regarding the accessibility of art (we don’t buy a
ticket to Paris to get to the Louvre, but join some
online excursions), on the other hand, art is
desacralized, a person falls out of the bosom of
sacred cosmology, and often there is no need for
a serious cultural-philosophical analysis of the
existence of art in the virtual space. However,
along with digitalization, there is also a reverse
process - apophaticization. A person is becoming
more and more metaphysically detached, more
and more moving away from the Absolutes of
culture, the apophatic horizon of which is
becoming ever higher. We cease to understand
much in art, which for us today performs an
entertaining function. But through myth and
folklore, entelechial principles in culture, we can
again approach the incomprehensible in the
verbal space of Russian culture. Let us turn to
the problem of the entelechy of culture and the
work of the contemporary Russian poet
Andrei Shatskov in this aspect.
Talking about the entelechy of culture still
requires an appeal to the very concept of
"entelechy", which back in the 1990s. caused
controversy in the scientific community (more on
this in the article by the philosopher V.P. Vizgin
(Vizgin, 2017). Of course, it is worth returning to
the origins, to the works of Aristotle, in which
entelechy is perceived as the essence (soul) of the
body (Aristotle, 1976). However, modern
researchers from various fields of humanitarian
knowledge continue to rethink this concept after
the publication of a well-known article by the
historian G.S. Knabe "Entelechy of Culture"
(Knabe, 1994). In this work, the concept of
interest to us was associated with the problem of
the dialogue of cultures, continuity between
cultures, the mechanism of their change. But
first of all, attention is drawn to the fact that the
scientist does not seek to give a specific
definition of entelechy, pointing to its inner
content, which we are able to experience
intuitively (Danilova, 1994, p. 202). But this
“elusiveness”, or apophaticism (we will
designate it this way), the antinomies and
paradoxes inherent in the concept itself, should
not confuse a researcher following the paths of
ontological thought (Vizgin, 2017, p. 8).
The entelechy of culture is the driving force of
culture, or the impulse that manifests itself
rhizome in its sacrum. One of the definitions of
G.S. Knabe formulated it as follows: “... the
absorption by a certain time of the content,
character, spirit and style of a past cultural era on
the grounds that they turned out to be consonant
with another later era and were able to satisfy its
internal needs and demands” (Knabe, 2000,
p. 19). The entelechial beginning of Russian
culture can be understood through logos, since
Russia has always been a logocentric country.
Literature, according to the ideas of the leading
philologists and culturologists of our time, both
domestic (I.V. Kondakov, A. Ya. Flier (Saint
Petersburg University, 1997, p. 251), and foreign
(Kosovska, 2020, p. 100), is one from the first it
transmits cultural meanings, being a part of the
cultural text, which lends itself to hermeneutic
reconstruction. Modern philosopher V.P. Vizgin
also tries to comprehend the problem of the
entelechy of culture through Russian poetry and
quotes A. Akhmatova’s words about I.
Annensky’s poem “The Bells”: “a grain was
thrown into them, from which then sonorous
Khlebnikov poetry grew” (Vizgin, 2017, p. 15).
But entelechy is both a “seed”, a “source”, and an
imagining, that is, a “high” manifestation of the
Absolute in the Other, that is, an entelechy
process in a culture of bidirectional action: into
the future and into the past. In the article we
mentioned, V.P. Vizgin, let us single out one
more conceptually important observation: “To be
the “source”, “beginning” of the germination of
the future and to maintain integrity with all the
multipath versatility - in this we intuitively see
the “work” of a genius” (Vizgin, 2017, p. 15).
However, the “work” of a genius, who, by the
way, is always apophatic, incomprehensible, is
not only prophetic in nature, he must not only
anticipate the future of culture, but also
understand the lessons of the past, fully perceive
and assimilate the intonations of the past in his
soul. In this context, the observation of the
symbolist poet A. Bely from the 1909 article
“The Emblematics of Meaning” is indicative:
“What is really new that captivates us in
symbolism is an attempt to illuminate the deepest
contradictions of modern culture with colored
rays of diverse cultures; we are now, as it were,
living through the whole past: India, Persia,
Egypt, like Greece, like the Middle Ages, come
to life, rush past us, as epochs that are closer to
us rush past us” (Bely, 2010, p. 57–58).
Materials and methods
Let us turn to the work of the contemporary
Russian poet A. Shatskov, the author of the
famous Lament for Russian Poets. The poet is on
soil positions and believes that literary centrism
will remain in Russia, as he says in his interview
to Literaturnaya Gazeta: “I sincerely hope that
the collapse of the “connection of times” can
occur in any country, but not in Russia”
(Shatskov, 2020). This article provides a holistic
ontohermeneutic analysis of the new book of
poems by the modern Russian poet A. Shatskov