Канарец, или Книга о завоевании Канарских островов и обращении их жителей в христианскую веру Жаном де Бетанкуром, дворянином из Ко, составленная монахом Пьером Бонтье и священником Жаном Ле Веррье
The book of philosopher and psychoanalyst Alexander Smulyansky explores the connection between the paternal metaphor and the instance of “the analyst’s desire”. Jacques Lacan, who was conducting such a study in the mid-20th century, was not able to present its results due to his expulsion from the International Psychoanalytical Association and deprivation of the right to train analysts in 1963. The fact that the connection between the paternal metaphor and the instance of “the analyst’s desire” was not fully delineated, soon after Lacan’s death led to the analytical discourse getting interfused with that of the university, where this desire took a secondary position as one of the regulators of the analyst’s behavior during sessions, and the question of its untamed and underexplored sources brought up by Lacan was removed from the agenda. The book aims to get back to this question, trace the origins of the analyst’s desire to the desire of Freud, and explore on this basis the origins of psychoanalytical practice, at the same time arguing the unavoidable character of its unrelenting intradepartmental conflicts.
This book is designed for psychologists, psychoanalysts, philosophers, and culturologists.
The article considers four approaches to the interpretation of images and mythologems from the sphere of Western esotericism in mass culture. The first approach is based on the depth psychology of C. G. Jung and aims to identify archetypes common to the whole culture. The second is based on the reductionist theories of Marx and Freud, its main task is to reduce religious imagery to social and psychological realities. The third approach is represented by C. Partridge theory of occulture, in which the emphasis is made on tracing the historical genesis of esoteric imagery in modern culture. The fourth approach is expressed in the writings of J. Kripal, it synthesizes the historicism of the theory of occulture with the understanding of mass culture as a way of self-knowledge, revealing the deep spiritual essence of man
In the book, the bilingual community of Mariupol (coastal Azov) Russian G reeks serves as an example on the role of the language in the process of ethnic identity. Urums, one part of the community, speak Urum language (one of the Turkic languages), whereas the native language of another part of the community is Rumei language (the G reek group of the Indo-European Family). The monograph for the first time undertakes the analysis of the identity of this group according to the constructivist approach to ethnicity, and language preservation is considered in the context of language-loyalty of this group. The analysis of the self-identity of Turkic-speaking G reeks helps better understand ethnic processes, including those in stable communities which have consistent characteristics. The study is based on the author’s field research as well as archive sources and presents a considerable amount of new data for the scientific review.
This book is intended for ethnologists, linguists, sociologists, and anyone interested in ethnic processes in the post-Soviet territories and preservation of endangered languages.
The book by art historian Sergey Kavtaradze aims at explaining to the reader as simply as possible what architecture is as an art. The author reveals how the mechanisms of perception of an architectural structure work and why one enjoys it aesthetically. By popularizing the history of European styles and the logic of their development the book teaches how to see and analyze on your own the plastic qualities of architectural form and countless layers of meanings the architect intended to convey.
The book addresses a wide audience interested in architecture and the history of art.
This article examines the role of archivists in shaping the capacity and the structure of a university’s memory. Drawing on sources such as laws and ministerial instructions, the authors analyze the government’s archive policy with regard to universities and how professors and archivists were taking part in its implementation. Their participation included sorting documents and attributing them to individual ‘cases’, destroying some of the ‘unnecessary’ documents and preserving others that were designated for destruction. Based on information from service records and university reports, the article tracks changes in the corporate status of university archivists in nineteenth-century Russia.