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 511 - 520 of 1053
|
Page 52 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[ā¦]other forms of [creative] appropriationā he suggests, āare frequently perceived [by Westerners] to be insufficiently or inappropriately transfigurative actsā (170). Striphas excels here in finding a crossover point between the deep history and the near future of knowledge production. The history of the book ā for Striphas, a synecdoche of all cultural products ā shows us that these problems of creative reuse of previously published content is a transhistorical and transnational political dilemma that demands the attention of scholars, political activists, and the bookish alike. One of the few missteps in the book comes when Striphas tries too self-consciously to [ā¦]
[ā¦]mid-century philosophers ā Sellars, Witgenstein, Quine ā whose work, as Chodat puts it, āshow[s] why talk about āthe insideā implies the inside of somethingā (57). Chapters 1 and 2 complement one another, and illuminate one another, extremely well. The writing darts quickly and deftly between the poles marking the field of study. Chodat gets his diverse cast to speak productively to one another across considerable temporal, philosophical, and temperamental distances. Here is Steven Pinker with James and Stein: Not all of these claims [Pinkerās on innate modularity] would sit well with a radical empiricist. From Jamesās perspective, Pinkerās rationalist talk [ā¦]
[ā¦]against a prohibition of total knowledge. We are always trapped in the middle of something, left to forage for context. The text before us at any moment, what cybertextualists call the scripton, is always a particular and contingent construction. Beyond what it signifies in terms of narrative discourse, the text implies other possibilities or lines of development. We see this, but we could be seeingā¦ what? In the case of hypertext fiction, the presence of visible or detectable link cues reinforces this effect. The aesthetic of these texts often seems borrowed from a hall of mirrors, where the artifice of [ā¦]
[ā¦]see if itās possible to know oneās prejudices, biases, and how they create interpretations ā to comprehend the existence of matters beyond ourselves. Weāre all up against our limits. Helen is in American Genius. LD: Hereās a question youāve probably been asked a few times, but Iām curious. If youāre writing in the first person about material some of which is autobiographical, as you do in American Genius, how do you separate the persona of the narrator from your own persona? I mean, I never felt, reading the book, that Lynne was talking personally to me about her own life [ā¦]
[ā¦]workers and technocultural theorists? Code matters. It matters to the many people who program it, and to those who allow themselves to be programmed by it. It makes a difference how the code is written. It makes a difference on which platform it is executed. It makes a difference who is reading it and what they know about programming. It makes a difference how the programmer imagined the ones who would read her code. Code matters. Its materiality is immaterial when discussing the ways in which segments of code circulate through culture. Those segments become matter for debate, take on [ā¦]
[ā¦]despite the warnings of his superiors. But this is a mistake. As Rawls says to McNulty: [F]uck if Iām gonna stand here and say you did a single fucking thing to get a police shot. You did not do this, you fucking hear me? This is not on you. No, it isnāt, asshole. Believe it or not, everything isnāt about you. And the motherfucker saying this, he hates your guts, McNulty. So you know if it was on you, Iād be the sonofabitch to say so. Shit went bad. She took two for the company. Thatās the only lesson here. [ā¦]
[ā¦]them. While Youngquist is concerned with nodal pointsā unknowability, Gibson, even in his latest novel, Zero History (2010), never entirely gives up seeking the conditions by which cybernetics might achieve the ability to collate information to anticipate these oncoming catastrophes, and allow humans the ability to effectively navigate them to better results. Youngquist ends Cyberfiction with a discussion of art that makes the distant workings of war visible: a geo-cache project by Paula Levine that transposes the coordinates where bombs were dropped on Baghdad over the city of San Francisco. This project and its political force serves Youngquist as an [ā¦]
[ā¦]think, be wrong to view the novel as wholly parodic. For all her mischief, Tillman āstill believe[s] in the American experiment, in the values that are implicit and explicit in the Bill of Rightsā (āConversationā) and her project is partly the long-established one of āargumentative national self-consciousnessā (James 789). To entitle her novel American Genius, A Comedy, was, she says, to play āwith the eighteenth-century idea of genius as a force of nature. The American experiment of Jefferson and Franklin was a kind of genius, an American form of ingenuity. Calling it a comedy was a comment on what has [ā¦]
[ā¦]rather than the naturalness of thinking. Helen tells us on a number of occasions that she ā¦like[s] undoing and unmaking things, nowadays I take apart what I put together, pull one sticky side from the other, then scatter the bits on a table or the floor to see its fractured entirety. Itās innocent behavior, no one gets hurt, there was a whole object and then thereās an object ripped apart. (182) That process of āunmakingā fully invests the prose of AGAC, pointing up the contradictory drives that make Helenās world such an edgy and ādistractedā one, for at the same [ā¦]
[ā¦]gender to desire, from nature to history, from the body to political authority has been ācarve[d] outā or constituted discursively, and still more theory proliferates on the question of whether resistance might be effected (or, better still, power derived) through re-inscription or whether such re-inscriptions merely yield to renewed appropriations. Copjec is less interested in this debate, however, than she is in the crucial point missed in emphasizing our being carved out rather than ācarved upā: the modern subject emerges in misrecognition, a fantasy sparked when an idealized Other returns a blind stare, thereby effecting an identification founded on mutual [ā¦]