ФІЛОСОФСЬКЕ ОСМИСЛЕННЯ АРХЕТИПОЛОГІЧНОГО БЛОКУ ПАМ’ЯТІ В ПОРІВНЯЛЬНОМУ АНАЛІЗІ ПІДХОДІВ К. Г. ЮНГА І Г. С. ПОПОВА

Urgency of the research. The relevance of our research is determined by the necessity for theoretical and practical understanding of modern memorial wars (rewriting of history, “juggling with historical facts”, etc.) in the sense of the struggle for memory. The philosophical understanding of the essence represented in the concept of “memory”, in the structure of this phenomenon, overall determines the theoretical significance of our article. In practical terms the relevance of our article is related to the needs of effective activity, which requires tools and external measuring systems, technologies and general systematized knowledge about the unconscious (reflexes, instincts, motivations), as well as about the archetypology, in context of acquiring motor skills allowing one to realize his individual goals in environmental circumstances, which are constantly changing. Target setting. In the problem field we consider it necessary to review mechanisms of the archetypological memory block in human activity, in the comparative analysis of approaches of K. G. Jung, G. S. Popov, as well as recent humanitarian researches based on the philosophical principle of objectivity. Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. The postnonclassical rationality is restored to the philosophical judgment of future person problems, dialectic unities of memory, and consciousnesses in practical, informative, and communicative activity of human, group, society, humanity. Therefore, the significant place in the solving of problem of structure and mechanisms of the archetypological memory block possesses the “philosophy of past” researches of F. Lang, S. Hank, G. Kranz, etc. specifying since birth the human destiny is already determined, his future is prescribed and indestructible; fate-analytical approach of L. Szondi, M. Achtnich, etc.; analytical researches of the archetypology theory claimed as “archeology of culture of mankind” of G. Zilberer, K.G. Jung, G. Popov and other philosophers and researchers of a future of the person. The research objective. The need for judgment of mechanisms of archetypological memory block in the course of activity enhances both theoretical and practical relevance. In the 21st century the dynamic growth of interest to the researches directed to the identification of individual and group, situational and psychological, biological and social, personal and public factors of cognitive activity is observed. Nevertheless, some questions concerning principles of functioning of mechanisms archetypological memory block remain unsolved and, respectively, how to be guided by such principles in the process of skills acquisition, self-training, professional development solving problems, etc., specifically in modern situations of dynamics increase, some transient changes of the environment. The mentioned aspects demonstrate the relevance of researches on the mechanisms of archetypological memory block in the context of practical activities of the person. In our scientific investigation we were focused on a perspective of archetypological memory block, its’ mechanisms as well as the logic of its functioning within the central processes of activity: in goal-setting and futureprognostics field. The statement of basic materials. The current situation related to the necessity of elimination of the consequences of world pandemic and reorganization of the system of professional activity, as one leaves behind the “physical life” preferring it to the world of social networks, Internet platforms, gadgets and electronic artificial limbs, i.e. to the world of hyperreality and virtuality extending, updates and sharply raises questions about the future (what it will be like, how to prepare for it and what skills will be needed). The philosophical understanding of the structure of the archetypological memory block in a comparative analysis of general and diverse approaches of K. G. Jung and G. Popov was carried out. Their theories describe the concept "archetype" and its heuristics in the context of the future of human and reflects mental regularities in one's formation and self-realization in society. G. Popov’s theory about archetypes represents a construct formation of the human future activity line was researched. Conclusions. The aforesaid key positions, firstly, represent the analysis of K. G. Jung reference frames regarding archetypes as the heritage of world culture and history “archaeology” whose inheritance one can use for self-realization in society; G. Popov's theory about archetypes introduces a construct formation of the future line in human activity measurement. The reference frame of Jung does not contradict common provisions of Popov's theory. Both scholars point to the principle of the determined objectivity on purpose to resolve the contradiction-conflict duality (that is a basis of the archetype essence). Secondly, unlike K. G. Jung, the philosophical analysis of an archetype nature, its structure was succeeded by G. Popov, who managed to provide logical model and criteria of an archetype as a human memory mechanism (i.e.: figure; symbolic component; methodological component; geographical component; strategy-tactical component; hierarchical component). Thirdly, G.S. Popov, studying the logic of realization of human’s future during his transformation to a “hero”, empirically described the theoretical model of “archetypological row” which acts as a logical guide to aspirations of person at the creation of desired future (the content of “an archetypological row” is: 1) status figure; 2) script figure; 3) figure of condition; 4) governor; 5) authority; 6) hero). Accordingly, fourthly, a theoretical model of G. Popov agrees on the fact that management of the future depends on a basic category of “skill” as each archetype in the hierarchy possesses key skills which one requires to maintain to move to the following level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]