Globalization and humanization form two different yet complementary processes. Globalization of human personality is the criterion of social progress. Doctrine of social humanism combines two aspects of knowledge: globalistics and humanistics, the political and the historical points of view. The humanistic project of globalization goes through three consequent stages: conservative, liberal and social. These stages are three giant leaps in human history, the civilization revolutions. On the microhistorical scale they form political rhythm of globalization that determines three kinds of political revolutions. On every stage thepolitical ideologies fight to gain power but only a dialogue between conservative, liberal and social forms of humanism can provide realization of global project of humanity.

Theorists of the Russian conservatism have made a considerable contribution to the development of axiology, the philosophy of history and comparativistics. In their studies of the local civilisations existing at different times and at different places they have focused on the dynamics of their origin, development, collapse or transformation into new civilisational forms. The best known slavophiles such as A. Khomyakov, K. Axakov, I. Kireyevskiy saw the mission of the Russian civilisation in synthesising Europe and Russia which has preserved the true Christianity – the Orthodoxy. According to N. Danilevskiy, the founder of the culturohistorical school of thought, Europe has an irreconcilable hostility towards Russia. He proves that Europe and Russia are two different culturohistoricaltypes (local civilisations). He understood Russia’s mission as that of unification of Slavic peoples. K. Leontiev develops the so-called theory of Byzantism, according to which the West is doomed and Russia will be saved thanks to its Orthodoxy and the oriental despotism underlying its statehood. He advocates a merger between Russian and oriental traditions. From the point of view of the proponents of the Eurasian theory such as P. Savitskiy, N. Trubetskoy, etc., the merger has already occurred, so Russians should be viewed as Eurasians and Russia as a Eurasian civilisation. Russian thinkers were criticising the so-called Eurocentrism in their efforts to prove that progress should be measured not only by the accumulation of material wealth, but also by the development of various spiritual aspects of human beings. The anthroposociogenesis does not have any predetermined patterns, its development is of co-evolutionary, often broken, discrete nature.

In the report are considered initial theses – philosophical ideas and paradigmatic representations, - for formation of a new scientific direction – virtual linguistics: virtual philosophy of linguistics. Focus of interests of virtual linguistics lays in studying attitudes of the internal (virtual) human and language as virtual object of the internal (virtual) human. For ordinary consciousness virtual - concerning computers. It only is partly true. The virtualistic as the paradigmatic direction is developed in Russia since 80th years of the last century. The virtualistic not scientific discipline, and the paradigmatic approach which can be applied in any sphere of human activity. Virtual psychology - one of its most developed directions. The virtual psychology considers mentality of the person (its internal space) as a virtual reality. The main message, the thesis: want a hypothesis, want the statement: the human should cease to be in linguistics a figure of default. The maxim is well-known: language - the house of life. It is less obvious, that the human - the house of language. But, certainly, simultaneously the human is the son of language. In particular, it is possible to ask a question - what ontological structure outside of language space of mental sphere? In this connection some perspective directions of works at philosophical, theoretical, methodological and empirical levels have been considered. The invitation to cooperation of colleagues of linguists - one of the central purposes present article.

During last century in philosophy of language and epistemology two basic directions in research of sense were generated: first of them is based on understanding of language as sign system and uses semiotics methods of the analysis of language and the knowledge, the second addresses to studying the speech activity included in wide social context, and uses as initial concept of the communications. In the paper we’ll be proposed the uniform methodology of the analysis of sense as the conceptual structure, being base for the given directions is offered. In this case the certain paradigms of sense as models from which there are concrete traditions of scientific research are allocated. The understanding of sense as paradigms proves that depending on its treatment, from theaccepted concept of sense the theory of reference is under construction (as the system of a priority choice of designating expressions), is formed concept of concreteness, the concept of true, criteria of differentiation of the intelligent and senseless expressions, methods of the analysis of language contexts. The specified dependences assume also use of methods of semiotics, phenomenology, philosophical hermeneutics when we turn our attention to the analysis of concrete theories and concepts of sense.

The atmosphere of plurality appears gradually and becomes more noticeable. Speaking the language of postmodernism the wellknown “truths” are undergoing the radical reconsideration. The postmodernism “competition of truths” is taking place instead of usual seeking of truth. Aware or no aware radical plurality becomes the starting principle of many philosophical studies. One of the preconditions creating the base for native postmodernism formation and developing are neomythologies which have been spread in Russian regions, have been transformed into self reproducing false ideologies and have got its false language. The relationship between neomythologies and postmodernism is based on the worldview systems of “overcoming of history”, permanent “problems” of present and historical discourses, “radical plurality”, the refusal of classical casualty and logo centrism, “the disappearing of subject” of time and historical and other actions, and also many other signs. Making unsteady the logic of classical and non-classical philosophical studies, neomythology becomes the precursor of Russianpostmodernism.