Iranian civilization: ways of research
Iran is not just a country, and Iranians are not just people. This is the greatest civilization of antiquity and modernity, playing a huge, sometimes leading role in the multidimensional dialogue of cultures, which is the essence of the history of the world. Iran is an Asian country, and its people, its history is part of the culture of Asia. This means that here we are dealing with something completely independent of Europe and its ways, its identity and the struggle of its Logos. To understand Iran, or at least specifically to reconstruct its identity, it is necessary to move away from the European space, from the eurocentric view, whose roots go to the Hellenic civilization, which was the traditional rival and regional, and sometimes ideological, antagonist of Iran. In relations with Iran, in contrast to itself, Hellenic identity was formed, fully manifested itself in the era of Greco-Persian wars, and predetermined the subsequent construction of the Empire of Alexander the Great – as the transfer of the imperial mission of Persia. And this attitude to Iran as to the “other”, as to the typically Asian culture – extravagant, exotic and essentially “barbaric” (in the Greek sense) – could not but affect the general attitude of the European civilization built on the Hellenic foundation. Iranian history and culture are traditionally read by European eyes, continuing the basic attitudes of the Greeks – creators of European identity.
Any even the most sincere and careful application of such a Eurocentric approach will certainly make for us Iranian culture completely closed. This applies in part to any culture, the comprehension of which requires empathy, full inclusion, and, in advance, the rejection of any kind of Eurocentric dogma. This was substantiated in detail by the cultural anthropologists of the school of F. Boas, and the sociological tradition and the structural anthropology of France (from E. Durkheim himself and M. Moss to K. Levi-Strauss) were built into an indisputable law. But still, Iran is an exception in this case too: this culture is so introverted and closed that it eschews any outside view, hides from it, hides behind a wall of impenetrable cold politeness and calm self-sufficient indifference. The Iranians have enough historical grounds for such an attitude, but many people, who had as many of them, did not become so convinced and radical introverts as the Iranians. So, it’s something else, in the Iranian identity itself , which is closed and not prone to dialogue in its core. Therefore, when studying the Iranian Logos, only the rejection of Eurocentrism and the view of the Hellenic tradition on Iran is not enough . This is a necessary condition, but its observance does not guarantee us success. Going in search of Iranian identity, it is not enough to give up European attitudes and prepare for a meeting with exoticism. At the first touch to Iran, on the contrary, we notice in it something so familiar, familiar and almost self-evident – in language, culture, religion, etc. – that we are in another danger: to see intimacy where it is only Seemingly, carried away by formal similarity, without noticing deep semantic shifts.
And yet this quickly identifiable kinship has good reasons: the Iranian civilization belongs to the type of exemplary Indo-European cultures and not only represents one of the branches of the Indo-European society, along with the European branch, but retains many symbols, figures, plots in the unchanged – almost primordial state And features that other Indo-European peoples have lost. Therefore, the clash with Iran is in many ways a meeting with our own Indo-European past, with our common roots , with our archaic. In a sense, for a Europeans aware of their Indo-European nature, meeting with Iran is a meeting with oneself , with its foundation. Given these difficulties and with the intention to do everything we can to cope with them, we can begin to get acquainted with Iran. We are ready to admit that the view of Iran on the part of the Greeks and the view built on it in subsequent epochs is unacceptable for us; We are warned about the introversion, the closure of Iranian culture and are ready to diligently and delicately penetrate it again and again; We intend to follow the thread of the Indo-European community, which connects us, in the hope of gaining an experience of ascent to the roots and not being frightened by a clash with the archaic core of our own identity.
In studying Iranian identity, we need the basic methodologies for studying cultures, which we are talking about in the volume devoted to the “Morphology of Civilizations”  , but especially the ideas of J. Dumezil as the largest specialist in Indo-European society  , and the genius philosopher and historian of the Iranian (Broader, Islamic) tradition of A. Korben  . Taking into account the peculiarity of Noomachia, we will also pay special attention to the nongovernmental structures of Iran: figuring out the proportions, balance and dynamics of the ratio of the three Logos  , if, of course, we can identify them reliably and describe them in the Iranian context. All this should lead us – let to the approximate one – to understand the Logos of Iran, from its existential base, the Iranian Dasein, to sublime metaphysical, philosophical and theological generalizations and their expression in the Iranian historian.
Light War: Borders and Tactics
We gave this “Noomachy” the subtitle “Light War and Expectation Culture” deliberately and deliberately. From our point of view, it is precisely the formula “light war” that is more accurate and best suited to the very essence of Iranian identity . Both terms here are key, and both carry something in-depth and initially Iranian. Iranians see being as a war , but the forces between which this war is fought, like Light and Darkness. They identify themselves as the army of Light , and on this basis everything else is built – religion, politics, history, culture, society, psychology, etc. Iran is the space of Light, that is , the Light itself . And this Light leads a deadly war with its radical opposite – with the Darkness. All the semantics of Iranian culture is built on the fabric of this war. Everything in it is episodes, intertwining, moments, notches of its continuous tense chronicle.
In this Iranian culture is no exception: most Indo-European societies, as well as many non-European societies are organized in a military manner and throughout the course of their history they are continuously fighting. There are also those where the military component is the second function, according to J. Dumezil  – prevails over the other two. But Iran’s difference is that the war, which is the fate of the Persians, is conceived as ” light “, as the “war of Light”, and this makes it unique. “Light War”, unlike all other types of wars, is not conducted in the name of victory . This is not competition and competition in force in the struggle for some concrete palpable fruits – lands, territories, cities, strategic positions, the ability to rule peoples or have values. In this war, quite different forces participate, which build a fundamentally different symmetry, a different structure of the cosmos and value systems. Light Iranians understand in a very special way – in Iranian . Light – the old-raion * rauxana, the Avestan raoxna, the Parthian rosn (from the Indo-European * louksno, * leuks) – for the Iranian there is the subtle power of truth , a kind of visible and tangible Good. Light has no functionality, precedes any value. On the contrary, this or that thing acquires value insofar as it is involved in the elements of Light. We can say that the Iranians are the people of the worshipers , and that determines everything in their culture and their identity.
Light is a creative power . It is primary and absolute. The Iranian of different historical eras and even professing different religions always and invariably agree with the formula: “In the beginning there was Light”. This is not just a statement, it is a confession, an oath of allegiance and even a transforming rite. Everything is created by Light, from Light and Light. Therefore, the Light is in the center of attention of the Iranian , in his soul, in his thinking, in his deeds and his actions.
But being a primary power, Light has a fundamental ontological antagonist . Since the absolute beginning is the presence of Light, its absence represents a fundamental challenge – a catastrophe and as sacred a shock as its presence. Since Light is experienced as everything, its absence or its depreciation is realized as an existential, moreover, metaphysical blow . Thus, the Light becomes problematic. It must be protected, preserved, and it must be fought for. This is not a tautology: if there is Light, that is, Darkness, and the fundamental nature of Light in many ways determines the fundamental nature of Darkness . And this already has a deep foundation for the ontology of war , the “light war”. Light itself is only in war, since it may not be. And the horizon of the absence of Light is constituted by its very existence. The extreme intensity of living Light makes the war with the Darkness no less intense – but at the same time dramatic, sharp, painful and exacerbated.
The structure of the “light war” is determined by the Iranian understanding of the creation. Like the Platonists, the Iranians believe the beginning of the eternal world of light ideas, intelligent lights , which are formed by thicker bodies with their power. But if the eternal world of pure Light is not subject to Darkness, then the inferior world of bodies (life, movement) is partly subordinate. This determines the space of war: it is all life , all existence, all existence of the surrounding world. The world itself is the creation of the Light, upon which the Darkness encroaches . Light is waging war with the Darkness in the world and through the world. This determines the semantics of existence: the question – what is? First of all, the Iranian will answer: war . What is, this is war, and the meaning of existence is revealed only when it is placed in the context of this great war.
Forces in this war are fundamentally unequal, but this is a very difficult inequality. The fact is that between Light and Darkness in Iranian thought there is a very thin and not direct symmetry. Light and Darkness and are not in equilibrium (as in pure dualism), but about Darkness it can not be said that this is just a diminishing of Light (as the Neo-Platonists would solve, including Christian ones). Light is primary, and it is able to create. Therefore, all in general is created from the Light and there is in its essence Light. Darkness can not create anything. But … Darkness can spoil a lot , almost everything. This applies only to the world of the corporeal, the vital, to the realm of pure Light. Darkness does not suffice, but in the intermediate world the confrontation unfolds dramatically and absolutely serious. The fact is that in the world of bodies Darkness can prevail in certain periods. In a sense, Darkness is even stronger than Light. Its forces are completely focused on the battle in the body world, whereas the forces of Light participate in this intermediate world in a tangent – their homeland is not here, but in the pure world of spirit, eternity. Therefore, the forces of Light are not so engaged in the battle, and, moreover, are limited in the tactics of military operations: never and under no circumstances can the forces of Light retreat from the laws of truth, purity, gift and justice-even when victory considerations require it. If the army of the Light will make at least one gesture similar to the low-lying strategies of the armies of Darkness – let it be from the highest motives – it will cease to be an army of Light and turn into its opposite. Therefore, the forces of Light are bound hands : for each trick of Darkness they are obliged to answer only honestly and in the spirit of truth . The possibilities for the use of military cunning, which is simply necessary in the war, are absent. This leads to the fact that the forces of Light often lose. Malice, deceit, lies and meanness in the struggle for bodily things often win. The armies of the Light have to retreat, and also fall into captivity and even perish.
This is the essence of the “light war”: victory in it can not be achieved at any cost. The Army of Light must always be an army of pure spirit, pure thought, the army of Idea . Therefore, a paradoxical situation develops: the light power capable of creating the world is not capable of protecting it before the forces of Darkness, who are eager to spoil it. Rather able, but until some time. When the armies of Darkness use all the tricks of low strategies, lies and deceit, the armies of Light are sometimes powerless – they can not and do not want to back away from the purity of their own nature. So the ethics of war and victory gradually develop into the metaphysics of martyrdom and witnessing . It is better to lose with the Light than to win with the Darkness: this is the main rule of the “light war”; The most important is not the result, but the steadfastness in affirming the truth and the firm adherence to its laws.
In Iranian culture, the “light war” can not but end in the victory of the forces of Light, but this victory will be achieved only after the test is fulfilled. Warriors of Light – the souls of people, more precisely, the souls of the Iranians – descend from the heavenly country and fight against the warriors of Darkness: not for victory, but for justice, simply because they do not want and can not otherwise. Victory is a seal set under the fullness of the deeds of those who think and act on the side of the Light. The Iranians expect it, they want to bring it closer, they believe in it, but I know that it is impossible to hurry its approach. The cup of “light war” must be drunk to the end. Otherwise, the victory will be postponed again and again.
This is the basic structure of the Iranian historian. We will try to describe it in this paper.
Light and Iran
The idea of a light war is purely Iranian, and in our review of the main aspects of the Iranian Logos, we will see this. Just as the idea of war is inextricably linked with the very basis of Iranian culture. But between these two members of the expression “light war” in their relationship to the essential identity of Iran, there is, nevertheless, a certain qualitative difference. The combination of “light war” is Iranian only, and where we meet with such an expression or its analogs, we can safely talk about direct or indirect Iranian influence . This concerns the influence of Iranian culture on certain areas of Hellenic philosophy and religion (Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Plato, etc.), on Judaism, later (after the campaigns of Alexander the Great), on Hellenism, and finally on Christianity, Judeo-Christianity, including Countless Mediterranean heresies and syncretic systems (Gnosticism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, etc.), where there is a thematization of the battle of the “sons of Light” with “the sons of Darkness”, and finally, Islam. If we apply here the theory of “cultural circles” that “light war” should be considered the main characteristic of the Iranian cultural circle.
However, if the “light war” as a whole is an exclusive feature of this circle, and the themes of Light and war are collectively deeply rooted in Iranian identity, one should ask the question: individually, these two concepts – Light and War – can be considered uniquely Iranian or only Their combination in an indivisible concept? It is quite clear that war can not be taken as an exclusive asset of the Iranian cultural circle, since this tradition is common to all Indo-European peoples, some more than the Iranians (for example, the Indo-European peoples of Turan, Eurasia), and, in addition Indo-European context, the most diverse ethnic groups and cultures are distinguished by the interpretation of war as a fundamental concept for society. Ethnosociology and anthropology consider the domination of military values, that is, the culture of war, a distinctive feature of all nomadic peoples  . The indigenous Indo-Europeans regarded this nomadic type, but this never constituted their exclusive feature, since many other ethnic groups and entire civilizations, from Eastern Eurasia to Central Africa, also belonged to this type. Therefore, war can not be considered as an exclusively Iranian concept.
It remains to find out the same about the concept of Light, at least in the sense in which it is taken in the Iranian religion and philosophy, more broadly, in culture. And here we are faced with a surprise. Despite the fact that at first glance, the mysticism of Light and the veneration of the Light as a divine manifestation must be something universal and widespread, no less than militant values, everything turns out to be more complicated. Of course, the veneration of the Light and the heavenly bodies, in particular the sun, solar cults, are common among a wide variety of peoples and cultures, but after carrying out extensive comparative analysis in the history of religions, we come to the conclusion that nowhere the mystic of Light plays the same fundamental, And a fundamental role, as in the Iranian tradition. Light as a metaphysical principle , standing in the very center of theology, and therefore of ritual practice (that is coarsely and not exactly called “fire worship”), is a purely Iranian idea , and all Mediterranean cultures, religions, philosophical and mystical teachings, where it comes to The first plan, have a direct or indirect Iranian origin , that is, belong to the Iranian cultural circle.
However, here we need to clarify. Light is an Iranian idea in the sense that it is directly related to the concept of “light war”. This concept does not consist of two independent moments – war (universal – at least for nomadic cultures) and Light (purely Iranian), but primary in relation (at least) to the Light. The Iranian Light is a belligerent Light, this is the Light of War . Iranian Light is war, its root. Therefore, the Iranians understand war not as a material or psychological battle, not as a heroic competition in valor, and not as a way to seize resources, but as a consequence of Light , as a form of its existance. And consequently, the war here is becoming something special, and this time purely and exclusively Iranian, because it is not neutral (like a war in the universal sociological dimension), but is certainly polar – in Iran, every war is a war of Light, for or against the Light .
Moreover, the Light itself – like the Iranian concept – is the moment of attack, strike, rupture, revelation and transformation. Light is the Invasion of the Other into this . Light is not a dimension of this, it is something that emanates from the Other. This is what makes it possible to base metaphysics, religion and cult on it, since the understanding of the Light as an invasion (and this is light warfare) presupposes the introduction of a dual paradigm topic, that is, transcendence. Thus, Light is taken as a religious phenomenon only when we are dealing with a basic primordial couple – this is the Immanent and the Transcendent. And dualism, as is well known, is the distinguishing feature of all Iranian.
So, the Light, derived from the light war in the context of metaphysical dualism or a kind of “dualistic monotheism”, is a purely Iranian phenomenon.
Waiting: the structure of the Iranian time
The second subtitle of this volume, “Culture of Expectation,” is also a fundamental feature of Iranian identity. For the first time, the author heard this phrase “culture of expectation” (farhangī intizōr) from the modern great Ayatollah Khusen Nuri Hamadani during a conversation in the holy city of Qom for the Shiites. With his help, the ayatollah explained the deep essence of what he thinks modern Shiite Iran is. But, in our opinion, this concept is broader and more extensive, defining Iranian culture from ancient times and at all stages of its history.
Waiting is the basis of the Iranian understanding of time . Waiting is not one of the modes of time, it is its essence . Time is waiting, it has meaning and existence as expectation. This idea is fundamentally Iranian. It is in the Iranian tradition that fundamental importance is attached to the expectation. In Zoroastrianism, expectation has the most developed and detailed justification. This is the expectation of the Savior , who comes at the end of time. But the figure of the Savior (Saoshyant) and his expectation become clear only in the context of a light war. The Iranian Savior is the leader of the army of Light in the final battle of the light war and the final Winner of the Army of Darkness. Therefore, expectation has a very specific content: this is the expectation of the winner, but interpreted in the optics of Light. The Savior is a light entity , a light-colored Savior.
The culture of expectation, therefore, predetermines the vector of existence, oriented as participation in the light war, aimed at the final victory of the Light. This is what gives time and meaning.
If we compare this idea of the meaning of time in the paradigm of the light war with the religious cultures of the surrounding societies of Iran, we (with some surprise) will find that nowhere is the time, the history is of such metaphysical significance as in Iran, and where they have (as in the case Judaism and Christianity), this is the result of Iran’s direct influence . Expectation is as much an Iranian phenomenon as the Light, just like a light war. Cultures of cyclic time or society, based on the ontology of eternity, do not have deep ontological grounds for constructing fundamental eschatologies. Waiting is always waiting for the end. Therefore, eschatology, the end-time doctrine is not just one of the versions of linear time, but the very essence of such a time, its source. Time becomes linear when it comes to an end , and when this end society begins to wait. The end of time is more primary than time itself, because the end is an object of expectation, and it is the expectation that constitutes time as an ontology and, accordingly, as something important and meaningful. While the story has unfolded eschatology and history in its origins is the expectation .
Therefore, purely and solely an Iranian doctrine of the end of the world, the final battle, the final Savior (Saoshyant) and restoration of the world (the general resurrection, Frashokard) is a prerequisite for the emergence of linear time and history. Thus, the story – it is a product not of the Jewish and Hellenic (and not the Babylonian and Egyptian), but the Iranian civilization, as the metaphysical eschatology before other, more fully and thoroughly worked out just exactly in Zoroastrianism. And in the Iranian tradition eschatology grounded the entire metaphysics of light, the light concept of the war, the principal dramatic dualism between two principles, developable along the clearly highlighted semantic axis . This axis is the time, and so the time – derivative of the light of the war. It is created by the elements of the war and the practice of active standby . Culture creates expectations while the phenomenon. And the source of this phenomenon – the Iranian Logos.
 Dugin AG Noomahiya. The morphology of culture. M .: Academic Project, 2017.
 Dumézil G. L’Idéologie des fonctions dans les trois épopées des peuples indo-européens. P: Gallimard, 1968 .; Idem. Le Livre des héros, légendes ossètes sur les Nartes. P .: Gallimard, 1965; Idem. Apollon sonore et autres essais. P .: Gallimard, 1982; ; Idem. Mythe et Épopée. 3 v. P.:Gallimard, 1968 – 1973.
 Corbin H. En islam iranien. 4 v. P .: Gallimard, 1971 – 1972.
 Dugin AG Noomahiya. Three Logos. M .: Academic Project, 2014.
 Dumézil G. Aspects de la fonction guerrière chez les Indo-Européens. P .: Presses Universitaires de France, 1956.
 Dugin AG Ethnosociology. M .: Academic Project, 1014.