3,802 research outputs found
Personality Dysfunction Manifest in Words : Understanding Personality Pathology Using Computational Language Analysis
Personality disorders (PDs) are some of the most prevalent and high-risk mental health conditions, and yet remain poorly understood. Today, the development of new technologies means that there are advanced tools that can be used to improve our understanding and treatment of PD. One promising tool β indeed, the focus of this thesis β is computational language analysis. By looking at patterns in how people with personality pathology use words, it is possible to gain access into their constellation of thinking, feelings, and behaviours. To date, however, there has been little research at the intersection of verbal behaviour and personality pathology. Accordingly, the central goal of this thesis is to demonstrate how PD can be better understood through the analysis of natural language. This thesis presents three research articles, comprising four empirical studies, that each leverage computational language analysis to better understand personality pathology. Each paper focuses on a distinct core feature of PD, while incorporating language analysis methods: Paper 1 (Study 1) focuses on interpersonal dysfunction; Paper 2 (Studies 2 and 3) focuses on emotion dysregulation; and Paper 3 (Study 4) focuses on behavioural dysregulation (i.e., engagement in suicidality and deliberate self-harm). Findings from this research have generated better understanding of fundamental features of PD, including insight into characterising dimensions of social dysfunction (Paper 1), maladaptive emotion processes that may contribute to emotion dysregulation (Paper 2), and psychosocial dynamics relating to suicidality and deliberate self-harm (Paper 3) in PD. Such theoretical knowledge subsequently has important implications for clinical practice, particularly regarding the potential to inform psychological therapy. More broadly, this research highlights how language can provide implicit and unobtrusive insight into the personality and psychological processes that underlie personality pathology at a large-scale, using an individualised, naturalistic approach
UMSL Bulletin 2023-2024
The 2023-2024 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1088/thumbnail.jp
Essays on Corporate Disclosure of Value Creation
Information on a firmβs business model helps investors understand an entityβs resource requirements, priorities for action, and prospects (FASB, 2001, pp. 14-15; IASB, 2010, p. 12). Disclosures of strategy and business model (SBM) are therefore considered a central element of effective annual report commentary (Guillaume, 2018; IIRC, 2011). By applying natural language processing techniques, I explore what SBM disclosures look like when management are pressed to say something, analyse determinants of cross-sectional variation in SBM reporting properties, and assess whether and how managers respond to regulatory interventions seeking to promote SBM annual report commentary. This dissertation contains three main chapters. Chapter 2 presents a systematic review of the academic literature on non-financial reporting and the emerging literature on SBM reporting. Here, I also introduce my institutional setting. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 form the empirical sections of this thesis. In Chapter 3, I construct the first large sample corpus of SBM annual report commentary and provide the first systematic analysis of the properties of such disclosures. My topic modelling analysis rejects the hypothesis that such disclosure is merely padding; instead finding themes align with popular strategy frameworks and management tailor the mix of SBM topics to reflect their unique approach to value creation. However, SBM commentary is less specific, less precise about time horizon (short- and long-term), and less balanced (more positive) in tone relative to general management commentary. My findings suggest symbolic compliance and legitimisation characterize the typical annual report discussion of SBM. Further analysis identifies proprietary cost considerations and obfuscation incentives as key determinants of symbolic reporting. In Chapter 4, I seek evidence on how managers respond to regulatory mandates by adapting the properties of disclosure and investigate whether the form of the mandate matters. Using a differences-in-differences research design, my results suggest a modest incremental response by treatment firms to the introduction of a comply or explain provision to provide disclosure on strategy and business model. In contrast, I find a substantial response to enacting the same requirements in law. My analysis provides clear and consistent evidence that treatment firms incrementally increase the volume of SBM disclosure, improve coverage across a broad range of topics as well as providing commentary with greater focus on the long term. My results point to substantial changes in SBM reporting properties following regulatory mandates, but the form of the mandate does matter. Overall, this dissertation contributes to the accounting literature by examining how firms discuss a central topic to economic decision making in annual reports and how firms respond to different forms of disclosure mandate. Furthermore, the results of my analysis are likely to be of value for regulators and policymakers currently reviewing or considering mandating disclosure requirements. By examining how companies adapt their reporting to different types of regulations, this study provides an empirical basis for recalibrating SBM disclosure mandates, thereby enhancing the information set of capital market participants and promoting stakeholder engagement in a landscape increasingly shaped by non-financial information
UMSL Bulletin 2022-2023
The 2022-2023 Bulletin and Course Catalog for the University of Missouri St. Louis.https://irl.umsl.edu/bulletin/1087/thumbnail.jp
Speculative futures on ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence (AI): a collective reflection from the educational landscape
While ChatGPT has recently become very popular, AI has a long history and philosophy. This paper intends to explore the promises and pitfalls of the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) AI and potentially future technologies by adopting a speculative methodology. Speculative future narratives with a specific focus on educational contexts are provided in an attempt to identify emerging themes and discuss their implications for education in the 21st century. Affordances of (using) AI in Education (AIEd)and possible adverse effects are identified and discussed which emerge from the narratives. It is argued that now is the best of times to define human vs AI contribution to education because AI can accomplish more and more educational activities that used to be the prerogative of human educators. Therefore, it is imperative to rethink the respective roles of technology and human educators in education with a future-oriented mindse
βSo what if ChatGPT wrote it?β Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy
Transformative artificially intelligent tools, such as ChatGPT, designed to generate sophisticated text indistinguishable from that produced by a human, are applicable across a wide range of contexts. The technology presents opportunities as well as, often ethical and legal, challenges, and has the potential for both positive and negative impacts for organisations, society, and individuals. Offering multi-disciplinary insight into some of these, this article brings together 43 contributions from experts in fields such as computer science, marketing, information systems, education, policy, hospitality and tourism, management, publishing, and nursing. The contributors acknowledge ChatGPTβs capabilities to enhance productivity and suggest that it is likely to offer significant gains in the banking, hospitality and tourism, and information technology industries, and enhance business activities, such as management and marketing. Nevertheless, they also consider its limitations, disruptions to practices, threats to privacy and security, and consequences of biases, misuse, and misinformation. However, opinion is split on whether ChatGPTβs use should be restricted or legislated. Drawing on these contributions, the article identifies questions requiring further research across three thematic areas: knowledge, transparency, and ethics; digital transformation of organisations and societies; and teaching, learning, and scholarly research. The avenues for further research include: identifying skills, resources, and capabilities needed to handle generative AI; examining biases of generative AI attributable to training datasets and processes; exploring business and societal contexts best suited for generative AI implementation; determining optimal combinations of human and generative AI for various tasks; identifying ways to assess accuracy of text produced by generative AI; and uncovering the ethical and legal issues in using generative AI across different contexts
ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ° / Musicology (34 I/2023)
ΠΠ±Π΅Π»Π΅ΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π° Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎ ΠΠ³ΠΎΡ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ (1882β1971) ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π°, ΠΏΠ° ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ°ΠΊΠ½ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠΈΠ»ΠΎ. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ΄ΡΡΠΆΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΠ»Π°Π²Π½Π° ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ° Ρ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π±ΡΠΎΡΡ ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ (34), Ρ Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΠ° Π½Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π°Π½Ρ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠΌ 2021. Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅ Π½Π° ΠΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡ Π·Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ. ΠΠ°ΡΡΡΠΏΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Ρ Π²Π΅Π·ΠΈ ΡΠ° ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠ°Π·Π°ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ (ΡΡΡΠΊΠ°, Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ½Π° ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π°), ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°.
Π‘ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΠΎΡ
ΠΈΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΎΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π²Π΅Π·Π΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΡΡΠΈ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈΠ· ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ·Π²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ³ βΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³β ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Π° Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π½Π° ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅. ΠΠΎΡ
ΠΈΠΎΡ Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎ ΠΏΡΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ· 19. Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ° (ΠΠ»ΠΈΠ½ΠΊΠ° ΠΈ ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°) Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ° Π·Π° ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅, Π°Π»ΠΈ, Π·Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠΈΡ
, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ; ΡΡΠΎΠ³Π°, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΡΡΡΠΈΠΎ Ρ Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΠ²Π½Ρ ΠΈ Π΄ΡΠ±ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ°Π³Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ»ΠΎΡΡ, Π²Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ³Π° ΠΎΡΠ»Π°ΡΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ· 19. Π²Π΅ΠΊΠ°. Π§Π»Π°Π½Π°ΠΊ ΠΠ²Π°Π½Π° ΠΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π²Π° Π΄Π΅ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Ρ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΎΠΌ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²Π° Π΄ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ²Π½Π° Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΠΊΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Π°, Π° Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡ Π€ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΡ. ΠΡΠ΄ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΡ homo faber-a, βΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ°-ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ°β. ΠΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΎ, ΠΎΠ½ Π½Π΅ Π·Π°Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»ΠΎ, Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ Π΄Π° ΡΡ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΡ ΠΎΠ²Π΄Π΅ ΡΠ°Π³Π»Π΅Π΄Π°Π²Π°Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π° Ρ ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠ»Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π½Π° ΠΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Ρ. ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π° ΠΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ Π΄Π°ΡΠ΅ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π΅Π΄ Π½Π° ΠΠΎΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅, Π° Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΡ. ΠΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ° Π·Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π°Π²ΡΠ° (ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ) ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ. ΠΠ° ΡΠ°Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½ ΡΠ΅ ΠΠΎΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠ³Π°Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½Π° ΠΏΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ° Π·Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π·Π΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π΅Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
Ρ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ Π½ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠ° βΠ΅Π²ΡΠΎΠ°Π·ΠΈΡΡΡΠ²Π°β, ΡΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ°, Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ Π±ΠΈΠΎ Π±Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΠΊ. ΠΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΡ Π€Π»Π°ΠΌ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ°ΠΎ Π³Π° ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. ΠΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ°ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅, ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Π΄ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π·ΠΈΡΠ΅ Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°Π²ΡΡΡΡ Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π°ΠΌΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π°Π·ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ Π»ΠΈΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°Π²Π΅. Π‘ ΡΠ»Π°Π½ΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΠ΄Π²Π°ΡΠ΄Π° ΠΠ΅ΠΌΠ±Π΅Π»Π° ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π΄ΠΎΠ±Ρ, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠΊΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ Π΄Π΅Π»Π° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π΄Π° Π½Π° ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΠ½Ρ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ Π°Π²Π°Π½Π³Π°ΡΠ΄Ρ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΡΠ»Π΅Π·Π°, ΠΠ°Π½Π° ΠΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΊΠ°, ΠΠ½ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Π° Π€ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ°. ΠΠ΅ΠΌΠ±Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π° Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° ΠΈΠ·Π²Π»Π°ΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ²ΡΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΈΠΌΠ° ΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅, ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π±Π΅ Π·Π²ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Ρ
Π°ΡΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°, ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»Π½Π΅ Π±ΠΎΡΠ΅, ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΡΠΎΠ½Π°.
ΠΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ° Π΄Π²Π° ΡΠ»Π°Π½ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»Π°Π·Π΅ ΡΠ°Π΄Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ· ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π΅ Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠ° ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°, Π₯Π΅Π»ΠΌΡΡΠ° ΠΠ»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠ°. ΠΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ
Π°ΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ° ΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ»Π΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡΠ²Ρ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΠΎΠ΄Π»Π°Π·Π΅ΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ·Π²Π°Π½ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° Π·Π° Π±Π°Π»Π΅ΡΡΠΊΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΡ. ΠΠ°Π»Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠ° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΠ½Ρ
Π°ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ βΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π΅ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈβ, ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°Π·, Π±Π΅Π· ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π³, ΠΏΠ°ΠΊ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Π°ΠΏΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ½Π°. ΠΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΡ Π¦Π΅ΡΠΎΡ Π½ΡΠ΄ΠΈ Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΡ ΠΠ΄ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³, ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΠ»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ΡΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠΊΡ Π°Π½ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΡ. ΠΠ½, ΡΡΠΎΠ³Π°, ΠΈΠ·Π°Π·ΠΈΠ²Π° ΠΠ΄ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ³Π»Π΅Π΄Π΅ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ Π‘ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡ Ρ Π½Π΅Ρ
ΡΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π΅, ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ³Π° Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ΅, Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π°Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠ²Π°ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΌΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΡΡΠ΄ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΡΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°.
Π ΡΠ±ΡΠΈΠΊΠ° Varia ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ Π½Π΅ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ° β Π΄ΠΎΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΡΡ ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΊΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡΠ° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ°. ΠΠΎΡΠ°Π½Π° Π Π°Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π±Π°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π΅ΠΊΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π° Ρ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΌΠ° Π·Π° Π³Π»Π°Ρ ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΡΠ³Π° ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΠ°, Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΈΠ· Π΄ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠ°. Π¦ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ° Π±ΠΈΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π° ΠΏΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π΅ ΠΎΠ΄Π°Π±ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ° Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π²Π°ΡΡ ΠΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠ³ Π΅ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΡΠΈΠ»Π°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΈ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ½ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ° Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½Π΅ ΠΊΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠ²Π΅ ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π³Π»Π°ΡΠΎΠΌ Π±Π°Π²Π΅ Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½Π΅ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½Π΅. ΠΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΊΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ Π³Π΅ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΡΠ½Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠ°, Π° ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΡΡΡΠΈ ΡΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π° ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ° ΠΈΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ²Π°, ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΠ»Π° ΠΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΠ»Π°Π²ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ½Π°ΡΠ°ΠΌΠ°. ΠΠ±ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π»Π° Π½Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎ Π΄Π΅Π»ΠΎ ΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°, Π° Ρ Π΄ΡΡΠ³Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π΅ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π½Π·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ³Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠΈ Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½ΠΎΡ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠΌΠ΅Π²Π°ΡΠ° βΠΊΠΈΠ½Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ Π΅Π½Π΅ΡΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅β. ΠΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ»Π°Π½Π°ΠΊ ΠΠΈΠ½Π΅ ΠΠΎΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ ΠΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠ° ΠΠΈΠ½Π³ΡΠ»ΡΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½ΠΎ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΠΌ Π΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ° ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠΈ. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈ ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈ Ρ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΡ ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΠΎ, ΡΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΠΈΠ½Π³ΡΠ»ΡΠ΅Π² Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΌΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ ΡΠ°Π΄Π°, Π° ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠΌ Ρ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠ° Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ° Π΄Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π° Π·Π° ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅ Ρ ΡΡΠΏΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ Π΄Π²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²Π°, ΠΊΠ°Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π·ΠΈΠΎ.
ΠΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ·ΠΈ Ρ ΡΡΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΠ°ΡΡΠ½Π° ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° Π½Π΅Π΄Π°Π²Π½ΠΎ ΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΆΠ°Π½ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΈ ΡΠΊΡΠΏ ΠΈ Π½Π° Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ Π·Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π»Π° Π΄ΡΠΆΠ½Π° ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΠ° Π·Π±ΠΎΠ³ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π°. ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΠΠ°Π³Π»ΠΎΠ² ΠΏΡΠΈΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΠ»Π° ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΈ ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ ΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΎΡ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠΈ, Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ΅Π»Π½ΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈ Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ° ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π»Π΅ Ρ
ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³Π΅, ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²Π΅ Π³ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅. ΠΠ²Π°Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΠ³ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΎ ΡΠ΅ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ°Π½, Ρ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ Π½Π° ΡΠΎ Π΄Π° ΡΠ΅ Π½Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΊΠΈ Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π° ΡΠ²ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΡΠΈΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠΌΠ°. ΠΠΈ Π·Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΊ Rethinking Prokofiev, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΈ ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠΎ ΠΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡ ΠΡΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡ, Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ°ΠΎ Π½Π° ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Ρ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠ°, Π²Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎΡΠΈΠ³ΠΈΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΈΡ
Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ²ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΊΠΎ-ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠ° ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ° ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΡΠ°. Π Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·Π΄Π°ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡ Π°Π½Π³Π°ΠΆΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈ Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈ Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠΈ ΠΎΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π²Π°, ΠΎΠ΄ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ° Π΄ΠΎ Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠ°, ΡΠ΅ Π·Π°Π²ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅Π±Π½Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΠΆΡΡ Π½Π°ΡΡΠ½Π΅ ΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ.
Π Π΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ° ΠΡΠ·ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ° ΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π·Π°Ρ
Π²Π°ΡΡΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΡΠΈ Π΄Ρ ΠΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ ΠΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Ρ, Π΄ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡ Π·Π° ΠΌΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠΊΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ΅ ΠΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΠ³ ΠΈ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΠ·ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Ρ ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ·Π΅Π»Π° Π΄ΡΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΅-ΡΡΠ΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ Π·Π° ΡΡΠ±ΡΠΈΠΊΡ Π’Π΅ΠΌΠ° Π±ΡΠΎΡΠ°. ΠΠ·ΡΠ·Π΅ΡΠ½Ρ Π·Π°Ρ
Π²Π°Π»Π½ΠΎΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°Π²Π°ΠΌΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅Π³Π°ΠΌΠ° ΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ°ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π·Π΅Π½Π°ΡΠ° ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ½Π΅Π»Π΅ ΠΊΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ΄ΠΈΡΠ°.The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Igor Stravinskyβs death (1882β1971) remained in the shadows of the covid-19 pandemic, which caused the prolonged response of the scientific community in terms of new readings of the composerβs opus. The Main Theme in the new issue of Muzikologija-Musicology (No. 34) makes a contribution to this response with a series of studies dedicated to Stravinsky, originating from presentations at the Study Day organized in 2021 by the Department of Music Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The topics cover a wide range of issues relating to all three phases of Stravinskyβs creation (the Russian, the Neoclassical and the Serial), including questions of aesthetics, as well as the impact and reception of his work.
Stamatis Zochios revisits the question of Stravinskyβs relationship with Russian folklore, by contextualising the composerβs output of the so-called βRussianβ period with reference to the history of Russian folkloristics. Zochios concludes that Stravinsky followed in the footsteps of his nineteenth-century predecessors (Glinka and the Mighty Five) in drawing on folk sources for his compositions, yet unlike them, he did not make use of studies from his own time; hence, he did not delve into an extensive and in-depth survey of the existing sources of Russian folklore but, instead, relied on established sources and studies from the nineteenth century. Ivan Moodyβs article sheds light on Stravinskyβs output with a focus on his religious works through the perspective of his acquaintance with Jacques Maritainβs philosophy, in the context of the philosophical ferment in Interwar France. Moody pays particular attention to Stravinskyβs interpretation of Maritainβs idea of homo faber, βman the makerβ. At the same time, he does not ignore the composerβs Russian origins, concluding that the works under examination are equally grounded in Stravinskyβs Russian background and his experiences in the West. Katerina Levidou sheds new light on the Poetics of Music, specifically the question of Pierre Souvtchinskyβs contribution. Her examination moves beyond the obvious places to look, namely the fifth chapter (written by Souvtchinsky) and the well-known reference to Souvtchinskyβs ideas on music and time. The Poetics thus emerges as a most unexpected platform for the presentation and dissemination of positions associated with a certain strand of βEurasianismβ, the Russian Γ©migrΓ© intellectual and political movement, with which Souvtchinsky was closely associated.
Christoph Flamm focuses on Stravinskyβs late output and considers it from the perspective of expressiveness. Specifically, he highlights expressive, semantic and self-referential dimensions in the late compositions, which emerge there with particular clarity and partly contradict the usual assessments of this music as abstract and constructivist, but also challenge the composerβs own statements. With Edward Campbellβs article we remain in the post-War era, yet the focus shifts from Stravinskyβs work per se to the impact his output had on the Francophone post-war avant-garde, namely Pierre Boulez, Jean BarraquΓ©, Henri Pousseur and Michel Philippot. Campbellβs analysis brings to the surface the influence Stravinsky had on such composers on the level of rhythmic innovation, and the use of sonorities, harmonies, instrumental colour, musical form as well as pitch polarity.
The last two articles approach Stravinskyβs work from the perspective of aesthetics, with reference specifically to the philosophy of Stravinskyβs contemporary, Helmuth Plessner. Iakovos Steinhauer discusses the meaning of corporeality and dance in Stravinskyβs work, moving beyond Stravinsky's historically-documented interest in ballet music. Stravinskyβs ballet music, as Steinhauer demonstrates, attains a βmediated immediacyβ, thus maintaining a distance from subjective expression, without, however, becoming abstract. Finally, Markos Tsetsos offers a new critique of Adornoβs criticism of Stravinsky with reference to Plessnerβs philosophical anthropology. He, therefore, challenges Adornoβs view that Stravinsky regresses to the inhuman and primitive, demonstrating, instead, that his music affirms, in historically adequate modern terms, the constitutive reflectivity of the human embodied condition.
On this occasion, the Varia section is more concise, to balance out the breadth of the Main Theme. It contains three studies that map out three different fields of musicological research. Bojana RadovanoviΔ has studiously examined the expressive means in the works for the voice of the Serbian composer Jug MarkoviΔ, including the questions from the domain of the relationship between the composer and the vocal performer. By analysing MarkoviΔβs selected works, she aims to illuminate his eclectic style and situate him in the international circles of composers who deal with the voice in non-traditional ways. Marija Dinovβs research presented in this issue deals with kinesthetic gestures, i.e. bodily movements of pianists (including herself) during performances, focusing on the performances of Beethovenβs piano sonatas. The explanation of the influence of physical movements on the musical work includes an overview of the creation of the musical work, and, on the other hand, of the sensations during its performance, which leads to a broader conclusion about the special importance of understanding the βkinetic energy of musicβ. The last article in this section of the journal is Dina VojvodiΔ NikoliΔβs article dedicated to Petar Bingulacβs music criticism, as a particularly important segment of his contribution to Serbian cultural history and musicology. The author analyses Bingulacβs texts published in the journal Misao [Thought] and points to Bingulacβs way of thinking and methods of work, whilst also providing a comparative analysis with the music reviews of other contemporary critics and thus situating Bingulacβs writings within Serbian music criticism from the interwar period, when the journal Misao was published.
Contributions in the section Scientific criticism and polemics refer to the recently held conference and to the collection which has hitherto attracted insufficient attention due to its publication during the covid-19 pandemic. Marija Maglov has prepared a review of the international symposium dedicated to the early recording industry, a current topic in the context of studies of medialisation and industrialisation of music, which was organized by Croatian colleagues in March 2023; this contribution is particularly important considering that the publication of the proceedings of the symposium is not expected. The collection Rethinking Prokofiev, reviewed by MiloΕ‘ BraloviΔ, did not result from a scientific conference either; it is the outcome of original archival, analytical, and performance-interpretive research of Sergei Prokofievβs oeuvre. This collection has gathered together leading experts on Prokofievβs works, from the editors to the authors, and it deserves special attention from the scientific community.
The Editorial Board of the journal Muzikologija-Musicology would like to thank Dr Katerina Levidou, Assistant Professor at the Department of Music Studies of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who served as Guest Editor of the Main Theme. We are very grateful to all colleagues who accepted the roles of peer reviewers and contributed to the quality of published studies
An American Knightmare: Joker, Fandom, and Malicious Movie Meaning-Making
This monograph concerns the long-standing communication problem of how individuals can identify and resist the influence of unethical public speakers. Scholarship on the issue of what Socrates & Plato called the βEvil Loverβ β i.e., the ill-intended rhetor β began with the Greek philosophers, but has carried into [post]Modern anxieties. For instance, the study of Nazi propaganda machines, and the rhetoric of Hitler himself, rejuvenated interest in the study of speech and communication in the U.S. and Europe. Whereas unscrupulous sophists used lectures and legal forums, and Hitler used a microphone, contemporary Evil Lovers primarily draw on new, internet-related tools to share their malicious influence. These new tools of influence are both more far-reaching and more subtle than the traditional practices of listening to a designated speaker appearing at an overtly political event. Rhetorician Ashley Hinck has recently noted the ways that popular culture β communication about texts which are commonly accessible and shared β are now significant sites through which citizens learn moral and political values. Accordingly, the talk of internet influencers who interpret popular texts for other fans has the potential to constitute strong persuasive power regarding ethics and civic responsibility.
The present work identifies and responds to a particular case example of popular culture text that has been recently, and frequently, leveraged in moral and civic discourses: Todd Phillipsβ Joker. Specifically, this study takes a hermeneutic approach to understanding responses, especially those explicitly invoking political ideology, to Joker as a method of examining civic meaning-making. A special emphasis is placed on the online film criticisms of Joker from white nationalist movie fans, who clearly exemplify ways that media responses can be leveraged by unethical speakers (i.e., Evil Lovers) and subtly diffused. The study conveys that these racist movie fans can embed values related to βtrolling,β incelism, and xenophobia into otherwise seemingly innocuous talk about film. While the sharing of such speech does not immediately mean its positive reception, this kind of communication yet constitutes a new and understudied attack on democratic values such as justice and equity. The case of white nationalist movie fan film criticism therefore reflects a particular brand of communicative strategy for contemporary Evil Lovers in communicating unethical messages under the covert guise of mundane movie talk
- β¦