The article proposes the concept of myth as a primary (basic) way of thinking that is defined as “holotropic”. The author starts from the theories of myth, for which it is merely an illusion, showing their inadequacy. In particular, I. M. Dyakonov's cognitive theory of myth is examined. It is shown that the "scientific" (naturalistic) explanation of myth does not actually explain anything, i.e. it does not understand the very essence of myth – it remains a blind spot for it. Only the external, purely "technical" mechanisms of myth as a form of utterance are explained here. But these naturalistic (materialistic) pseudo-explanations of myth's essence have a kind of negative value. It consists in the fact that, while touching only the external verbal shell of myth, they also apophatically point to its inner essence.
The article proposes the concept of myth as a primary (basic) way of thinking that is defined as “holotropic”. The author starts from the theories of myth, for which it is merely an illusion, showing their inadequacy. In particular, I. M. Dyakonov's cognitive theory of myth is examined. It is shown that the "scientific" (naturalistic) explanation of myth does not actually explain anything, i.e. it does not understand the very essence of myth – it remains a blind spot for it. Only the external, purely "technical" mechanisms of myth as a form of utterance are explained here. But these naturalistic (materialistic) pseudo-explanations of myth's essence have a kind of negative value. It consists in the fact that, while touching only the external verbal shell of myth, they also apophatically point to its inner essence.