Combining individual parts of elements into a whole. Combining parts into a whole. Examples of the use of the word integration in the literature

The following post (see under the cut) led to such an interesting thought: what if the term "Parts of the World" means "parts of the 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, 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 the object in space or its slow manifestation.

So why can't groups of objects, parts of worlds and whole reality?

I previously wrote that the realities of Earth have been repeatedly glued and separated:
/ / / / /

It turns out that different "parts of the world" used to exist 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 that they could feel with their organs), and then they carrier vibrations were united during the gluing of realities (that is, the walls between the greenhouses were slowly removed, vibrations were averaged for touch by the brain of all participants, from all greenhouses. During the operation, matter also had to be condensed - the vibration of atoms was slowed down in order to anchor the realities on each other Since then, the Truman Show, 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 specific time, probably hundreds / thousands of years. At first it was possible to go from one space (part of the world) to another through portals (and probably only for the elite / shamans). light" their styles and portals in them. Notice how some of them seem to be literally torn from another reality:

Then the portals were no longer needed, the realities united, and people who used to live completely separately realized that there were not very pleasant personalities from among the former invisible neighbors nearby, which led to widespread wars and continues to this day.

So, about the parts of the world and much more:

Original taken from ss69100 in Traces of a Millennium War

If you want to hide something well, put it in the most visible place. The masters of historical forgery did just that.

That's how it happens in life. It seems that everything is already clear in the outside world. No surprises and all of a sudden...

An inquisitive child asks: What is Europe? This is not a country or a mainland, but what then? Since in geography I have never been below the four, I immediately give out 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 swarm inside.

BUT on what basis Is the geographically not separated territory of a single continent designated as part of the world?! So, of course, we already know that Asia is Asia - the country of Ases. But after all, there must be a plausibly molded official version. It can't be that we are so cheaply bred!

When trying to clarify where something came from, a clear system of geographical representations begins to treacherously blur. It's just some kind of magic. Morok. Parts of the world from school were presented to us as a "geographical concept." This is the largest division of land, including even the continents (both Americas are one part of the world). But it turns out it's not! Although we are not told about this at school, but according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia:

Parts of the world - historically the established division of the earth's land into regions

On Wikipedia, it's even weirder:

The division into continents is made on the basis of separation by water space from other continents, and parts of the world - the concept of RAPID(here she went to the dregs, - auth.) historical and cultural.

Unlike the mainland, part of the world also includes islands close to the mainland, and proximity is MEAN according to historical tradition, and the distance can be greater ...

So why are parts of the world taught in geography and not history? And therefore, apparently, that 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. Much 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 divided North and South America only in 1913. Before that, both Americas were completely one mainland. With Africa, Antarctica, Australia with the adjacent archipelagos of Oceania, everything also fits into the geographical logic.

But with Europe and Asia, the entire geographical logic is gone. They fall out of this line. In turn, Antarctica falls out of the historical and cultural definition. Who is the bearer of the historical and cultural tradition? Except the penguins. So it turns out that the historical and cultural connotation was given to this definition in recent times. Not before the end of the 19th century. This can be seen from the work 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 Nikolay 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 German-Roman world. Here is what is there on the issue of interest to us:

“... America is an island; Australia is an island; Africa is almost an island; Asia, together with Europe, will also be almost an island. Why 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 any limit set by nature?

The Ural Range occupies about half of this border. But what special qualities does he have in order to bestow on him, out of all the ridges of the globe, the honor of serving as the boundary between two parts of the world, an honor that in all other cases is recognized only across the oceans and rarely beyond the seas? This ridge is one of the smallest in height, and one of the most convenient in terms of traversability; in its middle part, near Yekaterinburg, they cross it, as if through the famous Alaun flat hill and the Valdai Mountains, asking the driver: where, brother, are the mountains? .. But the Ural Range, at least, is something; further, the honor to serve as the border of two worlds falls on the Ural River, which is already perfect nothing. A narrow river, at the mouth a quarter of the Neva wide, with exactly the same banks on both sides ... "

And here it is difficult to disagree with Danilevsky. It is also obvious that in his time no historical and cultural definitions there was no part of the world at all. It was then only about geography. At the end of his work, Nikolai Yakovlevich despaired of finding a rational explanation for this 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 sort out this centuries-old heap of lies, you need to plunge into the origins of the issue. All the most ancient and secret - in words and names. Let's start with them.

Europe - what is this word?

Wikipedia: Europe named after the heroine of the ancient Greek mythology of Europe, the Phoenician princess, abducted by Zeus and taken to Crete (at the same time, the epithet of Europe could also be associated with Hera and Demeter).

A bunch of small. Although this is the most common version, it is extremely implausible. Who in the 9th-14th centuries were interested in France, Germany, etc. the lascivious adventures of a locally venerated Greek deity to call his land that? Let's take a look at the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (hereinafter referred to as TSB):

Europe (Greek Europe, from Assyrian ereb - west (in other sources - presumably west, - auth.)); in ancient Greece, this was the name given to the territories lying to the west of the Aegean Sea) ...

Let's say "probably west", although getting Europa out of Erebus is not easy. But west of the Aegean we have only Italy and Spain. And a millennium later, on the maps of the 15th century, Europe already flaunts almost within its modern borders. In fact, it does not matter how the Greeks or even the Romans called this or that. Europeans are not Greeks. Different place, different era. There must be someone else who assigned a single name to the western territories by the 15th century. And he is in no hurry to get famous. Therefore, tales about lustful bulls and girls are launched.

It is obvious that some unified 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 ended up in a dependent position. This power could only be Catholic Church and she remains silent. However, everyone knows that the official language of the Catholic Church was originally Latin. Well, if she appropriated some name, then it was in Latin. What do you think euro means in Latin? Get ready for a sharp turn - in Latin it means EAST! It's easy to check:

eurus, i m (Greek; lat. vulturnus)

1) eur, southeast wind L, Sen etc.;

2) poet. Eastern wind, tzh. storm H, V, St; wind ( at all): primo sub euro Lcn at the first gust of wind;

3) poet. East VF, CD.

euro-aquilo, onis m- northeast wind Vlg.

eurocircias, ae m (Greek) - east-southeast wind Vtr

euronotus, i m (Greek) - south-southeast wind Col, PM.

eurous, a, um - eastern (fluctus V).

For those who are not sure that Europe is directly related 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, 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 the influence of Catholics in the countries of Europe took place from west to east. And since the process of eradicating the Vedic culture is not a quick and still unfinished business, the new lands captured by the Catholics were called the East for a long time (in their Latin jargon). These are the very vast spaces that today are called Europe (France, Germany, Poland, the Baltic countries, etc.). It is important to note here that the name Europe has a clear political origin.

Asia - what a word. TSB says:

Asia (Greek Asia, probably from the Assyrian asu - east), the most extensive part of the world (about 30% of the entire land area), part of the Eurasian continent.

Again this unscientific is "probably". Incredible and unbelievable. And in general, in Greek, the word East - Αυατολη (trnskrp. Anatoli) is. Why is it necessary to introduce someone else's designation of the side of the world?

Wikipedia says: ... In the Hittite era, the kingdom of Assuva was located in the northwestern part of Asia Minor ... In the Greek epic, this kingdom is personified in the image of King Asius, an ally of the Trojans ... By the time of Herodotus, the designation of the whole part of the world as Assia (Asia) was generally accepted by the Greeks.

Assuva and Asiya, as they are actually written in all European languages, are not very similar words. And it is not clear why King Asius was so distinguished in order to call a whole part of the world after him? So nothing would have been clarified, but the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus described some Ases-Alans. And these Ases lived just in that very Asia. Despite the unhealthy addiction of the scientific elite to the distorted Assyrian words, it should be recognized that there is simply no more obvious hypothesis today. Again, it is clear that geography is far from the main thing here. Asia, this political entity is the country of Ases. Its borders are delineated not by seas and mountain ranges, but by wars and treaties. So the name of the part of the world Asia as well as Europe, has clearly political background.

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, and then for some reason into a historical and cultural one?

It was by all indications. A thousand years ago, with the onset of the Night of Svarog, in the western territories there was a process of capturing and uniting territories and peoples. When the peoples could not be brought "in line", they were completely destroyed. Thus, the multi-million tribal unions of Lutiches and Veneds, who inhabited all the western lands, were destroyed. In Europe, mostly broken peoples remained. It was genocide by all definitions. Real massacre. A certain political force, the manifestation of which we observe in the actions of the Catholic Church, divided people into pieces, pitted against each other, weakened in civil strife. Then the same force gathered all the peoples subject to it into a single fist, and threw the rest to the destruction. Everything was accompanied by the planting of Christianity.

Asiya is the home of the peoples, the bearers of the primordial, Vedic civilization, where there has never been slavery and poverty, where everything was created by one's own labor, where will and skill were valued above gold. This is our civilization, aces or Asian, as they are now trying to twist and turn the meaning around. 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 principality of Moscow and others (allegedly the Tatar-Mongol invasion) were cleared of the slave infection. Then it was stopped Drang nach Osten- thrust to the east. The shock forces of Europe went under the ice of Lake Peipus. But already in the 17th century, the territories, long weakened by Christianization, did not resist. The Moscow principality and those subject to it began to be indicated on maps as European Tartaria, or simply Europe. Front in the war of civilizations crawled to the east. In 1720, Tatishchev allegedly proposed drawing the border between Europe and Asia along the Ural Mountains. At that time it was political border between two worlds.

The pressure to the east continued. In 1775, as a result of the defeat of the liberation army of Asia (Great Tartaria), which we know as "Pugachev uprising", The European civilization of slavery and profit has overcome the remnants of organized resistance. Having hastily staked out the occupied territories, the newly minted "The Russian Empire" began to clean up the traces of the great confrontation. At home, it was technically easy. For example, the captured papers of the Pugachev headquarters (decrees, orders, letters) were securely hidden from prying eyes. The rest was propaganda.

A.S. Pushkin, only 50 years later, through great connections, got access to these papers. And this is another question - what was shown to him? At least those texts that are published by modern researchers (I don’t know where they get them from) are full of the words “my loyal slaves.” Could a person who brought freedom to people and communicated with them on an equal footing could write such a thing? At least, I have not yet been able to find the originals of even these supposedly Pugachev decrees. Cleaned up so thoroughly that already in the 18th century the elite of new generations by puppy dog in front of "enlightened Europe", and despised the dirty, dark Asian garbage heap, in the form of which undeveloped Russia seemed to them. But traces of the great confrontation have become too firmly established in circulation all over the world, preserved in names, in different languages, and laid down on maps. How to hide it?

This is where geography comes to the rescue. The then European geographers were very practical people involved in big politics. They hardly looked like Paganels. That's why lied easily and competently. Everything that used to separate 2 civilizations (armies, states, treaties) has gone into oblivion. Great generals have become bearded robbers, empires have become a collection of warring princelings, large cities have become newly cut down watchtowers. BUT 2 new parts of the world appeared in geography.

As conceived by the authors of the forgery, not only the political background of the issue should be hidden from the Russians, but also from the whole world, and first of all from the Europeans. They should not know that the many supposedly independent European states are just a signboard. It cannot be shown that all Europe is ruled by one force and revive forgotten Vedic traditions. After all, the conquest of Europe is not over to this day. And where two civilizations opposed each other, only the geographical border remained. She has no patrols and 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 side. Nobody will say a word. This is how it was left for the time being.

Only a century passes, and Danilevsky is sincerely surprised by the geographical absurdity. It never occurs to him to reflect on the political interpretation of the name Eurasia. But the years passed, and there were more and more such Danilevskys. General education, be it wrong. Fursenko will not allow this in the future.

Geographers, on the other hand, degenerated in office conditions. Politicians have almost wiped them off "fresh meat". They lost their grip. Mere mortals began to argue with them and ask uncomfortable questions. So there was an urgent need to patch up the official version. And highly qualified liars began to layer a new layer of lies on the geographical crypt of Asia-Tartaria, which gave numerous cracks.

It was necessary to come up with anything, but not a political confrontation between the two civilizations. So they spun around supposedly some kind of historical, established traditions. Then they realized that all history is inseparable from politics, and turned into a cultural channel. With this "historical and cultural" now they're blurring.

While writing this article, I encountered 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 attraction. They are trying to find commercial applications: excursions, etc. But something, apparently, business is not working. Not very people are interested. Probably, it would be fascinating and informative if you tell them the truth, but you still won’t be able to make money on the blood and valor of your ancestors.

In the early stages of artistic development, form differentiation is achieved by adding independent elements. For example, a child overcomes the manner of depicting a human figure in the form of a circle by adding straight lines, oblong objects, or other pictorial units. Each of these units has a geometrically simple, well-defined shape. They are connected by equally simple directional relations, 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 at an early stage the child does not have an integrated idea of ​​the object as a whole. The symmetry and unity of the whole and the planning of proportions show that the child shapes (within certain limits) the parts in terms of their final placement 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, building up the whole on the basis of a hierarchy of parts, bring this procedure to extremely intricate combinations, which in itself

speaks of their subtle observation. The result can be called anything, but not pale, 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 gets acquainted with the complex form, which was obtained as a result of a 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 arms and legs, without stopping. The more

the concept of an object is differentiated, the more skill is required for this procedure. Masters of the "linear style", such as Picasso, with such exceptional precision

they accurately reproduce the contour of a 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 stage of drawing doodles, a child's hand is often in certain

Periods makes rhythmic oscillations, without lifting the pencil from the paper. As a child

learns to visually control the form, he begins to clearly draw individual

Figurative units. Visually, the division of the whole into well-defined parts contributes to simplicity, but for a hand in motion, any interruption in its activity means a certain complication. In the history of writing, there has been a replacement of individual capital letters in monumental inscriptions with smoothly connected curves in a cursive type in which, for the sake of speed, the hand managed to bend the human eye to its side. In the same way, the child, with increasing compliance, prefers the uninterrupted flow of the line. The image of the horse in fig. 105, made by a five-year-old boy, has the elegance of a businessman's signature. The extent to which the individual craftsman allows the motor factor to influence the creation of form depends to a large extent on the relationship in his personal character between spontaneously expressed temperament and rational control. (This can be illustrated quite convincingly by a graphological analysis of handwriting.)

The images of two fish (Figs. 106 and 107) were taken by us from drawings made by the same child at different times. In an earlier picture

we see the first hint of a synthesizing circuit only in the serrated fins of the fish. The rest of the torso is constructed from geometrically simple elements found

moving in a vertical-horizontal relationship. Later, a holistic outline is already given in one clear continuous movement. As will be shown below, this procedure enhances the effect

joint movement, favors leaning and smoothes corners, for example in the tail. All this contributes to the formation of more complex forms than those which the eye can accurately control and understand at this stage. Thus, the earlier depiction of the fish, although less interesting and lively, is much better organized.

The picture, which depicts children throwing snowballs at each other, was made by the same child even later (Fig. 108). This drawing shows that experimentation with a more differentiated form enables the child, after a certain time, to modify the basic static form of the body. The movements are no longer reduced to the appropriate spatial orientation of the various parts of the body, the latter bends on its own. At this stage, the child is more convincing with figures sitting in chairs, on horseback, or climbing trees.

Size

Like other factors we have analyzed, size remains undifferentiated at first. The law of differentiation forces us to expect that relations between dimensions are first depicted structurally in the simplest way, that is, through equality. In fact, visual context units are perceived to be equal in size until there is a need for differentiation. With this in mind, we won't ask the traditional question, "Why do some images have relationships between sizes that don't match reality?" Instead, we ask, “What motivates children to give objects in their drawings different sizes?” Perceptual recognition depends relatively little on the size of objects. The shapes and orientation of the object are not affected by resizing. In the language of music, it is simply "transposition". Just as it makes no difference to most listeners what key a piece of music is played in, so the change in visual size often goes unnoticed. A more immediate parallel can be found in what musicians call

"increase" or "decrease" when the topic remains familiar, even if the speed of its reproduction, that is, its temporal size, has changed. Ordinarily, we are not aware of the constant perspective change in size in objects in the environment.

us environment. As far as images are concerned, it will not matter much to anyone whether they are shown a small photograph of a man or a gigantic statue. The TV screen in the living room looks small, but it costs us

only focus on it for a while, and it becomes a perfectly acceptable frame for depicting "real" people and buildings in it.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the need for

The "correct" size ratios in the picture is very slight. Even in the developed art of medieval book illustrations, castles and people

often have the same

sizes. In a painting depicting the theme "A man is heading home", two objects have the same visual weight until it becomes necessary to distinguish them. If, for example, a person must be in a doorway or look out of a window, then he must be smaller than the building. But even so, the difference in size does not go beyond what is required for a clear visual indication of the respective building and human functions. Rice. 109 is an illustration of a passage from Revelation

niya 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 are large enough to remain visible. In the interest of unity and coherence, artists tend to keep the intervals small. The more identical in size the figurative units, the more successfully they are combined - on the basis of the pattern of "similarity in size" - into 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 in true scale. Either the 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 image as a whole does not

has visual unity. Where large differences in size are desirable, large and small units of composition are combined for the most part through other intermediate pictorial units of medium size. Thus, 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 only truthful imitation. These differences appear when the functional nature of the emotional,

symbolic and spatial relationships. Psychologically, this phenomenon is well revealed in the thesis of Jean Piaget: “Space is first of all topological, and only then Euclidean”1. Early ideas about space and spatial relationships dealt with qualitative interdependencies, not with its measurement.

The child in this case begins with an undifferentiated phase - with an image in which all parts are the same. This is true even with respect to the mutual sizes of parts of the same object,

although in the beginning, differentiation is closely related to the functional context. A good example of this is Fig. 110. Head, torso and

limbs are equivalent parts and still not differentiated in size. Usually this phenomenon is not too obvious, but Victor

Lowenfeld drew attention to the many examples in which the face of a person is as large as cars, a house is as tall as a small child, hands are no less than heads, and flowers reach the size of a human thigh. Lowenfeld interpreted2 such images in the traditional manner, suggesting that the proportions would be "correct" unless some other factor interfered. This factor, he believes, may be the subjective value attributed by the child to certain objects, which, therefore,

drawn "so big". Lowenfeld claims, for example, that in the figure

"Flies disturb the horse" flies, due to their importance and significance for the child, are depicted approximately the same size as the horse's head. If, instead

in order to think in terms of an adult, we analyze the genetic process, the fact that a fly

drawn smaller than a horse and is the required explanation.

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 at least twice as large as their subordinates. However, such an explanation in relation to early childhood drawings should be applied with great caution. For example, in the drawings of children very often the head of a person in relation to the whole figure is large. It is quite natural to assume that this should be the case, 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 the drawings of children, the head is the original circle, from which, through minor additions, a more differentiated human figure arose and developed. The child begins his drawing with an 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 that remains into this space. As long as the form is not differentiated, it is treated arbitrarily. Just as at the stage of undifferentiated form the circle (containing space without juxtaposition of figures) is drawn less carefully than at a later stage,

when it is already distinguished from other forms, the undifferentiated size is often the result of an illegible, disorderly 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 is of great importance.

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 a young child is asked to copy geometric figures that are in contact with each other or partially overlap, he usually abolishes this

contact and between these pictorial units leaves some space. In the undifferentiated stage, there is a standard distance that looks 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 required to depict a close relationship between objects. Therefore, too elongated arms,

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 for some time inconvenient for visual perception.

INTEGRATION

(lat. integratio - restoration, replenishment, from integer - whole), a side of the development process associated with the unification of previously dissimilar parts and elements into a whole. I. processes can take place both within the framework of an already established system - in this case they lead to an increase in the level of its integrity and organization, and when a new system arises from previously unrelated elements. Dep. parts of an integrated whole may have varying degrees of autonomy. In the course of I. processes in the system, the volume and intensity of interconnections and interaction between elements increases, in particular, new levels of control are built up.

Sometimes iodine I. is understood as integration, i.e. some result of the I. process, a state of ordered functioning of the parts of the whole.

Social I. means the presence of ordered relations between individuals, groups, orgs, states and T. e. In the analysis of I., the level of the considered systems of I. is distinguished. (I. individuals, groups, societies and T. e.). I. society or otd. states can be carried out on the basis of coercion, mutual benefit or similarity of socio-economic. system, interests, goals and values ​​of various individuals, social groups, classes, states. IN modern conditions develops a trend towards interstate. I. in economics. and political areas both under socialism and under capitalism. However, this process is deeply different in socio-economic. nature, forms, methods, economical. and political consequences.

• - the process of streamlining, coordinating and combining structures and functions in an integral organism, characteristic of living systems at each of the levels of their organization ...

  Glossary of botanical terms

• - the unification of separate parts as a whole, as well as the process leading to such an unification ...

  The Beginnings of Modern Natural Science

• - the cultural state of the...

  Encyclopedia of cultural studies

• - as an intra-group process - the creation of internal unity, cohesion, which is expressed in the identification of the collective, cohesion of the group as its value-oriented unity, objectivity in ...

  Great Psychological Encyclopedia

• - the process by which parts are combined into a whole ...

  Analytical Psychology Dictionary

• - , the side of the development process associated with the unification of previously dissimilar parts and elements into a whole ...

  Philosophical Encyclopedia

• - English. integration; German integration. one...

  Encyclopedia of Sociology

• - unification of economic entities, deepening of their interaction, development of ties between them. Economic integration takes place both at the level of national economies of entire countries, and between enterprises, ...

  Economic dictionary

• - combining heterogeneous tasks and operations in one organization ...

  Reference commercial dictionary

• - the process of combining the efforts of various subsystems to achieve the goals of the organization ...

  Glossary of Crisis Management Terms

• - 1) a concept meaning a state of connectedness of individual differentiated parts and functions of a system, an organism into a whole, as well as a process leading to such a state ...

  Political science. Dictionary.

• - in physiology, the functional association of organs and tissues, aimed at providing some result useful for the body ...

  Big Medical Dictionary

• - the stage of the development process associated with the unification of previously heterogeneous parts into a single whole; a state of order in the functioning of the parts of the whole ...

  Ecological dictionary

• - combining into a whole any parts, elements ...

  Big Economic Dictionary

• - the process of mutual adaptation and integration into a single whole of organizations, industries, regions or countries, etc. ...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law

• - a phenomenon in the language, which consists in the fact that the constituent morphological parts of a known word are no longer isolated in our minds, as separate parts of the word, and the whole word, even if decomposed by scientific analysis into ...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron

"INTEGRATION" in books

Integration

Integration

Integration In his analysis of upheavals in science, Thomas Kuhn argued that the main distinguishing feature of these upheavals is a change in the world view, or what Kuhn called a paradigm. Observations that were previously difficult to interpret now fit into

Integration