Background. The paper is associated with the 120th anniversary of the birt of Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev, acknowledged classic of the world psychology. This anniversary of the founder of a scientific school in psychology and of the department of psychology at Moscow State University has given rise to reflections on the “task for meaning” of Leontiev’s personality, his theory and its modern implementations. Objective. The study is a professional reflection on the importance of A.N. Leontiev’s personality and his activity theory approach for the psychological science of these days as well as the explication of meanings implied in the special thematic issue of this journal. Results. “The field of meanings” associated with A.N. Leontiev is being revealed through the analysis of cultural-historical, life and scientific contexts. The intertwined lines of A.N. Leontiev’s life activity are singled out: the scientific one (a fundamental theory, suggesting a holistic concept of human being), the social one (restoring intellectual environment), and the closely connected to the latter, emotional one (creating a specific “field of tension” which attracted colleagues toward this intellectual environment and generated a specific university atmosphere of freedom and diverse new ideas at the department of psychology at MSU. Dialogues and interactions of the activity theory approach with some theoretical approaches of our days are explicated. Conclusion. Having much in common with more recent approaches, A.N. Leontiev’s approach is a polisemantic one. This fact may serve as an explanation to the plurality of its interpretations in the present-day contexts within psychological science. The approach remains a significant resource of answers to the questions posed in psychology today, many decades after its creator passed.

This article is devoted to the search for an answer to the question: what is the necessary condition for the continuous creation of the new, or what Henri Bergson called the elan vital (vital impulse). A hypothesis is proposed that the differences themselves, whatever form they exist in, create the potential of activity of any systems. The necessity of distinguishing the special ontology, or the ontology of differences, is discussed. The creative power of difference as such is analyzed from the perspective of the historical and evolutionary approach. The article emphasizes that energy belongs to the range of universal physical realities that penetrate all forms of existence of matter. The existence of a connection between the ontology of differences and the energy potential of systems at the physical, biological and mental levels is proved. The article discusses the following oppositions: physical. biological, I. Others and familiarity. novelty. Even at the level of physical matter, the role of differences is fundamental: an indispensable prerequisite of its energy potential and efficiency is the numerical inequality of any parameters of a physical system. A specific feature of combinations of heterogeneous physical elements is that they are deprived of a redundant energy resource and strive for static constancy. Living systems, on the contrary, accumulate the difference from it, interacting actively with the environment and generating new forms of differentiation. The distinction physical environment. organism is complemented by the distinction organism. other organisms. The redundancy of the energy supply of complex living systems allows them to direct their efforts to solving long-term tasks that go beyond the limits of vital existence. The cognitive function of any living being, regardless of the nature of information, is characterized by the opposition of familiarity and novelty. The ratio of the familiar and new is individual. However, as the complexity of living systems increases, the selection based on novelty becomes increasingly important: along with constant structures, there are systems with the advantage of sensitivity to the unpredictability of future challenges. The overall result of the interdisciplinary analysis was the foundation that differences as such, whatever form they exist in, are creative, but under the condition of interactions between opposing matters only. On the contrary, unification and closed borders inevitably lead to the risk of degradation and disintegration of any system.

In this paper, we discuss the past, present, and future of the cultural activity approach as a methodology that aims to integrate the humanities and the natural sciences, psychotechnical and theoretical knowledge. An attempt has been made to conceptualize another crisis in cultural activity psychology. The meaning of the historical crisis of cultural activity psychology is reflected in the future prospects of its development, bridging the gap between classical and contemporary approaches. Reflection on the crisis of cultural activity psychology allows us to underline the following axioms: the need for dialogue with different variants of the cultural activity movement in modern psychology; the need for reflection on the myths and dangers of canonizing certain thinkers; the presumption of decency among professionals who are attracted to the school of Leo Vygotsky, and understanding of their motivation in developing his ideas. In addition to the axioms required for an appropriate dialogue with researchers who are interested in L.S. Vygotsky, there are risks that restrict the understanding and development of his legacy: the risk of science-policy isolationism, the risk of sectarianism, the risk of “jubilee” historicism, the risk of reducing monism to monotheism. These axioms and risks are aspects of the cognitive situation that are important for further development of the research program of cultural activity psychology. Discussing cultural activity psychology as a methodology and a special intellectual movement allows us to emphasize a number of meta-features of cultural activity psychology as a world-view. On the level of specific scientific methodology, we can consider the relationship of cultural activity psychology to other sciences in which the category of “activity” is the key one. Summing up, we refer to the cultural activity approach to social and cultural practices, which expresses the methodological approach of social constructivism.

The paper presents the field of neuroarchaeology as a promising trend in the interaction between cognitive science and cultural-historical psychology. Theories and approaches of fundamental theoretical and empirical significance for neuroarchaeology are discussed: J. von Uexki.ill's biosemiotics. J.J. Gibson's ecological psychology and enactivism. The key statements of the "Material Engagement Theory" proposed by Lambros Malafouris are summarized as a new paradigm of the culture, mind, and brain coevolution studies, which polemicizes with and enriches L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical approach. By introducing the principle of "enactive signification" the authors show, in particular, that neuroarchaeology enhances our understanding of the development of signification in the anthro-posociogenesis.

COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the person, the society, and the whole human civilization, and it also has challenged the human sciences. The discussion raises a fundamental problem: the collision between psychology and the need to rethink the understanding of а person. A person is considered in the transition from an abstract «psychological» individual to a real, concrete, living person in his bodily, organismic embodiment (or in the aspect of a natural biological subject). The question of expanding the cultural-historical understanding of a person through the prism of his individual history in mastering socio-historical experience is raised. The idea of a critical, emergency situation is introduced not only in the optics of society and nature in the whole or in abstract-hypothetical constructs, but also at the level of individual life of a person. The authors reflect an importance of considering the extreme situation of human existence in theoretical conceptions, not only as an applied problem. Negative interpretations of an extreme, emergency situation require conceptualization in terms of positivity – as a source of overcoming, solving life problems, development, and discovering, opening new experience. In addition, the concept of practice in psychology, which was mentioned by L. Vygotsky, also requires a radical revision. The practice of helping should be considered not only an applied branch in psychology, but in its fundamental, theoretical meaning, revealing psychological helping as the implementation of caring practice. The authors agree, that the existence of a person under the global threat of COVID-19 pandemic radically changes the interaction between a person and society. Global pandemic affects social practices to reveal a person in the context of new relation towards society. Public life is put «on pause» in order to protect a life of individual person. The phenomenon of death, that was previously subjected to theoretical repression in psychology, is now considered to be a part of human life. Meaning as the meaning of life has to be correlated with the meaning of death, which allows to reveal the existence of a person in the fullness of his life and being.

COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the person, the society, and the whole human civilization, and it also has challenged the human sciences. The discussion raises a fundamental problem: the collision between psychology and the need to rethink the understanding of а person. A person is considered in the transition from an abstract «psychological» individual to a real, concrete, living person in his bodily, organismic embodiment (or in the aspect of a natural biological subject). The question of expanding the cultural-historical understanding of a person through the prism of his individual history in mastering socio-historical experience is raised. The idea of a critical, emergency situation is introduced not only in the optics of society and nature in the whole or in abstract-hypothetical constructs, but also at the level of individual life of a person. The authors reflect an importance of considering the extreme situation of human existence in theoretical conceptions, not only as an applied problem. Negative interpretations of an extreme, emergency situation require conceptualization in terms of positivity – as a source of overcoming, solving life problems, development, and discovering, opening new experience. In addition, the concept of practice in psychology, which was mentioned by L. Vygotsky, also requires a radical revision. The practice of helping should be considered not only an applied branch in psychology, but in its fundamental, theoretical meaning, revealing psychological helping as the implementation of caring practice. The authors agree, that the existence of a person under the global threat of COVID-19 pandemic radically changes the interaction between a person and society. Global pandemic affects social practices to reveal a person in the context of new relation towards society. Public life is put «on pause» in order to protect a life of individual person. The phenomenon of death, that was previously subjected to theoretical repression in psychology, is now considered to be a part of human life. Meaning as the meaning of life has to be correlated with the meaning of death, which allows to reveal the existence of a person in the fullness of his life and being.

The article is dedicated to figuring out why complex systems become complex. Paradoxical situation is analyzed: on the one hand, the phenomenon of complexity is recognized as one of the brightest symbols of human's comprehension, on the other hand - there is a gap in the domain of the psychological investigations, searching the answer to the question of why in different conceptions of evolutional development it is complexity that is elevated to the level of "explanation of everything". The necessity to transfer from complexity as a postulate to complexity as a scientific object is stated. From the positions of historical-evolutional approach to the analysis of living systems by using empirical and analytical material from different fields of science it is shown that "simplicity" is inherent to the systems, oriented on permanence and conservatism, and "complexity" characterizes the transforming structures, oriented on the unpredictable future. It is emphasized that in complex systems there is no incompatibility between determinism and unpredictability, moreover, - system gains the status of complexity when unpredictability is "woven" into its logical structure. The frontiers of complex systems' predictability-unpredictability and the opportunities for unpredictability algorithmizing are regarded. It is argued that the non-algorithmized unpredictability of complex systems is provided by the presence of redundant elements. Two forms of redundancy are distinguished owning structurally different dimensions: "specialized" redundancy and "universal" redundancy. Specialized redundancy represents "the reserve for emergency cases". When the same template has one or another number of bodies double it is presented in the form of specialized structures. The function of such a reserve is in augmenting the sustainability of the already existing order by respecting the principle of "no one is irreplaceable". "The universal" redundancy, owning free valences, is fundamentally incomplete. Therefore, it provides such a multi-potential as capacity for transformations. The principle of universal redundancy is "the uniqueness of each one". It is emphasized that it is namely the universal redundancy as a resource of complex systems' capacity towards self-development that allows to explain the shift towards the understanding of a human as a choice subject that is taking place in different sciences and practices and also the shift from the investigations if the one-dimensional man - to multidimensional man.

The discourse about personality in changes of modernity in the social sciences and humanities is interdisciplinary. The changes taking place with the personality in modern society are discussed in methodological coordinates: simplicity and complexity, uniformity and diversity, certainty and uncertainty, stability and transitivity. Transformations of modernity inevitably lead to a change in the life strategies of individual. Along with ideas about society, the ideas about leadership are changing. In the space of modernity, the concept of a multitude of personal lifestyles and a variety of success models as a new social norm of a transitive society is gradually becoming normative. The terms and conceptual models that describe the current changes are also changing: for example, solidarity – self-organizing communities focused not only on a special lifestyle, but on common and shared values are replacing subcultures. The ideas about the leader and the crowd, and the hierarchical models of leadership are being replaced by network models with distributed leadership, which show the productivity of self-organization and horizontal interaction of community members. We assume that it is in youth movements that the leader phenomenon can be detected which exists today in diffuse and latent forms. We also assume that the transformation of forms of leadership is directly related to a change in ideas about society, the diversification of lifestyles, and the diversity of success models in modern society. An important role is played here by people with an internal locus controls focused on the values of self-realization and creating new cultural practices.

The article discusses the transformation of Russian education in the situation of modern challenges. The necessity of transition from education models, based on economic and technological values, to pre-adaptive education models as a space of freedom and opportunities, is justified. They are focused on personalization, variability, openness of the system to new experience and are developed through the optics of the humanitarian standard "culture of dignity". The models, based on the values of "culture of usefulness", are being criticized.The conceptualization of pre-adaptive education models is based on the cultural and psychological analysis of modernity and the historical-genetic approach to the study of evolution of Russian education and society. The reasons of the incompleteness of the Russian modernization are identified. The Russian style in the formation of the education system is analyzed. The Russian model of social development is compared with the European model of sociocultural modernization of society. It is shown that in the domestic history beginning with the reforms of Peter the Great only the technological side of modernization was adopted, but humanitarian essence, including humanization of society, quality of everyday life, human dignity, was not recognized. The meaning of the construct "reformation in education" is revealed, the difference of this concept from the existing ideas about education reforms is emphasized.

This paper considers tolerance as a norm of diversity maintenance. It is argued that tolerance doesn't presuppose acceptance of any diversity. The necessity to distinguish between constructive and destructive diversity is stated. An attempt to find the questions, answers to which would help researchers to feel the difference between tolerance and patience, is made. The mechanisms of differentiation between tolerance and patience are analyzed through the cultural practices of constructive diversity elimination and destructive diversity maintenance. On the one hand, we consider the origins of totalitarianism and phenomena of cultural dehumanization practices via the analysis of relevant philosophic, scientific and literary works. On the other hand, we investigate the mechanisms and cultural practices of "repressive diversity", basing on the works of M. Lifshitz, G. Markuse, J. Baudrillard. Referring to the researches made by M. Balchtin and V. Bibler, a dialogue as a practice of constructive diversity maintenance is revealed. The analogy of destructive and constructive diversity from the field of clinical psychology is brought. It is demonstrated that from the historic-evolutional point of view both - "intolerance towards diversity" and "tolerance with no borders" - are risky strategies for the existence and development of complex systems.

The article discusses the problems of socio-cultural modernization of Russian education in the situation of transitivity, diversity and complexity. It is proved that success of cultural modernization of society and the education system is due to the change of methodological optics: the transition from pursuing models of human capital ("people are the new oil") to a pre-adaptive model of human potential which is based on the principles of humanism, the priority of human dignity as well as the special significance in the strategic analysis and diagnostics of cultural and psychological factors. The article criticizes the development strategies of society based solely on the concept of human capital. In these strategies education is seen primarily as a service industry and not as a social institution of personal development; the principle of educational redundancy, which overcomes the temporal market demands, remains in shadow; federal and regional programs for the development of education are designed primarily adapted to the budget deficit; social policy of development of education is reduced to the economic policy. Only if market mechanisms will be rethought in the terms of anthropological optics, it will be able to create an effective management model that promotes the quality of human life and the principle of redundancy of education allows a softer transit from an outdated and stagnant system to a human-friendly and innovative one. It is argued that the modernization of the consciousness of managerial elites lags behind the already existing grassroots modernization of society.

The paper attempts to consider the nature of the Internet as an essentially incompletable generative network, creating unpredictable effects in complex systems behavior. Relying on the historical-evolutional approach (A.G. Asmolov) and the concept of generativity (J. Zittrain), the hypothesis is introduced, according to which the Internet is a network technology that supports "social aromorphosis" - a leap towards a qualitatively another way of life. Because of its essential openness and incompletability, the Internet enhance the processes of social organization diversity growth, simultaneously increasing its preadaptive potential and sensitivity towards changes. The role of the Internet in the increase of diversity of activities, mediated by different digital tools (L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, Y. Engestrom), is demonstrated on the bases of generativity concept. The analysis of the Internet generativity in the context of historical-evolutional approach allows to reveal the evolutional meaning of the Internet as a resource of variability and preadaptivity in the age of uncertainty and civilizational crises. Moreover, the mutual complementarity of generativity concept and historical-evolutional approach allows to propose a new interpretation of different types of initiatives to regulate and sovereignize the Internet.