Главная

Горно-геологические энциклопедии и словари - яркое свидетельство того, как наши предшественники постепенно, шаг за шагом, по мере поступления нового фактического материала и изменения представлений о тех или иных явлениях, совершенствовали специальную терминологию.

Найти общий язык с геологом-коллегой порой было очень тяжело. Но, можно. В отечественной практике были свои плюсы. Мы только на эти плюсы не обращали внимания. Официально утвержденное однообразие в методике проведения ГРР привело к тому, что мы быстро понимали друг друга и самое главное - не боялись разговаривать и общаться на профессиональные темы.

СССР проводил плановое изучение обширных территориий с очень разным геологическим строением и большой массив данных требовал постоянной систематизации геологической информации. "ПРИНУДИТЕЛЬНЫЕ" инструкции по проведению ГСР и ГРР на всей территории СССР незаметно сглаживали острые углы терминологических разногласий между нашими специалистами. А как иначе можно было найти общий язык в условиях нескончаемых площадных съемок и обобщения огромного количества нового фактического материала в каждой экспедиции, партии или отряде при составлении карт и отчетов?

Мы решили собрать на сайте "ГЕОНООСФЕРА" наши старые горно-геологические словари - уникальные работы многочисленных авторских коллективов советских специалистов.

Ничего личного, в отличие от G-to-G, только термины и их определения ...

Добро пожаловать дорогие коллеги в ГЕОНООСФЕРУ Вернадского, Шатского, Максвелла, Ляме, Тейяра, Обручева, Леруа, Смирнова, Шардена, Сребродольского, Поленова, Полканова, Булынникова, Гумилева, Преображенского, Мушкетова, Мусатова, Кизевальтера, Хаина, Белоусова, Крейтера, Баландина, Верещагина, Богацкого, Вологдина ...

V.I. Vernadsky, 1945

"The younger contemporaries of Darvin, J.D. Dana (1813-1895) and J. Le Conte, both of great American geologists (and Dana a mineralogist and biologist as well) expounded, even prior to 1859, the empirical generalization that the evolution of living matter is processing, in a definite direction. This phenomenon was called by Dana "cephalization", and by Le Conte - the "psychozoic era. ...

Proceeding from the notion of the geological rule of man, geologist A.P. Pavlov (1854-1929) in the last years of his life used to speak of the anthropogenic era in which we now live. ...

The NOOSPHERE is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it for the first time men becomes a large-scale geological force. He can and must rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming."

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The NOOSPHERE can be seen as the "sphere of human thought" being derived from the Greek νους ("nous") meaning "mind" in the style of "atmosphere" and "biosphere". In the original theory of Vernadsky, the NOOSPHERE is the third in a succession of phases of development of the Earth, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (biological life). Just as the emergence of life fundamentally transformed the geosphere, the emergence of human cognition fundamentally transforms the biosphere. In contrast to the conceptions of the Gaia theorists, or the promoters of cyberspace, Vernadsky's NOOSPHERE emerges at the point where humankind, through the mastery of nuclear processes, begins to create resources through the transmutation of elements.

Lev Gumilev, "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere"

Thoughts about the NOOSPHERE. As I have already remarked several times, people's conscious, deliberate activity plays no less a role in historical processes than their emotional activity, but their character is different in principle. A disinterested striving for truth gives rise to scientific discoveries that determine the possibility of technical improvements, and so create the prerequisites for growth of the productive forces. A passion for beauty shapes the mind both of the artist and of the viewer. A thirst for justice stimulates social reorganization. In short, "human reason, which is not a form of energy but produces activity as if responding to it", (V.I. Vernadsky) becomes an impulse of the phenomenon called progress and is consequently associated with the social form of the motion of matter. The link between these two forms of the motion of matter, which are both present in every historical event, great or small, is obvious. According to V.I. Vernadsky, "the evolution of species, which leads to the creation 6f forms of fife stable in the biosphere" (V.I. Vernadsky, the Second Biochemical Principle), and consequently directional (progressive) development, is a planetary, global phenomenon.

But the fruits of human hands have a primordial difference from the creations of nature. They drop out of the conversion of biocoenoses in which there is a constant exchange of matter and energy that maintains the biocoenoses as systemic entities. Human creativity wrests particles of matter from nature and shackles form onto them. Stones are transformed into pyramids or a Parthenon, wool into jackets, steel into sabers and tanks. And these objects lack self-development; they can only be destroyed. Kalesnik drew attention to this difference in principle between nature and technique in the broad sense, when he also pointed out that not all man's creations possess these properties. A field of wheat, an irrigation ditch, a herd of cows, or a domestic cat remains part of the geographical environment in spite of man's influence. The anthroposphere thus occupies an intermediate place between the dead technosphere and living nature. But if so, they are in opposition. And this is a convenient place to introduce Yu.K. Efremov's amendment to evaluation of the "NOOSPHERE", which he has called the 'sociosphere'. Is 'the sphere of the mind' really reasonable? For it tries to slip into itself the living processes that enrich our planet with stocks of the condensed energy concealed in soils and sedimentary rocks, in coal and oil. The past fife of micro-organisms gave us the oxygen of the atmosphere and the ozone layer that saves us from lethal cosmic radiation. The plants that cover the land are a factory of photosynthesis processing fight into animate matter. Animals, our lesser brethren, regulate biocoenoses and impart order to them.

But what has the NOOSPHERE given us, even if it really exists? From the Paleolithic, numerous flint chippings and accidentally dropped scrapers and choppers; from the Neolithic -kitchen mid-dens at places of settlement. Antiquity gave us the ruins of towns, and the Middle Ages the ruins of castles. Even when ancient structures have survived to our day, like the pyramids or the Acropolis, they are always inert structures going relatively slowly to wrack and ruin. And you will hardly find a person in our time who would prefer to see heaps of refuse and concrete squares in place of forests and steppes. But technique and its products are the materialization of reason.

In short, whatever our attitude to the idea of the existence of a NOOSPHERE, the polarization of technique and life is indisputable. And here we are faced with the task of defining the relation of the drive that initiates ethnoi and the sphere of consciousness that generates culture and technique.

мы едем, едем, едем в далекие края ...