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 961 - 970 of 1053
|
Page 97 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[ā¦]ā difficult truths emerge. The reader, like Gwen, seeks disclosure in the gaps between memory and reliable information. In Gwenās words: ā¦it was as if I had known all along what was really happening or as if I should have known all along what was happening. Sometimes there are things that you know intuitively but you have not overtly processed. Link Resources Carolyn Guyer. Quibbling (Eastgate Systems). http://www.eastgate.com/catalog/Quibbling.html M. D. Coverley. Fibonacciās Daughter. http://califia.hispeed.com/Fibonacci/choice.htm Deena Larson. Ferris Wheels. http://www.deenalarsen.net/ferris/ferris.htm Judy Malloy. Dorothy Abrona McCrae. http://www.judymalloy.net/dorothy/ ______. l0ve0ne. http://www.eastgate.com/malloy/ ______. The Roar of Destiny. http://www.well.com/user/jmalloy/roarofdestiny/control.html ______. Streaming Media Trail. [ā¦]
[ā¦]Repetition, routine, multiplication, and control are the thematics of this relational space. ā[E]verday life,ā says Van Loon, āconsists of a multiplicity of rhythms. Everyday life thus entails a range of flows, each with their own `proper timeā (e.g., duration, pace, frequency). Likewise, we could argue that everyday life consists of a multiplicity of spatializations, including forms of embodiment.ā Manovich, L (2002) quoted in A. Galloway, āIntimations of everyday life,ā Cultural Studies 18.2-3 (2004): 384-408; EPSCOHost. Edwards and Grinter identify difficulties with determining and taking advantage of these inherent iterations of the domestic: āroutines are subtle, complex, and ill-articulated, if they [ā¦]
[ā¦]fiction to criticism, we do it to spin readers around and aim them again at the original texts. ā[S]omeone elseās systemā (Lookout Cartridge 333) works well too. Because McElroy has inserted himself into a variety of systems and āpoached onā (Lookout Cartridge 180) their powers, we readers can insert ourselves in his system and extract āinformationā ā and energy ā to ātake [us] into the futureā (Lookout Cartridge 340). For a final descriptor, consider āResistance.ā You do not measure this resistance in ohms, although it might show up on an MRI. (Most readers of McElroy know that his prose seems [ā¦]
[ā¦]is an invisible storytelling technology. Moulthrop cites Janet Murray, who claims that ā[e]ventually all successful storytelling technologies become ātransparentā: we lose consciousness of the medium and see neither print nor film but only the power of the story itselfā (Murray 1997, cited in Moulthrop 2003). For him, the same potential loss of consciousness of the medium is all the more reason to consider āturn[ing] away from storytelling as the prime agenda of artā (Moulthrop 2003). True, it is by no means apparent that medial transparency is or should be the measure of a successful narrative. But the case against immersion [ā¦]
[ā¦]can impute strikingly different values to isomorphic paradigms. In the physical sciences, for example, nonlinear dynamics is seen as a way to bring complex behavior within the scope of rational analysis. Analogous theories in literary studies, by contrast, are often embraced because they are seen as resisting totalizing theoriesā (xiv). She further claims that I argue āthe convergence of interests must be evidence of a singular event which shifts the singular epistemic structure from which both disciplines are produced.ā Although she then goes go to use two phrases central to my argument ā ācultural contextā and āfeedback loopā ā she [ā¦]
[ā¦]author. The seemingly generous claim that intention remains one textual code among others is cold comfort to the phenomenologist. Michaelsā point is that such claims about textual multiplicity and dissemination leave us nothing to say about belief, or at least nothing rigorous to say; we are left only with the petitio principii that we are defined by our embodied materiality. What interests Michaels, then, is the political outcome of this shift from intentionality to materiality. When texts are seen as intentional structures then they are interpreted in terms of what people believe; reading leads to an identification with ideological commitments [ā¦]
[ā¦]and the cultural context that most theory attempts to smooth over, however ingenuously (as in, for example, Deleuze and Guattariās Anti-Oedipus and its attempt to negotiate post-Freudian ā as representative of one side of the equation ā and Marxist ā as representative of the other side of the equation ā to the present). The literary textās complexities cannot be exactly analogous to the (political) worldās complexities, and vice versa. Both require different responses, but unfortunately in the current theoretical climate one is still considered a sloppy thinker if one emphasizes the material text over authorial intention in oneās literary criticism, [ā¦]
[ā¦]or Shepardās intentions. Also, contrary to Michaels, she doesnāt wish to leave the reader free to understand the writerās intentions in any way at all. Her plan is to lay before the reader as much evidence relevant to the writerās intentions as possible (including the materiality, but much else besides), and then to ask readers to reach conclusions about the authorās intentions as reasonably as they can. A legal analogy is helpful. Consider the notorious OJ trials, a criminal trial and a civil trial. Many types of evidence were presented to the jury, much of it ācircumstantial.ā On the basis [ā¦]
[ā¦]research is needed to discern the extent to which Deleuzeās philosophy has shaped up-and-coming fields such as film, electronic literature, and new media studies; influenced pathbreaking intellectuals (e.g. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, Brian Massumi, Manuel DeLanda, Barbara Kennedy, and Steven Shaviro) and informed contemporary debates concerning a wide range of topics including: the problem of accounting for eruptions of the New within interdependent systems, the emergence of a networked multitude, the political status of nomadic and schizophrenic subjects, the brainās ability to process and cognize moving-images, the impact of various technologies on our sense of time, and the contested [ā¦]
[ā¦]as a reformulation of a new female feminist subjectivity, ādisrupts [masculine] privileging [and] disrupts external notions of essence, of sameness: the cultural text of femininity,āāOnce the female āIā has spoken, the subversion is begun.ā (Frye 50) which has historically construed women as objects. This figuration allows women not only to bear witness to their experiences but to write them as well. Braidotti notes that āthe historical contradiction a feminist postmodernist is caught in is that the very conditions that are perceived by dominant subjects as factors of a `crisisā of values are for [her] the opening up of new possibilitiesā [ā¦]