Dedicated to the blessed memory of my mother, Russian philologist, Bestuzhev Elena Fedorovna Arutyunova

This book does not cover all the issues related to the meaning of the sentence. It speaks only of the logical-syntactic aspect of the sentence, within which the interaction of such phenomena as the communicative perspective of the sentence, its syntactic structure and the nature of the reference of the names included in it becomes especially obvious. Addressing the problems of reference in the study of the syntactic structure of the language is extremely important. It is necessary both in determining the syntactic type of a sentence and in clarifying the semantic type of the elements of an utterance. The problems of the formation of chains of meanings are also considered in the book, primarily in their logical aspect, for which it is especially important to reveal the patterns of connection of propositive and specific meanings. In the course of the presentation, the author allowed himself small "inserted episodes", which, as it seems, clarify and concretize the general problems touched upon in the book.

The author takes this opportunity to express his sincere gratitude to the reviewers of the book, Dr. philol. Sciences I.I. Kovtunova and prof. V.G. Gaku, who made many important critical remarks, as well as colleagues who assisted the author in collecting material: E.N. Shiryaev, whose card file was used in the chapter "Relations of Existence", N.I.

Basic approaches to studying the meaning of a sentence

In a strange and incomprehensible way, linguistics, having studied to the smallest detail all the aspects and mechanisms of Language and languages, has left almost completely out of its field of vision the vast and fascinating area for research of the meaning of the sentence. Syntax, whose task is to examine the life of a sentence, was usually limited to the study of its formal structure, regardless of semantics and in abstraction from communicative purposes. The latter were taken into account only to the extent that they were fixed by the structure of the sentence (cf. declarative sentence, question, motivation). As a branch of grammar, syntax tried not to go beyond the proper grammatical categories. He paid tribute to semantics mainly by attempting to reveal the meaning of syntactic connections and the semantic definition of the functions of secondary members of the sentence (circumstances of place, time, cause, etc.). Neither the nature of the meaning of a sentence and its compositions, nor the semantic types of sentences, nor the semantic types of subjects and predicates, nor the interaction of the formal and semantic structures of a sentence have been the subject of special analysis until recently. Interest in this range of questions arose 10-15 years ago. It was stimulated by a number of factors that influenced the development of linguistic thought. This was facilitated by the onset of a new period in the relationship of linguistics with logic related with keen attention to the content of the sentence - propositions, and a general turn to the semantic side of language and speech, and an appeal to the pragmatic component of speech activity, and the concept of a sentence as a linguistic sign that has its own meaning. The need to study the meaning of a sentence also arose in connection with the theory of syntactic transformations, based on the concept of semantic equivalence of sentences. The same problem arose during the development of models for the transformation of semantic structures into correctly constructed statements of one language or another.

From the mid-60s, what can be called an assault on the semantics of the sentence began. The offensive is carried out from almost all sides: it is deployed from lexicological positions, and from the bridgehead of grammar, and along the line of clarifying situational meanings, and from the side of logic, which has an undoubted priority in this area, and by the forces of linguistics of speech.

The most widely used among linguists is the denotative, or referential, concept of the meaning of a sentence. It aims to determine the relationship between the utterance and the extralinguistic situation or event it denotes. The situational concept of the proposal is consistently developed in the works of VG Gak. Considering the statement to be a complete linguistic sign, V.G. Gak believes that "the referent of the statement is the situation, i.e. the totality of elements present in the mind of the speaker in objective reality, at the moment of "saying" and causing to a certain extent the selection of linguistic elements in the formation of the statement itself ". V. G. Gak studies the relationship between the situation and the sentence denoting it in two aspects - onomasiological and syntactic. In the latter case, the ratio of the syntactic functions of the members of the sentence (mainly actants) and the roles played by the objects they designate in a real event are analyzed.

Since this direction associates the meaning of a sentence with states of affairs or events of reality, it pays Special attention analysis and definition of the situation.

The very concept of a situation is used by different authors in different meanings: it refers now to the world, then to the language (its semantics), then to the way of thinking about the world, i.e. is placed at the top of any corner of the fatal semantic triangle.

In many cases, a situation is called an extralinguistic referent of a sentence, a segment of reality, a private event, a fact reported in a specific statement. So, according to the definition of V.S. Khrakovsky, "the semantic structure of sentences is a fragment of reality cut and processed by thought and language, which is usually called an individual denotative situation or event." The above definition, however, gives grounds to attribute the concept of a situation not only to the world (this is a fragment of reality), but also to linguistic semantics (this is the semantic structure of a sentence), and to a certain extent to thinking (this is a fragment of reality, cut and processed by thought). Some authors transfer the situation from reality to language. By situation they mean the "complex semantic unit" expressed by the sentence, and they speak of the imposition of the situation on the "continuum of objective phenomena". Sometimes the situation is considered in two aspects, or at two levels of abstraction - as "a fact of objective reality and as a fact of reflection and processing of this reality in the mind" (I.P. Susov. Decree, cit., p. 26. Compare the close point of view of G.G. Silnitsky: "As a semantic unit that makes up the significative meaning expressed by the sentence, the situation is opposed to a denotation or a situational referent ; the latter is understood as a "segment" of extra-linguistic reality, denoted by a sentence and displayed by the situation "(G.G. Silnitsky. Semantic and valency classes of English causative verbs. Author's abstract. Dokt. diss. L., 1974, p. 3)).

Some scientists, proceeding from the fact that linguistic expressions do not correlate with the world directly, but through the "image of reality" that is in the mind and memory of a person, use the term "situation" only "in relation to a mental situation located in mental space and mental time" (Yu.K. Lekomtsev. Decree, op., p. and situations" (O.I. Moskalskaya. Problems of a systematic description of syntax. M., 1974, p. 12)). In this case, a sentence is understood as a chain of sound images that encode a certain situation.

The denotative direction of research is primarily concerned with the study of that aspect of the sentence, which reflects the structure of the situation and which in various works is called the semantic, nominative, denotative, cognitive, level of reference, relational structure, proposition. It turned out to be fruitful in elucidating and defining the primary and secondary semantic functions of actants under multiplace predicates and the possibilities of changing their disposition.

Although all authors working in this direction take into account the modality factor, i.e. different types relation of the statement to reality, including the unreal modality, as well as the existence of false, erroneous and inaccurate statements, in their studies one sometimes comes across somewhat straightforward statements and formulations that make one recall the following words of B. Russell: "If on a sunny day I say It's raining, it is hardly appropriate to look for the meaning of this sentence in the fact that the sun shines.

The shift of interest from the study of the semantics of the actant and the frame of the verb towards the meaning of the predicate can be observed in the works of T.B. Alisova, who made an interesting attempt to systematically study the semantic types of predicates and built a classification of simple sentences on this basis. Attention to the verbal meaning as the semantic core of the sentence is also characteristic of the works of F. Danesh and his colleagues. Understanding the semantic structure of a sentence as a syntactic use of structural formulas formed by verbal meanings, F.Danesh considers the modeling of these latter to be a stage that precedes the description of the meaning of an utterance. F. Danesh distributes verbs into three classes, denoting: 1) static situations, 2) processes and 3) events. The verbs of the first group express relations of locative, possessive, attributive and other similar types. The class of events includes such verbal meanings that can be described as a transition from the initial situation to the final one (cf. Karl disappeared from Prague). Processes are dynamic verbal meanings that do not belong to the category of events. Procedural meanings are divided into active, inactive and unstructured.

The study of the meaning and compatibility of the verbal basis of the sentence received in some works a valency-lexical development. With this approach, the focus of research interest is on the structural-lexical basis of the sentence, which is understood as "a combination of lexemes, a syntactic unit organized according to the rules in force in a given language around a finite verb, noun, adjective, infinitive, participle, adverb, i.e. this is a phrase in the traditional sense."

Arutyunova Nina Davidovna

Well-known linguist, corresponding member Russian Academy Sciences. Graduated from Moscow State University. Student of Academician V. F. Shishmarev and Professor D. E. Mikhalchi. Chief Researcher at the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Author of works in the field of theoretical linguistics, Romance languages, Russian language. The founder of a new direction in modern linguistics is the logical analysis of language. Laureate of the State Prize Russian Federation (1995).

Syntax, whose task is to examine the life of a sentence, was usually limited to the study of its formal structure, regardless of semantics and in abstraction from communicative purposes.

As a branch of grammar, syntax tried not to go beyond the proper grammatical categories.

Neither the nature of the meaning of a sentence and its compositions, nor the semantic types of sentences, nor the semantic types of subjects and predicates, nor the interaction of the formal and semantic structures of a sentence have been the subject of special analysis until recently. Interest in this range of issues arose 10-15 years ago. It was stimulated by a number of factors that influenced the development of linguistic thought. This was facilitated by the onset of a new period in the relationship of linguistics with logic, which is related with keen attention to the content of the sentence - propositions, and a general turn to the semantic side of language and speech, and an appeal to the pragmatic component of speech activity, and the concentration of the sentence as a linguistic sign that has its own meaning.

The most widely used among linguists is the denotative, or referential, concept of the meaning of a sentence. It aims to determine the relationship between the utterance and the extralinguistic situation or event it denotes. The situational concept of the proposal is consistently developed in the works of V. G. Gak. Considering the statement to be a complete linguistic sign, V. G. Gak believes that “the referent of the statement is the situation, i.e. the totality of elements present in the mind of the speaker in objective reality, at the moment of “saying” and causing to a certain extent the selection of linguistic elements in the formation of the statement itself.” V. G. Gak studies the relationship between the situation and the sentence denoting it in two aspects - onomasiological and syntactic. In the latter case, the ratio of the syntactic functions of the members of the sentence (mainly actants) and the roles played by the objects they designate in a real event are analyzed.

Since this direction connects the meaning of the sentence with states of affairs or events of reality, it pays special attention to the analysis and definition of the situation.

The very concept of a situation is used by different authors in different meanings: it refers either to the world, or to the language (its semantics), or to the way of thinking about the world, i.e., it is placed at the top of any corner of the fatal semantic triangle.

In many cases, a situation is called an extralinguistic referent of a sentence, a segment of reality, a private event, a fact reported in a specific statement.

The denotative direction of research is occupied with studying, first of all, that aspect of the sentence, which reflects the structure of the situation and which, in various works gets the name of semantic, nominative, denotative, cognitive, level of reference, relational structure, proposition. It turned out to be fruitful in elucidating and defining the primary and secondary semantic functions of actants under multiplace predicates and the possibilities of changing their disposition.

The study of the meaning and compatibility of the verbal basis of the sentence received in some works a valency-lexical development. With this approach, the structural-lexical basis of the sentence falls into the focus of research interest.

Recognizing the fruitfulness of such an approach in terms of discovering the valence properties of a word (lexeme) as an “averaged” and abstract from the syntactic function of a vocabulary unit, at the same time we doubt that it can bring closer to revealing the patterns of formation of the structural-lexical basis of a sentence. The combination of words depends not only on their valence potencies, but also on their role in the sentence, as well as on the nature of that syntactic connection that connects them. So, there is a difference in the norms for the formation of phrases intended to perform the function of a subject, and constructions suitable for the role of a predicate sentence; the rules for connecting words with attributive and predicative links are also not the same.

The subject and the predicate perform essentially different functions in the sentence: the subject and other terms of a specific meaning replace in speech the object of reality, which they are called upon to identify for the addressee of the message, i.e., they act in their denoting function, while the predicate, which serves the purposes of the message, realizes only its significative (abstract, conceptual) content, or meaning. The meaning of the subject is "transparent" and the denotation clearly shines through it. This functional difference is associated with differences in the compatibility of words that occupy the positions of the subject and the predicate in the sentence. In the subject, the definition refers to the denotative meaning of the name, pointing to some property of the real object; in the predicate, the definition "links" with the significatum of the name. This can be shown by the example of changing the meaning of adjectives depending on their inclusion in the subject and predicate. Wed adjective meanings young in sentences like She is a young mistress And The young mistress entered the room. The first sentence could be elderly woman who had recently left her job and started housekeeping. In it, the adjective is associated with the significate of the word hostess, not its denotation: She is a young mistress= She has recently taken care of the house. The second sentence hardly applies to a pensioner. In it, a sign of youth characterizes the denotation of the name hostess, not its significat. The adjective in this case expresses the property of the bearer of the name, the real person, regardless of what word this person is designated. Such a sentence is appropriate to use, for example, when two women are involved in housekeeping in the house, for example, the mother and wife of the owner of the house. The mark of youth serves the purposes of their distinction. Wed also the possibility of subject combinations blond hostess, black-eyed hostess with their unnaturalness in the function of the predicate: The black-eyed (long-nosed) mistress of the house entered the room And * She is a black-eyed (long-nosed) mistress of the house.

In a number of studies, the semantic structure of a sentence is modeled based on grammatical concepts and categories. The main pathos of these works is "the search for correlation in the sentence of grammatical features with semantic ones." In this spirit, a study on Russian syntax by G. A. Zolotova was carried out. The author begins with the definition of the semantic functions of elementary syntactic forms that form a sentence, and ends with the selection of typical meanings of sentence models. G. A. Zolotova understands the typical meaning as “the semantic result of the predicative conjugation of the structural and semantic components of the sentence model” (cf. “an object and its quality”, “a subject and its state”). The stated approach is based on the idea that "the named types of relations between the phenomena of reality cannot exist in the linguistic consciousness except in the form of one of the syntactic constructions given by the language."

N. Yu. Shvedova considers the main task of semantic research in the field of sentence syntax to be the determination of the eigenvalue of formal syntactic models. According to this point of view, “the grammatical organization of a sentence […] is in itself a factor that is not indifferent to the semantic structure of a sentence constructed according to this scheme. The abstract meanings of the components of the scheme and the relationship between them serve as the fundamental basis of the semantic structure of the sentence, presenting it in the most generalized form. According to this general view“The semantic structure of a sentence is understood as its informative content, presented in an abstract form as a ratio of typified sense elements fixed in the language system.” N. Yu. Shvedova seeks to study the meaning of the sentence, based on the actual linguistic material, without referring to the structure of the extralinguistic situation. The units of each level of the language, including the structural scheme of the sentence, have a semantic originality, created, according to N. Yu. Shvedova, by the interaction of categorical and specific meanings in them.

The works of E. V. Paducheva also belong to the studies of the semantics of syntax. The author proceeds from the fact that “the meaning of a sentence is made up of the meanings of lexemes, grammatical meanings word forms and meanings of syntactic constructions”. Therefore, "the description of the semantics of syntax should be that component of the description of the language, which allows you to supplement the description of lexical and morphological semantics to the description of the semantics of the sentence as a whole." E. V. Paducheva is looking for a solution to the problem of the semantics of syntax on the way of interpreting semantically complex constructions, in which the connection between form and meaning is not obvious, through simpler constructions. The main attention of the author is drawn to the study of synonymous relations between statements, as well as those formal transformations that connect them. A synonymous class of sentences corresponds to one sentence written in the language of meanings and taken as a semantic representation of this class. As a "language of meanings" the author uses the natural language that serves as the object of description.

The problem of choosing a rational way to represent the semantic structure of a sentence is essential for the general direction of research, since in the generative models of the language the meaning of the message is the source material, which is gradually converted into a real statement of a particular language. A similar technique for describing the meaning of a sentence can be found in other concepts. So, I. P. Susov, relying on the denotative basis (relational backbone) of the sentence, further describes the process of forming the meaning of the statement as a gradual “accumulation” of a simple abstract scheme “as a result of operations “attached” to it with new and new components, until it becomes a complex, “multi-story” formation, more or less fully satisfying the communicative intention.” Such an approach to the semantics of a sentence can be characterized as a level approach.

Along with the listed directions in the study of the meaning of a sentence, each of which can be fruitful in solving certain problems, there has been a logical view of the sentence for a long time and even from ancient times. If we recall those definitions of a sentence that did not claim to strictly observe the rules of scientific definitions, but hoped to reveal the essence of the defined categories, then they most often and for the longest time noted that the sentence expresses a (complete, relatively complete) thought. In the ability to convey a thought, they usually saw the specifics of the content side of a sentence, which distinguishes it from a word and a phrase. Sometimes the above definition was inverted and it was pointed out that a thought expressed in words is a sentence. Indeed, thought cannot be expressed in language except in the form of a sentence.

This work is mostly devoted to the logical-semantic aspect of the sentence. It therefore briefly discusses the concepts that are used in the logical analysis of the meaning of a sentence (the concepts of proposition and propositional relation verbs, the concept of reference). This is the subject of the first and third chapters.

When studying the syntagmatics of a sentence from the point of view of its content, the main attention was directed to the logical, i.e., determined by the properties of thinking, patterns of creating chains of meanings (see the second chapter).

The main content of the work is to highlight the logical-syntactic "beginnings", that is, those relationships that, being directly related to ways of thinking about the world, are at the same time involved in the grammatical structure of the language. V. G. Admoni, in whose works a lot of space is devoted to the analysis of logical-grammatical types of sentences, characterizes these latter as “concrete grammatical structures that have a grammatical form, with the help of which, however, nothing else is expressed than logical content, i.e. typical connections and relations of objective reality reflected in human thinking.” Logico-syntactic structures are the most general models in which thought forms meaning.

The allocation of logical-syntactic types is based on the following properties of the sentence: 1) the nature of the terms of relations - in the sentence, a connection can be established with any of those entities that human thinking operates on: an object, concept, name (word), represented in the statement by denotation, significate and signifier; 2) the direction of the relationship - the thought can move between the terms of the relationship in one direction or another. These two features determine the connection of the logical-syntactic structure of the sentence with the reference of the names included in it and the communicative perspective of the statement: the nature of the terms of the relations reveals itself in the reference of the name, and the direction of the relation reflects the communicative perspective of the sentence.

In relation to the material of the Russian language, the following four logical and grammatical "beginnings" are distinguished in this work: 1) relations of existence, or beingness, 2) relations of identification, or identity, 3) relations of nomination, or naming, 4) relations of characterization, or predication in the narrow sense of this term.

The relations of existence connect concept and object, concept and matter. An existential sentence affirms the existence (or non-existence) in the world or some fragment of an object (class of objects) endowed with certain features. Wed There are gigantic snakes in this country; Leshih does not exist; Big Foot exists. Thought in this case moves from a concept (concept) to a substance, an object that embodies a given set of features. Here it is appropriate to emphasize that in absolute (relating to the world) existential statements, the concept is usually created not by one feature, but by a combination, a set of a number of features. Therefore, the problem of being often comes down to the question of the compatibility of features in a concept (cf. the problem of the existence of “round squares”) or in a material object (mermaids, humpbacked skates, and other inhabitants of fairy-tale worlds).

The inversion of the thought process, its direction from the object to its attributes, set of attributes, state, properties, action leads to a change in logical relations, their transformation in the relations of characterization, or proper predication. In this case, some object is given in advance, in which one or another attribute is singled out by an active act of thinking. Wed The sea is calm today; This snake is huge. Logico-syntactic relations are determined, therefore, not only by the categories that they link, but also by the direction of the connection.

Nomination relations connect an object and its name, i.e., an element of the objective world and an element of the language code. Wed ^ This boy's name is Kolya. This is Kolya. Kolya. This tree is a pine. Naming relations can connect not only an object and its name, but also a concept (property, quality, event, etc.) and a way of designating it in the language (word). However, for the syntactic organization of a sentence, only the most simple form of these relations, connecting the object (person) and its own name. Only this simplest kind of naming is taken into account in the present work.

The inversion of naming relations, in which thought would move from the word (signifier) ​​to its meaning (significate), creates relations of an interpretative type, which are very close to the relation of identity. In communicating what a word means, we not only connect the sound with the meaning, but, as it were, equate the meaning of the word with its interpretation with the help of other words. Wed Sadness is a mournfully preoccupied, joyless, sad mood, feeling. Such sentences are used when the addressee does not know the first element of equality - the signified of the interpreted word. They can be defined as explicative. Interpretive relations do not correspond to a particular type of sentence. They, therefore, are not among the logical-syntactic "beginnings". The same can be said about another kind of inversion of naming relations, in which the thought moves from the name (given) to its specific carrier - an object or person. Wed Who is Sokolov here? Sokolov it's me. Such relations are not essential for the analysis of the syntactic structure of the Russian language.

Identification relations are reflexive, that is, they are directed to one object. They therefore cannot, in a logical sense, be inverted. In the clearest case, these relations establish the identity of the object (denotation) to itself (ontological identity). As for abstract categories, the problem of their identification is complicated by the absence of being independent of the linguistic designation of these entities. In this paper, only ontological identity is taken into account.

So, although those entities that human thinking operates on (denotation, significat, meaning, respectively, an object, concept, name) can be terms of a larger number of logical relations (there could be nine such relations), only four named types of relations are essential for the formation of syntactic structures of the Russian language (and possibly other languages), each of which is correlated with a special logical-syntactic structure - existential sentences, identity sentences, naming sentences and sentences characterization.

The direct purpose of the enumerated logical-syntactic structures is constantly shaken by the variation of their lexical content. It can be assumed that if the four structural types mentioned above were not presented in the language, one would be enough to convey any kind of logical relations and, more broadly, any content. This assumption will be illustrated below by the material of existential statements. The volume of this work has allowed us to describe only two logical-syntactic types of sentences - sentences of existential and identifying types, which have been studied least of all in relation to the Russian language.

Interested in the relationship between the categories of logic that form the structure of a sentence and the categories of semantics, and being convinced that the logical structure of thought and the communicative task of communication, closely related to it, directly affect the formation of first a speech sense, and then a stable lexical meaning words, we have devoted the last chapter of this work to this circle of questions.

Information war: we are being robbed of our history

When will we create an institution of elite management and reclaim our past and future?

Why do scientists not want to admit the presence of underwater cities in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? When will Darwin's theory be revised? How do the basic laws of the universe work? Why is it more important to give than to take? Where does fear come from? Why do we need a school for future managers? When will she start working? Why do cadres decide everything when creating a community? How were elites chosen in ancient empires? Is it possible to create your own financial system? Why do people trust the president? How to rid the president of the control of the current elite? Can the institution of veche replace parliament and deputies? When will we learn to promote our elite, remember the past and start building the future? Writer-historian, anthropologist, member of the Russian geographical society Georgy Sidorov answers readers' questions, talks about politics, history, social management and tells which book he considers his best.

Born in the Kemerovo region. According to his father, he is a Don Cossack, according to his mother - from the old noble family. Following family tradition, Georgy Sidorov studied the Cossack military art from childhood. Subsequently, it saved his life more than once.

Georgy Sidorov graduated from the biology and soil faculty of Tomsk University. After graduation, he moved to the north of the Tyumen region in the Khanty-Mansiysk national district. For several years he worked in the State Hunting Inspectorate, where he was engaged in the accounting of ungulates and the fight against poachers. Then he was admitted to the scientific department of the Yugansk Reserve. From here began his wanderings in the north. During his 20 years of work in the Arctic, Georgy Sidorov visited the Kola Peninsula, Karelia, the Arkhangelsk region, the Subpolar and Middle Urals, Yamal. He worked on the coast of the Gulf of Ob, Pure, at the top of the Taz and on the Yenisei. In Eastern Siberia, Georgy Sidorov visited the Putorana Plateau, lived and worked for some time in Evenkia (Baikit, Surinda, Tura). After Evenkia, the young researcher moved to Yakutia, where he worked on the Lena, Yana, Indigirka, Alazeya, and Khrom rivers. For several years, Georgy Sidorov lived in the Verkhne-Kolyma region in the capital of the Yukaghirs, Nelemny. He visited the rivers Korkodon and Omolon (Yukagir highlands). He worked on Anadyr among the local Chuvans. At work, Georgy Sidorov traveled to the northeast of Chukotka, he had a dream to visit Russian America. But he failed to carry it out.

In all his travels in northern Asia, the young explorer came across traces of an ancient stay in high latitudes of representatives of the white Caucasoid race. For two decades, Georgy Sidorov carefully wrote down the legends, mapped the places where, according to the words of the natives, the mysterious white race once lived.

As a result of his research, Georgy Sidorov came to the conclusion that relatively recently, about 2-3 thousand years BC. the entire north of Asia was controlled by the ancestors of modern European peoples.

This book will be a revelation to many.

In the fourth book of the epic "Chronological and Esoteric Analysis of the Development of Modern Civilization", Georgy Sidorov more fully reveals topics that directly concern everyone:
Who, how and why drove us into the trap of modern civilization, and which of this trap is the way out;
General laws of the universe, their specific application, popularly known as “magic”;
Effective management of one's psyche as a guarantee of security and development;
And most importantly - about a man and a woman, about the energy exchange between them, the birth of a child and relationships in the family. A person must understand that with the death of the family, another brick of our society will collapse, that component of it, without which he will not be able to evolve, because the spiritual evolution of a person always takes place in the family.

For many years this knowledge was hidden behind seven seals...

Chapter 1. Wolves
Chapter 2. Legend. Religion as a control technology
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8. Computers
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12. Transgenic technology
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24
Chapter 25
Chapter 26
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Chapter 33
Chapter 34
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Chapter 37
Chapter 38
Chapter 39 Family relationships
Chapter 40
Chapter 41
Chapter 42
Chapter 43
Chapter 44
Chapter 45
Chapter 46
Chapter 47
Chapter 48
Chapter 49
Chapter 50
Chapter 51
Chapter 52
Chapter 53
Chapter 54
Chapter 55
Chapter 56
Chapter 57
Chapter 58
Epilogue
List of recommended literature

1. An impasse in the development of fundamental physics as a result of Einstein's viral program called "The Theory of Relativity". 2. The impossibility of reaching new Or - strength. Day is light. Or-Yes Arius-hundred-fold of the Spirit! Basic principles: - Mutual assistance and mutual assistance. Loyalty. - The problem of the second generation in rural areas. The children are leaving for the city. They grow up and leave to study in the city, then they stay there. Six children were taken away from the large Kiselev family from Karelia, limiting their parents' rights. The claims made by the officials against the family have no