Traces of a thousand-year war and the merging of parts of the world. Merging of parts See what “integration” is in other dictionaries
INTEGRATION
INTEGRATION (from Latin integratio - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole), a stage of the development process (adaptive evolution) associated with the unification of previously disparate parts into one whole; the state of orderliness in the functioning of parts of the whole. Integration processes can take place both within the existing system (in this case they lead to an increase in the level of its integrity and organization and, accordingly, greater efficiency), and when new system from previously unrelated elements. Individual parts of an integrated whole may have varying degrees of autonomy. During the integration processes in the system, the volume and intensity of interrelations and interactions between elements increases, in particular, new management levels are added. Sometimes integration is understood as integration, i.e., some result of the integration process. For an ecologist, the principle of integration functionality is important, according to which, as the structure of an ecosystem becomes more complex, functional characteristics are created. In relation to living organisms, the principle of integration was first formulated by G. Spencer (1857). Integration mechanisms as applied to biological systems are studied in general form by systems theory and biocybernetics.
Ecological encyclopedic Dictionary. - Chisinau: Main editorial office of the Moldavian Soviet Encyclopedia. I.I. Dedu. 1989.
Synonyms:
Antonyms:
- INTEGRATION OF POPULATIONS
- ECOSYSTEM INTEGRATION
See what “INTEGRATION” is in other dictionaries:
Cultural state internal integrity of culture and coherence between diff. its elements, as well as the process that results in such mutual agreement. The term “I.K.”, used primarily in Amer. cultural... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies
Integration: Wiktionary has an article “integration” Integration is cohesion, the unification of political, economic, government ... Wikipedia
- (lat.). The combination into one whole of what previously existed in a scattered form, followed by differentiation, that is, a gradual increase in the difference between initially homogeneous parts. From integration accompanied by differentiation... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
- (from Latin integer whole) unification of economic entities, deepening their interaction, developing connections between them. Economic integration takes place both at the level of national economies of entire countries, and between enterprises, firms,... ... Economic dictionary
- (Latin integratio restoration, replenishment, from integer whole), side of the development process associated with the unification of previously disparate parts and elements into a whole. I. processes can take place both within the framework of an already established system in this... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
integration- and, f. integration f. , lat. integratio. 1. Combining into a whole which l. parts. BAS 1. Process of integration and disintegration. OZ 1873 2 2 232. How strong are the foundations on which the integration of the community was previously accomplished. OZ 1878 5 1 120. 2.… … Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- (Latin integratio restoration, replenishment, from integer whole), a concept meaning the state of connectedness of individual differentiated parts and functions of a system into a whole, as well as the process leading to such a state (for example, integration in science ... Modern encyclopedia
Integration, association, connection, merger; merger Dictionary of Russian synonyms. integration see association 3 Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova ... Synonym dictionary
- (integration) The combination of two or more companies under one control for the purpose of mutual benefit, reducing competition, reducing costs by reducing overhead, securing a larger market share, combining technical or financial ... Financial Dictionary
Integration- (integration) See Economic integration... Economic and mathematical dictionary
An association. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms
Books
- , Savchenko I.A.. Sociocultural integration is one of the most difficult aspects of the development of a multi-ethnic community. Integration is a concept that is easy to pronounce but difficult to conceptualize. That's why…
- Integration and communication as vectors of sociocultural dynamics. Monograph, Savchenko I.A.. Sociocultural integration is one of the most difficult aspects of the development of a multi-ethnic community. Integration is a concept that is “easy to say but difficult to conceptualize.” That's why…
Integration- the process of combining parts into a whole.
Political integration is the process of bringing two or more political structures closer together, aimed towards mutual cooperation; in a narrower sense, it is the formation of a certain integral complex of political systems at the interstate level.
International economic integration is the process of unifying the economies of countries, in which the gradual abolition of tariff and non-tariff restrictions leads to the unification of economic policies in sectors of the economy and has a number of pronounced consequences. These include the law of one price (price equalization), a sharp increase in trade volume, an increase in labor productivity, migration of labor flows, equalization of the amount of domestic savings, and the emergence of a single tariff grid at the borders of an economic association. It is believed that economic integration is the second best option after the free trade regime in terms of the degree of favorability (its stimulation).
The following forms of economic integration are distinguished (with increasing integration towards the end of the list):
Preferential zone;
Free trade Area;
Customs Union;
Common Market;
Economic Union;
Economic and monetary union.
The main features of integration are:
interpenetration and interweaving of national production processes;
structural changes in the economies of participating countries;
necessity and targeted regulation of integration processes.
The Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC, Community) is an international organization consisting of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The EurAsEC was created in order to deepen integration and form the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space.
The Community is formed in accordance with the Treaty on the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999 and the Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community of October 10, 2000.
The main goal of the EurAsEC is to increase the efficiency of the formation of the Common Economic Space, begun in the Customs Union, using new, promising forms and mechanisms of interaction. The creation of the Eurasian Economic Community is aimed at more effective implementation of the common benefits and national interests of its members.
Integration within the EurAsEC meets Russia's economic interests. Russian enterprises are interested in providing access to sources natural resources in the territories of other Community countries (ores of chromium, manganese, titanium, uranium, lead, many rare earth metals, as well as other types of raw materials, the deposits of which are either absent in Russia or their development is impractical), in preserving the markets of the EurAsEC states for the sale of industrial products, as well as in creating conditions for the restoration of its lost territorial production connections, the preservation and development of the specialization of individual industries, cooperative supplies, contributing to a more complete use of economic potential and an increase in the level of security. The development of cooperation in the field of electric power, the fuel and energy complex, the creation of joint ventures, and the implementation of joint programs has a definite future.
The development of integration is facilitated by the potentially very capacious market of the EurAsEC member states, a complementary raw material base, compatible production, technical and consumer standards, and common technical parameters of the transport and communications infrastructure.
In accordance with Article 21 of the Treaty on the Customs Union and Common Economic Space of February 26, 1999, the customs union as a trade and economic association presupposes the presence of:
a) a single customs territory;
b) general customs tariff;
c) a regime that does not allow any tariff and non-tariff restrictions (licensing, quotas) in mutual trade, except for the cases provided for in this Agreement;
d) simplification and subsequent abolition of customs control at internal customs borders;
e) similar mechanisms for regulating the economy and trade, based on universal market principles of management and harmonized economic legislation;
f) management bodies providing conditions for functioning and development customs union;
g) a common customs policy and the application of common customs regimes.
In order to form a unified foreign trade policy of the EurAsEC member states in relation to third countries, the legislation of the Community states is being unified in the main areas of foreign trade regulation: customs tariff and non-tariff.
1. The customs tariff area includes:
Application of uniform customs duties on goods imported from third countries - the formation of a Common Customs Tariff (CTT);
Application of unified trade regimes in trade with third countries and application of a unified system of preferences in trade with developing and least developed countries.
2. The scope of non-tariff regulation includes:
Licensing of import and export of goods;
Technical regulation, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures;
Introduction of special protective, anti-dumping and countervailing measures;
Export control.
In the field of non-tariff regulation, the unification of the main provisions of the legislation of the EurAsEC member states in the field of quotas, licensing, technical regulation, application of sanitary, phytosanitary, veterinary and environmental measures was carried out.
In order to optimize the process of forming a customs union and a single economic space, the decision of the heads of the EurAsEC member states dated August 16, 2006 (Sochi) stipulated that the formation of a customs union, and in the future a single economic space, will be carried out initially on the basis of three countries - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan - with the subsequent accession of other EurAsEC member states.
At the 19th meeting of the EurAsEC Interstate Council on October 6, 2007, the heads of three states of the Community signed documents that are key to the functioning of the customs union, forming its institutional structure and defining the mechanism for accession of other states to the customs union:
Agreement on the Customs Union Commission;
Agreement on the creation of a single customs territory and the formation of a customs union;
Protocol on the procedure for the entry into force of international treaties that form the legal framework of the customs union, withdrawal from them and accession to them.
The Action Plan for the formation of a customs union within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Community was approved. In order to practically implement the Action Plan for the formation of a customs union within the EurAsEC, members of the Integration Committee of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia approved the corresponding Activities for 2008-2010.
The heads of all states of the Community signed the Protocol on Amendments to the Treaty Establishing the Eurasian Economic Community of October 10, 2000.
On June 20, 2008, members of the Integration Committee of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia approved the Regulations on the principles and procedure for the formation of the Unified Customs Tariff of the Customs Union.
On October 10, 2008, the presidents of six countries approved changes to the Regulations and Rules of Procedure of the Interstate Council of the Eurasian Economic Community dated May 31, 2001 when it performs the functions of the supreme body of the customs union. In accordance with the decision of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC (the supreme body of the customs union) dated October 10, 2008 No. 3 to the members of the Integration Committee of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation Instructed, until a decision is made to vest the Customs Union Commission with powers in the field of foreign trade regulation, to perform the duties of members of the said Commission, and a member of the Integration Committee of the Russian Federation to perform the duties of the Chairman of the Commission. Deputy Secretary General of the EurAsEC S.Yu. was appointed as the Executive Secretary of the Commission. Glazyev.
At a meeting of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC (the highest body of the customs union) at the level of heads of government on December 12, 2008, documents were approved that ensure the activities of the Commission and the Secretariat of the Customs Union Commission (including the signing of the Agreement on the Secretariat of the Customs Union Commission). Also, 13 international treaties were signed aimed at further developing the legal framework of the customs union.
During the meeting, the heads of government of the three states signed a Statement, in accordance with which they decided to notify the World trade organization about the intention to begin the negotiation process on accession to the WTO of the customs union of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation as a single customs territory.
At a meeting of the EurAsEC Interstate Council (the highest body of the customs union) on November 27, 2009, the heads of state approved:
Rules of Procedure of the Customs Union Commission;
Regulations on Expert Council within the customs union;
a unified Commodity Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Activity of the Customs Union (TN VED CU) and the Unified Customs Tariff of the Customs Union;
List of developing countries-users of the system of tariff preferences of the customs union;
List of least developed countries-users of the system of tariff preferences of the customs union;
List of goods originating and imported from developing and least developed countries, the import of which is provided with tariff preferences;
List of goods and rates in respect of which, during the transition period, one of the member states of the customs union applies rates of import customs duties that differ from the rates of the Unified Customs Tariff of the Customs Union;
A list of sensitive goods in respect of which a decision to change the rate of import customs duty is made by the Customs Union Commission by consensus.
Protocol on the conditions and procedure for the application in exceptional cases of rates of import customs duties different from the rates of the Unified Customs Tariff dated December 12, 2008;
The following post (see under the cut) brought up such an interesting thought: what if the term “Parts of Light” means “parts of VISIBLE light”? That is, that light, that reality, the wavelength that can be seen, touched, perceived, with which we can interact with the observer in the human body, or rather with his senses.
We know that the so-called “aliens” come to us from parallel worlds, changing their vibration, which witnesses of such incidents describe as the dissolution of an object in space or its slow manifestation.
I'm not saying that this is clean water dirt on NASA, disinformation can be leaked everywhere, but there are quite a lot of similar videos on the Internet, incl. and daytime shooting from the ground, so those who wish can find it (and, if it’s not difficult, post it in the comments).
So why can’t groups of objects, parts of worlds and whole worlds do this? reality?
I previously wrote that the realities of the Earth were repeatedly glued and separated:
/ / / / /
It turns out that different “parts of the world” previously existed separately in quality (that is, the peoples in them, although they could know about each other, but could not leave their greenhouse due to the difference in vibration settings, which they could feel with their organs), and then they the carrying vibrations were combined during the gluing of realities (that is, the walls between the greenhouses were slowly removed, the vibrations were averaged for the brains of all participants, from all the greenhouses to sense touch. During the operation, matter also had to be compacted - to slow down the vibration of atoms in order to anchor the realities on each other , not allowing them to separate. Since then, Truman Shaw, called the Earth, has become a single platform on which peoples began to mix, moving from their personal (folk) sleep to neighboring ones. This did not happen in one day, but lasted for some certain time, probably hundreds/thousands of years. At first, it was possible to walk from one space (part of the world) to another through portals (and probably only for the chosen ones/shamans). Each “part of the world” has its own styles and portals in them. Notice how some of them seem literally torn from another reality:
Then the portals became unnecessary, the realities united, and people who had previously lived completely separately realized that there were not entirely pleasant personalities nearby from among their former invisible neighbors, which led to widespread wars and continues to this day.
So, about parts of the world and much more:
Original taken from ss69100 in Traces of the Thousand Year War
If you want to hide something well, put it in the most visible place. The masters of historical forgery did just that.
This is how it happens in life. It seems that everything is already clear in the world around us. No surprises, and suddenly...
An inquisitive child asks: What is Europe? This is not a country or a continent, but what then? Since I have never had a grade lower than a B in geography, I immediately give the answer: - Europe is part of the world; The continent of Eurasia is divided into Europe and Asia. And then the worm of doubt begins to crawl inside.
A on what basis is a geographically unseparated territory of a single continent designated as part of the world?! So, of course, we already know that Asia is Asia - the country of the Ases. But there must also be a plausibly cobbled together official version. It can't be that they're ripping us off so cheaply!
When trying to clarify where something came from, a clear system of geographical ideas begins to blur treacherously. It's just some kind of magic. Morok. Parts of the world have been presented to us since school as a “geographical concept.” This is the largest division of land, including even continents (the Americas are one part of the world). But it turns out not! Although they don’t tell us about this at school, according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:
Parts of the world - historically the established division of the Earth's landmass into regions
Wikipedia is even stranger:
The division into continents is made on the basis of separation by water from other continents, and parts of the world - the concept RAPID(here she goes to hell - author) historical and cultural.
Unlike the mainland, part of the world also includes islands close to the mainland, and proximity MEANS according to historical tradition, and the distance can be greater...
So why are parts of the world studied in a geography course and not in history? And therefore, apparently, according to the initial plan, it was about geography, and only most recently the wind has changed.
Judge for yourself. There are six parts of the world - America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia and Oceania, Europe, Asia. Most of This division is geographically very logical. Part of the world, America is in fact a single continent with adjacent island territories. The Panama Canal artificially separated the northern and South America only in 1913. Before this, both Americas were one continent. With Africa, Antarctica, Australia and the adjacent archipelagos of Oceania, everything also fits into geographic logic.
But with Europe and Asia the whole geographical logic completely disappears. They fall out of this series. In turn, Antarctica falls out of the historical and cultural definition. Who is the bearer of historical and cultural tradition there? Except penguins. So it turns out that a historical and cultural connotation was given to this definition V last times . Not earlier than the end of the 19th century. This can be seen from the works of researchers of that time.
It turns out that even then there were people who were struck by the absurdity of dividing our continent into two parts of the world. Publicist, naturalist and geopolitician Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky in 1869 he wrote the work “Russia and Europe. A look at the cultural and political relations of the Slavic world to the Germanic-Romanic one.” Here's what's there on the question we're interested in:
“...America is an island; Australia is an island; Africa is almost an island; Asia, together with Europe, will also be almost an island. Why on earth should this whole body, this huge piece of land, like all other pieces, surrounded on all or almost all sides by water, be divided into two parts on the basis of a completely different principle? Is there some kind of boundary set by nature here?
The Ural range occupies about half of this border. But what special qualities does he have so that from all the ridges globe Should he alone be given the honor of serving as the border between two parts of the world, an honor that in all other cases is recognized only across the oceans and rarely across the seas? This ridge is one of the most insignificant in terms of its height, and one of the most convenient in terms of transition; in its middle part, near Yekaterinburg, they pass through it, as through the famous Alaunsky flat hill and the Valdai Mountains, asking the coachman: where, brother, are the mountains?.. But the Ural ridge, at least, is something; further, the honor of serving as the border of two worlds falls on the Ural River, which is already completely nothing. A narrow river, at the mouth, a quarter of the Neva in width, with completely identical banks on both sides...”
And here it’s hard to disagree with Danilevsky. It is also obvious that in his time there were no historical and cultural definitions there was no part of the world at all. At that time it was only about geography. At the end of his work, Nikolai Yakovlevich despaired of finding this rational explanation and attributed this incident to mistakes and old habits. But today we know more. I think everyone will agree with me that the fact of forgery is obvious. But in order to clear away this centuries-old pile of lies, you need to plunge into the origins of the issue. All the most ancient and hidden things are in words and names. Let's start with them.
Europe - what kind of word is this?
Wikipedia: Europe named after the heroine ancient greek mythology Europa, a Phoenician princess, kidnapped by Zeus and taken to Crete (the epithet of Europa could also be associated with Hera and Demeter).
A lot of it. Although this is the most common version, it is extremely implausible. Who was interested in France, Germany, etc. in the 9th...14th centuries? lustful adventures of a locally revered Greek god to call his land that? Let's take a look at Bolshaya Soviet Encyclopedia(hereinafter referred to as TSB):
Europe (Greek Europe, from Assyrian erebus - west (in other sources - presumably West - author)); V Ancient Greece this was the name given to the territories lying to the west of the Aegean Sea)…
Let's say "presumably west", although it is not easy to get Europa from Erebus. But west of the Aegean we only have Italy and Spain. And a thousand years later, on the maps of the 15th century, Europe already flaunts almost modern borders. In fact, it doesn’t matter what the Greeks or even the Romans called this or that. Europeans are not Greeks. Different place and different eras. There must have been someone else who assigned a single name to the western territories by the 15th century. And he is in no hurry to gain fame. That's why stories about lustful bulls and girls are started.
It is obvious that some united political force by the 15th century, it had spread its influence to the western territories of Eurasia so much that it united them under a single name - Europe. And despite the fact that there were many different states here, they all found themselves in a dependent position. This force could only be Catholic Church, and she remains silent. However, everyone knows that the official language of the Catholic Church was originally Latin. If she appropriated any name, it was in Latin. What do you think euro means in Latin? Get ready for a twist - it means EAST in Latin! Easy to check:
euros, i m (Greek; lat. vulturnus)
1) evr, south- Eastern wind L, Sen etc.;
2) poet. Eastern wind, etc. storm H, V, St; wind ( at all): primo sub euro Lcn at the first gust of wind;
3) poet. East VF, Cld.
euro-aquilo, onis m- northeast wind Vlg.
eurocircias, a.e. m (Greek) - east-southeast wind Vtr
euronotus, i m (Greek) - south-southeast wind Col, P.M..
eurous, a, um - eastern (fluctus V).
For those who are not sure that Europe has a direct relationship to the Latin East, I will give the spelling of this word in Latin:
Europa, a.e. And Europe, es ( acc. en) f- Europe.
Euro - pa (pars - part. lat.) - Eastern part.
This is much closer than Erebus, both in place and in time. And most importantly, it’s not just similar - identical. It remains to be understood why Catholics call the western lands the east? Very simple. This is for us - they are Western. But the spread of Catholic influence to European countries took place from west to east. And since the process of eradicating Vedic culture is a slow process and is still unfinished, the new lands captured by the Catholics were called the east for a long time (in their Latin jargon). These are the vast expanses that today are called Europe (France, Germany, Poland, the Baltic countries, etc.). It is important to note here that the name Europe has a clearly political origin.
Asia - what a word this is. TSB says:
Asia (Greek Asia, probably from the Assyrian asu - east), the most extensive part of the world (about 30% of the total land area), part of the continent of Eurasia.
Again this is unscientific - “probably”. Both incredible and unlikeable. And in general, in Greek the word East is Αυατολη (trnskrp. Anatoli) is. Why do you need to enter someone else's designation for the cardinal direction?
Wikipedia says: ...In the Hittite era, the kingdom of Assuwa was located in the northwestern part of Asia Minor... In the Greek epic, this kingdom is personified in the image of King Asiya, an ally of the Trojans... By the time of Herodotus, the designation of the whole part of the world as Asia (Asia) was generally accepted among the Greeks.
Assuwa and Asiya, as they are generally written in all European languages, are not very similar words. And it is not clear why King Asiy distinguished himself so much that an entire part of the world was named after him? Nothing would have become clearer, but the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus described certain Asov-Alans. And these Ases lived precisely in that same Asia. Despite the unhealthy predilection of the scientific elite for distorted Assyrian words, it must be admitted that today there is simply no more obvious hypothesis. Again, it is clear that geography is not the main thing here. Asia, this political entity is the country of the Ases. Its borders are delineated not by seas and mountain ranges, but by wars and treaties. So, the name of a part of the world Asia as well as Europe, has clearly political origin.
Now at least something is clear. But one big question arose: How did the political division of our continent turn into such an absurd geographical one, and then for some reason into a historical and cultural one?
By all appearances this was true. A thousand years ago, with the onset of the Night of Svarog, a process of seizure and unification of territories and peoples took place in the western territories. When peoples could not be brought into “accord”, they were completely destroyed. Thus, the multimillion-dollar tribal unions of the Lyutichs and Veneds, who inhabited all the western lands, were destroyed. Europe was left with mostly broken peoples. This was, by all definitions, genocide. A real massacre. A certain political force, the manifestation of which we observe in actions catholic church, divided nations into pieces, pitted each other against each other, weakened them in civil strife. Then the same force gathered all the peoples subject to it into a single fist, and threw the rest to destruction. Everything was accompanied by the inculcation of Christianity.
Asia is the home of peoples, bearers of the primordial Vedic civilization, where there was never slavery or poverty, where everything was created by one’s own labor, where will and skill were valued above gold. This is our civilization, Aesir or Asian, as they are now trying to change and invert the meaning. Not Chinese, not Mongolian and not Japanese, but ours.
This is where the dog is buried. Asia has always actively resisted European expansion. In the 13th century, the Moscow principality and others were cleared of the slave infection (allegedly the Tatar-Mongol invasion). Then it was stopped "Drang nach Osten"- push to the east. The strike forces of Europe went under the ice of Lake Peipsi. But already in the 17th century, the territories, long weakened by Christianization, could not resist. The Moscow principality and its subjects began to be designated on maps as European Tartaria, or simply Europe. The front in the war of civilizations spread to the east. In 1720, Tatishchev allegedly proposed drawing the border between Europe and Asia along the Ural Mountains. At that time it was exactly political border of two WORLDS.
The pressure to the east continued. In 1775, as a result of the defeat of the liberation army of Asia (Great Tartary), which we know as "Pugachev uprising", The European civilization of slavery and profiteering has overcome the remnants of organized resistance. Having hastily staked out the captured territories, the newly minted « Russian empire» began to clean up the traces of the great confrontation. Inside, it was technically easy. For example, the captured papers of the Pugachev headquarters (decrees, orders, letters) were securely hidden from prying eyes. Propaganda did the rest.
A.S. Pushkin, after only 50 years, through great connections, gained access to these papers. And this is another question - what did they show him? At least those texts published by modern researchers (I don’t know where they get them from) are replete with the words “my loyal slaves.” Could this be written by a person who brought freedom to people and communicated with them as equals? At least, I have not yet been able to find the originals of even these supposedly Pugachev decrees. They cleared it out so thoroughly that already in the 18th century the elite of new generations fawned like a puppy before “enlightened Europe”, and despised the dirty, dark Asian garbage dump, in the form of which undeveloped Russia seemed to them. But the traces of the great confrontation have become too firmly established throughout the world, preserved in names, different languages, lay down on the cards. How to hide it?
This is where geography comes to the rescue. The European geographers of that time were very practical people involved in big politics. They hardly looked like Paganels. That's why lied easily and competently. Everything that previously separated the two civilizations (armies, states, treaties) has faded into oblivion. Great commanders became bearded robbers, empires turned into a collection of warring princes, large cities into recently felled outposts. A 2 new parts of the world have appeared in geography.
According to the authors of the forgery, the political background of the issue should be hidden not only from the Russians, but also from the whole world, and first of all, from the Europeans. They should not know that many supposedly independent European states are just a sign. It is impossible to show that everyone Europe is ruled by one force and revive forgotten Vedic traditions. After all, the conquest of Europe is not completed to this day. And where two civilizations opposed each other, only a geographical border remained. It does not have patrols or guard regiments. Silent mountains stand, rivers flow, and they don’t care. You can look at the border between Europe and Asia from this side, then run across and look from the other. Nobody will say a word. So they left it like that for the time being.
Only a century passes, and Danilevsky is sincerely surprised by the geographical absurdity. It never occurs to him to think about the political interpretation of the name Eurasia. But the years passed, and there were more and more such Danilevskys. Universal education, damn it. Fursenko will not allow this to happen in the future.
Geographers have degenerated in office conditions. Politicians have almost wiped them off from the “fresh meat”. They lost their wolfish grip. Ordinary mortals began to argue with them and ask uncomfortable questions. And so there was an urgent need to patch up official version. And highly qualified liars began to layer a new layer of lies on the geographical crypt of Asia-Tartaria, which had developed numerous cracks.
It was necessary to come up with anything but a political confrontation between two civilizations. So they revolved around supposedly some historical, established traditions. Then they realized that all history is inseparable from politics, and turned into a cultural direction. With this "historical-cultural" Now they are covering it up.
While writing this article, I came across an interesting phenomenon. The authorities of the regions along which the border between Europe and Asia passes do not know what to do with this landmark. They are trying to find commercial applications: excursions, etc. But, apparently, the business is not working out. People are not very interested. It would probably be exciting and educational if you told them the truth, but you still won’t be able to make money from the blood and valor of your ancestors.
| | | | | |In the early stages artistic development differentiation of form is achieved by adding independent elements. For example, a child overcomes the manner of depicting a human figure as a circle by adding straight lines, oblong-shaped objects, or other pictorial units. Each of these units has a geometrically simple, well-defined shape. They are connected by equally simple directional relationships, first vertical-horizontal, then oblique. The construction of relatively complex models of the whole is achieved by combining several simple models. This does not mean that on early stage the child does not have an integrated idea of the object as a whole. Symmetry and unity of the whole and planning of proportions show that the child gives (within certain limits) the parts a form in terms of their final arrangement in the overall model. But the analytical method allows him to deal at any given moment with a simple form or direction.
Some of the children, constructing a whole based on a hierarchy of parts, bring this procedure to extremely intricate combinations, which in itself
speaks of their keen observation. The result can be called anything but pale and uninteresting.
However, after a certain period, the child begins to connect several pictorial elements through a common, more differentiated contour. Both the eye and the hand contribute to this process. The eye becomes familiar with the complex form that results from the combination of elements until
until he is able to understand the whole as a definite complex. When this is achieved, the eye follows the outline of the person and causes the pencil to accurately trace his figure, including the arms and legs, without stopping. The more
The more differentiated the concept of an object is, the greater the skill required for this procedure. Masters of the “linear style”, for example Picasso, with such exceptional precision
They accurately reproduce the contour of any figure, which even captures all the subtleties of the muscle and skeleton. However, bearing in mind the foundation on which the child creates, it should be noted that even the earliest applications of this method require courage, virtuosity and a differentiated sense of form.
The merging of details into one contour also corresponds to the motor act of drawing. At the scribbling stage, the child's hand often
periodically makes rhythmic oscillations without lifting the pencil from the paper. As a child
learns to visually control the shape, he begins to clearly draw individual
Figurative units. Visually subdividing the whole into clearly defined parts promotes simplicity, but for a hand in motion, any interruption in its activity means a certain complication. The history of writing saw the replacement of individual capital letters in monumental inscriptions with smoothly connected curves in handwritten script, in which, for the sake of speed, the hand managed to tilt the human eye to its side. In the same way, the child, with increasing compliance, prefers the continuous flow of the line. The image of a horse in Fig. 105, made by a five-year-old boy, has the grace of a businessman's signature. The extent to which the individual artisan allows the motor factor to influence the creation of form depends largely on the relationship in his personal character between spontaneously expressed temperament and rational control. (This can be illustrated very convincingly by graphological analysis of handwriting.)
The images of two fish (Fig. 106 and 107) were taken by us from drawings made by the same child in different time. In an earlier picture
we see the first hint of a synthesizing circuit only in the jagged fins of the fish. The rest of the body is constructed from geometrically simple elements, found
distributed in a vertical-horizontal relationship. Later, the entire outline is given in one clear, continuous movement. As will be shown below, this procedure enhances the effect
combined movement, favors the oblique direction and smoothes out angles, for example in the tail. All this contributes to the formation of more complex forms than those that the eye can accurately control and understand at this stage. Thus the earlier depiction of the fish, although less interesting and animated, is much better organized.
A painting of children throwing themselves at each other snowballs, performed by the same child even later (Fig. 108). This figure suggests that experimenting with a more differentiated form enables the child, after a certain time, to modify the basic static shape of the body. Movements are no longer reduced to the corresponding spatial orientation of various parts of the body, the latter bends on its own. At this stage, the child copes more convincingly with figures sitting in chairs, riding a horse, or climbing trees.
Size
Like other factors we have analyzed, size remains undifferentiated at first. The law of differentiation forces us to expect that the relationships between dimensions are depicted first structurally most in a simple way, that is, through equality. In fact, units of pictorial context are perceived as equal in size until the need for differentiation arises. With this in mind, we will not ask the traditional question: “Why in some images the relationships between sizes do not correspond to reality?” Instead, we ask, “What motivates children to give different sizes to the objects in their drawings?” Perceptual recognition depends relatively little on the size of objects. Object shapes and orientation are not affected by resizing. In musical terms, this is simply a “transposition.” Just as for most listeners it makes no difference in what key a piece of music is performed, so changes in visual size often go unnoticed. A more immediate parallel can be found in what musicians call
“increase” or “weaken” when the topic remains familiar, even if the speed of its reproduction, that is, its time size, has changed. We are usually not aware of the constant perspective change in size in objects around us.
us Wednesday. Since we are talking about images, it will not make much difference to anyone whether he is shown a small photograph of a person or a gigantic statue. The TV screen in the living room looks small, but it's worth
Only focus your attention on it for some time, and it becomes a completely acceptable frame for depicting “real” people and buildings in it.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the need for
The "correct" relationship of dimensions in a painting is very insignificant. Even in the developed art of medieval book illustrations, castles and people
very often have the same
sizes. In a painting depicting the theme “A Man Walks Home,” two objects have the same visual weight until it becomes necessary to differentiate them. If, for example, a person is to be in a doorway or looking out of a window, then he must be smaller than the building. Even so, the difference in size does not go beyond what is required to provide a clear visual indication of the respective functions of the building and the person. Rice. 109 is an illustration of a passage from Revelation
teachings from John." In the earthquake scene, the human figures are drawn so that they are significantly taller than the buildings themselves. Even the faces of people who are almost entirely under the rubble of collapsed buildings have enough big sizes to remain visible. In the interests of unity and consistency, artists tend to keep intervals small. The more similar in size the pictorial units are, the more successfully they are combined - based on the pattern of “similarity in size” - in joint groups. It is very difficult to establish a direct, visually perceptible relationship between a human figure and a tall structure if we wanted to draw them to their true scale. Or human figure becomes a tiny appendage to the house, instead of playing the role of an equal partner in the mutual relations between these objects, or the artistic representation as a whole does not
has visually perceived unity. In those places where large differences in size are desired, large and small units of composition are combined for the most part by means of other intermediate pictorial units of medium size. This way the missing gap is filled.
The psychological and artistic aspects of size have little to do with metrically correct copying. It's safe to say that
Differences in size are extremely rarely introduced for the sole purpose of faithful imitation. These differences appear when they are required by the functional nature of emotional,
symbolic and spatial relations. Psychologically, this phenomenon is well revealed in the thesis of Jean Piaget: “Space is first of all topological, and then Euclidean”1. Early ideas about space and spatial relationships dealt with qualitative interdependencies rather than with its measurement.
In this case, the child begins with an undifferentiated phase - with an image in which all parts are the same. This is true even regarding the relative sizes of parts of the same object,
although initially differentiation is closely related to the functional context. A clear example rice can serve as a basis for this. 110. Head, torso and
the limbs are equivalent parts and are still not differentiated in size. Usually this phenomenon is not too obvious, but Victor
Lowenfeld drew attention to the many examples in which the image of a person's face is as large as a car, a house is the same height as Small child, the hands are no smaller than the heads, and the flowers reach the size of a human thigh. Lowenfeld interpreted2 such images in a traditional manner, suggesting that the proportions would be "correct" if some other factor did not interfere. This factor, he believes, may be the subjective value attributed by the child to certain objects, which, therefore,
are depicted as “so big.” Lowenfeld argues, for example, that in the figure
“Flies are bothering the horse”, due to their importance and significance for the child, flies are depicted at approximately the same size as the horse’s head. If, instead
To think in adult terms, we analyze the genetic process, the fact that the fly
drawn smaller than the horse and is the explanation required.
In the history of art we find many examples of how the significance of one or another detail of a picture was emphasized through size. In ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs, gods or pharaohs were often depicted as being at least twice as large as their subordinates. However, this explanation should be applied with great caution in relation to early children's drawings. For example, in children's drawings, the human head is very often large in relation to the entire figure. It is quite natural to assume that this should be so, because the head is the most important part of the human body. To look at another person means to look mainly at his face. However, it should be recalled that in children's drawings the head is the original circle, from which, through secondary additions, a more differentiated human figure arose and developed. The child begins his drawing with the image of a huge circle, most often located in the middle of a sheet of paper, so that the rest of the sheet serves to squeeze everything else into this space. As long as the form is not differentiated, it is treated arbitrarily. Just as in the stage of undifferentiated form the circle (containing space without juxtaposition of figures) is drawn less carefully than in the later stage,
when it is already distinguished from other forms, so the undifferentiated size is often the result of an illegible, disordered image of large or
small things, because the difference in size is not yet taken into account. Under these conditions, it is quite difficult to be sure that in any particular picture
the object was depicted as large due to the fact that it has great significance.
The size factor is related to the distance factor. The need for a simple and clear picture requires the child to clearly visually separate some objects
from others. In no case should they be allowed to mix, because then the overall visually perceived structure becomes extremely complicated. When small child ask to copy geometric figures, which touch each other or partially overlap, it usually eliminates this
contact also leaves some space between these pictorial units. At the undifferentiated stage there is a standard distance that appears sometimes too small and sometimes too
large depending on the content of the picture. In order to achieve clarity, the distance is always sufficiently large, even if it is necessary to depict a close relationship between objects. Therefore, arms that are too long,
which stretch from object to object, cover the entire required huge distance. Contact between parts of an object is quite simple, such as arms and legs
attached to the body, but the proximity and overlap of various objects still remain uncomfortable for visual perception for a certain time.
