Dugin actually analyzes Cosmism (in Russian Logos III; he also discusses them a bit in Heidegger and The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, but I don't really remember what he says there and I am not going to look it up) as being mostly a continuation of heretical movements that crop in Russian history from time to time, like the Khlysts, which is why it is so consonant with Bolshevism (to which he ascribes a similar pedigree).
Thank you for pointing me to Dugin’s analysis in Russian Logos III—I was not aware of the connection ,That is exactly the kind of Russian‑language scholarship that lies beyond my reach. My essay was an attempt to test, intellectually, whether the translated, Sophiological stream of Cosmism could serve as a genuine alternative to transhumanism. I remain compelled by that possibility, even as I recognize—and your comment sharpens this—that the deeper genealogical questions you raise complicate the picture considerably. I wrote as an outsider precisely because exercising the validity of these ideas fully would require a command of Russian sources and theological history I do not possess. What I offered was a provisional probing of a possibility, and I am grateful for the correction that keeps that possibility honest.
Thank you! Knowing Russian and being in Russia has made this easier for me. That's in Russian Logos III, which is the very last book in the Noomakhia series, which is a 24-volume series setting out the ontological structures of the world's civilizations, as Dugin sees them (I have read 12).
The short version is that he sees Cosmism as a materialist framework rising out of a confluence of Russian heretical movements (like the Khlysts) and Western European-inspired modernism. He could be wrong though; I have never actually read Fedorov or anybody else in that line of history.
Thanks for this. I've only really seen one series of lectures on Paideuma in Serbia, if I'm not mistaken, so that whole 24‑volume architecture is mostly beyond my reach. The summary you've given is exactly the kind of thing that makes me think translation is urgent. And honestly, I'm more and more convinced I just have to learn Russian. There's no way around it.
Any idea what Dugin thinks of the Khlysty? They are fascinating, especially their role in Russian modern history. It’s funny how they existed parallel to the rise of the theosophical movement.
As a matter of fact, I do! But I don't know how much jargon to use to describe it, since I don't know how familiar you are with Dugin. This is all in works that have to my knowledge not been translated. Does the term "Logos of Cybele" mean anything to you?
Yes of course, now that you mention it, I do remember him briefly speaking of them I think tied to the cybelian principle. But my main understanding of the Apollonian and Dionysian principles come from Berdyaev. And I see the Old Believers as a manifestation of an interesting combination of these principles. The khlysty also emerged from the same schism as old believers if I’m not mistaken. Will be writing some creative pieces on Russian culture soon as well, just trying to find the time to finish it.
Dugin has a specific understanding of the Apollonian and Dionysian that he gets from kind of fusing Heidegger, Guenon, and Neo-Platonism.
To keep the jargon to a minimum, and without describing what "the logos of Cybele" actually consists of, in Dugin's interpretation of European history, in European (including Russian) cultures there is a pre-Indo-European cultural stratum (Cybele), deep down, which comes from the indigenous peoples that were conquered by the IE steppe nomads who were the bearers of the Apollonian principle. This stratum is particularly strong in Russia for reasons going back into prehistory. It is suppressed by the Apollonian elements, but is still there. Dugin sees Modernity as arising out of this repressed, ancient layer (he thinks this happened first and mainly in Britain and France because Celtic civilization, like Russian, has a very strong Cybelian element). When Modernity hits Russia in this 1700s-1800s, this Cybelian wave coming in from outside has a kind of resonance from within Russian society itself, which you see in the Khlysty and Skoptsy.
OK, I actually wilk about Cybele since it will help me fall asleep. Dugin's three Logoses, which gets by splicing together Heidegger's History of Being, Guenon's account of the Kali-Yuga, the psychologist Durand's depth psychology, and neo-Platonism, are three basic ways in which conscousness cognizes the world. Apollo is A is not B; it splits things apart into mutually exclusive As and Bs and attempts to eliminate orr ignore B, and is approximately the metaphysical thinking that Heidegger traces in his History of Being. Dionysius is A is B and not B; it recognizes the existence of both A and B and mediates them (the only purely Dionysian system, says Dugin, is Chinese). Finally, Cybele is A is B. This makes everything the same, nothing is fundamentally different from anything else, and is, says Dugin, the underlying cognitive framework of materialism, atomism, democracy and many other things that he doesn't like. The only purely Cybelian system, or one of a very small number, is American civilization (US and Canada). Most societies, philosophical systems, etc., are a blend of these Logoses.
When recently going through Leontiev’s work I could not help but notice a sense of verticality, though not in the Western sense. It isn’t even an Eastern spiritual verticality either, but rather, a different third thing. Russia is as Berdyaev said, the place where the East-West dialectic is resolved. But don’t you think the transhumanist vertical elements, perhaps we could even say materialist element, are as a result of Western cultural pseudo morphosis?
This is a very sharp observation, and thank you for it. Yes, I do think the transhumanist and materialist elements in Russian Cosmism are significantly the result of Western cultural pseudomorphosis. The question is one I had not integrated, and it deserves deep consideration.
I must add that my own reading of Leontiev is limited to a collection of his essays—not his full body of work—so I come to this with only partial ground. To recognize this nuanced third kind of verticality in his thought from that alone speaks to a genuinely perceptive reading. I agree that authentic Russian verticality, as Leontiev or the early Slavophiles understood it, may be something quite other than the technologically‑inflected verticality of the Cosmists. Fedorov's project carries an unmistakably active, Promethean, even Faustian tone that could be read as a Western import: a Western scientific body possessed by a Russian eschatological spirit, as you so precisely put it. My essay tried to separate the religious, Sophiological core from its materialist distortions, but you are right that the very presence of technological resurrectionism in the tradition may itself be a trace of that pseudomorphosis. I am not equipped to resolve the question fully, but I am grateful for the illumination.
Interesting. I was interested in that Topic of Cosmism since a long time but did not really understand it.
Dugin actually analyzes Cosmism (in Russian Logos III; he also discusses them a bit in Heidegger and The Possibility of Russian Philosophy, but I don't really remember what he says there and I am not going to look it up) as being mostly a continuation of heretical movements that crop in Russian history from time to time, like the Khlysts, which is why it is so consonant with Bolshevism (to which he ascribes a similar pedigree).
Thank you for pointing me to Dugin’s analysis in Russian Logos III—I was not aware of the connection ,That is exactly the kind of Russian‑language scholarship that lies beyond my reach. My essay was an attempt to test, intellectually, whether the translated, Sophiological stream of Cosmism could serve as a genuine alternative to transhumanism. I remain compelled by that possibility, even as I recognize—and your comment sharpens this—that the deeper genealogical questions you raise complicate the picture considerably. I wrote as an outsider precisely because exercising the validity of these ideas fully would require a command of Russian sources and theological history I do not possess. What I offered was a provisional probing of a possibility, and I am grateful for the correction that keeps that possibility honest.
Thank you! Knowing Russian and being in Russia has made this easier for me. That's in Russian Logos III, which is the very last book in the Noomakhia series, which is a 24-volume series setting out the ontological structures of the world's civilizations, as Dugin sees them (I have read 12).
The short version is that he sees Cosmism as a materialist framework rising out of a confluence of Russian heretical movements (like the Khlysts) and Western European-inspired modernism. He could be wrong though; I have never actually read Fedorov or anybody else in that line of history.
Thanks for this. I've only really seen one series of lectures on Paideuma in Serbia, if I'm not mistaken, so that whole 24‑volume architecture is mostly beyond my reach. The summary you've given is exactly the kind of thing that makes me think translation is urgent. And honestly, I'm more and more convinced I just have to learn Russian. There's no way around it.
I have actually thought about contacting his publisher, since I actually am a Russian-English translator. But they probably already have one.
He has written something like 80 books, and I think perhaps two have been translated into English. So there is a gigantic void.
You could always try a machine translation. I don't know how it would do.
Any idea what Dugin thinks of the Khlysty? They are fascinating, especially their role in Russian modern history. It’s funny how they existed parallel to the rise of the theosophical movement.
As a matter of fact, I do! But I don't know how much jargon to use to describe it, since I don't know how familiar you are with Dugin. This is all in works that have to my knowledge not been translated. Does the term "Logos of Cybele" mean anything to you?
Yes of course, now that you mention it, I do remember him briefly speaking of them I think tied to the cybelian principle. But my main understanding of the Apollonian and Dionysian principles come from Berdyaev. And I see the Old Believers as a manifestation of an interesting combination of these principles. The khlysty also emerged from the same schism as old believers if I’m not mistaken. Will be writing some creative pieces on Russian culture soon as well, just trying to find the time to finish it.
Dugin has a specific understanding of the Apollonian and Dionysian that he gets from kind of fusing Heidegger, Guenon, and Neo-Platonism.
To keep the jargon to a minimum, and without describing what "the logos of Cybele" actually consists of, in Dugin's interpretation of European history, in European (including Russian) cultures there is a pre-Indo-European cultural stratum (Cybele), deep down, which comes from the indigenous peoples that were conquered by the IE steppe nomads who were the bearers of the Apollonian principle. This stratum is particularly strong in Russia for reasons going back into prehistory. It is suppressed by the Apollonian elements, but is still there. Dugin sees Modernity as arising out of this repressed, ancient layer (he thinks this happened first and mainly in Britain and France because Celtic civilization, like Russian, has a very strong Cybelian element). When Modernity hits Russia in this 1700s-1800s, this Cybelian wave coming in from outside has a kind of resonance from within Russian society itself, which you see in the Khlysty and Skoptsy.
OK, I actually wilk about Cybele since it will help me fall asleep. Dugin's three Logoses, which gets by splicing together Heidegger's History of Being, Guenon's account of the Kali-Yuga, the psychologist Durand's depth psychology, and neo-Platonism, are three basic ways in which conscousness cognizes the world. Apollo is A is not B; it splits things apart into mutually exclusive As and Bs and attempts to eliminate orr ignore B, and is approximately the metaphysical thinking that Heidegger traces in his History of Being. Dionysius is A is B and not B; it recognizes the existence of both A and B and mediates them (the only purely Dionysian system, says Dugin, is Chinese). Finally, Cybele is A is B. This makes everything the same, nothing is fundamentally different from anything else, and is, says Dugin, the underlying cognitive framework of materialism, atomism, democracy and many other things that he doesn't like. The only purely Cybelian system, or one of a very small number, is American civilization (US and Canada). Most societies, philosophical systems, etc., are a blend of these Logoses.
fusing Heidegger, Guenon, and Neo-Platonism. and depth psychology. I left off maybe the most important one!
Thank you, Speculum.
Hallelujah, someone gets it. My utmost respect, sir.
When recently going through Leontiev’s work I could not help but notice a sense of verticality, though not in the Western sense. It isn’t even an Eastern spiritual verticality either, but rather, a different third thing. Russia is as Berdyaev said, the place where the East-West dialectic is resolved. But don’t you think the transhumanist vertical elements, perhaps we could even say materialist element, are as a result of Western cultural pseudo morphosis?
This is a very sharp observation, and thank you for it. Yes, I do think the transhumanist and materialist elements in Russian Cosmism are significantly the result of Western cultural pseudomorphosis. The question is one I had not integrated, and it deserves deep consideration.
I must add that my own reading of Leontiev is limited to a collection of his essays—not his full body of work—so I come to this with only partial ground. To recognize this nuanced third kind of verticality in his thought from that alone speaks to a genuinely perceptive reading. I agree that authentic Russian verticality, as Leontiev or the early Slavophiles understood it, may be something quite other than the technologically‑inflected verticality of the Cosmists. Fedorov's project carries an unmistakably active, Promethean, even Faustian tone that could be read as a Western import: a Western scientific body possessed by a Russian eschatological spirit, as you so precisely put it. My essay tried to separate the religious, Sophiological core from its materialist distortions, but you are right that the very presence of technological resurrectionism in the tradition may itself be a trace of that pseudomorphosis. I am not equipped to resolve the question fully, but I am grateful for the illumination.
Meraviglia assoluta.