摘要：“Blindness” to the problem of the symbol necessarily follows from the main positions of the research strategy of Husserl phenomenology. However, both noema and noesis, as well as the flow of cogitations in our minds are initially infected with symbolism, and therefore the project of phenomenological description needs a “symbolic correction.” The supposed and experienced object is supposed as a symbolically filled object, and the position of the ego describing, constituting, experiencing its object is not only initially infected with cultural symbolism, but also represents the “assemblage point” of any phenomenon as a “constellation” formation. Symbolism is initially “embedded” in any phenomenon and in any scheme of “pure” consciousness. Correspondingly, the flow of phenomena that can be subjected to both noematic and noetic description proceeds according to various “scenarios,” “schemes,” which are nationally and culturally based, and do not follow the single universal route (Past, Present, Future), which is peculiar only to the new European model of time. This drawback of Husserl’s project was overcome in varying degrees by some phenomenologically oriented philosophers. The author of the article analyzes one of such “symbolic adjustments” by reference to the poetic topology (microphenomenology) of poetic image of the Home in the text of French philosopher G. Bachelard.
其他摘要：«Слепота» по отношению к проблеме символа с необходимостью вытекает из основных по- зиций исследовательской стратегии гуссерлевской феноменологии. Однако и ноэма, и ноэзис, а также поток cogitations в нашем сознании изначально и сразу инфицированы символи
