Ethnogenesis and a modern science.
Really – passionarity is impossible (or it is very difficult) to measure quantitatively. But you can see this quality in a reality. This is ability of some people to make the acts which have been not directed to satisfaction of elementary biological needs, and thus the compulsions not dictated by any form?
Certainly, the nature of passionary is complicated matter. Gumilev assumed, that this consequence of the certain space radiation – ‘passionary pushes’, drawing strips on a body of the Earth. Though it did not deny also other reasons – internal radiation of a planet, divine will …
Certainly all of this is "fantastic". But what is it a science? This is concrete historical phenomenon which not always was, and, probably, not will eternal. Ancient Greeks did not know the science – they had a physio-philosophy. Plato and Aristotle it is absolute "un scientific". The Orient has not created science also.
The science as the form of comprehension of the world and, simultaneously, public institute, has arisen in Europe New time, on the basis of methodology of medieval scholasticism, antique physio-philosophy and east technology. As the engine here has acted Promethean fire of the Western world to unlimited expansion.
Thus the majority of the countries and did not manage "to adopt" the western science. The abundance of scientific institutes in all parts of the world should not deceive us. As a rule these are scenery, simulacra.
Talented scientists in the Third world, certainly are (clever people are everywhere). But they work in the West, being a part of the western science. And not only for money, but also in order necessary moral-professional climate in their countries is not.
scientific school has arisen in
Thus it is not necessary to mix a science and technology. Chinese have invented gunpowder, a compass, publishing without any science. Indians of Central America deduced new grades of agricultural plants and operated with chromosomes, not knowing genetics.
So, the science is the special historical phenomenon, and, as such – is not eternal. Knowingly speak about crisis of modern scientific idea.
For instance: the modern science shares on corporate and state. The main task of the first is to prove, as far as production of corporation is useful to the consumer.
The state science sees the main sense of the existence in acknowledgement for a long time known theses, or – in reception of negative result. «Negative result – too result». Man-hours and so forth to prove are exhausted money, that those or other phenomena cannot take place under any conditions (are resulted variants of conditions).
All the matter is that a science never moved institutes in modern sense (the same as art was not moved by academies). All this nonsense, that a modern scientific idea is created by the big collectives, has no attitude to a reality, and serves interests of chiefs and mediocrities. And to talented people it cuts wings, and, hence – cuts wings to the Science.
Each opening has got the concrete author. As any national fairy tale or the epic saga (that did not speak about collective creativity in folklore). The genius fought, suffered sneers of "public" and "management", then died – and there was a masterpiece. It also is passionary.
By the way, the same situation has developed and in philosophy. The world philosophical congress (three thousand participants several years ago has taken place!). One of was present journalists told, that has been surprised ‘ordinary face’ of modern philosophers. And funny explained it: these people supposedly have got used to argue on clever things, and think easily, why do not arise on persons of a wrinkle.
Probably, these philosophers think much more easy their great predecessors (at which process of thinking leaves traces on face).
Keep to the point, however. Gumilev is the historian. And the history is not the exact science, despite of all attempts (in something successful) to apply here mathematical methods. Show me the historian who can mathematic precisely build forecasts of the future?
On what adore mathematical formulas economists. But, as all history of the twentieth century shows, that is, the period when economic theories were in the enormous authority, everywhere, where they applied – business came to an end poorly.
Historical experience shows, that really successful economic policy professional economists, and people, with knowledge of a real life, and having carried out not political will.
Gumilev’s theory of much cannot explain. For example – growth of a modern techno sphere. In a number of concrete cases scholar, really resorts to stretches or is simply biased. The situation in Russia, for example, appeared more tragically, than it thought (or spoke). The break in the twentieth century has burnt out a huge part passionary, and stayed is directed chaotically, has no uniform vector and, hence its cumulative force is small.
But, at all lacks Gumilev’s the theory (which as I already spoke, a little limited name ‘the passionary theory’ - there there are also other important points) difficultly to find more successful system of sights at historical processes (certainly, much Gumilev borrowed predecessors, for example, Spengler). Unless written by scholar several decades ago about ancient China was not a prediction of some details of a modern Russian life?