f science deals with the abstract and the universal, rhetoric is near the other end, dealing in significant part with the particular and the con-crete.
I was surprised by this distinction; I tend to think of science as dealing with the concrete and rhetoric as dealing more often with the abstract. I wonder if Weaver's distinction was more common in his time than now.
narrow reasoning,
This is a smart argument: the defense of reason (which argues that emotion is inferior to reason and people should follow logic rather than emotion) is itself "narrow reasoning."
To me, that sense of complete commensurability between form and content at the level of the individual sentence is really what writing is all about.
Power's sentence-level interest: form and content
Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built Environment
Italics?
From “Bow Down” come “Rise Up,”
Still relevant to this day. They say, 'the system is broken' but I say it's not, it was designed like that on purpose..
. It follows then that the machinery of the institution does not grow up to accommodate needs that are independently perceived but that, rather, the institutional machinery comes first and the needs then follow, as do the ways of meeting them. In short, the work to be done is not what the institution responds to but what it create
On the creative nature of literary criticism
t "[ilf Northrop Frye should write an essay attacking archetypal criticism, the article would by definition be of much greater significance than an article by another scholar attack- ing the same approach" (Schaefer 5). The reason, of course, is that the approach is not something in- dependent of what Northrop Frye has previously said about it; indeed, in large part archetypal criticism is what Northrop Frye has said about it, and therefore anything he now says about it is not so much to be measured against an independent truth as it is to be regarded, at least potentially, as a new pronouncement of what the truth will hereafter be said to be
author-function at work: Frye is an author-concept and his work is a coherent whole--an Oeuvre.
This is absolutely fine for literary criticism and the humanities. The same is in practice true of the sciences--what Steven Hawking says about physics is more interesting than other people, especially if he reverses his previous claims. But in contrast to Frye, where a reversal is a change in the discursive practice (cf. Foucault), in the case of science, it should not be the case that hearing a "great man" reverse himself is more significant than hearing an unknown post-doc. The reversal should be evidence-based.
The initiation of a discursive practice,unlike the founding of a science, overshadows and is necessarilydetached from its later developments and transformations. As aconsequence, we define the theoretical validity of a statement withrespect to the work of the initiator, whereas in the case of Galileoor Newton, it is based on the structural and intrinsic norms estab-lished in cosmology or physics. Stated schematically, the work ofthese initiators is not situated in relation to a science or in thespace it defines; rather, it is science or discursive practice thatrelate to their works as the primary points of reference.
On the difference between scientific and discursive schools. I don't find it convincing.
“Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.” The ruling made clear that because this nation was founded on a racial caste system, black children would never become equals as long as they were separated from white children.
And I know that my giving up on integration basically denies the truth of this. When I say that we need to give the African-American and Latino students the best counter-education we can give them, I am accepting that they will always be separate and unequal. I don't accept that, but what can I do about it? This is inspiring: http://www.integratenyc4me.com/
the LMS’s institutionally friendly attributes have an important role in shaping our thinking about teaching and learning.
But should it?
“free vs. open”
You needn’t look further than how many books and websites exist on Git to realize that you are looking at something deeply mucked up.
BCcampus as a whole is a research project in the eyes of our parent institution SFU
Good to know. Didn’t realise this.
Set Semantics¶ This tool is used to set semantics in EPUB files. Semantics are simply, links in the OPF file that identify certain locations in the book as having special meaning. You can use them to identify the foreword, dedication, cover, table of contents, etc. Simply choose the type of semantic information you want to specify and then select the location in the book the link should point to. This tool can be accessed via Tools->Set semantics.
Though it’s described in such a simple way, there might be hidden power in adding these tags, especially when we bring eBooks to the Semantic Web. Though books are the prime example of a “Web of Documents”, they can also contribute to the “Web of Data”, if we enable them. It might take long, but it could happen.
export books as apps
On top of the whole debate between native apps and the Open Web, there’s a debate between apps and books. We might not reach the “Write Once, Publish Everywhere” dream, but there’s something to be said about having building blocks which are easy to adapt to different contexts.
no research
In direct opposition with the model for most universities, these days. So that may be the fork in the road. But there are more than two paths.
The confrontation with technology at the level of creation is what distinguishes electronic literature from, for example, e-books, digitized versions of print works, and other products of print authors “going digital.”
Confrontation with technology as a way to elaborate and create literature differs widelly from just using tecnological devices to display literature.
In other words, for the foreseeable future, the urbandisenfranchised are trapped in the structural web of the current capitalistsystem and the states that uphold it.
Instead of reading the authour just restate questions and paraphrase, I'd like to read his proposal of solutions or an argument of how these questions could be answered/issues fixed.
The right to the city, as it is now constituted, is too narrowly confined, restricted in most cases to a small political and economic elite who are in a position to shape cities more and more after their own desires.
Does everyone deserve a right to the city?
establishing democratic management over its urban deployment constitutes the right to the city.
easier said than done.. but what are some suggestions for how this could succeed?
“I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks.”
this is fascinating to me - i had no idea of his connections with education. Makes me wonder about Tesla's thoughts on education now. And how he'd feel about filmstrips, which are in essence super cheap motion pictures.
One of the bigger changes going from engineer to manager was to redefine what I meant by the question: how are we going to do this? As an engineer I would deconstruct that question to ask what is the software we need to build, and the technical barriers we need to remove, to achieve our goals. As a manager I would deconstruct that question to ask what is the process by which we achieve our goals.
Nice characterization of "engineer vs scientist" divide as well. Add to the scientist persona the idea of constant experimentation and thinking out loud, and, perhaps too, a tolerance for failure that the engineer cannot afford.
I t i s t h i s b e d r o c k p r i n c i p l e o f c o p y r i g h t t h a t m a n d a t e s t h e l a w ' s s e e m i n g l y d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f f a c t s a n d f a c t u a l c o m p i l a t i o n s . " N o o n e m a y c l a i m o r i g i n a l i t y a s t o f a c t s . " I d . , § 2 . 1 1 [ A ] , p . 2 - 1 5 7 . T h i s i s b e c a u s e f a c t s d o n o t o w e t h e i r o r i g i n t o a n a c t o f a u t h o r s h i p . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s o n e b e t w e e n c r e a t i o n a n d d i s c o v e r y : T h e f i r s t p e r s o n t o f i n d a n d r e p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t h a s n o t c r e a t e d t h e f a c t ; h e o r s h e h a s m e r e l y d i s c o v e r e d i t s e x i s t e n c e . T o b o r r o w f r o m B u r r o w - G i l e s , o n e w h o d i s c o v e r s a f a c t i s n o t i t s " m a k e r " o r " o r i g i n a t o r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 . " T h e d i s c o v e r e r m e r e l y f i n d s a n d r e c o r d s . " N i m m e r § 2 . 0 3 [ E ] .
No one may claim originality to facts because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation vs discovery.
These large-scale quantitative data provide new insights that could not have been gained through qualitative analyses.
Quantitative Data vs Qualitative Analysis