo-European existential horizon and sedentary agricultural matriarchal
society. In this segment of the society, in the European peasantry was the special space of the
Dionysus. There is the field and the kingdom of Dionysus. It is the kingdom of the agriculture.
Dionysus is the God of agriculture and the God of wine but is as well the God of the sacrifice of
the bull and the cow. And in the mysteries and above all in the Eleusinian mysteries, he is always
accompanied by Demeter, the new figure. Dionysus and Demeter are both the deities and the
figures of agriculture. And that is a very important pair and very important duality between
Dionysus and Demeter who play central roles in the Eleusinian mysteries. Eleusinian mystery
was the mystery of the wine and the bread; wine grape represented by Dionysus and the sprout
of the wheat represented by Demeter. This pair of the mother and heavenly son and patriarchal
seed not created from her but put in her, in the center of the earth, in order to resurrect, in
order to be revived, in order to come back. That was completely new version of agriculture,
patriarchal understanding of agriculture.

Demeter is not the same as Cybele. It is a completely different understanding of what mother
earth is. That is the concept of the patriarchal interpretation of mother earth. It is the mother
earth that is seen from above and not from inner side. It is ephictonich and not epochtonich
deity. Epicthonic is above the surface of the earth. That is the field. Demeter is the mother of
fields labored, prepared and directed to the sky, open to the sky, and open to the influences of
the sky. That is the figure of the great mother recognizing transcendentality, the transcendent
principle of heaven and the father. And it is submitted and domesticated mother. It is the
mother in the patriarchal sense, embedded in the patriarchal society and accepted under such
conditions precisely as agriculture. There is the shift from Cybele to Demeter. It is the very
important shit. It is the shift from savage mother and domesticated mother. The mother
creating autonomously the world and mother as helper to the father’s seed to grow. That is
different concept of the feminine principle of woman that is here intact. Dionysus is pair; he is
son and he is lover and he is husband. He as well is father of Demeter. It is completely new
relations. And here we see in that pair in Eleusis mysteries of Greece, of the Thracian region
(and I will explain why Thracian region is so important and Thracian partly covered Serbian
territory) that is a mystery of the shift from purely Cybelian existential space in the peasantry
into the patriarchal Demeteric space of the mixed Indo-European agrarian society. And there
appears Dionysus as completely new figure. It is not Apollo but it is not Attis from Cybelian
cycle. It is new figure of immanent transcendence - something that is coming from the sky in
order to go to the center of the earth and after that save the earth from its chaotic or gravity
or this Cyebalin aspect. This is purification of the earth by the wine. The mystery of wine is kind
of like the mystery of blood of God that has descended into the center of the earth in order to
save the world, the matter itself.
 65

The wine is Dionysus as a kind of freedom from the Great Mother. The freedom is possible and
Dionysus is the sign of the freedom. Return is possible. The freedom is possible. The flight is
possible. We could die but we should arise with Dionysus. So that is very important
transcendental dimension installed in the context of the agrarian sedentary matriarchal society
or existential horizon. There is very important aspect in the cycle of the myths and rites around
Dionysus. There were Bacchae groups of women, followers of Dionysus. There was a moment
when the Bacchea heard the call of Dionysus. That was a kind of silent voice that only initiated
Bacchae women could hear. And that was a kind of call to go to the mountains. And the
Bacchae, hearing the call of Dionysus, became mad and crazy and went through the fields and
forests as crazy, tearing apart everything they encountered on their way, in order to get to the
cave of Dionysus because that was the call that Dionysus is alive.And this crazy state of mind
was very similar to the matriarchal orgy but with a very important difference. That was the
appearance of the transcendental male figure. That was the profound feeling of the existence
or the arrival of the savior (male savior). That was not autonomous creation of female
androgyne (Agyditis) as in the cycle of Cybele. That was a kind of appearance of transcendental
seed that was not a part of the great mother. That was female madness encountering with the
real transcendental male figure, completely different from the previous orgiastic tradition. And
that encounter with this transcendental vertical aspect was the essence of this call of Dionysus.

It is very interesting that in Indo-European tradition, we never see Dionysus in the pure state.
It is always Dionysus as brother of Apollo, as bearer of light. So we interpret the figure of
Dionysus and Logos of Dionysus in the Apollonian perspective. We have no other Dionysus.
There is only one Dionysus in our tradition. It is Dionysus of the Indo-European existential
horizon. But there is always possibility to re-interpret this figure in the perspective of Cybele.
Cybele tries to regard this coming of the male figure, of the transcendental patriarchal figure,
in its ancient matriarchal Cybelian perspective, and to replace the Dionysus by Adonis. Adonis
was the figure of the matriarchal cycle, by Attis. And that slight change of the meaning turned
everything upside down. That is why Dionysus was and is battlefield between two Logos in Indo-
European context. Indo-European reading of Dionysus was Apollonian but they operated in a
very dangerous space where the power of the Great Mother and its interpretations and its
hermeneutics was very very strong. And that is as well one of the reasons why there were no
special rites and myths dedicated exclusively to Dionysus. And the majority of the rites,
processions, myths, figures of Dionysus were taken from the special worship practices of Great
Mother. That is fully described in two books that I suggest to you to read. The book of Carl
Kerenyi; Dionysus; Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life, and Dionysian and Pre-Dionysian
(that is Vyacheslav Ivanov, in Russian Language.) When Carl Kerenyi (Hungarian author and
friend of Mircea Eliade, a very interesting and profound author) tried tor reveal the sources of
the cult of Dionysus, he came to the conclusion that there was before the figure of Dionysus
something very near and very close to him but in completely different context. That was purely
matriarchal cult with almost the same processions, almost the same rites of the cave, of the
Bacchae, of the madness, of the orgies, but totally matriarchal. That is the most important and
 66

most interesting point. In the field of the rites, the cults, the legends, the myths of Dionysus in
their origins were matriarchal traditions, transformed by coming of new Indo-European
existential horizon.

The cult of Dionysus and Logos of Dionysus was the Logos, structure, and cult of Great Mother
transformed by the descent of the transcendental patriarchal principle. So all the symbols of
Dionysus were pre-Dionysian and matriarchal. Sometimes he appeared as the serpent.
Sometimes he appeared surrounded by the figures of the half-man satyrs, half beasts. They
were normally partners of the Great Mother. And these processions of Dionysus were as well
continuations of the processions of the Great Mother, with the same rites, with the symbolism;
the symbolism of Paean linked with Dionysus was the symbolism of the Great Mother as well.
That is interesting that that was a kind of conquest of the territory of the myth by Indo-
Europeans. It was conquest and inner semantical transformation. The Indo-Europeans have
conquered not only the physical space or villages or peoples. They conquered the space of
myth. They conquered as well, worship practices. And they transformed semantically the figure
of Cybele surrounded by all the symbols and all the signs and all the practices and worship and
the cult into the figure of Demeter and Dionysus. This transformation was as well a kind of
conquest. Indo-Europeans were conquerors that have appropriated the space that didn’t
belong to them because in the Turanian way of life they didn’t know such things. They had
taken that and conquered that and had imposed their reading. That was a kind of attack on the
new field by Indo-European civilization.

In the metaphysical sense, in the neoplatonist tradition, Dionysus was presented as a mind. The
main myth of Dionysus was the myth how the titans had turned Dionysus apart. The little child
Dionysus playing on Olympus was attacked and turned apart and eaten by titans to win
Olympus, in order to kill Dionysus. Neoplatonic interpretation of Dionysus is a mind that is
present in any human but as a kind of spark of Dionysus. Because in Orphic interpretation, in
neoplatonic interpretation of human nature, human nature is double. On one side, it is Titanic
by the body and by the material aspect, and on the other side, it is Dionysian. And that is human
soul and human mind. Human thought is Dionysian. Dionysus is turned apart as a spiritual
intellectual principle presented in the multitudes but being unified, unique in its core. That is
the concept of immanent intellect. Not the paradigm of intellect in the father. But that is a kind
of son of God present in the human nature and opposite to the other side of this nature that is
titanic. This is precisely the problem of metaphysics of Dionysus and the metaphysics of human
culture. It is double (human culture) because it consists from two horizons. There is titanic
horizon that is not the body as such and not the matter but is the Cybelian reading of what is
body. That is Noomahia. Dionysus is the man. Dionysus is the other name for the human being
as cultural being in the context of superposition of two existential horizons. So that is the
problem of all Indo-Euorpean society - the problem of Dionysus. Dionysus as battlefield
between the patriarchy and matriarchy embedded in our culture. That is precisely the problem
of Dionysus. It is the problem of Indo-European culture and it is key to Noomahia of Indo-
 67

European society, in Western Europe or in Asia. Because in Iran and India, there is exactly the
same structure of the cultural problem. There is no such figure as Dionysus in Indian culture
but there is Shiva, a paradoxical figure. And there is no direct equivalence but there is always
this battlefield between two Logos.

And what is interesting is that in Indo-European societies, this Logos of Dionysus is unstable.
There are the other cultures I have mentioned already (Chinese and Pygmy and maybe up to a
certain point the culture of Aztecs in the new world [in America, South America, Central
America] with Quetzalcoatl figure which is more or less a combined figure, a winged serpent).
But in Indo-European society, the figure of Dionysus and field of Dionysus is unstable because
it is very antagonistic and conflictual. There is the conflict between mind and body, not because
of the nature of mind and body but because of the reading of the nature of mind and body.
Mind as we consider it is something that belongs to Logos of Apollo and its immanent
representation in Dionysus. And our body is read (not is the part of the Logos of Cybele) as
something material, something with gravity. That is not necessary. There are other cultures
that have completely different concept of body with no materiality inside. But our Indo-
European problem, with the weight of the body, of the materiality of body is the trace of the
Logos of Cybele and not the objective nature of the body. Everything we are dealing with are
the projections of this paradigm. So the existential horizon of Cybele dictates the quality of our
body, of something that is gravity, that is a limitation of the soul. It is not natural. It is cultural
construction (our concept of mind, body so on). But what is important is that the figure of
Dionysus in our cultures is unstable. The center of the Logos of Dionysus is always shifted. Or
to the Apollonian Logos that is the normal situation. So we don’t know Dionysus as such. Indo-
Europeans know Dionysus in Apollonian perspective as the brother of Apollo, not as such. So
the center of Dionysian understanding of the world is shifted to the top. It belongs to the
Apollonian universe that dominates in Indo-European cultures. So the Logos of Dionysus is
normally a kind of continuation or immanent dimension of the Logos of Apollo. That is a classical
or normative case of Indo-European civilization.

In order to understand better what is Cybele, we could not compare that with something
material, for example the waves or frequencies. We are dealing with Logos. We are not dealing
with the same matter with different gravity or different density. We are dealing with completely
different understanding of everything. So we could not regard the Cybele as something that is
outside of us, as object or matter or vibrations or frequencies or beauty or darkness. Cybele is
a kind of vision of the world. For example, if we are speaking about matter or elements, we
could suggest three readings of that. So the main idea of Noology is the Logos of Cybele, Logos
of Dionysus, and Logos of Apollo are deep inside of any form of thought. They are inside of
thought and not in front of thought. They are the paradigms that are very difficult to grasp, to
seize, and to understand because they are dealing behind our mind, defining its structure. We
could not see Cybele as image that is in front of us (or Apollo or Dionysus). When we are
speaking about the Logos, we are speaking about something that is deep behind our fluid of
 68

consciousness that defines the roots of our mentality. We could not speak about the pure or
impure, of high frequency or low frequency. Just because it is not the matter, it is not the wave;
we could not put it in front of us.

But in order to proceed with Logos of Dionysus, we need to understand the problematic nature
of Dionysus in our culture. It is not the universal law or rule in our culture. It is shift to the top.
It is not pure Logos of Dionysus. It is Apollonian Dionysian Logos we are dealing with. But being
the battlefield and being precisely the intermediary space, there is always the possibility of
opposite reading. Through the books and through studies of Noomahia in my books, I have
discovered that that is maybe the main metaphysical problem of all Indo-European cultures in
history. That is a kind of structure or moment or sequence of Noomahia. It is a key to our
historical being. As historical beings, that is the key to understand what we are and what is our
history. Because there was always the effort of something inside us to put this center of the
Logos of Dionysus to the other direction and regard it as something that lays beneath this line
that separates and distinguishes Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele. I am calling that (a kind
of presumption) black double of Dionysus, or Adonis, or Attis. That is not as Dionysus as we
know in our normative Indo-European tradition but a kind of product of Cybelian re-
interpretion of Dionysus. And that is precisely the titan, the figure of Lucifer, or the titan of
Prometheus, or someone that is very very close to Dionysus. We could consider that but it is
kind of his black double, in German "dunkler Zwilling" and this figure is very close to the figure
of Dionysus. It is not normative. It is considered to be completely opposite to our world vision
but it is always present as shadow of Dionysus, but not the shadow in the simply material way.
It is metaphysical shadow that is maybe more ancient than Dionysus because it belongs to the
Great Mother (cosmos). Because Dionysus is always mystery as something dynamic. It is not
only the eternal light that shines always (the day). That is the light that becomes darkness, that
fades, that disappears, and shines anew. So there is dynamic, the mystery of dynamic, the
mystery of the seed, which dies, is resurrected as a sprout or a plant. And we could consider
that as a kind of cycle of something that belongs to the top essentially, goes down to the center
of the night, darkness of the earth, and after that it resurrects and returns to its original place
on the top of creation. That is the full cycle of the sun, of the year.

We could consider almost the same starting from the other point. There is something that
belongs to the bottom, that is created by Great Mother and it arises, storming the Heaven in
order to bring down the Gods and to replace them. That is a kind of rise of this Titanic
Prometheus element, to dethrone the Gods. But there is the fate of Titans to fall down as
Prometheus. He could trick the Gods and win the Gods for time being (as for example Typhoeus
that has overcome Zeus in Greek mythology) but the fate of Titan is to fall down. If we re-
present this cycle, it’s almost the same as in the case of Dionysus. Because something is rising,
something achieved the highest point, and after that something falls. So if we consider that in
the main features, it is almost the same scenario, almost the same tale. But the first tale begins
from the sky to the earth and returns to the sky. The other tale begins from the earth; it is
 69

conquest of the heaven and the fall; the fall of angels, of titans, of Prometheus into Tartaros.
Titans are climbing to the top of Olympus. They tear apart Dionysus there. And they are blamed
and they are stricken by Zeus with his bolt and they fall, totally destroyed, and go to the
Tartaros. So there is a kind of Noomahia that we could read normally from both sides.

And there is a kind of symmetry. Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele agree about the main
structure of this Titanomachia but they read this process, the same tale, from two opposite
points of view, two perspectives. What is conscious decision of Dionysus to come down to the
center of the Hell in order to save his mother Semele and bring her back to Olympus, that is
one cycle. And if we read that from other angle, we have Titan born by the Great Mother,
attacking the Gods, dethroning the Gods from Heaven and the sky in their kingdom. And after
that there is revenge of the fate of the destiny and they fall down to the same point from where
they have appeared. So it is the same tale with two readings. That gives the problem of black
double of Dionysus all its metaphysical measure. Because dealing with the cycle, with the logic
of the year, of the sun, of the cycle of any kind, we are dealing always with two possibilities of
reading, with two semantic structures of how to interpret that. When Dionysus arrives in the
mixed society where there is a superposition of two existential horizons, there begins the open
problem of the nature of Dionysus. The nature of Dionysus in our tradition is absolutely
unstable. It is dynamic. It is contradictory. It is dialectic. There is not only one version to
interpret this dialectic. There are two versions. Dionysian can be at the same time, almost
simulacrum of Dionysian, could be Adonysian, at the same time as Dionysian. That could be
pre-Dionysian and Dionysian at the same time. The problem of the European civilization is the
problem of Dionysus. It is not something that is given to us as something granted. It is an open
question and we could not solve it abstractly because we are this process. As neo-platonists
have said, Dionysus is our mind. So our mind in that vision has its own double, black double
inside of it. So our mind, our soul, our spirit is double in its nature being Dionysian. It is split. It
is dealing always with something that is opposed in itself to its inner self. There is simulacrum
problem that is embedded in the Indo-European mind because Indo-European mind is double
and is based precisely on the superposition of two existential horizons. And we could not be
sure when we are Titans and when we are Dionysus. For example, mind is Dionysian and the
body is Titanic. There is as well Dionysian body and titanic mind. So the body and mind are not
so clearly separated. They are intermingled because mind and body are the products and
projections of Logos and not something that exists without Logos. In human world, nothing
could exist without Logos. Everything we are dealing with are the products of project, of
perspective of this paradigmatic approach. There are two bodies and two minds in us. There is
spiritual body (the body of Resurrection in Christian doctrine) and there is material mind (titanic
mind, mechanical reason, calculation). So we have as well material body and spiritual mind.
And that is the problem of dialectic of our culture because this double of Dionysus is not
something that exists outside of our culture but it exists inside of our culture.
 70

If we consider now, that is the most important concept of the Logos of Dionysus. That is why
the figure of Dionysus was so important to discover, in the case of Nietzsche and developed in
the philosophers that followed Nietzsche. They discovered this problem, this dark Logos. It is
the real problem of European history because we could not be sure we are dealing with
Dionysus or Adonis, when we are dealing with real mind or the simulacrum of mind. The Logos
of Cybele now explains carefully and fully what we are dealing with. So that is the necessary
dimension that explains everything in this problem of Dionysus. But to reveal and to find out
the Logos of Dionysus in the case of Nietzsche was already a heroic act, a metaphysical
revolution that has discovered the key to the problem of European or Indo-European, I would
say, man. That is double of Dionysus. The possibility of Titanic reading of Dionysus explains why
before Noology, before the introduction of Logos of Cybele, that Dionysus was mistakenly taken
for Titan or some purely negative aspect of the light or white Logos of Apollo. So that is most
important metaphysical discovery because with the introduction of the Logos of Cybele,
everything is put in its place. Now we see why there is some dialectical misinterpretation of
Dionysus and its identification with the black perversion or something upside down. And now
we see the most important thing is the instability of Dionysus. So the interpretation, or speaking
with Paul Ricoeur, the conflict of interpretation is open. We are dealing with two hermeneutic
spaces embedded in the figure of Dionysus and there is always a possible kind of replacement,
of tricks, of special metaphysical perversion or deviation of the semantic structure linked to the
Logos of Dionysus.

In order to make a kind of example of this kind of Dionysian approach to understand better and
deeper what is the Logos of Dionysus, I would like to say some words about Gilbert Durand. He
is a very important author (Gilbert Durand, French, died recently at very old age). Gilbert
Durand has created sociology of imagination. Sociology of imagination is excellent. I have made
my third doctorate on sociology of imagination. He is a follower of Carl Gustav Jung, Henry
Corbin, and Gaston Bachelard. But he has developed a very original version of the structure of
imagination. According to Gilbert Durand, man is imagination. We have nothing but imagination
and we are nothing but imagination. Everything we are dealing with are imagined structures.
And he studied the roots of the imagination and how imagination works in us. It is not reflection
of the existing object, but quite contrarily, the objects are the products of our imagination. First
we imagine something and after, we are dealing with what we have imagined previously. That
is almost the same as phenomenology.

I have already mentioned Edmund Husserl and his concept of intentionality. According to
Husserl, intentional act is the act directed towards something that exists outside of our mind
but that has no quality in it. So any quality that we are dealing with is inside of mind. Husserl
calls that noema. The process of intentional act is noesis and noema is something that is
thought of. So we are dealing with the qualities of the objects that are inherent to our process
of thought and not exterior to it. So that is phenomenology. Heidegger is a continuation to this
phenomenological tradition as are many others. But Gilbert Durand proposes a different way
 71

to this phenomenological approach and he speaks about the regimes of imagination. That is
very important. Gilbert Durand affirms that our imagination works in three regimes. And that
is very very close to the concept of three logos. Now we are going to see how. Regime of
imagination is a kind of inner state of the structure of human mind that creates different
sequences of basic principle images, symbols and structure. According to Gilbert Durand, there
are three regimes. First is diurne, which is the regime of day. That is the regime of light that is
based on the concept of strict duality. So there are strict and absolute differences. So when we
divide and separate (regime of diurne is to separate, not unite, only separate) everything is
clear as in the daylight. And this regime as well is a regime of vertical organization of the space.
It is linked, according to Durand, with the postural reflexes of the child. When the child begins
to stay in vertical position, it is considered by imagination as a flight. He is a kind of arrow that
is going to the heaven. That is the flight. Verticality is strictly connected with this regime of
diurne that is heroic, warrior, male, patriarchal regime. What we have said about the Logos of
Apollo could be easily applied to the regime of imagination that is called diurne. That is vertical
orientation of everything and according to Durand, the regime of diurne (that is Latin word for
day, daily) is the fight against the night, against the death, and against the darkness. So that is
a kind of conflictual Apollonian war of light that is continuing always. In the field of mental
illness, it corresponds to paranoia. Paranoia is absolutization of this diurne. So everything is
separate up to the atomic quantities and there is always consolidation of the subject and
destruction of the object. That is warrior. Warrior is always fighting. He destroys with the sword
everything and the sword is diurne, is something that separates, not kills but separates,
mutilates, puts apart. That is consolidation of the subject and destruction of the object. That is
regime of diurne and that is very Apollonian and Indo-European. According to Durand, Logos is
born from this regime.

So our thought is based on the development on this kind of imagination. We imagine the things
separately. We separate the things and the objects and we consolidate our subject by this.
Everybody is against us but we are winners of everybody. So that is the creation of hierarchy,
of verticality, with the most paranoid subject at the top of the society; the tsar, the king that
destroys everything and consolidates himself. So the paranoia is purely the illness of the kings
because everybody is against them and everybody is planning to overthrow them (and that is
the case sometimes) but they go to the final fight with the death and with the darkness because
the king is surrounded by shadows and darkness and his destiny is to fight against them, to start
the war, to win the war, to kill the enemies, and to destroy everything and consolidate
everything inside and destroy everything outside. That is normal warrior attitude. Our reason
is working in this regime. Our reason differentiates. The main practice of the reason is to
differentiate. (That is not so, that is here, there, that is one thing, that is other thing). And
negation is as well very diurne because negation is separation; what is and what is not, what
exist and what doesn’t exist and so on. So any kind of pairs. But our process of our thinking is
based on that and that, duality, on pairs and separations, and that exists or doesn’t exist. That
is how our reason proceeds.
 72

But according to Durand, it is no more than one regime of imagination. There are two other.
Both of them are called ‘nocturne.’ First is dramatic nocturne and the other is mystical
nocturne. So what is it? That is regime of functioning of our mind in a completely different way,
in a way not to separate but to unite, not to distinguish but to put together. It is not to separate
something that is outside of us and to consolidate something that is inside of us, as in the case
of the diurne, but quite opposite. It is to unite everything that is around us and to divide
ourselves. That is purely schizophrenic attitude, in the extreme case. Schizophrenic is separated
inside. So there are voices and different egos inside and there is the world around it that has
reason, that is more powerful than the subject. So the world is united and strong and the
subject is weak and problematic and ill. That is nocturne regime and that is based not on the
logic but on the rhetoric and on the effeminization. For example when it hurts, we are happy,
we are satisfied. When we lack something, we consider that a kind of gift that we lack
something. For example, darkness, we are afraid of the light, something mild. That is
effeminization. We call the things by completely different names in order to avoid the horror
that is embedded because we are afraid of everything and of ourselves as well. We are not sure
about our existence so we are using the tactic of naming the things by the opposite names in
order to avoid. For example, when the women call the big husband with the diminishing names
such as fish or sheep and so on with great powerful muscular man in order to diminish them in
order to make them a child, to make them innocent by this magic of regime, by regime of words,
and that is diminishing the proportion of the world, and as well treating something that
menaces us, threatens us, as something very friendly. So that is not warrior concept but pacifist
consciousness. So ‘be quiet. We have something in common. You are not as horrible as you
look. Let’s try to find a common denominator.’ In the extreme case that is Stockholm Syndrome.
You are taken as a hostage and you come to the side of the terrorists. You share with them
their position. Immediately you discover that they are right in their claims. Because it’s very
difficult to stay in this position of absolute domination of other so you say ‘they are not other.
The Muslims are very good. The fundamentalist terrorists are nice guys. Lets stay with them.
Lets stay with the evil because it’s not so evil. Lets stay with the death because its not death,
its new beginning. Lets stay with the loss because it is a kind of gift.’ So that is the other regime
of imagination according to Durand. It’s very expressive and very interesting to follow many
many examples and symbols that Durand gave in his books and writings. It is a very complicated
theory. I am explaining in the simplest version.

But in the field of this regime of nocturne, there are two versions as well. The radical form of
nocturne is called mystical nocturne by Durand. It is a complete exchange of the object and
subject, myself and the other. It is a complete betrayal of the self. So everything is outside.
Inside is nothing or just reflection of outside. It is pure night. Night is the light. Bottom is top.
Top is bottom and so on. Male is female. Female is male. To die is to live. To live is to die. So it
is pure antiphrasis in rhetoric. You are calling the things by completely different names, by
contradictory name, and you are happy with that. So that is mystical nocturne that corresponds
to the Logos of Cybele. That is the absolute domination of something created by self-betrayal.
 73

The subject is not consolidated. It is completely dissipated in the imagination. And the process
of dissipation of mind creates the matter or exterior world. The subject is weak and the matter
is strong. But the matter doesn’t exist. It is a project of this weakness of imagination. It is not
something that exists independently. It begins to exist as if it is independent, by the weakness
of the subject. That is the same imagination that could imagine the strong subject or weak
subject. That is inner move. That is why it is so close to the concept of Logos. And I’m using the
concept of Gilbert Durand in my interpretation of different cultural, religious, and historical
phenomenon.

And there is the third regime, as well nocturne, as well the regime of night, but it is called
dramatic nocturne, in the works of Durand. It is not radical effeminization. It is more of less
balanced effeminization. In this regime, we don’t call night a day and a day a night. We are
calling them dawn. So there is not light and not darkness. There is the plane, something
intermediary. So we are in the dusk, in the shadow that is not the complete darkness. That
corresponds to the Logos of Dionysus. And that is problematic because it could be interpreted
in the radicality as darkness that pretends to be light or as light that is not too clear for example.
And there is the problem of Dionysus that I have spoken of. So if the regime of diurne is
paranoid and the regime of mystical nocturne is schizophrenic, what is the mental disease that
corresponds to the dramatic nocturne? That is normality. That’s interesting. There is no mental
disease. It is normality. Because we are using in a normal situation this dramatical nocturne,
the Dionysian approach to reality. Sometimes there is effeminization and sometimes there is
radical separation and differentiation. So we are using both strategies at the same time.

So the problem, in the psychological way, speaking about imagination and its anthropological
structure, the problem of Dionysus is the structure of our imagination. We are imagining the
world precisely in that way. But if we consider that there is something material, we are
approaching the mystical nocturne but staying in the dramatical nocturne. But when we
distinguish something clearly and separately, when there is a kind of reason or function we are
approaching the other, the light pole of this Dionysian concept. But we are using both. The
mental disease begins when it is too clear or too dark in our imagination. When we are attracted
too much to one of these poles. All the structure of the society could be Apollonian or in this
way diurne. That is hierarchy, rationality, law, and official relations and norms. And there is a
night side of the society where are these laws are separated; where there are crimes,
corruption, and domination of anything that is against law. So that is nocturnal aspect of society
that is presented inside of the society.

So we could imagine the normal society, clear society, but as well we are imagining the dark
society and night side of society and they are embedded in each other. So if there is law that
rules, in the other there is crime that rules. But the crime for the criminal is the law. In Russia
we have the term ‘robber in law’ (Вор в законе). That is completely nocturnal. That means that
there is some criminal group where the chief of this criminal group (but criminal is to be against
 74

the law) has all the right and has the law to be considered as some legitimate figure. So that is
the robber in law (robber who makes robbery of banks or killings). So we have a kind of state
against the state or the chief or leaders of the crime groups but considered to be legal and
legitimate. That is legitimation of the night side of the society. Sometimes they interact in very
special way in Russian society. Now it’s difficult to say where the day ends and where the night
begins because in our society both aspects are intermingled. But normally we understand that.
For in Russian we have the saying, ‘the правда is not право.' It’s very difficult to say in English.
So the law is not truth maybe. So if you go directly in the law way and accomplish all the
demands you can be not right, you can be evil, being completely strict in following the law,
because the law and the truth are separate. It’s impossible to explain to Western Europeans
because they could not understand the meaning of that. But that is the realistic understanding
of the multitude of the regimes of imagination that is proper to our Slavic culture and our
society. We understand that there are the laws of the night and the laws of the day and they
work together. That is the richness of the imagination. We could imagine at the same time
contradictions. That is why we are Dionysian up to a certain moment. We could deal with
dialectic, the law and the truth. We could imagine many theories on this account. But the main
basic motivation of it, that is the richness of regimes of imagination.

We could finish this explanation of Logos of Dionysus and all historical and existential analysis,
adding one phrase that ‘Dionysus is Dasein’ as well. Dionysus is in the center. It is between, not
to either pole. And it has some affinities to what Gilbert Durand called dramatic nocturne. So,
that is all and now I propose to make a break and now the questions. And after, we will have
the sixth lecture about the structure of European civilization based on this Noological analysis.

Lecture 6. European civilization

1. European civilization is based on the titanomachia. Its center is problem of Dionysus.

2. When we define Dionysus as Sun and male principle we interpret him in the perspective
of Indo-European civilization. It is the apollonian Dionysus – Olympian one. He is the
Son of God and belong to the Heaven. So Zeus promised to him his own throne. He is
the King of future, of kingdom to come.
 75

3. In its nature Dionysus can be different as in Chinese civilization. He can be neutral. But
it can be as well cybelian, black double of Dionysus.

4. European cultures solve the problem of Dionysus – every culture in its own manner.

5. Greek solution: apollonian Dionysian synthesis.

6. But in Hellenism we encounter new dimension of the culture. The Hellenism is based
on Platonism and iranism. Iranism is dualistic Patriarchy.

7. Iranian Logos is based on War of Light and the culture of waiting. The concept is: the
Light comes in to the Darkness. It fights with the darkness. And it is defeated by the
Darkness. It dies. It is resurrected and come in the End of Time as Winner. So the is the
time, salvation, Saviour, kingdom and metaphysics of Light.

8. Rome is pure apollonian in the beginning but afterwards Hellenistic.

9. Celt culture is attracted to the very powerful cybelian pole. The Dionysus obtains here
the dark features. It is Orpheus figure – the descent in the Hell.

10. German is apollonian but in the warrior version. The struggle of the heroes against
chtonic giants.

11. English culture is double: celt and german. It is bipolar.

Slavs are Dionysian and cybelian – by the proximity of the pole of the matriarchy in Balkans.
European peasantry is balkanic by its origins.

Noomahia project is based on the in-depth studies of cultures, philosophical systems, arts,
religions and psychological features and characteristics of human civilizations. It reviews
ancient and modern, highly sophisticated and also the “primitive", from the highly
technologically developed to those lacking the written language. The ultimate aim is to
demonstrate and conclusively prove that no single culture can be regarded in hierarchical way
(developed/under-developed, higher /lower, modern/premodern, civilized/savage and so on).
Responsible evaluation of any human culture should be judged from within by those who
belong to it - without any imposition of outside biases (interpretation is always culturally
 76

biased). Noomahia aims to achieve this by deconstructing, removing all elements of cultural
racism and ethnocentrism, that tend to be the key feature of every and any society – whether
it be liberal and traditional, religious or secular. Noomahia argues the case for the dignity of
humanity that lives within the incommensurability of all existing cultural forms.

a. The Three Logos approach

The starting point - and the main feature of Noomahia - is the concept of Three main Logos
(Noological paradigms) that define the structure of any culture. Three Logos are

· Apollonian (patriarchal, hierarchical, androcratic, vertical, exclusive, “heavenly”,

transcendent) – light Logos;

· Dionysian (middle, androgyneous, ecstatic, immanent without materialism, balanced,

dialectic) – dark Logos;

· Cybelian (matriarchical, horizontal, gynekocratic, inclusive, chthonic, immanent,

materialistic) – black Logos.

The idea is the all three Logos are present in any culture, but are irreducible (invariants) that
always keep their distinct essence. Hence the concept of Noomahia – or the fight between the
Three Logos - is the dynamic of the creation of the moments of cultural and historic dialectic.
These are variable in the timeline of history of any culture and develop in differing stages and
phases. There is no universal rule that has or can define the succession and duration of these
phases and moments. Each culture and civilization has its own and unique sequence of the
process of Noomahia, with particularities of winning or defeated Logos that result in them
eventually changing their role. Therefore, each culture must be studied and assessed
separately, individually and with considerable care, avoiding any temptation to project the
structure of one own studied experience on other issues. The rejection of ethnocentrism should
be radical and brought to the last logical conclusion.

b. Plurality of civilizations (anthropology of big spaces and long cycles)

The second principle of Noomahia project is the defining of the field of research and the limits
of civilization. The concept of civilization is cultural and based on the presumption of the
coexistence among the people of the earth of different existential circles (or horizons)
identified as the plurality of Dasein’s.

The deep study of each civilization demands the questioning of previous interpretations of
history and the development of humankind: it is a kind of spiritual emigration to the study of
 77

civilization that removes all the presumptions and pre-conceptions linked the personal cultural
nature of those who study this approach. It is the application of the anthropological method
(developed by F. Boaz and C. Levy-Strauss) to all human societies without exception – “civilized”
or “savage “.

After accepting the need to ‘clear the decks’ and remove the accepted mental clutter of
historical analysis; the next step will be clarification of the spatial concept of the culture of
studied civilization and the semantic sequence (“l’historial”, Seynsgeschichte) of the most
significant events interpreted in the optic of the concrete people and culture (and not by
outside observer).

2. Anthropological mapping of the world

a. The necessity of revision of the concept universality

It has taken 10 years just to arrive at the point of being able to describe the plurality civilizations
of the world covering all continents and peoples, cultures and religions, societies and
philosophies. It is only the first rung of a long ladder but already there is a deep sense that we
are starting to discover ‘The Unusual’. This in itself shows that we need the completely revise
our concept of universality. It is clear that from these studies of Noomahia that is very evident
that to date we have not normally been dealing with the ‘real universalism’ (speaking about
human, rights, norms, life, sexes progress and so on) but with an ethno centrist projection of
our own (Western) culture and civilization taking it erroneously for being “universal”. This is
fundamental fault of the present-day globalization: it is deeply “racist” (in cultural sense),
projecting and imposing modern and post-modern Western set of values on the majority of the
rest of mankind. The real universalism can be reached by the way of projection but in dialogue
with ‘The Other’, who in turn is accepted with all its particularities, pecularities and originalities
(not depending on our own value judgement). We must not be selective in what we analyse.
We must all investigate with clear eyes and unprejudiced minds – and maintain this
understanding and impartiality going forward.

Transcript of Noomahia Lecture no. 6 - European Civilization

 78

Now the lecture number 6 that has as a topic, European Civilization. Now we put aside
other Indo-European societies and we concentrate on European history, and European
cultures, and European people. So now it is clear that European civilization is based on this
superposition of two existential horizons and has a center, and the main problem is the problem
of Dionysus and its interpretation. So European history is titanomachia or noomahia and the
basic condition of this titanomachia was the fact of this coming of Turanian Indo-European
cultures with Kurgan culture in the field of the Great Mother, civilization of Great Mother.
Speaking about Dionysus in the previous lecture, we have identified that Dionysus is the main
problem of this civilization and that is the battleground where there is titanomachia
developing.

I have mentioned as well, the case of Thracian people. Thracian people were people of
Turanian type first of all, Indo-European people that came to the Balkans before the Slavs
(maybe 1200 years before Christ, maybe a little bit later, maybe earlier. It’s difficult to say).
What is important is that was a kind of empire of the Thracian tribes. Many Thracian tribes lived
in the Northern Balkans but they occupied almost the huge part of the Eastern Europe. What
is important is that these territories where the Thracian civilization was based and was
expanded were the poles and the centers of the civilization of Great Mother. Lepenski Vir, Vinča
culture, Karanavo Gumelnița culture, Cucuteni–Trypillia, Criș, Tisza culture, and all other
cultures were under existential horizon of Thracians. We don’t know and we could know
whether the Thracians were the first Indo-Europeans coming over these territories but we
don’t know the more ancient groups (Indo-European). Maybe and possibly (probably) there
were the other waves of Turanian people coming there. Maybe not. We could not say. But
Thracian culture was precisely the field or special European culture where this meeting
between horizon of Apollo and Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele was accomplished. So that
was the culture of meeting. And Slavic tribes that came much later in the Balkans have
assimilated and included these Thracian elements inside of their structure. As well, there is a
very important aspect that Dionysus was considered by the Greeks to be Thracian God.
Whether that was really Thracian or pre-Thracian or by some Indo-European people that
preceded Thracian in the Balkans, we don’t know. But that is very important that Dionysus came
from the North to the Greece, from the Thracian, as well as Orpheus. As well as Bendis, Bendis
was Thracian goddess very popular in Greece. The festival mentionned by Plato in “Republic”
dedicated to her was Bendideia. The other goddess of Thracian origins was Kotys. Orgiastic
festival dedicated to her was called ”Cotyttia”. Phrygians as well were close to Thracians and
Phrygian civilization was the people where the Cybele cult was developed. That as well has
something to do with Thracian world.

It is possible that Thracian tribes were more ancient than we presume and maybe they
were the first, or maybe not. We could not affirm. But what is certain is that they were Indo-
European society with very developed nomadic aspect and more to the north, more nomadic
they were, more to Transylvania, to Romania that was already the steppes of Eurasian, Turanian
 79

space. But what is certain is that Thracians were here around Danube River and basin and in
Balkans long before Scyths and Sarmats. So that is very ancient Indo-European culture that has
assimilated and included the paleo-Indo-European tradition directly or by intermediary by
some other Indo-European society. We could not say anything affirmative here but what is
important is that regarding the Slav horizon of Eastern Europe that dominated Eastern Europe
as civilization after 5th and 6th century when the Eastern Europe was invaded by Slavs, before
the coming of Slavs, the Thracian civilization was here. And that was Indo-European. And maybe
the meeting between Logos of Apollo and Logos of Cybele was precisely in Thracia. And the
other important is that if so, European peasantry expanded from the same region. The Balkan
space was the motherland (Urheimat) not only for Eastern European peasantry but for all
European peasantry, because the agricultural tradition was developed much earlier, precisely
in the fertile territories of Balkans, where this matriarchal society existed, long before coming
of Turanian culture.

Eastern Europe that is considered to be periphery or border or something marginal to

Greece or afterwards to Western Europe, maybe was central one. So we need to consider more
this Eastern European space as existential space. We need to pay more attention to this Eastern
European Dasein and existential horizon of Eastern Europe. It is complex with many tribes,
many people, and many levels of the culture but what is very important is the Thracian origins
of Dionysus and Orpheus. In the perspective that I have explained about the central role of the
figure of Dionysus as a key to the historical sequence of European history, to ontology of
European history, the Eastern Europe obtains new dimension and new importance. It was not
in the reality, periphery of the other Greek, Roman, later Western European civilizations. That
was something polar in Eastern Europe, in Balkans, that was kind of center and pole. But the
quality and the noological nature of this pole, we need to study more. So not only to be proud
to be Balkanian Slavs living here after Thracians, but what is important is to understand the
structure and the levels to noology of this space. Because the problem of Dionysus is central
and so important as I have tried to explain, the role of Eastern Europe is growing. We could
deduce from that, one important thing. We could deduce that we know Eastern Europe
(Thracian, Slavic, Balkanic space) as a kind of continuation or result or periphery of the Western
Europe and Eurasia, Russia, or Turanian space. But there is absolutely new Dionysian kind of
Eastern Europe where this meeting that is key event in the ontological and semantical history
of the Western Europe was produced. So Eastern Europe is not the periphery but is in some
way the center and the pole, in very special way. Regarded as such, we need to concentrate
more on the motherland of Dionysus because it is precisely the motherland of Dionysus. And
the factor of Thracian language and Thracian culture and the only pure Thracian God, Zalmoxis,
that is known, we need to pay more attention to this figure. There are many parallels and
common aspects between Zalmoxis and Dionysus. Mircea Eliade and Romanian tradition paid
great attention to the figure of Zalmoxis and its role in the Thracian horizon. So Thracian culture
as well as matriarchal culture before Thracians, the civilization of Eastern European Great
Mother didn’t disappear. It entered into the peasant Eastern European tradition and expanded
 80

with the peasantry through all of Europe. Where we have the peasants in Europe, we have the
continuator, the descendants from the Balkanian motherland.

So we could speak about peasant Dasein, a special kind of third function that conserved
cultural lines of pre-Indo-European tradition. One of the first pre-Indo-European societies that
integrated these elements were Thracians. And after them were all the other. Maybe we should
pay special attention to Illyrians as well because they lived here in the Western Balkans with
Thracians. And according to some historians, the space of Illyrians reached to the Baltic Sea.
Maybe Illyrians lived as well far to the north before Slavs came there. But we know too little
about these two people but we could deduce some things starting interpreting correctly
Southern Slavic tradition because there is cultural continuity. Because all the peasants we
know, maybe after the thousands of years of Indo-Europeanization, they were originally
Balkanic. Peasantry is Balkanic and peasant Dasein and peasant tradition is in the roots, in the
depth, Balkanic. So that is very important.

Now we could consider European space and to say some words about different lesser
existential horizon of the great European space. As we have said already, there is the huge Indo-
European Turanian space that includes almost all Eurasia, from the British Isles to India. That is
the greatest Indo-European existential horizon. There is European existential horizon of the
Western but European that includes as well Eastern Europe. But we could as well change the
scale of noology and geosophy and try to consider the lesser scale. But now we know what we
are seeking. We are seeking how each society solved or is solving the problem of Dionysus. Now
our search is much more concrete. Trying to understand or decipher or interpret
hermeneutically, one or other European culture, we are searching the noological balance and
the moment of noomahia in any society.

For example, starting with Greek tradition, Greek tradition is based on the absolute
victory of the Logos of Apollo. But this victory as I have mentioned yesterday was not
immediate. Hellenistic tribes (Aeolian, Ionian) came to the Balkan and the Peloponnese in
waves controlling or overcoming the existing matriarchal civilization. But at the same time there
was exchange of the elements. Some Greek territories conserved this Indo-European vertical
tri-functional purely patriarchal structure and some have lost it or some elements. So we had
Minoan and Mycenaean cultures where there was the mixture between patriarchy and
matriarchy elements. And only the last wave of the Hellenic tribes coming from the north, from
Macedonia, Dorian wave, the fourth Hellenic tribe, brought with itself decisive Apollonism,
decisive pastoralism and destroyed Mycenaean culture and introduced the purely Turanian
style. That was very important. That is reflected in the Sparta. It is more Dorian than Ionian
Athens. And the dualism of Greek culture between Sparta and Athens is that Athens was Ionian
and Sparta was Dorian. And that was as well the dualism of the balance of noomahia because
in Sparta, the Logos of Apollo was clearer and more powerful. And in Aeolia and Ionia, in Athens,
in the Anatolian Greek colonies, the power of this vertical Logos of Apollo was lesser. That is
 81

important that in Greece as well there were the kind of differences of existential horizons. And
the dualism between Sparta and Athens is the key dualism in the geopolitics, as well has
noological and geosophical interpretation and explanation.

Dionysus was Greek God as well with Thracian origins, but it was purely Greek because
around him there was Apollonian perspective and very ancient Cybelian space. And in Greek
culture, in the worship, in the polytheistic religion, and in philosophy, we see this element very
clearly. I would like to mention that I have already said that could be the Logos. All three of
them could be reflected in the religion and in the myth but as well in the philosophy. The Logos
of Apollo is reflected in the perfect, almost absolute best way in the Platonic philosophy.
Platonic philosophy is the absolute version of Logos of Apollo, as well as logic of Aristotle that
was the disciple of Plato. In part of Aristotle’s teaching we as well see the Logos of Apollo in the
purest and formalized version. There was the Logos of Dionysus in Heraclitus that is dialectic.
That is as we have called that dramatic nocturne. That is Heraclitus philosophy that is based on
the cycle, on the war, on this dialectic between eternal and what is in time. But that is not
materialist. Heraclitean belongs to the Dionysian aspect. As well the part of the teachings of
Aristotle of physics and rhetoric belong as well to Dionysian Logos because they are dealing
with a paradox of two-in-one, a form and matter in one thing. The thing is double and is one.
That is not Apollonian. Apollonian is 'one is one. That is that and not the other.' If there is
something that is ‘that is that and the other’ we are already shifting to Dionysus. So that is the
great error to consider the physics of Aristotle as the logic of Aristotle. There are two visions in
Aristotle. There is Apollonian side of Aristotle that is logic. And there is Dionysian side of
Aristotle that is physics. And what is interesting is we are dealing with completely erroneous
understanding of Aristotelianism because we are trying to apply logic to physics. We are
working with physical mathematical object. There is not such object in the reality. There is
mathematical object that is purely Apollonian and there is physical object that is purely
Dionysian.

From that follows a very important remark. In order to study the physical world, we need
to apply not the logic to this world but rhetoric. Rhetoric will be more strict science and more
precise science of the physics. We need to use Heraclitean concept of dialectics and rhetorics.
Rhetorics is a kind of violation of the law of the logic. In rhetoric, we are saying the things that
don’t correspond exactly to what we pronounce. That is irony. Irony is the main figure of
rhetoric. Irony is when we are saying one thing and are meaning the other thing. For Slavs it’s
very clear. Our language is rhetoric and ironic. We are living in an ironical culture. We never say
what we mean. We say one thing and mean another and make a third and the result is fourth.
That is classical rhetorical ironical society. We are ironical people. All our speech is based on
irony. But irony is the main figure of the rhetorics. So irony is violation of the laws of logic. For
example, metonymy; metonymy is the figure that we say as how many ‘heads of cattle’ we have
but we mean cows or bulls or sheep and not the ‘heads’ of them. But we are using the part as
the whole as rhetoric. But it is violation of the logic. We are counting heads. And all rhetoric
 82

figures are such. We are saying one thing and meaning something other. Synecdoche and anti-
phrase and all the other rhetoric figures cover the physical reality exactly. But logically we could
not gain such precision just because the physical object could not belong to the intellectual
object or mathematical. There is not physical mathematical. With logic we could study
mathematical and geometrical objects but physical objects we should study with different
rhetorical method. And only this rhetorical method could be strict and precise enough to cover
the dialectical structure of the object. The thing is rhetorical and not logical. That’s very
important.

I suggest reading of early texts of Heidegger about Aristotle as well as Aristotelian studies
of early Husserl and Brentano because the phenomenological tradition in philosophy stressed
this Aristotelian aspect ignored by the previous tradition. Phenomenologists have rediscovered
this Aristotle. There was as well in Greek existential space, the third logos (logos of Cybele),
represented philosophically and not only in the mystery of Great Mother. This philosophical
tendency of Ancient Greece was represented by Democritus and by Epicurus and in Rome by
Lucretius. These three authors were typically representatives of ancient materialist and
immanentist tradition because for them there were no patriarchal principles and everything
consists from atoms. They professed (above all Epicurus and Lucretius) the concept of progress
that says everything is going in the positive way from the lesser to the better, from the evil to
the good. That was the concept that everything was growing from the bottom to the top. The
concept of the progress, of evolution is purely titanic. That was materialistic titanic version of
the cosmos. Three Logos were present in Greek philosophy but what is important is normative
Logos were considered to be Logos of Apollo (Platonism and partly Aristotle) and Heraclitus
(Dark Logos but as well accepted). Democritus and Epicurus (in the lesser scale) were rejected.
Plato suggested to burn the book of Democritus because that was considered a very dangerous
heresy and philosophy could be as well heresy. Now we see clearly, that was the continuation
of Indo-European titanomachy or noomahia and the moment of Greek culture of noomahia
was based on the victory of the Logos of Apollo with the friendship and alliance of Logos of
Apollonian Dionysus over this materialistic Cybelian Logos. That is more or less, in some words,
an explanation of Greek tradition. And inner dualism was represented in the dualism of Sparta
and Athens.

What is important is that is Hellenistic time. Many things were changed during Hellenistic
times after Alexander the Great. During Alexander the Great, Greece had expanded its control
over completely new existential horizon. That was Iranian existential horizon. That was included
in the Mediterranean and Greek culture. And that created the phenomenon of Hellenism.
Hellenic is one thing and Hellenistic is other thing. Where lays the difference between two
cultures and existential horizons? Hellenic is Greek as we have explained. Hellenistic is Greek
plus not Orient, not Eastern, not Asian, not Semitic as we usually say, but precisely Iranian
existential space. So it is not vague or something Orientalistic. Hellenism is regarded as Greek
plus something Oriental. If we study correctly this phenomenon of Hellenistic civilization, we
 83

discover very important thing - that Hellenism is strictly Greece plus Iran, and not Greece plus
Egyptian, Semitic, Eastern, Indian, in the general sense. It is Iranian because Iranian civilization
was not only the culture of Iran. That was culture of Achaemenid Empire that included in itself
as well Egypt Semitic tradition and transformed in its Iranian Logos, all these ancient cultures.
There was the common denominator in this Achaemenid cultural tradition and existential
horizon. All that I have explained in my book The Logos of Iran, Iranian Logos. Iran has included
all the previous cultures and transformed in the context of its own dominating Zoroastrian
Mazdean concept. So we are dealing with Egypt, with Semitic world, with Babylonia, after
Achaemenid Empire, not directly but through Iranian concept. They were Iranized. What we
are calling Egyptian, Semitic, Babylonia in the reality were Iranized version of this tradition.

So I suggest to distinguish Iranian and Iranistic as we are distinguishing Hellenic and

Hellenistic. So Achaemenid Empire was not purely Iranian but that was not exclusively Iranian
but was inclusively Iranian. That included the other traditions but transformed them
semantically in the context of Iranian Logos. In Hellenism, that was a kind of heir, and Alexander
of Macedonia has received the heritage of this Iranism in full scale because the Empire of
Alexander (Hellenistic Empire) was the same as Achaemenid Empire plus Greece. But that
heritage is almost always ignored. They say ‘Alexander of Macedonia has received Oriental
heritage and not Iranian’ because we consider this acquisition of the new territories and
conquests of Alexander the Great with Greek eyes. In that sense, we Europeans (Russians,
Serbians, French, Germans) are all Greeks because for us, Greek history is our history and
Iranian history is the history of other. Never do we consider Iranian history as our history. So
that was conquest of us against them. And they were not so clearly distinguished. So we should
overcome them, include their cultures, but we don’t go into the details of what we have
acquired. They were conquered culture. But if we consider that in the perspective of Iranians,
everything changes. There was a kind of Iranian Logos. And what was the essence of Iranian
Logos that we should include in our understanding of European civilization because of
Hellenism. And I will explain why Hellenism is so important.

Iranian Logos is based on the main principles; first of all that is the war of light. That is,
as we have said yesterday, radical dualistic Platonism. It is the Logos of Apollo against the Logos
of Cybele but recognizing the power and the substance and the autonomous nature of this
second Logos. So that is not only as in Advaita Platonism, as non-dualist Platonism, which the
darkness is the absence of light. No. The darkness in Iranian concept is a living thing, is powerful
thing, and is winning thing. For Plato, to suggest that the evil can win against the good is absurd.
It’s absolutely impossible. Because in the world of Apollo and Logos of Apollo, there is the
eternal victory of the light over darkness and darkness doesn’t exist. In dualist Iranian version,
darkness exists and darkness is God but the other God. The night is powerful and the night can
win. The fight between them is for the first time comparing to the Platonism and the Logos of
Apollo is serious and something dramatic, something that you can lose. That is completely
different attitude toward life. That is Apollonian. To be Iranian is to be the bearer of light for
 84

Iranians. There is no other definition of Iranian. Iranian is the son of light put into the field of
the darkness in order to fight. So that’s extremely dramatic version of Logos of Apollo with
recognition of the substance, the reality, and the power of the Logos of Cybele. It is Iran purely.

In Iranian self-consciousness, Iranian identity is based on the concept that only Iranians
are pure, the people of light and all the rest, including Turanians, are people of darkness. So
that is a kind of metaphysical racism in Iranian tradition; purity. And that was the situation of
the permission of the incest. Incest is strictly prohibited in any kind of culture primitive or
developed but not in the Iranian. Because the concern to conserve the purity of the Iranian
soul, Iranian body, and Iranian blood was so great that it outweighed the prohibition of the
incest and the marriage between the sister and brother or son and mother. That’s almost
incredible in archaic society and developed society but in Iranian society, that was permitted.
That was almost obligation in order to save this purity of the son of light. So that is extreme
version of Logos of Apollo. But that is Iranian tradition. But Iranism included Egyptian, Semitic,
Babylonian, and other people. So that was not so much exclusive as Iranian. Iranism is a kind of
symbolical transfer of this quality of son of light, not from the direct Iranian bodily concrete
material (in some way) understanding of what is the light and what is the son of the light as a
kind of metaphoric son of light. So Iranism is not Iranian. It is not so exclusive. It embedded in
itself the other traditions. The concept of war of light is accepted in the broader sense.

After that, the other concept of Iranian tradition that wasn’t known by the Greek society
is the idea of time and the idea of history. In the Platonic version, there is no history and there
is no time as something important. There is always just the same, the cycle of the birth and the
death, of the same. That is eternal return of the things. That is purely Platonic with no reason,
with no development, with no progress, and with no regress. There is completely different time.
You come from the source and you return to the source. That’s all. And what is going on in
these sublunar cycles has no matter, no knowledge, no sense, no direction, no time, and no
history. So there is the history of eternity. The Platonic history is the history of eternity and the
time is reflection of eternity so it doesn’t exist in the sense that is common to us. But only in
Iranian tradition, the time obtains meaning because Iranian tradition affirms that in the
beginning there was the light over darkness. And the second stage of Iranian historical
sequence, the darkness has interrupted and has invaded the realm and field of light and began
to destroy and deviate and pervert the world of light. In the next moment, the darkness will
overcome the light and will win the light. At the end of the rule of the darkness, there will be
the great restoration, resurrection, and appearance of the chosen one that will be the king and
the savior of humanity (Saoshyant). So there appears the time because now the time matters.
In Plato, the time doesn’t matter. It’s nothing. There is no logic. And here appears the history.
Here appears the time and the eschatology. Here appears messianism, the messiah. Here
appears the last king of the world that should appear and restore the realm and the kingdom
of light as the last result of the fight of the war of light. And there is resurrection of the lost
perfection of the creation of light. That is Iranism. But we are dealing with that as something
 85

completely close to us. But all that was completely unknown to the Greeks. It is purely Iranian
influence; history, time, resurrection, eschatology, and the meaning of the time. In Greek
Platonic world, the time has no meaning at all. Only return to the origin has meaning. The time
and the history is nothing. There is only the example of the past heroes in order to repeat that.
The heroes of the past are functioning as paradigms, as ideas. And here appears the history.
Here manifests itself the completely new Iranian perspective and after conquests of Alexander
the Great, that spiritual philosophical and metaphysical heritage entered into the
Mediterranean Greek culture. That which was outside became inside.

There is a kind of idea that the time, the messianism, and the history were all brought
by Semitic Jews by the Bible. But we know the Bible only after Babylonian captivity. In
Babylonian captivity and the end of Babylonian captivity, there was the Achaemenid Empire
that distributed this Iranian Logos including among the Jews. The late Judaism that we know
and that is linked with the concept of Messiah, of the end of time, and resurrection is some
Iranian redaction of the purely Semitic original Judaism. The time and the history was Iranian
and was Hellenistic. Hellenism is so important for European culture and for any European
existential horizon because it is precisely based on two conceptual pillars and not on one. It is
not the Greek Hellenic culture and something Oriental or Semitic. It is Greek and Iranian.
Hellenism is Iranism at the same time. And Hellenistic culture and Hellenistic world was
precisely the existential space that created Hellenistic Dasein. Hellenistic Dasein was the basis
of European culture of the next stage. What is important is first of all; this Hellenistic space and
Dasein had changed the ruling point. That was the shift from the Greek domination to the
Roman domination. But the Ancient Rome was as well something like the Logos of Apollo in
Italy. But the conquests of Rome of the Mediterranean space was the conquest of the
Hellenistic world. And that was as well the shift from the Roman to the Roman Empire and the
late Republic as well because that started long before the Empire. After the victory over Greeks,
there was the beginning of the change of the Roman culture. Roman culture we know is
Hellenistic Rome. But Hellenism is Greek plus Iranian. So Roman Mithraism and many other
aspects were taken from these Hellenistic sources. And this Greco-Roman Iranian Hellenism, in
Roman version, expanded to the northern Western Europe, to the Balkans. Roman conquests
in the cultural dimension were Hellenistic. The Roman soldiers brought Hellenism everywhere
they came to.

What was Hellenism? Hellenism, once more, was Logos of Apollo in Greek Platonic
tradition, Logos of Dionysus in Greek mysteriosophic and as well Heraclitean tradition, Logos of
Apollo in Iranian version, in dualistic version with time, with concept of war of light, with
Messiah eschatology, and no Logos of Cybele. The Logos of Cybele was present in the depth of
this existential space but was not represented clearly. Only maybe in some Pergamon, in some
history of the sibyl’s prophecy and to put the black stone of Cybele from Phrygia to Rome but
that was more or less marginal. There was a kind of matriarchal cult in Roman Hellenistic
Empire but they were not dominating. The dominating culture was Apollonian, Greek
 86

Apollonian, Iranian Apollonian, and Greek Dionysian. But precisely this Hellenism was Roman
Empire culture. And that was Christianity, because Christianity was constructed over this space.
And that has logical continuation of the same culture, Christianization of the Hellenism in
Greco-Roman version. Iranian aspect in Christianity was crucial. But now we see this Roman
Hellenism with domination of Logos of Apollo. That was conserved with some aspect of
Dionysian culture up to Modernity. The Latin Logos, the Roman Empire Logos, is Hellenistic, is
Roman in its deepest aspect, but Hellenistic and Greco-Iranian in the next level. And that was
with some aspect of dualism that in Roman culture was more accentuated than in Byzantine
Christianity. St. Augustine was Manichean in his youth. Manichaeism is a form of Iranism and
Iranism is dualism, and so on. So there is something Manichean and Iranistic in Rome a little
more than in Byzantine where there is much more Dionysian balance, or not dualistic Platonism
in Byzantine Orthodoxy and dualistic Platonism in Roman Latin Catholicism. Nevertheless the
Roman Catholic Empire was based on the Logos of Apollo with more dualism and maybe less
Dionysian but at the same time purely Indo-European. And that was the destiny of Italy up to
the last time. Conservation of this Logos of Apollo was a kind of moment of noomahia for Italy,
to be the place where Rome was, to be the center of the Roman Empire, to be invaded by the
German Indo-European tribes, to create a new state, but stay true to this Christian (in Catholic
version) source to this kind of Christianized Hellenism up to the end.

The last form of this, in the very Modernized and perverted way, was the Italian Fascism.
That was continuation of this Apollonian attitude. It was vertical hierarchy in the modern
version. But that was the kind of straight line. Italian Fascism was the last sound of the
See. Before that was the Trident Council where the Catholicism refused to go in the Protestant
way. Defense of this Catholic identity or Apollonian Roman identity was the kind of destiny of
the Italian existential horizon. That was not only caricature in the Fascism. There was absolutely
a caricatural aspect of Roman tradition in Fascists as everything in Modernity is a caricature but
at the same time there was something logical and continuation of this Roman tradition in very
special way, but continuation and defense.

The next existential of Europe is France. That is Celt tradition. What is particularity of
Celt existential horizon? It is the power of the feminine principle, the power of Mother. Celt
tradition has fresh roots of matriarchy. So the Celt Christianity was much more feminist friendly.
There are many legends and myths about the island of mothers. The death was considered to
be feminine. Maybe partly the tradition of the knights of Middle Ages with the cult of love was
based on these Celt traditions. There is Denis de Rougemont, the very interesting author that
tries to study the sources. Denis de Rougemont has written the book that is called Love in the
Western World where he studied the sources and the roots of the tradition of glorifying love in
the knight’s culture in the Middle Ages. That was as well Celt influence with very strong
presence of Great Mother. I gave the name for the book on French culture, The French Logos:
Orpheus and Melusina. Melusina was the name for the fairy that was female dragon in Celt
mythology. Orpheus as well was the figure (Thracian by origins), very important for French
 87

culture and Celt culture because the idea to go down to the center of the Hell in order to meet
with the feminine principle that resides in the center of the Hell is the kind of destiny of the
French culture in best aspect and the worst aspect. That was a kind of journey to the center of
the earth in order to discover the femininity, the mother.

German Logos was quite different from Celt. It was heroic, it was warrior, and it was
Apollonic. And that was the fight, a little bit as in Iranian case, against the Chtonic power. That
is everlasting fight. To be German is the same as to fight. The German fights against the
serpents, against dragons, against everybody else around. That is paranoid type (if we
remember Gilbert Durand) of culture, but strongly patriarchal and with anelygynia relations
with valkyries. So German women are more like German men. They are the same. They are
fighting. They are Brunhildas. That is a kind of heroic society and destiny is the fight against
titans. But when the Germans follow their destiny, they fight so sincerely that they could not
remark the moment when their fight becomes titanic itself. They fight so much and are so
devoted to the fight that it overcomes some natural limits and overcoming the natural limits is
something titanic. So they begin to destroy themselves and to destroy everybody else around
them. In Hitler, the titanic aspect of truly Germanic spirit is clear. That was good idea to create
Great Germany but that was not so good idea to destroy everything and afterwards Germany
itself with this over-measure. There is the Greek term ‘hubris' that means absence of measure.
So if for example you kill the enemy in the fight, that is good for heroic ethos. But if you violate,
for example, his child in order to continue this, that is hubris. That happens but that is not
considered to be too much heroic, or rape of the women, which is as well always a part of the
war. But that is hubris. Maybe in the certain situation hubris and in the other not, but there is
overcoming natural borders. In the German case, we see this warrior spirit, purely Apollonian,
that sometimes overcomes its borders and the enemies of the titans become titans themselves.
So they’re trying to overcome the other and they change their roles in the history. So being
fighters of the sky against the earth, they begin to fight the earth in chtonic way.

There was very important idea in Iranian tradition that the army of light is weaker than
the army of darkness. And the defeat of the army of light is necessary element of resurrection
and the final victory. That is very metaphysical aspect. So in order to win, you should undergo
defeat with the light. If the light should die, it’s better to die with the light than to win with the
darkness. So the force is not the last word. The last word is the truth or the light. So the idea is
that when we pass over some measure, some borders, some limits, and if we fight too much
we could destroy everything. That is German destiny and that is German Logos. In the case of
Protestantism, in the beginning, that was very important idea that Christ is something inner,
not only outer, not only belonging to the cult, and not only going from outside. Christ comes
from within. That was the original idea of Protestantism. And Platonism and German mystics
(Meister Eckhart) were inside at the center of the early Protestantism. But without measure,
being brought to the hubris in titanic way, that becomes something completely different; the
individualism, rationalism, absence of mystery, absence of humility in front of God. That was
 88

heretic Arianism. It was a kind of return to the Arianism. That was the Protestantism that was
as well German, in the best and the worst aspects. Protestantism is titanic version of Christianity
because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are Apollonian version of Christianity. But modern
Protestantism (Calvinism above all) and the radical versions of Protestantism are not Christian.
They are titanic versions.

So England and the British horizon - when I studied British history, I have arrived at the
conclusion that I could not call the book dedicated to the English ‘The English Logos’ because I
didn’t find the English Logos. But I have discovered a profound duality of English culture. There
was the Celt pole represented by Welsh, by Ireland, and by Scotland that is part of the Celt
world and Celt existential horizon. This is part of the France in some way with the same
fascination with the feminine principle, with the same descent to the Hell, with the same black
romanticism and so on. And Celt part is not only Irish or Scottish. That was as well in Wales and
inside of English society. The Stuart Dynasty was Celt. The Celtic elements are inside of English
identity. They are not outside. Outside are the radical aspects in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.
But the majority of the population of the British Isles were Germanized Celts. The other pole is
German.

So the mixture of Celt and German elements didn’t create a new Logos or new existential
horizon. It created English schizophrenia and bipolarity. There is a kind of unbalanced mixture
between German and Celt that was not a kind of synthesis. That was a very ill mixture or
confusion of contradictory elements. They didn’t create a united Logos. They didn’t create a
united identity. They created a bipolar society which was very very troubled inside. And there
is the other example of the relations between Celt and German identity in Switzerland, Belgium,
and all the heritage of Lothair, the third heritage of Charles the Great. And in Switzerland there
is very very thin balance between both identities. There is not so much synthesis but there is
harmonization. And what we see in England is absolutely disharmony, absence of any harmony.
There is very aggressive German part and very depressive Celt part. They don’t form the whole,
something holistic, something internal. They formed bipolar entity with deep conflict inside
that could not be resolved internally so it expanded as British Empire. It was expanded as a kind
of explosion of these two contradictory identities that didn’t create a Logos. It created British
Empire of capitalism, imperialism, and liberalism. If French Celt Logos, for example, is much
more Dionysian with many aspects of the black Dionysus and German Logos is Apollonian with
possibility to change the situation to the titanic aspect, English culture and identity took the
black Dionysus and titanic aspect of German Logos, united them in very conflictual way and
expanded over the planet. That was a kind of not colonialism but colonization of illness that
wasn’t cured inside and couldn’t be cured. That is manifested in the main myth of England - the
fight of two dragons; the red dragon and white dragon. That was the beginning of the history
of England. The red dragon represents Celt identity and white dragon represents German
identity. And these two dragons are still fighting. And the explosion of British Empire didn’t
change anything and didn’t cure English mind. English mind rests ill and bipolar but now it is
 89

obliged to return to this fight that never ends. That is very interesting idea. There is no Logos.
In France we could identify the Logos. In Germany we could identify the Logos. We could
identify the Logos in Italy, Greece, and other countries but not in England.

There is a kind of North American Logos. South American is the continuation of the Latin
Logos with Apollonian structure. That was embedded in the pre-European population not
without the problems but that was a synthesis. And Anglo-Saxons brought to North America
their illness. They began to destroy the Indians and not integrate them into their society. And
they created an absolutely ill North-American society as continuation of the same problem. But
there is a kind of American Logos in pragmatical philosophy. There is a kind of solution for them.
Pragmatism is the main trend in North-American philosophy. What is Pragmatism? It is the idea
that there is no normative knowledge about subject and there is no normative knowledge
about object but there is only interaction in practice. If something works, it is. If something
doesn’t work, then maybe next time. There is no concept of what subject or object should be,
of what should be matter, nature, cosmos, or human soul. We could pretend to be everybody;
Elvis Presley, martians, Anglo-Saxon, everybody. If it works, so nice. If it doesn’t work, it’s bad
for you. So we could treat the world in any way we want. So that is a kind of pragmatical
freedom. That is why American philosophers tried to adapt Heidegger in their Pragmatist way.
It’s not Heidegger but it’s American reading of Heidegger, precisely because they believe only
in what is between, what is interaction, practical. For example, if you are constructing the time
machine in order to return to the other time, you are free to do that because doing that,
something could happen. Maybe not return to the time but you could discover some elements
or some knowledge to sell something or new bottle for Coca-Cola. So you are completely free
to do whatever you want because there are no limits of object or subject. There is no inner and
no outer. It’s only interaction. And interaction is practical and pragmatical, if it’s good to you.
That is American Logos. It’s very special. It’s not Anglo-Saxon. It is the other kind.

And now in globalist time, there is a kind of loss of this Logos, because America could not
pretend to be colonialistic, because colonialism is the clearly defined goal. So now America is
not anymore American. They are in the hands of some other groups. American Logos is not so.
It is pragmatism that couldn’t tolerate any goal. They could act and something happens or
something doesn’t happen and you could feel happy or not but you could try everything and
you shouldn’t prescribe to anybody nothing. Political correctness is anti-American and anti-
Pragmatic. You can say everything and act how you like and make the monuments you prefer
or not have any monuments at all because there is nothing inside or outside but only in the
interaction. So that is pure American in best or worst. That is American Pragmatist Logos. Now
North America is not such. It is different.

That is analysis more or less of the different existential horizons or cultural spaces of
European civilization. I have already said some words about Slavs. We are Indo-European
society. The last centuries, we are under great influence of the West. So partly we share with
 90

German, with French, with British, with Greeks, with Latins, their problems, having some special
features. We will dedicate to Serbian identity a special lecture so I don’t want to anticipate too
much. But what about our Slavic Logos? It is clearly a part of Hellenistic cultural space because
all the other identities I have described are a kind of result of this Christian Hellenism in
different combinations. But what is as well clear is that we do not have such Slavic Logos as
something already made or something completed. It is the most interesting thing. That is
challenge for us. That is open Logos. I have studied the possibility of the Russian philosophy
basing on Heidegger in special book. I didn’t yet write the last book of noomahia that will be
dedicated to Russian Logos, possible or not. But dealing with Eastern European Slavic tradition,
I see clear that the Slavic Logos is possible and some time in the history we approached it.

We were very close to it in the Dusan the Strong in your history, with the first and the second
Bulgarian Kingdoms in the history of Bulgarians, we were close some time in the Polish Kingdom
with Lithuanian and Great Moravia as well with some philosophical tendency. But we have
never achieved the final version of this Logos in Eastern Europe, as well in Russia. We didn’t
achieve the final version of Logos. Our existential horizon is not finished. It hasn’t received the
last form. And that maybe is our historical challenge. And Slavophile thinkers saw that we came
to the history later than the other when there was already a huge building of German
philosophy, German political history, French philosophy, Roman philosophy, Greek philosophy,
and as well political history. We Slavs have arrived to this a little later, not in the history, but to
the understanding of history, to Logos of history, and to our philosophy. Our philosophy is a
little bit childish and infantile. There is great example, great explosion of intellectual richness of
precious thinkers such as Petar II Petrović-Njegošmetaphysical as well, Russian Dostoyevsky but
all that is a kind of feeling of coming of our Logos and not the Logos itself. We are living in the
anticipation of the Slav Logos. And when we study the past, we see many heroic deeds but we
could not say that is our Logos. No. That is something like that. There is Saint Sava in Serbia.
That’s anticipation of the Serbian mission, of the history. The creation of Nemanja Dynasty,
Russian Ivan the Terrible and the other moments in our Slavic history are anticipation of Logos
and not the Logos itself. That’s my personal opinion and it’s more difficult to describe our own
Logos than to study the Logos of the other because it demands very deep introspection inside
in our culture.

But nevertheless we should recognize some centuries we were under the influence of
the other existential horizons and they defined many things in our actual consciousness. But
that is always scientific truth. We have conserved our identity and the core of our existential
Slav horizon in the same condition. Maybe it is buried in the depth but it exists surely in the
Serbian example of the resistance to globalization. It is one of the examples. Yes, that was the
defeat but Kosovo struggle was as well defeat. But on this defeat is based the victory. On this
defeat, on this capacity to resist is based the future resurrection. That is not only the death as
defeat. That is heroic death. It’s always promise of the resurrection. To say the truth, I constate
very pessimistic state in modern Slav society but at the same time, I’m very optimistic
 91

concerning the possibility of this Logos. It is not yet done or completed. But that is the challenge
for new generations of Slav intellectual elite that should bring to the final point all the historical
experience, all this historical (not historic) sequence of our ontological presence in the world. I
think that we should study the cultures of other European people. We should study in depth
these existential horizons to understand where we are and who lives around us, with whom we
have to deal, who are oppressors, who are saviors, friends, and enemies but most importantly
to understand who we are. But without knowing who are the other, we could not define
ourselves. In knowing the other, we know ourselves. In knowing ourselves, we know the other.
So in order to establish or re-establish or discover this Slavic Logos, we need to study as well,
the Logos of and geosophy of European world, Indo-European world and the other people. That
is the importance of noomahia.

Lecture 7. Christian Logos.

1. Noological analysis of Christianity is not dogmatic but based on typology.

2. The main structure of Christianity is heavenly patriarchy and verticality. God is Father
and He is in Heaven. He is transcendent from creature so it is Logos of Apollo. Hence
Platonism and Aristotelian logic in Joan Damascine and scholastics.

3. In Christology we see Dionysian features: two nature of Christ, death and resurrection,
descent into the Hell, the Christ as future God and King. But it is apollonian type of
dionysism – free from chtonic motives and figure, purified, patriarchal.

4. In the field of gender there is anelegyny and patriarchy: two branches of sedentary Indo-
European society relation between sexes.

5. In theology it is Alexandrine school and Origenes and Cappadocian fathers – Saint Basil
the Great, Saint Gregory and so on. The radical apollonian version is monophysite
heresy (Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopean).

6. Generally it is regarded as greek influence. The teaching of Logos. Two branches of

Neoplatonism – Christian and polytheistic.

7. The second element is Arianism and Antiochean school. Usually it is explained as jewish
and semitic version with more literally exegesis of the Bible. The closer analysis shows
 92

that there is not so much semitic in Syrian culture of first centuries. More than that: the
Judaic tradition of post-babylonian epoch is not so much semitic too. We see here
Iranian influence. We have seen the role of Iranian Logos in hellinism. So Christianity is
build on Hellenistic culture with two components: greek (advaitic) apollonism and
Iranian (dvaitic) appolonism.

8. Antiochean school as well as judeo-christian tendencies in early Christianity are Iranian.

Hence the war of Light and the end of History, messianism and Empire. Historic time is
Iranian discovery. The idea of time proceeds from the End of Time and the War of Light
vision of the kosmos.

9. Christianity is Indo-European in both senses: in platonic and Iranian. It is non dualist and
dualist (in Iranian) sense.

10. Byzance stays in line with Platonism more, Rome with dualism (Saint Augustin – ex-
Manichean).

11. Protestantism: originally restoration of pure spiritual dimension in Christianity but

degraded soon in titanic version of it. The deviation.

The dechristianization of the Europa was the war against Logos of Apollo and his Dionysian ally.

Transcript of Noomahia Lecture 7 – Christian Logos

The seventh lecture is dedicated to Christian Logos. So now we are going to make a short
Noological analysis of Christianity and Christian tradition. I would like to say that, that is not
dogmatic. We are regarding Christianity as cultural, social, political, structural, philosophical
phenomenon. So we don’t defend or accuse Christianity, being I presume mostly Orthodox
Christian as myself, we are going to treat Christianity in the correct way but not insisting too
much on our confessional preferences. That is a kind of Noological analysis. We don’t discuss
the truth or heresy or what was accepted as dogmatically correct or heretic. Everything we are
going to speak of will be regarded from the Noological point of view, the structural analysis.

First of all, when we consider Christianity and Christian doctrine from a Noological point of
view, basing on geosophy and basing on the Three Logos, we could easily, from the very
beginning, formulate some general principles concerning Christianity. First of all, the Logos of
Christianity is clearly Apollonian. First of all, that is verticality. And the concept of God the
Father, the Heavenly Father, the Holy Trinity, and the transcendence of the Creator in front of
 93

creation all creates a kind of traditional Logos of Apollo that we already know. That is pure
vertical organization of the metaphysical space. There is the Heavenly Father (Father not
Mother) that is in the Heaven, that is in transcendence, that has created the world. So that is a
kind of coming down from top to down. Creation is from eternity to time, from Heaven to the
earth, from God to the man and the other creatures. There is purely Apollonian logic in basic
dogmatical principles. All three person of Holy Trinity are considered to be male, masculine.
That’s very important. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All three are
considered as male figures. That in the symbolical way is very important. The relation between
the creature and the creator are hierarchical. The created things should be submitted to the
creator. So that is a kind of hierarchy. And this verticality is the basic feature of Christian
tradition. That is the essence of Christian tradition. That is patriarchal.

And affirming that, we could say that it is not the chance that this tradition has developed in
the Indo-European world first of all (in Greece, in Rome, in Europe.) Christianity became a
normative tradition for Indo-European society. Not for all but for Western part of Indo-
European society where the concept of God and its main features of Christian God (Father) was
more or less correspondent to Zeus, to Jupiter, to the male deities of pre-Christian time. In the
popular consciousness it was easy to replace one Heavenly Father by another. Because the
figure in German language is the word, ‘Gestalt.' That is the figure; the image that is not the
precise person that we know its qualities. Gestalt is a kind of frame of Heavenly Father that was
the same. So that was a kind of continuity from pre-Christian tradition and Christian tradition.
It was a continuity that was based on the structure, on the frame, on Gestalt, on the typology
of the civilization. So that is very important. We could see how Greeks, Latins, Germans, Celts,
Slavs accepted one figure of Heavenly Father instead of the other. So that was a kind of
transformation that didn’t touch the structure of world vision of Indo-European people. So that
is very important. There was a kind of continuity.

That was explained in the philosophy of some first Christian apologetics and saints, for example,
Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria, that said that there were two branches of tradition,
(not only Judaic tradition before Christianity.) There was as well Hellenic tradition. That was the
second branch of that. And that was also sacred. But both Judaic tradition and Hellenic tradition
in Christianity were transformed and were enlightened, were transformed into something
more correct and more true, according to Clement of Alexandria and Justin philosopher. There
was as well, in the first stages of elaboration of Christian doctrine, the concept that Christianity
has two sources, not only Judaism but as well Hellenic (so Indo-European source). That was
reflected above all in the Christian Platonism. Christian Platonism started first with the apostles
themselves. Because the Gospel of John; “In the beginning was the Word.” In the beginning
was the Logos and the Logos is not the word only as we translate. The Logos is not only the
word. It is intellect. It is Nous in some aspect. It is a very very complicated concept of Greek
philosophy. The fact that we know the Gospels only in Greek, so they maybe were written in
Greek and not translated from Aramaic, because the Greek was the Hellenistic koiné, the
 94

language that was distributed in the Mediterranean world because Christianity was born in
Hellenism, in the Hellenistic context. Platonism begins not with exegetic tradition. It begins with
the apostles themselves. Many aspects of Christian traditions from the very beginning was
based on some Greek concepts because in Aramaic and Hebrew, there is no word equivalent
to Logos, but that is the beginning of our Christian teaching. ‘In the beginning was the Logos.’
And we don’t know the Aramaic Semitic word used for such concept. So with the beginning of
Christianity, Christian theology was the Logos and Greek philosophy. That was developed later
by Justin philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, and basically in Alexandrian school, with the great
Origen, who was a Platonist. There was created the whole building of Christian theology, with
the Holy Trinity, the transcendence of the creator and so on. Everything was based on
Platonism, on the teachings of Plato. They say that Origen was the pupil, the disciple of
Ammonius Saccas. Alexandria was Hellenistic. That was Egyptian in the traditional sense. That
was Greek Hellenistic city. And there was Ammonius Saccas, who was the first teacher of
Neoplatonism, of the so called fifth academy. He was the founding father of Neoplatonic
tradition and Origen was his pupil. So that was the pure Platonic affiliation and continuity.

We have already spoken about the relations between the Logos of Apollo and Plato’s teaching.
They are almost the same. Platonism is the best and most accomplished, excellent, perfect
expression of the Logos of Apollo. The elaboration of Christian dogmatism reflects this cultural
continuity of pre-Christian tradition and Apollonism was in the center of it. But we remark as
well, in some Christian dogmas, Dionysian features. For example, there is the clear logic, pure
celestial heavenly logic of Apollo in some aspects, but treating with Christology we are dealing
with a Dionysian concept. Christ is the man and the God. So that is something Dionysian,
something dialectical. There are two natures and one person in Christ. In the Holy Trinity, there
is unity and trinity, so as well a kind of internal divine dynamic in that. And the relations of the
creature and the Creator as well is something dialectic. The relations between them is not only
the cause and the effect. They are intermingled. The God is present inside of creation and the
incarnation of the Christ is the most important moment of the history of creation according to
Christian doctrine, and that is Dionysian element that is embedded in the Christian dogmatic
teaching. As well, Dionysian, Christ dies, resurrects, comes down to Hell to liberate the
ancestors. He comes down and comes up and there is ascension in the Christian holidays and
the saint moments, so He rises from the death and He still continues to go to the Heaven after
that, after staying 40 days with the apostles. So there is pure Dionysian cycle. He comes down
from Heaven to the earth. He dies and comes to the center of Hell. He destroys and wins the
Hell. And after he liberates the saint souls of the ancestors and everybody goes to the common
general resurrection with Christ, in the Easter, in this ascension moment, Christ returns to the
Heaven, being the Son of God and ruling in the Heaven. So any aspects of this Christian narrative
are purely Dionysian concerning Christ and purely Apollonian concerning the basic structure of
the world which all these events are put in.
 95

But what kind of Dionysian logic do we have? We have already said that in Indo-European
tradition, the point of Dionysus is not exactly in the center between the Logos of Apollo and
the Logos of Cybele. It is rather a bit higher than this dividing line. It is Apollonian reading of the
figure of Dionysus and in the figure of Christ it is absolutely transparent, it’s clear. So all
chtonical, all negative aspects or dialectical, nocturnal aspects in the figure of Christ are not
present. So that is purified Dionysus, Apollonian Dionysus. He is pure, immaculate. He has no
sin. And coming to the center of the Hell to win the Hell and His power, He still rests God and
absolutely pure. We are dealing with the normative, two figures of classical Indo-European
structure. That is Indo-European religion with Indo-European theology, with the pure victory of
the patriarchy over the Logos of Cybele. There is no sign of Logos of Cybele in this concept. And
the Holy Virgin, the Mother of God is represented as Demeter much more than purely earthly
figure. It is complete purification of the female nature. She’s considered to be the head of the
angels. It is the purity and virginity of the Holy Mother because she did not know the husband
in the normal way, and she was bride of Holy Spirit, of God. So veneration of Holy Mother is
purely Indo-European. It is the concept of the virgin, the heavenly celestial virgin and there is
nothing chthonic in this image.

So all the principal figures of Christianity are Apollonian and Dionysian in the Apollonian reading
of Dionysus. All these elements were present before Christianity, and not in the Semitic
tradition. They were the basic concept of the Hellenistic world that was based on this alliance
with Logos of Apollo with Logos of Dionysus. And in the periphery, there were some chthonic
aspects in Hellenism, not dominating, but they were present as the traces of the Great Mother
culture. But in Christianity there were no such things. That was the pure formula, pure version
of Indo-European Logos, restored to put in its brilliance, in absolute affirmation. And that is why
Christianity became the tradition of the European West. In our cultures, our people have
accepted Christianity because they were Christian before the Christ. So they were prepared for
this revelation that was new, that was something completely different from the past, but there
was the clear structural continuity. The existential horizon of Indo-European society was the
same, was prepared, and was ready to receive the good news. So that is very important. In
other civilizations, it is almost impossible to explain what is the Christ. It is universal but
universal figure in the context of this Apollonian Logos. If the Apollonian and Dionysian Logos
is present in other civilizations they could understand Christianity but it is not always the case
and we need to make serious work to prepare the other cultures, the other existential horizons
to Christianity. And in Hellenistic existential horizon, everything was ready to receive
Christianity. That is very important.

Christianity is not our new tradition of the last 2000 years. That was continuation of the old
Indo-European tradition. This structure with triads, trinity, everything was prepared. Not
exactly because with any reform of religion, of mythology, of tradition, of the church, there are
new elements but nevertheless the essence was the same. As well, for example, communion
was the moment when the wine becomes the blood of God and the bread becomes the body
 96

of God. That is Demeter and Dionysus, prefiguration of it. So we could see prefiguration of
Christ in the Old Testament that is completely legitimate. But as well we could see as Justin
philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, a kind of prefiguration of Christian mysteries in
Greek mysteries, not exactly but a prefiguration, the images, anticipation of Christianity. And
we have the same tri-functional tradition as Christianity. There are priests and patriarchs, there
are kings and warriors, and there are peasants. So we have in the Christian society, all three
Indo-European functions. And this structure of society lasted in the pure form up to the
beginning of the Modernity, up to the end of the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. So, there is
continuity as well in the social structure. There is continuity in Empire. There is some continuity
in the rites, in the worship practice. So structurally, that was unity and continuity between pre-
Christian Indo-European existential horizon and Christian existential horizon. So that is very
important.

But at the same time, we see in the early Christianity, two very contradictory centers of
elaboration of Christian doctrine. There is Alexandrian School and there is Antiochian School.
Normally they say that everybody agrees about the philosophical and metaphysical quality of
Alexandrian School founded by Saint Apostle Mark and developed by Clement of Alexandria
and Origen. Tradition of the Origenism came after to the Cappadocians; to Saint Basil the Great,
Saint Gregory, and the other. And that was the dogma accepted in the first three Ecumenical
councils. That was the kind of victory of Alexandrian School. And the conceptual axis of it was
Neoplatonism, in different form. The highest point of Christian Neoplatonism is Dionysius the
Areopagite and his works. That is pure Christian Platonism; the creation of nine orders of
supernatural angels, powers, and all the Christian mysteries were explained in this Platonic
symbolism. So there is clear Alexandrian tradition and that is one part of Christian teaching.

There is Antiochian School that gave many heresies, (such as Arius, Nestorius, and the others)
that was opposed to Alexandrian School. And they say that was a kind of Semitic spirit
orientated against Greek or Indo-European spirit. Alexandrian tradition was based on the
symbolical allegorical reading of the Old Testament and New Testament and that is normal for
Platonism. Plato’s teaching regards everything that existed as symbol of the ideas. So
everything should be read as symbolical text. Every thing, every event, every person should be
regarded as an icon, as an image of the paradigm. (Hence the symbolical allegorical reading of
Alexandrian School of any sacred text.) That is completely normal. And they say that in the case
of the Antiochian School, that was a different approach; literal. And they say that is Semitic
because it was not so much Greek with Platonism but that was historic. That was the history
and that is sometimes called Judeo-Christian reading of Christianity. And we could say that
Alexandrian School is Indo-European reading or Greek (Hellenistic) reading of Christianity. I
thought the same before I had started to study it more closely. Because the Antiochian School
was situated in Syria, Antiochia, that was considered where the main Semitic population was,
it was considered to be Semitic. But starting to study the Antiochian School and the
phenomenon of Judeo-Christianity that was opposed to Alexandrian School, and after writing
 97

the book on Semitic Logos (I have one volume of Noomahia dedicated to Semitic Logos, the
Logos of Semites), I have discovered that that is not so.

Semitic Logos is quite different. It is based on a kind of Titanism of Baal in the pre-Judaic
tradition. There was a very patriarchal version of the Eastern Semitic tradition of Akkadian and
Assyrian in Babylonia that was similar to Hittite tradition or later to Iranian tradition. And there
was Judaic tradition that was in some way anti-Semitic because the Judaic Logos (by traditional
Judaism) was against all the people living in the Canaan (mostly Semites) with the cult of Baal,
the Titanic deity that demanded bloody sacrifices of the children. And Judaism was absolutely
opposed to it but not affirming something special. That was a kind of counter-identity. So the
most anti-Semitic tradition historically was Jewish tradition, because that was opposed to any
Semitic cultural horizon of Canaan. That was anti-Canaan in any senses. So, the Jews blamed all
people living around them because they were supporters of Baal’s cult. And they opposed to
them, in the early stage of Jewish tradition, something very special. We could call that ‘old God’
because the Baal was considered by the most Semitic people as ‘new God,’ a kind of lesser God
that didn’t receive the heritage and has started a revolt against the ‘old God,’ So the mostly
Semitic traditions, western Semitic traditions, were on the side of the new God Baal, with some
Titanic Dionysian features. That was the black double of Dionysus (we have spoken about that).
And the Jewish tradition was against this new God, against Baal, in favor of old God that was
dethroned by Baal. But that had nothing to do with Christianity, not Baal nor old God. So
Christianity was completely different.

In Antiochian School, I have found not this inter-Semitic drama of Western Semites (Assyrian,
Aramean [not Jewish], and Jewish tradition) but something completely different. I have
discovered there, Iranism in pure form. That was Iranistic tradition. And if we consider the late
Judaism, the Judaism after Babylonian captivity (so called Second Temple Judaism), we could
easily identify in that, Iranian topics. That was a kind of original Judaic tradition transformed in
the Zoroastrian Iranian context. Hence the concept of Messiah that was absent in the early
Judaism, the history, the salvation, and the resurrection. All that appears during Babylonian
captivity, in the late stage, in the second temple Judaism. So the late Judaism was Iranized form
of Judaism and not so Semitic, in Jewish (originally Jewish) or not Jewish (other Semitic people)
sense. That is very important. And Antiochian tradition was much more dualistic and Iranistic
as well (not Iranian but Iranistic) because Semitic people, after the Achaemenid Empire, lived,
including during the Hellenistic time, under great influence of Iranian Logos. And this dualism
(in Manichaeism later) had all kind of Messianic tendencies, very similar to Christianity. That
was the logical result of the concept of the war of light and the appearance of, at the end of
the time, the figure of the last king and the savior. All that is, in our eyes, completely Christian
or Jewish (in the late Judaism) but only in Iranian tradition does all that obtain the real
metaphysical and structural meaning. All Iranian metaphysics explains why (because of the
history, because of the war between the light and darkness.) So the Antiochian tradition was
an Iranistic school.
 98

We have in Christianity, a kind of world between the Greek advaita, non-dualistic Platonism (in
the case of the Alexandrian School that we could call mostly Greek and Platonic) and we have
Iranistic, dualist, historic version of it, which is not so much symbolic but historic in the sense
of Messianism. But Messianism is not Jewish. Messianism is Iranian (metaphysically Iranian). So
we have a kind of discussion or debate on the new stage between two Logos, both of them
Indo-European, both of them vertical, both of them patriarchal, but with different editions. So
that was the dialogue not between Judaism and Hellenism. That was the dialogue between
Hellenism with Greek domination, and Iranism with Iranian dominations. All that was also the
part of Christianity. In Christianity, in Christian doctrine, we have two poles. We could be more
Platonic or more Iranistic and Messianic. And Judeo-Christianity is not Jewish spirit. It is Iranian
spirit. Judeo-Christianity is Iranistic version of reading of Christianity.

That defines all history of Christian dogmatic councils. Of the first seven councils, the first three
councils were victories of Alexandrian School over Antiochian School; over Arius in the first
council, over Nestorius after that, and defeat of the Antiochian tradition that was much more
inclined toward dualistic version. That is why Christ wasn’t considered as God. He was
considered as saint, as prophet, as the last savior, but not God, because there was a kind of
difference, opposition between the material world and spiritual world. There is dualism,
Nestorianism, and Arianism developed in the Antiochian Iranistic School, and spiritual Monism
developed in the Alexandrian School. Both of them had heretic versions that were outside the
Christian dogmatic orthodoxy. Antiochian School gave Arius and Nestorius and they were
considered to be heresies. As well, the radicality of Alexandrian Platonism gave the other
extremity; Monophysite heresy represented by the disciples of Cyril of Alexandria, Eutyches,
and the others. So the Monophysite heresy was a kind of purely excessive Platonism (Greek
version), and excessive Iranism (Nestorian version). They were heretical extremities of the
legitimate orthodox point of view. The other parts of the Alexandrian School with the
Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Saint Gregory, and the other Cappadocian teachers), and the
other part of the Antiochian School (Saint John Chrysostom who was representative of the
Antiochian School) were considered to be absolutely orthodox. So there were heretic versions
and there were completely orthodox versions of both of them.

And when they say that during Justinian that Platonism and Origenism were blamed (that is the
fact) and considered to be heresy, it concerns only radical parts of this Platonism. For example,
it didn’t concern the teachings of Saint Basil the Great or Dionysius the Areopagite, who were
accepted as orthodox authorities. Or for example, the excommunication of Nestorius didn’t
affect John Chrysostom who was considered a most orthodox figure in the Orthodox Church
but he was representative of this historical (not symbolical) Iranian, Iranistic version of Christian
doctrine.

The first three councils were victories of the Alexandrian School and the second three were a
kind of revenge of the Antiochian School. After the end of the pure Antiochian School, the
 99

Antiochian School was destroyed and defeated but the tendency to moderate this Alexandrian
neoplatonic version still existed. And the next three (the 4th, 5th, and 6th ecumenical councils)
were a kind of victory of the Antiochian spirit because that was moderation of the pretensions
of most radical representatives of Alexandrian School. That was a kind of balance. And that was
a kind of victory of the Hellenism (but this time Christian Hellenism) where the two forms of
Iranian and Hellenistic, historic and non-dualist, symbolic, all were united in the context of the
orthodox dogma. And the seventh Ecumenical Council was not so important concerning
metaphysics. That was about iconoclasm. (That had relations to this as well but no so directly.)

So, we have in Christianity, a continuation of the Mediterranean Hellenistic existential horizon

with two poles (Iranistic and Greek poles.) And that was a kind of new form or new ideology of
the traditional Indo-European horizon. We could say that there was a difference regarding the
woman in Christianity. We see two approaches, as well very proper to Indo-European society.
On one side there is recognition of the full dignity of woman and a kind of spiritual equality
between man and woman in Christ. There is the saying of St. Paul that ‘there is no man, no
woman but only Christ.’ So that is a recognition of the dignity of the soul of woman that is equal
to the soul of man. That is a kind of partnership, friendship, traditional Turanian friendship
between the female warrior and male warrior in the defense of the identity. That is female
warriors and male warriors as warriors of Christ. That is spiritual equality of the souls. At the
same time, there was the second relation between man and woman that was a reflection of
this coming of the nomadic Indo-European over matriarchal society where there was a kind of
submission of the woman to the man. That was reflected in the other sayings of St. Paul, when
for example women cannot teach in church, women should be submitted to the husband, and
the others. That is hierarchy and equality, both versions of gender archetypes traditionally for
Indo-European society in its historic relations with the matriarchal society. There is a kind of
hierarchical submission and on the other level, a kind of friendship and equality and spiritual
dignity. That is a kind of best solution, a more organic and natural solution for the concrete
historical society we are dealing with (not with the abstract.) In our tradition, how these
horizons, spiritual and cultural spaces and civilizations were created during their historical and
existential development that was the best solution that satisfied both demands of equality and
hierarchy in a very concrete way. That was reflected in the Christian tradition. That was not
casual. As Platonism was a reflection or expression of this Logos of Apollo, Christian tradition
was an excellent and perfect reflection of this Apollonian, Dionysian style of civilization. That is
the reason why we are Christians. We were not obliged to be Christians. We have accepted that
as something that we knew before. That was a kind of remembrance of our identity. That is
identity of Christian tradition that was recognized by the people of the Mediterranean,
Hellenistic context because that was continuation of the same relations in the best way.

At the same time, we see continuity in empire because Christianity was accepted as religion
and ideology of empire with Constantine the Great. There was developed a very important
concept that is this time Iranian by its origin; the concept of Katehon (Greek name for 'that who
 100

supports.’ Katehon is participle of Greek word κάτω έχουν. κάτω is under, έχουν is to have.)
This figure appears in the second epistle letter of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, where there is
concrete phrase; ‘the son of perdition, the anti-Christ, will not come until the supporter,
Katehon, (that who supports, who keeps) will be taken out of the way.' That was an enigmatic
phrase. So, there is some figure that resists the coming of anti-Christ. Because there is a
historical vision of Christianity, Messianic vision of Christianity, and that reflects not Platonic
version of the eternity of the world, but dialectic of history that is Iranian. There appears some
figure that fights against anti-Christ and that figure is key figure in the Iranian historical
sequence, Iranian Logos. That is represented by the sacred emperor in Iranian tradition. In Iran,
there is Iranian Kingdom and the sacred King of this Kingdom is that who fights the forces of
the darkness and doesn’t let them invade the world. That is a purely Iranian figure that didn’t
exist in the Greek concept. In the Greek idea, there was not such a figure. But in Roman
ideology, in the Roman Empire there appears something like that, not so clearly defined, under
influence of Iranian because Iranism was the part of the Hellenism and Hellenism was the main
culture of the Roman Empire. That was a Latin empire. That was the Roman Empire that was
based on the Hellenistic culture (we have spoken about that.) What is important is that this
figure mentioned in St. Paul’s 2nd letter to Thessalonians was identified clearly by Saint John
Chrysostom (as well very important because he was representative of Iranistic branch of
Christian theology, of the Antiochian School) but it is clear that before him as well, was
identified as the figure of Roman Emperor.

So Katehon was the Roman Emperor, the King of the Empire. And there was theology of empire
linked to the eschatology - the end of time, the resurrection, and the final apostasy. All the
cyclic historic vision of the Christian Church was based on this figure (above all in Byzantium
but not only Byzantium). In Byzantine Empire that was dogmatic ideology of Byzantines. In
Byzantine existential space, in Byzantine culture, the Katehon was Emperor but Christian
Emperor. He was considered to be a kind of Bishop of the Church. So he was the key figure of
the sacred King that fights against the coming of anti-Christ. And he was with the Patriarch.
They made a kind of symphony (the term is from Christian Orthodox tradition), symphony of
the powers. Symphony of the powers was based on the alliance between the Patriarch (the
representative of the spiritual authority) and the Emperor (not normal king, nor knyaz, nor
prince.) The Emperor was not only a secular ruler. The Emperor was the sacred figure of
Katehon. He was linked to the historical cycle where there is empire with emperor as the head.
There is no anti-Christ. We are living in the Christ’s world. So, empire obtains with emperor a
new dimension. It’s not only a political organization. It is the sacred organization that is
Christian, Apollonian, Dionysian (at the same time) version of organization of political reality as
cosmic reality. Because the anti-Christ, the son of perdition (as in the St. Paul) is not only a
historical person. It is manifestation of the darkness. It is manifestation of the cosmic, political,
historical, metaphysical form. And dualism is not Christ against anti-Christ. That is completely
artificial. There was not the case. Christ is God and was considered a God. He could not be put
on the same level as anti-Christ. But emperor was the figure that was symmetric to anti-Christ.
 101

The Christian Emperor was the obstacle and the resistance and was a symbolic figure that
united the Christian world and gave to it its vertical axis. That was a very important figure,
continuing the same pre-Christian tradition.

But in Christian situation; empire, church, theology, patriarchy, dogmatic tradition, orthodoxy,
all that forms the Christian Orthodox ideology as a new form of all elements that pre-existed,
that existed before Christianity. That is very important. If we put together all these elements of
verticality, of the Dionysian nature of Christ, of historical messianism of Iranism, and the figure
of the sacred Emperor, we have in all that a full teaching that reflects not new teaching of
Christianity but reflects the eternal moment of Noomahia of Indo-European society. At this
time there was the figure of Satan that represented Chthonic forces or the Babylonian whore,
the red Babylonian woman (Babel) that is the Great Mother in that context. That is the figure
of Cybele (Babylonian, that was kind of close to Anatolia). Symbolically, we had all these Logos
in Christian context. There is the scarlet woman (the great Babel, the Babylonian whore) that
was a kind of figure of the Logos of Cybele. There is Satan or anti-Christ as a representation of
Satan as ‘Titan.’ In some Christian texts they both were used, ‘Titan’ or ‘Satan,’ were considered
to be very close. So that is a kind of serpent, dragon, dragon that is consort of the Great Mother
(traditional). So they try to overthrow the Christian Empire that is under power of the spiritual
figure of the Patriarch or Bishop and the sacred King Emperor. That was a reorganization of the
Indo-European existential space in Christian time.

So we have a new ideology (Christian ideology), a new religion (Christian religion), and we have
a very old tradition that was reflected in that. So Christianity was based on the victory over
Satan. Satan was chained for a time being and put under the control of the Empire. The figure
of Tsardom, Kingdom, the figure of Tsar and sacred King was a kind of seal, a kind of sigil (печат)
over this victory of the Christian Church over Satan and Cybelian world. The situation was sealed
with the King. So the King was seal. If we put together the seal, everything is destroyed and
there is a kind of explosion because this Christian Kingdom, Christian civilization, Christian
society was constructed not on nothing. It was constructed on the shoulder of Satan or the
shoulder of the chthonic power, controlled and domesticated and submitted by the Logos of
Apollo, chained in the Hell, but always alive. And when the King or the Emperor will become
too weak (the subject of classical Iranian tale), he could not resist the appearance of the anti-
Christ, anti-Christ will appear and Satan will liberate (liberalism) itself from the Hell in order to
come to the human society. And that was explosion of the underground or a kind of return of
Cybele with dragon as scarlet woman, as Babylonian whore with the serpent that should
destroy the Kingdom, destroy the Church and create a completely new civilization that belongs
to other existential level.

That all was and is the normal world vision of Christian Orthodoxy. It was preserved much more
in the Eastern Church. In Byzantine tradition, in Orthodoxy, it is still normal. So if we come to
Mount Athos and speak with the monks (for the man it’s possible to come to Mount Athos, for
 102

women not) we could find exactly the people with the same consciousness. They will repeat
exactly what I have said today and that is normative world vision of Orthodoxy; the meaning of
the Katehon, the meaning of the sacred Roman Empire, the concept of the Church and God
and dignity of man, a fight against evil, against Satan, against daemons. What normally the
monks of Mount Athos do there is they fight. They are fighting against demons day and night.
They are in fight. And that’s concrete. And if we are reading Paisios from Mount Athos, we see
that the fight obtains physical dimensions as well. It is a physical fight, a struggle against the
powers of darkness. It still continues in Mount Athos. It still continues in politics (we will see it
later). But was is important is that we have a complete world vision with all aspects of normative
laws and relations between man and nature, political laws, social laws, based on Christian
teaching. So Christian teaching is not only Church, not only cult and worship. It is world vision.
It includes political normative ideas. It includes a kind of Monarchism, inner, embedded. You
could not be normally democrat and be Christian. You should be in some way, in that context
you should recognize the validity of teaching of the Katehon. It is not a preference or political
opinion that you could form basing on your own position. It is the Orthodox point of view. And
that is obligatory in some way. That is Indo-European root of Christianity. As well, we have some
norms, some social relations, gender relations, family relations that are normative and Christian
and that reflect this complete world vision. So Christianity is much more than cult, worship, and
Church. That is, we could say, ideology, or Indo-European world vision, in new and actual form
that lasts still up to today. When we have Christian Church with normal traditional priests and
parish and normal man, we have the same today. Today, in Russia, in Mount Athos, in Serbia,
in Bulgaria, in Macedonia, in Romania, in Ukraine, in Greece where there is traditional
Orthodoxy, we have the same vision, culture, and civilization.

That was as well the case for the Latin Church but with much more accent on the power of
spiritual authority over Emperor. But there was, after Charles the Great, as well (in our eyes),
usurpation of the identity or the status of the sacred Emperor by Charles the Great. And that
was the split in Catholic tradition between Emperor and Pope of Rome. But the dominating
tendency in Catholicism was much more opposition between two kingdoms, formulated in
Saint Augustine who was Manichean. The idea that the Pope of Rome is representing of the
spiritual is vertical as well (but once more Indo-European, everything is Indo-European).
Verticality was represented by Rome and the kings were not sacred. That was the idea that the
Roman sacred Pope should rule over purely secular kings. But with the institution usurped (in
our eyes), by Charles the Great, that was as well the figure of Emperor. That was reflected in
the Ghibelline tradition (the fight of the Guelphs against the Ghibellines in Western history). So
there was as well a kind of Katehon for them. And this Katehonian Western Christian tradition
lasted up to the Habsburg, up to the Austrian Empire. So the Habsburg Emperors were
considered to be continuators of this Katehonian function. So, this was Austrian Empire in the
Catholic version.
 103

We didn’t recognize the status of Charles the Great. We had at the time Byzantine Empress
Irene. And that was the anti-feminist move of the Catholics. They considered that the woman
cannot rule a sacred Empire and that is why they have appropriated the title of the Emperor in
the case of Charles the Great (Charlemagne). But at the same time, we don’t speak about who
was right. We are speaking about how structurally that worked and functioned. And that
concept of this sacred Emperor was certified from the beginning of the 9th century in the
Emperor tradition of the Kings of Frank. And after that the Habsburg and Austrian Empire was
the last moment of this Western Katehonian tradition. That was the kind of emperor line. It was
not so much accepted by Popes of Rome but what is interesting is that it was nevertheless
recognized by Catholics and by Guelphs as well (with not such interpretation as in the case of
Ghibellines). Guelphs (the partisans of the absolute power of the Pope of Rome over secular
Kings of Western Europe), in their tradition, recognized the status of the Emperor as a
Katehonian figure (not so clearly, but recognized). So that was interesting that the Western
Church as well recognized that.

So we had two versions of Christian civilizations - Eastern that is closer to the original version,
with all the proportions conserved up to now. That was a kind of uninterrupted tradition of this
Indo-European heritage coming to Christianity from Hellenism as I have explained, and fixed in
the form of seven Ecumenical Councils. And there was much more, I would say, contradictory
Western Christian tradition but in the same limits. And Catholicism has conserved that almost
up to the Second Vatican Council. After that began a kind of collapse of Western Christianity.
But nevertheless there was a kind of a continuation of tradition. So Catholicism and Austrian
Empire were two forces of this Christian conservatism, of this middle ages tradition of Western
Europe.

The collapse came with Protestantism. Protestantism was the third form. That concerned only
Western Christianity. In order to think about Protestantism, this third branch of Christianity, we
need to put ourselves not with the context of Orthodox against Catholic but Catholic against
something else (so take Orthodox out of the picture. They didn’t participate in anything in that
conflict). It is interesting that at the origins of the Protestantism, we could find very very correct
ideas. First of all, there is the idea that the Roman Church is totally corrupted and has usurped
relations between the man and Christ. That was reflected in the concept of what is the Church
in Catholicism. For Catholics, the Church is the community of the priests. And what are the
other Christians? They are semi, quasi, almost-Christians. They were a kind of outside circle
around the Church and not inside the Church. That is very very important. For us, it’s strange
because the dogmatic Orthodox understanding of what is Church is that it is the community of
all baptized people. So not only priests but as well any Christians. Church is the community of
the baptized Christians, not only priests. Catholic tradition was quite different. There was a kind
of hierarchy but in a spiritual sense. There was a hierarchy that interrupted direct relations
between man, the ordinary Christian with God that should pass through priests and through
the Pope of Rome. That was a kind of intermediary obstacle. Maybe that was necessary, maybe
 104

not. We don’t speak about good or bad. We try to understand or describe it structurally. But
nevertheless there was a kind of interruption between the relations of man and God.

The early Protestants, and above all, the German mystics (Meister Eckhart, Heinrich Seuse, and
at a lesser scale Albertus Magnus) affirmed that there should be inner relation between the
heart of the man with the Christ. It should not pass through exterior relations. For us there is
no problem because in Orthodox tradition we recognize both. We recognize completely the
authority of the Church and completely this direct relationship because we have the other
concept of the Church. For us, the problem could not exist because we could not understand
that. In our situation, there is no split. There are both. We have both ways - inner and outer.
But for Western Christian tradition, there was a problem. And the first pre-Protestant mystics
said ‘good, let us accept the outer exterior form but let us proceed in an inner way.’ And they
were Platonic because they said that we have the direct relations with God and God could speak
inside of us and that is our inner dimension. So they were purely Christian. In our situation they
were closer to Orthodox in some ways. There were excesses, as well, of Platonism. For example,
Meister Eckhart said that there is something beyond the Trinity, unity beyond the Trinity. That
is not too much Orthodox. But nevertheless the main idea was so. This radical subject concept,
the concept of the inner self that is living in the heart, and the ‘inner Christ’ as they called it
was at the origin of Protestantism (in Wycliffe, Hussites, Czechs, German mystics). So that was
legitimate up to some point.

But when they tried to oppose this teaching with Luther and Calvin to Catholic tradition they
had lost the tradition itself. They have lost icons, monks, monasteries, and Church as such.
Trying to clear the direct access from man to God, they destroyed the sacredness. And they
took what we could call radical subject (the inner self that is living inside of our soul) and
replaced that with normal individuality, with profane individuality. So that was a kind of
religious individualism instead of this mystical dimension. Because when Protestantism began
to expand itself, it appealed to the masses that could not have this special inner experience.
And that was full perversion. That was destruction of Christianity. Because from the legitimate
starting point of the early Protestantism or maybe pre-Protestant mysticism of Wycliffe or
European Platonists, that was a kind of destruction of the traditional Catholic society. And that
was Titanic.

There is an inner self that is divine. But if we affirm not this radical interiority, where in the
center of our heart Christ lives, and shift to the exterior aspect instead of the real subject
(radical subject), we are receiving positive subject. This is not the third man in the mystical
language of Johannes Tauler. He has said there are three men in one of us. There is the man as
beast (that is exterior), the rational man (second man), and there is hidden mysterious secret
man inside of us (that is radical subject) and it is he who has relations with God. It is mystery
man (third man) inside of us, inside of inside. It is not only inside of body but inside of the soul.
It is the mysterious point that is hidden in our mind. This third man and second man (rational
 105

man) are not the same. They are in opposition. And the first mystics defended this third man
(hidden secret mystery man). And normal Protestantism made a shift from the third man to the
second man. They affirmed the dignity of something that shouldn’t have such dignity because
there is no possible direct relation between second man (rational man, positive subject) and
God. It should always have some intermediary. Direct relation is impossible. And the pretension
to have such relation is purely titanic.

So that was transformation of the Logos in that. In the early Protestantism was a kind of
legitimate claim to have relations between third man (hidden man inside of us) and God. And
in the normal, profane Protestantism there was a completely different approach. That was fatal
and that was the destruction of traditional society because of this titanism appearing in
Lutheran teaching but above all in Calvinism. Calvinism is much worse than Lutheranism.
Calvinism is radical absence of any sacredness in the world. It is glorification of the second man
as the only one. It is profane and destruction of sacredness. That was the premise for the
occasion of Modern post-Christian civilization. Protestantism was the break in the great wall of
Christian civilization. That was the destruction of Western Christian tradition.

In order to prepare for the next lecture about Noological analysis of Modernity, we could make
a very short analysis of what is dechristianization of modern society. That was destruction of
Logos of Apollo and Logos of Dionysus. That was destruction of Indo-European heritage. That
was not only an exchange or replacement of one religion (Christian religion) by secular version.
That was a catastrophe that is much deeper than only the fall of Christianity. That was the fall
of the Logos that was ours before Christianity. That was destruction of all form of verticality.
That was the real coming of anti-Christ, liberation of Satan from the chains of Hell, and eruption,
intervention, invasion of Titanic power in existential horizon of European culture. So now we
could evaluate what was done with Protestantism and dechristianization. So that is new
moment of Noomahia because Noomahia had the same moment (the victory of the Logos of
Apollo with the Logos of Dionysus against the Logos of Cybele.) That was the beginning of our
civilization. That was the first chart. That was the first basic event. That was a kind of reign. We
lived during thousands of years, basing on this moment of Noomahia, having contradictory
existential horizons inside of our society, but lived in the victory of light over darkness. And that
didn’t begin with Christianity. That continued with Christianity. We were happy during many
thousands of years, being the sons of the light to live in the kingdom of light, with all the
problems, with all the dramatic aspects, all the Dionysian aspects, dying, resurrecting, being
destroyed and winning anew our Noomahia, our battles. With the dechristianization came
something absolutely radical from a Noological and geosophical point of view. We are going to
see what in the next lecture.
 106

Lecture 8. Noological analysis of Modernity

1. The Modernity as paradigmatic phenomenon. The structure of Modernity is based on

the denial of Tradition (Guenon, Evola, Schuon, Burkhardt, Valsan, Nasr). What Tradition
destroys Modernity? The answer is clear: apollonian Logos in form of Christianity.

2. The origins of scientific world picture reveals the special philosophical tendency –
atomism of Democritus and Epicurus. Later Roman Lucretius.. That was pre-socratic
tendencies of Logos of Cybele in greek culture. Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, Pythagoras
and Stoia are based on Logos of Apollo and sometimes of Dionysus. Atomism and
epicureanism are based on Logos of Cybele. So in Christianism Democritus and Epicurus
were absent. They have reappeared with Galliley, Newton, Gassendi, Boyl, Descartes,
Hobbes.

3. The Modernity is based on refutation of Platonism and Aristotle. It is basically titanic or

in Christian terms Luciferian. The Modernity refuses verticality, hierarchy, warrior
values (knights ethos of Middle Age), theology as ruling paradigm, sacralization of State
(modern State as profane), democracy and individualism.

4. Cosmos is Kopernickian – decentralized, relative, material. The gravity rules. There is no

natural structure of space (Aristotle anizotopy). Any direction is equal.

5. The State is organized from bottom to the top. Democracy. No castes – equality. Three
political theories: liberalism, communism, nationalism All three based on the concept
of Cartesian subject – individual, class, nation (race). All three Modern and totalitarian.
Totalitarian because they should rule the minds and not the bodies. Rule through
epistemology.

6. Soul: The human nature is progress, tabula rasa, no soul, only the place to inscribe the
social content (Lock). No horses, no chartioteer. No transcendent Nous or Logos, only
mechanical reason and beast. Remember how first male figures appeared in matriarchal
art of the Great Goddess. The time, progress, evolution dectroyed eternity, descent and
permanence.

7. Modernity is Logos of Cybele. It is revenge and counter-attack of titans. Titanomachia

continues.

8. The role of peasantry and the figure of bourgeois. How the Cybele come in the scene
with peasants torn from the Earth and village with its patriarchal technic to control the
Great Goddess. The peasant origins of proletariat.
 107

The geosophy of Modernity. The role of England (bipolar schizophrenia) and France esthetic
satanism (black romantism). Modernity and Tradition in catholic Habsburg Europa against
protestant Modern North. Italy and Austria. Position of Russia and Ottoman Empire.

Lecture 8 is dedicated to noological analysis of the modernity. I presume that now it is more or
less easy to anticipate what will be the result of this analysis. First of all, I would suggest the
reading of the traditionalist school’s very important others such as Rene Guenon, Julius Evola,
Titus Burckhardt, Frithjof Schuon, Michel Valsan, or Hossein Nasr who have explained that the
modernity is a special concept. So modernity is not something that has to deal with
contemporarity. Because now in the contemporary actual moment we could have modern
society, pre-modern society, post-modern society, archaic society, society with religion, middle
ages type of society but living in today’s world. So contemporary does not mean modern. That
is a very important aspect and conceptual element. So when we speak about modernity, we
don’t speak about what exists now. It is a description of a type of society, of structure, of
existential horizon, of civilization that is a little bit a-temporal. So we could imagine modernity
now. We could imagine modernity belonging to the past or belonging to the future. That is
already very important.

So we consider the modernity not as the fate 'cause we have it now and we will have it
tomorrow, and we are obliged to be modern’ and so on. Traditionalists affirm that to be modern
is a decision. You can be modern or you can be not modern. And they have created two
concepts - the tradition and the modernity. So modernity is not something actual. That is a kind
of society or civilization or world vision or picture of the reality. That is one thing. And there is
tradition. That is the picture of reality, the civilization, the culture, and the society that is
different. And between them, affirmed the traditionalists, there is antagonism. That is very
important because that gives us the possibility to study modernity not as something inevitable
but as something that is the product of concrete historical development based on concrete
sequence of decisions and choices.

And the modernity is artificial, I would say. It was artificially created. It is not something that
went by itself. Modernity is not natural. Modernity was created, is supported, is defended, is
adjusted, and is developed. But there is a kind of free will behind the modernity that is not
fatality. There is not mechanical law of modernity, because we know many societies that are
not modern. For example, there is Islamic society, Indian society in some aspects, archaic
society, which are not modern. They exist today. And if we consider the majority of mankind
and humanity today in 21st century, they live not in the modern society. The society they
belong to is traditional society. Modernity has something to do with contemporary world but
we should understand that separately from contemporary.
 108

We could speak about structure of modernity. Modernity is something structural, constructed,

and could and should be deconstructed. Postmodernist philosophy is based precisely on this
deconstruction of modernity with their special aspects. But that is possible. And deconstruction
of modernity (and that is crucial point in noology) could be made from 2 positions.
Deconstruction of modernity could be made by postmodernists with their hyper-modern
ethics. The majority of postmodernists are disappointed with the modernity because modernity
didn’t fulfill its promises, doesn’t satisfy them, their hopes and anticipations. So that is a kind
of despair. They’re in despair that modernity couldn’t accomplish the goal that it declared. So
that is post-modernity in the sense that modernity is too small, is not enough. And they try to
deconstruct modernity in order to show that it should be overcome in order to create what
modernity wanted to do but couldn’t accomplish by inner limitations. In the eyes of post-
modernists, the modernity was too traditional, excessively traditional. Modernity could not
overcome tradition, but it should and it shall with the post-modernity. So that is a kind of
deconstruction of modernity that shows that modernity was not so much modern as it needed
to be in the eyes of post-modernist ethic. But what is interesting in this method, in doing that
they show the artificial nature of modernity, that modernity is a creation, that modernity is
based on the decision. So we could deconstruct something that something has constructed. So
we can use some methods of post-modernity precisely dealing with modernity.

But what is much more important is the other possibility to deconstruct the modernity in much
more radical way than post-modernist critics. That is traditionalism that regards the modernity
as a kind of the type of the structure that was created against the tradition. So that is
consideration of modernity as anti-tradition. It could be represented as a kind of reversal of all
traditional values. And what was in the traditional society with the sign plus in the modernity is
minus. So that is a kind of reversal of the traditional state of things. And that was based on
decision, subversion, and the will to destroy and to exchange the thesis with anti-thesis in some
way. So modernity is anti-thesis for tradition. That is traditionalist position. And what is
interesting is that post-modernists agree with the goal of modernity. So they criticize modernity
as something not enough, something not sufficient. But traditionalist criticize the modernity as
something awful, as something completely negative, as nihilism, as destruction, as perversion,
as subversion, as daemonic design of reality or as a kind of anti-Christ civilization created by the
conscious partisans of Satan. So the modernity in the eyes of traditionalists is conscious satanic
creation. So there is traditional divine society, divine world, and divine soul and there is satanic
tradition, satanic order, satanic cosmos and so on.

That is very interesting because this kind of deconstruction of modernity exists as well, including
in our world. And we could use both in order to deal with modernity. We could have
deconstruction from the left (postmodern deconstruction) with elaborated methodology with
traditionalist deconstruction. I don’t insist now on who is right. I try to show that there are two
possibilities to deal with modernity outside of the pretensions of modernity, because
modernity says ‘oh, that is necessary, that’s mechanical law of development, the progress, the
 109

man is good, the man is developing, the progress is inevitable’ and so on. All that is questioned
by post-modernity and all this is questioned by traditionalism. If we unite both criticisms,
methodologically we obtain something completely new. So we see, joining both
methodologies, at least one thing for certain - that we are dealing with something absolutely
artificial, because both criticisms show that with all the power of persuasion of scientific
expression from different positions and that is very important. So we could regard the
modernity as something conceptual, structural, and in some way eternal. So modernity exists,
not only in contemporary world, but it is structure. If we could describe the modernity with
mathematical, for example structures, values and anti-values, plus and minus, if we could have
a kind of formula of modernity, it could not be contemporary. So this formula could exist in a
different context. So that opens to us the way to analyze the modernity as something that could
be turned from the contemporary moment. That is very important. So we could study
modernity as we are studying for example Chinese culture or Roman culture in the same way.
That is something that is accomplished but that belongs to some eternal text. We could choose
different scales; we could go closer or go further from modernity. So modernity is the object of
the study.

When we try to concretize in noomahia perspective what is modernity, we have already spoken
about that it is anti-Christianism. Because we had in our European history tradition, about
which traditionalists speak, in the form of Christian tradition. And we have shown in the
previous lecture, how this Christian tradition included in itself pre-Christian structures and
Indo-European Logos. So tradition now, in this noological version, is the same as Christianity
but at the same time is the same as the alliance between Logos of Apollo with Logos of Dionysus
in concrete historical Christian form. So that was and is tradition that we could identify and as
well describe as type. So if we have this concrete and positive description of what is tradition,
it is not something vague. It is concrete. It is Logos of Apollo with its structure, its symmetry,
verticality with Logos of purified Apollonian Dionysus in the case of dialectic embedded in this
version. So everything is quite concrete.

And we try for example to deny all that, to make a kind of reversal of that. We receive the other
type - no Apollo, no Dionysus. And now it is not only nihilism or destruction or parody (as
traditionalists say) but in our noological analysis, we see clearly what is so called positive
content of modernity. So the modernity is not only destruction, the chaos, the anti, anti, anti,
against, against, against. It is not nihilism. In the eyes of Logos of Apollo, there is no Logos of
Cybele. There is nothing. There is destruction, matter. But in three Logos concept of noomahia,
there is Logos of Cybele. There is a kind of structure that we could imagine, that we could
describe with positive inner relations. That is why noomahia noology is so important now,
because thanks to noomahia we have the key to deeper and the better understanding on what
is modernity. Because when traditionalists criticize the modernity, they use negative terms.
That is ‘overthrow of the traditional values, negative, nihilism.’ That is conservative discourse.
They belong to tradition, to the Logos of Apollo and Dionysus and they consider the end of this
 110

situation as the end of time. So there’s nihilism, negative terms. Maybe that is the reason why
they could not get the essence of modernity, because the modernity is purely negative for
them, as it is purely positive for modernists. They could as well not understand the modernity,
because for them, that’s all. That’s beauty, that’s progress, that’s something inevitable, that’s
nature, that’s casual sequence of events that we could not change, something predefined.
Modernists don’t understand the modernity. And traditionalists understand better than
modernists but in negative way, so as well they understand not enough. But with noomahia we
could say, that is not only destruction. That is not only nihilism. That is not only chaotic
transformation. That is other Logos - third one.

And if we apply to the modernity this concept, we obtain completely new vision and perspective
to understand the modernity. And modernity is in the reality ancient. That is not paradox. It is
absolutely ancient because it is precedent to the Indo-European Turanian invasion. So we are
dealing not with something new. We are dealing in the modernity with something very very old
that existed before Indo-European invasion, before Turanian Logos of Apollo. So in that case
the modernity is old and Indo-European tradition and Christianity is something new because it
came after. And the modernity is return to the pre-Indo-European aspect of civilizations. That
is extremely important remark. Because now we are dealing not with something as the end of
some natural construction. There is nothing natural in human history. Everything is based on
the Logos. So modernity is a moment of noomahia that came the new attack of Titans against
the Gods. And this one is a successful attack. So modernity is the victory of the titans, of Cybele,
of the serpent over God. Successful attack. So that is the moment of noomahia that existed as
potential possibility always. And when the power of light became too weak and too small, the
Titans were liberated from the hell and from the chains and they made interruption again in
the realm of the order and they have submitted the humanity to their rule. So that is not purely
negative description. There is event and we could speak about the Logos of modernity. The
modernity has a Logos.

In order to trace the modernity, we could come to the event or the time when modernity
started. That was the end of middle ages and Renaissance time was the border time. That was
precisely the moment where this noomahia and titanomachy reached the critical stage, in the
Renaissance. That is the name for the special battle between Logos of Apollo against the Logos
of Cybele where the battle was lost by the Gods. The battle was lost by Indo-European tradition.
The battle was lost by this patriarchal existential horizon in favor of this alternative Logos. And
we see multiple aspects of that. That is beginning of capitalism, of bourgeois, of national state.
That was beginning of secularization of the state and the society, the end of Christianism. And
that was reflected in the science, because the modern science is a kind of necessary aspect of
modernity. So we are living in the world where our understanding of reality is based on the
science. And this science, this modern science (it is called modern science to make a difference
from middle ages science) is very special. We could consider its structure. When we begin to
read the first texts of authors of modern science, we see very special feature - they criticized
 111

Aristotle. Aristotle was a kind of dogmatic scientific concept of middle ages. And that was
scholastic and that was Christian. In Orthodox context, Aristotelian teaching was adapted by
John of Damascus to Orthodox Christian doctrine. In western Christianity that was scholastic
tradition based on the combination between Platonic and Aristotelian concepts. Aristotle and
to a lesser scale Platonism were overthrown in the beginning of the scientific world vision. And
we could trace what concretely was attacked, how this titanomachia was developed in the field
of the scientific theories. I have dedicated my first thesis to the concept of creation and
appearance of modern science.

First of all there was the criticism against the natural places theory of Aristotle or anisotropic
version of the space. Anisotropic understanding of the space of the natural places Aristotelian
theory was based on the concept of what is movement. According to Aristotle, everything has
its own goal, its own entelecheia. The goal is the final reason. That is equivalent with natural
space. So everything has its natural space. And the movement of the thing, it is moving toward
this natural place. When the thing reaches its natural space, the movement ends. So the
movement is because all the things are not in their natural space. They are moving toward them
but they prevent each other to get there. And that defines the nature of movement. So
everything strives to reach its natural space and because it is a little chaotic under the sphere
of moon, (according to Aristotle, there is chaotic movement), so everybody hurt the other.
Nobody is in its own space, only God. Only God has reached from the beginning, eternally He is
in His natural space. Everything other is out. And that is why everything is living, everything is
moving. That is the explanation of the nature of kinetic movement. But that creates the special
space with the absolute center for each thing. The absolute center for each thing is its natural
place. So everything is striving somewhere, somewhere that is more important, and more
natural for things than other place. So you could be at home. The concept of home is very
important. Home is the natural place. We are going home. And everything is going home. It is
return. It is return to the God but only God is in His own place. That is immovable mover. It is
something that moves everything but is not moved by anything. That is the concept. So the
space or the cosmos is theocentric. And there is a kind of sacred geography with the special
sacred centers, with special points of cult, and all cosmos have the meaning, structure, and
reason. So there is a center.

The main attack of Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, and the other was against this concept of the
natural place. They affirmed there is no natural place and there is no final reason. There is only
casual reason. There is the reason of movement if something makes impact on other thing. So
there is casual reason but final reason doesn’t exist. Because there is no goal, there is no
teleology of the movement. And there is no absolute center. Everything is relative. Everything
is moving chaotically as in Aristotelian version, but with no plan, with no goal, and everything
is defined by the previous cause. So the cause belongs to the past. And there is no cause of the
future. There is no eschatology and no goal. Everything is casual. And there is no center. There
is no center in space. Everything is relative. There is no anisotropic space. There is isotropic
 112

space. Isotropic space means you will go any way with the same possibility because there is no
natural space for things. So everything is absolutely relative. And that was destruction of
Apollonian structure of space and time and destiny and history. Everything is destroyed with
that. And that was so called scientific discovery.

Post-modernists show that that was publicity. That was the war of the school, of laboratory.
Everything in Galileo Galilei was a kind of trick organized in order to convince the audience that
he’s great but his personal motivations we could put aside. But what was the meaning of Galileo
Galilei and the other founding father of modernity? They destroyed Logos of Apollo
represented in Plato and Aristotle by the Logos of Cybele. And the Logos of Cybele was not their
discovery. That was return to the third form of Ancient Greek Pre-Socratic philosophy
represented by Democritus, and later by Epicurus and Lucretius. They were put aside in the
Christian version. Christian world vision was based on Plato and Aristotle, and Democritus,
Epicurus, and Lucretius were put aside and forgotten. They were purged by Logos of Apollo
because they belonged to the other vision, the atomistic vision, to the materialistic vision.
Already in the ancient time, before Plato, they were anti-Indo-European and they belonged to
the context of Logos of Cybele. And they reappeared in the Renaissance. So that is not new.
That was something that was denied, that was put off, that was prohibited. That is some
prohibited knowledge that reappeared as a dominating one. So postmodernists show that
there was nothing convincing in the new ideas and they won not because they were more true.
They won because they won. Because something changed in the mind of the Renaissance man
that has opened the way to the Logos of Cybele to return with scientific premise. There was
atomism.

Atomism belonged to the past. Atomism was rejected by Christian cosmology but it returned
with Boyle, with Newton, with Gassendi, with Hobbes, and with Descartes. That is not the
chance that Marx had dedicated his doctorate to relations between Epicurus and Democritus.
So the most modern philosopher of the 19th century dealt with in his doctorate with very old
problem of the matter, of the atomism, and of the evolution. Because evolution, almost
Darwinian type, we see Lucretius, in his point that was the idea of the evolution of the species.
So the species were confused and little by little they developed into the creatures we know.
That was by the Venus, by the Holy Mother that was produced. In Lucretius, there are purely
Cybelian topics, purely scientific. So in this Lucretius concept, there are as well black Gods in
Democritus. Democritus says that Gods as well have bodies and daemons as well. That was
atomic. They live more than the body of human but they will as well die. So dying Gods of
Democritus, black Gods or daemons. There was the mixture between scientific and
mythological topics but what kind of mythology was that? That was purely materialistic,
chthonian, and Cybelian mythology.

At the same time, destruction of verticality, of old order, of old middle ages doctrine and
Christian teaching was replaced by new world vision based on Cybelian ideology. Cybelian
 113

ideology is strictly materialist and immanentist. There is no heaven. There is no transcendental

God. There is substance and everything grows from this substance. And the growth has reason
as cause but has no final reason because this growth is something that confuses. It is a kind of
growth as such with no reason. That is a kind of immanent process. And there is no attractor.
There is no point to which this growth leads because that is the huge immanent substance that
has the goal in itself. So the reason is. The cause is. The final reason is not.

That was reflected in the cosmology of Copernicus. That is not the shift from geocentric to
heliocentric doctrine but the reason of Copernican revolution was that there is no center at all.
Everything is relative. The earth was not the center, was not natural place of incarnation of
God. It is something casual. The earth is something casual. It is some ball that is revolving
around some other fireball and so on, in the context of the other balls in the infinite disordered
chaotic atomic tradition. What is important is that according to Democritus, atom could be
small and invisible or great. That is something like very modern concept of the body, the
heavenly body of the particle and so on. So that was reflected in the scientific vision. And what
is considered today to be scientific is the same as Cybelian. Cybelian is scientific. What is not
Cybelian, what for example insists on the existence of natural place, is not scientific, and is
mythological. So there was the change of the Logos but that was not immediately. The Logos
of Cybele in scientific world vision appropriated some aspects of Apollonian rationalism, of
logic, of Dionysian dialectic. But everything was put under this sign of Cybele. So that was a kind
of post-Apollonian culture and that was difference with pre-Apollonian kingdom or civilization
of Lepenski Vir, Vinča, or Çatalhöyük. So the civilization of great mother was pre-Apollonian and
modernity is the same civilization with the same structure and the same Logos but post-
Apollonian. So that was appropriation of methods of logic, of philosophy and put under control
of this materialistic, atomistic, immanentistic, substantialist domination.

That was reflected in the politics. That was destruction of empire. That was the essence of
modern politics. Because empire, as we have seen, was the normative organization of Christian
political space, in Byzantine sense, but as well in the Western Catholic sense. So the concept of
modern state and the concept of nation were two concepts directed against empire. That was
atomic vision of the state - the state as social and political, with no reason. And the difference
between modern state and the empire is there is no final reason, there is no natural space,
there is no function or mission of Katehon. The national statehood is directed against
Katehonian mission. It is directed against the sacredness of empire and mission of empire.
Modern state by definition of Jean Bodin or Thomas Hobbes is created from below as a kind of
social contract. And that is Leviathan in Hobbes. Modern state is not reflection of the heavenly
paradigm. It is created and has no final reason. It has reason as cause. The reason of this modern
state is social contract so it is created by the people, by the individuals, in order to prevent
them from the other individuals. So that is completely different concept of politics. It is a
revelation that Hobbes has called the Leviathan, the serpent, the modern state. Modern state
 114

is a serpent, a dragon that is mechanically organized from below in order to destroy everything
that is sacred. The modern state is directed against the empire in its origin.

That appeared precisely in the Renaissance with scientific vision, with this completely new
understanding of religion. And the modern state should be secular, with no religious sense. It
could have church; Protestant, or Catholic, or Orthodox. But church should be separated and
exist outside of politics. So the modern state is titanic. And modern national state is anti-
Christian, anti-traditional, anti-European, anti-Apollonian, and anti-Dionysian. It is purely
titanic. It is serpent and dragon. And as such it was introduced as Leviathan in the beginning of
the modernity.

So what is nation? Nation is as well a concept that appeared precisely in modern meaning in
the Renaissance time. Nation is the population living inside of the national state. Nation is
absolutely artificial. That is the community of citizens who are those who have created the
social contract. So the citizens are participating in social contracts. And citizen can redefine,
concluding the other social context, the state. For example, the citizen could conclude that they
don’t want to live anymore in Belgium and they want to have Flemish state and Bolognian state.
They have all the right because Belgium has no reason. It is not reflection of something that is
transcendental. It is result of social contract. So the people could create Yugoslavia, could
destroy Yugoslavia if they want, because there is no Yugoslavia, there is no France, there is no
Belgium, and there is no Germany. So they could easily create one Leviathan or destroy if they
think that is better for them. So that is absolutely immanent concept of the politics. And it could
be reflected in the vertical structure of state as a tradition of pre-Cybelian Indo-European
tradition but it is from the beginning titanic. That is a new kind of hierarchy, a titanic
bureaucracy with new type of dominating figure. This type we should regard and describe
carefully. Because in modern state, there are not priests. It is clear that secularism has put the
priests outside of the government. So they could exist as a cultural institution on the margins
for example, as cult or funerals or weddings, something not so important, less and less
important. Because marginalization of the church is the process of political modernity and
church should be put more and more outside of the political decisions.

In the case of the warrior, warriors were a noble class, aristocracy of the traditional state. They
should be marginalized as well. They should be a kind of mercenary by the state. They could
not have their arms with them because the arm is a symbol of warrior. They take the arm from
the state. And when the state thinks that is enough for them to fight, the state takes the arm
back. It is difficult with sword but it is easy with cannon or tank. So it is development of the
state weapon (nuclear weapon you could not possess being an aristocrat warrior with private
ownership). But if you have no weapon, you’re not autonomous warrior. You’re just a hired
mercenary that serves as a servant with something that is given to you by the state and that is
decided bureaucratically. So warrior is not the type that decides. Priests are not the type who
decide.
 115

Who decides? There appears a new figure - bourgeois. We are calling that capitalist system.
We are calling this bourgeois system. And bourgeois is a normative figure in modernity in
political way. And now we should regard and make a kind of structural analysis of what it is. It
is conventional wisdom that bourgeois belongs to the third state (tiers état). That is third
function. There are first priests, second warriors, and bourgeois third. It is called tiers état in
French (третье сословие in Russian). But here lays a very interesting misunderstanding,
because it is represented by the man that lives in the city (bourgeois) and is occupying with the
commerce (commercial). That is bourgeois. But this figure was absent from the Turanian
society that was nomadic and was very marginal in the traditional sedentary European and
Indo-European society, where existed third function, pastoralists and cattlers in one case, and
peasants in the other case. But they were not bourgeois. So third function in the classical Indo-
European society was peasant or cattler and not the merchant living in the city. So bourgeois is
something new. We could not say that that is traditional third function that overcomes first and
second. It is not tiers état in the Indo-European sense. There is something else. And bourgeois
and merchant living in the city is not a cattler. He has nothing to do with cows, with sheep, with
goats. He has nothing to do with laboring earth. He is not peasant. He is turned from that.

But who is that? Who is bourgeois? It is something that is between warrior and peasant. That
is very lazy peasant that doesn’t want to work on the earth. And it is coward as warrior because
he could not affront death. He is in middle - lazy peasant and coward warrior. So it is a slave. In
Russian language there is the name ‘холоп.’ Холоп is slave of the master. So he helps master
to live good. It is not servant we could say. It is not free or not free peasant working in its field,
maybe paying taxes or giving something else. He doesn’t participate in the battle. He is between
people and aristocracy, between second and first functions and third. Because the Indo-
European cities were founded by warriors in order to be a kind of fortress, in their military
strategic relations with the space and with the people, so they were a kind of secondary worker
serving these warriors. That was artificial class that has grown with the growth of the commerce
in this city. Their appearance as an important class begins precisely in the same moment when
begins the Cybelian revenge. They are special form of new sociological type living in the city,
busy with the commerce. And it is important that the traditional symbol of Cybele is the town
as the crown. Cybele has the crown in the form of town. There is something bourgeois in that
crown of town. And there is something perverted in the commerce. So to be busy with
commerce, in our traditional Christian and Indo-European logic, we have no pattern, no
example, and no place for that. Because it is not war, it is not work, and it is not religious rite.
It’s something that has no place in the traditional society. But it could exist in the margin of
society in order to facilitate some technical aspect but that never was a kind of class or function.
It never had its own mythology, its own ethic, its own tradition. And we see in bourgeois
something completely unnatural for our tradition, dealing with the commerce and the
exchange. They say mild commerce is not war because they’re coward. They could not take
away as the warrior make, or they could peacefully work for their fields embedded in the
traditional society with many cultural traditions concerning any stepped life that is the peasant
 116

life. That is the peasant turned from the tradition. That is warrior that could not fight. That is
perversion. The bourgeois is the ill type. It is completely sick, sociological sickness,
representation of perversion in our traditional way. So majority of bourgeois were peasants but
peasants turned from their natural state.

When the peasant that by some reason has lost its possibility, its field, its normal and natural
place in the village, it comes to town. But who is the peasant in town? Nobody. He is idiot
(Ιδιώτης), idiot in Greek sense, the person with no collective identity. That is something
individual. That is atomic. And the atom was the basis of the new materialistic science of the
Renaissance. That is new and old figure but one that had no place in the traditional society.
That is something that was regarded with pity maybe in traditional society. It is ill peasant
(because lazy or too arrogant) and it is coward warrior that didn’t want to fight. So that is
perversion. It could always be under-class being. Bourgeois is under-class, the group of sick,
mad, perverted, anti-normal human being that are idiotical by semantic definition. They have
no organic relations with collective identity. Their identity is artificially constructed. They didn’t
belong to the traditional warrior or agricultural societies. They were devoided of any organic
collective qualities. They came to the city and they tried to find their way. It is not the case that
bourgeois were from other places or other ethnical group, because they were individuals put
in the city, and not belonging to the traditional cooperation and form. And they began to grow
in number and they began to define the normative vision of the social normative type. They
have dethroned warriors. They have dethroned priests. And they have as well misrepresented
third state, because the bourgeois hates peasants, because it exploits him. He doesn’t let him
sell his things openly because he buys it by itself and they make a speculation. They are
speculator. They don’t produce anything and they make kind of balls of money in order to
manipulate with production. Bourgeois is unproductive. Peasants were productive.

At the same time, bourgeois were partly peasant. Because they came to town from where?
Some part from other ethnic groups or some marginal groups, they became bourgeois. But the
majority, the growth of the bourgeois state was from peasant. But now we see the real
noological mystery. But who were the European peasants? They were the members of the
civilization of Cybele under control of Indo-European horizon. And when they were turned from
this controlled structure, the Cybelian origins of the peasantry could be revealed. So that is a
kind of liberation of the deepest level of peasant European identity taken from the special
Christian and traditional aristocracy, feudal vertical society was liberated. So they were bearers
of some very ancient archetypes of ancient collective unconsciousness that was reanimated
precisely in the moment of the end of the middle ages.

So we see that modernity and all political theories that were developed in the later phases of
modernity dealt with this bourgeois organization. The pure and the most important glorification
of bourgeois is liberalism. It is dealing with idiots (idiots in the semantical sense) because the
man devoided of any kind of collective identity is idiot (Ιδιώτης) in Greek sense. Liberalism is
 117

from the beginning, idiotism. So that is glorification of idiots. The individual is devoided of any
collective identity, it’s clear. But the Communism is dealing with the same concept. Communists
hated as well peasants. They think that everything is developing in the city. And the poor
bourgeois are proletariat. The rich bourgeois are bourgeois. But both of them are purely
modern (in the conceptual structural sense) industrial figures living in the city, not outside of
the city. So Communism was the idea that poor bourgeois should overcome rich bourgeois and
create the society where proletariat should dominate over bourgeois. But who are proletariat?
They were ex-peasants coming to the city. And these ex-peasants were devoided, precisely in
the Communism conception, from relations with the traditional society. And that was positive
in the eyes of Communism. So they were no more peasant and being no more peasant in
Communist eyes was the same as having no relations with religion, with the cult, with the
culture, with the language, with the traditions, and so on. They were as well, the other form of
idiots. There were rich idiots, or more or less easy idiots, bourgeois as basic figure of liberalism.
And there were poor idiots as proletariats. But they should be cut from tradition, from
traditional state (priests, warriors, or peasant). And they should be put in the artificial
commercial structure, commercial spaces of the modern bourgeois city. That was one of the
ideas of Communism. And that was good. If we read Marx’s manifesto, the majority of it is
dedicated to what Marxist Communism is not. Marx and Engels stressed that it is not enough
to be anti-bourgeois to be Communist. It is necessary to be post-bourgeois and not pre-
bourgeois. And the criticism of the first part of the manifesto of the Communist party was
directed against so-called aristocracy, anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist tradition that were as well
anti-bourgeois but pretending to restore some pre-bourgois, in comparison to feudal or
traditional society, Communists should be on the side of bourgeois, of capitalism, but they
should not only destroy traditional society. They should help to destroy traditional society but
afterwards, the poor citizens of the city (bourgeois is the bourger, someone who lives in the
bourg, in the city, in town) poor citizen should overcome rich citizens. So proletarians as
bourgeois are absolutely un-traditional. They are two semantically idiotic concepts because
there is rich idiot and poor idiots. And poor idiots in the Communist vision should take richness
from rich idiots and distribute among the idiots. And where are peasants in this situation? They
should be transformed into proletariat. They should be brought to the cities. That is the concept
of how to merge the villages with the city. The village was the enemy of Marxism, of
Communism. So villages should be destroyed and transformed into city and the peasants
should be transformed into workers and workers should be normally industrial workers living
in the city, working in the fabric. So that is as well mechanical vision. That was materialistic as
well as Liberalism. That is the second political theory.

Third political theory was as well absolutely Cybelian. That is maybe difficult for Serbians with
patriotic feeling. But the idea of modern state is artificial creation. Modern state is based on
the destruction of empire. Modern state is based on the social contract. And nation is artificial
creation of bourgeois. Nation is purely bourgeois concept. It is not organic community, with the
state, with warriors, with priests, with peasants. The nation is the concept in center of which is
 118

the chauvinistic and egoistic citizen of the city. And the state is created as the city, not as
empire. And the peasants as well were considered to be secondary form. They live between
one city and the other. They have no proper space. They were considered as citizen. But the
term citizen; city is town. Peasant is not citizen. He is villager. In the normative concept of
political nationalism, peasants were included. We should speak of citizens and villagers for
example. But we are speaking only about citizens. Because we consider peasants to be the
citizens of the second sort, so they were politically sub-human in some way in nationalist,
communist, and as well liberal concepts. So that was the split in the third function in the
beginning of modernity. The split between traditional Indo-European peasantry and this ex-
peasantry of ex-peasants coming to town and becoming bourgeois or proletarian or nationalist.
That is why all three political theories, Communism, Liberalism, and Nationalism are absolutely
Cybelian. Because modern nationalism is modern, is based on the bourgeois concept. That is
artificial unity of the citizens that accentuates not only the freedom of commerce, but most the
defense of their own commercial interests by a nation, bureaucracy, or state.

Now we could apply that to geosophy of Europe. Where did modernity start? Modernity stated
partly in Italy, partly in the northern part of Europe, but the most clear and most bright
examples of modernity was Great Britain that began creation of this bourgeois version. That
was not revolutionary bourgeois but evolutionary bourgeois history. They tried to introduce
more and more bourgeois elements in the government. So Hobbes was one of the English
political theorists. But with Cromwell and with Protestant revolution, that was bourgeois
revolution. And the killing of the tsar, of the monarch was a kind of symbolic action of
dethronement of the traditional Indo-European Logos. Protestantism was as well as we have
seen, a kind of titanism inside of Christianity. And all these elements, the development of
bourgeois, the killing of monarch, and Protestantism, that was England that was in the center.
And the fight of Englishman against Celt-Catholic was inner drama. Because the modernity was
on the side of Anglo-Protestants and tradition in their case, in this bi-polar case of English
culture, tradition and continuity was on the side of the Celt. That is why the Celts were in that
sense, the last defenders of more or less traditional society, in front of purely modernist
Cybelian English society.

It is very interesting that there was traditional concept of four Empires in Christian culture. The
first empire was Assyrian. The second empire was Achaemenid. The third empire was Greek.
And the fourth empire was Roman. That was put into context with prophet Daniel’s vision of
the giant with the gold head, silver breast, bronze thighs, and iron feet. Iron feet represented
Roman Empire, most radical but traditional empire. This tradition had some ties with Katehon.
That was transition of Katehon. The Roman Empire was considered to be the last one, where
Christ was born. So we have normal concept of four empires. And fourth empire was Roman.
Roman and Byzantine were the same, including all the continuation with third Rome and so on
with Russia and Bulgarian kingdoms and so on. And the idea was that in the English British
revolution, there was the concept of the fifth empire. Fifth empire was called fifth monarchism.
 119

That was the tendency that that should be the other empire, beyond Roman one (that was
considered beyond the Rome as Catholic). That was a kind of modern, secular, Protestant
empire and that was called fifth monarchism. There were two versions of it. In Dutch, in Holland
there was Jewish version of it that the fifth empire should be Jewish one. That was among the
Jews of the circle of the philosopher Spinoza. And that was Anglo-Saxon concept of fifth
monarchism. And they were linked with the same circles of English Protestants living in Holland
and coming back to England to give the status of fifth monarch to Cromwell.

But in the story of this giant that is a symbol of this fourth Empire, there is concept that in the
iron feet of the giant, there is sand, we could say. And this sand is the fifth element in giant.
And thanks to this sand, the giant will fall. So there is a kind of symbol of anti-Christian, post-
Christian, post-traditional element, fifth element of sand that makes all this empire unstable.
So the fifth empire is precisely the end of empire, the destruction of empire, the destruction of
traditional order. It has to do with sand, the fifth element in the vision of Daniel. That is the
concept of fifth element or fifth monarchy that was British Empire. British empire was anti-
empire that was based on bourgeois concept of nationalism and liberalism (socialism was
absent). That was the first and the third political theories represented in this British Empire. So
the British Empire was the first modern empire that was anti-traditional empire and that was
one of the main sources, philosophical as well with the philosophy of common sense. Common
sense philosophy is absolutization of the little individual with idiotic scale of thought, with no
great revelations, absolutized mediocrity represented by Reid and by Ferguson. And that was
the basis of North American society because these Scottish philosophers of common sense
were considered to be philosophical fathers of North American society. That was glorification
of idiotic mind with very narrow interests, with pragmatism, with little concern as development
of Protestant titanism and positivism. I’m calling that positive subject. That is second man in
the three man theory of Tauler (German mystic). That was evolutionary bourgeois concept.

But at the same time in France, there was preparation of revolutionary bourgeois concept with
its culmination in the French Revolution, with the concept of purely anti-Christian motivation,
with scarlet woman as the symbol of the freedom, with the killing of monarch. That was as well
the other revolutionary form, with socialism already, with the concept of preparing socialism
and social democracy, the idea of absolute immanence, openly anti-Christian not in the
Protestant way but purely atheistic and materialistic. Enlightenment theory was a kind of
culmination of all of this modernity. Modernity started with that, with the revenge of Cybele.
And all the history of modernity was a kind of purification of this noological pattern. The
civilization of Cybele became more and more and more Cybelian. All traces of the previous
Indo-European society were purged, were cleansed. That was a kind of creation from more and
more perfect Logos of Cybele. For example, what was revolutionary 300 years ago, after that
was considered conservative. So new and new stages. But that was construction of very ancient
type of civilization.
 120

And when we are dealing with modern feminism, that is the finalization of the process. It is not
the beginning of something. So now Cybele appears as it is. This march of Madonna in New
York against Trump, with hundreds of thousands of women with rose cat disguise in order to
kill the Trump is a kind of call for castration of the male figure. They try to sacrifice Trump as a
symbol of the patriarchate. He is macho, male, a symbol of the previous stage of civilization. So
it is modern feminism and politics and minds in education and social norms, and juridical
acceptance of homosexuality that was the part of the Cybelian procession. Homosexuality was
a kind of part of typically Cybelian cult. They participate in the procession as special type of
priests. The homosexuals are priests of Cybele. So now everything has come back to the pure
image of that. But feminism didn’t start yesterday and doesn’t start today. Feminism started
with titanism. The modernity was metaphysically feminist, because materialist, because
orientated against this heroic type of patriarchy, of Indo-European culture. Bourgeois is
feminist class already because it is not warrior and it is not worker. It is parasitic class. That is
the worst form of feminine nature. It is not Indo-European or Christian concept of femininity.
It is something completely different. It is Cybelian femininity. And Werner Sombart has said that
capitalism began with the mistresses because when the people had wives, they were not so
obliged to have more and more money, but having mistresses, they were obliged to participate
in the speculations more and more because they needed excessive amounts of money, and
mistresses were parasites that demanded more and more with no work and so on. According
to Werner Sombart, that was a kind of motivation of capitalist development of capitalist society.
It is anecdotal but it is sociological anecdote.

All our science is feminist because it is materialist and Cybelian. We are living in the world of
Cybele in the modernity. We will speak about that later tomorrow in the last session of lectures,
but we are living inside of this kind of civilization. The moment of noomahia we are living in is
the moment of revenge of pre-Indo-European existential horizon, artificially with bourgeois,
organic but very ancient with our scientific world vision, based on this lowest level of the
peasant identity of European peasantry. So we have a kind of special image now of modernity
that is explained as well with Christian vision. That is the end of Katehon. The Katehon has
fallen. The Katehon was the king, the tsar, the emperor that defended traditional society and
that was defeated by modern political system with democracy, national state, globalization
today. And that was the same fate for Christian faith. That was the fate for all three traditional
functions, because there are less and less peasants. We have no peasants in Europe. We are
losing them. Everybody is citizen. Everybody is bourgeois (poor bourgeois proletarian or rich
bourgeois). We are living precisely in the post-Katehonian cycle. That is when Satan is liberated
and when there is a kind of intrusion of underground tendency that we see around us. So
everything fits well in this noological analysis. Now we see that this noology could appear a little
bit abstract, a little bit too metaphysical, has to do with the reality we’re living in. We are inside
of this noomahia. We are a part of this fight and the battle of the Logos. We could not be free
from that. We are defined absolutely. Everything in us is defined by this moment of noomahia.
We consider the reality as we are taught, as it is imposed. We could not deal with reality as
 121

such. We are dealing with reality through a type of reading, through a paradigm. And this
paradigm is defined now by the Logos of Cybele.

But the knowledge that there are two other Logos helps us to see relativity of modernity and
to put the modernity into the context of noology and to define as well the geosophical place
we are in. So if France and England were the first in order to promote this in the geosophy of
Europe, Latin worlds and Austrian empire resisted against them. Russia resisted more than
other. Ottoman Empire resisted because that was as well traditional society. But when
traditional empires had fallen, new modern states appeared. And being modern, they were
doomed if we think they could transmit traditional spirit. Modernity and tradition are
incompatible. Creating a national state instead of a traditional kingdom, we are already
doomed. The creation of modern state, Russian or Serbian, is the end of Russia and Serbia. That
will be the state, modern but not Russian and not Serbian. What is modern could not be really
Serbian or Russian or German. It is already simulacrum. It is already something Cybelian. That
is why, anticipating the next lecture, maybe that could explain as well some aspects of modern
Serbian history, of Yugoslavia, Serbia, because after liberating from Ottoman Empire that was
traditional, that was the chance for revival and the chance was lost (for many reasons). In the
next lecture, we will maybe openly discuss that (I have some concept). But in order to finish, I
think that noology and geosophy now gives us the key to interpret the world we live in.

Noomahia project is based on the in-depth studies of cultures, philosophical systems, arts,
religions and psychological features and characteristics of human civilizations. It reviews
ancient and modern, highly sophisticated and also the “primitive", from the highly
technologically developed to those lacking the written language. The ultimate aim is to
demonstrate and conclusively prove that no single culture can be regarded in hierarchical way
(developed/under-developed, higher /lower, modern/premodern, civilized/savage and so on).
Responsible evaluation of any human culture should be judged from within by those who
belong to it - without any imposition of outside biases (interpretation is always culturally
biased). Noomahia aims to achieve this by deconstructing, removing all elements of cultural
racism and ethnocentrism, that tend to be the key feature of every and any society – whether
it be liberal and traditional, religious or secular. Noomahia argues the case for the dignity of
humanity that lives within the incommensurability of all existing cultural forms.

a. The Three Logos approach

The starting point - and the main feature of Noomahia - is the concept of Three main Logos
(Noological paradigms) that define the structure of any culture. Three Logos are
 122

· Apollonian (patriarchal, hierarchical, androcratic, vertical, exclusive, “heavenly”,

transcendent) – light Logos;

· Dionysian (middle, androgyneous, ecstatic, immanent without materialism, balanced,

dialectic) – dark Logos;

· Cybelian (matriarchical, horizontal, gynekocratic, inclusive, chthonic, immanent,

materialistic) – black Logos.

The idea is the all three Logos are present in any culture, but are irreducible (invariants) that
always keep their distinct essence. Hence the concept of Noomahia – or the fight between the
Three Logos - is the dynamic of the creation of the moments of cultural and historic dialectic.
These are variable in the timeline of history of any culture and develop in differing stages and
phases. There is no universal rule that has or can define the succession and duration of these
phases and moments. Each culture and civilization has its own and unique sequence of the
process of Noomahia, with particularities of winning or defeated Logos that result in them
eventually changing their role. Therefore, each culture must be studied and assessed
separately, individually and with considerable care, avoiding any temptation to project the
structure of one own studied experience on other issues. The rejection of ethnocentrism should
be radical and brought to the last logical conclusion.

b. Plurality of civilizations (anthropology of big spaces and long cycles)

The second principle of Noomahia project is the defining of the field of research and the limits
of civilization. The concept of civilization is cultural and based on the presumption of the
coexistence among the people of the earth of different existential circles (or horizons)
identified as the plurality of Dasein’s.

The deep study of each civilization demands the questioning of previous interpretations of
history and the development of humankind: it is a kind of spiritual emigration to the study of
civilization that removes all the presumptions and pre-conceptions linked the personal cultural
nature of those who study this approach. It is the application of the anthropological method
(developed by F. Boaz and C. Levy-Strauss) to all human societies without exception – “civilized”
or “savage “.

After accepting the need to ‘clear the decks’ and remove the accepted mental clutter of
historical analysis; the next step will be clarification of the spatial concept of the culture of
studied civilization and the semantic sequence (“l’historial”, Seynsgeschichte) of the most
significant events interpreted in the optic of the concrete people and culture (and not by
outside observer).
 123

2. Anthropological mapping of the world

a. The necessity of revision of the concept universality

It has taken 10 years just to arrive at the point of being able to describe the plurality civilizations
of the world covering all continents and peoples, cultures and religions, societies and
philosophies. It is only the first rung of a long ladder but already there is a deep sense that we
are starting to discover ‘The Unusual’. This in itself shows that we need the completely revise
our concept of universality. It is clear that from these studies of Noomahia that is very evident
that to date we have not normally been dealing with the ‘real universalism’ (speaking about
human, rights, norms, life, sexes progress and so on) but with an ethno centrist projection of
our own (Western) culture and civilization taking it erroneously for being “universal”. This is
fundamental fault of the present-day globalization: it is deeply “racist” (in cultural sense),
projecting and imposing modern and post-modern Western set of values on the majority of the
rest of mankind. The real universalism can be reached by the way of projection but in dialogue
with ‘The Other’, who in turn is accepted with all its particularities, pecularities and originalities
(not depending on our own value judgement). We must not be selective in what we analyse.
We must all investigate with clear eyes and unprejudiced minds – and maintain this
understanding and impartiality going forward.

Lecture 9. Serbian Logos

1. Serbs as southern slavs. Indo-European level of Serbian identity.

2. Serbian peasantry. Slavic matriarchy (Gasparini). Piatak. Vila. Mother Friday. Lepenski
Vir, Vincha cultures.

3. The factor of Thracians, Illyrians.

4. White Serbia. Serbian came to Balkan. From where? Polabian slavs. Luzhitza. Sorbs. The
style of Polabian slavs – sarmatians (Scythians) Pure Turanic. Differences with sclavins
(bulgarians).

5. The relations with Byzance. Orthodoxy. Katekhonic concept.

 124

6. Nemanici. Raska as new kingdom. Saint Sava holy Athos mountain tradition. Patriarchy
of Pech.

7. The Empire. Byzantine - Bulgarian, Serb, Valachia, Russia.

8. Dushan the Strong. The control over Balkans.

9. Kosovo battle – the decision of King Lazar: fight, loose in order to resurrect. Nebesko
zarstvo. Pure Iranian sequence – forces of Light loose forces of Darkness win.
Eschatological aspect.

10. Conservation of Serbian identity during Ottoman era.

11. Serbian revival Vuk Karadjuc, Peter II Njegosh, Platonism. Milosh Zernianski: Serbian
Dasein – where Serbia is?

12. After Ottomans. Great Serbia as eschatological project. Serbian dynasties.

Yougoslavia as simulacrum. Archeomodern. Non modern nature of Serbian identity.

Noomahia project is based on the in-depth studies of cultures, philosophical systems, arts,
religions and psychological features and characteristics of human civilizations. It reviews
ancient and modern, highly sophisticated and also the “primitive", from the highly
technologically developed to those lacking the written language. The ultimate aim is to
demonstrate and conclusively prove that no single culture can be regarded in hierarchical way
(developed/under-developed, higher /lower, modern/premodern, civilized/savage and so on).
Responsible evaluation of any human culture should be judged from within by those who
belong to it - without any imposition of outside biases (interpretation is always culturally
biased). Noomahia aims to achieve this by deconstructing, removing all elements of cultural
racism and ethnocentrism, that tend to be the key feature of every and any society – whether
it be liberal and traditional, religious or secular. Noomahia argues the case for the dignity of
humanity that lives within the incommensurability of all existing cultural forms.

a. The Three Logos approach

 125

The starting point - and the main feature of Noomahia - is the concept of Three main Logos
(Noological paradigms) that define the structure of any culture. Three Logos are

· Apollonian (patriarchal, hierarchical, androcratic, vertical, exclusive, “heavenly”,

transcendent) – light Logos;

· Dionysian (middle, androgyneous, ecstatic, immanent without materialism, balanced,

dialectic) – dark Logos;

· Cybelian (matriarchical, horizontal, gynekocratic, inclusive, chthonic, immanent,

materialistic) – black Logos.

The idea is the all three Logos are present in any culture, but are irreducible (invariants) that
always keep their distinct essence. Hence the concept of Noomahia – or the fight between the
Three Logos - is the dynamic of the creation of the moments of cultural and historic dialectic.
These are variable in the timeline of history of any culture and develop in differing stages and
phases. There is no universal rule that has or can define the succession and duration of these
phases and moments. Each culture and civilization has its own and unique sequence of the
process of Noomahia, with particularities of winning or defeated Logos that result in them
eventually changing their role. Therefore, each culture must be studied and assessed
separately, individually and with considerable care, avoiding any temptation to project the
structure of one own studied experience on other issues. The rejection of ethnocentrism should
be radical and brought to the last logical conclusion.

b. Plurality of civilizations (anthropology of big spaces and long cycles)

The second principle of Noomahia project is the defining of the field of research and the limits
of civilization. The concept of civilization is cultural and based on the presumption of the
coexistence among the people of the earth of different existential circles (or horizons)
identified as the plurality of Dasein’s.

The deep study of each civilization demands the questioning of previous interpretations of
history and the development of humankind: it is a kind of spiritual emigration to the study of
civilization that removes all the presumptions and pre-conceptions linked the personal cultural
nature of those who study this approach. It is the application of the anthropological method
(developed by F. Boaz and C. Levy-Strauss) to all human societies without exception – “civilized”
or “savage “.

After accepting the need to ‘clear the decks’ and remove the accepted mental clutter of
historical analysis; the next step will be clarification of the spatial concept of the culture of
 126

studied civilization and the semantic sequence (“l’historial”, Seynsgeschichte) of the most
significant events interpreted in the optic of the concrete people and culture (and not by
outside observer).

2. Anthropological mapping of the world

a. The necessity of revision of the concept universality

It has taken 10 years just to arrive at the point of being able to describe the plurality civilizations
of the world covering all continents and peoples, cultures and religions, societies and
philosophies. It is only the first rung of a long ladder but already there is a deep sense that we
are starting to discover ‘The Unusual’. This in itself shows that we need the completely revise
our concept of universality. It is clear that from these studies of Noomahia that is very evident
that to date we have not normally been dealing with the ‘real universalism’ (speaking about
human, rights, norms, life, sexes progress and so on) but with an ethno centrist projection of
our own (Western) culture and civilization taking it erroneously for being “universal”. This is
fundamental fault of the present-day globalization: it is deeply “racist” (in cultural sense),
projecting and imposing modern and post-modern Western set of values on the majority of the
rest of mankind. The real universalism can be reached by the way of projection but in dialogue
with ‘The Other’, who in turn is accepted with all its particularities, pecularities and originalities
(not depending on our own value judgement). We must not be selective in what we analyse.
We must all investigate with clear eyes and unprejudiced minds – and maintain this
understanding and impartiality going forward.
 127

Alexander Dugin

Let us concentrate on the Serbian Logos. First of all, it is sure and certain there is such thing as
Serbian Dasein or Serbian existential horizon. That is absolutely sure because there is the
Serbian people. And having Serbian people, that means that there is such thing as Serbian
Dasein and Serbian existential horizon. As long as I know, there is no one who has dedicated to
describe fully Serbian Dasein with Heideggerian categories, but it is up to some level, the
technical task. If we understand what we have said about noology, about Dasein, about
existential horizon, and knowing being and time of Heidegger, we could apply his categories
(he called that existentials) special categories to describe Dasein. And it is technical task to apply
that to Serbian Dasein.

In my second book on Heidegger that is called Martin Heidegger: The Possibility of Russian
Philosophy, I made the same for Russian Dasein. And I have arrived at the conclusion that
Daseins are different, because Russian Dasein appeared to have some different kind of
existential, based on the different structure of Russian existential horizon. And that is a kind of
example you could use in order to repeat the same thing for the Serbian Logos or Serbian
Dasein, in order to explore the possibility of Serbian philosophy. As long as I know, there is no
such kind of Serbian philosophy as something clear, complete. There are Serbian philosophers
but there is no such thing as Serbian philosophy, as well as Russian. There is no Russian
philosophy. There are Russian philosophers, very brilliant or less brilliant, but there is no such
kind as Russian philosophy. We started to create something like that at the end of the 19th
century, many years after the existence of German, French, Latin, and Greek philosophy
(thousand years after). And that was interrupted in our history with Communists that have
finished this process. And now we tried to come back to the moment we have stopped. And
that is not yet success. We are still outside, in Russian history, of the moment where the process
of manifestation of Russian religious philosophy was interrupted. So comparing with Serbia,
maybe it could serve as example. I’m not sure whether there is such kind of serious effort to
create Serbian philosophy. It is always possible because there is Serbian Dasein. But to reveal
it, to put it in the form of Logos, is not technical problem. We could technically approach to
that but to do that we need some Serbian genius and I am sure that it belongs to the present
and the future, and not to the past. In the past, we have a kind of philosophical, existential,
historical ground for that.

But we could make a kind of short, preliminary analysis of what is Serbian existential horizon.
The first fact of the Serbian historical sequence is arrival of so called unnamed prince to the
Byzantium where he was accepted by the Byzantine Emperor. The tradition affirms that this
unnamed prince was from White Serbia that is identified somewhere in the north of the Eastern
Europe. More or less, one of the theories is that had something to do with Lusatia (Lausitz,
 128

Łužica), with Serbs, with one of the Polabian Slav tribes – Łužici, Łužicane and Obotrites
(Obodrzycy). And the last traces of it are actual Lusatian Serbs or Sorbs. That is one of the
theories. So there is a kind of Serbian motherland that is situated not in the Balkans but to the
north of the Balkans. At the same time there is the question of the urheimat of Slavs,
motherland of Slavs. That is situated to the north of the Carpathian Mountains. That was not
original Serbian place but the proto-Slavs lived to the north of the Carpathian Mountains in the
space of the Western Ukraine actually. And there was as well situated White Croatia and White
Croats were near to that. And after expansion of the slavs, part of the slavs emigrated to the
north of the Baltic states and among the other Polabian Slavs. They were the dominating
population of the 5th and 6th centuries of the coasts of the Baltic Sea. And one of these
Polabian tribes, Lutici, Obotrites and Lusatian, are presumed to be Serbian ancestors, living to
the west of all the other Polabian tribes. And from this point, the ancestors of Serbs arrived to
the Balkans and after first settling to the East of Balkans. And after that the Byzantine Emperor
granted the territories to the present day Serbia as a kind of territories in order to defend the
Byzantine Empire against Avar that have created their cognates in Pannonia, part of Romania,
and modern day Hungary. So that is conventional history. There are many alternative versions
but let us take that as a kind of orientation.
So what is interesting is the name of the territory of Polabian Slaves. That was called the
European Sarmatia. And that was dominated by the Sarmatian tribes. So the Slavs were very
closely connected with Sarmatians, Iranian nomadic groups of population that occupied almost
all of Eastern Europe as population but much more as ruling class. And from these Sarmatian
groups were created a kind of ruling class of Eastern European society. This idea was developed
in Poland who traced the roots of their aristocracy to the Sarmats, and the same for Balts. It
seems that when we study the type of the society of Polabian Slavs, that they were Turanian in
our sense. They were very very warrior. They had not so much developed peasantry. The major
feature of the Polabian Slavs was their warrior-like attitudes, having the horses and the
veneration of horses. And they were very independent. They couldn’t tolerate any power above
them. So they were Sarmatian, Turanian type. They spoke Slavic languages but with many
Sarmatian features. We could not say anything for sure about the balance between Sarmatian
aristocracy and Slavic population but the type of Polabian Slavs was Sarmatian and Turanian
with serious amount of aristocracy, of noblemen, warrior with horse. And that is Turanian type
of society.
What is interesting is that there was a different between this Polabian type of Sarmatian Slavs
and Sclavins, the other Slavic group coming to the Eastern Balkans with Avars. There dominated
more peasantry. So the Serbs coming to Balkans were the bearers of this Sarmatian spirit. And
that affected Serbian identity. After the peasantry was developed and Slavification of Thracians
and maybe pre-Thracians population was accomplished because the territory where the first
Serbians settled in the Balkans belonged before them to Thracians, Thracian society was mixed
between three functional Indo-European society and the rest of the traces of the pre-Indo-
European peasantry belonging to the ancient civilization of Great Mother. So Serbs settled over
this existential horizon, assimilated, affected, and finally created a special Serbian people with
 129

differences from Bulgarian people (precisely Macedonians). The dominating identity of the
early Serbs was precisely this warrior type of human being. So peasantry was very secondary
and wasn’t dominating in the beginning. That is why special Serbian character was formed
basing on this Polabian Sarmatian type. So Serbs were considered as warrior first. So that was
a kind of pre-hajduk type. So small Serbs, big Serbs, everybody was a knez; little knez, small
knez, big knez. And that was a kind of nomadic Iranian tradition, not having the great tsardom,
not having the other rule over the other. And that was a kind of aristocratic society, mixed with
the previous population that was as well included in the Serbian society. But the balance, for
example in Russia, Russian society peasant style is absolutely dominating. So that was the
peasant society and the tales and the folklores and the stories about bogatyrs were based on
the peasant figure or they were of foreign origins. So for example in Eastern Slavs and above all
in Russian society there was not Slavic aristocracy. All Russian aristocracy was not of Slavic
origins. They were Germans, they were maybe as well Sarmatians, but not Slavic. In Serbian
case, it’s not the case. There were many aristocracy families from the very beginning. Not one,
not only dynasty but many other; secondary thirdly. Up to a certain point the Serbians were
aristocracy or considered themselves to be. The aristocracy is the image. If you are knez you
behave like knez (prince). That is the kind of attitude. And that was dominating attitude.
Similar situation was with Polish people. Everybody pretended to be szlachcic. Almost one third
of the population was szlachcic (prince, aristocracy). In Russia for example there was less than
one percent of the population belonging to the aristocracy and in Poland, one third. So in
Serbia, maybe like that, half the population were considered to be knez, small knez aristocracy.
But that is very important. That is warrior tradition of Sarmatian type. That was a kind of very
important starting point for studying Serbian identity that, we could identify, including in the
21st and 20th century. So that is the very stable tradition of Serbian psychology. So when we
have this type of society or existential horizon, it’s very difficult to construct the state because
nobody wants to submit to the authority of the other. So everybody is its own authority and
there is no other authority. That is a kind of aristocratic anarchy in this kind of existential
horizon. That is the constant feature of Serbian history.
The next element was the influence of the Byzantine culture. So Serbs were Christianized, living
under protection of Byzantines. And that was acceptance of the Christianity in the Eastern form.
That was not so clear in the early phases because there was no split before. When Serbs were
Christianized, there was not clear difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. There was
unity that was split later. But nevertheless, the dominant influence over Serbs was exercised by
Byzantines. And that as well was in the beginning of the Balkan Serbia and that is in the end
now. So that is very stable factor of Christian Orthodox Byzantine tradition. But we have spoken
yesterday that Byzantine tradition of Orthodoxy is not only religious tradition. It is as well
cultural, political, and social. So Serbs were integrated in the context of the Byzantine empire
with Katehon as the concept, with the patriarch as the head of the church, and as well popular
Christianity that integrated pre-Christian tradition of the holidays, of the pre-Christian figures,
in the context of Christian saints, festivals, and so on. So popular Slav, Serbian Christianity was
as well not so much exclusive in front of the pre-Christian tradition but inclusive. So Serbian
 130

Christianity included many pre-Christian types of tradition, figures; Petak, Sveta Nedelja, Svetac
George, Prorok Ilija or Sveti Nikolaas the new archetypes for pre-Christian Indo-European
patriarchal figures (mostly). So if we want to know pre-Christian Serbian tradition, it is not only
folklore or folk songs or pagan myths that are conserved in the very small quantity but correct
analysis of Serbian Christian tradition could show us much more about pre-Christian culture of
Serbian people than for example artificial postmodern reconstruction of paganism. So if we
want to understand what was before Christianity, we need to analyze Serbian Christianity and
concentrate on certain figures and festivals and traditions linked to Serbian Christian saints and
the special days of the calendar and so on. Because that was inclusive.
But what was included? Precisely we have already made the analysis that was the one level of
Indo-European patriarchal tradition that was linked with pre-Serbian Thracian existential
horizon but reinforced as well by first Serbs, who were bearers of the same vertical structure.
And in Greek Byzantine tradition they met with a very similar concept, and Thracian tradition
very similar, and in Roman tradition, and in Hellenistic tradition. That was around Platonism
that was all created. In pre-Christian Serbia, in Christian Serbia, in Thracians, Byzantines,
Romans, that was a kind of Indo-European level but at the same time there was a paleo-
European tradition and existential horizon that was very powerful here, more powerful than in
the north of Europe. So in the north of Europe, in the Polabian White Serbia, the motherland
of Serbs, there were lesser elements of the matriarchal type but they could exist from
Cucuteni–Trypillia culture as the traces as well to the north and to the east but in the lesser
scale than in the Balkans.
There was a kind of matriarchal dimension that was as well embedded in the newly created
Serbian identity. That was the motherland of the matriarchal civilization. Here in Balkans that
was very strong. And that explains partly what Gasparini (Italian author) called Slavic
matriarchy. There was no such kind as Slavic matriarchy but influence of matriarchy in the
Balkans was very strong and embedded in Serbian tradition. That was reflected in the Vila
history in some Gestalt, in some feminine images of the folk songs and folk traditions, or in the
very ancient song of Skadar, creation of Skadar, when the woman was blocked in the wall. That
was the origin of the creation of the city. It is a purely Cybelian story about the creation of the
city of Skadar. It is very tragic, very romantic, but matriarchal. That was not so much Sarmatian
by Serbian. That was Balkanic. And we have exactly the same pattern in Romanian culture with
Meșterul Manole, putting in the wall of the most beautiful church created in the Argeș in the
Carpathian Mountains by Meșterul Manole who was obliged to put there his wife who was as
well pregnant as in the song of Skadar.
So the idea is that some matriarchal aspect of very ancient Balkanic matriarchal civilization as
well had these elements embedded in the existential horizon of Serbs. And we need to measure
this influence. We could not say for sure how deep this influence was. It is certainly that there
was such influence. It was mirrored in the Serbian peasant tradition on some level, not in the
whole tradition. Because that was male tradition, based on the heavy plow that could be
managed only be men laborers, but there were many traditions that linked woman with the
earth, with the crop, with laboring the earth, that we need to identify more in order to have a
 131

concrete picture or image of this deepest level of Serbian identity. So that was a kind of
preliminary analysis of the Serbian Dasein. But the new edition of this Dasein begins with
Nemanja dynasty. As well Christianization was made in the context of the Great Moravia and
Cyril and Methodius tradition. So that was already something Slavic in all that. So Serbians have
received Christian tradition in the Cyrillic, in the Slavic way. And that was very important step
because that was in the religious sense linked to Bulgarian initiative to organize the special kind
of Slavic Christian church, so called sixth Patriarchy declared by the Bulgarians in order to have
independence and autonomy for Slavic Christianity. And that was the claim to create first Slavic
patriarchy, independent in the first Bulgarian kingdoms after Christianization. So Serbs were in
the same conceptual field. Acceptance of the Orthodox Christianity, but in the Slavic form, with
Church Slavonic, which was unique Bulgarian language that was elaborated in the Great
Moravia, accepted in Bulgaria and in Russia. So Church Slavonic language is not Russian or
Serbian. It’s much more Bulgarian. Or it is considered to be one of the special south Slavic
languages (church Slavonic).
But what is important is that Serbs were integrated into Christian society not only with
Byzantine domination but as well in the Slavic context. And that was fully developed with
Nemanja dynasty. So that was a kind of idea that now it is the time, and that was event in
Serbian history, now it is the time with Nemanja to create Serbian kingdom, kingdom in the full
Byzantine sense, repeating up to the same time, Bulgarian example. Because the Bulgarians
were the first to claim Slavic kingdom and Slavic special autonomous church. So that was the
kind of Bulgarian heritage, in the competition level a bit with Bulgarians but at the same time
as continuation of the same. Great Moravia was lost for Orthodoxy and for Slavic special
tradition and the time of Russia didn’t come or Romania, so there were two pretenses to create
some independent Slavic Christianity in Byzantine sense, and now it appears literally, how
important the context of kingdom in all that was, because Byzantine means a kind of empire.
So they should be based on the symphonic relationship between the sacred king and the
Patriarch or the head of the church. That was first made by Bulgarians in the first and the second
Bulgarian kingdom. But with Nemanja and Saint Sava, that was repeated in the Serbian case.
So creation of Serbian kingdom and Serbian Patriarchy in Peć was the same event as acceptance
of the Katehonic mission. First the claim to be Katehon was made by Bulgarians and
Macedonians (the same space). And with Nemanja, there was second claim. So the creation of
Serbian state was preparation to take the heritage of the Byzantines and replace the mission of
Katehon from universality of Byzantine Empire to Slavic world. And there was the Bulgarian pre-
tendencies and Serbian. In certain moment, Bulgarians were dominating and Serbs were in the
periphery of this, and with Nemanja there is a kind of growth and rise of this Serbian Katehonic
tradition that has affected absolutely Serbian identity in the next period.
But this Katehonian tradition based on the symphony between Serbian king and Serbian
patriarch with seventh patriarchy (Serbian this time) was claim of Byzantine heritage. So we
could say that Russia and the rise of Russia was a kind of Third Rome. Before that was Veliko
Tarnovo in the second Bulgarian and Veliki Preslav Third Rome and now it is Russia Third Rome.
It was second claim in the Slavic existential space to receive Byzantine Orthodox mission. So
 132

that was the concept - Serbian state, Serbian church, Serbian patriarchy, as Katehon. That was
a kind already of form of Serbian Logos. Because all Christian tradition and the links and ties of
Saint Sava with Mt. Athos, with all the monks’ metaphysical tradition of spiritual mystical
Orthodoxy was brought to Serbia and put to the center of Serbian Christian Katehonic
enlightenment linked with the concept of the sacred Serbian kingdom. It was considered in
Nemanja's time already as proto-empire, Serbian empire that should include the world in it.
Because the Katehonic tradition is the fight, as we have explained, against anti-Christ. So that
was the Apollonian Dionysian mission of the tsar but by extension of the people. So Tsar,
church, and people formed Katehonic unity. A kind of logical philosophical tool for that was the
Byzantine tradition that included as Christianity the pre-Christian way of thinking and that was
organization of the first and (I would say) greatest form of Serbian Logos. So with Nemanja,
Saint Sava, Patriarchy of Peć, were laid the foundations of Serbian Logos. That is Serbian identity
where existential horizon and Serbian Dasein has reached its height. So we could not imagine
anything comparable or anything similar in all of Serbian history. So that was a kind of highest
point, where the immanent Serbian Dasein has created a Serbian Logos in the state, in the
Serbian religious tradition with St. Sava, and Serbian people as Katehonic people with the
mission to fight against darkness with tsar, with kings, in the favor of Christianity. And that
Serbian mission was for it. So Serbs essentially are bearers of that Serbian Logos formed and
explicitly manifested in the time of Nemanja dynasty from very beginning.
And that was the claim as well that opposed Serbian Katehonic expectations to Bulgarians.
Because that was not opposition. They were kind of competitors. Because they had very similar
post Byzantine, as well Slavic, as well Orthodox, as well Katehonic identity. So that was the roots
of competition of two greatest Balkanic Slavic people, two versions of Katehonic society,
independent from Byzantine Kingdom and political state and independent up to a certain point
of Church organization. That was prefiguration of Great Russia, of Third Rome because there
were two examples of something that was repeated in the fourth century of Russia. But that
was made before us. The claim of Bulgarians and Serbs to be Katehonic Slavic people with
eschatological mission in the war of light against the forces of darkness, defending Katehon was
much earlier than Russian claim of the same. Russia maybe made more spectacular success in
that, coming to the world power, but ideology was very similar or just the same. Russia Third
Rome is the concept of translation of empire, repetition of Bulgarian example. But at the end
of the Byzantine history, in the fifteenth century, there appeared a kind of height of this
process, highest point. And that was Dusan the Strong.
Dusan the strong created the real Empire that controlled almost all Balkans territory and the
major part of Greece. And that was special and political space where this mission has obtained
its concrete limits. So that was the greater Serbian empire that was made. It lasted not too long
but Mt. Athos was included under control of Serbian King. So in the time of Dusan the Strong,
there was a kind of concrete realization of this Katehonic tradition with Russia in the center and
with very weak (at that time) Bulgaria. Bulgaria wasn’t a kind of alternative to that. So that was
the highest point, the rise of Nemanja, and the highest point of this Logos. So the Logos was
formed in the intellectual, spiritual, religious time in the beginning of Nemanja, and has reached
 133

its full special manifestation in the space, in the concrete reality, in the Baltics, in the time of
Dusan the Strong. So all this Nemanja period was the period of birth, development, and
maturation of the Serbian Logos. So the real Serbians that lived in that period were a kind of
archetype. So to be Serb means to belong to this point of history. As for us, to be Russian, that
means to belong to Ivan the Terrible time. So that was the height of our historical, spiritual,
political and cultural achievement.
So Serbian Logos is located there in time and in space. So there is the greater Serbian space and
there is the greater Serbian time because the Logos in Byzantine and Slavic Christian historical
situation was formed. So everything we have there and then is purely Serbian in any sense.
Everything that existed before Nemanja was a kind of introduction. Everything that existed after
Dusan the Strong was a kind of equal resounding of that, continuation, kind of consequences.
That is the center of Serbian history and the highest point of Serbian Logos.
After that was the very quick decline of that and the growth of Ottoman Empire. And the next
point was the Kosovo Battle where the future of Katehon was decided. And the song of Kosovo
battle, the song of King Lazar in the Vuk Karadjuc textbook is very revealing. I remand that you
know better than everybody else that that was a kind of choice in front of King Lazar; to have
царство небесное (heavenly kingdom) or to win in the Kosovo battle and to have царство
земаљско (earthly kingdom). In both cases, he should fight. In both cases, the Serbs should
come to the Kosovo battle and should participate. And every family that declined to be there
are damned. That was the damnation of the King Lazar. So everybody should defend the Logos.
But decision and the choice was to lose the earthly battle and to win the battle of light but
fighting strongly and dying in the Kosovo field or to have the victory but to lose the fight for the
light. That is Iranian tradition that the force and the army of light is weak. Because sometimes
there is a time for light to win and darkness to overcome and the army of light has special
limitations. It could not accept the weapon of the darkness. It could not betray its holy nature
and holy essence and that are limitations because the devil and the darkness has no rule. It
could easily overcome the nature. It is hubris, titanic forces. And the army of light has its rule.
You could not win at any price. You should stay with Christ, with verticality up to the end. And
that was the choice of King Lazar and decision was made - ‘I will go to fight against the
Ottomans. I accept the loss. And I am sacrificing myself and my people in order to have heavenly
Kingdom.’ So that was decision of the hero of light. That was a kind of transcendentalization of
the Nemanja Kingdom and Empire and obtaining post-human post-mortem dimension of the
Serbian Logos. That was the pure martyrdom and pure sacrifice of all Serbian people in order
to come to heavenly Kingdom.
So that was not the loss. That was the greatest victory. That was reflection of traditional
Sarmatian ethics - to die in the battle in order to be immortal, to die in order to win. It is better
to be defeated with Christ than to win with Satan. That was the main lesson of Kosovo battle.
And when we read the song of the Kosovo Battle, there was not glorification only of humility of
Serbs but the greatest braveness. So they fought up to the end. They destroyed everything they
could, including the chief of the Ottoman army. So that was heroic battle. The battle was very
serious. But decision was made beforehand. That was purely Christian, purely Sarmatian, purely
 134

Indo-European decision and not something casual. Not defeat in front of the material force and
power. So that is the kind of assumption of Serbia, passing from the earthly Serbia to heavenly
Serbia. And that was accomplishment of Katehonical mission. That was the fight against anti-
Christ and that was defeat. And there came the end.
So after that, the next period of Serbian history was to be in Hell and to conserve identity in
Hell. Not betray it, not converting to Islam, not accepting the rules of dominating power, but
conserve its Nemanja identity, its profound identity, its Christian Orthodox Slavic identity with
all the suffering. That was the history of suffering, being in the historical Hell for centuries. So
that is very dramatic. But what is important is that was not meaningless. That was continuation
and consequence of the period of greatest and a new divine test for Serbian people and
creation of the introduction of resurrection. That was the dying process in order to resurrect.
That was not meaningless suffering. That was completely meaningful suffering. That was
eschatological test in order to resurrect, but resurrection of Serbian Logos.
The next moment in Serbian Logos was precisely the moment when the opportunity to liberate
Serbian people from Ottoman control came. That was new challenge to Serbian Logos. And
what did Serbs do in that situation? There was one part of tradition. There was a kind of
monarchistic, imperial, Orthodox, Serbian, patriot, archaic. So they conserved the elements of
the real and profound Serbian Logos that was in direct connection with the Serbian Dasein
itself, the core of its Dasein. Because there was a kind of Orthodox Serbian, conservative
imperial tradition that continued to be present in the end of the Ottoman rule. And that was a
very great inspiration that was in all the Serbian people. And in the part of Serbian aristocracy
there appeared Obrenović and Karađorđević trying to incorporate this spirit and this identity in
order to restore Serbian kingdom, greater Serbia with Orthodox Serb identity, with Logos,
following Nemanja’s example of kind of resurrection of the Serbian Logos after traumatic period
of suffering.
But the time when this appears, when Ottoman Empire was destroyed, that was modern time,
when the Cybelian Logos dominated, and when the west was already under full domination of
this modern world vision, where there was no place for such kind as Apollonian Logos, Christian
tradition, empire, kingdom, or warrior heroic values. All that was discredited and destroyed in
the West. So the west power fighting against Ottomans tried to use this will of the Serbian
people to restore its identity as a tool in order to destroy Ottoman Empire that was traditional,
to destroy Austrian Empire, and to block Russian expansion in the Balkans. So they organized
masonic structures in Serbia, they made education of the Serbian nationalists in the republican
spirit, and they tried as well to enter in this process of liberation in order to propose their
nationalist vision (3rd political theory), liberal vision (1st political theory), and after with Tito
and the other, 2nd political theory. All three political theories were a kind of network (мрежа
or сеть) put over Serbian identity but with no connection. That was a kind of suffocating
network in order not to reveal it in a proper sense and to deviate Serbian energy and Katehonic
revival in the other sense.
But there were kind of many Logois in that Serbian liberation. There was inner profound
Nemanja Katehonic identity, the pure Serbian Logos. There was western European influence.
 135

There was Russian pragmatic or Orthodox Empire, very friendly Logos maybe by pragmatical
reasons by affinity of Third Rome and Moscow with the same opposition against western
powers. There was a kind of different form of what I’m calling archaeo-modernity. Archaeo-
modernity is not modernity as in the west. As in the west there was tradition and diminishing
of tradition was the growth of modernity (so either modernity or tradition). But archaeo-
modernity is where tradition and modernity coexisted in a very bad and sick way. You have
something or you have something opposite. You have tradition or you have modernity. That
was the case for Western Europe. But for Russia or Serbia, there was archaeo-modernity. You
are at the same time for modernization and at the same time for archaic roots. So that created
a kind of schizophrenic society. Russian society after Peter the Great is purely archaeo-modern
and schizophrenic.
I presume something like that was producing here. Serbian Logos was after the end of the
Ottoman Empire schizophrenic and archaeo-modern when legitimate claims to restore Serbian
Logos were mixed with modernist republican liberal socialist nationalist tradition. They blocked
both because they are two Logos. Modernity is the Logos of Cybele and inner Serbian Logos is
the Logos of Apollo and the Logos of Dionysus. So that was deep noological contradiction that
wasn’t remarked, wasn’t accepted as such, and wasn’t cured and that created sick society
because archaeo-modern is sick society. That is the case for many other societies. But the
difference between the western society and the archaeo-modern society is precisely that in
Europe, modernity entered in the society in the logical way, following Aristotelian logic
(modernity or tradition. If you have something modern in that place you shouldn’t have
something tradition). So you destroy, for example, monarchy and you install republic. And that
was the same. Church or atheism. In archaeo-modern society, atheism and church, republic
and kingdom, tradition and modernity coexist in a very bad way without remarking each other.
That creates a double interpretational reading. So everything is double. It’s purely bipolar
disease because you see something, you interpret in two contradictory ways at the same time.
So there is democracy or is no democracy. Democracy and dictatorship is the same.
So that is not Dionysian but what we have called, according to Gilbert Durand, mystical
nocturne. You see one thing and you call it completely different name. That is schizophrenic
attitude because that is split of personality. And in Western Europe there was the clear
personality; you accept modernity or you accept tradition. In our society that was archaeo-
modernity. You accept both. Serbian Logos and liberalism or communist or nationalism that
belongs to completely different context without noticing it. It is not conscious lie. It is
unconscious lie. Conscious lie is when we know the truth and we hide the truth but unconscious
truth is when we don’t know the truth and don’t care about it. So we are lying just because not
having any interest to the truth at all. So that is archaeo-modernity and I presume that to the
end of the Ottoman Empire, in the beginning of the independence of modern day Serbia was
precisely this element - this mixture between Chetniks, between Communists, between
Liberals, between Masons, between traditionalism, between Orthodox Popes and all this
mixture was completely archaeo-modern with no clearly defined line of division.
That was creation of Yugoslavia. First Yugoslavia had two contradictory readings in the same.
 136

Majority of the Serbs have seen in that restoration of the Greater Serbia and that was to end
of the Karađorđević rule that has produced the reactions of everybody else (above all the
reactions of Croats). Because that was kind of how the Serbs saw Yugoslavia. That was the rule
of Serbs, the re-creation of the Greater Serbia, and return to the Dusan Dynasty in new situation
but at the same time that was republic with completely modernist ideology, with balance of
the interest, and bourgeois type in the center. So the materialist, commercial, and egoist
element were dominant in the nationalist or liberal sense. That was the archaeo-modern
mixture of the society. And that was the reason of misunderstanding of the components of
Yugoslavia. That was not internationalism. That was not purely liberalism. That was not empire.
That was not confederation. That was something archaeo-modern.
And any pole in early Yugoslavia had its own reading of what was going on. So for the Serbs that
was the victory and as well for the radical Chetniks that was the kind of return to the roots, that
was the kind of accomplishment of the mission of Katehonic tradition. For the other that was
conventional, purely multi-national confederation organized by purely pragmatical materialistic
bourgeois reasons. There was multiplicity of the reading of Yugoslavia. There was the end with
German occupation. And the fight of two powers; communist partisans and Chetnik and
monarchist partisans. That was where the future of Yugoslavia after the Second World War
defined in this fight. And the victory of the Soviet Union of the Nazi regime was the reason why
second political theory dominating in Eastern Europe and in Yugoslavia as well.
So the new Yugoslavia was based on the second political theory but at the same time that was
the new reading of what is Yugoslavia, with the Marxism completely strange to the concrete
development of rural peasant Serbian society with archaic tradition, with partly modernized
cities and that was the new kind of archaeo-modernity where the pure form of the Serbian
Logos was prohibited. That was put out, was considered to be dissident, and Chetniks were
persecuted as counterrevolutionary tendencies. So the pure Orthodox version of Serbian Logos
was prohibited. There was a kind of domination of the second political theory of Marxism,
absolutely Cybelian. And that was a kind of new Yugoslavia.
But when the second political theory began to shake in the Soviet Union, that as well affected
Yugoslavia. And with Milosevic, Serbian reading of Yugoslavia has reappeared. So that was a
kind of nationalistic reaction, not clear philosophically and not explained. But intuitively that
Serbian fight for Yugoslavia was the fight for this Katehonic reading of Serbian state. That was
as well the last greatness of fight of the Serbs for Република Српска, for Српска Крајина,
Книнска Крајина, Slovenia, Baranya, and Western Srijem? and in the last moment the fight for
Kosovo against Albanians. So the Serbs with Milosevic, considered Yugoslavia as Katehonic
entity unconsciously, without saying it clearly, without explaining that. And saying that with
very awkward language, trying to adjust this to communist, to nationalist agenda, to western
liberal. So that was archaeo-modern version of Serbian Logos and that was defeated. But as
any defeat of this kind of Logos, has something positive inside. As the fight of Kosovo, that is
the fight for the light. In any Serbian hero that has given his life to defense of Yugoslavia, they
have sacrificed their life for the case of this Logos of light, for the deeply Katehonian mission.
In their case, there was no convention. That was the mistake. That was the clear breakthrough
 137

to the reality of the Serbian identity. They have invested the blood and life in this Serbian
identity and that could not vanish without a trace. That was continuation of the Kosovo battle.
That was continuation of the Serbian way through the history. And that was preparation for the
future, for real eschatological, Katehonical Serbian future.
After that, with the betrayal of Russia that has betrayed itself in the 90s and afterwards, there
was a kind of actual moment of Serbian state. That was defeat recognized by society, by state,
and by Serbian people. Russia could not be a kind of real alternative to modernization or to
westernization. There is the first political theory that dominates now in purely Cybelian sense.
But where is now the Serbian Logos? I presume that he is here. He is in Serbian people, in
Serbian identity, in Serbian space, and in Serbian culture. And having received this defeat, this
defeat should be first of all understood and deciphered, should be interpreted correctly in order
to go further in the Serbian history because now the problem that we are facing with Serbian
Logos is almost the same that we have with the other form of Apollonian Logos and Dionysian
in Dionysian-Apollonian sense. So there is the huge planetary fight that is lost almost by
everybody. Maybe we Russians have the image that we resist still or Syrian or Iranians still resist.
But domination of the force that has overcome Serbian fight is not only the west or United
States but something deeper. In that sensation, it should not be reason for despair. Because
the force of Cybele or return of the Great Mother is a kind of coming of anti-Christ or liberation
of Satan from the abyss and that was planned and let to happen by God. And that is the final
test. I think that concerning Serbian Logos, now is the moment not to blame the state or the
society, or Russian or western to do what they do but to concentrate precisely on the cultivation
of this Logos instead of everything because it is planned test, maybe last one. Maybe not.
Maybe there will be one more test, one more fight, one more chance, as you have as Serbs two
chances; creation of first Yugoslavia and fight of Milosevic and nationalist renewal. Both
chances were lost. Both. But maybe there will be the new one.
If there is the living tradition, if there is living Serbian Dasein, it could make a kind of analysis of
why that was lost, how we should not repeat the error of the other, how to defend the pure
form of Serbian Logos against this attack, because nothing has ended yet. So when the Serbs
are, there is Serbian Dasein, there is Serbian state. That’s already something. Maybe it’s a little
bit awkward in actual situation but it is. And that is very important. That is already something
to seize as opportunity, not as response, not as answer, but as something that is positive
Serbian value. Serbian people, Serbian tradition, Serbian culture, Serbian heritage, Serbian
state, Serbian church, Serbian Christianity. So we have many things now and because there is
spiritual fight, not material. It has no comparison with material aspects. All that is secondary. If
we fight the spiritual battle, we win everything. If we could win one Serbian heart, we could
win everything. The fight is over and that is the victory. So that is the fight for human that is
going inhuman. That is not material atomic confrontation between the masses of matter. There
is the human spirit and the fight is inside of us and the Logos is inside of us. It’s not something
that is imposed on us from outside. So we are the Logos and Logos acts through us. And Serbian
Logos acts and lives through Serbs as everlasting or maybe not everlasting, lasting continuously
up to the end of time.
 138

So I think that Serbian people were chosen in order to keep its identity up to the end of time
and to reappear in the last moment of history on the side of God and Christ and Logos of Apollo
and this verticality in order to participate in the general universal Kosovo battle or create the
universal empire of light, empire of Christ, whose prefiguration was the Kingdom of Nemanja
and Dusan the Strong. So that is more or less my exposition of Serbian Logos. And we could say
as well that Yugoslavia and modern day Serbia were and are simulacrum of real Serbia. It’s clear.
But simulacrum is as archaeo-modernity. It’s partly archaic and partly perverted and caricature.
So we need to solve the problem of simulacrum and restore the authenticity and the pure state
of what is not simulacrum and that is hiding behind simulacrum. So we need to deduce the
grain of truth from that.

Lecture 10. The Noomahia in XXI century.

1. Noological analysis of present situation.

2. Globalization, anthropology of Post-Modernity, Artificial intelligence, artificial

immortality, Post-humanism, feminism, EU.

3. Post-liberalism.

4. Russia in noology.

5. Is the restoration of Logos of Apollo possible?

6. The problem of Dyonysus today.

Transcript of Noomahia Lecture 10 – Noomahia in XXI Century

Now, this is the last lecture, the 10th lecture, that is a kind of result of this course that could be
considered as Introduction to Noomahia. The 10th lecture dedicated to Noomahia in 21st
century. In the sociology, they say, now we are living in the shift, the transformation from
modernity to the post-modernity. So we have identified the modernity as return or revenge of
the Logos of Cybele. Now we could ask, ‘what is the Logos of post-modernity?’ 'What kind of
noological structure is it?’ The Logos of post-modernity is in some way the finalization of the
Cybelian revolution. So that is the kind of bringing to the logical end, logical consequence of the
previous modernity. So we should not be deceived by the anti-modern speech of the post-
 139

modernism. Post-modernism is essentially modern. It is the essence of the modernity. It is not

alternative.

The post-modernism as it is, in the French philosophy first of all, is based on the idea that
modernity is not enough. So modernity is not pure modernity. That began with Frankfurt School
when they said that ‘we need to enlighten enlightenment,’ that ‘enlightenment was not really
enlightened so we need to purify the pure modernity’ and that is a kind of purge or ethnical
cleansing of modernity, all the rest of what was tradition. So, post-modernity is an idea to bring
the modernity to the end, to create the ‘pure modernity,’ In philosophical sense, it is the idea
to gain the pure imminence, or pure matter, or pure body as in Deleuzian version. So everything
in the modernity according to postmodernists was too much penetrated by the pre-modern,
by tradition, for example, the reason. Human reason was a kind of slogan in the fight against
the theocracy, against the church, against theology. That was all made in the name of the
human reason. That was vanguard position of the Modern's fight.

But postmodernists have discovered that after the victory of the human reason over theology,
and creating absolutely autonomous science and philosophy, they, in new condition, have
encountered a kind of domination, a kind of philosophical fascism. But this time, human reason,
human brains were considered to be radical dictatorship. So before, the idea in modernity was
to liberate (‘liberalism’) human reason from theology. Now it is to liberate the human being
from the reason because the reason is dictatorship. The reason predicts what to do. It deals
with unbalanced radical hierarchical systems on the classes, on the classifications. So now, we
need to come, in the postmodernity, with the next stage. Not the liberation ‘of' the reason, but
the liberation ‘from' the reason.

That is the concept of schizophrenic revolution of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari that was
anti-Oedipus. For example, the concept of Freud was a kind of modern revolution against
rationality. So that was as well an introduction to postmodernism, because the reason was put
under question, under doubt, in order to explain the functioning of the brain on the reason by
irrational motivation of subconsciousness. But Deleuze and Guattari in the pure postmodernity
have discovered that was a reflection of the male understanding of the functioning of
subconsciousness. And the complex of Oedipus was a kind of male projection, so they proposed
to create a female, feminist psychoanalysis that will not be affected with some paranoid
particularly male concept of irrational desire. So that was the idea to bring to the end, all the
irrationalism and they have discovered that there are two types of the psychological system;
paranoid one and schizophrenic one. The paranoid one was hierarchical and that was
considered the reason is paranoid according to Deleuze Guattari, but schizophrenia when there
is a kind of inner split of the self, its much more feminist, its much more equalitarian. So we
need to promote schizophrenic attitude as the normative attitude of society. And that is as well
the kind of fight against the brain and dictatorship of the brain. So we need to liberate the
organs, different organs. They should behave at their will without this ‘Hitlerism’ of mind. So
 140

postmodernism is the fight against any kind of vertical hierarchies, not only traditional way but
in the individual way as well.

So that first was the fight against everything in the sake of individual and now that is the
construction of individual itself that is considered to be too Apollonian (in our terms). Because
the man is vertical, for example, it’s not normal. It’s creating a kind of privilege for the head,
for the brain. It is at the top. We should make quite opposite. We should crawl as a serpent.
We should give full freedom to our organs and consider our body not as kingdom of the reason,
but as a kind of parliamentary assembly of the organs that could organize political parties, vote
to take some decision, not only dictated by reason, but promoted and supported by the other
organs. The most radical idea was that the organs themselves are totalitarian because they
have too many special forms. They are adapted and adjusted to one mechanical function so we
should consider the body without organs. That is the concept. So the body should exist without
any form, without any organic state. That we could achieve during virtual existence. That is the
two-dimensional space and we should emigrate into the network in order to fill not with organs
but with all our body. So that is rhizome. It is the concept that should replace individual.
Rhizome is network mankind that is not united and interacting with each other as individual
with individual but with organ with organ, in the completely schizophrenic sense. So one hand
could behave itself in its own way than the other part.

So that is as well, dissipation of the personality with avatars, with names in the networks. We
could change the gender, change the age, and everything, and personality. We could dissipate
ourselves. And that is not only roles, because the man in sociology is the assembly of the roles.
These social roles and relational games are dissipated and distributed through the network and
there are new kind of rhizomatic. Rhizome in Greek is the root, but not the root of the plant,
but the root as potato or mushroom. They are expanding not in the vertical but in the horizontal
situation. And that is a kind of postmodern society that is the next step. That is not individual
but dividual in some way. So there is a new stage of immanentism and materialism. It is not the
materialism of the things. It is materialism of something that is below the things, beneath the
things. Rene Guenon called that ‘infra-corporeal world’ and this ‘infra-corporeal world’ was
peopled in the traditional religious understanding by purely underground beings. The idea to
turn the man in the assembly of the daemons. That is the idea of Deleuze. And to open the
possibility of the material spirit living through us and in us to reveal themselves and behave
themselves freely as a kind of parliament of organs or desires and the machines of desires
distributed through the network. This is a kind of destruction of any vertical forms including in
the early liberal or capitalist version. Here there is a very thin change from classical liberalism
(first political theory) in post-liberalism. That is the mixture between communism, or Marxism,
not defending proletarian or the class struggle but defending materialism and egalitarianism
united with liberalism. So postmodernism is a kind of cultural Marxism mixed with the liberalism
(left liberalism). That is a new version. Old liberalism operated, dealed with the individual. And
now that is dividual that is coming.
 141

Normal human reason is replaced by artificial intelligence. Networks should replace the normal
relations. And virtuality is replacing reality. I have dedicated yesterday’s lecture, presentation
of the book ‘network warfare’ partly to this postmodern horizon, postmodern perspective. The
idea is to replace what was, in the paradigm of modernity, called reality by virtuality. So
virtuality is not only reflection of the reality. It is very interesting moment. In virtuality there is
reflection of reality or translation of something real in something digital. After that, that is work
with digital. Improvement for the sound for example, or image, photoshop working on the
photo and so on, or cleaning of the sound on the music, and new emulation of the purified
image in the reality. Printing in a 3-D printer, for example, printing back the reality. So the most
important thing is the autonomy of what is digitalized. So this reality that is separated in the
numbers in the computer, is considered most important thing. For example, the credit card. So
they are numbers, something electronic, that is calculation process. We put money on the card
and we take money. It comes through virtual instance. Here is the possibility to make with our
money everything because they are not material. And virtuality is the idea when we don’t make
this kind of operation too often. We don’t transform reality into virtuality and we don’t emulate
reality back. We are satisfied with staying with credit card. Not putting the money, not taking
the money. We have credit card, and we are satisfied, we are happy. So, not trying to, how it
works, not trying to put it back. We see how it works so we are happy with having a credit card.

So, offline relations between, for example, dating. There is the photo; the photo of girl and
photo of man (I presume normal relations). And there is online encounter, meeting, and there
is offline. Offline can be disappointing but when you prove, you testify of the quality, the reality
of the girl or young man you have seen in the internet in the reality, it’s a kind of emulation of
this virtual personality. But we are invited in the postmodernity to accept these virtual images
as they are. Living there, not making this proof, test how they are. You could create your
personality, and after in the future, you could create your body. And that has already begun,
emulation of body, printing on the 3-D printers different organs. This is purely avatar. Or for
example, amelioration of the body now, with botox for example, fighting against the aging, or
making some artificial adjustments to women figure or male figure as well (in modern western
society). So there is a kind of emulation of body. In that process, we are losing a kind of
individual. We became the combination of the parts. We could transform into numbers and
calculational sequence and we could be emulated. We could disappear in virtuality and
reappear in reality, passing maybe ameliorating some features. So that is not only reflection.
That is something when virtuality becomes primordial, becomes something that goes first. So
we could for example, emulate something that doesn’t exist in reality. For example, chimera,
cyborg, centaurs, rusalki. We could print in the future and there are fantastic films about that,
could print something that is not reflection of the reality, that is production of virtual fantasy.
And we could people the world with these images and in some situations, when first we fire
received credit card, we were not so confident with it, we tried to have some machine in order
to take money to be sure that they are there. But now, little by little, we are happy with having
card. We don’t testify anymore.
 142

We have more and more confidence in something virtual and we are replaced, we are
transferred into the realm of virtuality and we become more and more virtual. Artificial
intelligence is the kind of limit of it. There will be not anymore separate individuals. There will
be a kind of network. Because artificial intelligence is not like one clever guy or girl. It is network
distributed through many computers. That is neural network that is capable to create
something new, to imagine something new.

There are two different kinds of artificial intelligence; weak artificial intelligence and strong
artificial intelligence. Weak artificial intelligence is already constructed. It is a kind of databases
of many knowledge of humanity put into the digitalized way. There are great masses of books,
of knowledge, of technology, all present in the computers. And we could immediately access
this book and they are inside of memory. So if we could grant permanent access to that, we are
inside of this weak artificial intelligence that could make calculations instead of us, make
comparisons, translations of languages, so transmitting as well some semantic elements. And
that is ameliorating each day Google translates from English and into English better, with other
languages not so, but with English better and better. So we could see how this weak artificial
intelligence progresses.

But there is strong artificial intelligence. It’s appearance is awaited, anticipated for two
thousand twenty, twenty five years, so it rests not so much time, and that is called singularity
moment. Singularity moment is the appearance of the strong artificial intelligence that will be
completely comparable with human. It will be not programmed operations but neural network.
Neural network is algorithm (mathematical) that could create something that wasn’t from the
beginning was put in. That is self development form of calculation. And the simplest neural
network depends absolutely from operator. But developed neural networks are independent.
More and more they become independent from operator so they could arrive at the conclusion
that wasn’t planned by operator. In that manner, human reason functions. That is something
that is autonomous but following some rules because human reason as well is following some
rules. And this singularity moment is considered to be the shift, the greatest shift in human
history when there will be not only human reason in the earth, or in the space. There will appear
something comparable to us, but the next evolution, next step of human progress. That will be
post-human species, post-human beings.

And there is, in modern philosophy, a tendency that is called accelerationism that invites us to
bring this singularity moment quicker, quick, now, accelerate towards this singularity situation.
That is studied and done by great corporations, by Google, Microsoft, and others. That is as
well a hedging process. They invest billions in the creation of artificial intelligence. And the
billions as well in hedging, in security, trying to identify the threats of this. So that is hedge fund
for artificial intelligence and the development projects for artificial intelligence.
 143

At the same time, the concept of what is human has changed in post-modernity. So post-
modernity is going towards post-human, in new step of evolution. Because modernity is based
on the concept that human beings appeared as a kind of progress of beast, so singularity is the
next step. There was the development as a beast, after that the development as a man, after
that development as a machine. But artificial intelligence is not machine. It’s something
different. And what is interesting is that in order to have artificial intelligence, we need to
understand that our brains as well are something artificial. So we could repeat our human
brains only when they are considered to be something material, mechanical. And this is
precisely the science of cognitivism, the conscious, the study of conscious body, conscious
problem, trying to emulate the function of human reason. But in order to facilitate this, we
need to turn present humans into machines. That will facilitate this process. And that is
precisely the case.

And now the present human beings are more and more like the other. We are more and more
artificial, because political correctness is new kind of totalitarianism. They try to persuade us
how its necessary to think, what is normative way of thinking, and praising the liberty and
freedom. At the same time, we become less and less free. And any challenge to that process is
regarded as a crime, as a mind crime, a crime of opinion. For example, if you don’t agree with
that, you are Fascist, if you try to defend something, for example, Auschwitz or Stalinists, that’s
the same. So you could not challenge evolution. You could not challenge the progress. For
example, you could not say ‘stop let us conserve what is here.’ The hysterical reaction of
American society against Trump’s victory is a demonstration of how intolerant progressivists
are. Trump is not an alternative to that. He doesn’t plan to stop the researches into the artificial
intelligence. He doesn’t protest against the gay prides and so on. He’s very tolerant. But he is
less progressive than is needed so he is fascist. There are Russians who are fascist behind him.
So if you aren’t a progressivist, you are an enemy of progress. All the consequences we could
see in the prohibition of my book on Amazon, in the free world where everybody has absolute
right to express anything, except if that is something that challenges the status quo. You are
free, completely liberated to be liberal; right, left, center liberal. But you are not free not to be
liberal. If you are not liberal, it’s suspicious. Maybe a terrorist or fundamentalist or Russian or
Trump-ist and so on.

That is now, a caricature. We see how this kind of political totalitarian propaganda works with
no reason at all, because everything now is virtual. For example Russian intervention in the
American elections. Virtual. There is no proof. And they could not prove it in the world of
networks. There are repeated sentences. That is considered to be a kind of algorithm. For
example, everybody cites the New York Times or Washington Post as if it is the truth, but it is
algorithm. It is emulation of the status quo, that could be completely with no relations with the
reality. Or you could easily exaggerate something, some little element, you could combine. For
example, I’m giving many interviews to the western press, but only the fragments that
correspond to what they expect from myself are shown. For example I gave to BBC interview
 144

that Russian oligarchs have financed Hillary Clinton’s campaign. No, no mention of that. When
I was asked whether Russians intervened in the Trump elections, I answered ‘no’ and they said
‘yes.’ So if they receive completely opposite reaction, they don’t care. So they emulate what
they need. That is a kind of emulation independent from previously destructed and processed
information. So in postmodernity, the information goes first. And information you could
imagine or combine. So nobody could verify. If we see the image, if we read something, if we
repeat it, if it is distributed in many other agencies, then that is the truth. So it is emulation and
not reflection.

In the metaphysical sense, that is the shift from the real to the virtual. So the virtuality is more
important than reality. Because it is not reflection of reality but the basic emulation of reality.
And there is indignation of the old style people who say ‘lets defend reality in front of virtuality’
but it is impossible because the reality was brought by the modernity. Because in the world of
tradition, of Apollonian Logos, ideas existed. Ideas were the real beings, or spirit, or God, or
something hidden, or something heavenly, or something divine, existed as the basic ontological
argument for the reality. So reality took its being from the fact of being created by God.
Creation was the ontological explanation of the reality. When we have made a step from the
Logos of Apollo and the spiritual basis of the reality, when we have accepted the reason as such,
the man as such, the world as such, nature as such, as substance without the author, we have
already cut the relations with the metaphysical basis of the existence. Reality is virtual. That is
why this shift from the reality to the virtuality is possible. Metaphysically speaking, we could
not defend reality, without saving first spirituality. Because this metaphysical foundation of the
reality was not real, was pre-real. Ideas exist in the reality, eternal ideas of the thing. If we could
cut them and deny that, we have the things, but the things, as reality, is not real in the last
sense. It is already something virtual, something emulated, it is simulacrum and not the thing.
And virtuality is the last conclusion of this process. In post-modernity, nothing new. It seems to
be very new and very modern but it is logical conclusion of the modernity.

So if we consider now, what is noological analysis of post-modernity, we should recognize that

it is not something new, comparing with modernity, but is the final phase of modernity. When
we have spoken about the Logos of Cybele, the post-modernity is the absolute domination of
the Logos of Cybele. Logos of Cybele was expanding during modernity and now it is already
expanded. So there is the difference of moments of Noomahia. There is the fight and when the
fight is over. So that is a kind of Kingdom of Scarlet Woman, in the Christian eschatological
sense, and full domination of Great Mother, in its complete version. That is why there is
feminism now.

Some words about feminism - there could be different forms of feminism. Modern feminism as
well is different. But I would like to accentuate that there could be feminism that I’m calling
Hecate feminism, that is based on the very special figure of Great Goddess Hecate, that was in
the Greek history and early Greek history, Hesiod, described as the Goddess that gives every
 145

fruit, every desired thing, but when Hesiod mentions what Hecate gives, he has said ‘the
wisdom, the bravery, the victory in fight, and the cattle’ and there was no mention of
agricultural crop. So Hecate in the original sense was Turanian Goddess, was a kind of feminine
archetype of Turanian type. Afterwards they were associated with Persephone or Demeter, and
put into the realm of night and underground. But originally, Hecate wasn’t chtonic deity. That
was heavenly feminine female figure. And Hecate feminism, it is the dignity of the woman that
reflects patriarchal values, as Athena (the other Greek deity). Athena is pure state of what is
purely patriarchal; it is wisdom of the priests and the victory and heroism of the warrior. That
was Hecate feminism. Maybe it could be returned to the Indo-European feminine principle
from the wrong or deviated form of patriarchate, materialistic patriarchy. So Hecate feminism
is restoration of the dignity of the woman as the friend and ally of the man, the Indo-European
man. That is a kind of Indo-European feminism that is against the Logos of Cybele, because it is
glorification of feminine principle of purely Indo-European Logos. So that is interesting that in
Hindu tradition that is the concept of Shakti. Shakti is not something that goes against the male
principle. It is a kind of power of this male principle. That is Shekhinah as well in the Kabbalah.
So that is feminine principle of light and not chtonic deity, but that is not the case with today’s
feminism because post-modern feminism is absolutely anti-Indo-European and purely
Cybelian.

And that is not the beginning of the liberation of the woman. It is a kind of total destruction of
the man that began with the modernity. So, materialistic limits put on the man and
discreditation of the priesthood, of the monks, the warriors as types was already the victory of
the matriarchate. And bourgeois type is matriarchal as such. And when women in the modern
world pretend to have power, that is, as with Deleuzian metaphysics, is not something new. It’s
the finalization of the process. So the power of Cybele, today, is open and manifest. And
interesting remark with feminism; traditionally women can’t expect happiness; it could happen,
it could not. It depends from some transcendental moment. The woman can meet the right
man, have the right babies, and right families and be happy, or could not. That depends. But
modern Cybelian feminism says lets say goodbye to this happiness. Feminine happiness is an
illusion. It is more dreams, that is not real. There is no such kind of women happiness and every
woman should say goodbye to that. There is no happiness, it is an illusion. It is patriarchal trick
in order to keep women under control. You will never have feminine happiness but instead you
can have power. So you exchange that problematic feminine happiness and non-problematic
fight for power and will for power. So that is not a claim for more happiness or more equality.
That is the fight for power in the society. And that has almost already succeeded. We are not
in the beginning or first stages of feminism. We are in the last stages of feminism. And this fight
for power and the concept of woman as power reflects the essence of the feminine principle
in tradition because the pure state in the Indian tradition, in the Purusha, the male principle is
wisdom with no power. It is pure light of thought. And the power is already feminine. But this
liberation of the power from the wisdom is power as itself, a kind of blind power. That is what
is going on with present day feminism. That is finally arriving to such absolute feminine power,
 146

woman loses herself, her nature, and her content. She becomes absolutely blind might, a kind
of vitality. So there is the blind force of things themselves, pure gravity, pure matter, matter in
the state of no orientation. So no more happiness, but new power, and emasculation and
disappearance of man. Man should disappear. They lose man in such situation, their position,
their archetype, and the idea of recognition of homosexuality as the norm in the western
society is the end of the man, is the end of the balance between the genders, that is destroyed,
everything is optional, you have not these two poles. And that is a victory of Cybele which is
now open and manifest, not only implicit as in the modernity, but explicit, as now.

Now we are coming to post-liberalism. When liberalism, the first political theory is left alone,
there is no second, no third. And when they try to exclude Fourth Political Theory as possibility.
So, the first political theory is as well changed in a kind of post-liberalism. There is no more
individual. There is the dividual, something divided, something tomic, as atom wasn’t atomic.
Atom, when it was discovered, it was as well recognized as something that you could divide
more. So that is not atomic. Atom is undivided, indivisible. If there is something divisible, that
is not atom. But you still call atom something that is divisible, so you still call individual
something that is not anymore considered to be ‘in-dividual,’ ‘in-divisible.’ So it is something
already rhizomatic. That is a transformation that goes with globalization. Globalization destroys
any kind of society, including destroys modernity. Liberalism is devoided of any kind of national
boundaries, borders. It is pure cosmopolitism. There is no race, no ethnos, no society.
Everybody could live in every point of the space. Today, it is the freedom of the individuals but
tomorrow that will be the freedom of the networks. Because it is a kind of matrix with artificial
intelligence and with bodies emulating bodies. The concept of body as well could change but
we are promised to have immortality instead, but immortality of the machine, because the
machine could not die. The machine could be adjusted or decomposed or recomposed, so
machine doesn’t die. And when we say, we become immortal in the physical way, in the
imminent way. In that moment we stop to be human. And that is singularity moment that is
appointed for some years in front of us. We are living not in the hundred, two hundred years
before singularity. We are living close to the singularity.

Some questions concerning what is Russia in that. Russia, we should not mistake. Russia is
conservative society that tries to delay the process described before. Russia is not alternative
(present day Russia). It is a kind of, trying to stop or delay the movement in one way, in that
way, that is anti-acceleration power. We say ‘not so quickly.’ Our society, our president, our
government says ‘Not so quickly. The direction is good but not now.’ That is purely
conservatism. That is not proposition to restore Apollonian Logos. That is pure inertia. ‘Not yet.
Not now. That’s all right, quite right. But not so quickly. Let us die calmly.’ That is a kind of purely
irresponsible, but very sane as instinct reaction against postmodernity. But the most radical
formulation of Russian Logos today in modern Russian Federation, is very shy defense of reality.
The best and bravest in Russia pretend to defend reality against virtuality. They are materialists
absolutely, and some modernists absolutely. But they don’t want to make the last step in that
 147

direction. There is strong traditionalist feeling in the people, there is in our Church a radical
group that protests against the status quo, basing on Mount Athos, basing on the Elders
Tradition, but that is absolutely marginal minority that has no influence on the society. They
are considered to be completely crazy. Because our society is archeo-modern, It is modernist
in the old sense, It cannot and doesn’t want to accept post-modernity but no will, no desire, no
capacity, no thought to return or to go to the pre-modern Logos. That is bad news, I presume,
because it seems quite different from outside. From outside, Russia is conservative
revolutionary power that fights against the West, against all that. It’s not so! Maybe we should
not stress too much at this point, but Russia, that is the great possibility because our Dasein
and our people is bearer of this Katehonical mission. And we could see that in the reaction of
the people. We have Russian Dasein. Russian Dasein is based on the Dionysian much more than
the Apollonian Logos, but it is imprisoned. Our identity is imprisoned. This imprisonment is not
only the Liberalism of ‘90s, as well as Communist period of Cybelian domination. But that was
as well the late Romanovs Tsardom that was Modernist, Archeo-Modern, pro-western and so
on.

So, Russia is in trouble; its Logos, its people, its Dasein, its existential horizon. But 'nothing is
lost when there is something that is not lost,’ as Curzio Malaparte has said. So I think that we
are in a situation that is structurally close to the situation of Serbian people. We have different
scale, different power, different space, different number of population, but the problem is the
same. And Russia could not be regarded as the answer or alternative to what is going on. It is
only the other place where the Noomahia still continues, with domination of the Cybelian
Logos. So we are inside of Cybele. We are not outside of Cybele. That maybe was remarked by
Milos Crnjanski in his final result of his book, that Russia is good but that is not the answer for
Serbian quest for identity. Milos Crnjanski’s result or summary is a tragic one because Serbs
become kind of in exile, in permanent exile, with no motherland left for them. But all the hopes
on Russia should be measured with this pessimistic but very open solution of Milos
Crnjanski because he loved Russia, and Serbians love Russia. And that is good, but when we
have too much incorrect expectations, we could miss the question and unity in fight with
something that already accomplished and perfect. So that is very important to Serbs and to all
the fighters of identity to know that Russia fights. Russia is not yet defeated formally, because
our people is, because it exists. But we have so great problem with Russian Logos, we could not
yet start to continue the situation when our effort to create Russian philosophy was cut
drastically by Communists. So we are outside of the place where really philosophy begins. We
are outside. And this place is not attained, not reached yet. We are fighting to go to this
moment. And because of great damage we had during last hundred years, we could not restart
the process. In Russia today, there is pure social madness. We could not speak with nobody. As
people, we are very good and open and very Christian, but as a kind of bearer of some
intellectual tradition, it’s almost zero. With so big people, so few people capable concretely to
think, it is unimaginable. That is a kind of deep, dogmatical sleep (not dogmatical in the positive
 148

sense, it’s adogmatical), modern, post-modern sleep, conservative sleep of the people. So we
are sleeping but that is good thing that we could be awake, lets hope.

If we go to the next moment, what is the problem of the post-modernity? The post-modernity
is the problem of Dionysus, because we could not appeal to the Logos of Apollo directly,
because it is out of reach of our understanding. That has disappeared long, long ago, as such
with the end of Middle Ages, maybe earlier. We have only the figure of Dionysus that is the sun
inside of the night. So that is hidden intellect. That is hidden Logos. Being in the Hell, but not
being the Hell, being inside of the night, but not belonging to the night, being inside of the
world of Cybele but not being the part of function of the world of Cybele. I’m calling that in
completely other type of philosophical direction, the radical subject. Radical subject is the
subject that is in the center of the night, not being the night. But there is the problem of the
black double of Dionysus. Because there is something Titanic that imitates Dionysus and that is
his mirror or his double, as Adonis (the black double of Dionysus). And the problem is how to
make distinction of them. That is the problem of simulacrum and in the religious sense, the
problem of Anti-Christ, because Anti-Christ is not scarlet woman herself. It is not Cybele. It is a
creation going from the abyss. And it pretends to be Christ. So the problem of Anti-Christ, or
the problem of simulacrum, or the problem of double of Dionysus is the center problem of
post-modernity because it pretends to be radical subject. It pretends to be this figure of
Dionysus in the center of that. And that is not Christ. Radical subject is not Christ. Christ is
heavenly God and man as well. But that is something that is quite different and Dionysus is the
figure that is really problematic. And I gave the name for one of my books ‘Radical Subject and
its Double.’ So that is the problem of Dionysus in other words. So we need to find this point
that is in the night and doesn’t belong to the night. And we shouldn’t mistake it for its parody
that exists close to it. So that is metaphysical explanation of Noology or Noomahia in 21st
century. And I think that is the deepest analysis that could be given to the situation.

To finish this course of lectures, we could ask ourselves where the place of Serbia is in this last
moment of Noomahia. That is open question and we could not answer it abstractly. So it is up
to Serbian people to decide this place. It is very important to define the noological space to
make this analysis, to carefully identify the main figures, main tendencies. But that depends on
the decision. And what is important is that decision is possible always up to the moment when
the singularity comes. So we have very limited time for decision. Having Dasein, Dasein, being
there, it is always open possibility to decide in one or the other direction. So the choice is
possible when there is human. Human is there when Dasein is. But I think if we will be
irreversibly replaced by artificial intelligence and devoided of our deaths, (the condition of
existence, of Dasein, according to Heidegger) we will seize to be what we are. And we will lose,
irreversibly, the possibility of a decision. Now we have a small amount of time in front of us
because something that is approaching is more terrible and horrible than the death or torture
or catastrophe, much more terrible. It is the end of the human Dasein as we know, as the result
of the not correctly taken decision. According to Heidegger, European Dasein, Western Dasein
 149

has decided not to be. And that is the definition of the modernity and post-modernity. It has
decided not to be and not to awake in the night, in the middle of the night, where we are. That
is why he said ‘Only God could save us’ in the last interview, because decision was wrong and
was already taken. Multiplicity of Dasein that is based on Noomahia preserves the possibility to
decide otherwise. If the West has decided, I think that this kind of decision not to exist was
taken for us, for Serbs, and for Russians, by the other. That was not our decision. And we didn’t
decide finally. So we should do it. We have time, very small amount of time to make this
decision. And that is the end of the ten lectures of the Noomahia as introductory course for this
study.