Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 87, Issue 5, pp 409–415 | Cite as

The collective cognitive unconscious and its role in logic, language, and culture

  • A. V. SmirnovEmail author
On the rostrum of the RAS presidium


The notion of the collective cognitive unconscious (CCU) is introduced. The hypothesis is formulated that data from the external world are processed proceeding from intuitively adopted assumptions, which substantiate for a subject of cognition the sense and justifiability of any statement or semantic construction. These intuitions are of mass character and are transmitted within a culture. The CCU is probably supported by neuronal mechanisms. It is potentially a universal faculty of man as a generic creature, although it is always realized in one of its possible variants. CCU explications in Western and Arabic–Muslim cultures are demonstrated as spatial visualization and a metaphor of flux. Three major functions of the CCU are considered: specifying the intuitive background for the substantiation of formal logic, the logic of language, and the logic of culture. Since the CCU is potentially universal for humans but is actually always accomplished as a variant and cannot be realized as an invariant, this determines the justifiability of the strategy of panhuman and not common-to-humankind understanding of culture and civilization. The question is posed about the necessity to return the category of panhuman into the field of theoretical discourse.


collective cognitive unconscious (CCU) consciousness intuition logic language copula globalization Arab–Muslim culture common-to-humanity panhuman 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. S. Kuzichev, Venn Diagrams: History and Applications (Nauka, Moscow, 1968) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fakhr al-Din Al-Razi, Al-Tafsir al-Kabir (Bayrut, 2000), Vol. 1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Smirnov, “‘To be’ and Arabic grammar: The case of kana and wujida,” in Ishraq: Yearbook of Islamic Philosophy (Vostochnaya Literatura, Moscow, 2016), No. 7, pp. 174–201.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. V. Smirnov, “Proposition and predication,” Filos. Zh. 9 (1), 5–24 (2016).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. M. N. Al-Attas, Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam: An Exposition of the Fundamental Elements of the Worldview of Islam (International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization, Kuala Lumpur, 1995).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al-Mawardi, Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya wa-l-Wilayat al-Diniyya (Dar al-kitab al-‘arabi, Bayrut, 1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Abu Ya’la al-Farra’ (Ibn al-Farra’), Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya (Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyya, Bayrut, 1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Abdarrazik, “Islam and the foundations of political power,” Ist. Filos., No. 2, 148–165 (2015).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Djad‘an, “Nazariyyat al-dawla fi al-fikr al-’arabi alislami al-mu’asir,” in Nazariyyat al-Turath wa Abhath ‘Arabiyya wa Islamiyya ‘Ukhra (Dar al-shuruq, Amman, 1985), pp. 63–101.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Ya. Danilevskii, Russia and Europe (Kniga, Moscow, 1991) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. M. Dostoyevsky, “Pushkin speech,” in Complete Collection of Works (Nauka, Leningrad, 1984), Vol. 26, pp. 129–149 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eurasianism: Declaration, Formulation, Theses (Izd. Evraziitsev, Prague, 1932) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. V. Logovikov, “Scientific problems of Eurasianism,” in Nineteen Thirties: The Statement of Eurasians (Izd. Evraziitsev, Paris, 1931), Vol. 7, pp. 53–63 [in Russian].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations