摘要：One of the important components of monitoring buildings and structures is an instrumental quantitative assessment of the dynamics of changes in values for all estimated parameters of the technical condition of engineering systems. In the theory of infographics, schematisms (infographic models) are considered intermediate formations of consciousness, mediating sensuality and intellect, whose roots are in the imagination. From an analytical point of view, there is a two-dimensional Euclidean space of phase states, in which the coordinates are “intentions/functions” and “institutions/traditions”, and the “points/phases” are anthropic states (modes, positions, anthroponyms, etc.). The latter can be understood both in the singular sense (human in the singular) and in the collective sense (human as a community, “species being”). In general, this phase space represents the process of “culture-anthropo-psychogenesis” (anthropic synthesis). Determining what to consider the object of study (phase, technique or institution) is a matter of cultural and anthropotechnical functional literacy, and not of evaluation or choice. In addition, everyone must first understand: • Is individual-oriented or grouporiented psychotherapy possible? • What is its “functional equivalent”, as a very important concept of “functional analysis”? • What in the nature of phase anthropic space blocks the appearance of such a “functional equivalent”? • What resists such innovation? • Is “psychotechnical typology” an element of “anthropotechnics”.
其他摘要：One of the important components of monitoring buildings and structures is an instrumental quantitative assessment of the dynamics of changes in values for all estimated parameters of the technical condition of engineering systems. In the theory of infographics, schematisms (infographic models) are considered intermediate formations of consciousness, mediating sensuality and intellect, whose roots are in the imagination. From an analytical point of view, there is a two-dimensional Euclidean space of phase states, in which the coordinates are “intentions/functions” and “institutions/traditions”, and the “points/phases” are anthropic states (modes, positions, anthroponyms, etc.). The latter can be understood both in the singular sense (human in the singular) and in the collective sense (human as a community, “species being”). In general, this phase space represents the process of “culture-anthropo-psychogenesis” (anthropic synthesis). Determining what to consider the object of study (phase, technique or institution) is a matter of cultural and anthropotechnical functional literacy, and not of evaluation or choice. In addition, everyone must first understand: • Is individual-oriented or grouporiented psychotherapy possible? • What is its “functional equivalent”, as a very important concept of “functional analysis”? • What in the nature of phase anthropic space blocks the appearance of such a “functional equivalent”? • What resists such innovation? • Is “psychotechnical typology” an element of “anthropotechnics”?
