Search results for "C_THR86_2305 Latest Study Guide š Reliable C_THR86_2305 Test Sample ā C_THR86_2305 Braindumps š„ Open [ www.pdfvce.com ] and search for [ C_THR86_2305 ] to download exam materials for free š¤²Test C_THR86_2305 Lab Questions"
| Results 1021 - 1030 of 1053
|
Page 103 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[ā¦]hospitals, and parish churches. All these corporations enjoyed certain rights, privileges and freedoms rooted in medieval tradition. As Professor Turner points out, the most common word for ācorporationā in early modern legal parlance was universitasāthe root of our modern word āuniversityāāliterally a āturning into oneā that both foreshadows the e pluribus unum motto of eighteenth-century American politics (from 1782 until it was replaced in 1956 āIn God we Trustā) but also looks back to classical and medieval ideas of political community. Turner begins his exploration of the early modern ācorporate commonwealthā by arguing that āthe crisis of twenty-first-century political life [ā¦]
[ā¦]individual units as one, two, three, four, she would prefer to say one and one and one and one. [A] continuous presentā¦ would be one in which each unit, even if identical or nearly with the previous one, is still, in its present, a completely self-contained thing, as when you say one and one, the second one is a completely present existence in itself, and does not depend, as two does or three does, on a preceding one or two. (ibid.) What we expect from the more familiar experience of narrative progression is thrown into disarray in the passage āfirst [ā¦]
[ā¦]cinematic spectatorship. As Lippit reminds us (p18), Roland Barthes writes, in Camera Lucida, ā[o]nce I feel myself observed by the lens [ā¦] I constitute myself in the process of āposingā, I instantaneously make another body for myself, I transform myself in advance into an image.ā Here Lippit shows the change in the dynamic of the self when posing in front of a camera. Hence, in Ghost Dance, even when Derrida was alive, Derrida was always-already not himself. More precisely, he was playing himself, a spectral version of himself, a second person. This is why when asked the question āDo you [ā¦]
[ā¦]promised by aesthetic animism, Johnston too quickly eschews the materiality of existence. ā¦[]ā¦ Lisa Nakamuraās writing usefully tempers Johnstonās enthusiasm. She warns that āin order to think rigorously, humanely, and imaginatively about virtuality and the post-human, it is absolutely necessary to ground critique in the lived realities of the human. The nuanced realities of virtualityāracial, gendered, Otheredālive in the body.ā Yes, I agree. Nakamura extends N. Katherine Haylesā notion of embodiment into race. These are not the primary pivots I work with, but are crucial to āground critiqueā. In these turbulent polarized times, the virtual is physical, ideology is intimate, [ā¦]
[ā¦]āall taken directly from Tumblrā (70). Fair enough, learning that āDaimogenderā is ā[a] gender closely related to demons and the supernaturalā (71) seems somewhat comical. Yet, there is little attempt by Nagle to persuade her postmodern foes of the inadequacy of the wrong-headed views they are deemed to hold. We have already seen how they responded. āMaterialistā critics, in turn, loved Kill All Normies (see Liu, and MacDougald). Thus, no movement has been made, no ideological obstacle overcome, and, ironically, Nagle has mostly just satisfied the expectations of her own political clique. Overall, it might be overdue to reconsider the [ā¦]
[ā¦]Ever since then, Iāve been thinking and writing with links. Links are what I write with, and for me theyāre just like film editsāmade of the same stuff. When I write, I get lost in these possibilitiesāthe futures that present themselves while writing, in writing, through writing. It is this being-like-film that is the process I explore. Any edges you write are arbitrary, contingent, sometimes accidental. The key is to locate a vision, to find a videĀ“criture that is this writing. The Web just ups the ante for the process as model. MA: Right, I use the Web to capture [ā¦]
[ā¦]help us ārememberā noise, then perhaps we should listen with Jacques Attaliās suggestion: ā[by] listening to noise, we can better understand where the folly of men and their calculations is leading us, and what hopes it is still possible to have.ā Thinking with these essaysāin and out of ebrāit becomes clear that if noise is unified at all, it is in its disruptive capacity: its ability to provoke thought and better understand our cultural and aesthetic experience. This gathering, then, calls for us not only to read, but more importantly, to [ā¦]
[ā¦]Marino, made use of a familiar allegory. This was the story of Thoth and the invention of writing, and he told it as a way of prefacing his enthusiasm (as opposed to a general despair in the broader public) for the emerging correspondent modes reading and thinking. Then, as now, our vantage point is liminal, a Duchampian infra-thin in which one age (the age of the book) is transitioning into another (the age of the screen). Itās been 60 years since grammatology emerged as a field of study, and 50 since it announced, via Derrida, this seemingly perpetualĀ in media resĀ āĀ the [ā¦]
[ā¦]this return to logical positivism is drawing renewed attention to the Vienna Circle and its towering central figure, Ludwig Wittgenstein whose advocacy of linguistic-philosophical hygiene (āwhereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silentā), to those of us not partisan-inclined, always seemed like another version of the de-sedimentation (or ābracketingā) urged by phenomenology. It is the latter method, articulated perhaps most famously, in Husserlās āVienna Lectureā of 1935, that in turn would pave the way for Derridean deconstruction and the postmodern French Connection of Lyotard, Foucault, Barthes, Bataille (read Berryās essay). These unacknowledged parallels between logical positivism and āpostmodern theoryā [ā¦]
[ā¦]Alfred Thomasās evaluation, āHenry Turner seeks to historicize the term [corporation] and thus unshackle it from its modern negative connotations by exploring its complex and wide-ranging function in early-modern England.ā Gregory Ulmer, for his part also loses the rhetorical negativity even as he embraces negation (what he calls the Unofficial World) as an always already, potentially transformative aspect of the corporate, Official World whose purpose is not so much the laborious management or disciplining of employees by employers, as the transformation through automatization of our lifeworld and space of movement. Itās āa way of designating spaces,ā as Seltzer has it: [ā¦]