Search results for "critical code studies working group"
| Results 871 - 880 of 1106
|
Page 88 of 111
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[…]with the field which it represents — even as the theory of the physicist might not include the workings of the brain or mind which conceives and commits itself to that theory and holds it to be true. The truth of the representation or judgment of the Universe is something additional to it, so that the One, and the representation of the One, add up to two. The point here is that acts of representation and of judgments are alienations. McElroy thinks about both the Earth, and Skylab, as “those self-renewing life-support systems,” and then suggests that self-renewing life-support will […]
[…]have to spend (and Schlictmann did) staggering amounts of money on expert witnesses, groundwater studies, medical examinations and other scientific investigations. Schlictmann gambled that the dead children and common sense circumstantial evidence would lead to a large jury verdict which would enable him to recoup his expenses. He did so against his better judgment and that of his partners. Their caution was well-founded. A Civil Action opens with the trial in its final stages and Schlictmann watching hopelessly as U.S. Marshals repossess his car. The defense, meanwhile, could fall back on the principles of pharmacokinetics. While toxicology measures the effect […]
[…]to maintain its organization by continuing to process communications according to this particular code; it sees the world according to that Manichean formula ó and that is all it sees. How a theory of social systems (such as the one adumbrated here, developed by the German social scientist Niklas Luhmann) can help us see the limitations of Livingstoneís call for dramatic forms of consciousness-raising is by forcing us to consider the relationship of individual to social system. What Livingstone despisesóeconomic, legal, political, and scientific blindness to the health of the environmentócannot be overcome simply by a renovation in conscious, individual […]
[…]Moretti, “the ambition of the narrator of Moby Dick is precisely this: to take the multifarious codes of nature and culture, and to demonstrate that they are all to be found in the moral super-code.” Or again, take Whitman, who declares “I am large, I contain multitudes,” and calls for a “rhetoric of inclusivity” that can encompass all creatures large and small. But “contain,” as Moretti notes, also implies “control and surveillance”; like the voice in Moby Dick, Whitman’s is a “monologism that is ashamed of itself, and dresses itself up as polyphony.” The failure is not the individual writer’s […]
[…]of our recording devices, from stone and wax tablets to papyrus rolls, the medieval codex, and finally the printed book have “imposed” specific systems for the sequencing and “chunkitizing” (my word) of information. He presents a history of operations that become increasingly complex, making them easier to use (where use = reading+access). Self-contained volumes, encyclopedias, libraries, punctuation, even page numbers are revealed to be not only facilitators for managing text, but technological components as well as philosophical constructs. Writing’s most sophisticated incarnation, the printed book, is the ultimate in standardization, linearity, and univocality. But the book is maxxed out, Bolter […]
[…]to a delightfully appalling world of wanton sluts, gender ambiguity, and nuclear-age propoganda studies, including her excellent Atomic Cafe and WWWench sites. Always, though, Loader maintains an intellectual rigor both in her own writing as well as in her selection of hotlinx to other writing. As you might know, Loader’s provocative, disturbing film The Atomic Cafe (1982), which she made with Kevin and Pierce Rafferty, is an unnarrated docudrama about our “love affair with the atom” as Loader puts it. But it is also “a movie about propoganda, culled from material produced by the U.S. government.” In fact, Loader and […]
[…]theories can slip into totalitarian imperatives, or falsely generalize by excluding oppressed groups, or abstract away from the very practices that make meaningful experience possible. Bioregionalism and deep ecology champion the importance of local context in matters both political and epistemological. But what if the Logical Positivists weren’t that bad? What if they were onto something–something worth keeping hold of? And what are the dangers of the contextual and the local? The Logical Positivists have received a very bad reputation among some environmentalists and other progressives as defenders of the decontextualized scientific knowledge that sanctions and makes possible the domination […]
[…]contrast to the strident, earnest feminist, the “postfeminist” is fun, indifferent to or even critical of “politics,” cheerfully apathetic, sexy, and independent. She has no need for liberation or solidarity with other women, and she’s far too busy having orgasms to worry about such issues as comparable worth, daycare, or abortion. In contrast, feminists are viewed in much the same way one might view one’s parents: as arbitrary despots clamoring about insignificant, petty concerns, as un-evolved. Uncool. Hopelessly “pre” and clueless about “post.” For the bad girl, the problem with feminism is that it has an agenda: the “postfeminist” woman […]
[…]feckless sense someone who has any sort of role in the various debates over theory and cultural studies. I’d like to take up Bérubé’s comments on “selling out.” When I was younger, in “the days that used to be,” as Neil Young put it on Ragged Glory, “selling out” really meant something, but it really meant something in only a very general sense. Selling out was not something one could be accused of as the result of a rigorous scrutinizing of one’s “Position.” At the time, 1968, say, you were either for corporate/militarist culture (them) or you were for communal/pacifist […]
[…]imagistic, any sense that dog and father are the same and the father’s condemnation a sort of coded self-accusation of abuse: dog and father appear as separate and distinguishable characters in the “Shushing the Father” section. Another possibility is that Marcus is intentionally resisting resolving the book with a “boy and his dog” plot-line, but the effect for this reader, which cannot be intended if the lyrical sections are to be in any way meaningful, is to flatten the book’s central consciousness, make it less full and comprehensive. What is suggested in one sense by Lance Olsen’s term, “a postmodern […]