<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- Created by Leo (http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html) -->
<?xml-stylesheet ekr_test?>
<leo_file xmlns:leo="http://www.leo-editor.org/2011/leo" >
<leo_header file_format="2" tnodes="0" max_tnode_index="0" clone_windows="0"/>
<globals body_outline_ratio="0.5" body_secondary_ratio="0.5">
<global_window_position top="50" left="50" height="500" width="700"/>
<global_log_window_position top="0" left="0" height="0" width="0"/>
</globals>
<preferences/>
<find_panel_settings/>
<vnodes>
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<v t="offray.20110407144015.2706" a="E"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2749" a="E"><vh>@@auto-rst autopoiesisTecnocultural-3.2.rst</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2750" a="E"><vh>Autopoiesis Tecnocultural</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2751"><vh>Presentación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2752"><vh>Bitácora de Cambios</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2753"><vh>Justificación</vh>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2782" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2783"><vh>@url The Cyborg and the Noble Savage. Ethics in the war on information poverty</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2754"><vh>El problema</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.5316"><vh>Objetivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2755"><vh>Referentes Teóricos y de Diseño</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2756" a="E"><vh>Proyecto en diseño</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3110"><vh>La hipótesis</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3111"><vh>Abordaje</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3112"><vh>@rst-ignore habitat digital</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3407" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Metodología</vh>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3408"><vh>@url Análisis de interacción social para Open Gov.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3409"><vh>@url Grafo Blogosfera Pública Española</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2757"><vh>Nosotr@s</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2758"><vh>HackBo: Un hackerspace recontextualizado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2759"><vh>@rst-ignore Colibri</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2760"><vh>@rst-ignore Escuela del Webcraft</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2761" a="E"><vh>Posibles proyectos</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3113"><vh>Extender y modificar el hábitat análogo/digital de HackBo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2765" a="E"><vh>Ubakye: Un enrutador de identidad digital</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2766" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4718" a="E"><vh>Implementación</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2767"><vh>Borrador 1: De lo simple a lo complejo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110817164629.4677"><vh>Conversación Fredy y Jorge. Agosto 17 de 2011</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4720"><vh>Configuración</vh>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4721"><vh>Servidor Web Cherokee</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2658" a="E"><vh>Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2659"><vh>url limpias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2660"><vh>Recuperar la contraseña</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110906103523.4848"><vh>Interface</vh>
<v t="offray.20110906103523.4849"><vh>@url Hahlo</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4719" a="E"><vh>Antecedentes y Contexto</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2768" a="E"><vh>Parte Blanda</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2769"><vh>Nombres de dominio previos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120210150049.5449"><vh>Proyectos similares</vh>
<v t="offray.20120210150049.5450"><vh>@url Buffer</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2770"><vh>Correo a colibri anunciando el proyecto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2771"><vh>@url Docutils hacker's guide</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2772" a="E"><vh>Critical Cloud</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2773"><vh>Tecnología</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2774"><vh>Federated Social Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2775"><vh>@url An Introduction to the Federated Social Network</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2776"><vh>@url Comparación de proyectos redes federadas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3214"><vh>@url Listado de Proyectos agrupados en Federated Social Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2777"><vh>@url Friendika</vh>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4392"><vh>@url We need a decentralised social web more than ever before</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4393"><vh>@url So what is all this talk about "Zot!" ?</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4433"><vh>@url Noosfero</vh>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4288"><vh>@url Ejemplos de Interface</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2778" a="E"><vh>Identidad digital</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2779"><vh>@url Portable identity</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3216"><vh>@url Prairie, Internet identity Server</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2780"><vh>Inames</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2781"><vh>Proveedores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2782"><vh>@url Inames.net</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2783"><vh>@url FullXRI</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2784"><vh>@url FreeXRI</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2785" a="E"><vh>Servicios</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2786"><vh>@url ouno</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2787"><vh>@url XDI</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2789"><vh>@url Squaring the Triangle: Secure, Decentralized, Human-Readable Names</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2790"><vh>@url DIY Data Manifesto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2791"><vh>DiSo Project</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2792"><vh>@url Tantek Celik on DiSo 2.0: Down to Brass Tacks</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2793"><vh>@url Interview: Tantek Celik, Conceptualizing DiSo 2.0</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2794"><vh>@url 2010-199 Federated Social Web Summit talk by Tantek</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3300"><vh>@url On Google Plus, Pownce Prior Art, Friends over Federation, Day One Data Export and This Summer's Social War</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2795"><vh>@url EC2 for poets</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2796"><vh>@url Sneer.me</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3212"><vh>@url Why No One is Going to Succeed at Building the Not-Facebook</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2797"><vh>@url Project Danube</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2798"><vh>@url OStatus interview with Markus Sabadello</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2799"><vh>@url Personal Data Store</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3303"><vh>Open Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3302"><vh>@url webhooks: building a more programable web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3301"><vh>@url Understand The Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3307"><vh>@url What is the Open Web?</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3215"><vh>@url anybeat</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2800"><vh>Own your data</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2801"><vh>@url Own your data Cont'd</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2802"><vh>@url No more data silos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2803"><vh>@ulr Blogging Forefather Seeks to Re-Invent Blogging, Again</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2804"><vh>@url Own your data en Zeldman.com</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2805"><vh>@url On Owning Your Data: Follow-up to @Zeldman and the #indieweb</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2806"><vh>@url Are You Ready For the Digital Afterlife?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2454"><vh>@url Sing.ly</vh>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2455"><vh>@url The Locker Project: data for the people</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2458"><vh>@url The Locker Project Helps You Stalk Yourself Online</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2456"><vh>@url Fizz</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2457"><vh>@url Bloom</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2459"><vh>@url My Wish for 2010: A Personal Dashboard for the Social Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2460"><vh>@url Creating a Portable Web: When your data is truly yours.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2807"><vh>Software as a Service</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2808"><vh>@url Top 10 pitfalls when implementing Software as a Service</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2809"><vh>@url NeoPPOD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2810"><vh>UNG is not Google</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2811"><vh>@url UNG Web Office and Groupware</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2812"><vh>@url UNG project overview</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2813"><vh>@url Tio Libre Definition</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2814"><vh>@url Why Tiolive</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2815"><vh>@url Free Cloud Alliance</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2816"><vh>@url Free Cloud Alliance Blueprint</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2817"><vh>@url Cloud9 IDE</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2818"><vh>Formatos y protocolos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2819"><vh>@url Salmon Protocol</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2820"><vh>@url PubSubHubbub</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2821"><vh>@url JRD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2822"><vh>@url W3C Federated Social Web Incubator Group</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2823" a="E"><vh>Arquitecturas Federadas y distribuidas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120921061712.4069"><vh>@url Digital Backyards</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2824"><vh>@url OneSocialWeb</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2825"><vh>Appleseed Project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2826"><vh>Diaspora</vh>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3218"><vh>@url The Diaspora that wasn’t, and the way into the walled gardens.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110925221431.3139"><vh>@url More on Diaspora* and I’m Weeding My Garden</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3219" a="E"><vh>@url How the Next Generation Diaspora* Should Be Built to Help High-Risk Activists</vh>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3220"><vh>@url Total institutions</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3221"><vh>Red para activistas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3222"><vh>Descentralización</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3223"><vh>Mobility</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4303"><vh>Infraestructura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4305"><vh>@url The Free Network</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3718"><vh>Tent</vh>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3719"><vh>@url Introducing Tent</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3720"><vh>@url The Tent Manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4934"><vh>Net neutrality</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2827"><vh>@url Freedom Box</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4935"><vh>@url So you think Internet is free</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4937"><vh>@url Free tool for testing net neutrality</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111002212101.2972"><vh>@url Online filtering bubbles</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2828"><vh>Almacenamiento distribuido</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2829"><vh>Fossil</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2830"><vh>@url Fossil SCM as a NoSQL database instead of CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2831"><vh>@url Fossil Self-Hosting Repositories</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2832"><vh>@url Replicated Databases in web2py</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2833"><vh>@url HTML5 Offline Web Applications</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2834"><vh>@url w3c Webstorage</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2835"><vh>@url Camilstore</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2836"><vh>CouchDB</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2837"><vh>@url Create offline web applications on mobile and stationary devices with CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2838"><vh>@url Sitios que usan CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2839"><vh>@url An Introduction to Using CouchDB with Django</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2840"><vh>@url Getting started in CouchDB with Python</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2841"><vh>@url GridIron</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2842"><vh>@url Libro: CouchDB The definitive Guide</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2843"><vh>Otras</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828184751.2780"><vh>@url The Social Network Paradox</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2422"><vh>@url What G+ is really about (pst!!! it's not social)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2844"><vh>Today Web Development Sucks</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2652"><vh>@url Torfason, Ghodim y Cristina (de Burgos): tres nombres, tres revoluciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2653"><vh>@url India se prepara para monitorizar el acceso a Google, Twitter, Facebook y Skype</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2654"><vh>@url RIM recibe ataque informático por colaborar con la policía en los disturbios de Londres</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2655"><vh>@url Darcus Howe, la insurrección de las masas y el vídeo que jamás volverá a emitir la BBC</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3224"><vh>@url Hootsuite</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120117065158.2867"><vh>@url Who owns “you” online?</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2845"><vh>Legal</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2846"><vh>@url Es legal tu blog?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2847"><vh>Ley de Sinde</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2848"><vh>@url Cómo puede la ley de Sinde amordazar Internet</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.2906"><vh>Patentes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110820110740.4682"><vh>@url Guerra de patentes: cuando los abogados pesan más que los ingenieros</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.2907"><vh>@url Apple y Google chocan y se toman la patente</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4936"><vh>@url The Copyright Nightmare of 'I Have a Dream'</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4938"><vh>@url Guía Propiedad intelectual: Introducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120117065158.2866"><vh>@url Larry Lessig dice que la ley está ahogando la creatividad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2849"><vh>Política</vh>
<v t="offray.20120815093609.4467"><vh>@url Saving Democracy With Web 2.0</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3722"><vh>@url The fight for control of the internet has become critical</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.3176"><vh>@url Peer2Politics </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2850"><vh>@url El Grupo de Software Libre del Parlamento Europeo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2851"><vh>@url El caso de islandia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2852"><vh>@url Zombie PC Prevention Bill to make security software mandatory in Taiwan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2853"><vh>@url Lo que hay en Twitter es "público y publicable"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718121320.2326"><vh>@url Rebecca MacKinnon: Let's take back the Internet!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110719130259.4299"><vh>@url Política de contenidos digitales</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2657"><vh>@url “Toda innovación tecnológica debe discutirse desde el punto de vista político”</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3305"><vh>@url Mendoza01</vh>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3306" a="E"><vh>notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120410114420.3328"><vh><<Def Internet>></vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528183521.3990"><vh>@url The Pirate Party Shakes Up European Politics</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2854" a="E"><vh>Social</vh>
<v t="offray.20121022191633.3738"><vh>@url When Coworking Spaces Fail</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5315"><vh>@url Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3210"><vh>@url Empathy as a Facilitator of Cognitive Emergence in Complex Social Systems</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2784"><vh>@url Tiempos borrascosos, de Manuel Castells en La Vanguardia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2855"><vh>@url Who does that server really serve?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110903084938.2816"><vh>@url 10 steps to building a local community</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110911125441.3154"><vh>@url Facebook, Google: Welcome to the new feudalism</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120114082501.3470"><vh>@url Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3485"><vh>@url Plataformas digitales emergentes y cultura abierta</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120529105355.6663"><vh>@url “Towards a Cooperative, Small scale, Local, P2P Production Future” – back from the OuiShare Summit in Paris</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2960"><vh>Hacker Ethics</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2940" a="E"><vh>Hackers and the Protestant ethics</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3138" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2959" a="E"><vh>Otros formatos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2941"><vh>@url Prug 2007 version texto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2958"><vh>@url Prug 2007 version pdf</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2942"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929074707.2924"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethics and the spirit of information age</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2927" a="E"><vh>Crítica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2926"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethic: A Radical Approach to the Philosophy of Business</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2928"><vh>@url Network Sociality</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2929"><vh>@url Impersonal Ties</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2931"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethic: All Work and All Play?</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2961"><vh>@url Hacker Ethics en p2p foundation</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4464"><vh>@url Blueprint for P2P Society: The Partner State & Ethical Economy </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120427123556.3362"><vh>@url Networks Without a Cause, A Critique of Social Media</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.3175"><vh>Educativa</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5314"><vh>@url LEARNING, FREEDOM, AND THE WEB: The Convergence</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5316"><vh>@url Differences between Online and Offline Learning</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4462"><vh>@url ¿Cómo hackear el currículo académico?: MásterDIWO (Do-it-with-others)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3395"><vh>*Labs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2856"><vh>ViveLabs</vh>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4307"><vh>@url Medialab prado: continuidad de proyectos y plataformas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4286"><vh>@url Geeks in a Plane</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2857"><vh>@url Por fin más plata para la ciencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2314"><vh>@url Trabajar 21 horas a la semana</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2315"><vh>@url Mi Pyme Libre</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2316"><vh>@url Silicon Valley Africa</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4287"><vh>@url The Problem With Silicon Valley Is Itself</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3396" a="E"><vh>Hackerspaces</vh>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3397"><vh>@url Hackerspaces as Startup Incubators</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120528183521.3401"><vh>@url 'Mudge' Announces New DARPA Hacker Spaces Program</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120720172858.5474"><vh>Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution - 25th Anniversary Edition </vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4939"><vh>Económica</vh>
<v t="offray.20120925050004.4981"><vh>@url The $100bn Facebook question: Will capitalism survive 'value abundance'? </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120812081257.3772"><vh>@url Why It Is Crucial that Peer Production Companies Refuse Venture Capital Investments</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3721"><vh>@url Futurological Defenses of Automation, Outsourcing, Crowdsourcing, Precarizing Labor </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120114082501.3473"><vh>@url Michael Bauwens: A peer to peer economy</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3211"><vh>@url Social Currencies p2pwiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120413171359.3794"><vh>@url Reputation currencies @ Hubnet.mp4</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4940"><vh>@url The nine revenue streams for Open Source companies</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3213"><vh>@url More than Money : Platforms for exchange and reciprocity in public services</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3481"><vh>@url Core Principles for the New Economy: Human Agency & Enlightened Self-Interest</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3488"><vh>@url And the Debate Begins… Peer-to-Peer and Marxism: analogies and differences | Jean Lievens interviewed with Michel Bauwens</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3489"><vh>@url The myth of p2p production</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120129210250.2914"><vh>@url Open Source Abundance Destroys the Scarcity Basis of Capitalism</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214113500.2934"><vh>@url Why the open source way trumps the crowdsourcing way</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214113500.2935"><vh>@url Video of the Day: Mindful Maps Presents Collaborative Consumption</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3300"><vh>@url Sacred Economics</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3317"><vh>@url donde voy</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3301"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3302"><vh>@url Why the P2P Foundation is paying its salaries in Bitcoin</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3303"><vh>@url What's all the fuzz about money?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3304"><vh>@url Matslats - Community currency engineer</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4457"><vh>@url Why Sharing Makes Sense to Pleistocene Hunters and Digital Economies</vh>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4458"><vh>@url Simulations</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3918"><vh>@url "Unsourcing" - does free labour ultimately require free goods too? </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3920"><vh>@url The Abundance debate (1): Christian Siefkes on Digital Plenty Versus Natural Scarcity</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3921"><vh>@url The Abundance debate (2): Maurizio Teli on the new post-scarcity epistemology of peer production</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2858"><vh>Parte Dura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2859"><vh>Plug Computers</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2860"><vh>@url Plug computer en wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2861"><vh>@url Open Plug / Plugcomputer</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2862"><vh>@url plugcomputer wiki</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2863"><vh>@url Amahi</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2864"><vh>@url Ionics Plug</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2865"><vh>@url Sheeva Plug</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2866"><vh>@url Guru Plug Server</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2867"><vh>@url PlugApps Linux</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2868"><vh>Servidores Virtuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2869"><vh>@url PomoxVE</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2870"><vh>@url El abc de los servidores virtuales</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2871"><vh>Redes Mesh</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2872"><vh>@url Una, dos, tres... cien internets</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3134"><vh>Notas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2873"><vh>Diario</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2883"><vh>@rst-ignore otros proyectos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2884"><vh>@rst-ignore DbaT</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2885"><vh>Cohere</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2886"><vh>Compendium</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2887"><vh>Error insertando una película</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2888"><vh>@rst-ignore Videojuegos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2889"><vh>@url Urban Terror en Linuxjuegos</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2742"><vh>@rst-ignore Espacios/Fenómenos: Comunidades/Colectivos + Artefactos + Prácticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2766" a="E"><vh>Etherpad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2771" a="E"><vh>Otras referencias</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2772"><vh>@url Etherpad on Ubuntu</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2770" a="E"><vh>No funcionaron</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2767"><vh>Vía Yaourt etherpad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2769"><vh>vía yaourt scala2.7</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111130141938.3236" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Herramientas de análisis</vh>
<v t="offray.20111130141938.3237"><vh>@url Community structure of modules in the Apache project</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3728" a="E"><vh>Bibliografía</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2890" a="E"><vh>autores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2891"><vh>Achterbergh, Jan & Vriens, Dirk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2892"><vh>@rst-no-head Organizations as social system conducting experiments with their survival</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2893" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2894"><vh>@url Ach01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2936"><vh>Barbrook, Richard y Shultz, Pit</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2934"><vh>@url digital artisans manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2938"><vh>Boal, Ilain A.</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2935"><vh>@url Falling for the Future (Men in denim)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2895"><vh>Chisari, Michael</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2896"><vh>@url The End Of Facebook and Free Software's Quiet Revolution</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2897"><vh>@url The Future Of Social Networking</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2898"><vh>@url The Future Of The Appleseed Platform</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2899"><vh>@url Appleseed Download</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2900"><vh>Ducasse, Stephane</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2901" a="E"><vh>Pharo By Example</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3141"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2902"><vh>Lo que no entiendo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2903"><vh>Sugerencias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2904"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2977"><vh>Himanen, Pekka</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3139"><vh>La ética del hacker y el espíritu de la era de la información</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3140" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2978"><vh>@url pekkahimanen.org</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2905"><vh>Jonas, Wolfang</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2906" a="E"><vh>Mind the gap! on knowing and not knowing in design Or: there is nothing more theoretical than a good practice</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2907" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2908"><vh>@url Jonas01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2909"><vh>notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2910"><vh>MAPS Theoretical Background</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2911" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2912"><vh>@url Jonas02</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2913" a="E"><vh>A sense of Vertigo. design thinking as a general problem solver?</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2914"><vh>@rst-ignore Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2915"><vh>Luna-Cárdenas, Offray</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2916" a="E"><vh>Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas </vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2917" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2918"><vh>@url Luna01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2919"><vh>Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2920"><vh>Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2921" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2922"><vh>@url Mat01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2923"><vh>Maxwell, J. W</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2924" a="E"><vh>Tracing the Dynabook</vh>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4459"><vh>Back to the Future -- In honor of Encyclopedia Britannica giving up its print edition 04</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3314"><vh>Mendoza, Nicolás</vh>
<v t="offray.20120410114420.3329" a="E"><vh>Metal Code Flesh profanity final</vh>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3305"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3315" a="E"><vh>@url Life in a network for survivors: The thermonuclear apocalypse and the protocols of freedomPgUp</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3316" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3318"><vh>Generatividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3319"><vh>Protocolos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3320"><vh>resistencia y defensa</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2937"><vh>@url Mute: Culture and politics after the net</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2925"><vh>Pérez-Bustos, Tania</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2926"><vh>Reflexiones sobre una etnografía feminista del Software Libre en Colombia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2927" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2928"><vh>@url Perez01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2929"><vh>@url Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2939"><vh>Prug, Tony</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2940" a="E"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2570" a="E"><vh>Ruskhoff, Douglas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2571"><vh>Program or be programmed</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3137" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2572"><vh>@url Ruskhoff01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2587"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2588"><vh>Introduccion</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2589"><vh>Redes sociales</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2590"><vh>Usuarios Hacedores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2591"><vh>El reto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2592"><vh>Polemicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2593"><vh>No neutralidad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2594"><vh>Tiempo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2595"><vh>always on</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2596"><vh>multitasking</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2597"><vh>de lo sincrono a lo asincrono</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2598"><vh>phantom vibration syndrom</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2599"><vh>neuplasticidad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2600"><vh>Lugar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2601" a="E"><vh>Escala</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2611"><vh>acceso a los simbolos</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2609" a="E"><vh>Charla: Programar o ser programado</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2610"><vh>Cita</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2611"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2613"><vh>Dos mantras de los 70's</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2614"><vh>Unix: Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2615"><vh>Smalltalk: Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2616"><vh>Mi propio camino</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2617"><vh>Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2618"><vh>Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2619"><vh>Compartirlo con mis estudiantes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2620"><vh>Llevar el Tangram Linux en LiveCD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2621"><vh>Llevar aplicaciones portables en una memoria USB</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2622" a="E"><vh>Desarrollar para la web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2623"><vh>web2py</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2624"><vh>Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2625"><vh>La propuesta: Un enrutador de identidad Digital</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2768"><vh>Gracias (en Smalltalk)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2930"><vh>Saikaly, Fatina</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2931"><vh>Approaches to Design Research: Towards the Designerly Way</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2932"><vh>Sennet, Richard</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2933"><vh>El artesano</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2934" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2935"><vh>@url Acerca de "El Artesano"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2936"><vh>@url Blog post sobre El artesano</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2937"><vh>@url El Artesano, en Revista de Arquitectura</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2938"><vh>@url El Artesano, en Libros sin tinta</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2939"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2940"><vh>@url Página web Richard Sennet</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2941"><vh>@url Richard Sennet en la Wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2942"><vh>pub: Carne y piedra</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2943"><vh>@url reseña de "Carne y Piedra"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2944"><vh>Thomas, Hernan</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2945" a="E"><vh>Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2946" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2947"><vh>@url Thomas01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2948" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2949"><vh>Tecnología y sociedad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2950"><vh>Def: Tecnologías sociales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2951"><vh>Sentido</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2952"><vh>Actores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2953"><vh>Funcionan?</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2954"><vh>Aspectos</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2955"><vh>Concepciones usuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2956"><vh>Tecnologías democráticas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2957"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2958"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas (fase I)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2959"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas (fase II)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2960"><vh>Críticas</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2961"><vh>Tecnologías intermedias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2962"><vh>Tecnologías Alternativas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2963"><vh>Grassroot Innovations</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2964"><vh>Innovación Social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2965"><vh>Base de la pirámide</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2966"><vh>Tecnología social</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2967"><vh>Críticas a las concepciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2968" a="E"><vh>Propuesta</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2969"><vh>Recontextualizar tecnología social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2970"><vh>conocimiento experto + conocimiento tecnológico local</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2971"><vh>@@cita Problemas sistémicos en lugar de puntuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2972"><vh>parte de lo Sistemico que abordo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2973"><vh>No linealidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2974"><vh>Nuevo arsenal de conceptos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2975" a="E"><vh>Planos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2976"><vh>Socio Económico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2977"><vh>Político institucional</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2978"><vh>Cognitivo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2979"><vh>Abordaje Teórico Conceptual</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2980"><vh>Co-construcciones de actores y artefactos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2981"><vh>Dinámica socio-técnica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2982"><vh>Trayectorias socio-técnicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2983"><vh>Proceso de transducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2984"><vh>Estilo socio-técnico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2985"><vh>resignificación de tecnologías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2986"><vh>relaciones problema-solución</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2987"><vh>funcionamiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2988"><vh>adecuación socio-técnica</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2989"><vh>Cuestiones teórico metodológicas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2990"><vh>Adecuación socio-tecnológica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2991"><vh>Co-construcción de artefactos y sociedades</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2992"><vh>Tratamiento simétrico (toda tecnología es social)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2993"><vh>Todas las sociedades son tecnológicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2994"><vh>Tecnologías conocimiento intensivas (culturales y sociales)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2995"><vh>Resolución de déficits puntuales vs. capacidades de resolución de problemas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2996"><vh>Transferencia y difusión vs. procesos de transducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2997"><vh>Mecanismos de resolución de la tensión universal-local</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2998"><vh>Adaptación vs. procesos de resignificación de tecnologías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2999"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales y dinámicas locales de cambio tecnológico</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3000"><vh>Comparación de tecnologías apropiadas vs apropiación socio-técnica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3001" a="E"><vh>Insumos para estratégias y políticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3002"><vh>Producción de conocimiento</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3003"><vh>inlusión social como desafío en el campo científico-técnico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3004"><vh>Desarrollo de tecnologías sociales conocimiento - intensivas (conocimiento explícito y tácito)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3005"><vh>Ni modelos S&T Push ni modelos Demand Pull</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3006"><vh>La adecuación socio-técnica como relación problema-solución no lineal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3007"><vh>Desarrollo de capacidades de diseño estratégico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3008"><vh>Utilidad social de los conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos localmente generados</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3009" a="E"><vh>Economía y producción</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3010"><vh>Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales y producción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3011"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales y mercados (señala los 3 errores comunes)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3012"><vh>Riesgo de gestación de economías de dos sectores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3013"><vh>Diferenciación de productos y diversificación de procesos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3014"><vh>Bienes de uso-Bienes de cambio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3015"><vh>Usuarios finales - Usuarios Intermedios</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3016"><vh>Financiación del diseño y desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3017" a="E"><vh>Política y sociedad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3018"><vh>La ampliación de la esfera pública y la producción de bienes comunes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3019" a="E"><vh>La inclusión socio-técnica y la democratización de las decisiones tecnológicas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3020"><vh><<@cita>></vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3021"><vh>La ciudadanía socio-técnica</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3022"><vh>@url Unhosted project</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3023"><vh>@url Unhosted web applications: a new approach to freeing SaaS</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3024"><vh>@url unhosted wiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3025"><vh>@url openmesh</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3026"><vh>@url COMO evitar la censura en Internet.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3027"><vh>@url Fellowship interview with Michiel de Jong</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3028"><vh>Wenger, Etienne</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3029"><vh>Communities of Practice</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3161" a="E"><vh>Wolfe, Cary</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3160" a="E"><vh>@url Critical environments: postmodern theory and the pragmatics of the "outside"</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3162"><vh>@rst-ignore notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3163" a="E"><vh>Introducción</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3164"><vh>Crisis de la postmodernidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3165"><vh>Construcción social y contingente del conocimiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3166"><vh>Hacer la verdad vs representarla</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3167"><vh>La tradición de la "invención"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3168"><vh>El doble imperativo del libro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3169" a="E"><vh>Pragmatismo, Teoría de Sistemas y postestructuralismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3170"><vh>Pragmatismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3171"><vh>instrumentalismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3172"><vh>relación pragmatismo - teoría de sistemas y postestructuralismo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3173"><vh>Teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3174"><vh>Superar el dualismo: múltiples observadores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3175"><vh>consenso</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3176"><vh>humanidades</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3177"><vh>Afuera</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3178"><vh>poder y teoría de sistemas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3179"><vh>poder y postestructuralismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3180"><vh>dimensión micropolítica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3181"><vh>ética del pensamiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3182"><vh>the fold</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3183"><vh>The comic perspective</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3184"><vh>Pragmatismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3185" a="E"><vh>Creencia: Michael y James</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3186"><vh>El problema de la creencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3187"><vh>El mercado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3188"><vh>capitalismo y deseo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3189"><vh>micropolítica pragmática</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3190"><vh>la propiedad del yo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3191"><vh>la pureza del discurso</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3192"><vh>Las consecuencias en el mundo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3193" a="E"><vh>Contingencia: Richard Rorty</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3194"><vh>metáforas oculares de la mente</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3195"><vh>representar y hacer la verdad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3196"><vh>relativismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3197"><vh>antirepresentacionismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3198"><vh>creencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3199"><vh>adaptación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3200"><vh>clave ético-política</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3201"><vh>Cavell</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3202"><vh>Humanismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3203"><vh>El yo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3204"><vh>Descartes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3205"><vh>política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3206"><vh>El mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3207"><vh>Excepticismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3208"><vh>Fe</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3209"><vh>Utopia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3210"><vh>Democracia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3211"><vh>propiedad y conocimiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3212"><vh>escasez</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3213"><vh>autodeterminación y libertad</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3214" a="E"><vh>Teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3215"><vh>Maturana, Varela, Luhman y los estudios feministas de la ciencia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3216"><vh>lo humano</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3217"><vh>Dialéctica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3218" a="E"><vh>Humanismo y cyborg Manifesto</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3219"><vh>@url cyborg manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3220"><vh>posthumanismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3221"><vh>redes híbridas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3222"><vh>Política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3223"><vh>Ciencia como actividad social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3224"><vh>objetividad fuerte</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3225"><vh>pragmatismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3226"><vh>hechos híbridos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3227"><vh>efectividad de la ciencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3228"><vh>descripción contingente</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3229"><vh>filosofía feminista de la ciencia</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3230" a="E"><vh>De la cibernética de primer orden a la de segundo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3231"><vh>la teoría de sistemas como teoría general</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3232" a="E"><vh>contextualismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3233"><vh>El mapa no es el territorio</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3234"><vh>organicismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3235"><vh>autoconservación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3236"><vh>tipos de feedback</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3237"><vh>recursividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3238"><vh>observador - observado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3239"><vh>bucle extraño</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3240"><vh>puntos ciegos</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3241" a="E"><vh>Autopoesis y más allá</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3242"><vh>organización y estructura</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3243"><vh>clausura y autoreferencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3244"><vh>minsky</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3245"><vh>Representacionismo: realismo e idealismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3246"><vh>bootstrap</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3247" a="E"><vh>crítica de Zolo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3248"><vh>respuesta maturana</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3249" a="E"><vh>La observación de la observación: Niklas Luhmann</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3250"><vh>puntos ciegos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3251"><vh>de lo biológico a lo social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3252"><vh>Identidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3253"><vh>Operación, observación y auto-observación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3254"><vh>tautología, paradoja y diferencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3255"><vh>Contingencia, simplicidad y complejidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112084016.3157"><vh>cierre</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112084016.3156"><vh>Ética, política y teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3162"><vh>Consenso?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3163"><vh>Posthumanismo y constructivismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3164"><vh>autorreproducción del mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3165"><vh>Sociedad total</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3166"><vh>sistemas sociales desrregulados!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3167"><vh>Postcapitalismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3168"><vh>visión encarnada</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3169"><vh>Teoría de sistemas histórica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3170"><vh>Unos tienen mejores condiciones para observar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3171"><vh>el punto ciego de Luhmann</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3172"><vh>ética de la cibernética de segundo orden</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3173"><vh>tragedy of the commons</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3174"><vh>familia, asilo, campo de concentración</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3175"><vh>sujeto paradójico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3176"><vh>imperativos post-humanos</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3177"><vh>coupling in the human divide</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3178" a="E"><vh>Post-estructuralimo</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2904"><vh>Foucault</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3179"><vh>intro: poder y fuerza</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3180"><vh>Antihumanistas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3181"><vh>Democracia liberal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3182"><vh>stop "reinvention"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3183"><vh>herramientas que nos usan!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3184"><vh>poder productivo vs poder represivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3185"><vh>somos lo que hacemos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2890"><vh>las herramientas nos usan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2891"><vh>los intelectuales para Focault</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2892"><vh>Politics of Truth</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2893"><vh>Muerte y poder</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2894"><vh>Estado y poder</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2895"><vh>Libros y viajes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2896"><vh>Agitar en lugar de convencer</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2905"><vh>A Pragmatics of the Multiple: Foucault with Deleuze</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2906"><vh>metáforas ópticas y cartografías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2907"><vh>Creatividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2908"><vh>Pragmatismo constructivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214170032.3296"><vh>micropolítica intacta</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214170032.3297"><vh>colectividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3300"><vh>Diferentes pragmatismos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3301"><vh>Concepto en Deluze</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3302"><vh>Especulación ontológica y práctica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3264"><vh>Condiciones de posibilidad Deluze</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3265"><vh>microagitaciones: la repetición es imposible</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3266"><vh>La resistencia como creación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3267"><vh>Co-adaptación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3268"><vh>Tecnología y poder</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3030"><vh>@rst-ignore Leyendo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3674"><vh>@url The science of self-organization and adaptatity</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2735" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2736"><vh><<= Exportar la entropía: =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2737"><vh><<= Orden desde el ruido =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2738"><vh><<= Del ser al devenir =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2739"><vh><<= Coherencia =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2740"><vh>Características de los sistemas auto-organizados</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2743"><vh>Orden Global a partir de interacciones locales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2744"><vh>correlación</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2745"><vh>Control distribuido</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2746"><vh>Robustez, Resilencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2747"><vh>Non-linearity and feedback</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3160" a="E"></v>
<v t="offray.20110929074707.2924"></v>
<v t="offray.20111011183229.2994" a="E"><vh>@url Aprendizaje Invisible</vh>
<v t="offray.20111011183229.2995"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3125" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Por Leer</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3126"><vh>Acceso</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3127"><vh>@url The Power of Open</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3128"><vh>Recomendados</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3129"><vh>Comunidades de práctica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3130"><vh>@url Online Communities: Design, Theory, and Practice </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3654" a="E"><vh>Procomún</vh>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3655" a="E"><vh>Ostrom Elinor</vh>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3656"><vh>@url Elinor Ostrom’s Legacy: Managing Resources Without Government or Private Property</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3657"><vh>@url Lin Ostrom on "The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation."</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120705175802.3692"><vh>@url Commons Champion: Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3131"><vh>Problemática social</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3132" a="E"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3133"><vh>Program or be programmed by Douglas Rushkoff</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3134"><vh>"The Dream Machine" by Mitchel Waldrop</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3135"><vh>Tecnociencia y cibercultura,</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3136"><vh>The Modern Invention of Information</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3137"><vh>Qué es información</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3138"><vh>Tres épocas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3139"><vh>economía política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3140"><vh>"objetividad" = olvidar la historia </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3141"><vh>Levy y Wiener</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3142"><vh>Critica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3143"><vh>>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3144"><vh>Where do you want to go Tomorrow</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3145"><vh>Documentación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3146"><vh>Otlet</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3147"><vh>Forma al futuro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3148"><vh>@@!!! Diseño </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3149"><vh>Libro y Futuro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3150"><vh>Las "leyes" de la bibliotecología</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3151"><vh>Libro Diacrónico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3152"><vh>Libro como red total</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3153"><vh>Contingencia Pasado - Futuro. Determinismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3154"><vh>repetición</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3155"><vh>La sociedad sitiada</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3156"><vh>Cibernética</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2932"><vh>Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann: From Mathematics to the Technologies of Life and Death and The Cybernetics Group</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3157"><vh>@url Cybernetics & Human Knowing: A Journal of Second-Order Clybernetics, Autopoiesis and Cyber-Semiotics, Vol. 9, No. 2: Francisco J. Varela 1946-2001</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3158"><vh>Autopoesis</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3159"><vh>@url THE OBSERVER WEB: Autopoiesis and Enaction</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3160"><vh>@url Archonic</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3161" a="E"><vh>Crítica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3256"><vh>@url GALILEO, BABEL, AND AUTOPOIESIS (IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3257"><vh>@url Conflict Attractors. System-theoretical and Empirical Modeling of Cultural, Political, and Socioeconomic Factors Structuring the Patterns of Internal Conflicts in Asia and Oceania</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3258"><vh>@url Autonomous systems: computational autopoiesis through artificial chemistries</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3259"><vh>@url Autopoiesis and Cognition in the Game of Life (2004)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3260"><vh>@url Autonomy: An Information–Theoretic Perspective</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3304" a="E"><vh>Bootstrap</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3305"><vh>Informático</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3306"><vh>@url Paver: Easy Scripting for Software Projects</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3671" a="E"><vh>Autosostenibilidad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3672"><vh>@url Wikipedia: Self Sustainability</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3675"><vh>@url Reciprocal Exchange: A Self-Sustainable System</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110908082507.2890" a="E"><vh>Auto organización</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3673"><vh>@url Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3674"></v>
<v t="offray.20110908082507.2891"><vh>@url Evolution: Self-organization Theory</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3042" a="E"><vh>Auto referencia</vh>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3043"><vh>@url frases autoreferentes en Metamagical themes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3045"><vh>@url Self-reference en la enciclopedia de Stanford de filosofía</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3044"><vh>@url Auto-referencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115033128.3154"><vh>@url Self Documenting System (Wikipedia)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3261"><vh>@rst-ignore Investigadores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3262"><vh>Chow, Rosan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3264"><vh>Illeris Knud</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3265"><vh>Contemporary Theories of Learning : Learning Theorists -- in Their Own Words</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3266"><vh>El problema del contexto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110823182631.3681"><vh>@url Inuse: Innovations And Users Research Group</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110904175331.2823"><vh>@url Noosferia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5317"><vh>@url From Designing Products to Thinking New Systems</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5318"><vh>@url How to Design and Manufacture an Open Product</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120403134959.3298"><vh>@url Open p2p Design</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4461"><vh>@url The Digital Public Domain: Foundations for an Open Cultur</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110904175331.2820" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore por Referenciar</vh>
<v t="offray.20120131114429.3674" a="E"><vh>@url La opacidad tecnológica: lo que no vemos en las máquinas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120131114429.3675"><vh>@url CCBlab</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3263"><vh>Cogniciones distribuidas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120821075953.3782"><vh>Lovegrove, Ross</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3716" a="E"><vh>Steele, Robert David</vh>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3717"><vh>@url The Open Source Everything Manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3729"><vh>LaTeX/Bibtex</vh>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3730"><vh>@url LaTeX/Bibliography Management</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3731"><vh>@url Basic ReLaTeX Tutorial</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3115" a="E"><vh>Anexos</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3114" a="E"><vh>Floppology: Un diario de lo fallido</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3119" a="E"><vh>Holonica: Una incubadura web de comunidades</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3120"><vh>@rst-ignore Configuración Holónica</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3121"><vh>Servidor Virtual</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3136"><vh>zoOMixer</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3137" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3138"><vh>Ducasse, Stephane</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3139"><vh>Pharo By Example</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3140"><vh>Lo que no entiendo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3141"><vh>Sugerencias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3142"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3143" a="E"><vh>Interface</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3144"><vh>@url Open Sophie project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3145"><vh>@url Rome Plugin sobre pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3146"><vh>@url miio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3147"><vh>@url Dynatree - Example Browser</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3148"><vh>@url Cairo Graphics Kit</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3149"><vh>@url The Morphic 3 Project</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3135"><vh>Biografía de Ubakye</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3267" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Anexos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2428"><vh>Mayo Fuster</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2429"><vh>@url Página Medialab el Prado de Mayo Fuster</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2431"><vh>@url Tesis Doctoral</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2430"><vh>Rodrigues de las Heras</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3268"><vh>Glosario</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3269" a="E"><vh>Economía de dos sectores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3270"><vh>@url Yahoo Answers</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3271"><vh>reStructuredText</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3272"><vh>@url reST – reStructuredText</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4541"><vh>@url moin2rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4542"><vh>@url db2rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4543"><vh>@url Making MoinMoin, Pygments, RestructuredText and CodeMirror all play together for the ultimate Wiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4927"><vh>@url Write a book with Sphinix</vh>
<v t="offray.20111104043907.3308"><vh>@url MikTeK Portable</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111104043907.3092"><vh>@url Docutils Project Documentation Overview</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2771"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2391" a="E"><vh>Smalltalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2679"><vh>@url Smalltalk, the dynamic language </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2728"><vh>@url A Mentoring Course on Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824142930.3715"><vh>@url Smalltalk: A White Paper Overview</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2392"><vh>@url Smalltalk in the Cloud</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2460"><vh>@url Lessons Learned ...</vh>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2461"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2700"><vh>@url RailsConf 09: Robert Martin, "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2701"><vh>@url Why use Ruby instead of Smalltalk?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2702"><vh>@url Who looks at Smalltalk?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2703"><vh>@url Smalltalk redline</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110825090126.5747"><vh>@url The Morphic 3 Project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2729"><vh>ESUG</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2730" a="E"><vh>2011</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2731" a="E"><vh>@url Desktop like GUI in browser</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2732"><vh>@url SmartClient</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110825065414.2716"><vh>Blogs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110825065414.2717"><vh>@url Sean Degeneris</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110719130259.4300" a="E"><vh>Seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2375"><vh>@url Seaside Tutorial by the Software Architecture Group</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2438"><vh>Antes de iniciar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2432"><vh>Instalación de Seaside en Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2433"><vh>Iniciando el servidor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2440" a="E"><vh>Aplicación de cosas pendientes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2434" a="E"><vh>Crear el primer componente</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2435"><vh>Every newly-created component is inherited from WAComponent.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2436"><vh>Every component needs a method called #renderContentOn: accepting a renderer.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2437"><vh>Components that shall be root components need a class method called #canBeRoot.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2439"><vh>Configurando la aplicación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2441"><vh>Modelo de la aplicación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2442" a="E"><vh>Pensando en componentes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2443"><vh>Creando los componentes de la aplicación "pendientes"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2462" a="E"><vh>@url Dynamic Web Development with Seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2463" a="E"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2676"><vh>Componentes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110806220931.2468"><vh>repetir una imagen muchas veces</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2678"><vh>Trabajar con una copia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2677"><vh>Cargar un archivo "avatar"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110826084851.3746" a="E"><vh>@url Learning web development with seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20111220122255.3881" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110826084851.3747"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2376"><vh>@url Seaside: A Flexible Environment for Building Dynamic Web Applications</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2380"><vh>@url Página de Lukas Renggli sobre seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2381"><vh>@jQuery for Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2382"><vh>@url Lecturing Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2383"><vh>@url 5 Steps to Mastering the Art of Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2384"><vh>@url Seaside - Past, Present and Future</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2385"><vh>@url Scriptaculous for seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2393"><vh>@url Seaside Hosting</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3104"><vh>@url Ajaxified Seaside Components</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2863" a="E"><vh>Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2546"><vh>Documentación General</vh>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2864"><vh>@url Video: Getting started with Pier</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2547"><vh>@url FAQ</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2544"><vh>Sitios "powered by" Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2545"><vh>@url Tudor Girba</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2548"><vh>@url Damian Cassou</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2549"><vh>@url Voltantes de Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2550"><vh>@url Smalltalk.cat</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2551"><vh>@url Nicolas Roard</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2552"><vh>@url Ligthbox2</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2553"><vh>@url Something I know</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2554"><vh>@url Lukas Renggli</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2380"></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2377"><vh>@url Blog de Lukas Renggli</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2555"><vh>@url getitmade.com</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2556"><vh>@url SW-eng</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2557"><vh>@url Software Composition Groupp</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2558"><vh>@url Andreas Brodbeck</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2561"><vh>@url Un viejo blog con el look clásico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2562"><vh>@url Teodo Rov</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4551"><vh>@url Norbert Hartl</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4557"><vh>@url MikeMcPherran</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2866" a="E"><vh>Hospedaje Web de Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2865"><vh>@url Video: Deploy on Seaside Hosting</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2867"><vh>@url Deploy Seaside with Cherokee Web Server</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4536" a="E"><vh>Lenguajes de etiquetamiento</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4537"><vh>txt2tags</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4538"><vh>Comentario en el blog de txt2tags preguntando por algunas características</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4539"><vh>@url Soporte para txt2tags en tiddlywiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4540"><vh>@url Cookbook en el Wiki de txt2tags</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4544"><vh>@url Use txt2tags markup in Plone</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4545"><vh>@url markItUp! universal markup jQuery editor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4546"><vh>@url How to transform (almost) plain ASCII text to Lulu-ready PDF files, part 1</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4547"><vh>@url Archivo de configuración de txt2tag para soporte de notas al pie de página</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4548"><vh>@url Screenshot: txt2tags en geany</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4549"><vh>@url Le TeXtallion</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4550"><vh>@url txt2TeX</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4552"><vh>@url Helveltia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4553"><vh>@url Helveltia Examples</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4554"><vh>@url Dynamic Language Embedding With Homogeneous Tool Support</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4555" a="E"><vh>Interface web, temas y plantillas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4556"><vh>@url 53 CSS-Techniques You Couldn’t Live Without</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2386"><vh>Aida/Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2397"><vh>Instalación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2398" a="E"><vh>Enlaces</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2399"><vh>@url Quién es el público de Aida/Web ?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2390"><vh>@url Aida/Web en la Wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2394"><vh>@url Aida/Web Sitio principal.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2372"><vh>@url Tutorial en español</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2373"><vh>@url Tutorial: First steps with Aida/Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2374"><vh>@url Seaside vs. Traditional</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2387"><vh>@url Suazoo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2388"><vh>@url Swazoo Documentation</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2389"><vh>@url Era Nova</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2395"><vh>Pharo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2396"><vh>Experimentos para el proyecto de Arte interactivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2404"><vh>@url Manejo de caracteres y codificaciones en Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2405"><vh>@url TWM: Docking Windows</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2406"><vh>@url Parsing XML Documents in Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2407"><vh>@@mail-list Auto salvar la imagen de Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2408"><vh>@url World Menu Registration</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2391"><vh>@url Twitter Client en Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3691"><vh>Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2392"><vh>@url Scripting Browsers with Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2393" a="E"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2413"><vh>Grafos como modelos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2423" a="E"><vh>Instalar Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2424"><vh>método 1</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3692"><vh>@url Introducing the Glamorous Inspector for Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3693"><vh>@url Glamorous Toolkit (GT)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2412"><vh>@url How to load a Metacello Configuration into an offline image</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2384"><vh>Moose</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2385"><vh>@url Descargar Moose</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2387"><vh>@url PettitParser</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2386"><vh>@url Code City</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2388"><vh>@url Code City Wall of Fame</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2389"><vh>@url Py2mse</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2390"><vh>@url Softwarenaut</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2559"><vh>Jtalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2560"><vh>@url Calling JS functions from Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3100"><vh>Silver Smalltalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3101"><vh>@url QuickSilver Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3103"><vh>@url Silver Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2680"><vh>Hospedaje Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2681"><vh>@url SmallHarbour</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111006100752.2975"><vh>Zinc</vh>
<v t="offray.20111006100752.2974"><vh>Instalación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2979"><vh>@url Zinc Http components</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2733"><vh>Etoile Os</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2734"><vh>@url David Chisnall</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3273"><vh>@rst-ignore Eventos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3274"><vh>labSurlab</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3275"><vh>Seminario Académico</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3276"><vh>Eyebeam</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3277"><vh>Medialab Prado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3278"><vh>NoGoZone</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3279"><vh>Platohedro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3280"><vh>Hiperbarrio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3281"><vh>Antena Mutante</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3282"><vh>Panorama Brasil</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3283"><vh>AddSensor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3284"><vh>DreamAddictive</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3285"><vh>Geomalla</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3286"><vh>La Direkta</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3287"><vh>@url http://ladirekta.org</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3288"><vh>L'Estruch</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3289"><vh>Performatividad</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3290" a="E"><vh>Mesas temáticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3291" a="E"><vh>Arte y labs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3292"><vh>Participantes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3293"><vh>Temáticas</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3294" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Bitácora de campo.</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3295"><vh>Smalltalk World vs web2py + Leo + Fossil</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3296"><vh>pasos a seguir</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3297"><vh>Caracterizar los roles</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3298"><vh>vigilar a quienes nos vigilan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3299"><vh>(meta)medios y (meta)mediaciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4541"><vh>Copyhack</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4547"><vh>Alabs</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4548"><vh>@url Github de Alabs</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4543"><vh>@url Liberateca</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4544"><vh>@url No lo Tiro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4545"><vh>@url PrecaJobs</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4546"><vh>@url Oiga.me</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4549" a="E"><vh>Elegant Mob Films</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4550"><vh>@url Descargas</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4542"><vh>Tocar el mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120616092341.3648"><vh>La vamo'a tumbar</vh>
<v t="offray.20120616092341.3649"><vh>autocontenido</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120619175430.10478"><vh>Principios informales de HackBo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120824103457.3730"><vh>reinventing Smalltalk and the connected diversity</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2806"><vh>@rst-ignore Tutorias</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2807"><vh>Adolfo Leon</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2808" a="E"><vh>Bibliografía recomendada</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902140033.2813" a="E"><vh>Sloterdijk, Peter</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902140033.2812" a="E"><vh>El hombre operable</vh>
<v t="offray.20110904070958.2818"><vh>empresarios y militares</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.3662"><vh>@@auto-rst ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5595"><vh>@@file ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.tex</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5594"><vh>@@file ./biografia.bib</vh></v>
======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
<v t="offray.20110407144015.2706" a="E"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2749" a="E"><vh>@@auto-rst autopoiesisTecnocultural-3.2.rst</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2750" a="E"><vh>Autopoiesis Tecnocultural</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2751"><vh>Presentación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2752"><vh>Bitácora de Cambios</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2753"><vh>Justificación</vh>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2782" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2783"><vh>@url The Cyborg and the Noble Savage. Ethics in the war on information poverty</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2754"><vh>El problema</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.5316"><vh>Objetivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2755"><vh>Referentes Teóricos y de Diseño</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2756" a="E"><vh>Proyecto en diseño</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3110"><vh>La hipótesis</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3111"><vh>Abordaje</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3112"><vh>@rst-ignore habitat digital</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3407" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Metodología</vh>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3408"><vh>@url Análisis de interacción social para Open Gov.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120530155948.3409"><vh>@url Grafo Blogosfera Pública Española</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2757"><vh>Nosotr@s</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2758"><vh>HackBo: Un hackerspace recontextualizado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2759"><vh>@rst-ignore Colibri</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2760"><vh>@rst-ignore Escuela del Webcraft</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2761" a="E"><vh>Posibles proyectos</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3113"><vh>Extender y modificar el hábitat análogo/digital de HackBo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2765" a="E"><vh>Ubakye: Un enrutador de identidad digital</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2766" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4718" a="E"><vh>Implementación</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2767"><vh>Borrador 1: De lo simple a lo complejo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110817164629.4677"><vh>Conversación Fredy y Jorge. Agosto 17 de 2011</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4720"><vh>Configuración</vh>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4721"><vh>Servidor Web Cherokee</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2658" a="E"><vh>Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2659"><vh>url limpias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2660"><vh>Recuperar la contraseña</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110906103523.4848"><vh>Interface</vh>
<v t="offray.20110906103523.4849"><vh>@url Hahlo</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110812101833.4719" a="E"><vh>Antecedentes y Contexto</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2768" a="E"><vh>Parte Blanda</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2769"><vh>Nombres de dominio previos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120210150049.5449"><vh>Proyectos similares</vh>
<v t="offray.20120210150049.5450"><vh>@url Buffer</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2770"><vh>Correo a colibri anunciando el proyecto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2771"><vh>@url Docutils hacker's guide</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2772" a="E"><vh>Critical Cloud</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2773"><vh>Tecnología</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2774"><vh>Federated Social Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2775"><vh>@url An Introduction to the Federated Social Network</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2776"><vh>@url Comparación de proyectos redes federadas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3214"><vh>@url Listado de Proyectos agrupados en Federated Social Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2777"><vh>@url Friendika</vh>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4392"><vh>@url We need a decentralised social web more than ever before</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4393"><vh>@url So what is all this talk about "Zot!" ?</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110714094207.4433"><vh>@url Noosfero</vh>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4288"><vh>@url Ejemplos de Interface</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2778" a="E"><vh>Identidad digital</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2779"><vh>@url Portable identity</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3216"><vh>@url Prairie, Internet identity Server</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2780"><vh>Inames</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2781"><vh>Proveedores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2782"><vh>@url Inames.net</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2783"><vh>@url FullXRI</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2784"><vh>@url FreeXRI</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2785" a="E"><vh>Servicios</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2786"><vh>@url ouno</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2787"><vh>@url XDI</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2789"><vh>@url Squaring the Triangle: Secure, Decentralized, Human-Readable Names</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2790"><vh>@url DIY Data Manifesto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2791"><vh>DiSo Project</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2792"><vh>@url Tantek Celik on DiSo 2.0: Down to Brass Tacks</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2793"><vh>@url Interview: Tantek Celik, Conceptualizing DiSo 2.0</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2794"><vh>@url 2010-199 Federated Social Web Summit talk by Tantek</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3300"><vh>@url On Google Plus, Pownce Prior Art, Friends over Federation, Day One Data Export and This Summer's Social War</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2795"><vh>@url EC2 for poets</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2796"><vh>@url Sneer.me</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3212"><vh>@url Why No One is Going to Succeed at Building the Not-Facebook</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2797"><vh>@url Project Danube</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2798"><vh>@url OStatus interview with Markus Sabadello</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2799"><vh>@url Personal Data Store</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3303"><vh>Open Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3302"><vh>@url webhooks: building a more programable web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3301"><vh>@url Understand The Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3307"><vh>@url What is the Open Web?</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3215"><vh>@url anybeat</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2800"><vh>Own your data</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2801"><vh>@url Own your data Cont'd</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2802"><vh>@url No more data silos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2803"><vh>@ulr Blogging Forefather Seeks to Re-Invent Blogging, Again</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2804"><vh>@url Own your data en Zeldman.com</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2805"><vh>@url On Owning Your Data: Follow-up to @Zeldman and the #indieweb</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2806"><vh>@url Are You Ready For the Digital Afterlife?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2454"><vh>@url Sing.ly</vh>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2455"><vh>@url The Locker Project: data for the people</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2458"><vh>@url The Locker Project Helps You Stalk Yourself Online</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2456"><vh>@url Fizz</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2457"><vh>@url Bloom</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2459"><vh>@url My Wish for 2010: A Personal Dashboard for the Social Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110807152341.2460"><vh>@url Creating a Portable Web: When your data is truly yours.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2807"><vh>Software as a Service</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2808"><vh>@url Top 10 pitfalls when implementing Software as a Service</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2809"><vh>@url NeoPPOD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2810"><vh>UNG is not Google</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2811"><vh>@url UNG Web Office and Groupware</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2812"><vh>@url UNG project overview</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2813"><vh>@url Tio Libre Definition</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2814"><vh>@url Why Tiolive</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2815"><vh>@url Free Cloud Alliance</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2816"><vh>@url Free Cloud Alliance Blueprint</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2817"><vh>@url Cloud9 IDE</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2818"><vh>Formatos y protocolos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2819"><vh>@url Salmon Protocol</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2820"><vh>@url PubSubHubbub</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2821"><vh>@url JRD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2822"><vh>@url W3C Federated Social Web Incubator Group</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2823" a="E"><vh>Arquitecturas Federadas y distribuidas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120921061712.4069"><vh>@url Digital Backyards</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2824"><vh>@url OneSocialWeb</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2825"><vh>Appleseed Project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2826"><vh>Diaspora</vh>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3218"><vh>@url The Diaspora that wasn’t, and the way into the walled gardens.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110925221431.3139"><vh>@url More on Diaspora* and I’m Weeding My Garden</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3219" a="E"><vh>@url How the Next Generation Diaspora* Should Be Built to Help High-Risk Activists</vh>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3220"><vh>@url Total institutions</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3221"><vh>Red para activistas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3222"><vh>Descentralización</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3223"><vh>Mobility</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4303"><vh>Infraestructura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4305"><vh>@url The Free Network</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3718"><vh>Tent</vh>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3719"><vh>@url Introducing Tent</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3720"><vh>@url The Tent Manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4934"><vh>Net neutrality</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2827"><vh>@url Freedom Box</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4935"><vh>@url So you think Internet is free</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4937"><vh>@url Free tool for testing net neutrality</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111002212101.2972"><vh>@url Online filtering bubbles</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2828"><vh>Almacenamiento distribuido</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2829"><vh>Fossil</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2830"><vh>@url Fossil SCM as a NoSQL database instead of CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2831"><vh>@url Fossil Self-Hosting Repositories</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2832"><vh>@url Replicated Databases in web2py</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2833"><vh>@url HTML5 Offline Web Applications</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2834"><vh>@url w3c Webstorage</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2835"><vh>@url Camilstore</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2836"><vh>CouchDB</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2837"><vh>@url Create offline web applications on mobile and stationary devices with CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2838"><vh>@url Sitios que usan CouchDB</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2839"><vh>@url An Introduction to Using CouchDB with Django</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2840"><vh>@url Getting started in CouchDB with Python</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2841"><vh>@url GridIron</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2842"><vh>@url Libro: CouchDB The definitive Guide</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2843"><vh>Otras</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828184751.2780"><vh>@url The Social Network Paradox</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2422"><vh>@url What G+ is really about (pst!!! it's not social)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2844"><vh>Today Web Development Sucks</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2652"><vh>@url Torfason, Ghodim y Cristina (de Burgos): tres nombres, tres revoluciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2653"><vh>@url India se prepara para monitorizar el acceso a Google, Twitter, Facebook y Skype</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2654"><vh>@url RIM recibe ataque informático por colaborar con la policía en los disturbios de Londres</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2655"><vh>@url Darcus Howe, la insurrección de las masas y el vídeo que jamás volverá a emitir la BBC</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3224"><vh>@url Hootsuite</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120117065158.2867"><vh>@url Who owns “you” online?</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2845"><vh>Legal</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2846"><vh>@url Es legal tu blog?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2847"><vh>Ley de Sinde</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2848"><vh>@url Cómo puede la ley de Sinde amordazar Internet</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.2906"><vh>Patentes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110820110740.4682"><vh>@url Guerra de patentes: cuando los abogados pesan más que los ingenieros</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.2907"><vh>@url Apple y Google chocan y se toman la patente</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4936"><vh>@url The Copyright Nightmare of 'I Have a Dream'</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4938"><vh>@url Guía Propiedad intelectual: Introducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120117065158.2866"><vh>@url Larry Lessig dice que la ley está ahogando la creatividad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2849"><vh>Política</vh>
<v t="offray.20120815093609.4467"><vh>@url Saving Democracy With Web 2.0</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3722"><vh>@url The fight for control of the internet has become critical</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.3176"><vh>@url Peer2Politics </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2850"><vh>@url El Grupo de Software Libre del Parlamento Europeo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2851"><vh>@url El caso de islandia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2852"><vh>@url Zombie PC Prevention Bill to make security software mandatory in Taiwan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2853"><vh>@url Lo que hay en Twitter es "público y publicable"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718121320.2326"><vh>@url Rebecca MacKinnon: Let's take back the Internet!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110719130259.4299"><vh>@url Política de contenidos digitales</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110816154534.2657"><vh>@url “Toda innovación tecnológica debe discutirse desde el punto de vista político”</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3305"><vh>@url Mendoza01</vh>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3306" a="E"><vh>notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120410114420.3328"><vh><<Def Internet>></vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528183521.3990"><vh>@url The Pirate Party Shakes Up European Politics</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2854" a="E"><vh>Social</vh>
<v t="offray.20121022191633.3738"><vh>@url When Coworking Spaces Fail</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5315"><vh>@url Understanding Peer to Peer as a Relational Dynamics</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3210"><vh>@url Empathy as a Facilitator of Cognitive Emergence in Complex Social Systems</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110829082850.2784"><vh>@url Tiempos borrascosos, de Manuel Castells en La Vanguardia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2855"><vh>@url Who does that server really serve?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110903084938.2816"><vh>@url 10 steps to building a local community</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110911125441.3154"><vh>@url Facebook, Google: Welcome to the new feudalism</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120114082501.3470"><vh>@url Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3485"><vh>@url Plataformas digitales emergentes y cultura abierta</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120529105355.6663"><vh>@url “Towards a Cooperative, Small scale, Local, P2P Production Future” – back from the OuiShare Summit in Paris</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2960"><vh>Hacker Ethics</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2940" a="E"><vh>Hackers and the Protestant ethics</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3138" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2959" a="E"><vh>Otros formatos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2941"><vh>@url Prug 2007 version texto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2958"><vh>@url Prug 2007 version pdf</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2942"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929074707.2924"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethics and the spirit of information age</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2927" a="E"><vh>Crítica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2926"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethic: A Radical Approach to the Philosophy of Business</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2928"><vh>@url Network Sociality</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2929"><vh>@url Impersonal Ties</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2931"><vh>@url The Hacker Ethic: All Work and All Play?</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2961"><vh>@url Hacker Ethics en p2p foundation</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4464"><vh>@url Blueprint for P2P Society: The Partner State & Ethical Economy </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120427123556.3362"><vh>@url Networks Without a Cause, A Critique of Social Media</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.3175"><vh>Educativa</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5314"><vh>@url LEARNING, FREEDOM, AND THE WEB: The Convergence</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5316"><vh>@url Differences between Online and Offline Learning</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4462"><vh>@url ¿Cómo hackear el currículo académico?: MásterDIWO (Do-it-with-others)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3395"><vh>*Labs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2856"><vh>ViveLabs</vh>
<v t="offray.20120306092158.4307"><vh>@url Medialab prado: continuidad de proyectos y plataformas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4286"><vh>@url Geeks in a Plane</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2857"><vh>@url Por fin más plata para la ciencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2314"><vh>@url Trabajar 21 horas a la semana</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2315"><vh>@url Mi Pyme Libre</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.2316"><vh>@url Silicon Valley Africa</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110718073918.4287"><vh>@url The Problem With Silicon Valley Is Itself</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3396" a="E"><vh>Hackerspaces</vh>
<v t="offray.20120528115513.3397"><vh>@url Hackerspaces as Startup Incubators</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120528183521.3401"><vh>@url 'Mudge' Announces New DARPA Hacker Spaces Program</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120720172858.5474"><vh>Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution - 25th Anniversary Edition </vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4939"><vh>Económica</vh>
<v t="offray.20120925050004.4981"><vh>@url The $100bn Facebook question: Will capitalism survive 'value abundance'? </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120812081257.3772"><vh>@url Why It Is Crucial that Peer Production Companies Refuse Venture Capital Investments</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3721"><vh>@url Futurological Defenses of Automation, Outsourcing, Crowdsourcing, Precarizing Labor </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120114082501.3473"><vh>@url Michael Bauwens: A peer to peer economy</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3211"><vh>@url Social Currencies p2pwiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120413171359.3794"><vh>@url Reputation currencies @ Hubnet.mp4</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4940"><vh>@url The nine revenue streams for Open Source companies</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111128033218.3213"><vh>@url More than Money : Platforms for exchange and reciprocity in public services</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3481"><vh>@url Core Principles for the New Economy: Human Agency & Enlightened Self-Interest</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3488"><vh>@url And the Debate Begins… Peer-to-Peer and Marxism: analogies and differences | Jean Lievens interviewed with Michel Bauwens</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120115131027.3489"><vh>@url The myth of p2p production</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120129210250.2914"><vh>@url Open Source Abundance Destroys the Scarcity Basis of Capitalism</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214113500.2934"><vh>@url Why the open source way trumps the crowdsourcing way</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214113500.2935"><vh>@url Video of the Day: Mindful Maps Presents Collaborative Consumption</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3300"><vh>@url Sacred Economics</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3317"><vh>@url donde voy</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3301"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3302"><vh>@url Why the P2P Foundation is paying its salaries in Bitcoin</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3303"><vh>@url What's all the fuzz about money?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3304"><vh>@url Matslats - Community currency engineer</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4457"><vh>@url Why Sharing Makes Sense to Pleistocene Hunters and Digital Economies</vh>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4458"><vh>@url Simulations</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3918"><vh>@url "Unsourcing" - does free labour ultimately require free goods too? </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3920"><vh>@url The Abundance debate (1): Christian Siefkes on Digital Plenty Versus Natural Scarcity</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120708123146.3921"><vh>@url The Abundance debate (2): Maurizio Teli on the new post-scarcity epistemology of peer production</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2858"><vh>Parte Dura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2859"><vh>Plug Computers</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2860"><vh>@url Plug computer en wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2861"><vh>@url Open Plug / Plugcomputer</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2862"><vh>@url plugcomputer wiki</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2863"><vh>@url Amahi</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2864"><vh>@url Ionics Plug</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2865"><vh>@url Sheeva Plug</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2866"><vh>@url Guru Plug Server</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2867"><vh>@url PlugApps Linux</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2868"><vh>Servidores Virtuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2869"><vh>@url PomoxVE</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2870"><vh>@url El abc de los servidores virtuales</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2871"><vh>Redes Mesh</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2872"><vh>@url Una, dos, tres... cien internets</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3134"><vh>Notas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2873"><vh>Diario</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2883"><vh>@rst-ignore otros proyectos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2884"><vh>@rst-ignore DbaT</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2885"><vh>Cohere</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2886"><vh>Compendium</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2887"><vh>Error insertando una película</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2888"><vh>@rst-ignore Videojuegos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2889"><vh>@url Urban Terror en Linuxjuegos</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2742"><vh>@rst-ignore Espacios/Fenómenos: Comunidades/Colectivos + Artefactos + Prácticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2766" a="E"><vh>Etherpad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2771" a="E"><vh>Otras referencias</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2772"><vh>@url Etherpad on Ubuntu</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2770" a="E"><vh>No funcionaron</vh>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2767"><vh>Vía Yaourt etherpad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2769"><vh>vía yaourt scala2.7</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111130141938.3236" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Herramientas de análisis</vh>
<v t="offray.20111130141938.3237"><vh>@url Community structure of modules in the Apache project</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3728" a="E"><vh>Bibliografía</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2890" a="E"><vh>autores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2891"><vh>Achterbergh, Jan & Vriens, Dirk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2892"><vh>@rst-no-head Organizations as social system conducting experiments with their survival</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2893" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2894"><vh>@url Ach01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2936"><vh>Barbrook, Richard y Shultz, Pit</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2934"><vh>@url digital artisans manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2938"><vh>Boal, Ilain A.</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2935"><vh>@url Falling for the Future (Men in denim)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2895"><vh>Chisari, Michael</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2896"><vh>@url The End Of Facebook and Free Software's Quiet Revolution</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2897"><vh>@url The Future Of Social Networking</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2898"><vh>@url The Future Of The Appleseed Platform</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2899"><vh>@url Appleseed Download</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2900"><vh>Ducasse, Stephane</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2901" a="E"><vh>Pharo By Example</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3141"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2902"><vh>Lo que no entiendo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2903"><vh>Sugerencias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2904"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2977"><vh>Himanen, Pekka</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3139"><vh>La ética del hacker y el espíritu de la era de la información</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3140" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2978"><vh>@url pekkahimanen.org</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2905"><vh>Jonas, Wolfang</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2906" a="E"><vh>Mind the gap! on knowing and not knowing in design Or: there is nothing more theoretical than a good practice</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2907" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2908"><vh>@url Jonas01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2909"><vh>notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2910"><vh>MAPS Theoretical Background</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2911" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2912"><vh>@url Jonas02</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2913" a="E"><vh>A sense of Vertigo. design thinking as a general problem solver?</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2914"><vh>@rst-ignore Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2915"><vh>Luna-Cárdenas, Offray</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2916" a="E"><vh>Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas </vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2917" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2918"><vh>@url Luna01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2919"><vh>Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2920"><vh>Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2921" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2922"><vh>@url Mat01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2923"><vh>Maxwell, J. W</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2924" a="E"><vh>Tracing the Dynabook</vh>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4459"><vh>Back to the Future -- In honor of Encyclopedia Britannica giving up its print edition 04</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3314"><vh>Mendoza, Nicolás</vh>
<v t="offray.20120410114420.3329" a="E"><vh>Metal Code Flesh profanity final</vh>
<v t="offray.20120408183351.3305"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3315" a="E"><vh>@url Life in a network for survivors: The thermonuclear apocalypse and the protocols of freedomPgUp</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3316" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3318"><vh>Generatividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3319"><vh>Protocolos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120409165937.3320"><vh>resistencia y defensa</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2937"><vh>@url Mute: Culture and politics after the net</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2925"><vh>Pérez-Bustos, Tania</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2926"><vh>Reflexiones sobre una etnografía feminista del Software Libre en Colombia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2927" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2928"><vh>@url Perez01</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2929"><vh>@url Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2939"><vh>Prug, Tony</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2940" a="E"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2570" a="E"><vh>Ruskhoff, Douglas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2571"><vh>Program or be programmed</vh>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3137" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2572"><vh>@url Ruskhoff01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2587"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2588"><vh>Introduccion</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2589"><vh>Redes sociales</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2590"><vh>Usuarios Hacedores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2591"><vh>El reto</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2592"><vh>Polemicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2593"><vh>No neutralidad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2594"><vh>Tiempo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2595"><vh>always on</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2596"><vh>multitasking</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2597"><vh>de lo sincrono a lo asincrono</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2598"><vh>phantom vibration syndrom</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2599"><vh>neuplasticidad</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2600"><vh>Lugar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813074057.2601" a="E"><vh>Escala</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2611"><vh>acceso a los simbolos</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2609" a="E"><vh>Charla: Programar o ser programado</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2610"><vh>Cita</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2611"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2613"><vh>Dos mantras de los 70's</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2614"><vh>Unix: Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2615"><vh>Smalltalk: Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2616"><vh>Mi propio camino</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2617"><vh>Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2618"><vh>Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2619"><vh>Compartirlo con mis estudiantes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2620"><vh>Llevar el Tangram Linux en LiveCD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2621"><vh>Llevar aplicaciones portables en una memoria USB</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2622" a="E"><vh>Desarrollar para la web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2623"><vh>web2py</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2624"><vh>Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2625"><vh>La propuesta: Un enrutador de identidad Digital</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2768"><vh>Gracias (en Smalltalk)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2930"><vh>Saikaly, Fatina</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2931"><vh>Approaches to Design Research: Towards the Designerly Way</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2932"><vh>Sennet, Richard</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2933"><vh>El artesano</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2934" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2935"><vh>@url Acerca de "El Artesano"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2936"><vh>@url Blog post sobre El artesano</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2937"><vh>@url El Artesano, en Revista de Arquitectura</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2938"><vh>@url El Artesano, en Libros sin tinta</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2939"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2940"><vh>@url Página web Richard Sennet</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2941"><vh>@url Richard Sennet en la Wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2942"><vh>pub: Carne y piedra</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2943"><vh>@url reseña de "Carne y Piedra"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2944"><vh>Thomas, Hernan</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2945" a="E"><vh>Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2946" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2947"><vh>@url Thomas01</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2948" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2949"><vh>Tecnología y sociedad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2950"><vh>Def: Tecnologías sociales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2951"><vh>Sentido</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2952"><vh>Actores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2953"><vh>Funcionan?</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2954"><vh>Aspectos</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2955"><vh>Concepciones usuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2956"><vh>Tecnologías democráticas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2957"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2958"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas (fase I)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2959"><vh>Tecnologías apropiadas (fase II)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2960"><vh>Críticas</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2961"><vh>Tecnologías intermedias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2962"><vh>Tecnologías Alternativas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2963"><vh>Grassroot Innovations</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2964"><vh>Innovación Social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2965"><vh>Base de la pirámide</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2966"><vh>Tecnología social</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2967"><vh>Críticas a las concepciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2968" a="E"><vh>Propuesta</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2969"><vh>Recontextualizar tecnología social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2970"><vh>conocimiento experto + conocimiento tecnológico local</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2971"><vh>@@cita Problemas sistémicos en lugar de puntuales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2972"><vh>parte de lo Sistemico que abordo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2973"><vh>No linealidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2974"><vh>Nuevo arsenal de conceptos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2975" a="E"><vh>Planos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2976"><vh>Socio Económico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2977"><vh>Político institucional</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2978"><vh>Cognitivo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2979"><vh>Abordaje Teórico Conceptual</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2980"><vh>Co-construcciones de actores y artefactos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2981"><vh>Dinámica socio-técnica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2982"><vh>Trayectorias socio-técnicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2983"><vh>Proceso de transducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2984"><vh>Estilo socio-técnico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2985"><vh>resignificación de tecnologías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2986"><vh>relaciones problema-solución</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2987"><vh>funcionamiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2988"><vh>adecuación socio-técnica</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2989"><vh>Cuestiones teórico metodológicas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2990"><vh>Adecuación socio-tecnológica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2991"><vh>Co-construcción de artefactos y sociedades</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2992"><vh>Tratamiento simétrico (toda tecnología es social)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2993"><vh>Todas las sociedades son tecnológicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2994"><vh>Tecnologías conocimiento intensivas (culturales y sociales)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2995"><vh>Resolución de déficits puntuales vs. capacidades de resolución de problemas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2996"><vh>Transferencia y difusión vs. procesos de transducción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2997"><vh>Mecanismos de resolución de la tensión universal-local</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2998"><vh>Adaptación vs. procesos de resignificación de tecnologías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2999"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales y dinámicas locales de cambio tecnológico</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3000"><vh>Comparación de tecnologías apropiadas vs apropiación socio-técnica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3001" a="E"><vh>Insumos para estratégias y políticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3002"><vh>Producción de conocimiento</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3003"><vh>inlusión social como desafío en el campo científico-técnico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3004"><vh>Desarrollo de tecnologías sociales conocimiento - intensivas (conocimiento explícito y tácito)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3005"><vh>Ni modelos S&T Push ni modelos Demand Pull</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3006"><vh>La adecuación socio-técnica como relación problema-solución no lineal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3007"><vh>Desarrollo de capacidades de diseño estratégico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3008"><vh>Utilidad social de los conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos localmente generados</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3009" a="E"><vh>Economía y producción</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3010"><vh>Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales y producción</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3011"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales y mercados (señala los 3 errores comunes)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3012"><vh>Riesgo de gestación de economías de dos sectores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3013"><vh>Diferenciación de productos y diversificación de procesos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3014"><vh>Bienes de uso-Bienes de cambio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3015"><vh>Usuarios finales - Usuarios Intermedios</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3016"><vh>Financiación del diseño y desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3017" a="E"><vh>Política y sociedad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3018"><vh>La ampliación de la esfera pública y la producción de bienes comunes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3019" a="E"><vh>La inclusión socio-técnica y la democratización de las decisiones tecnológicas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3020"><vh><<@cita>></vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3021"><vh>La ciudadanía socio-técnica</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3022"><vh>@url Unhosted project</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3023"><vh>@url Unhosted web applications: a new approach to freeing SaaS</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3024"><vh>@url unhosted wiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3025"><vh>@url openmesh</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3026"><vh>@url COMO evitar la censura en Internet.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3027"><vh>@url Fellowship interview with Michiel de Jong</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3028"><vh>Wenger, Etienne</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3029"><vh>Communities of Practice</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3161" a="E"><vh>Wolfe, Cary</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3160" a="E"><vh>@url Critical environments: postmodern theory and the pragmatics of the "outside"</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3162"><vh>@rst-ignore notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3163" a="E"><vh>Introducción</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3164"><vh>Crisis de la postmodernidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3165"><vh>Construcción social y contingente del conocimiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3166"><vh>Hacer la verdad vs representarla</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3167"><vh>La tradición de la "invención"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3168"><vh>El doble imperativo del libro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3169" a="E"><vh>Pragmatismo, Teoría de Sistemas y postestructuralismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3170"><vh>Pragmatismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3171"><vh>instrumentalismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3172"><vh>relación pragmatismo - teoría de sistemas y postestructuralismo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3173"><vh>Teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3174"><vh>Superar el dualismo: múltiples observadores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3175"><vh>consenso</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3176"><vh>humanidades</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3177"><vh>Afuera</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3178"><vh>poder y teoría de sistemas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3179"><vh>poder y postestructuralismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3180"><vh>dimensión micropolítica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3181"><vh>ética del pensamiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3182"><vh>the fold</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3183"><vh>The comic perspective</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3184"><vh>Pragmatismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3185" a="E"><vh>Creencia: Michael y James</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3186"><vh>El problema de la creencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3187"><vh>El mercado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3188"><vh>capitalismo y deseo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3189"><vh>micropolítica pragmática</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3190"><vh>la propiedad del yo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3191"><vh>la pureza del discurso</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3192"><vh>Las consecuencias en el mundo</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3193" a="E"><vh>Contingencia: Richard Rorty</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3194"><vh>metáforas oculares de la mente</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3195"><vh>representar y hacer la verdad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3196"><vh>relativismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3197"><vh>antirepresentacionismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3198"><vh>creencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3199"><vh>adaptación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3200"><vh>clave ético-política</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3201"><vh>Cavell</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3202"><vh>Humanismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3203"><vh>El yo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3204"><vh>Descartes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3205"><vh>política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3206"><vh>El mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3207"><vh>Excepticismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3208"><vh>Fe</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3209"><vh>Utopia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3210"><vh>Democracia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3211"><vh>propiedad y conocimiento</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3212"><vh>escasez</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3213"><vh>autodeterminación y libertad</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3214" a="E"><vh>Teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3215"><vh>Maturana, Varela, Luhman y los estudios feministas de la ciencia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3216"><vh>lo humano</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3217"><vh>Dialéctica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3218" a="E"><vh>Humanismo y cyborg Manifesto</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3219"><vh>@url cyborg manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3220"><vh>posthumanismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3221"><vh>redes híbridas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3222"><vh>Política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3223"><vh>Ciencia como actividad social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3224"><vh>objetividad fuerte</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3225"><vh>pragmatismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3226"><vh>hechos híbridos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3227"><vh>efectividad de la ciencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3228"><vh>descripción contingente</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3229"><vh>filosofía feminista de la ciencia</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3230" a="E"><vh>De la cibernética de primer orden a la de segundo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3231"><vh>la teoría de sistemas como teoría general</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3232" a="E"><vh>contextualismo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3233"><vh>El mapa no es el territorio</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3234"><vh>organicismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3235"><vh>autoconservación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3236"><vh>tipos de feedback</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3237"><vh>recursividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3238"><vh>observador - observado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3239"><vh>bucle extraño</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3240"><vh>puntos ciegos</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3241" a="E"><vh>Autopoesis y más allá</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3242"><vh>organización y estructura</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3243"><vh>clausura y autoreferencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3244"><vh>minsky</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3245"><vh>Representacionismo: realismo e idealismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3246"><vh>bootstrap</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3247" a="E"><vh>crítica de Zolo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3248"><vh>respuesta maturana</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3249" a="E"><vh>La observación de la observación: Niklas Luhmann</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3250"><vh>puntos ciegos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3251"><vh>de lo biológico a lo social</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3252"><vh>Identidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3253"><vh>Operación, observación y auto-observación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3254"><vh>tautología, paradoja y diferencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3255"><vh>Contingencia, simplicidad y complejidad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112084016.3157"><vh>cierre</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112084016.3156"><vh>Ética, política y teoría de sistemas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3162"><vh>Consenso?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3163"><vh>Posthumanismo y constructivismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3164"><vh>autorreproducción del mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3165"><vh>Sociedad total</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3166"><vh>sistemas sociales desrregulados!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3167"><vh>Postcapitalismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3168"><vh>visión encarnada</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3169"><vh>Teoría de sistemas histórica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3170"><vh>Unos tienen mejores condiciones para observar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3171"><vh>el punto ciego de Luhmann</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3172"><vh>ética de la cibernética de segundo orden</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3173"><vh>tragedy of the commons</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3174"><vh>familia, asilo, campo de concentración</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3175"><vh>sujeto paradójico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3176"><vh>imperativos post-humanos</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3177"><vh>coupling in the human divide</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3178" a="E"><vh>Post-estructuralimo</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2904"><vh>Foucault</vh>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3179"><vh>intro: poder y fuerza</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3180"><vh>Antihumanistas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3181"><vh>Democracia liberal</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3182"><vh>stop "reinvention"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3183"><vh>herramientas que nos usan!</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3184"><vh>poder productivo vs poder represivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3185"><vh>somos lo que hacemos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2890"><vh>las herramientas nos usan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2891"><vh>los intelectuales para Focault</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2892"><vh>Politics of Truth</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2893"><vh>Muerte y poder</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2894"><vh>Estado y poder</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2895"><vh>Libros y viajes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125190234.2896"><vh>Agitar en lugar de convencer</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2905"><vh>A Pragmatics of the Multiple: Foucault with Deleuze</vh>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2906"><vh>metáforas ópticas y cartografías</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2907"><vh>Creatividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125213619.2908"><vh>Pragmatismo constructivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214170032.3296"><vh>micropolítica intacta</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120214170032.3297"><vh>colectividad</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3300"><vh>Diferentes pragmatismos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3301"><vh>Concepto en Deluze</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120215095033.3302"><vh>Especulación ontológica y práctica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3264"><vh>Condiciones de posibilidad Deluze</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3265"><vh>microagitaciones: la repetición es imposible</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3266"><vh>La resistencia como creación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3267"><vh>Co-adaptación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120228141302.3268"><vh>Tecnología y poder</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3030"><vh>@rst-ignore Leyendo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3674"><vh>@url The science of self-organization and adaptatity</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2735" a="E"><vh>Notas de Lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2736"><vh><<= Exportar la entropía: =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2737"><vh><<= Orden desde el ruido =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2738"><vh><<= Del ser al devenir =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2739"><vh><<= Coherencia =>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2740"><vh>Características de los sistemas auto-organizados</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2743"><vh>Orden Global a partir de interacciones locales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2744"><vh>correlación</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2745"><vh>Control distribuido</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2746"><vh>Robustez, Resilencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2747"><vh>Non-linearity and feedback</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120112092437.3160" a="E"></v>
<v t="offray.20110929074707.2924"></v>
<v t="offray.20111011183229.2994" a="E"><vh>@url Aprendizaje Invisible</vh>
<v t="offray.20111011183229.2995"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3125" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Por Leer</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3126"><vh>Acceso</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3127"><vh>@url The Power of Open</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3128"><vh>Recomendados</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3129"><vh>Comunidades de práctica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3130"><vh>@url Online Communities: Design, Theory, and Practice </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3654" a="E"><vh>Procomún</vh>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3655" a="E"><vh>Ostrom Elinor</vh>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3656"><vh>@url Elinor Ostrom’s Legacy: Managing Resources Without Government or Private Property</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120622093340.3657"><vh>@url Lin Ostrom on "The Future of the Commons: Beyond Market Failure and Government Regulation."</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120705175802.3692"><vh>@url Commons Champion: Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3131"><vh>Problemática social</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3132" a="E"><vh>Tecnologías Sociales</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3133"><vh>Program or be programmed by Douglas Rushkoff</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3134"><vh>"The Dream Machine" by Mitchel Waldrop</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3135"><vh>Tecnociencia y cibercultura,</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3136"><vh>The Modern Invention of Information</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3137"><vh>Qué es información</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3138"><vh>Tres épocas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3139"><vh>economía política</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3140"><vh>"objetividad" = olvidar la historia </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3141"><vh>Levy y Wiener</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3142"><vh>Critica</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3143"><vh>>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3144"><vh>Where do you want to go Tomorrow</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3145"><vh>Documentación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3146"><vh>Otlet</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3147"><vh>Forma al futuro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3148"><vh>@@!!! Diseño </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3149"><vh>Libro y Futuro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3150"><vh>Las "leyes" de la bibliotecología</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3151"><vh>Libro Diacrónico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3152"><vh>Libro como red total</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3153"><vh>Contingencia Pasado - Futuro. Determinismo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3154"><vh>repetición</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3155"><vh>La sociedad sitiada</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3156"><vh>Cibernética</vh>
<v t="offray.20110929132719.2932"><vh>Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann: From Mathematics to the Technologies of Life and Death and The Cybernetics Group</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3157"><vh>@url Cybernetics & Human Knowing: A Journal of Second-Order Clybernetics, Autopoiesis and Cyber-Semiotics, Vol. 9, No. 2: Francisco J. Varela 1946-2001</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3158"><vh>Autopoesis</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3159"><vh>@url THE OBSERVER WEB: Autopoiesis and Enaction</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3160"><vh>@url Archonic</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3161" a="E"><vh>Crítica</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3256"><vh>@url GALILEO, BABEL, AND AUTOPOIESIS (IT'S TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3257"><vh>@url Conflict Attractors. System-theoretical and Empirical Modeling of Cultural, Political, and Socioeconomic Factors Structuring the Patterns of Internal Conflicts in Asia and Oceania</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3258"><vh>@url Autonomous systems: computational autopoiesis through artificial chemistries</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3259"><vh>@url Autopoiesis and Cognition in the Game of Life (2004)</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3260"><vh>@url Autonomy: An Information–Theoretic Perspective</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3304" a="E"><vh>Bootstrap</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3305"><vh>Informático</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3306"><vh>@url Paver: Easy Scripting for Software Projects</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3671" a="E"><vh>Autosostenibilidad</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3672"><vh>@url Wikipedia: Self Sustainability</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3675"><vh>@url Reciprocal Exchange: A Self-Sustainable System</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110908082507.2890" a="E"><vh>Auto organización</vh>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3673"><vh>@url Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110823105202.3674"></v>
<v t="offray.20110908082507.2891"><vh>@url Evolution: Self-organization Theory</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3042" a="E"><vh>Auto referencia</vh>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3043"><vh>@url frases autoreferentes en Metamagical themes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3045"><vh>@url Self-reference en la enciclopedia de Stanford de filosofía</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111019090951.3044"><vh>@url Auto-referencia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115033128.3154"><vh>@url Self Documenting System (Wikipedia)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3261"><vh>@rst-ignore Investigadores</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3262"><vh>Chow, Rosan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3264"><vh>Illeris Knud</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3265"><vh>Contemporary Theories of Learning : Learning Theorists -- in Their Own Words</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3266"><vh>El problema del contexto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110823182631.3681"><vh>@url Inuse: Innovations And Users Research Group</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110904175331.2823"><vh>@url Noosferia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5317"><vh>@url From Designing Products to Thinking New Systems</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120125035801.5318"><vh>@url How to Design and Manufacture an Open Product</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120403134959.3298"><vh>@url Open p2p Design</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120416110249.4461"><vh>@url The Digital Public Domain: Foundations for an Open Cultur</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110904175331.2820" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore por Referenciar</vh>
<v t="offray.20120131114429.3674" a="E"><vh>@url La opacidad tecnológica: lo que no vemos en las máquinas</vh>
<v t="offray.20120131114429.3675"><vh>@url CCBlab</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3263"><vh>Cogniciones distribuidas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120821075953.3782"><vh>Lovegrove, Ross</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3716" a="E"><vh>Steele, Robert David</vh>
<v t="offray.20120823092504.3717"><vh>@url The Open Source Everything Manifesto</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3729"><vh>LaTeX/Bibtex</vh>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3730"><vh>@url LaTeX/Bibliography Management</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120706121153.3731"><vh>@url Basic ReLaTeX Tutorial</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3115" a="E"><vh>Anexos</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3114" a="E"><vh>Floppology: Un diario de lo fallido</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3119" a="E"><vh>Holonica: Una incubadura web de comunidades</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3120"><vh>@rst-ignore Configuración Holónica</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3121"><vh>Servidor Virtual</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3136"><vh>zoOMixer</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3137" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3138"><vh>Ducasse, Stephane</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3139"><vh>Pharo By Example</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3140"><vh>Lo que no entiendo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3141"><vh>Sugerencias</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3142"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3143" a="E"><vh>Interface</vh>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3144"><vh>@url Open Sophie project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3145"><vh>@url Rome Plugin sobre pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3146"><vh>@url miio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3147"><vh>@url Dynatree - Example Browser</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3148"><vh>@url Cairo Graphics Kit</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111110111647.3149"><vh>@url The Morphic 3 Project</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3135"><vh>Biografía de Ubakye</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3267" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Anexos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2428"><vh>Mayo Fuster</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2429"><vh>@url Página Medialab el Prado de Mayo Fuster</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2431"><vh>@url Tesis Doctoral</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2430"><vh>Rodrigues de las Heras</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3268"><vh>Glosario</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3269" a="E"><vh>Economía de dos sectores</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3270"><vh>@url Yahoo Answers</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3271"><vh>reStructuredText</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3272"><vh>@url reST – reStructuredText</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4541"><vh>@url moin2rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4542"><vh>@url db2rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4543"><vh>@url Making MoinMoin, Pygments, RestructuredText and CodeMirror all play together for the ultimate Wiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4927"><vh>@url Write a book with Sphinix</vh>
<v t="offray.20111104043907.3308"><vh>@url MikTeK Portable</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111104043907.3092"><vh>@url Docutils Project Documentation Overview</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2771"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2391" a="E"><vh>Smalltalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2679"><vh>@url Smalltalk, the dynamic language </vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2728"><vh>@url A Mentoring Course on Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824142930.3715"><vh>@url Smalltalk: A White Paper Overview</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2392"><vh>@url Smalltalk in the Cloud</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2460"><vh>@url Lessons Learned ...</vh>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2461"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2700"><vh>@url RailsConf 09: Robert Martin, "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too"</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2701"><vh>@url Why use Ruby instead of Smalltalk?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2702"><vh>@url Who looks at Smalltalk?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.2703"><vh>@url Smalltalk redline</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110825090126.5747"><vh>@url The Morphic 3 Project</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2729"><vh>ESUG</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2730" a="E"><vh>2011</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2731" a="E"><vh>@url Desktop like GUI in browser</vh>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2732"><vh>@url SmartClient</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110825065414.2716"><vh>Blogs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110825065414.2717"><vh>@url Sean Degeneris</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110719130259.4300" a="E"><vh>Seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2375"><vh>@url Seaside Tutorial by the Software Architecture Group</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2438"><vh>Antes de iniciar</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2432"><vh>Instalación de Seaside en Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2433"><vh>Iniciando el servidor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2440" a="E"><vh>Aplicación de cosas pendientes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2434" a="E"><vh>Crear el primer componente</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2435"><vh>Every newly-created component is inherited from WAComponent.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2436"><vh>Every component needs a method called #renderContentOn: accepting a renderer.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2437"><vh>Components that shall be root components need a class method called #canBeRoot.</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2439"><vh>Configurando la aplicación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2441"><vh>Modelo de la aplicación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2442" a="E"><vh>Pensando en componentes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110804072256.2443"><vh>Creando los componentes de la aplicación "pendientes"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2462" a="E"><vh>@url Dynamic Web Development with Seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20110806153210.2463" a="E"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2676"><vh>Componentes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110806220931.2468"><vh>repetir una imagen muchas veces</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2678"><vh>Trabajar con una copia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2677"><vh>Cargar un archivo "avatar"</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110826084851.3746" a="E"><vh>@url Learning web development with seaside</vh>
<v t="offray.20111220122255.3881" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore</vh>
<v t="offray.20110826084851.3747"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2376"><vh>@url Seaside: A Flexible Environment for Building Dynamic Web Applications</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2380"><vh>@url Página de Lukas Renggli sobre seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2381"><vh>@jQuery for Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2382"><vh>@url Lecturing Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2383"><vh>@url 5 Steps to Mastering the Art of Seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2384"><vh>@url Seaside - Past, Present and Future</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2385"><vh>@url Scriptaculous for seaside</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2393"><vh>@url Seaside Hosting</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3104"><vh>@url Ajaxified Seaside Components</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2863" a="E"><vh>Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2546"><vh>Documentación General</vh>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2864"><vh>@url Video: Getting started with Pier</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2547"><vh>@url FAQ</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2544"><vh>Sitios "powered by" Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2545"><vh>@url Tudor Girba</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2548"><vh>@url Damian Cassou</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2549"><vh>@url Voltantes de Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2550"><vh>@url Smalltalk.cat</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2551"><vh>@url Nicolas Roard</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2552"><vh>@url Ligthbox2</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2553"><vh>@url Something I know</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2554"><vh>@url Lukas Renggli</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2380"></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2377"><vh>@url Blog de Lukas Renggli</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2555"><vh>@url getitmade.com</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2556"><vh>@url SW-eng</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2557"><vh>@url Software Composition Groupp</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2558"><vh>@url Andreas Brodbeck</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2561"><vh>@url Un viejo blog con el look clásico</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2562"><vh>@url Teodo Rov</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4551"><vh>@url Norbert Hartl</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4557"><vh>@url MikeMcPherran</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2866" a="E"><vh>Hospedaje Web de Pier</vh>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2865"><vh>@url Video: Deploy on Seaside Hosting</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110808135025.2867"><vh>@url Deploy Seaside with Cherokee Web Server</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4536" a="E"><vh>Lenguajes de etiquetamiento</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4537"><vh>txt2tags</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4538"><vh>Comentario en el blog de txt2tags preguntando por algunas características</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4539"><vh>@url Soporte para txt2tags en tiddlywiki</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4540"><vh>@url Cookbook en el Wiki de txt2tags</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4544"><vh>@url Use txt2tags markup in Plone</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4545"><vh>@url markItUp! universal markup jQuery editor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4546"><vh>@url How to transform (almost) plain ASCII text to Lulu-ready PDF files, part 1</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4547"><vh>@url Archivo de configuración de txt2tag para soporte de notas al pie de página</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4548"><vh>@url Screenshot: txt2tags en geany</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4549"><vh>@url Le TeXtallion</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4550"><vh>@url txt2TeX</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4552"><vh>@url Helveltia</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4553"><vh>@url Helveltia Examples</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4554"><vh>@url Dynamic Language Embedding With Homogeneous Tool Support</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4555" a="E"><vh>Interface web, temas y plantillas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.4556"><vh>@url 53 CSS-Techniques You Couldn’t Live Without</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2386"><vh>Aida/Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2397"><vh>Instalación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2398" a="E"><vh>Enlaces</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2399"><vh>@url Quién es el público de Aida/Web ?</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2390"><vh>@url Aida/Web en la Wikipedia</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2394"><vh>@url Aida/Web Sitio principal.</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2372"><vh>@url Tutorial en español</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2373"><vh>@url Tutorial: First steps with Aida/Web</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110722090302.2374"><vh>@url Seaside vs. Traditional</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2387"><vh>@url Suazoo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2388"><vh>@url Swazoo Documentation</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2389"><vh>@url Era Nova</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2395"><vh>Pharo</vh>
<v t="offray.20110721112225.2396"><vh>Experimentos para el proyecto de Arte interactivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2404"><vh>@url Manejo de caracteres y codificaciones en Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2405"><vh>@url TWM: Docking Windows</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2406"><vh>@url Parsing XML Documents in Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2407"><vh>@@mail-list Auto salvar la imagen de Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2408"><vh>@url World Menu Registration</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2391"><vh>@url Twitter Client en Pharo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3691"><vh>Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2392"><vh>@url Scripting Browsers with Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2393" a="E"><vh>Notas de lectura</vh>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2413"><vh>Grafos como modelos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2423" a="E"><vh>Instalar Glamour</vh>
<v t="offray.20110803171050.2424"><vh>método 1</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3692"><vh>@url Introducing the Glamorous Inspector for Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110824085722.3693"><vh>@url Glamorous Toolkit (GT)</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110802141824.2412"><vh>@url How to load a Metacello Configuration into an offline image</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2384"><vh>Moose</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2385"><vh>@url Descargar Moose</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2387"><vh>@url PettitParser</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2386"><vh>@url Code City</vh>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2388"><vh>@url Code City Wall of Fame</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2389"><vh>@url Py2mse</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110801113419.2390"><vh>@url Softwarenaut</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2559"><vh>Jtalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20110809083539.2560"><vh>@url Calling JS functions from Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3100"><vh>Silver Smalltalk</vh>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3101"><vh>@url QuickSilver Smalltalk</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111106031057.3103"><vh>@url Silver Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2680"><vh>Hospedaje Web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110821111654.2681"><vh>@url SmallHarbour</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111006100752.2975"><vh>Zinc</vh>
<v t="offray.20111006100752.2974"><vh>Instalación</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110930154835.2979"><vh>@url Zinc Http components</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2733"><vh>Etoile Os</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110827044044.2734"><vh>@url David Chisnall</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3273"><vh>@rst-ignore Eventos</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3274"><vh>labSurlab</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3275"><vh>Seminario Académico</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3276"><vh>Eyebeam</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3277"><vh>Medialab Prado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3278"><vh>NoGoZone</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3279"><vh>Platohedro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3280"><vh>Hiperbarrio</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3281"><vh>Antena Mutante</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3282"><vh>Panorama Brasil</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3283"><vh>AddSensor</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3284"><vh>DreamAddictive</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3285"><vh>Geomalla</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3286"><vh>La Direkta</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3287"><vh>@url http://ladirekta.org</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3288"><vh>L'Estruch</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3289"><vh>Performatividad</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3290" a="E"><vh>Mesas temáticas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3291" a="E"><vh>Arte y labs</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3292"><vh>Participantes</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3293"><vh>Temáticas</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3294" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Bitácora de campo.</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3295"><vh>Smalltalk World vs web2py + Leo + Fossil</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3296"><vh>pasos a seguir</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3297"><vh>Caracterizar los roles</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3298"><vh>vigilar a quienes nos vigilan</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3299"><vh>(meta)medios y (meta)mediaciones</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4541"><vh>Copyhack</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4547"><vh>Alabs</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4548"><vh>@url Github de Alabs</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4543"><vh>@url Liberateca</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4544"><vh>@url No lo Tiro</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4545"><vh>@url PrecaJobs</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4546"><vh>@url Oiga.me</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4549" a="E"><vh>Elegant Mob Films</vh>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4550"><vh>@url Descargas</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120412173138.4542"><vh>Tocar el mundo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120616092341.3648"><vh>La vamo'a tumbar</vh>
<v t="offray.20120616092341.3649"><vh>autocontenido</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120619175430.10478"><vh>Principios informales de HackBo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120824103457.3730"><vh>reinventing Smalltalk and the connected diversity</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2806"><vh>@rst-ignore Tutorias</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2807"><vh>Adolfo Leon</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902090622.2808" a="E"><vh>Bibliografía recomendada</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902140033.2813" a="E"><vh>Sloterdijk, Peter</vh>
<v t="offray.20110902140033.2812" a="E"><vh>El hombre operable</vh>
<v t="offray.20110904070958.2818"><vh>empresarios y militares</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.3662"><vh>@auto-rst ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5595"
expanded="offray.20120629074334.5597,"><vh>@file ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.tex</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5594"><vh>@file ./biografia.bib</vh></v>
======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
<v t="offray.20110407144015.2706" a="E"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/BorradoresPrevios</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.2749" a="E"><vh>@auto-rst autopoiesisTecnocultural-3.2.rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.3662" a="O"><vh>@auto-rst ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.rst</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5595" a="O"><vh>@file ./Escrito/proyecto-tesis.tex</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120629074334.5594"><vh>@file ./biografia.bib</vh></v>
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111127144824.3202" a="E"><vh>Examen de Candidatura</vh>
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<v t="offray.20111218115620.4980" a="EO"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/ExamenCandidatura/</vh>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4982" a="E"><vh>@@file respuestasExamenSuficienciaTeorica.txt</vh>
<v t="offray.20111218115620.5556" a="E"><vh>@@rst respuestasExamenSuficienciaTeorica.rst</vh>
<v t="offray.20111127144824.3203"><vh>Preguntas exámen de suficiencia teórica</vh>
<v t="offray.20111127144824.3204" a="E"><vh>Pregunta 1</vh>
<v t="offray.20111219064941.2906"><vh>respuesta 1</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111127144824.3205" a="E"><vh>Pregunta 2</vh>
<v t="offray.20120122101819.2874" a="E"><vh>respuesta 2</vh>
<v t="offray.20120201120434.2920" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Comentarios/Referencias</vh>
<v t="offray.20110711092925.3251"></v>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4986"><vh>Definir qué es clausura autorreferencial</vh></v>
======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
<v t="offray.20111218115620.4980" a="O"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/ExamenCandidatura/</vh>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4982" a="E"
expanded="offray.20111218115620.5556,offray.20111127144824.3203,offray.20111127144824.3204,offray.20111127144824.3205,offray.20120122101819.2874,offray.20120201120434.2920,offray.20111204091721.3235,offray.20111204091721.3236,offray.20120119105059.3229,offray.20120201120434.2921,offray.20111204091721.3237,"><vh>@file respuestasExamenSuficienciaTeorica.txt</vh></v>
======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
<v t="offray.20111218115620.4980" a="EO"><vh>@path ~/Documentos/U/Doctorado/ExamenCandidatura/</vh>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4982" a="E"
expanded="offray.20111218115620.5556,offray.20111127144824.3203,offray.20111127144824.3204,offray.20111127144824.3205,offray.20120122101819.2874,offray.20120201120434.2920,offray.20111204091721.3235,offray.20120119105059.3228,offray.20121221104543.3523,offray.20111204091721.3236,offray.20120119105059.3229,offray.20120201120434.2921,offray.20111204091721.3237,"><vh>@file respuestasExamenSuficienciaTeorica.txt</vh></v>
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111204091721.3235" a="E"><vh>Pregunta 3</vh>
<v t="offray.20120119105059.3228"><vh>respuesta 3</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111204091721.3236" a="E"><vh>Pregunta 4</vh>
<v t="offray.20120119105059.3229" a="E"><vh>respuesta 4</vh>
<v t="offray.20120201120434.2921" a="E"><vh>@rst-ignore Comentarios</vh>
<v t="offray.20120201120434.2922"><vh>Jose</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111204091721.3237" a="E"><vh>Pregunta 5</vh>
<v t="offray.20120201120434.2923"><vh>Jose</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111204091721.3238"><vh>Criterios de evaluación</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.5314" a="E"><vh>Botones</vh>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4983" a="E"><vh>Linux</vh>
<v t="offray.20120411071934.4985"><vh>@button rst3</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3709" a="E"><vh>Windows</vh>
<v t="offray.20110901173223.4927"><vh>@url Write a book with Sphinix</vh>
<v t="offray.20111104043907.3308"><vh>@url MikTeK Portable</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3719"><vh><<search_make>></vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3711"><vh>@script startup</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3712"><vh>@button show tree</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3713"><vh>@button hide tree</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3714" a="E"><vh>@button make html</vh>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3719"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3716"><vh>@button make pdf</vh>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3719"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3718"><vh>@button clean</vh>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3719"></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111115100810.3720"><vh>@command rst-macro</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20111114071815.3136"><vh>Charlas</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2609" a="E"><vh>Charla: Programar o ser programado</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2610" a="E"><vh>Cita</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2611"><vh>acceso a los simbolos</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2613" a="E"><vh>Dos mantras de los 70's</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2614"><vh>Unix: Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2615"><vh>Smalltalk: Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2616" a="E"><vh>Mi propio camino</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2617"><vh>Todo es un archivo</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2618"><vh>Todo es un objeto</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2619" a="E"><vh>Compartirlo con mis estudiantes</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2620"><vh>Llevar el Tangram Linux en LiveCD</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2621"><vh>Llevar aplicaciones portables en una memoria USB</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2622" a="E"><vh>Desarrollar para la web</vh>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2623"><vh>web2py</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2624"><vh>Smalltalk</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20110813115122.2625"><vh>La propuesta: Un enrutador de identidad Digital</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20110828072608.2768"><vh>Gracias (en Smalltalk)</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3364"><vh>Financiación</vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3365" a="E"><vh>Beca colciencias 2012</vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3366"><vh>Otras Notas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3367"><vh>Rubros Financiables</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3368" a="E"><vh>Proceso de inscripción</vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3370" a="E"><vh><<Diligenciar/actualizar Hoja de vida CvLAC>></vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3372"><vh>@url sitio web scienti de COLCIENCIAS</vh></v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3371" a="E"><vh><<Inscripción aplicativo créditos condonables>></vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3369"><vh>@url aplicativo créditos condonables</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3373" a="E"><vh>Documentación requerida</vh>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3374"><vh>Fotocopia cédula de ciudadanía doble cara al 150%</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3375"><vh>Dos referencias académicas</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3376"><vh>Título o acta de pregrado y maestría</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3377"><vh>Notas de pregrado o maestría</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3378"><vh>Certificado de Admitido o Estudiando del doctorado</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3379"><vh>Certificaciones de premios y reconocimientos académicos</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3380"><vh>Certificado de compentencia en el idioma inglés</vh></v>
<v t="offray.20120504121959.3381"><vh>Propuesta de investigación</vh></v>
</v>
</v>
</v>
</vnodes>
<tnodes>
<t tx="offray.20110407144015.2706"></t>
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2749" rst-import="7d710028550b756e6465726c696e657332710155013d7102550b756e6465726c696e657331710355033d2b2a7104752e">@language rest
@tabwidth -4
@others
.. Warning: this node is ignored when writing this file.
.. However, @ @rst-options are recognized in this node.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2750">
**cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que
participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoiéticas**
:author: Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray@riseup.net>
:version: 3
:revision: 0
:revisores: Offray Luna
.. contents::
.. raw:: pdf
PageBreak oneColumn
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2751">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/presentacionProyectoTesisRotado.png
:scale: 25 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
Este informe de avance muestra el proyecto de tesis doctoral como un proyecto *no lineal* y que por tanto en su forma escrita no va ordenadamente de la justificación a las conclusiones. Por el contrario, como lo decía Saikaly, al tratarse de un problema difuso, como aquellos que suelen considerarse en el diseño, el proyecto en diseño se vuelve un medio y un laboratorio, un lugar donde se experimenta y comunican las hipótesis plausibles que el proyecto quiere encontrar. Este avance informe de tesis da cuenta de esto.
Por lo anterior que este texto presenta diferentes elementos del proyecto de tesis en su estado de maduración actual. Por un lado ubica la problemática en un contexto particular desde la perspectiva de las tecnologías sociales y la cibernética como enfoques conceptuales de abordaje y explicitando también las apuestas políticas en términos de explorar y ojalá consolidar otras formas de construir inclusión y autonomía. Por otro, dado el correlato tecnológico del presente proyecto, muestra los avances (algunos presentados como cuerpo del proyecto, otras como anexos, por su naturaleza técnica) en cuanto a las exploración, el diseño y poblamiento de habitats digitales, como forma de plantearse el abordaje de la pregunta que acá nos convoca:
*¿cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas?*
Es de anotar que, en la entrega anterior, la parte del proyecto en diseño fue la que más se exploró después de la última socialización pública del problema, pues por su importante correlato tecnológico era una de las partes críticas en este abordaje, sin querer por ello establecer una mirada tecnocéntrica. En esta entrega se profundizó en la perspectiva epistemológica del diseño desde Jonas, como referente teórico fuerte y se explicitó una abstracción mayor para el proyecto en diseño, al indicar que se trata de hacer manifiesto el caracter autorreferencial de los artefactos digitales para ver cómo esto afecta la coevolución del sistema constituido por dichos artefactos y sus usuarios, de modo que estos puedan pasar también a ser sus hacedores.
Finalmente, conveniene indicar que este documento se hizo intentando explorar la noción de autopoético también en las tecnologías que soportaban la escritura del mismo (de acá que, como notará el lector, ciertas cosas aún no funcionen como debieran, mientras la exploración madura). Para esto se está empleando el metaeditor literato Leo_, que representa y contiene a manera de un "infoárbol orgánico" todo el texto de la tesis y sus materiales de apoyo y permite crear vistas de ciertas partes del mismo, como el presente archivo pdf. En los anexos se presentará luego alguna información al respecto.
.. _Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2752">La bitácora de cambios da cuenta de las modificaciones introducidas en diferentes versiones del documento:
VERSION 3.
* Se cambia la pregunta por una más particular y se dejan las versiones anteriores de la misma.
* Se introduce la hipótesis del proyecto en diseño, se explica en qué consiste su abordaje específico, introduciendo
las infraestructuras digitales autorreferenciales con Leo y Smalltalk como casos específicos y se establece
HackBo, el HackerSpace Bogotá, como lugar de indagación.
* Se quita holónica como lugar de indagación. Se propone más bien deconstruir/extender el hábitat digital de HackBo, que
está hecho en la misma tecnología de holónica.
* Se inaugura la sección de Anexos y se inaugura con "Floppology: Un diario de lo fallido". Allí se mueven Hólonica, zoOMixer
y la indagación histórica que motivo a Ubakye. Esto genera una lectura más fluida sin entrar en detalles técnicos.
VERSIÓN 2.
* Se muestran los hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares de exploración y se referencia la ponencia del X Festival Internacional de
la Imagen que da cuenta extendida de los motivos y explicaciones del caso.
* Se introducen las *anotaciones de campo* como una manera de dar cuenta de las apreciaciones personales sobre el proceso de investigación.
* Se amplian los referentes teóricos para introducir el trabajo de Wolfgang Jonas, pues se pretende articular desde éste autor,
las aproximaciones teóricas al proyecto de investigación, al vincular en su discurso la autopoiesis y el diseño, dos lugares
de encuentro claves en este proyecto.
* Se crearon formulaciones alternativas del problema de investigación a fin de aclarar cuál de ellas lo hace más fácilmente comunicable.
* Se agregó el proyecto zoOMixer como un artefacto extra para indagar por el proyecto en la sección proyecto en diseño.
* Correcciones mecanográficas menores.
VERSIÓN 1.
* Versión ampliada del protocolo de inscripción. Presentada en enero de 2011. No se ha recibido retroalimentación detallada por
escrito y actualizada.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2753"> Indagar sobre lo educativo allí se torna central a la hora de comprender y
problematizar los modos en que el conocimiento establecido se constituye
socialmente como una caja negra. Una que es configurada en el acto educativo y
que tiene el poder de ocultar, de neutralizar, en clave posmoderna,jerarquías
epistémicas de carácter colonial, en donde ciertos saberes y formas de conocer,
atravesados por constructos de género, se vuelven más legítimos que otros.
Tania Bustos, Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.
Hasta hoy, la tecnología ha sido manejada como una caja negra, como una esfera
autónoma y neutral que determina su propio camino de desarrollo, generando
inexorables efectos, constructivos o destructivos a su paso. Esta visión lineal,
determinista e ingenua de la tecnología permanece aún vigente en la visión ideológica
de muchos actores clave: de los tomadores de decisión, de los tecnólogos, científicos
e ingenieros. Lejos de un sendero único de progreso, existen diferentes vías de
desarrollo tecnológico, diversas alternativas tecnológicas, distintas maneras de
caracterizar un problema y de resolverlo.
Hernan Thomas, Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina
Los saberes como cajas negras, perpetuadoras de discursos de poder hegemónicos y excluyentes, manifiestan particularmente su caracter irónico en el terreno de las tecnologías digitales, pues este "saber blando" toma cuerpo en un "medio blando" que se caracteriza por ser flexible y abundante, lo cual se demuestra en la facilidad de copiado, transmisión y modificación de los constructos digitales en comparación con los constructos análogos (algunos, como Nicolas Negroponte hablan del tránsito -o quizás las tensiones- entre los bits y los átomos). Sin embargo, prácticas tecno-sociales, en diversas dimensiones que atañen a lo cultural, lo legal, lo tecnológico y lo cognitivo, han contravenido esta naturaleza colocando barreras de ingreso artificiales que no han sido adecuadamente deconstruidas y que dejan a gran parte de la población por fuera de las posibilidades de inclusión y participación que se supone dichas tecnologías iban a permitir o, peor aún, manteniéndonos en la ilusión de que estamos participando, cuando somos sólamente personajes marginales inconscientes de lo que ignoramos. Así las cosas, cómo tales barreras se deconstruyen, reconfiguran y desconfiguran es una pregunta importante si queremos, efectivamente, posibilitar pasar de la marginalidad a la participación y la construcción plural del mundo, anotando de antemano, que como decía Thomas ([Thomas1]), no se pretende caer en un determinismo tecnológico o uno social, sino que entendemos que abordar esta pregunta por el "cómo" es insertarnos en un fenómeno complejo, donde interactuar es en parte responderse y donde no podemos desligarnos de las preguntas por el "para qué".
Las nuevas condiciones tecno-sociales han posibilitado el avance y visibilidad de otros discursos marginales que pretenden deconstruir las barreras antes mencionadas (Software Libre, Creative Commons, Libre Society, el Dynabook), algunas con más éxito y postura crítica que otras. Sin embargo, habitamos la periferia de estos movimientos y tampoco hemos propuesto un discurso propio frente a ellos. Por un lado porque el papel de productores/consumidores o *prosumidores* sigue fuertemente inclinado hacia el consumo y por otro, porque en lugar de sentar derroteros propios, hemos tomado partido en discusiones polarizadas, por ejemplo copyright vs copyleft (aunque ya se empieza a constituir copysouth, cuestionando elementos básicos de estas posturas, como aquella en la que se supone que quien crea es el individuo en lugar del colectivo, cuando la idea de lo plural es un asunto innegable en las tradiciones indígenas o afrodescendientes, por ejemplo).
La naturaleza de la creación digital en el Sur Global es diferente a la del Norte Global y si bien, el movimiento de la librecultura cuenta con creaciones abundantes en campos como la músical, particularmente en Brasil, tales creaciones digitales circulan por las infraestructuras de información provistas por el Norte Global desde sus circunstancias y sus lógicas, embebidas en la infraestructura, y por tanto no están resignificadas para este contexto. Cosas como la baja conectividad, la fácilidad para aprender e intervenir, el caracter p2p, hacen gala de su ausencia en las soluciones concebidas para otros, sin incluir en el diálogo y el diseño a aquellos a quien se les crean las soluciones, salvo contadas excepciones. El caracter descontextualizado, paternalista y/o asistencialista de algunas iniciativas ha hecho que ciertos iniciativas no se sostengan a sí mismas y no continuen la exploración tecno-social por cuenta propia.
La estructura propuesta por Wenger supone una dualidad esencial de la experiencia: se cosifica y se participa, en un diálogo y complemento permanente. Construir y visibilizar los discursos propios tiene que ver con cosificar las participaciones que los construyen, de manera que falicitemos las participaciones futuras. Es decir que, si el paso por el artefacto es inevitable en la construcción de la participación futura, entonces, es clave entender las dinámicas artefactuales y como éstas nos permiten expresar discursos locales y nuestro aporte desde la diversidad a la construcción global. No se trata sólo de usar software libre o licencias de la libre cultura o las *`obras culturales libres`_*. Sin embargo, como afirma Jonas, los artefactos son "materializaciones necesarias pero contingentes" al problema de diseño y ellos dan cuenta la solución temporal a brechas en los sistemas autopoéticos contituidos por los organimos, la conciencia y la comunicación. Este proyecto de investigación particular indaga por la brecha entre los artefactos, la conciencia y las comunicaciones, o dicho de otro modo, los artefactos, lo mental y lo social. Se trata, sobre todo, de poder expresar en artefactos digitales, preocupaciones genuinas y locales que, articuladas con otras de naturaleza similar, contribuyan a la construcción de un mundo por y para todos y todas.
La pregunta de investigación de este trabajo es una reformulación por la inquietud sobre "cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas". Es un intento de abordar las inquietudes presentadas en esta justificación, enmarcandose dentro de las tradiciones intelectuales de las comunidades de práctica, las redes fluidas, la cibernética y las tecnologías sociales y, hasta donde la investigación preliminar ha podido arrojar, se trata de una pregunta y abordaje nóveles, con consecuencias importantes tanto a nivel teórico, como práctico y un correlato social permanente.
.. _obras culturales libres: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/Es </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2754">El problema de investigación se puede expresar como la siguiente pregunta:
*¿Cómo consolidar comunidades autosostenibles de usuari@s / hacedor@s de artefactos digitales de software?*
El problema actualmente tuvo formulaciones alternativas:
¿cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas?
Crear un modelo acerca del caracter autopoiético de las tecnologías sociales a partir de la intervención en un colectivo, desde la creación/modificación de artefactos digitales.
Diseñar un modelo para la creación de tecnologías sociales de caracter autopoiético a partir de la intervención en un colectivo, desde la creación/modificación de artefactos digitales.
Configurar una dinámica comunitaria estable para la creación de tecnologías sociales digitales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2755">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/jonasDesignTheory.png
:scale: 40 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
Los siguientes son los referentes teóricos que se están consolidando para este trabajo. El listado a continuación no pretende ser exhaustivo ni profundo. Se espera que estas dos condiciones se adquieran en la medida en que la investigación avanza y se tiene retroalimentación sobre el escrito por parte de los tutores.
* Jonas, Wolfgang:
La preocupación principal de este autor está en los fundamentos de la transdiciplina del diseño. Considera que para desarrollar una
genuina identidad del diseño, es necesario mantener la pregunta por los fundamentos abierta y viva, lo cual implica aspectos ontológicos,
epistemológicos y metodológicos como:
1. ¿Hay alguna esencia del diseño / diseñar?
2. ¿Cuál es la función general del diseño?
3. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza específica del conocer en diseño?
4. ¿Cuál es la relación entre diseño y ciencia?
5. ¿Cómo mejorar el proceso de "resolución de problemas" a través de la investigación?
Jonas afirma que en estas preguntas el producto mismo del diseño, el artefacto, está perdido, pero continua diciendo que el artefacto
es una materialización necesaria pero contigente en el proceso nunca terminado de diseño, que puede, en el mejor de los casos ser
interpretada en retrospectiva y con beneficios a futuro.
Jonas critica algunos
de los fundamentos clásicamente dados como aquellos basados en la definición y deducción de Friedman y los principios generativos
de Buchanan y propone otros 3: la epistemología evolucionaria, la teoría de los sistemas sociales (basado principalmente en Luhmann)
y la teoría de la evolución socio-cultural. Lo interesante del enfoque de Jonas es que vincula los sistemas autopoiéticos y el
diseño, lo cual es una preocupación principal de este trabajo, al mismo tiempo que da una base sólida para tal vínculo. Desde su
aproximación, Jonas, siguiendo a Luhmann, establece que existen sistemas heterónomos: los artefactos o mecanismos, y sistemas
autónomos autopoiéticos: los organismos, la conciencia, la comunicación ó, en otra acepción, lo orgánico, lo mental y lo social.
Al diseño le corresponde abordar las brechas entres las estas cuatro entidades, con lo cual se tienen las siguientes combinaciones:
a) Artefactos / Organismos
b) Artefactos / Conciencia
c) Artefactos / Comunicaciones
d) Artefactos / Organismos / Comunicaciones
e) Artefactos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones
f) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia
g) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones.
Este proyecto de investigación se centra en el literal e) Artefactos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones, o dicho de otro modo, los
artefactos, lo mental y lo social, pues a través del diseño y puesta en contexto de artefactos digitales se pretenden explorar/consolidar
dinámicas autopoiéticas en los que ese contexto apropie y modifique los artefactos tenológicos. Debido a que dichos contextos incluyen
individuos y colectivos, las consideraciones de índole mental y social se exploran en este interjuego de apropiación y modificación mutua
de artefactos y contextos.
* Comunidades de práctica y Hábitats digitales
- Lave, Susan y Wenger, Etienne.
La teoría social del aprendizaje que establece que el aprendizaje ocurre por filiación a una comunidad de práctica. Acá
se considerarán las comunidades de práctica como un referente de lectura en los escenarios propuestos (HackBo, Holónica,
ubakye) y la configuración de hábitats digitales para explorar la pregunta de investigación.
* Autopoiesis
- Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco
Una aproximación sistémica para definir los sistemas vivos, que luego ha sido extendida a otro conjunto de sistemas que
se crean a sí mismos. El términos de Maturana y Varela:
Una máquina autopoética es una máquina organizada (definida como una
unidad) como una red de procesos de producción (transformación y
destrucción) de componentes que: (i) a través de sus interacciones y
transformaciones continuamente regenera y realiza la red de procesos
(relaciones) que las producen; y (ii) la constituyen (la máquina) como una
unidad concreta en el espacio en la cual ellos (los componentes) existen
especificando el dominio topológico de su realización como dicha red. [pg 80]
[...] el espacio definido por un sistema autopoético es auto-contenido y no
puede ser descrito usando dimensiones que definen otro espacio. Cuando nos
referidmos a nuestras interacciones con un sistema autopoético concreto,
sin embargo, proyectamos este sistema en el espacio de nuestras
manipulaciones y hacemos una descripción de esta proyección. [pg 89]
* Cibernetica.
- Wienner, Norbert.
Como campo de estudio interdisciplinario de sistemas que se autorregulan y que puede ser aplicado tanto a sistemas
físicos como sociales (basados en el lenguaje). Para este estudio la cibernética de primer y segundo orden serán
enfoques a considerar en la descripción y el diseño de sistemas autopoéticos.
* Sistemas informáticos "autodescriptivos"/autocontenidos
- Kay, Alan: La intensión de Kay y su grupo ha sido crear un discurso sobre la computación que vaya "del cobre al usuario".
En dicho discurso se considera la creación de un lenguaje objetual que describe la experiencia de computo, incluyendo
el hardware, la máquina virtual, desarrollo de aplicaciones y documentos, en un entorno integrado, continuo y autocontenido.
- Knuth, Donald: La idea de programación literada como una forma de explicitar la programación como una actividad
orientada al humano, en contraste con una centrada en la máquina y en la cual tanto el código fuente (que interpreta
la máquina) y la documentación (que interpreta el humano) están integrados en un único constructo.
- Ream, Edward K: Las implementaciones de el sistema informático Leo (*Leonine Environment for Outlines*) permiten describir
mediante arborizaciones ejecutables sistemas arbitrarios y heterogeneos de datos textuales. Después de un proceso de
*bootstraping* Leo, que fue hecho a partir de otros componentes, e inspirado en la programación literata empezó a ser
descrito en sí mismo y a alejarse conceptualmente de la programación literata.
- DiPiero, Massimo: Diseño un *framework web* autocontenido y minimalista con fines educativos que dentro de sus premisas de
diseño tiene ayudar a disminuir la brecha digital permitiendo que más personas puedan crear aplicaciones para Internet.
Además de enmarcarse en la línea de lo que se pretende explorar, tiene ideas de diseño innovadoras y poco ortodoxas.
* Sistemas entre pares (p2p)
- Bawens, Michael
Bawens teoriza y recopila varios fenómenos de organización en redes distribuidas de pares (p2p) caracterizadas por autoafiliación
que cambian las formar de gobernanza o autogestión, producción o creación de valor y propiedad. Este tipo de dinámicas, junto con
la de las redes fluídas esperan verse y configurarse en estos procesos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2756">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/autorreferenciaDigital.png
:scale: 40 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2757">Debido a que se busca configurar una dinámica autopoética de cambiar el artefacto digital que nos cambia, se ha pensado en aproximarse a la comunidad HackBo (la cual se describirá más adelante), pues se parte de la hipótesis de que ciertos saberes e intereses que allí circulan, pueden ayudar a detonar dicha dinámicas. Es de anotar, sin embargo, que no se espera que la dinámica quede confinada a tal comunidad, sino que permee a otras comunidades y personas. Al ser ésta una comunidad que se congrega no sólo en un espacio virtual, sino principalmente en uno físico, se está configurando un lugar donde tal permeabilización se hace visible. Es decir que, si bien se inicia con comunidades tecnológicas digitales, se pretende poner este saber en diálogo con otros saberes cuyo centro no es lo digital *per se* [#]_.
.. [#] Eventualmente el estudio se podría extender a otro tipo de comunidades similares. Una explicación detallada de los hackerspaces y otros lugares donde se hará esta exploración fue abordada en el ponencia " Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas" (Luna, 2011) presentada en el X Festival de la Imagen.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2758"> "Por años, meses y días, redes y comunidades de indivíduos han ido
intercambiando saberes, proyectando mundos, experimentando juguetes y
dispositivos. Venimos desde mil pensamientos diferentes, somos migrantes
de la metrópoli y de la red, buscamos un lugar donde crear con prácticas
semejantes un espacio-tiempo divergente.
Queremos ensamblar otra vez la realidad y para ello necesitamos
laboratorios en los que recombinar sus elementos. En una ciudad llena de
falsas seguridades y verdaderos miedos, queremos hacer surgir un lugar
hecho de imaginario, sueños, carne, metal y bits.
Nuestras mentes colectivas, cerebros de multitudes están llenas de
tecnología digital-analógico, info-comunicación,
conocimiento-distribuido, memética-particpativa y mucho mucho más.
Cuatro puntos cardinales no son suficientes. Con Marte tan cerca de la
Tierra es la hora para una nueva constelación reticular, para recompilar
un bioware entrópico, para sorprender[nos|os] con nuevos y vivísimos
efectos especiales."
http://www.hacklabs.org/es/node/5
Un hackerspace, es un lugar físico de experimentación tecnosocial, operado por la comunidad, donde la gente se encuentra y trabaja en proyectos. HackBo es un lugar de experimentación tecnosocial, que se adapta y resignifica la noción de hackerspace (ya que, siguiendo a Thomas, toda recontextualización es una resignificación). Recoge una idea lanzada durante la Campus Party Colombia del 2009, por un activista de la libre cultura, cuyo *nickname* es arpunk, como crítica a la falta de fidelidad de la campus con los movimientos de comunidades tecnológicas de base que pretendía convocar. Hubo unas reuniones preliminares en la Fundación Casa El Bosque, que está relacionada con proyectos de libre cultura, pero el proyecto entró en una interrupción, generando otros espacios más ágiles, como el de los Nerdbots en el apartamento de unos de los integrantes del proyecto y HackBo como tal, fue retomado en octubre de 2010 sobre la idea de construir un espacio más abierto y plural de participación que también fuera auto-sostenible. En las primeras reuniones se intentaron establecer cuotas de administración y lugares posibles de ubicación, pero la idea de articularse con otros proyectos culturales de base, con intereses diferentes a lo digital propiamente dicho, fue tomando fuerza y fue así como empezó a constituirse la sinergia con las personas del centro el Centro Cultural El Eje, ubicado en la ciudad de Bogotá, en la zona centro (eje ambiental de la Avenida Jimenez. El parecía ser un lugar de sinergia natural, pues allí se reunen personas que, según su propio manifiesto, buscan "articular expresiones artísticas, producción de conocimiento y acción política para aportar a la construcción de una cultura política basada en los principios de la memoria, y el reconocimiento del territorio y del arte como herramientas para la exigencia de derechos". El eje luego haría parte del colectivo `La Redada`_.
A pesar de que HackBo inició formalmente actividades este año (las reuniones ocurren una vez por semana los sábados en la tarde y se está iniciando en noviembre de 2011 con los miércoles en la noche), muy pronto a su lanzamiento se acercaron pesonas representantes de ONGs y mapeo comunitario para plantear proyectos de articulación donde las tecnologías digitales ayuden a crear condiciones de equidad y justicia social, las cuales para finales del 2011 han tomado la forma de infraestructuras para los movimientos de protesta ciudadana contra medidas de los gobiernos en contra de lo público y a favor de la privatización [#]_. La articulación con otros colectivos y actividades en tecnologías digitales ha ocurrido a lo largo del año y ha habido una actividad constante y creciente [#]_. Aún así, HackBo tiene dificultades económicas para su autosostenibilidad y la mayoría de las actividades son de difusión con charlas y talleres de iniciación, pero aún no implican la construcción continua y sostenida de artefactos digitales de software y en la interacción con ellos se continua con el montaje y uso adecuandose a lo que las plataformas proponen en lugar de adecuarlas a las necesidades (aunque empiezan a surgir contraejemplos como la biciindignada y el nodo de Bogotá Mesh).
.. _La Redada: http://www.wix.com/laredada/laredada
.. [#] véase http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Hackupy y http://lists.randomlab.net/pipermail/hackbo-randomlab.net/2011-November/001065.html
.. [#] Un listado de eventos puede verse en:
* http://hackbo.co/home/app_calendar_past_events
* http://hackbo.co/home/app_calendar_events</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2759">La comunidad de software libre de Colombia la constituye un grupo de personas que ronda entre los 350 y 500, en su mayoría estudiantes universitarios y profesionales vinculados a la disciplina de la informática. Los estudios etnográficos arrojan una cifra impresisa debido a que estos colectivos no se asocian en agrupaciones formales con membresías constituidas, y también muestran una notoria diferencia entre la cantidad de hombres y mujeres en tal comunidad, que ha sido base de importantes aproximaciones etnográficas desde la perspectiva feminista y de género [Tania2] [1]_. La comunidad de software libre de colombia ha poblado diferentes habitats digitales. Sin embargo, hay dos que merecen particular consideración, por ser ellos lugares donde la frecuencia de interacción y el caracter general de la misma convoca a un diverso número de pobladores. Son ellos, la lista de correo de `colibri`_ y el wiki de `El Directorio`_.
.. _[1]: Este es sólo el lugar para mencionarlas en este punto de la exploración preliminar, si bien pueden ser un lugar de vuelta para posteriores aproximaciones.
.. _colibri: http://listas.el-directorio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/colibri
.. _El Directorio: http://el-directorio.org/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2760">El proyecto va en la línea de lo sugerido por Fredy Pulido respecto a la articulación posible con la Fundación Apoyar y el uso de hackerspaces como lugares de apropiación tecnocultural de dinámicas comunitarias de la libre cultura y tecnologías sociales digitales[*] orientadas hacia la producción. Para esto se concive que las personas en proceso de formación y aquellas que tienen los conocimientos, estarán interactuando para resolver problemas de sectores de la sociedad a fin de entrar o crear un mercado de soluciones potenciado por esta dinámica y que las haga autosostenibles. El tránsito económico considera modelos alternativos, como la economía solidaria e incluso puede incluir también monedas alternativas como los bitcoins.
.. _[*] por estas tecnologías se entienden aquellas orientadas a la inclusión y la sostenibilidad, en particular las centradas en lo digital. Para un discurso más detallado sobre Tecnologías Sociales se recomiendan los escritos de Hernan Thomas.
El diagrama 1, realizado por Pulido, considera un flujo económico referido a un modelo de intervención en el cual la formación para el trabajo implica a entidades como ONG preocupadas de tales problemáticas y que ven en los estudiantes de tal proceso formativo los proveedores potenciales de soluciones para sus necesidades, convirtiéndose así en un sistema autorreferente: las ONG viabilizan modelos de formación para el trabajo con los cuales se pueden resolver sus necesidades. El proceso se articula a partir de un esquema de acreditación que valida el proceso formativo y la calidad de los productos y servicios ofrecidos dentro del mismo. Al mismo tiempo, la participación de la comunidad extendida de la libre cultura en este tipo de modelos alternativos podría consolidar un conjunto de prácticas educativas y aportar valor al proceso al contar con expertos, dinámicas, contenidos e infraestructuras alternativas, no colocadas en los lugares tradicionales de formación. La interacción entre el modelo de formación para el trabajo y las comunidades de software libre y libre cultura implica un equilibrio que no quite el caracter exploratorio e investigativo de las últimas, al tiempo que provee el espacio práctico de lo primero.
Hablaré acá de cómo configurar un espacio y unas dinámicas que permitan potenciar el esquema propuesto por Pulido, desde las dinámicas educativas concebidas a partir de las comunidades de práctica, para lo cual se usará la panorámica de Brown y Ash respecto a los espacios educativos como "simulacros" de comunidades de práctica. Revisaremos para esto brevemente la noción de comunidad de práctica y luego mencionaremos cómo lograr dicho simulacro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2761">Las comunidades ya son sistemas autopoiéticos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2765">Esta exploración de infraestructuras es complementaria a la del hábitat digital de `hackbo.co`, en
el sentido de que en lugar de deconstruir desde la complejidad en la
infraestructura (la de Zope/Plone/Cynin) y en la negociación colectiva, como se hace
en `Hackbo.co`, se pretende construir desde lo simple y en
la infraestructura (usando pier/smalltalk [#]_) y desde negociaciones en lo individual o entre pares. La pregunta fundamental es: ¿que debería (de)construirse en esta exploración complementaria y cómo sería el proceso?
.. [#] Se ha pendado en crear el enrutador de identidad digital Ubakye, usando el webframework Seaside/Pier que fue escogido sobre otros por su caracter minimalista, autocontenido y portable, además de una orientación educativa desde su diseño, por lo cual la experiencia de aprendizaje por no expertos está pensada desde el comienzo. Por lo pronto sólo he montado el sitio (http://ubakye.net), documentado el proceso y montado un wiki. Se ha reactivado la participación en la comunidad virtual de Pier y se han realizado unas preguntas sobre el montaje de algunas infraestructuras.
Para abordar esa pregunta se inició con una panorámica sobre diferentes tipos de tecnologías digitales para hacer esta exploración complementaria (se puede encontrar en el Anexo titulado "Biografía de Ubakye"). En esta panorámica, encontrar una intencionalidad para configurar el habitat digital Ubakye como lugar y medio para encontrar y comunicar las hipótesis sobre como cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, debía, además de considerar los méritos tecnológicos entre las alternativas, enfatizar las posturas políticas. Debía ser un lugar donde las apuestas políticas de quienes lo habitan tomaran cuerpo. Una apuesta política que puede configurar este habitat, se encontró en un movimiento relativamente reciente y toma el nombre de "posee tus datos" (*own your data*) y se explicará a continuación.
Actualmente, se está configurando un discurso en contra de los jardines encerrados (*wallen gardens*) que son las redes sociales, donde para comunicarse con alguién más en una red, hay que suscribirse a ella. En una analogía, es visto como algo tan sin sentido como que para mandar un correo a personas con cuenta en gmail (o cualquier otro) se tuviese que ser forzósamente un usuario de este mismo servicio, es decir que así como los usuarios de twitter sólo pueden comunicarse con los de twitter y queines usan Facebook sólo se pueden comunicar con otras personas en facebook, los usuarios de gmail podrían sólo enviar correos a usuarios en gmail, los de riseup a los de riseup y así sucesivamente formando silos aislados en los cuales la pelea comercial es por tener la mayor cantidad de usuarios, impedir o invadir la privacidad y vender las interacciones personales como mercancia, y desvirtuando el propósito de comunicación abierta, interacción extendida e interoperabilidad que estan detrás del diseño de Internet. Este exabrupto, tan claramente absurdo en las cuentas de correo, tiene relativamente despreocupados a la mayoría de los usuarios de las redes sociales. Sin embargo, una minoría ha establecido una mirada crítica y una alternativa a través de redes sociales distribuidas [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_. Aún así, el problema es que si bien tales redes no constituyen jardines cerrados y personas de diferentes redes pueden comunicarse entre sí y, en principio, llevarse su información y montar un servicio equivalente, en la práctica, la mayoría de las personas se queda con las características que el servicio ofrece por omisión y no puede enriquecer sus interacciones de modos significativos.
.. [#] Avoiding Walled Gardens on the Internet en http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000898.html
.. [#] One Friend Facebook Hasn’t Made Yet: Privacy Rights en http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
.. [#] Why I Don't Use Facebook http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375715,00.asp
.. [#] Is a Perfect Storm Forming For Distributed Social Networking? en http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_a_perfect_storm_forming_for_distributed_social_networking.php
.. [#] Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/
Frente a esta alternativa se propone la posibilidad de configurar *hubs* o concentradores de interacción. Lugares desde donde las personas publican originalmente la información que luego va a parar a otros lugares y que recolectan la información, casi siempre de caracter conversacional, en esos sitios. Así las cosas, twitter, identica o cualquier otra red de microblogging son lugares donde se copia la información que originalmente está en estos hubs; Facebook, Delicious o Flickr son lugares que reciben los cambios de estatus, los enlaces, o las fotos que primero circularon y se almacenaron en los concentradores, fueron distribuidas a tales sitios y las interacciones que hayan ocurrido en estos lugares, son regresadas de vuelta al concentrador. La ventaja de esta aproximación sobre las otras discutidas acá es que la idea política está claramente establecida: ser dueños de nuestras interacciones en la red, en lugar de participar de este ciberfeudalismo en el cual otros nos dejan poblar sus habitats digitales a cambio de enriquecerlos. Las redes sociales ya establecidas se vuelven pasarelas para la información que va y retorna a infraestructuras comunitarias y pueden hacerse prescindibles. Podemos extender nuestras infraestructuras para que soporten interacciones enriquecidas que no están (aún?) planeadas para esos lugares ajenos y usarlos sólo como pasarelas para comentar lo que ocurre y este puede ser un proceso orgánico, que empiece pequeño, conectándose primero a redes de microblogging, acortadores de direcciones, galerías fotográficas y luego se haga más complejo hasta que contruya una alternativa comunicativa y de articulación distinta. Estos *hubs* de identidad digital tienen la ventaja de que consideran varios elementos de los proyectos que se habían considerado como parte del proyecto en diseño, al conectarse a redes sociales ya establecidas (en lugar de pretender crear las nuevas) y empezar en elementos sencillos como `acortadores de direcciones`_ o herramientas de almacenamiento web de enlaces, que luego se pueden extender a cosas de mayor complejidad, al mismo tiempo que con un campo novel de indagación e implementación donde los aportes son muy necesarios.
.. _acortadores de direcciones: http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/tantek-celik-diso-20-brass-tacks.html
Es de anotar, que, si bien se empieza con un lugar blando, en el ciberespacio y una apuesta de autonomía en él, la intensión no es confinarse a éste, sino poner a interactuar los múltiples espacios digitales y análogos es esta indagación. Acá sólo se está planteando un punto de partida y las motivaciones y reflexiones detrás del mismo y aunque las reflexiones sobre lo digital toman en lugar de la web ahora mismo, esta es sólo un escenario para indagar por las dinámicas tecno-sociales autopoéticas, que es la pregunta de fondo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2766"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2767">**CUAL DEBERÍA SER LA PRIMERA APLICACIÓN PROGRAMADA EN WEB2PY ???**
Debe servir a los usuarios y ofrecer una ventaja diferencial frente a las que ya existen para lo mismo.
1 Extender el wiki para que permita publicar colaborativamente con múltiples sistemas de acreditación (vía jainrain) y también volverlo un blog geek (ya que no ha funcionado Instant Press). *Esto haría que se iniciase con una historia mucho más personal y localizada.*
*El caracter off-line / on-line del proyecto es importante y tal vez el factor diferencial más importante, por tanto para esto sería necesario mirar la sincronización de bases de datos Sqlite como punto de partida*
2 Un sistema de bookmarks sociales en Internet: como delicious (ya van a hacer uno en la comunidad de web2py)
3 Algo que hable de las identidades a los usuarios en línea(como about.me)
4 Algo que "traiga" interacciones de otro lado (imágenes de flickr) y también las lleve (enviándolas a identica, por ejemplo)
Ver "The Future of Appleseed Project"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2768">Acá se hace alución a la parte blanda en su sentido literal y no se ha usado la palabra "software" por su acepción clásica ubicada sólo dentro de los programas de software, mientras que acá el caracter blando del proyecto considera también aspectos culturales o legales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2769">Posibles nombres para el dominio:
No solicitados:
* cymbiorg, cybseed, cybiosem, cybsem
Solicitados:
* cyberseed, netsem, netseed</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2770">Hola :),
Esta exploración de infraestructuras es complementaria a la Holónica, en
el sentido de que en lugar de deconstruir desde la complejidad en la
infraestructura (la de Zope/Plone/Cynin) y en lo colectivo, como se hace
en Holónica, se pretende construir desde lo simple en lo individual y en
la infraestructura (web2py[5]). Por lo pronto sólo he montado el sitio
(ubakye[6]) y documentado el proceso. La idea es que el sitio mismo
soporte la publicación de tales documentos, para lo cual se requerirá
montar unos "plugins" y "appliances" que brinden la funcionalidad de
blogs y wikis. A direfencia de lo que teníamos originalmente en El
Directorio, en el cual para modificarlo nos movíamos desde el motor wiki
(MoinMoin) hacia los plugins, en el caso de web2py no sólo podemos hacer
esto, sino que también soporta la instalación y el desarrollo de
funcionalidades completamente diferentes, como un motor de blogs
(planet)[7], un sistema de preguntas y respuestas[8], similar a Shapado,
galerías de imágenes[9][10], sistema de registro para conferencias y
programación de eventos[11], encuestas[17], bolsa de empleo[13], entre
otros y podemos construir más. En lo visual también tiene ofrecimientos
interesantes[12], incluyendo scriptaculous[14], JQuery[15] y
processing[16] y es muy fácil de aprender/usar, incluso por personas
que no son programadores (ni web ni de los otros :-) ), como yo. Cabe en
una memoria USB (aprox 20 MB), es autocontenido (incluyendo el motor de
base de datos sqlite, pero puede usar muchos otros), multiplataforma y
alienta buenas prácticas de programación, como el MVC (Modelo, Vista,
Controlador).
[5] http://web2py.com
[6] http://ubakye.net/
[7] http://code.google.com/p/instant-press/
[8] http://beta.qa-stack.com/
[9] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/11
[10] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/62
[11] http://beta.qa-stack.com/
[12] http://web2py.com/layouts
[13] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/31
[14] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/21
[15] http://jquery.com/
[16] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/46
[17] http://www.web2py.com/appliances/default/show/66
Si bien lo primero que montaré en ubakye serán blogs y wikis, la idea es
explorar pronto su extensión con las funcionalidades que vayamos
necesitando quienes estemos interesados[*] y hacia futuro desarrollar
algo que sería como un enrazado de {soupio / Google Buzz} + {gitorius}
(aunque no uso ninguno de los tres), pero hecho en web2py + fossil-scm.
Se me ocurren flujos de información que se crean, publican, comparten,
bifurcan y recombinan para entretejernos (je sonó como a la banda sonora
de Tron --The Grid--, debe ser que la he escuchado mucho).
[*] Pienso en empezar a aprender a programar en web2py haciando algo de
"social bookmarking", que por coincidencia también mientras escribo este
correo se publicó en la lista de web2py :-)
Como siempre, su participación es bienvenida y la invitación está abierta,
Offray
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2771">http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/dev/hacking.html
@language rest
lo voy a necesitar para hacer la conversión desde reStructuredText a markmin o txt2tags.
* Particularmente me gusta más txt2tags ya que me parece que los autores están realmente concentrados en un lenguaje de etiquetamiento, mientras que markmin es un proyecto lateral de web2py en el cual no parece haber mayor desarrollo (tal vez no necesita más y cumple su cometido como está).
* Tienes pistas visuales como ``//itálicas//``, en lugar de otras que me parecen menos convenientes en reST como ``*enfasis*`` (que se muestra con itálicas),
* txt2tags está hecho para la web, y aunque `se ha usado txt2tags para producir libros`_, se requieren algunos hacks extra (como muestra el enlace) mientras que markmin se puede usar directamente para la producción de libros, como muestra el hecho de que el libro de web2py fue escrito enteramente en él.
.. _se ha usado txt2tags para producir libros: http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/how-to-transform-almost-plain-ascii-text-to-lulu-ready-pdf-files-part-1/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2772">Un conjunto de iniciativas que estableces una postura critica hacia la computación en nube.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2773"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2774"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2775">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/introduction-distributed-social-network
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2776">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network#Comparison_of_projects
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2777">http://project.friendika.com/
Parece ser uno de los proyectos más avanzados.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2778"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2779">http://blog.xjqd.net/identity-portability.html?thank_you=#comment_form
@language rest
Varias reflexiones interesantes sobre el tema de un internet más inclusivo y participativo y como la identidad portable ayudaría a este escenario.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2780">Un nuevo protocolo de identidad digital en Internet
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2781"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2782">http://www.inames.net/
@language rest
URLs are for connecting web pages. Now get the address for connecting people and businesses in rich, long-lasting digital relationships: i-names
*comentarios*
Una proveedora comercial de identidad digital. Puede funcionar de modo similar a como funcionan los proveedores de dominio, pero ofreciendo más servicios gratis.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2783">http://www.fullxri.com/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2784">http://www.freexri.com/information/About/
@language rest
@freeXRI is a free provider for XRIs (so-called "community i-names"). You can get started immediately by registering an XRI and point it to whatever website, e-mail address or other resource you want! We offer both a simple wizard and a powerful configuration panel to set up your XRIs. We are trying to help you get started with this new technology, whether you are just curious or an experienced developer.
In addition, we provide several online tools for working with XRIs, such as Ping and Traceroute.
If you are interested in OpenID, you can use our XRIs as one, or you can point them to an OpenID you already possess.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2785"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2786">http://www.ouno.com/home.html
@language rest
About Ouno
==========
Ouno (ūnō) • Is a privately funded started up, dedicated to providing the best way of allowing people to easily communicate with each other over multiple channels, such as the telephone, postal mail, email and more.
We are pioneers in digital identity, giving people unique personal identity while still allowing privacy and control over aspects of their identity, they have never had before.
Why Ouno
========
There was a time when even major cities had only one area code, when the postman knew your family, when Spam was just arguably a food product. Times change, the channels over which people have communicated have grown.
The result is that you, and people you know, have different identities across these communication channels (phone number vs mailing address). With Ouno, you can compress all of that information into a single identifier used across channels, called an i-Name
*Comentarios:*
Hay un servicio de telefonía que podría serle útil a mi mamá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2787">http://www.xdi.org/
@language rest
Welcome to XDI.ORG
XDI.ORG is an international non-profit public trust organization governing open public XRI and XDI infrastructure. XRI (Extensible Resource Identifier) and XDI (XRI Data Interchange) are open standards for digital identity addressing and trusted data sharing developed at OASIS, the leading XML e-business standards body. XRI and XDI infrastructure enables individuals and organizations to establish persistent, privacy-protected Internet identities and form long-term, trusted peer-to-peer data sharing relationships.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2789">http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko
@language rest
Una propuesta de nombres de dominio descentralizada basada en bitcoin.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2790">http://www.mkarim.com/2011/02/a-diy-data-manifesto/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2791">http://diso-project.org/
@language rest
Una red social abierta y distribuida... aún en construcción.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2792">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/tantek-celik-diso-20-brass-tacks.html
@language rest
Habla de las tecnologías que permitirán implementar la idea de DiSo "2.0"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2793">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/03/interview-tantek-celik-conceptualizing-diso-20.html
@language rest
Detalles generales sobre DiSo. Para implementación ver Down to Brass Tacks.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2794">http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/2010-199-tantek-fsws-talk
@language rest
sharecropping and site death
============================
* fast-forward to 2008-2010
* itch: tired of sharecropping and site death, untrustworthy content hosting
* 2008-03 CNET killed Consumating.com
* 2009-02 SixApart killed Pownce.com
* 2009-12 Yahoo killed GeoCities.com
* 2009-10-26 Tears in the rain blog post by Jeremy Keith on Geocities's death.
* 2009 Google shutdown Dodgeball.com
* 2010-05-14 Google killed Etherpad.com content and URLs
* 2010-08-04 Google announced end of life for wave.google.com
* less than 3 months before, Etherpad users were encouraged to transition to Wave.
* 2010-09-30 Six Apart shutting down Vox on September 30, 2010 (going read-only on 2010-09-15)
* irony: Six Apart encouraged Pownce users to switch to Vox
* 2010-09-03: pointed out by Heidi Cool:
person-specific sharecrop vulnerabilities:
* 2008 - BoingBoing "unpublished" all articles by Violet Blue (>100 posts) (see: William Gibson Completely Deleted from BoingBoing Archives)
and
* Twitter fail frustrations
* scratch: DIY indie web, start with my own site
use my site as my identity - XFN+hCard+OpenID pretty much solved this
post tweets/notes on my own site
syndicate out to silos - that's where my friends listen/post
http://tantek.com/
server-based Twitter client
called it Falcon http://tantek.pbworks.com/Falcon
the fastest bird, when trained, can drop things off, pick things up for you</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2795">http://scripting.com/stories/2011/01/16/ec2ForPoetsV2.html
@language rest
Una manera fácil de configurar servidores virtuales en la nube, usando la infraestructura de Amazon. Se podría reemplazar con cosas menos monopolistas, como webfaction y web2py.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2796">http://sneer.me/
@language rest:
Chévere las dos ilustraciones, la de la portada y la siguiente. Muy buen diseño.
Sneer is a free and open source sovereign computing platform. It runs on your machine (like Skype or Firefox) using the Java VM. It enables you to:
Create your personal cluster by sharing hardware resources (CPU, disk space, network bandwidth) with your friends.
Host your own social network, information and media.
Create sovereign applications and share them with others.
Download and run sovereign applications created by others, way beyond your wildest dreams.
You can do all these things directly with your peers, in an autonomous, sovereign way, without depending on online service providers such as email providers, Google, Facebook, etc.
What is Sovereign Computing?
Sovereign computing is peer-to-peer social networking taken to extremes. It is the freedom to share information and hardware resources with your friends any way you please. Learn more.
Sovereign applications are open source, peer-to-peer, social network applications.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2797">http://projectdanube.org/three-visions/
@language rest
This is an open-source project offering software for identity and personal data services on the Internet. The core of this project is an XDI-based Personal Data Store - a semantic database for your personal data, which always remains under your control. Applications on top of this database include the Federated Social Web, the selective sharing of personal data with organizations, and much more.
*comentarios:*
- Ver Identidad digital para proveedores relacionados con Inames.
- El video de las tres versiones es muy claro en la explicación. La intención de montar un enrutador de identidad digital es
**totalmente compatible con la visión de danube**
- El proyecto aún no ha liberado un software estable y está haciendo pruebas en el back-end con los protocolos como se ve en:
http://projectdanube.pbworks.com/w/page/31395581/PDS-Dev-Plan</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2798">http://ostatus.org/2010/10/26/ostatus-interview-markus-sabadello
@language rest
Uno de los creadores de la red social federada, desde muchos protocolos como XDI i-names, etc. Tiene un par de prototipos funcionales (ver enlaces)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2799">https://pds.fullxri.com/pds.web/
@language rest
:tags: prototipo,</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2800"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2801">http://www.monkinetic.com/2011/01/own-your-data-contd.html
@language rest
Muestra dos autores que están trabajando en la idea de ser dueños de nuestros datos en la web.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2802"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2803">http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/blogging_forefather_seeks_to_re-invent_blogging_ag.php
@language rest
"The important thing is that you and your ideas live outside the silo and are ported into it at your pleasure," Winer wrote in a blog post today. "You never have to worry about getting your stuff out of the silo because it never lived in there in the first place."</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2804">http://www.zeldman.com/2011/01/10/own-your-data/
@language rest
Una interesante charla en los comentarios a este post. Zeldman se equivoca el asunto de twitter es la brevedad, no lo efimero y está orientado hacia el paso de mensajes, que pueden ser más largos (como cuando se comparten enlaces).
Interesantes comentarios de Jay_ y su uso de logs de AMSN en wordle.net para construir una nube de emociones y de Foltzwerk sobre como los juicios sobre qué es importante cambian y como poseer tus datos puede darle un giro al tema de las redes sociales (son *un lugar más donde nos articulamos*, no *el lugar por excelencia* donde nos articulamos. Están los comentarios de Tantek, por supuesto, que tienen enlace aparte.
.. _Jay: http://www.kilobitspersecond.com/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2805">http://tantek.com/2011/010/b1/owning-your-data
@language rest
Un post que contiene la información sobre varias conversaciones que iniciaron y dan contexto al movimiento.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2806">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/08/1825239/Are-You-Ready-For-the-Digital-Afterlife?
@language rest
"Dave Winer's call for Future-Safe Archives goes mainstream in Rob Walker's NY Times Magazine cover story on how the Internet can provide a certain kind of immortality to those who are prepared. To illustrate how digital afterlives might play out, Walker cites the case of 34-year-old writer Mac Tonnies, who updated his blog on Oct. 18, 2009, sent out some public tweets and private messages via Twitter, went to bed and died of cardiac arrhythmia. As word of his death spread via his own blog, Tonnies's small, but devoted audience rushed in to save his online identity. 'Finding solace in a Twitter feed may sound odd,' writes Walker, 'but the idea that Tonnies's friends would revisit and preserve such digital artifacts isn't so different from keeping postcards or other physical ephemera of a deceased friend or loved one.' Unfortunately, how long Mac Tonnies's digital afterlife will remain for his Web friends and parents is still a big question, since it's preserved in a hodge-podge of possibly gone-tomorrow online services for which no one has the passwords. Hoping to fill the need for digital-estate-planning services are companies like Legacy Locker, which are betting that people will increasingly want control over their digital afterlife. 'We're entering a world where we can all leave as much of a legacy as George Bush or Bill Clinton,' says filmmaker-and-friend-of-Tonnies Paul Kimball. 'Maybe that's the ultimate democratization. It gives all of us a chance at immortality.'"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2807"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2808">http://searchsystemschannel.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid99_gci1365210,00.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2809">http://www.neoppod.org/
@language rest
NEO is a distributed, redundant and transactional storage designed to be an alternative to ZEO and FileStorage.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2810"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2811">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ung-Home.Page/#ungdocs
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2812">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ung-Home.Page </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2813">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/guideline/tio/tiolibre-Libre.Definition
@language rest
una definición similar deberíamos tener en mutabit.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2814">https://www.tiolive.com/why </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2815">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2816">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/fca-Home/fca-Free.Cloud.Alliance/view </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2817">http://cloud9ide.com/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2818"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2819">http://www.salmon-protocol.org/
@language rest
Una forma de unificar conversaciones de manera tal que cuando alguna publicación recibe un comentario, en cualquiera de los sitios que la replican, el lugar donde se hizo la publicación original puede traer ese comentario de vuelta y ponerlo en contexto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2820">http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/
@language rest
Un hub de publicaciones que permite publicar en un sólo sitio y ver como dichas publicaciones se actualizan en diferentes servicios (microblogs, blogs, redes sociales) en tiempo real.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2821">http://hueniverse.com/2010/05/jrd-the-other-resource-descriptor/
@language rest
JRD, pronounced “Jared” and stands for JSON Resource Descriptor, is a JSON-formatted XRD document. It takes the XRD schema and converts it to a JSON structure, giving up some XML-based features, but gaining simplicity and adaptability to JSON-centric protocols and applications. JRD is based on a few simple rules.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2822">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2823"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2824">http://onesocialweb.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2825"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2826"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2827">http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox
@language rest
Inspired by Eben Moglen's vision of a small, cheap and simple computer that serves freedom in the home. We are building a Debian based platform for distributed applications.
Freedom Box is about:
* privacy
* control
* ease of use
* dehierarchicalization</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2828"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2829"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2830">http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview/67936dc2abc317c54e7bed3b07de0fce6c277511 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2831">http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/selfhost.wiki </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2832">http://web2py.com/book/default/chapter/11#Using-Replicated-Databases </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2833">http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2834">http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
@language rest
La sección 6, privacidad, es particularmente importante en el correlato de aplicaciones web que funcionan on-line / off-line.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2835">http://camlistore.org/
@language rest
Camlistore is:
* a way to store, sync, share, model and back up content
* a work in progress
* Open Source (Apache licensed)
* an acronym for "Content-Addressable Multi-Layer Indexed Storage", hinting that Camlistore is about:
content-addressable storage
* separate interoperable parts (storage, sync, sharing, modeling), with well-defined protocols and roles
* your "home directory for the web"
* pro-JSON (yet aggressively format agnostic)
* pro-OpenPGP (for signing claims)
* pro-paranoia and privacy
* ambitious, but ...
* simple!
* programming language-agnostic (parts and different implementations in Go, Python, Java, Perl, Bash, ... the language doesn't matter.)
What matters is well-defined, simple HTTP interfaces.
* neither "Cloud" nor "Local". happily both.
* a "20% project" from a few Google employees, but not Google-centric nor endorsed by Google (other than them letting us open source our
side project)
* ready for developers (at least those without strong color preferences)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2836"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2837">http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-couchdb/index.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2838">http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/CouchDB_in_the_wild </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2839">http://lethain.com/entry/2008/aug/18/an-introduction-to-using-couchdb-with-django/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2840">http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Getting_started_with_Python </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2841">http://69.164.211.38:5984/power/_design/reports/index.html
@language rest
This JQuery plugin lets you map a CouchDb view to a html grid. That's it. I looked at the other JQuery grid plug-ins - many of which are really great -</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2842">http://guide.couchdb.org/editions/1/en/index.html
@language rest
Esta es la tabla de contenido de la primera edición en inglés. El vínculo "Home" lleva a la carátula del libro con ediciones en otros idiomas y, eventualmente, futuras ediciones. El texto está cubierto por una licencia CC-BY-3.0
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2843"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2844">http://harry.me/2011/01/27/today-web-development-sucks/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2845"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2846">http://blogs.lainformacion.com/legal-e-digital/2011/01/25/%C2%BFes-legal-tu-blog/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2847"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2848">http://www.microsiervos.com/archivo/internet/como-puede-ley-sinde-amordazar-internet.html
@language rest
La redacción actual de la Ley Sinde [PDF 147 KB] no limita el ámbito de actuación de esta a los enlaces, sino que dice que
La sección podrá adoptar las medidas para que se interrumpa la prestación de
un servicio de la sociedad de la información que vulnere derechos de
propiedad intelectual o para retirar los contenidos que vulneren los citados
derechos siempre que el prestador, directa o indirectamente, actúe con ánimo
de lucro o haya causado o sea susceptible de causar un daño patrimonial.
Y esto puede ser un gran problema para los que publicamos blogs y similares, ya que estamos más que acostumbrados a coger contenido de otros sitios, fundamentalmente imágenes, para ilustrar nuestras anotaciones, pero resulta que aunque citemos al autor, eso no es suficiente.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2849"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2850">http://softlibre.barrapunto.com/softlibre/11/02/08/0932204.shtml
@language rest
No es un grupo parlamentario, sino un grupo local de usuarios. El EPFSUG es el European Parlament Free Software User Group, o grupo local de usuarios del parlamento europeo. Fundado por el eurodiputado estonio Indrek Tarand (Los Verdes) y un puñado de sus asesores, el grupo está abierto a todos los que trabajen en el Parlamento Europeo, incluido personal administrativo y asistentes de los grupos poliicos. Su objetivo es fomentar el uso del software libre en la infraestructura de las tecnologías de información del Parlamento Europeo. Parte de la inspiración para arrancar el grupo es la desesperación con las carencias del sistema actual, totalmente privativo. Por ejemplo, el servidor de correo privativo y el navegador privativo actuales no son capaces de dar acceso remoto al correo a los eurodiputados y sus asistentes, según dice Erik Josefson, uno de los asesores de tecnología de Los Verdes. Así que para ellos un primer paso sería conseguir que el Parlamento Europeo se mudara a un servidor de correo y un navegador libres. Eso sí, el paso es glacial. La primera sesión está programada para el 19 de Abril.
**Comentarios**
Podría intentarse alternativas similares acá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2851">http://www.attac.es/islandia-y-los-medios-de-comunicacion/
@language rest
Como los medios de comunicación invisibilizan alternativas de organización revolucionarias.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2852">http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/zombie-pc-prevention-bill-to-make-security-software-mandatory/8487 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2853">http://www.233grados.com/blog/2011/02/twitter-publico-y-publicable.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2854"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2855">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
Hay una interesante distinción de cuáles servicios son SaaS y cuáles no. Si bien la postura sobre usar servidores para publicar información es ambivalente, diciendo que servicios de publicación como twitter o identica no presentan el problema del SaaS, lo cual es cierto desde ese punto de vista pero no desde el Own your data o la idea de una web federada.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2856"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2857">http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/vivir/articulo-281564-fin-mas-plata-ciencia
@language rest
Hay planes de financiamiento para doctores y proyectos que los involucren. Tengo que apelar a este fondo de doctorado.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2858"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2859"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2860">https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Plug_computer
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2861">http://www.openplug.org/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2862">http://plugcomputer.org/plugwiki/index.php/Main_Page
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2863">http://www.amahi.org/
@language rest
Powerful, Simple, Home Server
Stream and share your audio and video collection to your devices and screens. Centralize your backups and easily run webapps and media apps like a pro!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2864">http://www.ionicsplug.com/products.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2865">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2866">http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-guruplugdetails.aspx </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2867">http://www.plugapps.com/index.php5?title=Portal:Plugbox_Linux
@language rest
:tags: arch linux,
PlugApps Linux is natively compiled on a plug computer. It's lightweight and fast. All packages are natively compiled (you can argue that this gives a slight speed boost). All package sources are either from the Arch Build System or our Github page. It's also geared toward casual users as much as developers with a minimal learning curve into package development. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2868">No es propiamente una "parte dura", pero está muy ligada al hardware (de hecho intenta emularlo)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2869">http://www.proxmox.com/products/proxmox-ve
@language rest
Proxmox Virtual Environment is an easy to use Open Source virtualization platform for running Virtual Appliances and Virtual Machines.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2870">http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/virtual-private-servers.ars
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2871"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2872">http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/cdigital/31-164683-2011-03-22.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2873">Definitivamente los contenidos que más se mueven ahora son los enlaces. Es el que naturalmente más lo hace en HackBo, y está muy bien ubicado como lugar de acción en otros hábitats digitales que hemos configurado. Sin embargo, algunos enlaces aún no tienen una comunidad particular para compartirlos y definitivamente las prácticas comunitarias no tienen sentido fuera de los colectivos que las necesitan y dinamizan.
Esto quiere decir que mi primera necesidad hacia ubakye va a ser un directorio de enlaces. No uso Delicious o incluso Freelish.us no son lo que requiero, el primero por ser privativo y el segundo por su caracter eminentemente on-line, su caracter no autocontenido y las complejidades de la interface.
Este será el primer proyecto entonces a realizar en web2py. Algunas de las ideas rápidas serán:
* Uso off-line y online.
* Sólo contendrá como único item necesario la dirección web, con unos items extra:
* Por visitar,
* Etiquetas (emergentes).
* Título
El modelo de base de datos requeríría entonces
* Una tabla principal con:
ID,
url.
* Otra tabla establecería una relación muchos a muchos con las etiquetas.
* Una tabla con una relación muchos a uno, con la etiqueta, por visitar. (¿requiere una tabla específica o se puede colocar en la anterior?.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2883"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2884"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2885">Pregunta en el blog:
Hi,
I'm interested in using digital technology for mapping and visualizing political debate on my country (Colombia). I see Cohere and Compendium and seem really good, but both seem to be abandoned and with no active users or developers communities behind. Can you inform me about the health status of this projects and their future?
Thanks
-- Mayo 4 de 2010</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2886"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2887">241.48First Position: 0, 0 Duration: 241480
Frame Rate: 25
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x8c14ef3e, pid=9928, tid=2384935792
#
# JRE version: 6.0_25-b06
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (20.0-b11 mixed mode linux-x86 )241.48First Position: 0, 0 Duration: 241480
Frame Rate: 25
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x8c14ef3e, pid=9928, tid=2384935792
#
# JRE version: 6.0_25-b06
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (20.0-b11 mixed mode linux-x86 )
# Problematic frame:
# C [libfobs4jmf.so.0+0x4f6f3e] signed char+0xe
#
# An error report file with more information is saved as:
# /home/offray/Programas/Compendium/2.0-beta/hs_err_pid9928.log
#
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/webapps/bugreport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
#
Compendium.sh: línea 1: 9928 Abortado java -Xmx512m -cp .:System/lib/compendiumcore.jar:System/lib/compendium.jar:System/lib/AppleJavaExtensions.jar:System/lib/jhall.jar:System/lib/kunststoff.jar:System/lib/jabberbeans.jar:System/lib/mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar:System/lib/derby.jar:System/lib/triplestore.jar:System/lib/xml.jar:System/lib/jmf-all.jar:System/lib/crew.jar:System/lib/fobs4jmf.jar com.compendium.ProjectCompendium
# Problematic frame:
# C [libfobs4jmf.so.0+0x4f6f3e] signed char+0xe
#
# An error report file with more information is saved as:
# /home/offray/Programas/Compendium/2.0-beta/hs_err_pid9928.log
#
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/webapps/bugreport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
#
Compendium.sh: línea 1: 9928 Abortado java -Xmx512m -cp .:System/lib/compendiumcore.jar:System/lib/compendium.jar:System/lib/AppleJavaExtensions.jar:System/lib/jhall.jar:System/lib/kunststoff.jar:System/lib/jabberbeans.jar:System/lib/mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar:System/lib/derby.jar:System/lib/triplestore.jar:System/lib/xml.jar:System/lib/jmf-all.jar:System/lib/crew.jar:System/lib/fobs4jmf.jar com.compendium.ProjectCompendium</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2888"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2889"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2890"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2891"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2892">:title: Organizations. Social Systems Conducting Experiments
:author: Jan Achterbergh y Dirk Vriens
:year: 2009
:editorial: Springer-Verlag
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2893"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2894">file://home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/organizationsSocialSystemsConductingExperiments.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2895"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2896">http://developer.appleseedproject.org/profile/michael.chisari/journal/the-end-of-facebook-and-free-software's-quiet-revolution
Obsérvece la interface. Una página limpia y sencilla que muestra al autor y diferentes secciones de contenido para el o ella: Page, Info, Friends, Journal, Photos. Podrían reemplazarse por: Perfil (sería un Info + Contacto, con un breve perfil que muestre quién es y qué identidades tiene en línea), Blog, Wiki y Galería de Medios (fotos, imágenes, audio, videos)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2897">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/docs/future/socialnetworking/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2898">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/docs/future/appleseed/
Explora los componentes para construir una red social distribuida y extensible usando como base la experiencia de Appleseed. Hay ideas importanes sobre perfiles e identidad, que se conectan con desarrollos similares a los "hubs de identidad" como about me.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2899">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/download/
El sitio web establece que "Appleseed requires a system running PHP 5, MySQL 5, and Apache 2", es decir, un entorno LAMP. En general el entorno de desarrollo y el de ejecución están separados en un entorno LAMP, a diferencia de lo que ocurre con web2py, donde están integrados, siguiendo una tradición inaugurada por Smalltalk y sus descendientes Squeak/Pharo, sin embargo el entorno de web2py es mucho más minimalista y el lenguaje y herramientas está más posicionado que en la familia Smalltalk.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2900"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2901">:author: Ducasse, Stephane; Black, Andrew; Nierstrasz; Pollet, Damien
:title: Pharo by Example
:date: 2009
:publication:
:pages: 352
:url:
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2902">If you look at the senders of drawOn: in AtomMorph»drawOn:, you will
see that it is a super send. So we know that the method that will be
executed will be in AtomMorph’s superclass. What class is that? Action-
click [browse] -> [hierarchy implementors] and you will see that it is EllipseMorph.
--{
La notación de Clase»Método presupone que debería encontrar AtomMorph en el
browser, sin embargo no lo encuentro. Cuando lo intento con Canvas»draw: y uso
la opción Action-click -> [browse] -> [browse hierarchy], obtengo una captura
de pantalla similar a la referida en el texto.
}--
The implementors browser works in a similar way, but instead of listing
the senders of a message, it lists all of the classes that implement a method
with the same selector. To see this, select drawOn: in the method pane and
select browse implementors (m) (or select the “drawOn:” text in the code pane
and press CMD –m). You should get a method list window showing a scrolling
list of the 90-odd classes that implement a drawOn: method. It shouldn’t be all
that surprising that so many classes implement this method: drawOn: is the
message that is understood by every object that is capable of drawing itself
on the screen.
--{
Las ventanas de los senders y los implementators son las mismas, siguiendo el procedimiento descrito en el texto.
}--</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2903">En el navegador de las versiones del código (pg 113) se podría usar como ejemplo el código del juego de Ligths Out que ya ha tenido un par de versiones en las correcciones.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2904">Anotación de campo [jul-21-2011 9:48 am]
Al leer el libro siento un "inconveniente". A pesar de que es un libro completo, que lo lleva a uno por varios aspectos de la informática, como la programación orientada a objetos, la programación por mensajes, las pruebas unitarias, el cotrol de versiones distribuido, la metaprogramación, etc. no tiene un proyecto que "toque el mundo" y que se explique de cabo a rabo a través de estos temas. No hay un ejemplo que a la vez sea aglutinante y pertinente. En algún punto uno se siente haciendo pequeño código para ilustrar conceptos, que serán útiles algún día, pero que dejan de tocar un proyecto "del mundo real". Lo mismo pienso para el caso del libro de web2py, lo cual me recuerda la aproximación de Paulo Freire a la alfabetización de adultos que pretendía apelar a problemas contextuales que motivaran el aprendizaje. En general es difícil mantener la motivación con un nivel de abstracción tan alto, la ciencia en contexto de la que habla Jonas requiere de este correlato en el mundo. Proyectos como Ubakye y zoOMixer deben asumir este enfoque alternativo.
Anotación de campo [jul-22-2011 1:15 pm]
Estuve mirando proyectos hechos en Smalltalk y llegué a Sophie, que fue portado a Java. Después de preguntar en las litas de Pharo y Squeak, encontré esto:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=984735&cid=25252253
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-November/140655.html
Tener comunidades activas de usuarios y desarrolladores es clave en la sobrevivencia del proyecto. En ocasiones esto implica elegir lenguajes populares, y este no es el caso de Pharo/Squeak. Sin embargo, proyectos como Scratch logran popularidad sin estar hechos en una tecnología mainstream y tienen un activo grupo de desarrolladores. Se requiere algo como Squeak/Pharo by Projects, que sería un libro en el que se le dice a las personas interesadas, cómo participar de estos proyectos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2905"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2906">
:author: Jonas, Wolfgang
:title: Mind the gap! on knowing and not knowing in design Or: there is nothing more theoretical than a good practice
:date: 2004
:publication:
:pages:
:url:
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2907"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2908">http://www.ub.edu/5ead/PDF/KS/Jonas.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2909">My conceptual tools for understanding the mechanisms that produce and destroy design artefacts and knowledge comprise: (1) Sociological systems theory (Luhmann) with the concept of autopoiesis, including the shift from identity to difference, (2) evolution theory (Darwin, Luhmann), and (3) evolutionary epistemology (Campbell, Riedl) and the concept of action research.
[...]
(1) Is there an essence of design / designing?
(2) What is the overall function of design?
(3) What is the specific nature of knowing in design?
(4) What about the relation design / science?
(5) How to improve the process of "problem-solving" through research?
One may object, that the very product of designing, the artefact, is missing. In my view artefacts are not central, they are necessary but contingent materializations in the never-ending process, which can, at best, be interpreted retrospectively (with benefits for further projects, of course).
[...]
Since the early 1970s we could know that in ill-defined, wicked problem situations problems and solutions evolve in a parallel process. If at all, the problem can be stated when a solution is achieved. And then the solution is the problem! I am convinced that this is true for design problems as well as for design theory problems.
[...]
But I do not accuse design for not showing much progress in this sense, because, as I argued, *design is the agency of bridging the gap, the interface*. There is no reference point for defining progress, but merely fit or non-fit. Is Mac OS X a design progress compared with OS 9, or just an increase in functional complexity?
[...]
fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (A.N. Whitehead)
[...]
To sum up: Generative principle A1 seems to be a bit "more basic" than the rest, because it contains the other ones plus itself. This shows the fractal character and self-reference of design theory, and, this is important, allows, to integrate the "Buchanan meme" into the general process of knowledge generation.
[...]
The argument of naturalized epistemology appears in various forms and formulations. Another prominent representative is John Dewey (1986). In his view processes of circular action, driven by intentionality, are the essential core of knowledge generation. The separation of thinking as pure contemplation and acting as bodily intervention into the world becomes obsolete. Quite the reverse: Thinking depends on real world situations that have to be met, initiated by the necessity to choose appropriate means with regard to expected consequences. The projected active improvement of an unsatisfactory, problematic situation is the primary motivation for thinking, designing, and, finally - in a more refined, purified, quantitative manner - for scientific research and knowledge production. Knowing is a manner of acting and "truth" is exchanged by "warranted assertibility".
[...]
Design(ing) is the discipline of creating contingent fits / interfaces between bodies, consciousnesses and communications by means of artefacts (see question 2).
[...]
Luhmann distinguishes (heteronomous) mechanical systems / artefacts and (autonomous) self-organizing systems. The latter comprise organisms, consciousnesses, and communications as autopoietic systems.
--
si los artefactos se crearan a sí mismos, serían autónomos? (esta capacidad debería estar en los artefactos creados también)
[...]
We should seriously take into account the operational closure of autopoietic systems and consider any temporal development as a co-evolution of isolated systems. This avoids the illusion of control (through design) in social situations, which always refer to all three domains, or, "to the whole of life", as John Chris Jones would call it.
[...]
Consciousnesses, communications, organisms, and artefacts create the "swamp", which is a provisional metaphor for the interaction / development of this mess. Design deals with this situation and sticks to the optimistic opinion that prognosis as to the success of design interventions is possible. And this (design´s ignorance of its ignorance) is what makes design so attractive to other disciplines, even to the sciences (Baecker 2000):
*"Design as a practice of not-knowing will be readable with respect to various interfaces, but probably the interfaces between technology, body, psyche and communication will be dominant: as soon as these 'worlds', which, for themselves, are described by a more or less elaborate knowledge each, are set into difference to each other, this knowledge disappears and makes room to experiments, which are the experiments of design. ... Considering nothing as self-evident here any more, but discovering the potential of dissolution and recombination everywhere, becomes the playground of a design, which finally reaches into pedagogy, therapy, and medicine. "*
[...]
*This view implies a change from a concept of design as a causal field with (still) some white spots into design as an - in principle unpredictable, non-causal - field with some unconnected islands of causality, mainly referring to isolated technical or scientific facts. It implies the renunciation of a scientific knowledge base in favour of a functional scheme. A knowledge base, due to the necessarily trans-disciplinary nature of design activities, would have to comprise "everything" (as Friedman´s canonical lists are impressively demonstrating) yet without being able to re-connect the islands. Finally it implies the renunciation of the concept of progress. While design is installing fits between dynamic systems (which may claim progress for themselves), there is no reasonable criterion of progress for design itself. Design is evolving.*
*To go a step further: Design is acting as a kind of, often useful, sometimes annoying, parasite (Serres 1987), creating interfaces, couplings, aids, prostheses, meaning, etc. Design is permanently observing the field for wishes, unsatisfied needs, potential links, seizing the opportunities that are showing up. Design observation is always second order observation (observation of observations). Causality, as soon as introduced by an observer, will be absorbed by uncontrollable deviations and interactions. If the parasite sounds too negative: others prefer the joker.*
[...]
In his main oeuvre (1997) he has started to work out the concept of social evolution.
Firstly, evolution theory is based on the system / environment distinction. It is this difference, which enables evolution. Secondly, it does not distinguish historical epochs, but variation, selection, and re-stabilization. Re-stabilization is the essential condition for variation and selection being possible at all. *Evolution theory serves for the unfolding of the paradox of the probability of the improbable*, thus explaining the emergence of essential forms and substances from the accidental.
*Evolution theory is neither a theory of progress, nor does it deliver projections or interpretations of the future.* The concept of autopoietic systems enforces a revision of the theory of "adaptation", which is a condition, not the goal or outcome of evolution. *On the basis of being adapted it is possible to produce more and more risky ways of non-adaptation* - as long as autopoiesis continues.
[...]
Back to design: The present does not at all mark the wavefront of progress, but merely consists of what has remained from the past. And so it happens that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. Harmony, if at all, is "post-stabilized" harmony, which we are creating in our narratives. The study of failed innovations ("floppology") might be a promising approach to improve designing. The "dark side" of the field is probably richer than the "best practice" view.
-- Cita para el seminario.
[...]
Design activities intervene into the relations of co-evolving autopoietic systems by means of creating artefacts that pretend to improve those relations. The basic problem is neither lacking individual creativity nor insufficient planning, but the uncontrollable and unpredictable behaviour of consciousness and communication in the environment of the artefacts. Design activities are bound to the time-structures of other systems as *economy*, science, *politics*. Design has no "Eigen-time". Its scattered structures evolve "in-between". *The most developed, almost universal, instrument for bridging this kind of gaps is language, which enables communication*. Functioning communication is highly improbable, as we know. Functioning design is even more improbable
[...]
Pragmatically spoken: the acquisition of competence in dealing with uncertainty means that we have to make the right mistakes faster than others.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2910"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2911"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2912">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/Jonas-Chow-MAPS-theoretical-background.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2913"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2914">Design is a *process* which uses knowledge to generate new *forms* and new (forms of) *knowledge*.
[...]
Research Through Design (RTD) (Jonas 2007) is the appropriate model of
Design Thinking processes. It conceives the research process as a situated /
contextualized design process aiming at knowledge generation for the improvement of
situations. Design thinking and systems thinking seem to be closely related.
[...]
Open transdisciplinarity as suggested by Valerie Brown (2010) implies the synthesis /
integration of different knowledge cultures in a collective learning / designing cycle of
the Kolb type:
Individual knowledge: Own lived experience, lifestyle choices, learning style, identity.
Content: identity, reflections, ideas.
Local community knowledge: Shared lived experience of individuals, families,
businesses, communities. Content: stories, events, histories.
Specialized knowledge: Environment and health science, finance, engineering, law,
philosophy, etc. Content: case studies, experiments.
Organizational knowledge: Organizational governance, policy development, legislation,
market. Content: agendas, alliances, planning.
Holistic knowledge: Core of the matter, vision of the future, a common purpose, aim of
sustainability. Content: symbol, vision, ideal.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2915"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2916">:author: Luna Cárdenas, Offray Vladimir
:title: Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas
:date: Abril, 2011
:publication: Ponencia en el X Festival Internacional de la Imagen, Manizales
:pages:
:url: http://hackbo.co/home/ponenciaDoctoralFestival2011.pdf/view
:licence: CC-By-SA 3.0 unported license.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2917"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2918">http://hackbo.co/home/ponenciaDoctoralFestival2011.pdf/view </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2919"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2920">:author: Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco
:title: Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living
:date:
:publication: Revista Estudos Feministas.
:pages: 385 - 405
:url:
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2921"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2922">http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nVmcN9Ja68kC&dq=Maturana++Varela+Autopoiesis+Cognition&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=vN1YS_eUGqD20wSjzLHxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2923"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2924">:author: Maxwell, J. W
:title: Tracing the Dynabook
:date: Noviembre, 2006
:publication: Tesis Doctoral
:pages:
:url: http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2925"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2926">:author: Perez-Bustos, Tania
:title: Reflexiones sobre una Software etnografía feminista del Software Libre en Colombia
:date: mayo-agosto 2010
:publication: Revista Estudos Feministas.
:pages: 385 - 405
:url: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v18n2/06.pdf
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2927"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2928">file://home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/perezBustosTania-ReflexionesSobreUnaEtnogragiaFeministaDelSoftwareLibre.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2929">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/perezBustosTania-TesisVF.pdf
:author: Perez-Bustos, Tania
:title: Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.
:date: Abril, 2010
:publication: Tesis doctoral
:place: Bogotá, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
:pages:
:url:
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2930"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2931">:author:Saikaly, Fatina.
:date:2005
:title: Approaches to Design Research: Towards the Designerly Way
:publicacion: memorias Design System Evolution: 6th European Academy of Design Conference, Bremen, pp. 29-31 March 2005,
:url: http://www.verhaag.net/ead06/fullpapers/ead06_id187_2.pdf
:recuperado: 29 de septiembre de 2007.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2932"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2933"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2934"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2935">http://espaciopsicoanaliticopampeano.blogspot.com/2011/01/acerca-de-el-artesano-de-richard-sennet.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2936">http://cjkampos.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/richard-sennet-el-artesano/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2937">http://es.paperblog.com/el-artesano-260495/
@language rest
Un muy buen cubrimiento, con interesantes fotos ilustrativas de los temas abordados por Sennet en su libro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2938">http://www.librosintinta.com/busca/richard+sennet+el+artesano/pdf/
@language rest
Varios pdf descargables con información sobre El Artesano. Fue de allí que descargué el texto completo.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2939"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2940">http://www.richardsennett.com/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2941">http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sennett </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2942"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2943">http://yamidencine-y-filo.blogspot.com/2011/03/resena-carne-y-piedra-richard-sennett.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2944"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2945">:titulo: Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina
:autor: Thomas, Hernan
:fecha: ?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2946"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2947">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/HernanThomasTecnologiasparalainclusionsocialypoliticaspublicasenAmricaLatina.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2948"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2949">Las tecnologías desempeñan un papel central en los procesos de cambio social.
Demarcan posiciones y conductas de los actores; condicionan estructuras de
distribución social, costos de producción, acceso a bienes y servicios; generan
problemas sociales y ambientales; facilitan o dificultan su resolución.
No se trata de una simple cuestión de determinismo tecnológico. Tampoco de una
relación causal dominada por relaciones sociales. Las tecnologías son construcciones
sociales tanto como las sociedades son construcciones tecnológicas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2950">Desde mediados de la década del ‘60, comenzó a proliferar la producción de
tecnologías denominadas “apropiadas”, “intermedias”, “alternativas” o, más
recientemente, “innovaciones sociales”, “grassroots”. El objetivo explícito de estas
tecnologías ha sido responder a problemáticas de desarrollo comunitario, generación
de servicios y alternativas tecno-productivas en escenarios socio-económicos
caracterizados por situaciones de extrema pobreza (en diferentes países
subdesarrollados de Asia, África y, en menor medida, América Latina). Son ejemplos
arquetípicos de estas tecnologías los reactores de biomasa, algunos sistemas
energéticos de bajo costo (basados en energía solar y eólica), técnicas constructivas
para viviendas sociales y sistemas de cultivo agroecológico (o, recientemente,
proyectos educativos de alcance masivo como “One Laptop Per Child”).[O1]_
.. _[O1]: El problema de iniciativas como OLPC es que vienen configuradas desde el centro, no desde la periferia.
Es posible definir Tecnología Social como una forma de diseñar, desarrollar,
implementar y gestionar tecnología orientada a resolver problemas sociales y
ambientales, generando dinámicas sociales y económicas de inclusión social y de
desarrollo sustentable.
La Tecnología Social alcanza un amplio abanico de producciones de tecnologías de
producto, proceso y organización: alimentos, vivienda, energía, agua potable,
transporte, comunicaciones, entre otras. [O2]_
.. _[o2]: Las tecnologías blandas (software, video, música, imagen) pueden ayudar a la configuración de otras tecnologías rígidas (físicas) debido al tránsito desde la "plusvalía simbólica" a procesos autosostenibles.
Mis Comentarios:
================
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2951">¿Desarrollar tecnologías sociales como componentes clave de estrategias de
inclusión social de todos? [o ¿sólo de los pobres?] [o1]_
.. _[o1]: Esta es una dicotomía superable.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2952">Los actores fundamentales de los procesos de desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales en
la región son:
* movimientos sociales,
* cooperativas populares,
* ONGs,
* unidades públicas de I+D,
* divisiones gubernamentales y organismos descentralizados,
* empresas públicas (y, en menor medida, empresas privadas).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2953">A lo largo de la historia de más de medio siglo de concepción y uso de tecnologías
orientadas a la resolución de problemas de pobreza y exclusión social es posible
registrar una significativa cantidad de experiencias consideradas como fracasos.
No parece fácil desarrollar e implementar este tipo de tecnologías. Muchos de estos
desarrollos tecnológicos fueron discontinuados, o generaron significativos efectos no
deseados.
Así, es necesario responder cuatro preguntas básicas:
• ¿Por qué “funcionan” algunas tecnologías sociales?
• ¿Por qué “no funcionan” algunas tecnologías sociales?
• ¿Para quién “funcionan”?
• ¿Para quién “NO”?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2954">* aspectos político-institucionales:
* privatización de la empresa (comunitaria) de servicios sanitarios
* aspectos socio-institucionales:
* inexistencia de una estructura local permanente de toma de decisiones y
administración
* falta de mantenimiento por técnicos capacitados
* aspectos socio-culturales:
* reciente desconfianza de los pobladores ante una tecnología que
comenzaron a percibir como inestable, y poco confiable
*lo anterior en el ejemplo de los colectores de niebla*
Estas disfunciones no se explican, simplemente, por motivos sociales de “no-adopción”
de un artefacto “técnicamente bien diseñado”. El *diseño completo* de los atrapanieblas
suponía una cierta organización social, unas capacidades cognitivas por parte de los
usuarios, una administración local. El diseño completo de los biodigestores suponía que
el excremento gratuito nunca se convertiría en un bien de cambio, que nunca habría
conflictos respecto de la apropiación de beneficios directos y derivados.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2955"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2956">
A inicios de la década del ‘60, Lewis Mumford denunciaba los riesgos políticos de la
producción en gran escala. En su conocido artículo Authoritarian and Democratic
Technics (1964) planteaba que el advenimiento de la democracia política durante los
últimos siglos había sido impedido por tecnologías de gran escala que, dadas sus
necesidades de operación, siempre connotaban direcciones centralizadoras, y dadas
sus necesidades de control, autoritarias.
Frente a ello, Mumford contrapone la necesidad de desarrollar “tecnologías
democráticas”, caracterizadas por producciones de *pequeña escala*, basadas en las
habilidades humanas, la energía animal, o en pequeñas máquinas, bajo una activa
dirección comunitaria, con un uso discreto de los recursos naturales (para una enfoque
similar véase Winner, 1988).
Los desarrollos conceptuales de Mumford constituyen un antecedente fundamental
para comprender la matriz en la que se generaron las primeras conceptualizaciones de
“tecnología apropiada”. Pero también explicitan, en su relación causal directa y
necesaria entre *gran escala y autoritarismo*, una concepción *determinista tecnológica*
de la *relación tecnología/sociedad.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2957"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2958">Tanto la *escala reducida* como la utilización de insumos de *costo residual* permitirían un
bajo nivel de inversión -lo que, en muchos casos suponía una escasa o nula relación
con el mercado- (véase Schumacher, 1973; Jecquier, 1976 y Kohr, 1981). Se
consideraba que las tecnologías apropiadas (orientadas al consumo de grupos
familiares o comunitarios, sin expectativas de comercialización) serían no-alienantes,
siguiendo a Mumford, democráticas y, dado su menor impacto ambiental (comparado
con las producciones a escala industrial) ecológicas.
[...]
Pero algunas de sus determinaciones normativas, derivadas de
una visión determinista tecnológica: *rechazo a la gran escala*, adopción de tecnologías
intensivas en mano de obra, también signaron una forma de producción de bienes y
servicios limitada tanto en el plano socio-económico (promoción, en la práctica, de
economías de dos sectores) como cognitivo (promoción de *tecnologías simples* y
maduras, de *bajo contenido científico y tecnológico*) [o1]_
.. _[o1]: ¿Cómo se calcula el "bajo costo"? en casos como web2py vs Zope. Hay que probar la aproximación en doble vía: deconstruir desde lo complejo y construir desde lo simple (a pesar de mis preferencias particulares).
derivaron en experiencias “paternalistas” (tecnólogos de países desarrollados diseñaron y
transfirieron tecnologías maduras, con operaciones de *downsizing* [P]_ ), orientadas a la
*resolución de problemas puntuales*. [o2]_
.. [o2]_ El caracter versátil del computador le permitiría resolver problemas múltiples... aunque todos dentro de una plano digital. Sólo comunicar la capa digital y la análoga, permitiría ese tránsito (de nuevo acá la plusvalía simbólica parece lo más adecuado)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2959">*enfoque desde la ingeniería y economía*
Según Robinson (1983) la definición de una “tecnología apropiada” debía incorporar el
análisis de diferentes variables: disponibilidad de mano de obra calificada y su valor
relativo, capital incorporado en la maquinaria, en los insumos y en el proceso de
producción, y disponibilidad de recursos humanos de gestión. Estas variables deberían
reflejar la escasez o abundancia de recursos particulares en la composición de los
insumos necesarios, sustituyendo el capital (por ejemplo, en una economía donde la
mano de obra fuese abundante y el capital escaso).
La complejización conceptual de la “tecnología apropiada eficiente” intentó definir –de
forma abarcativa- tecnologías apropiadas tanto para los países en desarrollo como
para países desarrollados; tanto para pequeñas comunidades como para empresas
multinacionales. [...] La noción de eficiencia
según el contexto de aplicación es aplicada sobre cualquier tipo de desarrollo
tecnológico.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2960">También en los ´80, se alzaron algunas voces críticas. Para Dickson (1980), la
implementación de tecnologías intermedias y apropiadas, sin un previo *cuestionamiento de la racionalidad tecnológica occidental dominante*, conllevaba una *concepción neutral, y por lo tanto determinista, de la tecnología como medio de cambio social*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2961">
Mantiene la inhibición sobre tecnologías conocimiento-intensivas- para la producción de bienes y servicios, tiende a generar, en la práctica, *economías de dos sectores*.[p]_ Por otra parte, *al restringir las operaciones tecnológicas a acciones de downsizing de tecnologías maduras, resulta, en términos dinámicos, una estrategia anti-innovativa.* [o1]_
.. _[o1]: No es el caso de web2py. No es un downsizing de nada. Esta inspirado en varios frameworks maduros, pero el caracter minimalista y autocontenido no lo convierte en downsizing y por el contrario tiene altos niveles de innovación, a pesar de no ser tan cognitivo intensivo como sus contrapartes.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2962">Con el objetivo de salir del problema conceptual, Dickson planteó la necesidad de
instrumentar “tecnologías alternativas”: instrumentos, máquinas y técnicas necesarios
para reflejar y mantener modos de producción social no-opresores y no-
manipuladores, y una relación no-explotadora con respecto al medio ambiente natural.
(Dickson, 1980).
En este sentido, el aporte de Dickson puede ser considerado más un criterio
ideológico-político que un programa de producción e implementación de tecnologías. De
todos modos, no consiguió escapar de la restricción determinista tecnológica que
cuestionaba.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2963">A diferencia de todos los planteos anteriores, Grassroots supone la valorización del
conocimiento tácito y consuetudinario acumulado por las poblaciones en situación de
pobreza.
[...]
La propia estructura de microcréditos y asociativismo de la Red Honey Bee parece
suponer otro límite de las experiencias, *basadas excluyentemente en relaciones de mercado* (y la subyacente idea de generación de micro-entrepeneurs).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2964">A diferencia de la innovación convencional, que se concentra en objetivos económicos
orientados al aumento del lucro, la innovación social se preocupa por alcanzar metas
sociales, culturales y políticas. La innovación social no es producida exclusivamente
por expertos o científicos, sino que incluye conocimientos prácticos derivados de la
experiencia.
[...]
A diferencia de las propuestas anteriores (con la excepción de Gupta), la propuesta se
basa en nuevos desarrollos teóricos de la economía del cambio tecnológico, poniendo
especial consideración en el uso de TICs.
Concebida en países desarrollados, la propuesta implica, en la práctica, un planteo
ofertista asistencialista, y supone, al mismo tiempo, una convergencia de intereses
entre sociedad civil y mercado. En este sentido, tiende a *considera a los innovadores sociales como entrepreneurs beneficiarios de renta capitalista*. No por casualidad, una de las principales preocupaciones normativas de las propuestas de social innovations
es la *propiedad intelectual*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2965">*orientada al 80% de la población mundial pobre*
La propuesta “base de la pirámide” remite a la creación de un mercado de
consumidores (habilitados a partir de la percepción de pequeñas rentas, de
microcréditos y del accionar de ONGs comunitarias), que posibilite su acceso a bienes
diseñados ad hoc, producidos por empresas transnacionales. Explora una dimensión
poco explotada –si no directamente dejada de lado- por otros abordajes.
Pero, paradójicamente, despliega pocas especificaciones respecto de la participación
de los usuarios en el diseño de los artefactos.
Basada excluyentemente en relaciones de mercado, supone el riesgo de cristalización
de la exclusión por otras vías. Y la explotación de un mercado donde, probablemente,
el principal beneficiario desea la propia empresa transnacional.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2966">En los países vascos, la Asociación para la Promoción de la Tecnología Social
(APTES) define la Tecnología Social como una aplicación de conocimientos científicos
y tecnológicos orientada a la resolución de problemas de subsistencia, salud,
educación, envejecimiento y discapacidad.
Si bien la adopción del concepto “re-aplicación” constituye un aporte significativo, la
conceptualización de tecnología social adoptada aún supone amplios márgenes de
ambigüedad. ¿Se trata de una propuesta ofertista (a partir de un banco de tecnologías
registradas)? ¿Se restringe a la concepción de tecnologias orientadas por la resolución
de problemas puntuales de grupos desfavorecidos? ¿Reitera los problemas señalados
en las conceptualizaciones anteriores? ¿Constituye una propuesta de inclusión socio-
económica o tiende a generar economías de dos sectores?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2967">Cada una de las definiciones disponibles presentan restricciones y
contradicciones significativas, de distinto signo:
* Determinismo tecnológico
* Ofertismo
* Voluntarismo
* Paternalismo
* Uso excluyente de tecnologías maduras
* No uso intensivo de conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos
* No uso de conocimientos tácitos y consuetudinarios
* Uso intensivo de mano de obra
* Restricción al uso intensivo de maquinaria y sistemas complejos
* No aprovechamiento de economías de escala
* Resolución de problemas puntuales (soluciones no sistémicas)
* Ignorancia de relaciones de mercado
* Generación de economías de dos sectores
*Uso parcial o inexistente de herramientas de análisis disponibles (por ej: economía de la innovación)
* Restricción a la dinámica del mercado como vía excluyente de relaciones económicas
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2968"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2969">Por eso, es tan necesario como ineludible revisar las conceptualizaciones sobre
tecnologías “sociales” disponibles, abandonando su concepción original como recursos
paliativos de situaciones de pobreza y exclusión, para pasar a concebirlas como
sistemas tecnológicos orientados a la generación de dinámicas de inclusión, vía la
resolución de problemas sociales y ambientales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2970">como intervenciones paliativas, destinadas a usuarios con escasos niveles educativos,
acaban generando dinámicas top-down (“paternalistas”). Así, por un lado, privilegian el
empleo de conocimiento experto, ajeno a los usuarios-beneficiarios, y por otro sub-
utilizan el conocimiento tecnológico local (tácito y codificado) históricamente acumulado.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2971">Desde esta perspectiva, las Tecnologías Sociales se vinculan a la generación de
capacidades de resolución de problemas sistémicos, antes que a la resolución de
déficits puntuales. Superan las limitaciones de concepciones lineales en términos de
“transferencia y difusión” mediante la percepción de dinámicas de integración en
sistemas socio-técnicos y procesos de re-significación de tecnologías. Apuntan a la
generación de dinámicas locales de producción, cambio tecnológico e innovación
socio-técnicamente adecuadas.
constituir la resolución de los problemas vinculados a la pobreza y la exclusión en un
desafío científico-técnico. De hecho, el desarrollo local de Tecnologías Sociales
conocimiento-intensivas podría generar utilidad social de los conocimientos científicos y
tecnológicos localmente producidos, hasta hoy sub-utilizados (Thomas, 2001; Kreimer
y Thomas, 2002 a y b).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2972">La diferenciación de productos, la adecuación y mejora de procesos productivos,
*el desarrollo de nuevas formas de organización, la incorporación de valor agregado, la intensificación del contenido cognitivo de productos y procesos* son cuestiones clave
tanto para concebir un cambio del perfil productivo de las economías en desarrollo
como para generar una mejora estructural de las condiciones de vida de la población
(mejoras en productos y servicios, calidad y cantidad de empleos, mejoras en el nivel
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2973">Dado que la adecuación socio-técnica de las Tecnologías
Sociales constituye una relación problema-solución no lineal, será necesario desarrollar
nuevas capacidades estratégicas (de “diagnóstico”, planificación, diseño,
implementación, gestión y evaluación).
¿Cómo generar nuevas dinámicas tecno-productivas locales basadas en Tecnologías
Sociales?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2974">El tratamiento de las Tecnologías Sociales con herramientas correspondientes a los
campos de la economía del cambio tecnológico y la sociología de la tecnología posibilita
la aplicación de un nuevo arsenal de conceptos:
relaciones usuario-productor,
procesos de aprendizaje,
dinámicas co-evolutivas,
trayectorias tecnológicas y tecnoeconómicas,
sistemas locales de innovación,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2975">Sobre los procesos de concepción e implementación de Tecnologías Sociales. Así, es posible conectar –tanto en el plano
teórico como en el político-económico- las experiencias de Tecnologías Sociales con
contextos socio-económicos e institucionales innovativos. Obviamente, como en el
caso de las tecnologías convencionales, ni los abordajes “vinculacionistas” (Thomas y
Dagnino, 2005) ni modelos Demand Pull resultan adecuados para el desarrollo de
Tecnologías Sociales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2976">Lejos de la estática invención de una solución “apropiada”, el desarrollo de Tecnologías
Sociales puede implicar la gestación de dinámicas locales de innovación, la apertura de
nuevas líneas de productos, de nuevas empresas productivas, de nuevas formas de
organización de la producción y de nuevas oportunidades de acumulación (tanto en el
mercado interno como en el exterior), así como la generación de redes de usuarios
intermedios y proveedores.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2977">problemas socio-políticos pueden ser abordados desde la perspectiva de las
Tecnologías Sociales. La realización de experiencias basadas en Tecnologías Sociales
supone también obvias ventajas políticas: resolución de problemas de inclusión,
selección de objetivos y beneficiarios, legitimación y visibilidad del accionar
gubernamental. Al incorporar la dimensión organizacional, el uso de nuevas
Tecnologías Sociales puede extenderse al tratamiento de otros problemas, tales como
prevención y seguridad, acceso a derechos y bienes culturales.
La generación de nuevas formas de gestión adecuadas al diseño, producción,
implementación y evaluación de Tecnologías Sociales implica no sólo la acumulación de
aprendizajes en el plano de la política pública y la acción del estado, sino también la
habilitación de nuevos canales de decisión y concepción de estrategias de
intervención. Las áreas prioritarias de alimentación, salud, vivienda y energía
constituyen sectores clave tanto para las políticas públicas como para las estrategias
de desarrollo local y regional.
Esta dinámica puede abrir una nueva posibilidad de profundización de las relaciones
democráticas: la incorporación de los usuarios-beneficiarios en las decisiones
tecnológicas. Así, la inclusión de los usuarios-beneficiarios en los procesos de diseño y
producción de Tecnologías Sociales genera la posibilidad de desarrollar una nueva
dimensión de las sociedades democráticas: la ciudadanía socio-técnica.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2978">¿cómo incorporar activamente a los usuarios-beneficiarios finales (movimientos
sociales, ONGs, cooperativas populares, organizaciones de base) en los
procesos de diseño e implementación?
¿cómo el sistema científico y tecnológico local puede aportar soluciones a
problemas sociales? ¿cómo integrar los recursos humanos científicos y
tecnológicos altamente calificados disponibles en la generación de innovaciones
en Tecnologías Sociales?
¿cómo gestionar y evaluar programas de Tecnologías Sociales?
¿cómo generar nuevas estrategias de desarrollo basadas en Tecnologías
Sociales?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2979">La adopción de un abordaje socio-técnico constructivista como matriz conceptual del
abordaje constituye una operación clave para captar la multidimensionalidad del objeto
“Tecnologías Sociales”.
Desde esta perspectiva, no es posible considerar a los artefactos y sistemas como
meros derivados de la evolución tecnológica (determinismo tecnológico) o simples
consecuencias de los cambios económicos, políticos o culturales (determinismo
social), sino como resultados de la dinámica de procesos de constitución de
“ensambles socio-técnicos” (Bijker, 1995).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2980"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2981">Este concepto sistémico sincrónico permite insertar en un mapa de interacciones, una
forma determinada de cambio socio-técnico, por ejemplo, un proyecto de tecnología
social, una serie de artefactos, una trayectoria socio-técnica, la construcción e
interpretación de una forma de relaciones problema-solución. Incluye un conjunto de
relaciones tecno-económicas y socio-políticas vinculadas al cambio tecnológico, en el
nivel de análisis de un ensamble socio-técnico (Wiebe Bijker), un gran sistema
tecnológico (Thomas Hughes), una red tecno-económica (Michel Callon) o, un sistema
nacional local de innovación (Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Chistopher Freeman).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2982">
proceso de co-construcción de productos, procesos productivos y organizaciones,
instituciones, relaciones usuario-productor, *relaciones problema-solución*[o1]_,
procesos de construcción de “funcionamiento” y “utilidad” de una tecnología,
racionalidades, políticas y estrategias de un actor (ONG, institución de I+D,
universidad, etc.), o, asimismo, de un marco tecnológico (Bijker) determinado
(tecnología nuclear, siderurgia, etc.).
.. _[o1]: cómo vamos a negociar estas relaciones?
Este concepto –de naturaleza eminentemente diacrónica- permite *ordenar relaciones causales entre elementos heterogéneos en secuencias temporales,* tomando como punto de partida un elemento socio-técnico en particular (por ejemplo, *una tecnología social-artefacto*, proceso, organización determinada-, una empresa, un grupo de I+D).
Las dinámicas socio-técnicas son más abarcativas que las trayectorias: toda
trayectoria socio-técnica se desenvuelve en el seno de una o diversas dinámicas
socio-técnicas y resulta incomprensible fuera de ellas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2983">proceso *auto-organizado* de generación de *entidad y sentido* que aparece cuando un elemento (idea, concepto, artefacto, herramienta,
sistema técnico) es trasladado de un contexto sistémico a otro. La inserción de un
mismo significante (por ejemplo, una tecnología social) en un nuevo sistema (ensamble
socio-técnico, sistema local de producción, formación histórico-social) genera la
aparición de nuevos sentidos (funciones, disfuncionalidades, efectos no deseados,
etc.).
Estos nuevos sentidos no aparecen simplemente por la agencia que los diferentes
actores ejercen sobre el significante, sino en virtud de la resignificación generada por el
particular efecto "sintáctico" de la inserción del significante en otra dinámica socio-
técnica.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2984">forma relativamente estabilizada de producir tecnología y de
construir su “funcionamiento” y “utilidad”. En tanto herramienta heurística, permite
realizar descripciones enmarcadas en la concepción constructivista de las trayectorias
y dinámicas socio-técnicas. Supone complejos procesos de adecuación de respuestas
tecnológicas a concretas y particulares articulaciones socio-técnicas históricamente
situadas: “la adaptación al entorno culmina en estilo" (Hughes).
Un estilo socio-técnico –de un grupo o comunidad determinada- se conforma en el
interjuego de elementos heterogéneos: relaciones usuario-productor, sistema de
premios y castigos, distribución de prestigio, condiciones geográficas, experiencias
históricas regionales y nacionales, etc.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2985">operación de reutilización creativa de tecnologías previamente disponibles. Las operaciones de resignificación de tecnología no son
meras alteraciones "mecánicas" de una tecnología, sino una reasignación de sentido
de esa tecnología y de su medio de aplicación.
Resignificar tecnologías es refuncionalizar conocimientos, artefactos y sistemas. El
conocimiento requerido es –en muchos casos- de la misma índole que el que exige, por
ejemplo, la fabricación de la maquinaria original, y es similar en sus condiciones y
características a la actividad de diseño básico. Las operaciones de resignificación de
tecnología se sitúan en la interfase entre las acciones sociales de desarrollo
tecnológico y las trayectorias tecnológicas de concretos grupos sociales, en el “tejido
sin costuras” de la dinámica socio-técnica.
El diseño y desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales suele caracterizarse por una intensiva
aplicación de operaciones de resignificación de tecnología.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2986">los “problemas ” y las relaciones de
correspondencia “problema-solución” constituyen construcciones socio-técnicas. En
los procesos de co-construcción socio-técnica de las Tecnologías Sociales, la
participación relativa del accionar problema-solución alcanza tal carácter dominante
que condiciona el conjunto de prácticas socio-institucionales y, en particular, las
dinámicas de aprendizaje y la generación de instrumentos organizacionales.
El conocimiento generado en estos procesos problema-solución es en parte codificado
y en parte tácito (sólo parcialmente explicitado: signado por prácticas cotidianas,
desarrollado en el marco del proceso de toma de decisiones).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2987">el “funcionamiento” o “no-funcionamiento” de un artefacto es
resultado de un proceso de construcción socio-técnica en el que intervienen,
normalmente de forma auto-organizada, elementos heterogéneos: condiciones
materiales, sistemas, conocimientos, regulaciones, financiamiento, prestaciones, etc.
El “funcionamiento” (Bijker, 1995) de los artefactos no es algo dado, “intrínseco a las
características del artefacto”, sino que es una contingencia que se construye social,
tecnológica y culturalmente. Supone complejos procesos de adecuación de
respuestas/soluciones tecnológicas a concretas y particulares articulaciones socio-
técnicas históricamente situadas.
Así, el “funcionamiento” o “no-funcionamiento” de los artefactos debe ser analizado
simétricamente. El “funcionamiento” de una máquina no debe ser considerado como el
*explanans sino como el explanandum.* |?|
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2988">proceso auto-organizado e interactivo de integración de
un conocimiento, artefacto o sistema tecnológico en una dinámica o trayectoria socio-
técnica, socio-históricamente situada. Estos procesos integran diferentes fenómenos
socio-técnicos: relaciones-problema-solución, dinámicas de co-construcción, path
dependence, resignificación, estilos tecnológicos.
Los procesos de producción y de construcción social de la utilidad y el funcionamiento
de las tecnologías constituyen dos caras de una misma moneda de la adecuación
socio-técnica: la utilidad de un artefacto o conocimiento tecnológico no es una instancia
que se encuentra al final de una cadena de prácticas sociales diferenciadas, sino que
está presente tanto en el diseño de un artefacto como en los procesos de re-
significación de las tecnologías en los que participan diferentes grupos sociales
relevantes (usuarios, beneficiarios, funcionarios públicos, integrantes de ONGs, …).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2989"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2990">plantear nuevos conceptos y criterios para el diseño, generación e
implementación de “tecnologías sociales" en base al concepto de “adecuación
socio-técnica”.
El abordaje socio-técnico provee una serie de criterios generales para el diseño,
producción, implementación y evaluación de tecnologías sociales. El criterio principal,
en principio, es el de “adecuación socio-técnica”. No existen tecnologías sociales de
validez universal. Difícilmente tal proceso de adecuación se genere de una sola vez, y
para siempre. De hecho, todas las tecnologías son objeto de procesos de testeo,
transformación y ajuste a condiciones de uso y contexto. La utilidad de las Tecnologías
Sociales es socio-técnicamente construida.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2991">los contextos regulatorios y sus significados. *Ninguna tecnología funciona fuera de una matriz socio-técnica, históricamente situada.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2992"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2993">Un aspecto central de la noción de simetría se expresa en la consideración de toda
cultura como tecnológica y de toda tecnología como expresión cultural. La inclusión de
las culturas locales, de los usuarios finales es absolutamente relevante en la dinámica
de construcción de funcionamiento de las Tecnologías Sociales. Esto no implica
restringir las posibilidades de desarrollo tecnológico a los estándares de la cultura del
grupo beneficiario, sino registrar el potencial aprovechamiento de los conocimientos
locales (codificados y tácitos), en combinación con otros conocimientos (codificados y
tácitos) generados en terceras culturas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2994">En sentido estricto, todas las tecnologías son conocimiento-intensivas. En algunos
casos, intensivas en conocimientos científicos y tecnológico; en otros, tácitos y
consuetudinarios; en otros, estéticos y normativos. La percepción de los artefactos
como “híbridos de tecnología y cultura” puede ser una imagen particularmente útil a la
hora de diseñar Tecnologías Sociales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2995">Un abordaje en términos socio-técnicos tiende a focalizar las relaciones problema/
solución como un complejo proceso de co-construcción. Esto configura, en la práctica,
una visión sistémica, donde difícilmente exista una solución puntual para un problema
puntual. Por el contrario, esta visión sistémica posibilita la aparición de una nueva forma
de concebir soluciones socio-técnicas (combinando, por ejemplo, la resolución de un
déficit de energía con la gestación de una cadena de frío, vinculada a su vez a un
sistema de conservación de alimentos y la potencial comercialización del excedente).
Ajustando el concepto, tal vez sería conveniente hablar de Sistemas Tecnológicos
Sociales, antes que de Tecnologías Sociales puntuales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2996">La adopción del concepto de “transducción” permite criticar las nociones lineales,
estáticas y mecánicas de “transferencia” y “difusión”, normalmente utilizadas en el
campo de las tecnologías sociales como acciones deseables. Como se explicita en el
concepto de re-aplicación, utilizado por la Rede de Tecnología Social de Brasil, cada
proceso de implementación local de una tecnología implica nuevas acciones de
desarrollo tecnológico, nuevas operaciones cognitivas, nuevas relaciones usuario-
productor. La aplicación del concepto “transducción” en el análisis de dinámicas de
desarrollo e implementación de Tecnologías Sociales puede permitir una reducción de
efectos no deseados, y, en última instancia, de la tasa de desarrollos considerados
“fracasos”.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2997">Precisamente la eliminación de los conceptos de “transferencia” y “difusión” permite
superar la falsa contradicción entre diseño universal de las tecnologías y aplicaciones
locales. Al mismo tiempo, posibilita dejar de lado la idea de que tecnologías “bien
concebidas” en términos técnicos universales presentan problemas locales de
implementación y gestión. **Si la distinción universal/local es absurda en las tecnologías convencionales (todas las innovaciones son locales, planteó Freeman hace más de 20 años), cuánto más lo será en el territorio de las Tecnologías Sociales (donde no es posible registrar mercados globales, ni situaciones isomórficas en diferentes sociedades).**
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2998">La noción de “adaptación” –comúnmente utilizada en los textos de tecnología
apropiada- también presenta problemas. En principio, porque comparte con las de
transferencia y difusión la idea determinista tecnológica de la unicidad del artefacto, no
importa en qué sistema de relaciones socio-técnicas éste se inserte. Por otro lado,
porque supone una secuencia de diseño original y adaptación a algunas variables
discretas correspondientes a la situación local (como si esto fuera suficiente para
construir el funcionamiento del artefacto). La noción de resignificación de tecnologías
parece más adecuada para dar cuenta del complejo proceso de reasignación de
sentidos de los artefactos tecnológicos, en el marco de dinámicas locales de
construcción de funcionamiento, y co-construcción de las interacciones entre usuarios
y artefactos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2999">Las Tecnologías Sociales no funcionan simplemente porque resuelven un problema
puntual, sino porque consiguen insertarse como causas eficientes en la generación de
procesos de cambio tecnológico y social. Es la adecuación socio-técnica de las
tecnologías convencionales lo que permite que sean aceptadas, utilizadas,
compatibilizadas y apropiadas por los usuarios. Las tecnologías sociales suponen un
grado más en esta construcción de funcionamiento: son concebidas para participar
activamente en procesos de cambio socio-político, socio-económico y socio-cultural.
Constituyen una base material de afirmaciones y sanciones destinada a promover el
desarrollo socio-económico y sustentar procesos de democratización.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3000">Vienen 4 tables muy interesantes que establecen el resumen de las posibilidades entre esas dos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3001"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3002"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3003">Normalmente, se ha considerado que las Tecnologías Sociales son más un territorio de
“extensión” que de investigación y desarrollo. Y, por derivación, que la inserción de
estas temáticas en la agenda de investigación científica y tecnológica implicaba serios
riesgos para la carrera del investigador o tecnólogo. Y esto ha sido verdad en términos
de tecnologías apropiadas o intermedias, que proponían la utilización y adaptación de
tecnologías maduras o de bajo contenido cognitivo. Pero resulta falso en términos de
Tecnologías Sociales del tipo propuesto en el presente trabajo
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3004">Las tecnologías apropiadas se han caracterizado por sub-utilizar los conocimientos
científicos y tecnológicos disponibles. Al mismo tiempo, muchas veces han subutilizado
el conocimiento tácito y consuetudinario disponible. El desarrollo de Tecnologías
Sociales, en cambio no implica límite alguno en términos de contenido científico y
tecnológico de los artefactos y sistemas a generar.
La generación de funcionamiento de las tecnologías sociales demanda uso intensivo
del conocimiento disponible que resulte pertinente al sistema a desarrollar. Lejos de un
límite, constituye una oportunidad para la generación de nuevas tecnologías, nuevos
sistemas operativos, nuevos conocimientos sociales, nuevos conocimientos
científicos. Así como nuevas oportunidades de cooperación transdisciplinar, mezcla de
tecnologías, diálogos transculturales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3005">Sería erróneo encarar semejante desafío como la construcción de una oferta de un
stock de conocimientos, que esperasen la demanda de los potenciales usuarios
sociales. Tampoco sería funcional relevar un listado de demandas y necesidades, y
proponer su satisfacción a actores e instituciones.
Como en el caso de la innovación convencional, directamente vinculada a la obtención
de lucros, sólo la generación de dinámicas de interacción entre productores y usuarios
de conocimientos (finales e intermedios: ONGs, divisiones del estado nacional,
provincial y municipal, agencias gubernamentales, etc.) posibilitará la aparición de
*acumulaciones de aprendizajes por interacción*, la gestación de redes de cooperación y
la construcción de funcionamiento de las tecnologías diseñadas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3006">Contrariamente a los abordajes lineales S&T Push y Demand Pull, la producción,
implementación, gestión y evaluación de Tecnologías Sociales responde a una
dinámica problema/solución *no-lineal*. *El foco de esta dinámica es la calidad de las interacciones*. [o1]_
.. _[o1]: al ser "no lineal" no basta iterar sobre un mismo problema sino mirar los nexos del problema con otras cosas.
El análisis de estas dinámicas supone, en la práctica, la posibilidad de renovar nuestra
comprensión acerca de los procesos de innovación y cambio tecnológico, no
solamente en el campo de las Tecnologías Sociales, sino de las dinámicas de cambio
socio-técnico en general.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3007">Dadas las características de las Tecnologías Sociales y sus procesos de construcción
de funcionamiento socio-técnico, será necesario desarrollar nuevas capacidades, tanto
en el plano del diseño estratégico de
*artefactos y sistemas*,
como del diseño de
*intervenciones sociales* y
*políticas públicas*;
tanto en el plano de la orientación de
proyectos de investigación y desarrollo como en la dirección de instituciones
vinculadas a la producción de conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3008">El estado tiene una responsabilidad irrenunciable en la resolución de los problemas de *exclusión social*. E invierte crecientes porciones de su presupuesto en la formación de
recursos humanos (que tienen dificultades de inserción en el mercado laboral) y la
producción de conocimientos (que normalmente no son aprovechados por las
empresas locales). *Su sistema científico y tecnológico no puede mantenerse ajeno a esta responsabilidad sin pagar los costos políticos de deslegitimación y aislamiento social.*
La inclusión de las Tecnologías Sociales en la agenda de las políticas de Ciencia,
Tecnología e Innovación supone un aporte fundamental para la visibilidad y la
legitimación del gasto público en I+D. Como contrapartida, los grupos de investigación
locales podrían producir conocimientos de calidad (en términos de investigación de
excelencia, publicable en revistas de referencia) y relevantes (en términos de su
inmediata aplicación en la resolución de los problemas más apremiantes de la
población).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3009"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3010">En América Latina se verifica una paradoja del subdesarrollo: en tanto los países de la
región no han desplegado plenamente el potencial de sus sistemas productivos,
millones de personas se encuentran fuera de las relaciones de trabajo y generación de
bienes y servicios, e impedidas de acceder a ellos.
Las Tecnologías Sociales constituyen una forma legítima de habilitación del acceso
público a bienes y servicios, *a partir de la producción de bienes comunes*[o1]_. En este
nivel, las tecnologías sociales pueden desempeñar tres papeles fundamentales en una
economía en desarrollo:
.. _[o1]: mirar la relación con Vercelli
* Generación de relaciones económico-productivas inclusivas, más allá de las restricciones (coyunturales y estructurales) de la economía de
mercado
* Acceso a bienes, *más allá de las restricciones del salario de bolsillo*
* Generación de empleo, más allá de las restricciones de la demanda laboral empresarial local
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3011">Tres errores son comunes en la concepción de Tecnologías Sociales en contextos
capitalistas:
1) concebirlas fuera de las relaciones de mercado, como si no se insertaran en
relaciones de intercambio, como si no fueran afectadas por procesos de
formación de precios, como si formaran parte de una economía solidaria
paralela, aislada del resto de las relaciones económico productivas.
2) concebirlas, al estilo de “la base de la pirámide” o algunas “social innovations”
como procesos convencionales de búsqueda de formación de renta vía
innovación tecnológica, como negocio para transnacionales o salvación para
entrepreneurs locales
3) concebirlas como mecanismos destinados a salvar las fallas del sistema de
distribución de renta, como parches tecnológicos a problemas sociales:
servicios y alimentos baratos para población en situación de extrema pobreza.
Ahora bien, es posible concebir procesos de cambio social donde las Tecnologías
Sociales ocupan un espacio estratégico, tanto en términos de dar sustento a
transiciones de puesta en producción, de cambio de hábitos de consumo, de
integración paulatina, como en términos de generación de dinámicas endógenas de
innovación y cambio tecnológico.
Esto *no significa que las Tecnologías Sociales tiendan a reproducir –inexorablemente- las relaciones sociales capitalistas existentes.* Un *diseño estratégico de Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales permitiría dar soporte material a procesos de cambio social, relaciones económicas solidarias, ampliación del carácter público y de libre disponibilidad de bienes y servicios, abaratamiento de costos, control de daños ambientales y disminución de riesgos tecnológicos, al tiempo que sancionaría relativamente (cuanto menos por su presencia como alternativa tecno-productiva) a procesos de discriminación y desintegración, acumulación excesiva, productos suntuarios, producciones ambientalmente no sustentables.*
En otros términos, *la generación de nuevos Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales permitiría generar ciclos de inclusión social, precisamente donde las relaciones capitalistas de mercado impiden la gestación de procesos de integración, y consolidan dinámicas de exclusión social*. Porque, precisamente por su carácter “misión orientado” (de
abaratamiento de costos, racionalización de la producción, promoción de usos
solidarios, distribución del control social de los sistemas productivos, resolución
sistémica de problemas tecno-productivos), las Tecnologías Sociales pueden
desempeñar un papel anticíclico en economías signadas por crisis recurrentes.
Tecnologías Sociales orientadas por criterios de inclusión social posibilitarían la
construcción de sistemas socio-económicos más justos en términos de distribución de
renta, y más participativos en términos de toma de decisiones colectivas. Lejos de una
mera reproducción ampliada, la proliferación de Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales
permitiría dar sustentabilidad material a nuevos órdenes socio-económicos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3012">Por eso, las nuevas Tecnologías Sociales *deben ser conocimiento-intensivas*: para responder al desafío de sustituir con ventaja las alternativas tecno-productivas convencionales. Nuevas formas de producción, nuevos productos, nuevos sistemas
organizacionales orientados tanto a la inclusión social de los productores como de los
consumidores y usuarios. No sólo a paliar la situación de grupos desfavorecidos por la lógica interna de las “mejores prácticas” de las tecnologías “rent seeking”.
*Si estas nuevas Tecnologías Sociales no logran ser tan o más eficientes que las convencionales, si no consiguen transformar el sentido común, y con él la noción misma de eficiencia, imponiéndose como solución a las ineficiencias sistémicas de las tecnologías convencionales, sólo generarán –a mediano plazo- nuevas situaciones problemáticas de asimetría interna, exclusión social y desbalance económico.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3013">La adecuación socio-técnica de productos y procesos constituye, en la práctica, un
motor de generación de procesos de diferenciación de productos y diversificación de
procesos. *La respuesta socio-técnicamente adecuada a las concretas condiciones locales tiende a consolidar acumulativamente trayectorias diferenciales de diseño, explotación de potenciales locales (materiales, calificación de mano de obra, integración de contenidos culturales, utilización de materias primas, technology blending, etc.).*
La adecuación a condiciones locales abre, de hecho, un potencial de re-aplicación en
escenarios que respondan a condiciones similares. *Las mismas acciones de re-aplicación tienden, a su vez, a la introducción de innovaciones incrementales de producto y proceso.* Se abre así un abanico de posibilidades de desarrollo e innovación
de Tecnologías Sociales, al mismo tiempo que se expande su utilización en terceros
escenarios –a nivel regional y nacional-.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3014">Es necesario incorporar en el diseño e implementación de programas de desarrollo
basados en Tecnologías Sociales la existencia de procesos de conversión de los
bienes de uso en bienes de cambio. Esto permite anticipar efectos no deseados, evitar
riesgos de tensión social y conflictividad, prevenir potenciales efectos de
desintegración comunitaria, o de generación de situaciones de exclusión dentro de la
población beneficiaria.
Al mismo tiempo, posibilita integrar la circulación de bienes y los mecanismos de
financiación dentro del diseño estratégico de los programas, posibilitando la generación
de nuevos recursos económicos y la aparición de mecanismos de re-inversión y
crédito.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3015">Los diseños de tecnologías apropiadas normalmente se han basado en un par binario
de productores y consumidores, cuando no en la creación de un sujeto único
productor-consumidor (en estrategias de sostenimiento de economías de auto-
consumo). Esta definición del alcance implica, en la práctica, la generación de redes
cortas, unidas por vínculos poco densos y escasamente complejos.
Los sistemas tecno-productivos basados en Tecnologías Sociales deberían poder
superar esta barrera de escala y alcance (scope), reconociendo la existencia de
usuarios-productores intermedios, en redes productivas que incorporen un mayor
grado de complejidad en la división técnica del trabajo.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3016">Es posible -y económicamente viable- generar así un complejo sistema de relaciones
de mercado y no-de mercado- que se integre en una dinámica de distribución equitativa
de la renta, acceso igualitario a bienes y servicios e inclusión social.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3017">* Desarrollo socioeconómico y democracia
* El riesgo político de la economía de dos sectores
* La incorporación de las tecnologías de organización
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3018">Una de las tendencias más evidentes de las dinámicas socio-técnicas vinculadas con
el desarrollo capitalista es la reducción del espacio público y la profundización de los
procesos de apropiación privada de bienes, conocimientos y espacios. Esta
apropiación es acompañada de nuevas tecnologías de control social y regulación de
conductas de la población.
El ejemplo del desarrollo de Internet –concebida como un bien común, como un espacio
público de libre circulación y acceso- puede ser tomado como una clara ilustración del
papel que las tecnologías pueden desempeñar como elementos clave en procesos de
creación y democratización de los espacios. *Al mismo tiempo, las actuales tendencias de control empresarial sobre la propiedad intelectual y el libre acceso a bienes culturales muestran cómo la dinámica privatizadora se extiende sobre estos nuevos espacios.*
*Las Tecnologías Sociales suponen la posibilidad de una ampliación radical del espacio público. No se trata simplemente del espacio público entendido como plazas y parques, calles y ciudades, museos y reparticiones del estado, sino del acceso irrestricto a bienes y servicios, a medios de producción, a redes de comunicación, a nuevas formas de interrelación.*
[...]
*¿Y por qué es conveniente ampliar el espacio de lo público y la producción de bienes comunes? Porque es una de las formas más directas y eficientes de redistribuir la renta, de garantizar una ampliación de los derechos, de viabilizar el acceso a bienes y servicios, y, por lo tanto, de resolver situaciones de exclusión y democratizar una sociedad.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3019">
<<@cita>>
Las Tecnologías Sociales proponen la generación de nuevas vías de construcción y de
resolución de problemas socio-técnicos. Pero, fundamentalmente, suponen una visión
no ingenua de la tecnología y de su participación en procesos de construcción y
configuración de sociedades. También implican la posibilidad de elección de nuevos
senderos, y de participación en esas decisiones tanto de los productores como de los
usuarios de esas tecnologías.
Así, las Tecnologías Sociales no sólo son inclusivas porque están orientadas a
viabilizar el acceso igualitario a bienes y servicios del conjunto de la población, sino
porque explícitamente abren la posibilidad de la participación de los usuarios,
beneficiarios (y también de potenciales perjudicados) en el proceso de diseño y toma
de decisiones para su implementación. Y no lo hacen como si esta participación fuese
un aspecto complementario, al final del proceso productivo, sino porque requieren,
estructuralmente, de la participación de estos diversos actores sociales en los
procesos de diseño e implementación.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3020">Hasta hoy, la tecnología ha sido manejada como una caja negra, como una esfera
autónoma y neutral que determina su propio camino de desarrollo, generando
inexorables efectos, constructivos o destructivos a su paso. Esta visión lineal,
determinista e ingenua de la tecnología permanece aún vigente en la visión ideológica
de muchos actores clave: de los tomadores de decisión, de los tecnólogos, científicos
e ingenieros. Lejos de un sendero único de progreso, existen diferentes vías de
desarrollo tecnológico, diversas alternativas tecnológicas, distintas maneras de
caracterizar un problema y de resolverlo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3021">Si las tecnologías no son neutrales, si existen alternativas tecnológicas y es posible
elegir entre ellas, si los actores sociales pueden participar de estos procesos, y si las
tecnologías constituyen la base material de un sistema de afirmaciones y sanciones
que determina la viabilidad de ciertos modelos socio-económicos, de ciertos regímenes
políticos, así como la inviabilidad de otros, parece obvio que es imprescindible
incorporar la tecnología como un aspecto fundamental de nuestros sistemas de
convivencia democrática.
Resulta tan ingenuo pensar que semejante nivel de decisiones pueda quedar
exclusivamente en manos de “expertos” como concebir que la participación no
informada puede mejorar las decisiones. Parece insostenible continuar pensando que la
tecnología no es un tema central de nuestras democracias.
Lejos de una mera abstracción, se deriva de esta conceptualización toda una línea
acciones políticas. La primera: es necesario realizar un viraje estratégico en la política
científica y tecnológica, orientado a:
* aumentar la participación de las unidades públicas de I+D en las
dinámicas de cambio socio-técnico y
* alinear la producción de conocimiento científico y tecnológico con la
satisfacción de las necesidades sociales locales.
El destino de nuestras sociedades, la estabilización y profundización de nuestras
democracias, la ampliación del espacio público, la producción de los bienes públicos y
la construcción del futuro de la región dependen, probablemente, de la adecuada
concepción de estrategias de desarrollo basadas en la aplicación de Tecnologías
Sociales.
No como una forma de minimizar los efectos de la exclusión de los pobres.
Sino como una forma de viabilizar la inclusión de todos en un futuro posible.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3022"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3023">http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/424822/22211ebd31dfdca3/
@language rest
Un artículo que explica las ideas claves de Unhosted. Cómo dicen, no puede reemplazar cualquier SaaS y aún no está muy maduro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3024">http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tiddly_on_tahoe
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3025">http://openmesh.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/a-list-of-open-source-ad-hoc-network-and-routing-protocolsplatforms/
@language rest
A list of open source ad-hoc network and routing protocols / platforms.
January 30, 2011 //
Providing local information during an “internet kill switch”.
Due to recent events in Egypt and the speed of the shutdown.
Most of these projects are open to contribution and further development.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3026">http://hispamp3.yes.fm/2004/11/13/como-evitar-la-censura-en-internet
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3027">http://blogs.fsfe.org/fellowship-interviews/?p=299 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3028"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3029">:author:Etienne, Wenger
:date:1998
:title: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
:publicacion: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3030"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3125"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3126">Un muy interesante artículo que presenta la otra cara de esta
discusión se puede descargar en el siguiente vínculo
Acceso abierto a las publicaciones científicas : definición, recursos,
copyright e impacto http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/1486
otro artículo al respecto, desde el punto de vista económico, el
enfoque de su publicación:
Economic Overview of Open Access and the Public Domain in Digital
Scientific and Technical Information 8 Economic
http://books.nap.edu/html/openaccess/29-32.pdf
y otros artículos sobre temas relacionados:
http://www.bienescomunes.org/lectura/
-- Befana
Le añado otro texto a las propuestas de Pilar:
http://onthecommons.org/michel-bauwens-and-peer-production-economy y
solo quiero cerrar diciendo que el hecho de que la sociedad en que
vivimos se llame "sociedad del conocimiento" niega de plano el
supuesto de German
-- Carobotero
Documentos Académicos:
Tesis Doctorado Españolas: http://www.tdr.cesca.es/
Revistas Científicas: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ http://www.scielo.org/
Bancos de Documentos Académicos: http://roar.eprints.org/ (Colombia tiene
18, la mayoría de Universidades)
-- Ulises
http://ordenadoresenelaula.blogspot.com/2010/10/el-modelo-1x1-una-computadora-por.html
-- Karel
Diplomado Scratch: http://goo.gl/fRB2r
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3127">http://thepowerofopen.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3128">Anna Calvera:
El libro de las dos culturas es muy antiguo y es una conferencia de Snow. Seguro que lo encuentras. Otro libro que te puede interesar, a tí y también a todos los doctorandos es el de Schön: "El practicante reflexivo".</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3129"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3130">http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html
@language rest
:Accesado: Septiembre 17 de 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3131"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3132"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3133">p128
> Digital technology is programmed. This makes it biased toward those with the
> capacity to write the code. In a digital age, we must learn how to make the
> software, or risk becoming the software. It is not too difficult or too late
> to learn the code behind the things we use-- or at least to understand that
> there is code behind their interfaces. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of
> those who do the programming, the people paying them, or even the technology
> itself."
>
> p133
> "Programming is the sweet spot, the high leverage point in a digital
> society. If we don't learn to program, we risk being programmed ourselves."
> </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3134">The great funding in the 60s was done mostly by the government, and for personal
computing and pervasive networks was spread over more than 15 universities and
research companies who formed a cooperative research community. (The story of
this is told in "The Dream Machine" by Mitchel Waldrop).
-- Alan Kay</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3135">La cultura, la ciencia y la tecnología, aunque distintas en niveles específicos,
han estado, y siguen estando, inextricablernente unidas entre sí de tal modo
que, en realidad, cada una de ellas se funde en las otras, esrableciendo líneas
de contacto y apoyo.' Estas relaciones implican una especie de complejidad que
nos impide afirmar que alguna de ellas sea distinti- vamente anterior,
primordial o fundamental en relación a cualquiera de las otras. Se derivan (y
son posibles) varios tipos de relaciones: la tecnología moldea la cultura; la
ciencia proporciona una base episte- mológica a la tecnología; la ciencia como
epistemología presupone lo tecnológico; la (recnojculrura produce
(tecnociencia; la cultura siem- pre es tecnológica pero no siempre científica,
y así sucesivamente. Además, la ciencia a menudo legitima una práctica cultural
a expen-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3136">
@language rest</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3137">For us late moderns, however,information has now become a thing, and not only
that but also an economically valuable thing. Why is this so, how did it come to
happen, and what are its consequences, particularly now, in the so-called
information age? How did we arrive at this reified and commodified notion of
knowl- edge or of becoming informed? And what have we forgotten in this his-
torical process?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3138">In this book, I examine texts of three information ages: European docu-
mentation before and soon after World War II, United States information
theory and cybernetics soon after World War II, and the “virtual” age that
is proclaimed today. I attempt to show how professional and authorita-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3139">and history toward creating the present and the future. If, as I believe, the
history of information is a privileged site for understanding the intersection
of language and political economy in modernity, then an analysis of the his-
tory of information first of all involves the untangling of the language of
information and its ideological supports and interests.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3140">My argument is not only that the history of information has been for-
gotten but also that it must be forgotten within any “metaphysics” or ide-
ology of information, because information in modernity connotes a fac-
tuality and pragmatic presence (what Heidegger in Being and Time termed
a “present-at-hand” [vorhanden] quality) that erases or radically reduces
ambiguity and the problems of reading, interpreting, and constructing
history—problems that are intrinsic not only to historiographic construc-
tion but also to historical agency.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3141">opposite those intended by the original authors. Lévy’s work performs a
similar but more pronounced appropriation of language, history, and
culture for the purposes of professional and political capitalization and
control than that performed by the European documentalists and by
Weaver’s and Wiener’s popular writings. His work casts an interesting light
on the information age’s ability to bend history and social space through
the prisms of ideology.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3142">The fifth chapter introduces modernist attempts at critical intervention
into the construction of an information culture. In this chapter, I exam-
ine theories of the production of information and information culture
from the aspect of a critique of metaphysics (Martin Heidegger) and from
the aspect of a formalist Marxist critique (Walter Benjamin). The purpose
of this chapter is to recover historically forgotten critical interventions of
“information” that attempted to examine and exploit those processes of
reproduction through which information is reified and commodified,
both as a concept and as actual values, and through which it becomes a
historical force.
[...]
Throughout this work, it is my desire to expose the process by which
language passes through the machinery of authoritative rhetorical devices
and institutions for the purposes of ideological control. Professional dis-
courses, particularly in management, organizational theory, and informa-
tion science, sometimes contain rhetorical edifices built upon tropes such
as “Information Management,” “Knowledge Management,” and “Information Architecture.” The attempt in this book is to put critical pressure
on professionally and politically based reifications and commodifications
of language and to demonstrate some of the plays of power and ideology
that are involved in the rhetorical and aesthetic capitalization and exploi-
tation of human relations and affects in the names of “information” and
“communication.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3143">historical and political agency. In many ways, the death of materialist
analysis and of personal agency in the twentieth century follows the rise
of the ideology of information. And with this death, the struggles, affects,
and language of individual lives lose their power within the categories of
acceptable meaning.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3144">The original title for this book was Where Do You Want to Go Tomor-
row?, which was a pun on Microsoft’s late-1990s ad campaign, “Where
Do You Want to Go Today?” Given that the latter phrase is owned as a
Microsoft trademark, and given that Microsoft has, apparently, in the past
threatened to sue others for the use of the former phrase as well as the lat-
ter, I decided not to use that title. This situation, I think, speaks loudly
of the problems of ownership and control of language and history by dom-
inant players in information and communication technologies. We need
to take language and historical agency back and thus take back from the
information and communication technology “prophets” and profits their
determination of our todays and our tomorrows. I hope that this book will
be one part of this critical praxis in its attempt to demystify the trope of
information in modern culture.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3145">ce que la documentation? (1951). The distinguishing characteristic of docu-
mentation in Europe, in contrast to both librarianship in Europe and to
what would subsequently become information science in the United
States, was the manner in which documentation understood the relation-
ship between information technology and social systems. For documen-
tation, the technical retrieval of materials was deeply tied to the social and
institutional use and goals for documentary materials. In contrast to the
functions of libraries and librarians, which defined themselves in terms of
the historical collection and preservation of books, documentalists empha-
sized the utilitarian integration of technology and technique toward spe-
cific social goals.
[...]
The founders and leaders of European documentation were advocates of
documentation as an upcoming profession, distinct from librarianship, based both
within and serving the development of science in modernity. As an organized
system of techniques and technologies, documentation was understood as a player
in the historical development of global orga- nization in modernity—indeed, a
major player inasmuch as that organi- zation was dependent on the organization
and transmission of informa- tion. **It was within the context of a “scientific” culture of modernity that documentation could be understood as not simply bibliographical technique but as a cultural technique.**
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3146">Otlet’s trope of the book referred to both the physical object
of the book and, even more importantly, to a cultural concept of the book
as a unifying form for positive knowledge. Inasmuch as this concept not only
embodies the physical object of the book but also is reflective of social and
natural “facts,” it represented for Otlet a concrete embodiment of the
history of true knowledge and is thus a vehicle to global understanding.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3147">By means of literary devices, Otlet’s text goes beyond its own
time, projecting humanity into a future that Otlet desired to create, both
through information technologies and techniques and through the very
rhetorical force of his texts.
[...]
As a trope for architectural, social, and natural orders, the book
constitutes, at least since the sixteenth century, an exemplary instance of
the ability of one technology, raised by institutions and rhetoric to a cul-
tural level, to historically and socially organize other series of bodies, tech-
nologies, and actions.
Notas:
Esto no es forzosamente malo!!
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3148">Not only through a technological regime but also through the circula-
tion of rhetorical tropes between wider cultural domains, technologies
emerge in both design and social meaning. Cultural metaphors act as in-
fluences on technological designs (for example, computers should act like
the mind) that then, in turn, influence larger cultural realms (for example,
the mind should act with the instrumentality of a computer). Rhetorical
diffusion leads to technological design, development, and acceptance as
well as to the shaping of culture according to technological models. Tropes
of technology, and especially of information, not only metaphorically
repeat themselves through different domains of culture but also meto-
nymically leverage history, forcing societies to develop according to “in-
evitable” technological models.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3149">How far the book (and its successors) constitutes a trope upon which
the future can be determined is perhaps not a task for the historian alone
but for the cultural critic as well, since the trope of the book occupies a
series of rhetorical substitutions not only in historiography but in culture
at large, which claims “the future” for itself. What is at stake in reexamin-
ing the texts of information proponents, such as Otlet, is the right of a
certain produced sense of information to claim our future.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3150">In this chapter of the Traité, Otlet conceptualizes the book as a con-
tainer of knowledge. Knowledge for Otlet is a substance in the form of
facts, and facts flow between the world, books, and thinkers in a circulat-
ing manner. Consequently, Otlet’s understanding of the book simulta-
neously encompasses three models: an organism, a dynamic embodiment
of energy (which Otlet often refers to as l’esprit [mind or spirit]), and a
machine of production.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3151">Rhetorically, as well as technologically, the book moves diachronically back
and forth through twentieth-century culture, tracing and retracing a cul-
ture of knowledge and social control marked by a dialectic between glo-
bal unification and local networks. This cultural trope of the book thus
not only reflected but also shaped the meaning and development of in-
formation and communication technologies in the twentieth century as
well as the meaning of those technologies in social space and as a symbol
for social space.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3152">Despite having a formal structure that
is unitary and singular, Otlet’s book-organism is not closed and self-con-
tained in its origins and future. Instead, the bibliographical “law of orga-
nization” suggests that books contain and constitute networks or webs
(“réseau”), both internally and externally in their relations with one another
and to the world at large (Traité 423). The concept of réseau is very im-
portant for Otlet because it designates not only the internal structure of
the book itself but also the relation of books to one another, to facts, and
to thought. At its inner parameter, along with the model of the machine,
it signifies the functional and generative interaction of words, phrases,
sentences, and other grammatical elements within the book. At its outer
parameter, it is a term that signifies universal or global collections, whether
in the form of paper codices, bibliographies, museum collections, elec-
tronic networks, or, at the most extreme, the “biblion” of all these medi-
ums in relation to one another.
Otlet conceives of the expansion of the book’s intellectual totality in
terms of historically determined social systems of input, production, and
output. For Otlet, books are part of an evolutionary process of thought,
and as such, books contain what came before them in other books. The
[...]
Otlet’s conception of the social and historical attributes of texts thus
demands that texts be understood in terms of their networked and evo-
lutionary relations to one another and, subsequently, that knowledge be
understood in terms of these relations. For Otlet, texts are networked to
one another in terms of historical influence and interpretation, and ex-
ternal organizational devices, such as the Universal Decimal Classification
system, are explicit acknowledgments of shared genealogies and histori-
cal alliances.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3153">For Otlet, the evolutionary development of the world through knowl-
edge is related to the expansion of knowledge through books and other
documentary forms. Evolution is both progressive and paradigmatic. Any
particular book, for Otlet, is an example of a specific historical object
whose unique meaning is contingent on the historical past and the evolv-
ing future. Otlet’s containment of bibliographical historicity within the
notion of scientific laws, however, means that Otlet’s vision of the book
and of the world is highly deterministic.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3154">this evolution from one book to another is very specific: it
occurs in terms of “répétition” (423). Repetition, for Otlet, is a universal
law of not simply repeating the same with the same result, but it is a pe-
culiar type of repeating that is characterized as an amplification (“La loi
de répétition amplifiante” [422]). Repetition, as an amplification, leads to
the universal and “geometric” expansion of knowledge (422). Such an
expansion suggests that there is a change of scale for the nature and value
of knowledge. For Otlet, texts are both vehicles and embodiments of dy-
namic repetition, leading to an expansion of knowledge and to a change
in the form of knowledge.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3155">Ubicación: Mi biblioteca.
:author: Zygmunt, Bauman
:title: La sociedad sitiada
:date: 2008 - Quinta Edición
:publication: Libro
:pages: 298
:url: none
:licence: copyright by Fondo de Cultura Económica
:editor: Fondo de Cultura Económica
:printed in: Buenos Aires
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3156"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3157">http://www.amazon.com/Cybernetics-Human-Knowing-Second-Order-Cyber-Semiotics/dp/0907845924/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3158"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3159">http://www.enolagaia.com/AT.html
@language rest
The Biology of Cognition, Autopoietic Theory, and Enactive Cognitive Science
The Theories of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela
Analyzing Essential Circularities Without Circular Reasoning
Hay un escrito introductorio en forma de tutorial. Empezar por ahí.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3160">http://archonic.net/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3161"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3162">
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3163"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3164">this study locates itself in the wake of what has often been characterized as the
“crisis” of postmodern theory, a crisis brought about by what Jean-François Lyotard,
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Gilles Deleuze, and other leading
theorists of “the postmodern condition” have characterized (to use Lyotard’s phrase)
as an “incredulity toward metanarratives.” According to Lyotard, whose work on
the postmodern may be taken as exemplary, this crisis is twofold. First, “to the ob-
solescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation corresponds, most notably,
the crisis of metaphysical philosophy” — that is, of the traditional philosophical and
critical paradigms of the Enlightenment and of the modern period generally (sub-
ject versus object, culture versus nature, organism versus environment, spirit versus
matter), which have historically enabled philosophy and cultural critique of either
the realist/materialist (Marx) or idealist (Descartes, Kant, Hegel) variety.1 Second —
and perhaps more important, depending on your view of the proper relationship of
philosophy and political practice — this crisis is anything but merely theoretical,
for, as Lyotard points out, the traditional philosophical paradigms and the metanar-
ratives they make possible provided the foundation for the political projects of moder-
nity, which base themselves on “the progressive emancipation of reason and free-
dom,” whether in the form of historical materialism, parliamentary liberalism, or in
other ways.2
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3165">intellectuals have found themselves faced with the following conundrum: On the
one hand, the critiques of the traditional philosophical paradigms of positivism, em-
piricism, and the like, which stress instead the contingency and social construction
of knowledge (pragmatism, poststructuralism, materialist feminism), would seem po-
litically promising because they hold out hope that a world contingently constructed
might also be differently (i.e., more justly) constructed. But, on the other hand, that
very constructivist account has left intellectuals seeking grounds for their own po-
litical practice without a foundation from which to assert the privilege of their own
positions. Having undercut the philosophical footing of those in power, contempo-
rary intellectuals find their own supposedly more progressive claims in danger as
well of being “just another” contingent (and, from a cynical point of view, self-serv-
ing) interpretation.
[...]
To which critics of postmodernism respond in turn that
these theorists cannot claim that such a breakdown of realism has taken place with-
out engaging in a self-refuting paradox; as one recent study puts it, *“How does one rule out categorical theories in principle without getting categorical? How does one universalize about theory’s inability to universalize?”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3166">What they overlook is that for both realism (and its extreme form, positivism)
and idealism (and its extreme form, relativism), “ ‘making true’ and ‘representing’
are reciprocal relations: the nonlinguistic item which makes S true is the one repre-
sented by S,” with the realist believing that “inquiry is a matter of finding out the
nature of something which lies outside the web of beliefs and desires,” and the ide-
alist holding that one can “derive the object’s determinacy and structure from that
of the subject” or, in more contemporary versions, from “mind” or “language” or
“interpretive communities” or “social practice” (ORT 4, 96, 5). The problem with
both of these positions, and with the representationalist frame in general — and here
postmodern theory would seem to coincide for once with our commonsensical in-
tuitions — is that
neither does thought determine reality nor, in the sense intended by the re-
alist, does reality determine thought. More precisely, it is no truer that “atoms
are what they are because we use ‘atom’ as we do” than that “we use ‘atom’
as we do because atoms are as they are.” Both of these claims, the antirepre-
sentationalist says, are entirely empty. (ORT 5)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3167">most of what is important in lifes is [...] ‘a social construction.’ ” As Taussig puts it, when theory came
to understand that “race or gender or nation . . . were so many social constructions,
inventions, and representations, a window was opened, an invitation to begin the
critical project of analysis and cultural reconstruction was offered.” But “what was
nothing more than an invitation, a preamble to investigation has, by and large, been
converted instead into a conclusion — e.g. ‘sex is a social construction,’ ‘race is a social
construction,’ ‘the nation is an invention,’ and so forth, the tradition of invention.”8
Taussig’s invocation of “the tradition of invention” is entirely to
the point, for, as Brian Massumi suggests, the hegemony of this sort of social con-
structionism has ironically created a situation in which “the classical definition of
the human as the rational animal returns in a new permutation: the human as the
chattering animal.” What started out as a revisionist theoretical program devoted to
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3168">that lends its name to my title: the problem of the “outside” of theory. Hence, the
double imperative of this study, the first more theoretical and indeed epistemologi-
cal in focus, the second more explicitly material and political: first, to explore how
the varieties of postmodern theory examined here (pragmatism, poststructuralism,
and systems theory) confront the specter of philosophical idealism and the “unfettered
anthropomorphism” that perpetuates it in theorizing their relation to an “outside,”
an object, or, if you like, a “real world” not wholly constituted by discourses, lan-
guage games, and interpretive communities; and second, to assess those confronta-
tions in light of an essentially pragmatic view of theory, one that constantly asks
what practical and material difference it makes, and to whom, how these fundamen-
tal epistemological problems are negotiated.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3169"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3170">For my purposes here, “pragmatism” may be characterized by
two main features: first, in epistemological terms, its resolute antifoundationalist and
antirepresentationalist stance, which eschews philosophy as a mode of “transcen-
dental inquiry”; and second, its relative instrumentalism and commitment to fore-
grounding the practical, material effects of thinking, its interest in what James called
“the cash value of thought.” Pragmatism is also distinguished — not only in Emer-
son, James, and Rorty, but also in Deleuze and in *Maturana and Varela* — by its in-
tegrationist and contextualist rather than atomistic and analytical approach, one that
holds that experience is rendered meaningful and coherent by organizing structures,
patterns, gestalts, or language games that are themselves denied any foundational
ontological status. Hence — and again this links both *systems theory* and *Deleuzian poststructuralism* rather directly with the *philosophy of James and Peirce* — pragmatism holds a particular theory of truth: an operationalism for which “Truth is
‘the successful working of an idea’ within a specific (and always limited) context.
Truth is verification in practice.” In view of the pragmatist impulse that stretches
from James to the poststructuralism of Deleuze, *the function of philosophy and theory is thus the creation of new concepts whose value is to be judged largely by their effects in a whole range of contexts*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3171">philosophy — or, as Heidegger might almost have put it, as unself-imposed.” And as
for the instrumentality of philosophy, it could be argued that pragmatism is in fact more committed in this regard than Marxism, simply because it is open to a wider range of instrumentalities than Marxism, which has typically maintained that commitment in the more narrow terms of the class struggle or the economic as such.
tem in large part from pragmatism’s characteristic posture ( (to use Rorty’s phrase) “we already have enough theory.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3172">of the picture from the outset those social others whose very otherness or differ-
ence might lead to the critical reassessment of the beliefs of the liberal ethnos. Hence,
these versions of mainstream American pragmatism give us no way to theorize the
productive and necessary relationship between antagonistic beliefs in the social sphere.
It is on the terrain of this last problem that both poststructuralism and systems
theory will take a decisive step beyond mainline American pragmatism — a step pred-
icated on the understanding that a philosophical commitment to theorizing the prag-
matics of contingency *needs more epistemology-centered philosophy, not less.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3173">As we will see in chapter 2, the priority of systems theory resides
in its pursuit, rather than “evasion,” of the problem of the contingency of knowl-
edge — a problem from which systems theory will attempt to derive a thoroughgo-
ing theoretical pluralism. In contemporary systems theory, the problems of circu-
larity, self-reference, and the unpredictable effects of recursivity serve as the keystone,
rather than the bête noire, for a pluralist theory of interpretation and observation.
Like Rorty, Niklas Luhmann stresses the contingency of interpretation (or “obser-
vation,” to use his term), but then takes a crucial additional step in arguing that all
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3174">observations are based on a constitutive distinction (between figure and ground,
say, or legal and illegal) that is paradoxical because it posits the identity of differ-
ence (the distinction between legal and illegal is itself made within the legal, i.e.,
within one side of the distinction). For Luhmann as for Humberto Maturana and
Francisco Varela, the only way to cut the “Gordian knot” of the realism/idealism
debate is to follow through to its conclusion the problem of contingency, to assert
that *“everything that is said is said by someone,”* and to then remember that all such
assertions are based on a “blind spot” of paradoxical distinction that not the ob-
server in question, but only other observers, can disclose (one cannot acknowledge
the paradoxical identity of legal and illegal, for example, and at the same time oper-
ate within the legal system; only another observation, made from another system,
can make such a critical observation). *Self-critical reflection is thus, strictly speaking, impossible, and must instead be distributed in the social field among what Luhmann calls a “plurality” of observers*. Thus, Luhmann — contra Rorty — derives from the
epistemologically tautological and self-referential status of any observation the ne-
cessity of the observations of others, thus installing the epistemological conditions of
possibility for an incipient pluralism at the heart of the foreclosed Rortyan “we.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3175">Like the theorists of social antagonism, Luhmann insists that such
“blockages,” “deadlocks,” or aporias do not impede but rather make possible a plural-
ist society; hence, a truly pluralist philosophy must be postmodernist in the sense
that it must avoid at all costs the quintessentially modernist and Enlightenment
strategy of reducing complexity in the name of social consensus.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3176">theory has its roots in American soil. But an even more important reason I include
it here is that the epistemological problems vigorously engaged by systems theory
across disciplinary lines (in biology, sociology, information engineering, and much
else) have, *in the humanities, been typically posed as problems of language or textuality*. It is precisely here, I think, that we should remember the sorts of admonitions about facile constructivism that we find in Taussig and Massumi, and remind our-
selves how often humanist theory has simplified itself — purified itself, as it were —
by positing a privileged relation of the human to either the presence or the absence
of language, the signifier, the phallus, the soul, reason, toolmaking, and so on. It is
here that attention to the encounters with the “outside” of theory in areas in like
cognitive science (instead of literary theory) and under the paradigm of “observa-
tion” (instead of interpretation) might prove useful in confronting the human sci-
ences with a disciplinary “outside” that might help reveal some of the humanities’
underexamined assumptions and procedures.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3177">In this light, we need to keep in mind that the “outside” of my
title refers not to ecology in the usual sense nor to “the Real” of psychoanalysis, but
rather to one side of the system/environment distinction, a distinction utilized not
only by systems that are either language- or text-based — that is to say, not only by
systems that are either human and/or humanist. This seems to me an especially dis-
tinctive and promising feature of systems theory, one that might more readily en-
gage the “hybrid” or “cyborg” networks of postmodernity (compellingly theorized
by Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, and others), which include all sorts of nonhu-
man agents and actors — a challenge to which the old ontological dualisms of sub-
ject/object, organism/machine, and so on would seem to be woefully inadequate.19
This crucial posthumanist dimension suggests the priority of systems theory not only
over deconstruction for “new social movements” such as ecology and animal rights,
but also over the theory of social antagonism as we find it in Ziˇ ek, which remains
ineluctably tied to the figure of the Human and the Oedipal (even if it reverses hu-
manism’s ethical valences).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3178">linguistic, or semiotic model distinguishes the work of Deleuze and Foucault from
other versions of poststructuralism. At the same time, however, a signal difference
between systems theory and poststructuralism is that the Achilles’ heel of the for-
mer has so far been its lack of a coherent account of its own ethical and political im-
plications, about which even its main practitioners (Maturana and Varela on the one
hand, and Luhmann on the other) would seem to be in utter disagreement, with
Luhmann often endorsing what amounts to a liberal technocratic functionalism not
very different from Rorty’s own, and Maturana and Varela espousing a suspiciously
humanist ethics that seems completely at odds with their posthumanist epistemo-
logical innovations. And even if we do not (and I think we should not) agree with
the garden variety ideological critiques of systems theory — that it is, as Peter Gali-
son puts it, “the apotheosis of behaviorism,” which makes “an angel of control and
a devil of disorder” — we are nevertheless forced to conclude that a serious short-
coming for systems theory has been its inability or unwillingness to confront the
problems of power and social inequality that belie its theory of the formal equiva-
lence and contingency of all observation, and often render such equivalence beside
the point; for, as Donna Haraway rightly reminds us, *observation “is always a question of the power to see.”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3179">”A commitment to confronting the dynamics of power and its relation to
multiplicity and difference is everywhere present, of course, in the work of
Foucault and Deleuze, and it is that unstinting interest that leads me to read them
as exemplary poststructuralists for the pragmatist orientation of this study. In my
view, Deleuze and Foucault not only may but must be read as distinctly postmodern
pragmatists who seek to theorize the relation between contingency, the “aleatory
Outside,” and what Deleuze finds in Foucault: *the possibility of “new coordinates for praxis.”* Once we have dispensed with Rorty’s (mis)reading of Foucault — which
hinges in no small part on its failure to understand the importance of what Foucault
characterizes as the “productivity” of power and the materiality of practice — we
can better see what joins Foucault with Deleuze: a commitment to an “ethics of
thought” that places a premium on the production of new concepts by means of the
*continual confrontation of thought with its own outside.*
And here, precisely, is where the prying open of pragmatism by
systems theory via a renewed interest in epistemological problems like *“the observation of observation”*
is joined not only by the theory of social antagonism, but
also by the work of Deleuze, which provides what is finally an ontology rather than
an epistemology of the conditions of possibility for democratic pluralism. As in sys-
tems theory’s vision of the distribution of observation in a horizontal, functionally
differentiated social space, Deleuze’s work, as Michael Hardt suggests, helps us *“develop a dynamic conception of democratic society as open, horizontal, and collective,”*
as *“a continual process of composition and decomposition through social encounters on an immanent field of forces.”* As we shall see, the aim of Deleuze’s meta-
physics is not to discover a resting place for thought or existence, but rather to open
up this field of forces to analysis toward thoroughly pragmatic ends. The political
dimension or “relevance” of Deleuze’s thought, which often seems oblique, resides
in no small part in its refusal to see its vocation as providing “grounds” or “frames”
or “foundations” for a particular practice. *Deleuze’s thinking is concerned instead with the conditions and dynamics under which specific forms of resistance are possible in the ongoing struggle between hegemonic social cartographies or “diagrams” and their own outsides.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3180">traditional Marxism has often discounted as “epiphenomenal” or “diversionary.” For
Deleuze, what the events of May 1968 in France demonstrated was the inability of
traditional frames of the theory/praxis relation to understand that the truly revolu-
tionary political potential of the moment lay beyond the strict domain of the class
contradictions of capitalism. What is invaluable for pragmatist theory about Deleuze’s
work, in other words, is its recognition of the *crucial micropolitical dimension of capitalist culture* — a recognition shared even more pronouncedly in Foucault’s articulation
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3181">Similarly, what Foucault characterizes as the *“ethics of thought”* is
a *“constant ‘civil disobedience’ within our constituted experience,”* as
John Rajchman characterizes it, one that “directs our at-
tention to the very concrete *freedom of writing, thinking and living in a permanent questioning of those systems of thought and problematic forms of experience in which we find ourselves.*”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3182">least in what Deleuze theorizes as “the fold” — a difficult and ambitious figure that
attempts, through a topographical treatment, to make good on the impulse at work
in systems theory: to see the outside not as a naturally given ground or totality, but
as the outside of the inside. Unlike systems theory’s handling of the problem, how-
ever, Deleuze’s fold crucially reverses this orientation and pursues the inside as “the
inside of the outside,” a reorientation that is symptomatic of Deleuze’s final com-
mitment to ontology and the univocity of being, rather than (as in systems theory)
to epistemology and difference. The Deleuzian fold would suture closed with onto-
logical substance, as it were, the open space or vacuum between points, observations,
and, finally, between the inside and outside that systems theory attempts to leave
open.
Comentarios
===========
Este concepto no me queda claro. Necesito interlocutores y guías al respecto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3183">We must opt instead, I argue, for what Kenneth Burke calls a
“comic perspective” on the relationship between a theoretical commitment to con-
tingency, difference, and “permanent critique” on the one hand, and a political com-
mitment to material and social praxis on the other, with each serving as the other’s
“bad conscience” in a ceaseless, democratically productive antagonism. The comic
frame, according to Burke, *“considers human life as a project in ‘composition,’ ”one that offers “maximum opportunity for the resources of criticism”; it should “enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting,”* and push the thinking subject
to “ ‘transcend’ himself by noting his own foibles.” *The comic frame does not provide a “ground” or “foundation” for praxis but only “damage control” for praxis,*
which is always reductive of difference (or, in systems theory language, of an outside
environment that is always already more complex than the system itself). But the
Burkean “comic” attitude in and of itself, of course, is not enough, because express-
ing the desirability of open-mindedness or self-criticalness is not, by a long shot,
the same as having a rigorous and coherent theoretical account of that desirability’s neces-
sity. Whether or not the “comic attitude” constitutes a distinctly “postmodern” so-
lution to the relationship between theory and politics — and how that solution re-
lates to the problem of increasingly globalized capitalism — is an issue on which
major theorists such as Jameson and Luhmann disagree. But we need both, I think —
and their disagreement — to provide a theoretically compelling and politically re-
sponsive account of our contemporary situation.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3184"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3185"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3186">thinking as “finding” rather than the “founding” of foundational philosophy.
I should like to suggest here is that both these view are mistaken because
the model they hold in common is mistaken. Our beliefs are not obstacles
between us and meaning, they are what make meaning possible in the first
place. Meaning is not filtered through what we believe, it is constituted by
what we believe. (780)
of “Against Theory”) that “it does not make sense to say that you choose to be-
lieve anything at all.” This is so, he argues, because the epistemological freedom
required by the category of “choice” is fundamentally at odds with the epistemological compulsion named by the category of “belief.” Michaels’s version of the paradox goes like this: if you are free enough from assumptions and beliefs to make a choice that is truly a free choice, then you are by that same logic unable to make any choice at all because you will have no criteria on which to base that choice. Conversely, if you do possess the necessary criteria to make such a choice, then it will no longer be a free choice at all, but rather an action compelled and produced by those Pragmatism beliefs and assumptions that provided the criteria for choosing in the first place
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3187">rather is the condition of his existence.”6 And “the naturalist logic,” it turns out, is
the same logic that constitutes the economic totality called “the market,” which, in
its all-constituting power, resists all attempts to ameliorate or temper it. In fact (as
practiced readers of New Historicism will have already guessed), Michaels suggests
that such attempts only serve to siphon off or neutralize potentially explosive (per-
haps even revolutionary) desire and discontent, thereby further reinforcing the dom-
inance of the market and extending its logic even more insidiously into incompletely
colonized enclaves of social life. In Michaels’s reading, the subject is not what makes
the market and its fundamental structures possible (the exchange principle, for in-
stance), but is rather an effect and expression of the market. And this leads Michaels,
in turn, to suggest that we abandon the concept of ideology as a critical tool and re-
place it with the concept of “belief” (a suggestion we will take up in more detail
shortly).
[...]
It is this internal difference that sets going the “logic of natural-
ism” by which the self seeks to escape the market and the ceaselessly self-reproducing play of exchange by clinging “to definitions of texts, selves, or money,” in Evan
Carton’s words, “as stable and essential quantities.” *The fundamental instability of the market creates a self who therefore has, as Michaels puts it, “an insatiable appetite for representation” (GS 19), which manifests itself in the belief that gold is the site of natural economic value, the text is the site of stable inherent meaning apprehended by the critic’s adequated critique, and the subject is the site of inalienable self-possession and free self-proprietorship.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3188">But, in Michaels’s view, this unstable desire, far from destabiliz-
ing the system, only serves further to perpetuate it, because desire is “not subversive of the capitalist economy but constitutive of its power”</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3189">To put it another way, “desire,” like “belief,” offers no means in Michaels’s
critique by which the self might be anything other than a purely reproductive agent
of the market and its logic. It is clear from this vantage why the promise of a prag-
matist micropolitics, more than hinted at in “Saving the Text,” will remain unful-
filled in Michaels’s later work: there is simply nothing for it to do.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3190">From this vantage point, James’s attempt to save the self from
the brutalities of the early modern American variety of capitalism — with its Tay-
lorization, its imperialist incursions in both Atlantic and Pacific, and its “abstrac-
tion” and “rationalization” (as James liked to call it) of cultural and intellectual life —
turns out to be an unwitting repetition and indeed an insidious internalization of
that very social and economic totality. Far from providing a stay against alienation
and ruthless competitive individualism, James’s Lockean property model of selfhood
guarantees it, because freedom on this model is the right to dispose of and enjoy
the property of the self, its capacities and potentialities (including, of course, its
labor power), as one wishes — a freedom that cannot help but be limited and threat-
ened, however, by other self-proprietors who are trying to achieve the same sort of
freedom. All of which is simply to grant the classic Marxist critique: that insofar as
the self is conceived as a kind of private property, I will alienate and threaten your
freedom insofar as I realize my own, and vice versa.16
[...]
“It seems,” James writes, “as if the elementary psychic fact were not thought
or this thought or that thought but my thought, every thought being owned.” “In the
widest possible sense,” James continues, “a man’s self is the sum total of all that he can call
his.” Like Michaels, Lentricchia recognizes that James’s “overt commitment to
the inalienable private property of selfhood . . . is an inscription of a contradiction at
the very heart of capitalism” — namely, that property “can be property only if it is
alienable,” and that a self so conceived, therefore, is perforce an alienated self.
[...]
For Lentricchia, James’s discursive complicity
with the system is only one component of a larger project for social change, an un-
dertaking that, being quintessentially pragmatist, is willing to use all that there is to
use — including (especially) the politically powerful means of rhetorical identification.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3191">mogenization of the social space in his reading of James’s discursive complicity.“To attempt to proceed in purity,” Lentricchia writes, “— to reject the rhetorical
strategies of capitalism and Christianity, as if such strategies were in themselves respon-
sible for human oppression — to proceed with the illusion of purity is to situate oneself
on the margin of history. . . . It is to exclude oneself from having any chance of mak-
ing a difference for better or for worse”
Burke writes — in a wonderful meditation on what he calls the “unintended by-products” of abstract concepts — “would note how the
particular choice of materials and methods in which to embody the ideal gives rise
to conditions somewhat at variance with the spirit of the ideal,”
*Does the world rise or fall in value when any particular belief is let loose in the world?”* (“Philosophers of Modernism” 805).
For Lentricchia, this is James’s “most unsettling insight: that a rigorous philosophy of
practice and consequences cannot in advance secure consequences without estab-
lishing precisely the sort of imperial authority. . . which that philosophy is dedicated
to undermining.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3192">”For West, the essence of Jamesian pragmatism is its revisability; its first principle, in West’s
words, is that *“the universe is incomplete, the world is still ‘in the making’ owing to the impact of human powers on the universe and the world”*. For West as for Lentricchia, Jamesian pragmatism insists on the gap between concept construction
on specific discursive sites and concept circulation in a broader set of contexts, and
it is in that gap that the possibility of the social and the historical resides.
All of which seems to raise for a pragmatist critique two opposite
problems, which are nevertheless inextricably linked. On the one hand, this posi-
tion seems to tell us that knowledge in the pragmatist sense is so deferred, dis-
persed, and contingent that it is hard to see how we can we reflect in any meaning-
ful way not so much on what we think, but rather (as Michaels might phrase it) on
what what we think does. On the other hand, the primacy of pragmatist agency would
seem to imply that we can know, in a fairly direct and precise way, exactly what we
are doing (hence we can, in Burkean good faith, rhetorically enlist support for it).
James’s pragmatic theory of truth “preserves a realist ontology” even as it “rejects all forms of foundationalism”
In James’s words, “with some such reality any statement, in order to be counted true, must
agree” (quoted in West, The American Evasion of Philosophy 64). At the same time,
In Lentricchia’s reading of James, it is as if theory and practice
are engaged in a never-ending battle on the terrain of belief.
flounder on one of James’s strongest insights — that theory cannot be iden-
tified with agency and the self-conscious individual [and so cannot be re-
jected in the sense of “Against Theory”], that theory is the sort of force that
tends to control individuals by speaking through them. And so does James. . . .
*The epistemological move to generalization may well be an “appetite of the mind”* . . . [b]ut the economic and political move to generalize — the global
generalization of labor known as capitalism — is not an unhistorical appetite;
it is a locatable, historical phenomenon whose role tends to be blurred and
repressed by James’s liberal ideology of the autonomous self.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3193">“that the philosophical tradition which stems from Plato is an attempt to
avoid facing up to contingency, to escape from time and chance,”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3194">psychoanalysis and feminist film theory.29 In Rorty’s seminal Philosophy and the Mirror
of Nature we find, as Cornel West puts it, *“a wholesale rejection of ocular metaphors in epistemology”*; “The picture which holds traditional philosophy captive,”
Rorty writes in that text,
is that of the mind as a great mirror, containing various representations —
some accurate, some not — and capable of being studied by pure, nonem-
pirical methods. Without the notion of mind as mirror, the notion of knowl-
edge as accuracy of representation would not have suggested itself. Without
this latter notion, the strategy common to Descartes and Kant — getting
more accurate representations by inspecting, repairing, and polishing the
mirror, so to speak — would not have made sense.
[...]
*“our only usable notion of ‘objectivity’ is ‘agreement’ rather than mirroring”* (PMN 191).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3195">In his most recent work, Rorty has extended and refined this critique of representa-
tionalism and realism: of the former’s assumption that “ ‘making true’ and ‘repre-
senting’ are reciprocal relations: the nonlinguistic item which makes S true is the
one represented by S”; and of the latter’s “idea that inquiry is a matter of finding
out the nature of something which lies outside the web of beliefs and desires,” in
which “the object of inquiry — what lies outside the organism — has a context of its
own, a context which is privileged by virtue of being the object’s rather than the in-
quirer’s” (ORT 4, 96). Instead, Rorty argues, we should reduce this desire for objec-
tivity to a search for “solidarity” and embrace a philosophical holism of the sort
found in Dewey, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, which holds that “words take their
meanings from other words rather than by virtue of their representative character”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3196">“How does one rule out categorical theories in principle without getting cat-
egorical? How does one universalize about theory’s inability to universalize?”31 This
epistemological objection often leads, in turn, to the sort of sweeping political de-
duction we find exemplified by the Marxian theorist Norman Geras: “If there is no
truth, there is no injustice. Stated less simplistically, if truth is wholly relativized or
internalized to particular discourses or language games or social practices, there is
no injustice. . . . Morally and politically, therefore, anything goes.”
[...]
it is not clear why “relativist” should be thought an appropriate term . . .
[f]or the pragmatist is not holding a positive theory of truth which says that
something is relative to something else. He is, instead, making the purely
negative point that we should drop the traditional distinction between knowl-
edge and opinion, construed as the distinction between truth as correspon-
dence to reality and truth as a commendatory term for well-justified be-
liefs. . . . [W]hen the pragmatist says that there is nothing to be said about
truth save that each of us will commend as true those beliefs which he or
she finds good to believe, the realist is inclined to interpret this as one more
positive theory about the nature of truth: a theory according to which truth
is simply the contemporary opinion of a chosen individual or group. Such a
theory would, of course, be self-refuting. But the pragmatist does not have a
theory of truth, much less a relativistic one. As a partisan of solidarity, his
account of the value of cooperative human inquiry has only an ethical base,
not an epistemological or metaphysical one.
Rorty’s Deweyan reduction of objectivity to solidarity provides the ethical basis for
the pragmatist’s Wittgensteinian epistemology, which insists that “it is contexts all
the way down,” that “we can only inquire after things under description,” and that
“ ‘grasping the thing itself’ is not something that precedes contextualization, but is
at best a focus imaginarius”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3197">It would appear, then, that for Rorty, as for Michaels, the “out-
side” of belief or description (what used to be called the “referent”) is always al-
ready inside, insofar as meaning (to borrow once again Michaels’s formulation) is
not filtered through what we believe, but is rather constituted by what we believe.
The problem with this position, however, is that it immediately raises the suspicion,
as Rorty recognizes, that “antirepresentationalism is simply transcendental idealism
in linguistic disguise . . . one more version of the Kantian attempt to derive the ob-
ject’s determinacy and structure from that of the subject” (ORT 4). Critics of anti-
representationalism imagine “some mighty immaterial force called ‘mind’ or ‘lan-
guage’ or ‘social practice’ . . . which shapes facts out of indeterminate goo”; and so,
Sellars and Davidson, Rorty writes that “what shows us that life is not just a dream,
that our beliefs are in touch with reality, is the causal, non-intentional, non-repre-
sentational, links between us and the rest of the universe” (ORT 159). The pragma-
tist “believes, as strongly as does any realist, that there are objects which are causally
independent of human beliefs and desires” (ORT 101); she “recognizes relations of
Pragmatism
justification holding between beliefs and desires, and relations of causation holding
between those beliefs and desires and other items in the universe, but no relations
of representation” (ORT 97)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3198">Rorty’s pragmatist and Jamesian point is that there is nothing to stop you, on
purely epistemological grounds, from believing whatever you like, but that belief itself
will have consequences because it is subject to “pressure from the outside.” This is
the sense, I think, of Donald Davidson’s assertion, which Rorty quotes approvingly,
that *“most of our beliefs are true” — because we are still around to talk about them!*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3199">Rorty’s specifically pragmatist intervention here, then, is that
the imperative to theory, to reflection on belief, derives not from an essentialist
“appetite of the mind” (to use James’s phrase), nor from a desire for transcendence
in either its realist or idealist incarnation (as the Knapp and Michaels critique of
theory would have it), *but rather from the strategic, adaptive, pragmatic value of theory that any act of intellection will ignore only at its own peril*. One might well insist, with James, that the desire to theorize is “characteristically human,” but “this
would be like saying,” Rorty writes, *“that the desire to use an opposable thumb remains characteristically human. We have little choice but to use that thumb, and little choice but to employ our ability to recontextualize”* (ORT 110). Thus, *the pragmatist “takes off from Darwin rather than from Descartes,* from beliefs as adaptations to the environment rather than as quasi-pictures”; *he thinks “of linguistic behavior as tool-using, of language as a way of grabbing hold of causal forces and making them do what we want, altering ourselves and our environment to suit our aspirations”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3200">is to modulate philosophical debate from a methodologico-ontological key
into an ethico-political key. For now one is debating what purposes are worth
bothering to fulfill, which are more worthwhile than others, rather than which
purposes the nature of humanity or of reality obliges us to have. For antiessen-
tialists, all possible purposes compete with one another on equal terms, since
none are more “essentially human” than others.
[...]
What Rorty does not recognize, in other words, is that there is a fun-
damental contradiction between his putative desire to extend liberal advantages to
an ever larger community, and the fact that those advantages are possible for some
only because they are purchased at the expense of others. As Nancy Fraser puts it,
the problem with “the communitarian comfort of a single ‘we’ ” is that
Rorty homogenizes social space, assuming tendentiously that there are no
deep social cleavages capable of generating conflicting solidarities and op-
posing “we’s.” It follows from this assumed absence of fundamental social
antagonisms that politics is a matter of everyone pulling together to solve a
common set of problems. Thus, social engineering can replace political struggle.
*Disconnected tinkerings with a succession of allegedly discrete social problems can replace transformation of the basic institutional structure.*
Rorty constantly invokes the liberal intellectual’s dedication to ex-
panding the range of democratic privileges, freedoms, and values, but what becomes
clear in his recent work is that such an expansion can take place *only after the democratic ethnos has been purified of the sort of dissent it needs to encourage.*
problem with Rorty’s “partition position,” as she calls it, is twofold: first, “the social
movements of the last hundred or so years have taught us to see the power-laden,
and therefore political, character of interactions that classical liberalism considered
private” (*as in feminism’s well-known shibboleth “the personal is the political”*);
<-- ¿es acá donde está lo micropolítico?
But what is even clearer is that Rortyan pragmatism, as
Cornel West puts it, “though pregnant with possibilities . . . refuses to give birth to
the offspring it conceives. Rorty leads philosophy to the complex world of politics
and culture, but confines his engagement to transformation in the academy and to
apologetics for the modern West” (206–7). In the end, then, representationalism is
undone on the philosophical level in Rorty’s pragmatism, but only to reemerge in
more powerful and insidious form on the plane of the political.
Rortyan pragmatism, in other words, expresses a desire for alterity but is unable
to provide an adequate theory of that alterity’s necessity.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3201"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3202">“what would happen to philosophy if we took the search for foundations from it
and replaced it with the search for finding oneself?”50 In this light, Cavell’s version
of pragmatism is even more firmly within the purview of humanism than Rorty’s.
But Cavell’s humanism is, as we shall see, of a rather unusual, self-deconstructing
sort, concerned as it is to bring to light not an unchanging human essence but rather
a dynamic, “homeless” self of “transience” and “onwardness,” a self that consists (or
maybe “subsists”) in always leaving itself behind.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3203">We can grasp more fully the importance of Cavell’s reading of
Emerson by briefly situating it in immediate critical context. The central interest,
and the political promise, of Cavell’s Emerson is that he offers an exemplary attempt
to think through — but also to own, own up to — the necessity of selfhood without
specifying, in a reductive or absolutist way, the contents of that selfhood. In doing so,
Cavell would seem to agree with deconstruction that unreconstructed concepts of
the subject of Marxian or feminist stripe are unacceptably totalizing in their reduc-
tion of the full complexity of the subject in the name of class or gender.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3204">In what Cavell playfully calls “the story of the discovery of the individual,”
Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” constitutes an important revision,
in the light of skepticism, of the Cartesian cogito. The central fact of what Cavell
calls the Cartesian “proof” of selfhood is the “discovery that my existence requires,
hence permits, proof (you might say authentication) — more particularly, requires
that if I am to exist I must name my existence, acknowledge it” (Quest 106). From
this vantage, Emerson’s allusion to Descartes in “Self-Reliance” assumes new sig-
nificance: “Man is timid and apologetic,” Emerson writes; “he is no longer upright;
he dares not say ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage.” For Cavell, the
power and rigor of Emerson’s revision of the Cartesian proof of selfhood is that it
“goes the whole way with Descartes’s insight” by continuing to require the proof of
selfhood without allowing us to rely on a preexistent, “quotable” content to under-
write the proof. The “beauty” of Emerson’s answer to Descartes, Cavell continues,
lies in its weakness (you may say its emptiness) — indeed, in two weaknesses.
First, it does not prejudge what the I or self or mind or soul may turn out to
be, but only specifies a condition that whatever it is must meet. Second, the
proof only works in the moment of its giving, for what I prove is the existence
only of a creature who can enact its existence, as exemplified in actually giv-
ing the proof, not one who at all times does in fact enact it. The transience
of the existence it proves and the transience of its manner of proof seem in
the spirit of the Meditations. . . . Only in the vanishing presence of such ideas
does proof take effect — as if there were nothing to rely on but reliance it-
self.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3205">But as persuasive and appealing as Cavell’s reading of Emerson-
ian individualism is, it is difficult to see how such a self could ever engage in social
and political praxis — that is, in the directed transformation of the social and mater-
ial conditions of freedom.
[...]
he will only go so far as to say that “For Emerson, as for Kant, putting the philo-
sophical intellect into practice remains a question for philosophy” (95). For Cavell,
[...]
individual’s ethical relationship to it. For Emerson, the material character of social
actions and forms renders them always epiphenomena of the subject, whose project
of edification they can serve or express but never determine.
For Cavell too, the value of action is not that it has real effects
on the shared, material world of others, but rather that it always returns to the self
as a “resource” in an essentially isolate journey of moral perfectionism.
[...]
the mood of the one prepared to be useful to the world is different from that of the
one prepared to adapt to it. . . . The existence of one of these worlds of life depends
on our finding ourselves there” (This New 96). Yes, but only if the exteriority and
materiality of practice, its “world,” is simply a negative moment in a fundamentally
private, individual drama. In which case, we are forced to say — borrowing Emer-
son’s phrase in “Compensation” — that all actions finally are “indifferent.”
<--
In “Self-Reliance,” Cavell writes, Emerson tells us in so many words that
“politics ought to have provided conditions for companionship, call it fraternity;
but the price of companionship has been the suppres-
sion, not the affirmation, of otherness, that is to say, of difference and sameness,
call these liberty and equality. A mission of Emerson’s thinking is never to let poli-
tics forget this” (Quest 119). This seems to me perfectly accurate in its account of
the negative, critical power of Emerson’s defense of difference, freedom, and all
that he means when he writes “Whim.” But the larger point here is that Emerson’s
vision of freedom is so pure that it prevents political praxis and collective action in
its antinomian insistence that the fluid “active soul” be true only to itself, above all
compromise, beyond all cooperation. This is the Emerson who calls on us to *“shun father and mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me,”*
<-- El peligro de todo intelectual: desconectarse del mundo en busca de una verdad trascendente.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3206">“that the world exists as it were for its own reasons” </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3207">According to Cavell, Emerson after Nature does not work around Kant but rather
works through him; he takes the claims of skepticism more seriously than Kant
himself did by turning the Kantian position back upon itself and subjecting the very
terms of Kant’s argument to transcendental deduction. What Kant conceived as a
problem of thinking and philosophy, Emerson will confront more rigorously as a
problem of language and writing as well, so that the “stipulations or terms under
which we can say anything at all to one another” will themselves be subjected to
scrutiny (This New 81).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3208">Emerson characterizes it this way in the late essay “Fate”: “Intel-
lect annuls fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free.” “This apparently genteel thought,”
Cavell writes, “now turns out to mean that . . . our antagonism to fate, to which we
are fated, and in which our freedom resides, is as a struggle with the language we
emit, of our character with itself”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3209">After all, what a curious — and curiously self-defeating — formulation
this is: if you can imagine Utopia, then the justice of the present society is “good
enough.” And if it is not good enough, then recourse to the Utopian ideal is not
available to you. In which case, we are forced to say that if Utopia must be a version
of, a perfection of, presently existing society, and not a break or rupture from it,
then who needs Utopia anyway? One would have thought that the necessity and
power of Utopian thought was that it challenged, rather than took for granted, the
assumption that we exist in a world of “good enough justice.”
[...]
Is philosophy, as Emerson calls for it . . . an evasion of actual justice? . . . I
think sometimes of Emerson, in his isolation, throwing words into the air,
as aligned with the moment at which Socrates in the Republic declares that
the philosopher will participate only in the public affairs of the just city,
even if this means that he can only participate in making — as he is now do-
ing — a city of words.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3210">But one need only register the point that all “voices” —
even in a society with “good enough justice” — do not enter
the “conversation” of justice with the same sort of power, authority, and resources
to make themselves heard and binding. Such “voicing” — the democratic rationale
for moral perfectionism — is enabled or compromised by goods and resources that
are not equally or evenly distributed. Cavell’s vision of moral perfectionism and the
conversation of justice is thus blind to the real inequality of goods and the power they
confer — call them the resources of voicing — in the realm of everyday material life
by telling us that freedom to enter the conversation of justice and the project of
democracy is shared equally by all in the realm of ideas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3211">freely acknowledges, “to think about the structural relationships of epistemology
with economy, of knowing with owning and possessing as the basis of our relation
with things” (This New 104). But when we do pursue that invitation — as the perva-
sive rhetoric of property in the Emersonian text everywhere compels us to — we
find that, here again, Emerson does not so much question the constitution of the
self by the logic of property, the construction of “am” by “have,” but rather con-
firms it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3212">is a product of the simple fact of scarcity. As Perry Anderson reminds us, “ut-
terance has no material constraint whatever: words are free, in the double sense of
the term. They cost nothing to produce, and can be multiplied and manipulated at
will, within the laws of meaning. All other major social practices are subject to the
laws of natural scarcity: persons, goods or powers cannot be generated ad libitum and
ad infinitum.”70
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3213">If selfhood is conceived in terms of self-possession of one’s own person, capacities, and energies, then the self’s
freedom, as C. B. McPherson puts it in his classic account, consists in its “right to
enjoy them and use them and to exclude others from them; what is more, it is this
property, this exclusion of others, that makes a man human.” As Marx character-
izes it, this type of individual will see in others “not the realization but the limitation
of his own freedom,” because freedom for such a self means the right “to enjoy and
dispose of one’s resources as one wills.”73 All of which seems to be borne out by the
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3214"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3215">phase of Michel Foucault’s career, whose “genealogical” aim is to “account for the
constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc., without having to
make reference to a subject which is either transcendental in relation to the field of
events or runs in empty sameness throughout the course of history” by virtue of
his — and it must be “his” — privileged relation to either the presence or the absence
of the phallus, language, the symbolic, property, productive capacity, toolmaking,
reason, or a soul.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3216">logue, presence to oneself, intersubjectivity.” As Latour recognizes, posthumanist
theory cannot proceed simply by historicizing the human; instead, he argues, “we
first have to relocate the human, to which humanism does not render sufficient jus-
tice.” And in this project of relocation, historical and dialectical means of resituat-
ing the human are not enough.
[...]
theorists have recognized that Marxism’s liberation of “the total life of the individ-
ual” (to borrow Marx’s phrase from The German Ideology) is purchased at the ex-
pense of its brutal objectification of nature and the nonhuman — a dynamic deeply
symptomatic, in turn, of its Enlightenment inheritance that imagines that man-the-
producer liberates himself insofar as he fully exploits and raises himself above that
object and resource called “nature.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3217">As Foucault remarks in an early essay, “dialectics does not liberate differences; it guarantees, on the contrary,
that they can always be recaptured. The dialectical sovereignty of similarity consists
in permitting differences to exist, but always under the sign of the negative, as an
instance of non-being.”7
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3218">taken the conceptualization of humanist subjectivity at its word and then shown
how humanism must, if rigorously pursued, generate its own deconstruction, once
the traditional marks of the human (reason, language, tool use) are found beyond
the species barrier. Donna Haraway summarizes many of these developments in her
groundbreaking “A Cyborg Manifesto.” “By the late twentieth century in United
States scientific culture,” she writes,
the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached. The last
beachheads of uniqueness have been polluted, if not turned into amusement
parks — language, tool use, social behavior, mental events. Nothing really
convincingly settles the separation of human and animal. . . . Movements for
animal rights are not irrational denials of human uniqueness; they are clear-
sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach of nature
and culture.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3219">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3220">us, most unmistakably in the sciences, technology, and medicine. Haraway has ar-
gued as forcefully as anyone that our current moment is irredeemably posthumanist
because of the boundary breakdowns between animal and human, organism and
machine, and the physical and the nonphysical (“Manifesto” 151–55) — a triple hy-
bridity that we can find readily exemplified any evening on cable television, as in a
recent program on the U.S. Navy’s Marine Mammal project, in which highly trained
bottlenose dolphins (human/animal) are fitted with video apparatuses (organism/
machine) to locate underwater objects and beam their location back on the Carte-
sian grid of satellite mapping (physical/nonphysical).
a cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the
planet. . . . From another perspective, a cyborg world might be about lived
social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kin-
ship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities
and contradictory standpoints. The political struggle is to see from both
perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities
unimaginable from the other vantage point. (“Manifesto” 154)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3221">But if the modernist constitutional separation of
human and nonhuman has the practical advantage of allowing the proliferation of
hybrid networks, it also has the pragmatic drawback (as the strategy of repression
always does) of ill equipping contemporary society to explore in a thoughtful way
how its relations to and in hybrid networks should be lived.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3222">“The political task starts up again, at a new cost, It has been necessary to modify the fabric of our
collectives from top to bottom in order to absorb the citizen of the eighteenth cen-
tury and the worker of the nineteenth. We shall have to transform ourselves just as
thoroughly in order to make room, today, for the nonhumans created by science
and technology,” for “so long *as humanism is constructed through contrast with the object that has been abandoned to epistemology, neither the human nor the nonhuman can be understood”*
Most important obligations and passions in the world are unchosen; “choice”
has always been a desperately inadequate political metaphor for resisting
domination and for inhabiting a livable world. Interpellation is not about
choice; it is about insertion. . . . If technological products are cultural actors,
and if “we,” whoever that problematic invitation to inhabit a common space
might include, are technological products at deeper levels than we have yet
comprehended, then what kind of cultural action will forbid the evolution
of OncoMouse™ into Man™?
Donna Haraway
:etiquetas: exadoc</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3223">[I Disagree by all] means [that] we should redouble our commitment to what Harding has called “strong ob-
jectivity” — a leaner if not meaner scientific method that would “identify and elimi-
nate distorting social interests and values from the results of research” by “system-
atically examining all of the social values shaping a particular research process.”
The problem with Harding’s position, of course, is that it assumes that there is some
space from which to survey our “social interests and values” without at the same
time being bound by those interests and values — a space, in other words, of non-
contingent observation, a place where one can tally up all of the “blind spots” with-
out having that tally compromised, rendered less than “objective,” by its own blind
spot. Even if Harding wants to break with an “absolute” sense of objectivity that
presumes what Richard Rorty calls “a God’s-eye standpoint,” a “view from nowhere,”
she does so only to rely on a “procedural” form of objectivity that assumes that the
chaff of “distorting social interests and values” can be objectively separated from
the wheat of nondistorting ones.15 And when one asks, “distorting in relation to what"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3224">Harding’s “strong objectivity” is in the end just a form of “weak repre-
sentationalism” — representationalism with apologies, as it were — because, in say-
ing “that different perceiving organisms simply have different perspectives on the
world,” it “continues to treat the world as pregiven; it simply allows that this pre-
given world can be viewed from a variety of vantage points.”
These difficulties are symptomatic of the essential fallacy at work
in the assumption, to borrow Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s characterization,
that objectivism is wrong when practiced by the wrong people for the wrong
reasons, but right when practiced by the right people for the right reasons:
specifically, that objectivist arguments are culpably “authoritarian” when
they issue from powerful agents attempting to justify their own self-interested
actions, but laudably “critical” when they issue from disinterested agents
exposing the unjust acts of powerful people against subordinated people.
Such distinctions, however, are impossible to maintain either theoretically
or practically.
[...]
To put it another way, Harding’s polemical/political project wants to open up sci-
ence as an institution to social representation, but her theoretical and epistemologi-
cal premium on “objectivity” — in separating social interests and values from the
objects of research, in separating distorting from nondistorting values — only rein-
forces the disciplinary insularity of science as a discursive community from the rest
of social discourse.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3225">rejecting realism is the same thing as rejecting everything that realists think is real”. As
we have already seen, the pragmatist, as Rorty explains, “believes, as strongly as
does any realist, that there are objects which are causally independent of human be-
liefs and desires”, but in granting this “causal stubbornness” to the
world she does not grant the “real” or the “object” “an intentional stubbornness, an
insistence on being described in a certain way, its own way”.
[...]
The pragmatic critique, then, does not say that the “real world” does not exist, that
there is no such thing as a “fact,” or that we can blithely falsify the data as we go
along. It simply means that we should jettison the epistemological pretensions that
want to ground certain practices and values in “objectivity” and ground them in-
stead in whether or not they work, as agents of adaptation to an environment, for
contingent, revisable purposes. Thus, “from a pragmatist point of view,” Rorty writes,
to say that what is rational for us now to believe may not be true, is simply
to say that somebody may come up with a better idea. It is to say that there
is always room for improved belief, since new evidence, or new hypotheses,
or a whole new vocabulary, may come along. For pragmatists the desire for
objectivity is not the desire to escape the limitations of one’s community,
but simply the desire for as much intersubjective agreement as possible.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3226">Facts are hybrid entities; that is, the causes of the assertability of sentences
include both physical stimuli and our antecedent choice of response to such
stimuli. To say that we must have respect for the facts is just to say that we
must, if we are to play a certain language game, play by the rules. To say
that we must have respect for unmediated causal forces is pointless. It is like
saying that the blank must have respect for the impressed die. The blank
has no choice, and neither do we. (ORT 81)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3227">Science, on this view, is privileged not because of its representational
transparency to the real, but rather because it works. And this
fact, in turn — despite the realist attempt to use science’s effectivity as evidence of
the freedom of science’s truth claims from the arena of social power and political
rhetoric — only foregrounds the imbrication of science in that very arena, for the
question we then must ask is, “works for whom, for what purposes?” In this context,
it makes sense, of course, that feminist philosophy of science would want to trade
upon the considerable rhetorical power of “objectivity” to affect social and institu-
tional change. But the problem, as we have seen, is that these claims for “objectiv-
ity” are made not within a rhetorical, political frame.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3228">una descripción que hubiera podido hacerse de otra forma</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3229">In the meantime, to avoid constantly undercutting their politi-
cal critique with an epistemology ill equipped to serve it, when Haraway in “Situ-
ated Knowledges” says “objectivity” she should instead say what she really means,
which is “situatedness” and “responsibility,” and when Harding says “objectivity”
she should instead just say “democracy” and “representation of marginalized voices.”
This will be difficult for feminist philosophy of science to do, because it is, after all,
philosophy of science. But once it has affected this disengagement, it will have much
to teach pragmatists like Rorty, whose complacent ethnocentrism, as we have al-
ready seen, needs to be confronted with the more muscular pragmatism that is alive
and well in Haraway, Harding, and Fox Keller,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3230"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3231">:etiquetas: exadoc
In light of the posthumanist imperative I have been invoking thus far, systems theory
has much to offer, I believe, as a general theoretical orientation. Unlike feminist
philosophy of science, it does not cling to debilitating representationalist notions.
And unlike Enlightenment humanism in general, its formal descriptions of complex,
recursive systems are not grounded in the figure of “Man” and in the dichotomy of
human and nonhuman. Indeed, in light of the posthumanist context I have sketched
here, the signal virtue of systems theory is, as Dietrich Schwanitz puts it, that it has
*“progressively undermined the royal prerogative of the human subject to assume the exclusive and privileged title of self-referentiality (in the sense of recursive knowledge about knowledge).” The promise and power of systems theory reside not only in its posthumanism, however, but also in its ability to offer a much more rigorous and coherent way to theorize the extraordinarily complex “hybrid” or “cyborg” networks of the sort described in much of Haraway’s work, and by Latour* in the opening
pages of We Have Never Been Modern. Recounting the experience of reading a news-
paper article on the ozone layer, Latour observes:
The same article mixes together chemical reactions and political reactions.
A single thread links the most esoteric sciences and the most sordid politics,
the most distant sky and some factory in the Lyon suburbs, dangers on a
global scale and the impending local elections or the next board meeting.
The horizons, the stakes, the time frames, the actors — none of these is com-
mensurable, yet there they are, caught up in the same story. (1)
What suggests a privileged place for systems theory, then, in meeting the theoreti-
cal challenges posed by the cyborg hybridity of postmodern society is its ability to
mobilize the same theoretical apparatus across domains and phenomena tradition-
ally thought to be pragmatically discrete and ontologically dissimilar, while at the
same time offering (as we shall see with recent work on “the observation of observa-
tion”) a coherent and compelling account of the ultimate contingency of any inter-
pretation or description.
[...]
“these are really at stake, but in a new form that has a simultaneous impact on the nature
of things and on the social context, while it is not reducible to
one or the other”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3232">For the contextualism that, as Lilienfeld
reminds us, links systems theory rather directly to the pragmatism of Peirce and
James, “The world is seen as an unlimited complex of change and novelty, order
and disorder,” which is organized by certain contexts, by “organizing gestalts or pat-
terns,” that give meaning to what would otherwise be an unpatterned “noise” of de-
tail (9). As Bateson characterizes it in a particularly instructive discussion:
[...]
“From the assumptions of contextualism a specific
theory of truth emerges — operationalism. . . . Truth is ‘the successful working of a idea’
within a specific (and always limited) context. Truth is verification in practice”.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3233"> the word “idea,” in its most elementary sense, is synonymous with “differ-
ence.” Kant, in the Critique of Judgment — if I understand him correctly —
asserts that *the most elementary aesthetic act is the selection of a fact*. He
argues that in a piece of chalk there are an infinite number of potential
facts. The Ding an sich, the piece of chalk, can never enter into communication
or mental process because of this infinitude. The sensory receptors cannot
accept it; they filter it out. What they do is to select certain facts out of the
piece of chalk, which then become, in modern terminology, information.
I suggest that Kant’s statement can be modified to say that there is an in-
finite number of differences around and within the piece of chalk. There are
differences between the chalk and the rest of the universe, between the chalk
and the sun or the moon. And within the piece of chalk, there is for every
molecule an infinite number of differences between its location and the lo-
cations in which it might have been. Of this infinitude, we select a very lim-
ited number, which become information.
As Bateson is fond of saying (invoking Korzybski’s famous dictum), “*the map is not the territory*” (Steps 449; emphasis in the the sort of knowledge (or information) you get depends on the context (or code) you deploy, and not — here we
should remember Rorty’s critique of representationalism — on a more or less transparent reflection of the “substance” of the object being described.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3234"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3235">“When we talk about the processes of civilization, or
evaluate human behavior, human organization, or any biological system,” Bateson
writes, “we are concerned with self-corrective systems. Basically these systems are
Systems Theory always conservative of something. As in the engine with a governor, the fuel supply is
changed to conserve — to keep constant — the speed of the flywheel, so always in
such systems changes occur to conserve the truth of some descriptive statement,
some component of the status quo”
In Bateson’s view, the “essential min-
imal characteristics of a system” — be it biological, mechanical, or social — are
(1) that the system operates upon differences, deviations from a norm or baseline
that are processed as information;
(2) that it consists of “closed loops or networks of
pathways along which differences and transforms of differences shall be transmit-
ted” (as when a thermostat detects the difference between its setting and the room
temperature, activating the furnace to restore the total loop of room/furnace/ther-
mostat to the desired homeostatic state);
(3) that “many events in the system shall be energized by the respondent part rather than by impact from the triggering part”
(a principle most clear, perhaps, in phenomena such as color vision, and in the vari-
ous tricks and demonstrations, such as the parallax effect, which show how the ner-
vous system actively and constructively responds to environmental stimuli rather than
simply registering them in a linear fashion);
(4) that systems “show self-correctiveness in the direction of homeostasis and/or in the direction of runaway”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3236">negative feedback, in which information is processed by the system in such a
way as to maintain the harmony, homeostasis, or directionality of the system,
and
positive feedback, in which information is processed in a such a way as to destabi-
lize the system and create what is sometimes called a “vicious cycle” (what Bateson
calls “runaway”).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3237">a process that “uses the results of its own operations as the basis for further opera-
tions — that is, what is undertaken is determined in part by what has occurred in
earlier operations. In the language of systems theory. . . one often says that such a
process uses its own outputs as inputs.”28
Niklas Luhmann</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3238">(i) Observations are not absolute but relative to the observer’s point of view
(i.e. his coordinate system: Einstein); (ii) Observations affect the observed
so as to obliterate the observer’s hope for prediction (i.e. his uncertainty is
absolute: Heisenberg).
After this, we are now in the possession of the truism that a description
(of the universe) implies one who describes (observes it).29
<-- me recuerda el soñador y el soñado de Castañeda.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3239">loops such as those imagined by Bateson must always turn into “strange” loops of
the sort imaged by M. C. Escher’s Möbius strip. As *Ranulph Glanville and Francisco Varela* remind us in their elegant little demolition of total loops titled “Your
Inside Is Out and Your Outside Is In (Beatles, [1968]),” the distinction between in-
side and outside, system and environment, mind and nature, always contains a para-
dox that makes the distinction turn back upon itself to form a “strange” loop. This
is so, they argue, because when we draw any putatively final distinction in either in-
tension or extension — when we attempt to distinguish either the elementary or the
universal — “we require that its distinction has no inside and, at the same time we
place, in this non-existent inside, a further distinction which asserts that the dis-
tinction of the fundamental was the last distinction!”31 Thus, they continue, *“at the extremes we find there are no extremes. The edges dissolve because the forms are themselves continuous — they re-enter and loop around themselves”* (640).
<--- leer el texto de Varela y Glanville</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3240">“every world brought forth necessarily hides its origins. By existing, we generate cognitive ‘blind spots’ that can be cleared only
through *generating new blind spots in another domain*. We do not see what we do
not see, and what we do not see does not exist.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3241"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3242">“*Organization denotes those relations that must exist among the components of a system for it to be a member of a specific class”*; it is that which “signifies
those relations that must be present in order for something to exist.” *Structure, on the other hand, “denotes the components and relations that actually constitute a particular unity and make its organization real”* (Tree 46, 47). For example, the basic
and necessary organization of the water-level regulation system in a toilet consists of
a float and a bypass valve. But in terms of the structure, the float that is made of
plastic could be replaced by one made of wood “without changing the fact,” as Mat-
urana and Varela somewhat infelicitously put it, that there would still be “a toilet
organization” (Tree 46). This basic distinction between organization and structure
will mark a crucial epistemological innovation in their attempt, as they put it, to
“walk on the razor’s edge, eschewing the extremes of representationalism (objec-
tivism) and solipsism (idealism)” (Tree 241). It will also, more broadly, enable a recon-
ceptualization of the *relationship between system (organization + structure) and environment (everything outside the system’s boundaries)* that will mark a definitive break with the first-order cybernetics of Bateson.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3243">In more general terms, what this means is that all autopoietic entities are closed — or, to employ Niklas
*Luhmann’s preferred term, “self-referential” — on the level of organization, but open to environmental perturbations on the level of structure*. This is clearest, perhaps, in Maturana and Varela’s contention that all autopoietic entities are defined by “opera-
tional closure.” “It is interesting to note,” they write,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3244">of Marvin Minksy, “that brains use processes that change themselves — and this means
we cannot separate such processes from the products they produce” (quoted in Em-
bodied Mind 139).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3245">their entire epistemological project, which aims to “negotiate a
middle path between the Scylla of cognition as the recovery of a pregiven outer
world (realism) and the Charybdis of cognition as the projection of a pregiven inner
world (idealism).” “These two extremes,” Varela et al. contend, “both take represen-
tation as their central notion: in the first case representation is used to recover what
is outer; in the second case it is used to project what is inner” (Embodied Mind 172).
that *“everything said is said by someone”* — to foreground, in short, the problem of
observation (Tree 135). As Varela et al. put it, “Our intention is to bypass entirely
this logical geography of inner versus outer by studying *cognition not as recovery or projection but as embodied action*” (172) — *“embodied”* because cognition depends on the “individual sensorimotor capacities” of the embodier in situ, and *“active”* (or “enactive”) because the cognitive structures that guide perception and ac-
tion — as dramatically demonstrated by the example of color vision — “emerge from
the recurrent sensorimotor patterns that enable action to be perceptually guided”
Instead, it recasts the relationship between a system and its elements (or, to
use the language of Maturana and Varela, an organization and its structure) as
open-ended and yet not random, fundamental and yet not foundational in the
usual ontological sense. As Dietrich Schwanitz puts it, “the elements function
as units only within the system that constitutes them, they are neither just
analytical constructs nor do they rest in some ontological substance. They
really do exist, but their existence is only brought about by self-reference and
cannot in any way be explained by reference to preexisting ideas, substances or
individuals”.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3246">as in an evolutionary process, one neuronal ensemble (one cognitive sub-
network) finally becomes more prevalent and becomes the behavioral mode for
the next cognitive moment. By “becomes more prevalent” I do not mean to
say that this is a process of optimization: it resembles more a *bifurcation* or
symmetry-breaking form of chaotic dynamics. *It follows that such a cradle of autonomous action is forever lost to lived experience since, by definition, we can only inhabit a microidentity when it is present, not when it is in gestation.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3247">domain) are valid because, as they put it, “a description, as an actual behavior, exists
in a matrix of interactions which (by constitution) has a logical matrix necessarily
isomorphic with the substratum matrix within which it takes place” (quoted in ibid.,
69). But this, Zolo argues, only redoubles the contradictory status of the claims of
autopoiesis. “They forget,” Zolo writes,
that they have already argued that it is impossible to distinguish “between
perception and hallucination in the operation of the nervous system”; . . .
that nothing can be said about the “substratum” of observation; that knowl-
edge has no object and that everything that can be said is always said by an
observer. Thus, it is meaningless to postulate the existence of a “logical iso-
morphism” between the substratum of the observation and the language of
description. (69)
The problem foregrounded but not fully understood, I think, by
Zolo’s critique — nor, it should be added, is it always clearly articulated by Matu-
rana and Varela — is one we have already mentioned: the problem of observation.
Maturana offers what is in effect a response to Zolo’s critique, and in particular to
Zolo’s rather fast and loose mobilization of the dichotomies objective/subjective,
realist/idealist, and so on:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3248"> The fact that science as a cognitive domain is constituted and validated in
the operational coherences of the praxis of living of the standard observers
as they operate in their experiential domains without reference to an inde-
pendent reality, does not make scientific statements subjective. The dichotomy
of objective-subjective pertains to a cognitive domain in which the objective
is an explanatory proposition that asserts, directly or indirectly, the opera-
tional possibility of pointing to an independent reality. Science does not,
and cannot, do that.
<-- necesito revisar esto con detenimiento.
In his essay “Science and Daily Life,” Maturana offers an even
more nuanced explanation of his concept of observation, one that helps us to see
how Zolo’s critique is mounted upon a foundation of epistemological reductionism.
In Maturana’s view, by contrast, the
nonreductionist relation between the phenomenon to be explained and
the mechanism that generates it is operationally the case because the
actual result of a process, and the operations in the process that give
rise to it in generative relation, intrinsically take place in
independent and nonintesecting phenomenal domains. This situation is the
reverse of reductionism scientific explanations as generative
propositions constitute or bring forta generative relation between
otherwise independent and nonintersectinphenomenal domains, which they
thus de facto validate. (“Science and DaiLife” 34)
What this means, I take it, is that the scientific explanation or observation consti-
tutes the relation between “the phenomenon to be explained” (the observer’s view of
the system in its environment, which is not possible from the vantage of the system)
and the “mechanism” or “operations” (the relation between the system’s operationally
closed organization and its structure, which is open to environmental triggers).
The key words here, then, are “actual” and “nonintersecting”;
the “result of a process” is “actual” not only because it is what the observer sees, but
also because (as we have already seen in our discussion of emergence) the descrip-
tive specification she chooses to make in her observation is binding with regard to
how the “generative” processes — the relation between system and environment,
system and element, organization and structure — can be construed. *Once the observer has specified the system in question in her account of the phenomenon, the generative relations between organization and structure in the system being observed are not random or whimsical but must in fact be systematic*. All of which is to
say that the observation and explanation of a phenomenon constitute, de facto vali-
date, and in this sense “generate” the relationship between the observed phenome-
non (the “actual result of a process” of system plus environment) and the operations
of the system that give rise to it. Most important, we must remind ourselves that
the phenomenon and those generative operations take place in “nonintersecting
domains” that become joined — but also potentially confused — in scientific expla-
nation. As Maturana and Varela put it, *“The problem begins when we unknowingly go from one realm to the other” — from the vantage of the environment to that of the system, both of which are joined by the observer in the observed “phenomenon to be explained” — “and demand that the correspondences we establish between them (because we see these two realms simultaneously) be in fact a part of the operation of the unity” (Tree 135–36). And this means, in turn, that we must attend assiduously to the distinction between operation and observation.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3249"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3250">:etiquetas: exadoc
Luhmann’s theory of observation attempts to
make use of the much-maligned ocular metaphor by divorcing it from its represen-
tationalist associations, which are critiqued by Rortyan philosophy only to reappear
in Rortyan politics. For Luhmann, all observations are constructed atop a constitu-
tive distinction that is paradoxical or tautological, and that the observing system
which utilizes the distinction cannot acknowledge as paradoxical and at the same
time engage in self-reproduction. All systems, in other words, are constituted by a
necessary “blind spot” that only other observing systems can see, and the process of
social reproduction depends on the “unfolding,” the distribution and circulation, of
these constitutive paradoxes (which would otherwise block systemic self-reproduc-
tion) by a plurality of observing systems — not by observation but by “the observa-
tion of observation.” Both Luhmann and Rorty begin from the Wittgensteinian po-
sition that “a system,” as Luhmann puts it, “can see only what it can see. It cannot
see what it cannot.” But Luhmann, unlike Rorty, derives from this formulation
not the irrelevance of other observing systems (or Rortyan “beliefs”) — not their ex-
clusion from the conversation of social reproduction — but rather their very necessity.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3251">to social systems as well. *“If we abstract from life and define autopoiesis as a general form of system building using self-referential closure,” Luhmann writes, “we would have to admit that there are nonliving autopoietic systems.”* For Luh-
mann as for Maturana and Varela, the attraction of the concept of autopoiesis — or
what Luhmann will more often treat under the term “self-reference” — is not least
of all that the theorization of systems as both (operationally) closed and (struc-
turally) open accounts for both high degrees of systemic autonomy and how systems
change and “adapt” to their environments (or achieve “resonance” with them, as
Luhmann puts it in Ecological Communication).
<-- podría un sistema afectar el entorno? cómo sería la resonancia entonces?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3252">“Autopoietic systems... are sovereign with respect to the constitution of iden-
tities and differences. They, of course, do not create a material world of their own.
They presuppose other levels of reality. . . . But whatever they use as identities and
as differences is of their own making”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3253">the distinction between a system’s operation and its observation. “By opera-
tion,” he writes, “I mean the actual processing of the reproduction of the system.”
“By observation, on the other hand,” he continues, “I mean the act of distinguish-
ing for the creation of information” (Self-Reference 83). The distinction between op-
eration and observation, Luhmann writes elsewhere, “occupies the place that had
been taken up to this point by the unity-seeking logic of reflection. (This means,
therefore, a substitution of difference for unity)” — about which we will say much more
in a moment (“Cognitive Program” 68; my emphasis).
Luhmann distinguishes a third term here as well: self-observa-
tion. “Self-referential systems are able to observe themselves,” he writes. “By using
a fundamental distinction schema to delineate their self-identities, they can direct
their own operations toward their self-identities” (Self-Reference 123). If they do not
do so — *if they cannot distinguish what is systemic and internal from what is environmental and external — then they cease to exist as autopoietic, self-producing systems.* This is why Luhmann writes that the distinction between “internal” and
“external” observation “is not needed,” that “the concept of observation includes
‘self-observation’ ” (Self-Reference 82). In other words, *to observe at all requires an autopoietic system, and an autopoietic system capable of observation cannot exist without the capacity for self-observation* — that is, without the capacity “to handle
distinctions and process information.” Hence, *observation and, within that, self-observation, are themselves necessary operations of autopoietic systems.*
[...]
“An operation that uses distinctions in order to designate something we will call
‘observation.’ We are caught once again, therefore, in a circle: *the distinction between operation and observation appears itself as an element of observation*”
[...]
types” of Russell and Whitehead, which tried to solve such antinomies:44 that draw-
ing such a distinction, the elementary constitutive act of observation, is always either
paradoxical or tautological, and that this is both *necessary and unavoidable*. *“Tautologies are distinctions,”* Luhmann writes.
What is decisive about Luhmann’s intervention here is his in-
sistence on the constitutive blindness of all observations, a blindness that does not
separate or alienate us from the world but, paradoxically, guarantees our connection
with it. As Luhmann explains it in a remarkable passage:
The source of a distinction’s guaranteeing reality lies in its own operative
unity [as, for example, legal versus not-legal]. It is, however, precisely as this
unity [or paradoxical identity] that the distinction cannot be observed — ex-
cept by means of another distinction which then assumes the function of a
guarantor of reality. Another way of expressing this is to say the operation
emerges simultaneously with the world which as a result remains cogni-
tively unapproachable to the operation.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the connection with the re-
ality of the external world is established by the blind spot of the cognitive
operation. *Reality is what one does not perceive when one perceives it*. (“Cogni-
tive Program”
Luhmann’s negotiation of this problem is possible only on the strength of systems theory’s articulation of the observation of observation, which enables us to view the “blind spot” or “latency”
of the observations of others not merely as ideological bias or the distortion of a pre-given reality knowable by “science,” but rather as the *unavoidably partial and paradoxical precondition of knowing as such*.
[...]
[Luhmann] position on how the practical-political “unfolding” of tautology and paradox ought
to be handled separates him from consensus-seeking liberals such as Rorty or Haber-
mas; for, if the processes of “deparadoxization” require that a system’s constitutive
paradox remain invisible to it, then the only way that this fact can be known as such
is by an observation made by another observing system. As Luhmann puts it, “Only an [other] observer is able to realize what systems themselves are unable to realize”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3254">cthe unity (of self-reference) that would be unacceptable in the form of a tau-
tology (e.g. legal is legal) or a paradox (one does not have the legal right to
maintain their legal right) is replaced by a difference (e.g. the difference of
legal and illegal). Then the system can proceed according to this difference,
oscillate within it and develop programs to regulate the ascription of the
operations of the code’s positions and counter-positions without raising the
question of the code’s unity. (xiv)45
[...]
self-descriptions. This is so, Luhmann argues, because “an observer can realize
the self-referential systems are constituted in a paradoxical way. This insight itself,
however, makes observation impossible, since it postulates an autopoietic system
whose autopoiesis is blocked” (Self-Reference 139). The only way past this obstacle
or blockage is that self-referential paradoxes must be — in Luhmann’s somewhat
frustrating nomenclature — “unfolded” by the system. We have already mentioned
two ways in which such unfolding might take place: the unsatisfactory theory of
logical types of Russell and Whitehead, which “interrupts” or unfolds the vicious
circle of paradoxical self-reference “by an arbitrary fiat: the instruction to ignore
operations that disobey the command to avoid paradoxes” (EC 24); and the opera-
tional reliance on binary coding, which enables the system to not so much “depara-
doxize” itself as reorient its operations toward the difference of x and not-x ( legal
and nonlegal, for example) without ever raising the question of their paradoxical
identity.
<-- la diferencia es una forma de escapar a la paradoja.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3255">for Luhmann — contra Hegel and Kant — “complexity can never be fully reduced
to an underlying simplicity since simplicity, like complexity, is a construct of obser-
vation that could always be other than it is. *Contingency, the ability to alter perspectives, acts as a reservoir of complexity within all simplicity.”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3256">http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a776221472&db=all
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3257">http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/4/3/0/pages254309/p254309-42.php
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3258">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/similar?doi=10.1.1.109.5557&type=ab
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3259">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.2757
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3260">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.6147
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3261"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3262"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3263">Ubicación: Mi biblioteca.
:author: Salomon, Gavriel (compilador)
:title: Cogniciones distribuidas
:date: 1993
:publication: Libro
:pages: 329
:url: none
:licence: copyright by Amorrortu Editores
:editor: Amorrortu Editores
:printed in: Buenos Aires
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3264"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3265"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3266">This creates a dilemma: Research on everyday practice typically focuses on the
activities of persons acting, although there is agreement that such phenomena cannot be analyzed in isolation from the socially
material world of that activity. But less attention has been given to the difficult task of conceptualizing relations between persons
acting and the social world. Nor has there been sufficient attention to rethinking the “social world of activity” in relational terms.
Together, these constitute the *problem of context*.
[...]
If context is viewed as a social world constituted in relation with persons acting, both context and activity seem inescapably flexible and changing. And thus characterized, changing participation and understanding in practice – *the problem of learning* – cannot help but
become central as well.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3267"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3268"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3269">Primer sector: Estado
Segundo sector: privado.
Tercer sector: Economía solidaria
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3270">http://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090202131209AAKRLny</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3271"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3272">http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~creller/web/tricks/reST.html
@language rest
Un excelente tutorial sobre texto reestructurado. La forma visual muestra los ejemplos de código al mismo tiempo que la salida. Una opción para copiar cuando la quiera explicar a más personas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3273"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3274"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3275"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3276">* Feedback: Autopoiesis
* Regrouping: Trabajo colaborativo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3277">Derecho a la ciudad: Autogenerativo - Cíclico.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3278">Zonas olvidadas.
Dispositivos. Una madeja que no consideran espacios homogéneos: objeto, sujeto, etc. Deluze.
Experiencias desde el SUR
= Medialab temporal átomosybits (sur de Europa). =
Ruinas del futuro.
Somos una plataforma abierta para dinamizar cosas
No somos: un colectivo ni un...
Filosofía DIWO
* N-1: n-1.cc
* Joaquin Bale</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3279">Platohedro: donde platón guardó el conocimiento.
Colectivo audiovisual + nuevos medios en poblaciones
Formación en "Telecentros" entendidos como procesos.
Matinee Tapete Volador</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3280">Un video que nos hacía ser parte de la misma cosa. (identitario)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3281">=====
Muros
=====
antenamutante.net
Palestina:
==========
Palestinos / Israelitas (franja de Gaza) 271 km.
Bogotá:
=======
Chapinero / Sur del cielo / Calera
Campaña: traspasa los muros. www.traspasalosmuros.net
* la cana city:
Desvalorizar para repoblar. "Espacio cerrado, recortado, vigilado, en cada uno de sus puntos" Focault. Manuel delgado: instaurar una contraciudad.
WarLab: Colombia es un laboratorio de guerra.
Conexión con traficantes de sueños, Madrid, lavapies.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3282">Participantes:
* Tati Wells, Recife
* Ricardo Brazileiro,
* Miguel Prado
Convergencia de movientos (del 90 al 2000):
* Metáfora -> Metareciclagem
* Indymedia
* Forum Social Mundial
* FISL
* Laboratorios Mídia Tática
* SubmidialogiaS
Lab Brasileños
==============
Trabajo nómada
Autónomos.
Itinerantes
Precario.
Apoio Internacional
Relaciones Instituciones Nacionales enturbiadas (2002 --> hoy)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3283">Paisajes Sonoros, vigilancia y libertad</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3284">Narrativas visuales y nuevos artes.
En Tijuana.
* http://dalab.ws/
Proyectos:
* Protolab: protolabmovil.cc
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3285">www.geomalla.net
Separación entre el espacio de los flujos y el espacio de los lugares.
Memoria imaginada vs la memoria imaginada.
La memoria colectiva: como se consensa la memoria.
Memoria pública: aquella que se da en la calle.
La política desarticulada del poder.
Memorias aisladas e incomunicadas del presente.
Panóptico, Jeremy Bentham.
La ciudad laberinto: la ciudad donde uno se pierde vs los mapas (OSM)
Política: encuentro de los individuos alrededor de la cotidianidad.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3286">Comunicación natural y humana. Al nivel del otro.
Estrategias:
* Radio que se escucha
* La radio que se ve
* Autonomía alimentaria: Grupo de 101 familias.
* Minga Social.
* Féminas festivas, Comuna 3 y aguablanca.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3287"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3288">En el desarrollo, lo importante fueron las cañas (birras)
Sala de exposiciones y espacio público.
Conferencia como práctica performatica, (orientada a cambios en las prácticas políticas)
Incubadora de emprendedores.
Laboratorio del procomún aplicado a las artes escénicas.
Repositorio de proyectos no-natos: Cosas/ideas que no se formalizaron.
Laboratorio de los nuevos modelos de producción cultural emergentes.
Sistemas operativos culturales
==============================
Performancia -> experiencia -> Experticia
La inauguración
---------------
Desacralizar a partir de la intensidad (el espacio expositivo es un lugar
más de la dirección). Modelo vertical.
Investigación visible.
Modelo en gerundio (presente progresivo)
Tres categorías
===============
* Transparencia radical
* Creación de prototipos
* Cooperación transdisciplinar
Las dos culturas:
* Ciencias
* Humanidades
La tercera cultura: Comunicación intercultural entre disciplinas.
Eduard O. Wilson: Consilience.
<<Performatividad>>
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3289">El campo de encuentro es la performatividad. Lo será en el siglo XXI, como lo visible será performátic, hático, carnal (lo relacional, el cuerpo).
Un discurso que crea acción.
Discurso --> Acción --> Discurso (circularidad teutológica), relacionado con la capacidad de producir subjetividad, significación. Es clave en el empoderamiento social.
John L. Austin. Cómo hacer cosas con palabras. Los enunciados performativos no describen la realidad, la crean. Yo prometo vs la botella medio llena.
* Derridá: El caracter subversivo de lo performativo y lo irreductivilidad (capacidad disrruptiva).
* Deleuze. El acontecimiento/agenciamiento es aquello que produce enunciados performativos (allí donde se mezclan prácticas
* Pickering: El Roddillo de la practica, Science, Society and Becoming
* Schechner: Performance Theory. Problematizar nuestra figura investigativa.
La performatividad como método
------------------------------
Varela --> Enácción : Plateamiento de la relidad como emergencia. Un sujeto que conoce.
Latour --> Antropología ANT (Los objetos son performativos).
Las ciencias económicas no son un agente neutral.
Karen: Performatividad en el ámbito de la física. (La materia se reconfigura en nuestra apelación a ella).
**La performatividad permite analizar los problemas del mundo y también actuar sobre ellos**
El artista como persona para crear entornos disrruptivos es un agente de primer marco.
Comunidad líquida de constribuyentes: Queremos trabajar con muchos, pero no con todos.
Producir contexto en lugar de crear obras.
Open think tank: tener presumpciones.
Marcos de colaboración entre la investigación científica y la cultural.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3290"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3291">
<<Participantes>>
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3292">Alejandro
=========
Volver a la noción de centro cultural, no de museo.
Angel: Laboraty Life
=====================
Trabajo de Bruno Latour sobre el trabajo de la ciencia.
Un proyecto que mezcla personas del campo científico y otras del campo artístico.
Una mutante de drosófila que puede vivir en saturno.
Representación popular de la ciencia a partir de monólogos escuchados a ciencia que son dibujados y luego son animados.
Máquina de tatuajes con microinyecciones dentro de las células.
Mantener los niveles de rigor de la ciencia al mismo tiempo que se mantienen los niveles de metáfora, ambiguedad y poesía propias del arte.
Alejandra Iguita
================
Dibujo e ilustración.
Tomas Campusano
===============
Artista visual y animación.
Laura Helena Ramirez.
=====================
Artista de diseño. Cultura y música (vive en Bogotá).
* En Happens: hacer que las cosas pasen
Propuesta culturales en las que se trabaje de manera interdisciplinaria, participativa y colaborativa, potencializando el capital humano en la ciudad.
Maria José Mejía
================
Fundación Vallejo (7 años).
Alejandra
=========
Hipertrópico.
Marcos García
=============
Medialab prado.
Oscar
=====
Cómo ha de ser un centro cultural. Qué ha de ser un artísta.
El arte debe entenderse como un contexto, no como una disciplina.
Mónica Bello
============
Arte y vida</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3293">* Prototipes/Proyectos
* Identidad
* Articulación
What is the value of being in the network?
* Instuticionalidad
* Inclusión.
* Financiación:
Combinación de financiación publica y privada.
Private funding is more realible. State: Quantity over Quality, deliver, short times.
Indicator they can understand: Press coverage.
Convince founders that process is interesting. (Ejp: Mozilla Foundation and Open web).
Abstraer cosas como la colaboración.
Necesita tiempo. Three Years. Like in a relationship.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3294">La pregunta por lo identitario:
* Cómo nos llamamos
* Para dónde vamos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3295">julio 4 de 2011
Leyendo el libro de Pharo by Example, me doy cuenta de que, definitivamente, mucho de lo que hacen otros campos de la informática es una reinvención a medias de lo que propuso Smalltalk hace rato: OLPC, Sugar, e incluso web2py y Leo tienen ideas en proyectos desarrollados en Smalltalk, así lo hayan o no mirado como inspiración. web2py con la aplicación de andamiaje se parece a las imágenes de Smalltalk que se modifican para lograr la aplicación deseada, así como ocurre en Seaside y Leo con su entorno analítico para el software, se parece a lo que provee Moose_, sin embargo digo "a medias" porque ciertas ideas ocurridas en esos otros lugares no han pasado o bien en el mundo de Smalltalk o bien en el mundo de proyectos "parecidos", como Leo y web2py. Esto me enfrenta a la disyuntiva de qué tecnología elegir para explorar mis proyectos de bootstrapping tecnocultural: ¿será Leo + web2py + Fossil o será Pharo + Seaside + Monticello? Desde las lecturas recientes, parecería que fuera la última combinación, pues hay una tecnología integrada, autocontenida y multiplataforma lista para usar, mientras que con la primera tengo tecnologías diversas, aún incomunicadas y no listas aún, sin embargo el salto conceptual propuesto por Smalltalk es difícil de dar para personas con experiencias en otras tecnologías, por un lado, y por otro hay cosas en la primera combinación que no son provistas por Smalltalk, entre otras el uso de clones y el soporte para escritura de documentos de estructurados y algo de la experiencia más fluida de desarrollo en web2py versus una que no lo es tanto en Seaside, como aparece en Smalltal Zen[*]_. Leo me permite unificar el disperso mundo de la informática, mientras que Smalltalk me da ya una experiencia integrada, pero sin acceso a algunos lugares que tienen ideologías diferentes (PyQt y el software de tableros digitales inspirado en MyPaint, por ejemplo)... afortunadamente no tengo que elegir, puedo continuar un diálogo entre las dos culturas para crear una expericia integrada pero en diálogo con la diversidad.
.. _moose: http://www.moosetechnology.org/
.. _[*] http://smalltalkzen.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/a-secret-passion-and-your-choice-of-web-framework/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3296">1. Instalar Moose.
2. Crear un proyecto para mutabit en Fossil.
3. Indagar sobre las vistas en Moose.
4. Colocar botones de automatización para tareas en Leo y vistas. Volver a activar la participación en la comunidad.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3297">levantar info para caracterizar los roles.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3298">nMayo 11, 2011.
Después del LabSurLab, mi llegada a Bogotá estuvo marcado por el vertiginoso ritmo del proyecto conocido como la #LeyLleras en las redes de microblogging. Luego de que hicimos las reuniones preliminares, fuimos al senado de la república y asistimos al primer debate. La puesta en escena del mismo, con la nutrida inasistencia de los participantes, y la falta de atención de los ponentes y el ministro Vargas Lleras, más preocupados de su BlackBerry que de la discusión que se estaba llevando a cabo así como la propuesta de David Zapata, mi compañero de estudios doctorales, sobre etnodocumentales, me hicieron pensar en algo para los futuros debates.
Ocurre que teníamos dos pantallas "oficiales" en el evento, una que mostraba la transmisión que ocurría por el canal gubernamental y otra que mostraba la página de Twitter de la dirección nacional de derecho de autor, es decir, teníamos en pantalla las voces del debate desde la mirada de quienes impulsaban el proyecto de ley y no de sus detractores. Fue durante la reunión posterior con Fredy, Jorge y Luis Cano que se me ocurrió que necesitábamos algo más performativo para nuestro siguiente debate, una pantalla extra de modo similar a lo propuesto por David, donde se mostraba la otra voz (para el caso del documental étnico, la del indigena, para el de nosotros, la del cibernauta común y corriente). Esto se podía hacer empleando las redes de microblogging que transmiten en tiempo real, recogiendo parte de lo propuesto en mi proyecto final de arte interactivo, pero también dando cuenta de la estructura subyacente detrás del debate. Luego de planear con Fredy el modelo entidad relación del software para esto, que se pensaba sería principalmente web (y hecho en web2py, para conectarlo con otros intereses) empecé a indagar sobre qué había en Internet que ya hiciera algo como lo que queríamos. Fue así como encontré los mapas argumentativos y Compendium y Cohere, que parecen ser de lo más avanzado en ellos con un historia investigativa de 15 años detrás[*].
.. _[*] A Compendium lo había encontrado como 4 años en el pasado, pero había preferido cosas como Freemind o Xmind para representaciones visuales de mis ideas, pues compendium quería representar no las ideas de una persona, sino más bien un diálogo entre varias voces, lo cual es necesario ahora, pero no en ese entonces. Hice un espacio en Holónica para recolectar información sobre estos programas y los mapas argumentativos en general, que puede verse en http://holonica.net/home/infoviz
El único inconveniente de ambos programas es que si bien muestran la estructura del diálogo, es decir responden a la pregunta de "¿qué se dijo?", no responden a la pregunta de "¿quien dijo qué?", lo cual es clave en un debate político como este, pues asumir una postura u otra, tiene costos políticos y de imagen. Contacté entonces a los desarrolladores y me dieron guías sobre cómo empezar a hackear el software para incorporar esta necesidad, sin embargo, mi falta de conocimiento de java, la falta de interés/tiempo de quienes sí sabían en el momento, el hecho de que la versión que usaba no permitía el re-escalado de imágenes y mostraba errores al intentar embeber videso, sumado mi interés por aprender Smalltalk me hicieron pensar en hacer un pequeño y más modesto software, inspirado en Compendium, pero sobre Pharo/Smalltalk y con las alternativas multimediales listas. Para esto requeriría cubrir las ideas básicas del libro _"Pharo by Example" y luego sí dedicarme a este proyecto particular. Esto a su vez confluía con la intensión de crear un programa de presentaciones, similar de Prezi pero en Smalltalk.
.. _"Pharo by Example": http://pharobyexample.org
Hay mucho de deseo en todo lo anterior. La motivación por programar algo para producir un cambio (social) y esto me llevó a preguntarme si la gente que conozco quería programar. La primera persona a la que le pregunté fue Luis Cano, quien me dijo que programaba en varios lenguajes, de acuerdo a la necesidad, pero no al deseo. Continuaré con estas preguntas a otras personas de la comunidad.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3299">Mayo 21 de 2011
Después de terminar el seminario con mis estudiantes el 14 de mayo, nos preguntábamos al final cómo pasar del "simulacro de la comunidad", propuesto como práctica legítima del aula[*]_ a una comunidad genuina. Revisamos con ellos qué podría constituir una práctica genuina para nosotros de forma tal que pudieramos catapultar tránsito dicha comunidad. Nos dimos cuenta que a pesar de la diversidad de intereses y prácticas educativas que en principio imposibilitarían la constitución de la comunidad, había algo que sutilmente se había colado en nuestras formas de hacer cotidianas y era el uso de mapas mentales, conceptuales y prezi como mediaciones para presentar ideas. Esta práctica era, entonces, la que podíamos afectar. Esto coincidía con el proyecto de "mapas argumentativos"_. La idea era entonces iniciar haciendo un sistema de presentaciones tipo Prezi, que luego se complementara con mapas argumentativos, mentales y conceptuales. Emprender el problema de presentaciones con Zoom se volvió prioritario debido a la coincidencia de este desarrollo con una exposición en la que me solicitaban explícitamente no usar Prezi, a pesar de que me invitaban debido a una presentación que la que lo había usado. Indagando sobre opciones de software libres similares a prezi, encontré Jessy Ink y Sozi, el cual me pareció mucho más fácil de usar que el primero, pero no admitía zoom dentro de zoom, una característica clave en ciertas presentaciones. Mi frustación del pasado respecto a esperar que el desarrollador implementara una característica y la "falta de continuidad" entre la aplicación y el entorno de desarrollo me hicieron pensar que era una buena oportunidad para empezar a aprender en serio Smalltalk e intentar tener un borrador de esta aplicación con motivo del viaje a México. Fue gracias a lo anterior que el proyecto zoOMixer salío: Un software de presentaciones, similar a Prezi, inspirado en Sozi, que usa el formato SVG como salida y el navegador como lugar de visualización, con futuro soporte para HTML5, que permite hacer fácilmente zoom dentro de zoom y que integrará progresivamente características como los mapas argumentativos, mentales y conceptuales. Veremos cómo nos va.
.. _[*] Brown y otras reportan que la práctica legitima del aula es la de ser un simulacro de una comunidad de práctica, donde circulan los conocimientos disciplinares del tema que se están aprendiendo
.. _"mapas argumentativos": http://holonica.net/home/infoviz/app_all?Subject%3Alist=mapas%20argumentativos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3300">http://tantek.com/2011/181/b1/google-plus-pownce-friends-federation-data-export-summer-social-war
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3301">http://benward.me/blog/understand-the-web </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3302">http://www.webhooks.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3303"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3304"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3305"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3306">http://paver.github.com/paver/index.html
Paver is a Python-based software project scripting tool along the lines of Make or Rake. It is not designed to handle the dependency tracking requirements of, for example, a C program. It is designed to help out with all of your other repetitive tasks (run documentation generators, moving files about, downloading things), all with the convenience of Python’s syntax and massive library of code.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3307">http://tantek.com/2010/281/b1/what-is-the-open-web
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4392">http://project.friendika.com/node/123 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4393">http://project.friendika.com/node/124 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4433">http://noosfero.org/Site/About
No es propiamente una red social distribuida, pero sí tiene muchas funcionalidades interesantes, como un blog y galerías personales, así como una interface más amigable. Definitivamente Ruby on rails es algo que hay que tener bajo la manga para ofrecer soluciones web y la metodología de uso de Leo como sistema de deconstrucción, neutral respecto a la infraestructura específica es algo que hay que fortalecer.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2314">http://eco.microsiervos.com/noticias/trabajar-21-horas-al-mes.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2315">http://mipymelibre.org/
Un sitio sobre software libre y economía solidaria.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2316">http://thenextweb.com/video/2011/04/13/video-africans-have-facebook-account-before-email-address/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4286">http://geeksonaplane.com/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4287">http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/07/13/the-problem-with-silicon-valley-is-itself/
Adquirir valor primero, haciendo una diferencias frente a los problemas del mundo real.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4288">http://dilmanarede.com.br/profile/marcelo </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718121320.2326">http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110719130259.4299">file:///home/offray/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110719130259.4300"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2380">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/smalltalk/seaside
Incluye excelentes tutoriales, videos y más.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2381">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/jquery-for-seaside </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2382">http://www.slideshare.net/MarcusDenker/seaside-1921396 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2383">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/5-steps-to-mastering-the-art-of-seaside </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2384">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/seaside-past-present-and-future </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2385">http://scriptaculos.seasidehosting.st/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2386"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2387">http://www.swazoo.org/
El servidor web detrás de Aida/Web.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2388">http://www.swazoo.org/documentation.html
El enlace de documentación contiene un ejemplo minimalista e interesante</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2389">http://www.eranova.si/
Our company Eranova d.o.o. is dedicated entirely to leveraging object technology for the new web enabled economy. We design information systems based on our own object-oriented Web Application Server, Aida/Web, based on Smalltalk object technology. And Aida/Web is Open Source! You can try it and develop web applications with dynamic content yourself!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2390">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA/Web </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2391"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2392">http://blog.doit.st/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2393">http://scriptaculos.seasidehosting.st/
Seaside-Hosting is a free hosting service for non-commercial Seaside applications. In contrast to a standard file hosting or a virtual server hosting this service provides a simple to use interface to set up and run your Seaside applications. It allows you to put your own application online within minutes.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2394"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2395"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2396">@language smalltalk
|form |
form := (Form fromBinaryStream: (HTTPSocket httpGet:
'http://ubuntu.ecchi.ca/wallpapers/10.04/' ,
'Maraetaibeforesunrise.jpg')).
World backgroundImage: form layout: #scaled.
| x |
x := ImageMorph new.
x image: (Form fromFileNamed: '/home/offray/Temp/opBlackFace.png').
x openInWorld.
| joe bill |
joe := Morph new color: Color blue.
joe openInWorld.
bill := Morph new color: Color red .
bill openInWorld.
bill position: (joe position + (100@0))</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2397">En pharo se ejecuta el siguiente código:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository';
package: 'ConfigurationOfAida';
load.
((Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfAida) project version: '6.2') load.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2398"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2399">http://forum.world.st/Web-framework-or-Web-Application-Server-tt123928.html
To me, we want people who are:
Opinionated :)
They love Smalltalk, or are at least open to learning and loving Smalltalk.
They love Turtles all the way down.
The more they can do with the chosen tool, the better.
The less they have to look elsewhere to solve the problem, the better. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2372">http://www.lordzealon.com/articulos-tutoriales/aidaweb-tutorial/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2373">http://ftp.eranova.si/aida/mivsek-aida-tutorial-esug09.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2374">http://forum.world.st/Seaside-vs-Traditional-tt123504.html
Tiene varios comentarios sobre el proceso de aprender Smalltalk que son muy valiosos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2375">http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/seaside/tutorial
Uno de los mejores y mas comprehensivos tutoriales. Es recomendable empezar por acá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2376">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.73.700&rep=rep1&type=pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2377">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2384"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2385">http://www.moosetechnology.org/download </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2386">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/wettel/codecity.html
CodeCity is an integrated environment for software analysis, in which software systems are visualized as interactive, navigable 3D cities.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2387">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/petitparser-1/
PetitParser is a parsing framework different to many other popular parser generators. For example, it is not table based such as SmaCC or ANTLR. Instead it uses a unique combination of four alternative parser methodologies: scannerless parsers, parser combinators, parsing expression grammars and packrat parsers. As such PetitParser is more powerful in what it can parse and it arguably fits better the dynamic nature of Smalltalk.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2388">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/wettel/codecity-wof.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2389">http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/retired/py2mse
py2mse is a parser for Python the AST of Python programs in MSE format. py2mse was written by Martin von Löwis.
The project also consists of the Python AST implementation in VisualWorks and the generation of FAMIX models from the AST.
-->
El proyecto ya no está activo
<-- </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2390">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/lungu/softwarenaut/
Softwarenaut is a static analysis tool that supports architecture recovery through visualization and interactive exploration. Softwarenaut is built on top of the Moose analysis platform.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2391">http://code.google.com/p/twitter-client/
No está muy mantenido, pero puede ser un interesante punto de ingreso. El cliente de OpenSocial en Pharo ni siquiera estaba iniciado en ago 1 de 2011.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2392">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/Bung09a.pdf
:author: Phillip Bunge</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2393">What distinguishes browsers from other user interfaces is the structure of the underlying data and how
it is mapped to the visual representation shown to the user.
Reenskaug, however, never intended for the breaking of encapsulation that the pattern pro-
motes. He wrote later that the “top level goal was to support the user’s mental model of
the relevant information space and to enable the user to inspect and edit this information.”
-->
Lo que quiero hacer es esto, al crear el TreeSpace, entendiendo mi modelo mental en Leo
a Smalltalk.
<--
Much can be gained from a framework that simpli es the construction of browsers. Re-
searchers can create browsers to gain a better understanding of their models and end users
can be permittedx direct access to the underlying objects. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2404">http://www.slideshare.net/esug/esug-unicode</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2405">http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/07/twm-docking-windows.html
Using Pharo 1.4 and latest TWM packages, you can now group windows as tabs.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2406">http://www.pharocasts.com/2010/08/see-how-to-get-data-from-url-parse-xml.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2407">Well, autosaving image is not so scary thing and it is possible without
troubles. And it is a must for any image-based persistency solution.
Current Aida one-click has for instance an hourly snapshot enabled by
default. Also I have all my images snapshoted automatically every hour,
being production or development. Both VW and gradually Pharo ones too.
Not to mention that image running Squeak website snapshots every hour
for years too.
You snapshot Squeak/Pharo image by:
SmalltalkImage current saveSession
In any case, we need to recheck and cleanup that snapshot procedure to
be safe and viable solution for persistency, if there are really some
problems yet there to popup. If visualWorks can spapshot cleanly, why
Pharo cannot?
Best regards
Janko</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2408">http://book.pharo-project.org/book/Tidbits/CustomizingPharo/WorldMenuRegistration
Muestra cómo cambiar el WorldMenu de Pharo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2412">http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/pharo-how-to-load-a-metacello-configuration-into-an-offline-image/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2413">We propose to map the entities of the domain models onto panes, which have a xed po-
sition within a browser and take arbitrary presentations which can be changed on the fly.
The navigation within the domain model is complemented by specifying the ow of data
between the panes. Since the ow is triggered by actions performed upon a pane, the con-
nections between panes are called transmissions. In this sense, our model is again a directed
and *possibly cyclic* graph—albeit of a different abstraction than the domain model.
The actual rendering then requires only a model consisting of these components and is entirely
*independent of the underlying domain model*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2422">https://plus.google.com/photos/100238778462210489846/albums/5629087019815403777 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2423">
Método 2:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'Glamour';
package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamour';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfGlamour)
perform: #loadDefault
Da cómo mensaje:
This package depends on the following classes:
SubscriptionRegistry
You must resolve these dependencies before you will be able to load these definitions:
SubscriptionRegistry>>glmSubscriptions
Y luego:
This package depends on the following classes:
SubscriptionRegistry
You must resolve these dependencies before you will be able to load these definitions:
SubscriptionRegistry>>hasHandlerFor:
SubscriptionRegistry>>lookFor:
SubscriptionRegistry>>lookFor:ifNone:
SubscriptionRegistry>>unsubscribeForEvent:
Select Proceed to continue, or close this window to cancel the operation.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2424">GMLCustomCell accessing span
span
^span ifNil: [span _ Period or right bracket expected ->1]</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2428"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2429"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2430">http://web.mac.com/rodriguezdelasheras/e-textos/indice.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2431">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/FusterMorell-Paper.pdf</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2432">@language smalltalk
"
Instalando seaside en Pharo:
"
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository';
package: 'ConfigurationOfSeaside30';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfSeaside30) load.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2433">@language smalltalk
"
Luego de instalado hacemos clien en //Tools -> Seaside Control Panel//
En la ventana que se despliega hacemos click en el panel superior luego escogemos
//Add adaptator// --> //WAComancheAdaptator// y el puerto (usualmente el 8080) y luego
hacemos click en [Start]
"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2434"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2435">WAComponent is the basic component provided by Seaside. That means every visible component inherits from WAComponent. There are many more components you can use, like WATask, but more on that later. For now, just keep WAComponent in mind.
Declaramos el componente raíz de la aplicación, que será, entonces una instancia de WAComponent.
@language smalltalk
WAComponent subclass: #StRootComponent
instanceVariableNames: ''
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2436">To generate HTML code from within your Smalltalk code, you need a renderer. WAComponent ensures that the method #renderContentOn: is called. By giving the method a renderer you have access to all WACanvas methods provided by Seaside. So let us keep that theoretical stuff in mind and create the first component of our ToDo Application
En el componente raíz StRootComponent necesitamos entonces un método #renderContentOn: que simplemente muestre el título de la aplicación,
invocando para esto el objeto html. Dicho objeto conoce las formas de mostrar contenido en html y podemos enviarle otros mensajes, por ejemplo si queremos que muestre algo como texto. En el siguiente ejemplo hacemos eso para que muestre el título de la aplicación y la fecha.
@language smalltalk
renderContentOn: html
"Muestro todo invocando a 'html' "
html text: 'Cosas pendientes'.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2437">Queremos que componente que declaramos pueda ser raíz de la aplicación, así que indicamos esto, cambiando de la instancia a la clase y creando un método de clase llamado #canBeRoot
@language smalltalk
canBeRoot
^true
Esto cambia el método #canBeRoot que para todos las instancias de la clase WAComponent retorna falso por omisión.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2438">Suponemos que ya tienes experiencia con Pharo, al menos mínima y con el lenguaje Smalltalk y su sintaxis. Que entiendes el paso de mensajes y los fundamentos de la programación orientada a objetos. En caso de no ser así, te recomendamos el libro Pharo By Example.
Tips:
Si usas un teclado en español y quieres obtener el carater "^", que es usualmente empleado para simbolizar "return" en otros lenguajes deberás emplear la combinación de teclas [Alt Gr] + [^] + [^] (es decir, presionas la tecla del caracter "^" dos veces).</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2439"> * Vamos a `http://localhost:8080/config/`
* Hacemos click en el botón "Add" de la parte superior izquierda.
* En el formulario siguiente colocamos el nombre "pendientes" y decimos que se trata de una aplicación en el menú desplegable. Luego presionamos [OK]. Se despliega otro formulario.
* En este formulario, en la sección "General", en el menú desplegable "Root Class" seleccionamos "StRootComponent" y al final del
formulario seleccionamos [Apply].
* Ahora vamos a: `http://localhost:8080/pendientes` y debemos ver el mensaje que se despliega cuando definimos "renderContentOn: html"
en la sección anterior.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2440"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2441">El usuario:
@language smalltalk
Object subclass: #StUser
instanceVariableNames: 'id userName email tasks password'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'
Para llenar los métodos usamos el menú: Refactor class --> Accesors.
La tarea:
Object subclass: #StTask
instanceVariableNames: 'id completed deadline taskDescription taskName'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2442">Por acá debería empezar un tutorial, después de explicar por qué Seaside es diferente. Se puede complementar con las diapositivas de Lukas Renggli.
As we have already said, Seaside's way of creating Web applications is different from most other Web frameworks. Seaside adopts a component-based approach to tie different objects and their contents together and generate a single Web page from them. That way, web interfaces can be constructed as a hierarchical tree of stateful objects. To clarify this, imagine a simple standard Web page: usually, there is some kind of navigation means, a menu, and another part of the page contains the real contents corresponding to the particular menu items. This resembles a very simple component structure. The root component represents the visible page as a whole. If you put all your rendering code into this single component you would flinch at the immense complexity: there would be a massive amount of code pertaining to all kinds of different aspects, but no clear structure.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2443">La aplicación tiene dos menús:
* Un menú para revisar las tareas, bien sea las pendientes o las terminadas.
* Un menú para mostrar la lista de dichas tareas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2460">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2461">Change is here with us to stay. Increasingly, software systems will need to
adapt to change dynamically, which means that software models must be acces-
sible at run-time. Ideally, models will be executable, and different versions of the
same models will need to be simultaneously active, and context-aware.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2462"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2463">We give a special thanks to Avi Bryant and Julian Fitzell for inventing Seaside. In particular, they showed us that going against the current is possible when you have brilliant ideas and a powerful language such as Smalltalk.
Smalltalk typically encourages explicit naming and avoids abbreviations — the few seconds per day you save by typing an abbreviated method or variable name may often come back much later to haunt you or someone else reading your code as minutes or even hours spent trying to debug code with poor readability.
En el capítulo 9 no entiendo cuando se declaran las variables de clase y cuando las de instancia. Las de clase pertenecen a la colección
ordenada, las de instancia a los objetos que se almacenarían en dicha clase.
Componentes
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806220931.2468">El siguiente código repite una imagen muchas veces (10):
html paragraph: [
10 timesRepeat: [
html image
url: 'http://www.seaside.st/styles/logo-plain.png';
width: 70 ].]
* Cómo hacer para que el 10 sea una variable en el ciclo? </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2454">http://singly.com/
La idea del locker es muy similar a la del enrutador de identidad digital. Tengo que empezar a escribir al respecto rápido!!!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2455">http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/singly-locker-project-telehash.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2456">http://fizz.bloom.io/index.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2457">http://bloom.io/
Hermosa página y mucho de énfasis en lo visual. Afortunadamente con Smalltalk no tengo que pensar en otra tecnología para lograr lo que ellos, eventualmente podría requerir lenguajes de dominio específico para processing y otras cosas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2458">http://allthingsd.com/20110203/the-locker-project-helps-you-stalk-yourself-online/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2459">http://gigaom.com/2009/12/29/my-wish-for-2010-a-personal-dashboard-for-the-social-web/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2460">http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/07/16/creating-a-portable-web-when-your-data-is-truly-yours/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2863">Es un CMS hecho en Seaside. Acá unas notas de uso:
Para hacer enlaces:
*mi enlace>http://midireccion.com*
Para llamar cambios en la apariencia del sistema:
+/system/components/designchooser+</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2864">http://vimeo.com/15509037
Empezar por acá. De todos los videos introductorios, este tiene audio e introduce los elementos claves para iniciar con Pier.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2865">http://vimeo.com/9114081
Esta opción es gratuita y permite un almacenamiento hasta de 200Mb.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2866"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2867">http://vimeo.com/14679673 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2544"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2545">http://www.tudorgirba.com/
Este debería ser uno de los modelos del enrutador de identidad digital.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2546"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2547"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2548">http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st/seaside/pier
Hay unos volantes de Smalltalk chéveres en varios idiomas (incluido español) colgados en su página que apuntan a las fuentes en LaTeX.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2549">http://damien.cassou.free.fr/smalltalk-flyer-spanish.pdf
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2550">http://smalltalk.cat/
La página contiene enlaces a varios proyectos en Smalltalk, incluyendo Scratch for Arduino.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2551">http://www.roard.com/
Recomendable la sección de fotografías, que integra LightBox2</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2552">http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2553">http://www.somethingiknow.com/
Usa el tema de eventos y lo adapta para hablar de bicicletas familiares. Las sillas de estas bicicletas podrían ser lo que necesite pare mi estudio.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2554">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/
El sitio del creador de Pier. Interesante ver cómo usa submenús en cada menú. Hay muchas presentaciones muy interesantes.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2555">http://getitmade.com/
Se parece a la idea de Kanashpi (atrapa sueños) de hace muchos años. Debí
escribir en su momento un blog post al respecto, pero es bueno verla realizada y
ahora tiene la ventaja de integrarse a las redes sociales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2556">http://www.sw-eng.ch/
Una página de una empresa consultora en tecnología. Este podría ser un modelo para
la página de Mutabit.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2557">http://scg.unibe.ch/
Nótese las migas de pan en la navegación! también hay que implementarla.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2558">Un buen blog personal, con mucha información sobre Smalltalk y Ruby.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2559"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2560">http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/06/27/javascript-function-calls.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2561">http://www.a3aan.st/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2562">http://www.teodorov.ro/
La página de inicio tiene un estilo tipo "about me" pero está hecho en </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4536">En este nodo voy a considerar la posibilidad de importar desde diferentes lenguajes de etiquetamiento a Pier y a su vez de extender / modificar el lenguaje de etiquetamiento provisto por omisión por Pier. La intensión es soportar txt2tags o reStructuredText. El inconveniente del primero es la ausencia de soporte nativo para notas al pie de página y el complicado soporte para las mismas, así como otros elementos entre los que están el resaltado sintáxtico de algunos códigos fuente y la inclusión de extensiones como asciiMath. reStructuredText soporta todo esto pero es más verborrageo y no tan fácil de aprender, sin embargo es en lo que estoy escribiendo mi tesis actualmente.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4537"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4538">Hi,
I really like txt2tags but I’m missing two characteristics to prefer it over reStructuredText (I know that they both have different targets). The first one is the possibility to use natively footnotes and bibliographical entries (more for a printed output instead of web) without using the workaround of TeX and the second one is the possibility to embbed/connect external syntaxes and tools, for example to use asciimath inside txt2tags or having syntax highlighting for code. Please let me know about your thoughts on both characteristics.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4539">http://wiki.txt2tags.org/index.php/Main/TiddlywikiPlugin </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4540">http://wiki.txt2tags.org/index.php/Main/Cookbook </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4541">http://www.merten-home.de/FreeSoftware/moin2rst/
Funciona sobre la versión 1.5 de MoinMoin y requiere de los formateadores para ello. La versión en El Directorio es la 1.6.3, pero los formatos de etiquetamiento no han cambiado sustancialmente, así que podría funcionar importar la info de El Directorio en la versión 1.5 y aplicar este macro para la conversión a texto re-estructurado. El uso de PettitParser puede ser una opción de importación alternativa ocurriendo únicamente desde Smalltalk. La ruta sería </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4542">http://code.google.com/p/db2rst/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4543">http://blog.nyaruka.com/making-moinmoin-pygments-and-codemirror-all-p </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4544">http://txt2tags.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/use-txt2tags-markup-in-plone/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4545">http://markitup.jaysalvat.com/home/
Podría usarse como *frontend* para Pier?</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4546">http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/how-to-transform-almost-plain-ascii-text-to-lulu-ready-pdf-files-part-1/
Una serie de 3 artículos sobre cómo escribir textos usando txt2tags. Comenta cómo resolver el problema de los pies de página. Usa LaTeX como solución final de exportación a pdf y maquetado.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4547">http://darchino.ch/txt2tags
Está en italiano. El blog tiene otros enlaces interesantes, como matemática, teología y sociedad. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4548">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/esclinux/kde_geany_t2t.png</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4549">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/textallion/docs/presentation.html
An easy-to-use tool for publishing prose, literature, poetry in html, pdf or epub, and using txt2tags as a back end.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4550">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/txt2tex/samples/sample_en.html
combinación de txt2 y TeX para el procesamiento de textos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4551">http://norbert.hartl.name/
El sistema tiene soporte para nubes de etiquetas en Pier.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4552">http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia
With helveltia we explore a lightweight approach to embed new languages into the host language. The approach reuses the existing toolchain of editor, parser, compiler and debugger by leveraging the abstract syntax tree (AST) of the host environment. Different languages cleanly blend into each other and into existing code.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4553">http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia/examples </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4554"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4555"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4556">http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2007/01/19/53-css-techniques-you-couldnt-live-without/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4557">http://www.mikemcpherran.com
Chéveres algunas cosas del diseño.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4718"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4719"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4720">
<<Servidor Web Cherokee>> </t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4721">Lanzamos la interface administrativa de Cherokee:
.. code:: bash
#!/bin/bash
cd /tmp/
sudo nohup cherokee-admin &
less nohup.out
La salida nos muestra una contraseña que se genera cada vez que ejecutamos Cherokee, algo como:
.. code:: bash
Cherokee Web Server 1.0.15 (Dec 29 2010): Listening on port 127.0.0.1:9090, TLS
disabled, IPv6 enabled, using epoll, 1024 fds system limit, max. 505
connections, caching I/O, 10 threads, 50 connections per thread, standard
scheduling policy
Login:
User: admin
One-time Password: 9NV7fu2dybuu318l
Web Interface:
URL: http://127.0.0.1:9090/
Entramos a la interface administrativa de Cherokee, colocando los datos que aparecen en el mensaje previo. En caso de que no estemos ejecutando cherokee localmente será necesario hacer un tunel ssh a la máquina remota, para lo cual hacemos:
.. code:: bash
ssh -L 9090:localhost:9090 root@ip.del.servidor
Bien sea que hayamos usado el tunel o estemos en conexión directa, basta con colocar en nuestro navegador en `localhost:9090` para entrar a la interface administrativa de cherokee.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2570"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2571">:author: Ruskoff, David
:title: Program or be programmed
:date:
:publication:
:pages: 385 - 405
:url: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v18n2/06.pdf
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2572">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/programOrBeProgrammedTenCommandsForADigitalAge.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2587">But so far, anyway, too many of us are finding our digital
networks responding unpredictably or even opposed to our
intentions.
Retailers migrate online only to find their prices
undercut by automatic shopping aggregators. *Culture creators seize interactive distribution channels only to grow incapable of finding people willing to pay for content they were happy to purchase before*. Educators who looked forward to accessing
the world’s bounty of information for their lessons are
faced with students who believe that finding an answer on
Wikipedia is the satisfactory fulfillment of an inquiry. Parents
who believed their kids would intuitively multitask their way
to professional success are now concerned those same kids are
losing the ability to focus on any one thing.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2588"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2589">Young people who saw in social networks a way to
redefine themselves and their allegiances across formerly
sacrosanct boundaries are now conforming to the logic of
social networking profiles and finding themselves the victims
of marketers and character assassination.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2590">It doesn’t have to turn out this way. And it won’t if we
simply learn the biases of the technologies we are using and
become conscious participants in the ways they are deployed.
Faced with a networked future that seems to favor the
distracted over the focused, the automatic over the considered,
and the contrary over the compassionate, it’s time to press the
pause button and ask what all this means to the future of our
work, our lives, and even our species.
But the cybernetic organism, so far, is more like a cybernetic mob than new
collective human brain. People are being reduced to externally configurable
nervous systems, while computers are free to network and think in more advanced
ways than we ever will.
The human response, if humanity is going to make
this leap along with our networked machines, must be a
wholesale reorganization of the way we operate our work,
our schools, our lives, and ultimately our nervous systems
in this new environment.
With the advent of a new medium, the status quo not only
comes under scrutiny; it is revised and rewritten by those who
have gained new access to the tools of its creation.
Likewise, the invention of the printing press in the
Renaissance led not to a society of writers but one of readers;
except for a few cases, access to the presses was reserved, by
force, for the use of those already in power. Broadcast radio
and television were really just extensions of the printing
press: expensive, one-to-many media that promote the mass
distribution of the stories and ideas of a small elite at the
center. We don’t make TV; we watch it.
Computers and networks finally offer us the ability to
write. And we do write with them on our websites, blogs,
and social networks. But the underlying capability of the
computer era is actually programming—which almost none
of us knows how to do. We simply use the programs that have
been made for us, and enter our text in the appropriate box
on the screen. We teach kids how to use software to write,
but not how to write software. This means they have access to
the capabilities given to them by others, but not the power to
determine the value-creating capabilities of these technologies
for themselves.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2591">We don’t celebrate the human stars of this medium, the way
we marveled at the stars of radio, film, or television; we are
mesmerized instead by the screens and touchpads themselves.
Likewise, we aspire less to the connectivity enjoyed by our
peers than to the simple possession of the shiny new touchpad
devices in their laps. Instead of pursuing new abilities, we
fetishize new toys.
As a result, instead of optimizing our machines for
humanity—or even the benefit of some particular group—we
are optimizing humans for machinery. And that’s why the
choices we make (or don’t make) right now really do matter as
much or more than they did for our ancestors contending with
language, text, and printing.
The industrial age challenged us to
rethink the limits of the human body: Where does my body
end and the tool begin? The digital age challenges us to rethink
the limits of the human mind: What are the boundaries of my
cognition? And while machines once replaced and usurped
the value of human labor, computers and networks do more
than usurp the value of human thought. They not only copy
our intellectual processes—our repeatable programs—but they
also discourage our more complex processes—our higher order
cognition, contemplation, innovation, and meaning making
that should be the reward of “outsourcing” our arithmetic to
silicon chips in the first place.
The way to get on top of all this, of course, would be
to have some inkling of how these “thinking” devices and
systems are programmed—or even to have some input into the
way it is being done, *and for what reasons*.
Every Google search is—at least for most of us—a Hail Mary
pass into the datasphere, requesting something from an opaque black box. How does it
know what is relevant? How is it making its decisions? Why
can’t the corporation in charge tell us? And we have too little
time to consider the consequences of not knowing everything
we might like to about our machines. As our own obsolescence
As our own obsolescence
looms, we continue to accept new technologies into our lives
with little or no understanding of how these devices work and
work on us.
We do not know how to program our computers, nor
do we care. We spend much more time and energy trying to
figure out how to use them to program one another instead.
And this is potentially a grave mistake.
We are living through a real shift—one that has already
crashed our economy twice, changed the way we educate
and entertain ourselves, and altered the very fabric of human
relationships. Yet, so far, we have very little understanding
of what is happening to us and how to cope. Most of the
smart folks who could help us are too busy consulting to
corporations—teaching them how to maintain their faltering
monopolies in the face of the digital tsunami. Who has time to
consider much else, and who is going to pay for it?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2592">Freedom—even in a digital
age—means freedom to choose how and with whom you do
your reflection, and not everything needs to be posted for the
entire world with “comments on” and “copyright off.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2593">All media and all technologies
have biases. It may be true that “guns don’t kill people, people
kill people”; but guns are a technology more biased to killing
than, say, clock radios. Televisions are biased toward people
sitting still in couches and watching. Automobiles are biased
toward motion, individuality, and living in the suburbs. Oral
culture is biased toward communicating in person, while
written culture is biased toward communication that doesn’t
happen between people in the same time and place.
We can’t quite feel
the biases shifting as we move from technology to technology,
or task to task. Writing an email is not the same as writing
a letter, and sending a message through a social networking
service is not the same as writing an email. Each of the acts
not only yields different results, but demands different mind-
sets and approaches from us. Just as we think and behave
differently in different settings, we think and behave differently
when operating different technology.
Only by understanding the biases of the media through
which we engage with the world can we differentiate between
what we intend, and what the machines we’re using intend for
us—whether they or their programmers even know it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2594">So programmers decided that computers
shouldn’t live in time at all. (Yes, there are clocks running in
the background on all computers, but they take their orders
regardless of the passage of time.)
Instead of operating in time, computers operate from
decision to decision, choice to choice. [...] The machine waits
for the next command, and so on, and so on. The time between
those commands can be days, or a millisecond.
time. The first interactive device most of us ever used was
the remote control. More than simply allowing us to change
channels at the end of a TV program, the remote control gave
us the ability to change channels during a TV program. The
remote control allowed us to deconstruct the narrative of a
show, or even a commercial.
Until interactivity, we were defenseless emotional
targets for the advertiser, who could use a linear story to put
us in a state of vulnerability. Think of almost any television
commercial[...]
To be released from tension, we must accept the storyteller’s
answer—meaning the advertiser’s product. We may have
understood that the people making us anxious were not our
friends—that the stuff on television is called “programming”
for a reason. But we were relatively powerless to do anything
about it other than not watch at all.
Before the remote control, [...] The amount of effort
outweighed the anxiety we were to endure by sitting through
the rest of the commercial. But after the remote control,
escape from the advertiser’s spell becomes effortless. With
a micro-motion of the thumb, we are gone. The interactive
device introduces discontinuity into an otherwise continuous
medium. And this discontinuity—this deconstruction of
story— *is a form of power*.
The spirit of the digital age still finds its expression in this
reappropriation of time. Our cutting and pasting, mash-ups
and remixes, satires and send-ups all originate in this ability to
pause, reflect, and rework.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2595">As Internet connections grow faster, fatter, and freer,
however, we are more likely to adopt an “always on” approach
to media. [...] Anytime anyone or anything wants
to message, email, tweet, update, notify, or alert us, something
dings on our desktop or vibrates in our pocket. Our devices
and, by extension, our nervous systems are now attached to the
entire online universe, all the time. Is that my phone vibrating?
[...]
We work against the powerful bias of a timeless technology, and
create a situation in which it is impossible to keep up. And so
we sacrifice the thoughtfulness and deliberateness our digital
media once offered for the false goal of immediacy—as if we
really can exist in a state of perpetual standby.
The results aren’t pretty. Instead of becoming
empowered and aware, we become frazzled and exhausted.
[...]
Everything must happen right away or, better, now.
There is no later. This works against the no-time bias of digital
media, and so it works against us, even though it might work
for the phone company programming the device and inducing
our dependence and compliance. (Yes, each variety of beep is
studied and tested for its ability to entrain our behavior.)
[...]
Of course, the simplest way out is to refuse to be always
on. To engage with the digital—to connect to the network—
can still be a choice rather than a given. That’s the very
definition of autonomy. We can choose to whom or what
we want to be available, and when. And we can even choose
people for whom we want to be always on. Being open to a
call from a family member 24/7 doesn’t require being open to
everyone. The time it takes to program your phone to ring for
only certain incoming numbers is trivial compared to the time
wasted answering calls from people you don’t want to hear
from.
[...]
And the more we live this way, the more we value the
digital’s definition of the now. Our search engines preface their
more relevant results with a section of “live” links to whatever
blog comment, social networking message, or tweet has most
recently been posted containing the words in our queries.
The only weighting that matters is how few seconds have
transpired since it was blurted. This in turn encourages us to
value the recent over the relevant.
[...]
Rather than accepting each tool’s needs as a necessary compromise in
our passively technologized lifestyles, we can instead exploit
those very same leanings to make ourselves more human.
Our computers live in the ticks of the clock. We live in
the big spaces between those ticks, when the time actually
passes. By becoming “always on,” we surrender time to a
technology that knows and needs no such thing.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2596">We strive to multitask, attempting to give partial attention
to more than one thing at a time, when all we really do is move
as quickly as possible from one task to another. No matter how
proficient we think we are at multitasking, studies show[1] our
ability to accomplish tasks accurately and completely only
diminishes the more we try to do at the same time. This is not
the fault of digital technology, but the way we use it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2597">It’s not that the net has somehow changed from an
asynchronous medium to a synchronous one. No, it’s all
still just commands existing in a sequence, outside time.
But those commands are coming at us now in increasingly
rapid bursts, stimulating us to respond at rates incompatible
with human thought and emotion—and in ways that are not
terribly enjoyable. Try as we might, we are slow to adapt to the
random flood of pings. And our nervous systems are not happy
with this arrangement.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2598">Cell phone users now complain of “phantom vibration syndrome,” the sensation of
a cell phone vibrating on your thigh, even though there’s no
phone in your pocket.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2599">as much as our habits and outlook. Yes, thanks to what is
known as neuroplasticity, our brains do change depending
on what we do. A brain learning on computers ends up wired
differently than a brain learning on textbooks. This is nothing
new. Brains learning through text are different than ones that
learned through oral teaching, too. Likewise, a kid who plays
mostly with dolls ends up wired differently than one who
builds bridges with blocks.
-->
El salto de la neuroplasticidad a los "nativos digitales"
es, sin embargo, peligroso.
<--
similar critique even back then. We have been consistently
using our brains less as hard drives and more as processors—
putting our mental resources into active RAM. What’s different
now, however, is that it’s not just lists, dates, and recipes that
*are being stored for us, but entire processes*. The processes we
used to use for finding a doctor or a friend, mapping a route,
or choosing a restaurant are being replaced by machines that
may, in fact, do it better. What we lose in the bargain, however,
is not just the ability to remember certain facts, but to call
upon certain skills.
[...]
So instead of simply offloading our memory to external hard drives, we’re
beginning to offload our thinking as well. And thinking is not like a book you can
pick up when you want to, in your own time. It is something
that’s always on. Are we choosing to surrender the ability to do
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2600">We arrive at a seemingly identical party, but it’s the one
that Gina has decided is “the place to be” tonight. Instead
of turning the phone off and enjoying herself, however, she
turns her phone around, activates the camera, and proceeds to
take pictures of herself and her friends—instantly uploading
them to her Facebook page for the world to see. She does this
for about an hour, until a message comes through one of her
networks and she’s off to the next location for the cycle to
begin all over again.
Gina is the girl who is everywhere at once, yet—
ultimately—nowhere at all. She is already violating the first
command by maintaining an “always on” relationship to her
devices and networks. This has in turn fostered her manic,
compulsive need to keep tabs on everything everyone else
is doing at all times. It has not only removed her from linear
time, however, but also from physical place. She relates to
her friends through the network, while practically ignoring
whomever she is with at the moment. She relates to the places
and people she is actually with only insofar as they are suitable
for transmission to others in remote locations. The most social
girl in her class doesn’t really socialize in the real world at all.
the bias of the networks were absolutely intended to favor
decentralized activity. After all, the net was developed as a
communications platform capable of withstanding nuclear
attack. Messages—whether text, audio, or video—move
through the network as “packets,” each taking different routes
from node to node until they find their destination. The
*network is still controlled centrally by an authority* (we’ll get
to this later), but it functions in a decentralized way.
As a result, digital media are biased away from the
local, and toward dislocation. Just as television is better at
broadcasting a soccer game occurring on the other side of the
world than it is at broadcasting *the pillow talk of the person next to you in bed*
As the promoters of distance over the local, media have
also promoted the agendas of long-distance interests over
those of people in localities.
Mass media became the non-local brand’s way of
competing against the people with whom we actually
worked and lived. Local businesses competed against both
national brands and retail chains for local dollars—and mass
media favored mass production and mass marketing over
local production and community relationships.
The power of a local business—or any
local enterprise—is its connection to a particular region
and people. Its locality is its strength. By turning to a
decentralized medium to engage with people right around
the corner, a local business loses its home field advantage.
Further, for people who already know each other well
in real life to engage online is very different than engaging
with strangers we know only online. The net can reinforce real
world relationships when those relationships already exist.
-->
Sin embargo también permite con gente que de otro modo no
conoceríamos
<--
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2601"></t>
======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2749" rst-import="7d710028550b756e6465726c696e657332710155013d7102550b756e6465726c696e657331710355033d2b2a7104752e">@language rest
@tabwidth -4
@others
.. Warning: this node is ignored when writing this file.
.. However, @ @rst-options are recognized in this node.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2750">
**cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que
participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoiéticas**
:author: Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas <offray@riseup.net>
:version: 3
:revision: 0
:revisores: Offray Luna
.. contents::
.. raw:: pdf
PageBreak oneColumn
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2751">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/presentacionProyectoTesisRotado.png
:scale: 25 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
Este informe de avance muestra el proyecto de tesis doctoral como un proyecto *no lineal* y que por tanto en su forma escrita no va ordenadamente de la justificación a las conclusiones. Por el contrario, como lo decía Saikaly, al tratarse de un problema difuso, como aquellos que suelen considerarse en el diseño, el proyecto en diseño se vuelve un medio y un laboratorio, un lugar donde se experimenta y comunican las hipótesis plausibles que el proyecto quiere encontrar. Este avance informe de tesis da cuenta de esto.
Por lo anterior que este texto presenta diferentes elementos del proyecto de tesis en su estado de maduración actual. Por un lado ubica la problemática en un contexto particular desde la perspectiva de las tecnologías sociales y la cibernética como enfoques conceptuales de abordaje y explicitando también las apuestas políticas en términos de explorar y ojalá consolidar otras formas de construir inclusión y autonomía. Por otro, dado el correlato tecnológico del presente proyecto, muestra los avances (algunos presentados como cuerpo del proyecto, otras como anexos, por su naturaleza técnica) en cuanto a las exploración, el diseño y poblamiento de habitats digitales, como forma de plantearse el abordaje de la pregunta que acá nos convoca:
*¿cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas?*
Es de anotar que, en la entrega anterior, la parte del proyecto en diseño fue la que más se exploró después de la última socialización pública del problema, pues por su importante correlato tecnológico era una de las partes críticas en este abordaje, sin querer por ello establecer una mirada tecnocéntrica. En esta entrega se profundizó en la perspectiva epistemológica del diseño desde Jonas, como referente teórico fuerte y se explicitó una abstracción mayor para el proyecto en diseño, al indicar que se trata de hacer manifiesto el caracter autorreferencial de los artefactos digitales para ver cómo esto afecta la coevolución del sistema constituido por dichos artefactos y sus usuarios, de modo que estos puedan pasar también a ser sus hacedores.
Finalmente, conveniene indicar que este documento se hizo intentando explorar la noción de autopoético también en las tecnologías que soportaban la escritura del mismo (de acá que, como notará el lector, ciertas cosas aún no funcionen como debieran, mientras la exploración madura). Para esto se está empleando el metaeditor literato Leo_, que representa y contiene a manera de un "infoárbol orgánico" todo el texto de la tesis y sus materiales de apoyo y permite crear vistas de ciertas partes del mismo, como el presente archivo pdf. En los anexos se presentará luego alguna información al respecto.
.. _Leo: http://webpages.charter.net/edreamleo/front.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2752">La bitácora de cambios da cuenta de las modificaciones introducidas en diferentes versiones del documento:
VERSION 3.
* Se cambia la pregunta por una más particular y se dejan las versiones anteriores de la misma.
* Se introduce la hipótesis del proyecto en diseño, se explica en qué consiste su abordaje específico, introduciendo
las infraestructuras digitales autorreferenciales con Leo y Smalltalk como casos específicos y se establece
HackBo, el HackerSpace Bogotá, como lugar de indagación.
* Se quita holónica como lugar de indagación. Se propone más bien deconstruir/extender el hábitat digital de HackBo, que
está hecho en la misma tecnología de holónica.
* Se inaugura la sección de Anexos y se inaugura con "Floppology: Un diario de lo fallido". Allí se mueven Hólonica, zoOMixer
y la indagación histórica que motivo a Ubakye. Esto genera una lectura más fluida sin entrar en detalles técnicos.
VERSIÓN 2.
* Se muestran los hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares de exploración y se referencia la ponencia del X Festival Internacional de
la Imagen que da cuenta extendida de los motivos y explicaciones del caso.
* Se introducen las *anotaciones de campo* como una manera de dar cuenta de las apreciaciones personales sobre el proceso de investigación.
* Se amplian los referentes teóricos para introducir el trabajo de Wolfgang Jonas, pues se pretende articular desde éste autor,
las aproximaciones teóricas al proyecto de investigación, al vincular en su discurso la autopoiesis y el diseño, dos lugares
de encuentro claves en este proyecto.
* Se crearon formulaciones alternativas del problema de investigación a fin de aclarar cuál de ellas lo hace más fácilmente comunicable.
* Se agregó el proyecto zoOMixer como un artefacto extra para indagar por el proyecto en la sección proyecto en diseño.
* Correcciones mecanográficas menores.
VERSIÓN 1.
* Versión ampliada del protocolo de inscripción. Presentada en enero de 2011. No se ha recibido retroalimentación detallada por
escrito y actualizada.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2753"> Indagar sobre lo educativo allí se torna central a la hora de comprender y
problematizar los modos en que el conocimiento establecido se constituye
socialmente como una caja negra. Una que es configurada en el acto educativo y
que tiene el poder de ocultar, de neutralizar, en clave posmoderna,jerarquías
epistémicas de carácter colonial, en donde ciertos saberes y formas de conocer,
atravesados por constructos de género, se vuelven más legítimos que otros.
Tania Bustos, Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.
Hasta hoy, la tecnología ha sido manejada como una caja negra, como una esfera
autónoma y neutral que determina su propio camino de desarrollo, generando
inexorables efectos, constructivos o destructivos a su paso. Esta visión lineal,
determinista e ingenua de la tecnología permanece aún vigente en la visión ideológica
de muchos actores clave: de los tomadores de decisión, de los tecnólogos, científicos
e ingenieros. Lejos de un sendero único de progreso, existen diferentes vías de
desarrollo tecnológico, diversas alternativas tecnológicas, distintas maneras de
caracterizar un problema y de resolverlo.
Hernan Thomas, Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina
Los saberes como cajas negras, perpetuadoras de discursos de poder hegemónicos y excluyentes, manifiestan particularmente su caracter irónico en el terreno de las tecnologías digitales, pues este "saber blando" toma cuerpo en un "medio blando" que se caracteriza por ser flexible y abundante, lo cual se demuestra en la facilidad de copiado, transmisión y modificación de los constructos digitales en comparación con los constructos análogos (algunos, como Nicolas Negroponte hablan del tránsito -o quizás las tensiones- entre los bits y los átomos). Sin embargo, prácticas tecno-sociales, en diversas dimensiones que atañen a lo cultural, lo legal, lo tecnológico y lo cognitivo, han contravenido esta naturaleza colocando barreras de ingreso artificiales que no han sido adecuadamente deconstruidas y que dejan a gran parte de la población por fuera de las posibilidades de inclusión y participación que se supone dichas tecnologías iban a permitir o, peor aún, manteniéndonos en la ilusión de que estamos participando, cuando somos sólamente personajes marginales inconscientes de lo que ignoramos. Así las cosas, cómo tales barreras se deconstruyen, reconfiguran y desconfiguran es una pregunta importante si queremos, efectivamente, posibilitar pasar de la marginalidad a la participación y la construcción plural del mundo, anotando de antemano, que como decía Thomas ([Thomas1]), no se pretende caer en un determinismo tecnológico o uno social, sino que entendemos que abordar esta pregunta por el "cómo" es insertarnos en un fenómeno complejo, donde interactuar es en parte responderse y donde no podemos desligarnos de las preguntas por el "para qué".
Las nuevas condiciones tecno-sociales han posibilitado el avance y visibilidad de otros discursos marginales que pretenden deconstruir las barreras antes mencionadas (Software Libre, Creative Commons, Libre Society, el Dynabook), algunas con más éxito y postura crítica que otras. Sin embargo, habitamos la periferia de estos movimientos y tampoco hemos propuesto un discurso propio frente a ellos. Por un lado porque el papel de productores/consumidores o *prosumidores* sigue fuertemente inclinado hacia el consumo y por otro, porque en lugar de sentar derroteros propios, hemos tomado partido en discusiones polarizadas, por ejemplo copyright vs copyleft (aunque ya se empieza a constituir copysouth, cuestionando elementos básicos de estas posturas, como aquella en la que se supone que quien crea es el individuo en lugar del colectivo, cuando la idea de lo plural es un asunto innegable en las tradiciones indígenas o afrodescendientes, por ejemplo).
La naturaleza de la creación digital en el Sur Global es diferente a la del Norte Global y si bien, el movimiento de la librecultura cuenta con creaciones abundantes en campos como la músical, particularmente en Brasil, tales creaciones digitales circulan por las infraestructuras de información provistas por el Norte Global desde sus circunstancias y sus lógicas, embebidas en la infraestructura, y por tanto no están resignificadas para este contexto. Cosas como la baja conectividad, la fácilidad para aprender e intervenir, el caracter p2p, hacen gala de su ausencia en las soluciones concebidas para otros, sin incluir en el diálogo y el diseño a aquellos a quien se les crean las soluciones, salvo contadas excepciones. El caracter descontextualizado, paternalista y/o asistencialista de algunas iniciativas ha hecho que ciertos iniciativas no se sostengan a sí mismas y no continuen la exploración tecno-social por cuenta propia.
La estructura propuesta por Wenger supone una dualidad esencial de la experiencia: se cosifica y se participa, en un diálogo y complemento permanente. Construir y visibilizar los discursos propios tiene que ver con cosificar las participaciones que los construyen, de manera que falicitemos las participaciones futuras. Es decir que, si el paso por el artefacto es inevitable en la construcción de la participación futura, entonces, es clave entender las dinámicas artefactuales y como éstas nos permiten expresar discursos locales y nuestro aporte desde la diversidad a la construcción global. No se trata sólo de usar software libre o licencias de la libre cultura o las *`obras culturales libres`_*. Sin embargo, como afirma Jonas, los artefactos son "materializaciones necesarias pero contingentes" al problema de diseño y ellos dan cuenta la solución temporal a brechas en los sistemas autopoéticos contituidos por los organimos, la conciencia y la comunicación. Este proyecto de investigación particular indaga por la brecha entre los artefactos, la conciencia y las comunicaciones, o dicho de otro modo, los artefactos, lo mental y lo social. Se trata, sobre todo, de poder expresar en artefactos digitales, preocupaciones genuinas y locales que, articuladas con otras de naturaleza similar, contribuyan a la construcción de un mundo por y para todos y todas.
La pregunta de investigación de este trabajo es una reformulación por la inquietud sobre "cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas". Es un intento de abordar las inquietudes presentadas en esta justificación, enmarcandose dentro de las tradiciones intelectuales de las comunidades de práctica, las redes fluidas, la cibernética y las tecnologías sociales y, hasta donde la investigación preliminar ha podido arrojar, se trata de una pregunta y abordaje nóveles, con consecuencias importantes tanto a nivel teórico, como práctico y un correlato social permanente.
.. _obras culturales libres: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/Es </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2754">El problema de investigación se puede expresar como la siguiente pregunta:
*¿Cómo consolidar comunidades autosostenibles de usuari@s / hacedor@s de artefactos digitales de software?*
El problema actualmente tuvo formulaciones alternativas:
¿cómo cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, de manera que participemos en la construcción de dinámicas tecno-culturales autopoéticas?
Crear un modelo acerca del caracter autopoiético de las tecnologías sociales a partir de la intervención en un colectivo, desde la creación/modificación de artefactos digitales.
Diseñar un modelo para la creación de tecnologías sociales de caracter autopoiético a partir de la intervención en un colectivo, desde la creación/modificación de artefactos digitales.
Configurar una dinámica comunitaria estable para la creación de tecnologías sociales digitales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2755">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/jonasDesignTheory.png
:scale: 40 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
Los siguientes son los referentes teóricos que se están consolidando para este trabajo. El listado a continuación no pretende ser exhaustivo ni profundo. Se espera que estas dos condiciones se adquieran en la medida en que la investigación avanza y se tiene retroalimentación sobre el escrito por parte de los tutores.
* Jonas, Wolfgang:
La preocupación principal de este autor está en los fundamentos de la transdiciplina del diseño. Considera que para desarrollar una
genuina identidad del diseño, es necesario mantener la pregunta por los fundamentos abierta y viva, lo cual implica aspectos ontológicos,
epistemológicos y metodológicos como:
1. ¿Hay alguna esencia del diseño / diseñar?
2. ¿Cuál es la función general del diseño?
3. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza específica del conocer en diseño?
4. ¿Cuál es la relación entre diseño y ciencia?
5. ¿Cómo mejorar el proceso de "resolución de problemas" a través de la investigación?
Jonas afirma que en estas preguntas el producto mismo del diseño, el artefacto, está perdido, pero continua diciendo que el artefacto
es una materialización necesaria pero contigente en el proceso nunca terminado de diseño, que puede, en el mejor de los casos ser
interpretada en retrospectiva y con beneficios a futuro.
Jonas critica algunos
de los fundamentos clásicamente dados como aquellos basados en la definición y deducción de Friedman y los principios generativos
de Buchanan y propone otros 3: la epistemología evolucionaria, la teoría de los sistemas sociales (basado principalmente en Luhmann)
y la teoría de la evolución socio-cultural. Lo interesante del enfoque de Jonas es que vincula los sistemas autopoiéticos y el
diseño, lo cual es una preocupación principal de este trabajo, al mismo tiempo que da una base sólida para tal vínculo. Desde su
aproximación, Jonas, siguiendo a Luhmann, establece que existen sistemas heterónomos: los artefactos o mecanismos, y sistemas
autónomos autopoiéticos: los organismos, la conciencia, la comunicación ó, en otra acepción, lo orgánico, lo mental y lo social.
Al diseño le corresponde abordar las brechas entres las estas cuatro entidades, con lo cual se tienen las siguientes combinaciones:
a) Artefactos / Organismos
b) Artefactos / Conciencia
c) Artefactos / Comunicaciones
d) Artefactos / Organismos / Comunicaciones
e) Artefactos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones
f) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia
g) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones.
Este proyecto de investigación se centra en el literal e) Artefactos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones, o dicho de otro modo, los
artefactos, lo mental y lo social, pues a través del diseño y puesta en contexto de artefactos digitales se pretenden explorar/consolidar
dinámicas autopoiéticas en los que ese contexto apropie y modifique los artefactos tenológicos. Debido a que dichos contextos incluyen
individuos y colectivos, las consideraciones de índole mental y social se exploran en este interjuego de apropiación y modificación mutua
de artefactos y contextos.
* Comunidades de práctica y Hábitats digitales
- Lave, Susan y Wenger, Etienne.
La teoría social del aprendizaje que establece que el aprendizaje ocurre por filiación a una comunidad de práctica. Acá
se considerarán las comunidades de práctica como un referente de lectura en los escenarios propuestos (HackBo, Holónica,
ubakye) y la configuración de hábitats digitales para explorar la pregunta de investigación.
* Autopoiesis
- Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco
Una aproximación sistémica para definir los sistemas vivos, que luego ha sido extendida a otro conjunto de sistemas que
se crean a sí mismos. El términos de Maturana y Varela:
Una máquina autopoética es una máquina organizada (definida como una
unidad) como una red de procesos de producción (transformación y
destrucción) de componentes que: (i) a través de sus interacciones y
transformaciones continuamente regenera y realiza la red de procesos
(relaciones) que las producen; y (ii) la constituyen (la máquina) como una
unidad concreta en el espacio en la cual ellos (los componentes) existen
especificando el dominio topológico de su realización como dicha red. [pg 80]
[...] el espacio definido por un sistema autopoético es auto-contenido y no
puede ser descrito usando dimensiones que definen otro espacio. Cuando nos
referidmos a nuestras interacciones con un sistema autopoético concreto,
sin embargo, proyectamos este sistema en el espacio de nuestras
manipulaciones y hacemos una descripción de esta proyección. [pg 89]
* Cibernetica.
- Wienner, Norbert.
Como campo de estudio interdisciplinario de sistemas que se autorregulan y que puede ser aplicado tanto a sistemas
físicos como sociales (basados en el lenguaje). Para este estudio la cibernética de primer y segundo orden serán
enfoques a considerar en la descripción y el diseño de sistemas autopoéticos.
* Sistemas informáticos "autodescriptivos"/autocontenidos
- Kay, Alan: La intensión de Kay y su grupo ha sido crear un discurso sobre la computación que vaya "del cobre al usuario".
En dicho discurso se considera la creación de un lenguaje objetual que describe la experiencia de computo, incluyendo
el hardware, la máquina virtual, desarrollo de aplicaciones y documentos, en un entorno integrado, continuo y autocontenido.
- Knuth, Donald: La idea de programación literada como una forma de explicitar la programación como una actividad
orientada al humano, en contraste con una centrada en la máquina y en la cual tanto el código fuente (que interpreta
la máquina) y la documentación (que interpreta el humano) están integrados en un único constructo.
- Ream, Edward K: Las implementaciones de el sistema informático Leo (*Leonine Environment for Outlines*) permiten describir
mediante arborizaciones ejecutables sistemas arbitrarios y heterogeneos de datos textuales. Después de un proceso de
*bootstraping* Leo, que fue hecho a partir de otros componentes, e inspirado en la programación literata empezó a ser
descrito en sí mismo y a alejarse conceptualmente de la programación literata.
- DiPiero, Massimo: Diseño un *framework web* autocontenido y minimalista con fines educativos que dentro de sus premisas de
diseño tiene ayudar a disminuir la brecha digital permitiendo que más personas puedan crear aplicaciones para Internet.
Además de enmarcarse en la línea de lo que se pretende explorar, tiene ideas de diseño innovadoras y poco ortodoxas.
* Sistemas entre pares (p2p)
- Bawens, Michael
Bawens teoriza y recopila varios fenómenos de organización en redes distribuidas de pares (p2p) caracterizadas por autoafiliación
que cambian las formar de gobernanza o autogestión, producción o creación de valor y propiedad. Este tipo de dinámicas, junto con
la de las redes fluídas esperan verse y configurarse en estos procesos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2756">.. figure:: ./Imagenes/autorreferenciaDigital.png
:scale: 40 %
:alt: dibujo de la explicación del proyecto de Tesis de Autopoiesis Tecnocultural
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2757">Debido a que se busca configurar una dinámica autopoética de cambiar el artefacto digital que nos cambia, se ha pensado en aproximarse a la comunidad HackBo (la cual se describirá más adelante), pues se parte de la hipótesis de que ciertos saberes e intereses que allí circulan, pueden ayudar a detonar dicha dinámicas. Es de anotar, sin embargo, que no se espera que la dinámica quede confinada a tal comunidad, sino que permee a otras comunidades y personas. Al ser ésta una comunidad que se congrega no sólo en un espacio virtual, sino principalmente en uno físico, se está configurando un lugar donde tal permeabilización se hace visible. Es decir que, si bien se inicia con comunidades tecnológicas digitales, se pretende poner este saber en diálogo con otros saberes cuyo centro no es lo digital *per se* [#]_.
.. [#] Eventualmente el estudio se podría extender a otro tipo de comunidades similares. Una explicación detallada de los hackerspaces y otros lugares donde se hará esta exploración fue abordada en el ponencia " Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas" (Luna, 2011) presentada en el X Festival de la Imagen.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2758"> "Por años, meses y días, redes y comunidades de indivíduos han ido
intercambiando saberes, proyectando mundos, experimentando juguetes y
dispositivos. Venimos desde mil pensamientos diferentes, somos migrantes
de la metrópoli y de la red, buscamos un lugar donde crear con prácticas
semejantes un espacio-tiempo divergente.
Queremos ensamblar otra vez la realidad y para ello necesitamos
laboratorios en los que recombinar sus elementos. En una ciudad llena de
falsas seguridades y verdaderos miedos, queremos hacer surgir un lugar
hecho de imaginario, sueños, carne, metal y bits.
Nuestras mentes colectivas, cerebros de multitudes están llenas de
tecnología digital-analógico, info-comunicación,
conocimiento-distribuido, memética-particpativa y mucho mucho más.
Cuatro puntos cardinales no son suficientes. Con Marte tan cerca de la
Tierra es la hora para una nueva constelación reticular, para recompilar
un bioware entrópico, para sorprender[nos|os] con nuevos y vivísimos
efectos especiales."
http://www.hacklabs.org/es/node/5
Un hackerspace, es un lugar físico de experimentación tecnosocial, operado por la comunidad, donde la gente se encuentra y trabaja en proyectos. HackBo es un lugar de experimentación tecnosocial, que se adapta y resignifica la noción de hackerspace (ya que, siguiendo a Thomas, toda recontextualización es una resignificación). Recoge una idea lanzada durante la Campus Party Colombia del 2009, por un activista de la libre cultura, cuyo *nickname* es arpunk, como crítica a la falta de fidelidad de la campus con los movimientos de comunidades tecnológicas de base que pretendía convocar. Hubo unas reuniones preliminares en la Fundación Casa El Bosque, que está relacionada con proyectos de libre cultura, pero el proyecto entró en una interrupción, generando otros espacios más ágiles, como el de los Nerdbots en el apartamento de unos de los integrantes del proyecto y HackBo como tal, fue retomado en octubre de 2010 sobre la idea de construir un espacio más abierto y plural de participación que también fuera auto-sostenible. En las primeras reuniones se intentaron establecer cuotas de administración y lugares posibles de ubicación, pero la idea de articularse con otros proyectos culturales de base, con intereses diferentes a lo digital propiamente dicho, fue tomando fuerza y fue así como empezó a constituirse la sinergia con las personas del centro el Centro Cultural El Eje, ubicado en la ciudad de Bogotá, en la zona centro (eje ambiental de la Avenida Jimenez. El parecía ser un lugar de sinergia natural, pues allí se reunen personas que, según su propio manifiesto, buscan "articular expresiones artísticas, producción de conocimiento y acción política para aportar a la construcción de una cultura política basada en los principios de la memoria, y el reconocimiento del territorio y del arte como herramientas para la exigencia de derechos". El eje luego haría parte del colectivo `La Redada`_.
A pesar de que HackBo inició formalmente actividades este año (las reuniones ocurren una vez por semana los sábados en la tarde y se está iniciando en noviembre de 2011 con los miércoles en la noche), muy pronto a su lanzamiento se acercaron pesonas representantes de ONGs y mapeo comunitario para plantear proyectos de articulación donde las tecnologías digitales ayuden a crear condiciones de equidad y justicia social, las cuales para finales del 2011 han tomado la forma de infraestructuras para los movimientos de protesta ciudadana contra medidas de los gobiernos en contra de lo público y a favor de la privatización [#]_. La articulación con otros colectivos y actividades en tecnologías digitales ha ocurrido a lo largo del año y ha habido una actividad constante y creciente [#]_. Aún así, HackBo tiene dificultades económicas para su autosostenibilidad y la mayoría de las actividades son de difusión con charlas y talleres de iniciación, pero aún no implican la construcción continua y sostenida de artefactos digitales de software y en la interacción con ellos se continua con el montaje y uso adecuandose a lo que las plataformas proponen en lugar de adecuarlas a las necesidades (aunque empiezan a surgir contraejemplos como la biciindignada y el nodo de Bogotá Mesh).
.. _La Redada: http://www.wix.com/laredada/laredada
.. [#] véase http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Hackupy y http://lists.randomlab.net/pipermail/hackbo-randomlab.net/2011-November/001065.html
.. [#] Un listado de eventos puede verse en:
* http://hackbo.co/home/app_calendar_past_events
* http://hackbo.co/home/app_calendar_events</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2759">La comunidad de software libre de Colombia la constituye un grupo de personas que ronda entre los 350 y 500, en su mayoría estudiantes universitarios y profesionales vinculados a la disciplina de la informática. Los estudios etnográficos arrojan una cifra impresisa debido a que estos colectivos no se asocian en agrupaciones formales con membresías constituidas, y también muestran una notoria diferencia entre la cantidad de hombres y mujeres en tal comunidad, que ha sido base de importantes aproximaciones etnográficas desde la perspectiva feminista y de género [Tania2] [1]_. La comunidad de software libre de colombia ha poblado diferentes habitats digitales. Sin embargo, hay dos que merecen particular consideración, por ser ellos lugares donde la frecuencia de interacción y el caracter general de la misma convoca a un diverso número de pobladores. Son ellos, la lista de correo de `colibri`_ y el wiki de `El Directorio`_.
.. _[1]: Este es sólo el lugar para mencionarlas en este punto de la exploración preliminar, si bien pueden ser un lugar de vuelta para posteriores aproximaciones.
.. _colibri: http://listas.el-directorio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/colibri
.. _El Directorio: http://el-directorio.org/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2760">El proyecto va en la línea de lo sugerido por Fredy Pulido respecto a la articulación posible con la Fundación Apoyar y el uso de hackerspaces como lugares de apropiación tecnocultural de dinámicas comunitarias de la libre cultura y tecnologías sociales digitales[*] orientadas hacia la producción. Para esto se concive que las personas en proceso de formación y aquellas que tienen los conocimientos, estarán interactuando para resolver problemas de sectores de la sociedad a fin de entrar o crear un mercado de soluciones potenciado por esta dinámica y que las haga autosostenibles. El tránsito económico considera modelos alternativos, como la economía solidaria e incluso puede incluir también monedas alternativas como los bitcoins.
.. _[*] por estas tecnologías se entienden aquellas orientadas a la inclusión y la sostenibilidad, en particular las centradas en lo digital. Para un discurso más detallado sobre Tecnologías Sociales se recomiendan los escritos de Hernan Thomas.
El diagrama 1, realizado por Pulido, considera un flujo económico referido a un modelo de intervención en el cual la formación para el trabajo implica a entidades como ONG preocupadas de tales problemáticas y que ven en los estudiantes de tal proceso formativo los proveedores potenciales de soluciones para sus necesidades, convirtiéndose así en un sistema autorreferente: las ONG viabilizan modelos de formación para el trabajo con los cuales se pueden resolver sus necesidades. El proceso se articula a partir de un esquema de acreditación que valida el proceso formativo y la calidad de los productos y servicios ofrecidos dentro del mismo. Al mismo tiempo, la participación de la comunidad extendida de la libre cultura en este tipo de modelos alternativos podría consolidar un conjunto de prácticas educativas y aportar valor al proceso al contar con expertos, dinámicas, contenidos e infraestructuras alternativas, no colocadas en los lugares tradicionales de formación. La interacción entre el modelo de formación para el trabajo y las comunidades de software libre y libre cultura implica un equilibrio que no quite el caracter exploratorio e investigativo de las últimas, al tiempo que provee el espacio práctico de lo primero.
Hablaré acá de cómo configurar un espacio y unas dinámicas que permitan potenciar el esquema propuesto por Pulido, desde las dinámicas educativas concebidas a partir de las comunidades de práctica, para lo cual se usará la panorámica de Brown y Ash respecto a los espacios educativos como "simulacros" de comunidades de práctica. Revisaremos para esto brevemente la noción de comunidad de práctica y luego mencionaremos cómo lograr dicho simulacro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2761">Las comunidades ya son sistemas autopoiéticos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2765">Esta exploración de infraestructuras es complementaria a la del hábitat digital de `hackbo.co`, en
el sentido de que en lugar de deconstruir desde la complejidad en la
infraestructura (la de Zope/Plone/Cynin) y en la negociación colectiva, como se hace
en `Hackbo.co`, se pretende construir desde lo simple y en
la infraestructura (usando pier/smalltalk [#]_) y desde negociaciones en lo individual o entre pares. La pregunta fundamental es: ¿que debería (de)construirse en esta exploración complementaria y cómo sería el proceso?
.. [#] Se ha pendado en crear el enrutador de identidad digital Ubakye, usando el webframework Seaside/Pier que fue escogido sobre otros por su caracter minimalista, autocontenido y portable, además de una orientación educativa desde su diseño, por lo cual la experiencia de aprendizaje por no expertos está pensada desde el comienzo. Por lo pronto sólo he montado el sitio (http://ubakye.net), documentado el proceso y montado un wiki. Se ha reactivado la participación en la comunidad virtual de Pier y se han realizado unas preguntas sobre el montaje de algunas infraestructuras.
Para abordar esa pregunta se inició con una panorámica sobre diferentes tipos de tecnologías digitales para hacer esta exploración complementaria (se puede encontrar en el Anexo titulado "Biografía de Ubakye"). En esta panorámica, encontrar una intencionalidad para configurar el habitat digital Ubakye como lugar y medio para encontrar y comunicar las hipótesis sobre como cambiamos los artefactos digitales que nos cambian, debía, además de considerar los méritos tecnológicos entre las alternativas, enfatizar las posturas políticas. Debía ser un lugar donde las apuestas políticas de quienes lo habitan tomaran cuerpo. Una apuesta política que puede configurar este habitat, se encontró en un movimiento relativamente reciente y toma el nombre de "posee tus datos" (*own your data*) y se explicará a continuación.
Actualmente, se está configurando un discurso en contra de los jardines encerrados (*wallen gardens*) que son las redes sociales, donde para comunicarse con alguién más en una red, hay que suscribirse a ella. En una analogía, es visto como algo tan sin sentido como que para mandar un correo a personas con cuenta en gmail (o cualquier otro) se tuviese que ser forzósamente un usuario de este mismo servicio, es decir que así como los usuarios de twitter sólo pueden comunicarse con los de twitter y queines usan Facebook sólo se pueden comunicar con otras personas en facebook, los usuarios de gmail podrían sólo enviar correos a usuarios en gmail, los de riseup a los de riseup y así sucesivamente formando silos aislados en los cuales la pelea comercial es por tener la mayor cantidad de usuarios, impedir o invadir la privacidad y vender las interacciones personales como mercancia, y desvirtuando el propósito de comunicación abierta, interacción extendida e interoperabilidad que estan detrás del diseño de Internet. Este exabrupto, tan claramente absurdo en las cuentas de correo, tiene relativamente despreocupados a la mayoría de los usuarios de las redes sociales. Sin embargo, una minoría ha establecido una mirada crítica y una alternativa a través de redes sociales distribuidas [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_ [#]_. Aún así, el problema es que si bien tales redes no constituyen jardines cerrados y personas de diferentes redes pueden comunicarse entre sí y, en principio, llevarse su información y montar un servicio equivalente, en la práctica, la mayoría de las personas se queda con las características que el servicio ofrece por omisión y no puede enriquecer sus interacciones de modos significativos.
.. [#] Avoiding Walled Gardens on the Internet en http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000898.html
.. [#] One Friend Facebook Hasn’t Made Yet: Privacy Rights en http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
.. [#] Why I Don't Use Facebook http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375715,00.asp
.. [#] Is a Perfect Storm Forming For Distributed Social Networking? en http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_a_perfect_storm_forming_for_distributed_social_networking.php
.. [#] Franklin Street Statement on Freedom and Network Services http://autonomo.us/2008/07/franklin-street-statement/
Frente a esta alternativa se propone la posibilidad de configurar *hubs* o concentradores de interacción. Lugares desde donde las personas publican originalmente la información que luego va a parar a otros lugares y que recolectan la información, casi siempre de caracter conversacional, en esos sitios. Así las cosas, twitter, identica o cualquier otra red de microblogging son lugares donde se copia la información que originalmente está en estos hubs; Facebook, Delicious o Flickr son lugares que reciben los cambios de estatus, los enlaces, o las fotos que primero circularon y se almacenaron en los concentradores, fueron distribuidas a tales sitios y las interacciones que hayan ocurrido en estos lugares, son regresadas de vuelta al concentrador. La ventaja de esta aproximación sobre las otras discutidas acá es que la idea política está claramente establecida: ser dueños de nuestras interacciones en la red, en lugar de participar de este ciberfeudalismo en el cual otros nos dejan poblar sus habitats digitales a cambio de enriquecerlos. Las redes sociales ya establecidas se vuelven pasarelas para la información que va y retorna a infraestructuras comunitarias y pueden hacerse prescindibles. Podemos extender nuestras infraestructuras para que soporten interacciones enriquecidas que no están (aún?) planeadas para esos lugares ajenos y usarlos sólo como pasarelas para comentar lo que ocurre y este puede ser un proceso orgánico, que empiece pequeño, conectándose primero a redes de microblogging, acortadores de direcciones, galerías fotográficas y luego se haga más complejo hasta que contruya una alternativa comunicativa y de articulación distinta. Estos *hubs* de identidad digital tienen la ventaja de que consideran varios elementos de los proyectos que se habían considerado como parte del proyecto en diseño, al conectarse a redes sociales ya establecidas (en lugar de pretender crear las nuevas) y empezar en elementos sencillos como `acortadores de direcciones`_ o herramientas de almacenamiento web de enlaces, que luego se pueden extender a cosas de mayor complejidad, al mismo tiempo que con un campo novel de indagación e implementación donde los aportes son muy necesarios.
.. _acortadores de direcciones: http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/tantek-celik-diso-20-brass-tacks.html
Es de anotar, que, si bien se empieza con un lugar blando, en el ciberespacio y una apuesta de autonomía en él, la intensión no es confinarse a éste, sino poner a interactuar los múltiples espacios digitales y análogos es esta indagación. Acá sólo se está planteando un punto de partida y las motivaciones y reflexiones detrás del mismo y aunque las reflexiones sobre lo digital toman en lugar de la web ahora mismo, esta es sólo un escenario para indagar por las dinámicas tecno-sociales autopoéticas, que es la pregunta de fondo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2766"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2767">**CUAL DEBERÍA SER LA PRIMERA APLICACIÓN PROGRAMADA EN WEB2PY ???**
Debe servir a los usuarios y ofrecer una ventaja diferencial frente a las que ya existen para lo mismo.
1 Extender el wiki para que permita publicar colaborativamente con múltiples sistemas de acreditación (vía jainrain) y también volverlo un blog geek (ya que no ha funcionado Instant Press). *Esto haría que se iniciase con una historia mucho más personal y localizada.*
*El caracter off-line / on-line del proyecto es importante y tal vez el factor diferencial más importante, por tanto para esto sería necesario mirar la sincronización de bases de datos Sqlite como punto de partida*
2 Un sistema de bookmarks sociales en Internet: como delicious (ya van a hacer uno en la comunidad de web2py)
3 Algo que hable de las identidades a los usuarios en línea(como about.me)
4 Algo que "traiga" interacciones de otro lado (imágenes de flickr) y también las lleve (enviándolas a identica, por ejemplo)
Ver "The Future of Appleseed Project"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2768">Acá se hace alución a la parte blanda en su sentido literal y no se ha usado la palabra "software" por su acepción clásica ubicada sólo dentro de los programas de software, mientras que acá el caracter blando del proyecto considera también aspectos culturales o legales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2769">Posibles nombres para el dominio:
No solicitados:
* cymbiorg, cybseed, cybiosem, cybsem
Solicitados:
* cyberseed, netsem, netseed</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2770">Hola :),
Esta exploración de infraestructuras es complementaria a la Holónica, en
el sentido de que en lugar de deconstruir desde la complejidad en la
infraestructura (la de Zope/Plone/Cynin) y en lo colectivo, como se hace
en Holónica, se pretende construir desde lo simple en lo individual y en
la infraestructura (web2py[5]). Por lo pronto sólo he montado el sitio
(ubakye[6]) y documentado el proceso. La idea es que el sitio mismo
soporte la publicación de tales documentos, para lo cual se requerirá
montar unos "plugins" y "appliances" que brinden la funcionalidad de
blogs y wikis. A direfencia de lo que teníamos originalmente en El
Directorio, en el cual para modificarlo nos movíamos desde el motor wiki
(MoinMoin) hacia los plugins, en el caso de web2py no sólo podemos hacer
esto, sino que también soporta la instalación y el desarrollo de
funcionalidades completamente diferentes, como un motor de blogs
(planet)[7], un sistema de preguntas y respuestas[8], similar a Shapado,
galerías de imágenes[9][10], sistema de registro para conferencias y
programación de eventos[11], encuestas[17], bolsa de empleo[13], entre
otros y podemos construir más. En lo visual también tiene ofrecimientos
interesantes[12], incluyendo scriptaculous[14], JQuery[15] y
processing[16] y es muy fácil de aprender/usar, incluso por personas
que no son programadores (ni web ni de los otros :-) ), como yo. Cabe en
una memoria USB (aprox 20 MB), es autocontenido (incluyendo el motor de
base de datos sqlite, pero puede usar muchos otros), multiplataforma y
alienta buenas prácticas de programación, como el MVC (Modelo, Vista,
Controlador).
[5] http://web2py.com
[6] http://ubakye.net/
[7] http://code.google.com/p/instant-press/
[8] http://beta.qa-stack.com/
[9] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/11
[10] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/62
[11] http://beta.qa-stack.com/
[12] http://web2py.com/layouts
[13] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/31
[14] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/21
[15] http://jquery.com/
[16] http://web2py.com/appliances/default/show/46
[17] http://www.web2py.com/appliances/default/show/66
Si bien lo primero que montaré en ubakye serán blogs y wikis, la idea es
explorar pronto su extensión con las funcionalidades que vayamos
necesitando quienes estemos interesados[*] y hacia futuro desarrollar
algo que sería como un enrazado de {soupio / Google Buzz} + {gitorius}
(aunque no uso ninguno de los tres), pero hecho en web2py + fossil-scm.
Se me ocurren flujos de información que se crean, publican, comparten,
bifurcan y recombinan para entretejernos (je sonó como a la banda sonora
de Tron --The Grid--, debe ser que la he escuchado mucho).
[*] Pienso en empezar a aprender a programar en web2py haciando algo de
"social bookmarking", que por coincidencia también mientras escribo este
correo se publicó en la lista de web2py :-)
Como siempre, su participación es bienvenida y la invitación está abierta,
Offray
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2771">http://docutils.sourceforge.net/docs/dev/hacking.html
@language rest
lo voy a necesitar para hacer la conversión desde reStructuredText a markmin o txt2tags.
* Particularmente me gusta más txt2tags ya que me parece que los autores están realmente concentrados en un lenguaje de etiquetamiento, mientras que markmin es un proyecto lateral de web2py en el cual no parece haber mayor desarrollo (tal vez no necesita más y cumple su cometido como está).
* Tienes pistas visuales como ``//itálicas//``, en lugar de otras que me parecen menos convenientes en reST como ``*enfasis*`` (que se muestra con itálicas),
* txt2tags está hecho para la web, y aunque `se ha usado txt2tags para producir libros`_, se requieren algunos hacks extra (como muestra el enlace) mientras que markmin se puede usar directamente para la producción de libros, como muestra el hecho de que el libro de web2py fue escrito enteramente en él.
.. _se ha usado txt2tags para producir libros: http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/how-to-transform-almost-plain-ascii-text-to-lulu-ready-pdf-files-part-1/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2772">Un conjunto de iniciativas que estableces una postura critica hacia la computación en nube.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2773"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2774"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2775">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/03/introduction-distributed-social-network
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2776">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_social_network#Comparison_of_projects
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2777">http://project.friendika.com/
Parece ser uno de los proyectos más avanzados.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2778"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2779">http://blog.xjqd.net/identity-portability.html?thank_you=#comment_form
@language rest
Varias reflexiones interesantes sobre el tema de un internet más inclusivo y participativo y como la identidad portable ayudaría a este escenario.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2780">Un nuevo protocolo de identidad digital en Internet
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2781"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2782">http://www.inames.net/
@language rest
URLs are for connecting web pages. Now get the address for connecting people and businesses in rich, long-lasting digital relationships: i-names
*comentarios*
Una proveedora comercial de identidad digital. Puede funcionar de modo similar a como funcionan los proveedores de dominio, pero ofreciendo más servicios gratis.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2783">http://www.fullxri.com/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2784">http://www.freexri.com/information/About/
@language rest
@freeXRI is a free provider for XRIs (so-called "community i-names"). You can get started immediately by registering an XRI and point it to whatever website, e-mail address or other resource you want! We offer both a simple wizard and a powerful configuration panel to set up your XRIs. We are trying to help you get started with this new technology, whether you are just curious or an experienced developer.
In addition, we provide several online tools for working with XRIs, such as Ping and Traceroute.
If you are interested in OpenID, you can use our XRIs as one, or you can point them to an OpenID you already possess.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2785"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2786">http://www.ouno.com/home.html
@language rest
About Ouno
==========
Ouno (ūnō) • Is a privately funded started up, dedicated to providing the best way of allowing people to easily communicate with each other over multiple channels, such as the telephone, postal mail, email and more.
We are pioneers in digital identity, giving people unique personal identity while still allowing privacy and control over aspects of their identity, they have never had before.
Why Ouno
========
There was a time when even major cities had only one area code, when the postman knew your family, when Spam was just arguably a food product. Times change, the channels over which people have communicated have grown.
The result is that you, and people you know, have different identities across these communication channels (phone number vs mailing address). With Ouno, you can compress all of that information into a single identifier used across channels, called an i-Name
*Comentarios:*
Hay un servicio de telefonía que podría serle útil a mi mamá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2787">http://www.xdi.org/
@language rest
Welcome to XDI.ORG
XDI.ORG is an international non-profit public trust organization governing open public XRI and XDI infrastructure. XRI (Extensible Resource Identifier) and XDI (XRI Data Interchange) are open standards for digital identity addressing and trusted data sharing developed at OASIS, the leading XML e-business standards body. XRI and XDI infrastructure enables individuals and organizations to establish persistent, privacy-protected Internet identities and form long-term, trusted peer-to-peer data sharing relationships.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2789">http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko
@language rest
Una propuesta de nombres de dominio descentralizada basada en bitcoin.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2790">http://www.mkarim.com/2011/02/a-diy-data-manifesto/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2791">http://diso-project.org/
@language rest
Una red social abierta y distribuida... aún en construcción.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2792">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/tantek-celik-diso-20-brass-tacks.html
@language rest
Habla de las tecnologías que permitirán implementar la idea de DiSo "2.0"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2793">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/03/interview-tantek-celik-conceptualizing-diso-20.html
@language rest
Detalles generales sobre DiSo. Para implementación ver Down to Brass Tacks.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2794">http://federatedsocialweb.net/wiki/2010-199-tantek-fsws-talk
@language rest
sharecropping and site death
============================
* fast-forward to 2008-2010
* itch: tired of sharecropping and site death, untrustworthy content hosting
* 2008-03 CNET killed Consumating.com
* 2009-02 SixApart killed Pownce.com
* 2009-12 Yahoo killed GeoCities.com
* 2009-10-26 Tears in the rain blog post by Jeremy Keith on Geocities's death.
* 2009 Google shutdown Dodgeball.com
* 2010-05-14 Google killed Etherpad.com content and URLs
* 2010-08-04 Google announced end of life for wave.google.com
* less than 3 months before, Etherpad users were encouraged to transition to Wave.
* 2010-09-30 Six Apart shutting down Vox on September 30, 2010 (going read-only on 2010-09-15)
* irony: Six Apart encouraged Pownce users to switch to Vox
* 2010-09-03: pointed out by Heidi Cool:
person-specific sharecrop vulnerabilities:
* 2008 - BoingBoing "unpublished" all articles by Violet Blue (>100 posts) (see: William Gibson Completely Deleted from BoingBoing Archives)
and
* Twitter fail frustrations
* scratch: DIY indie web, start with my own site
use my site as my identity - XFN+hCard+OpenID pretty much solved this
post tweets/notes on my own site
syndicate out to silos - that's where my friends listen/post
http://tantek.com/
server-based Twitter client
called it Falcon http://tantek.pbworks.com/Falcon
the fastest bird, when trained, can drop things off, pick things up for you</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2795">http://scripting.com/stories/2011/01/16/ec2ForPoetsV2.html
@language rest
Una manera fácil de configurar servidores virtuales en la nube, usando la infraestructura de Amazon. Se podría reemplazar con cosas menos monopolistas, como webfaction y web2py.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2796">http://sneer.me/
@language rest:
Chévere las dos ilustraciones, la de la portada y la siguiente. Muy buen diseño.
Sneer is a free and open source sovereign computing platform. It runs on your machine (like Skype or Firefox) using the Java VM. It enables you to:
Create your personal cluster by sharing hardware resources (CPU, disk space, network bandwidth) with your friends.
Host your own social network, information and media.
Create sovereign applications and share them with others.
Download and run sovereign applications created by others, way beyond your wildest dreams.
You can do all these things directly with your peers, in an autonomous, sovereign way, without depending on online service providers such as email providers, Google, Facebook, etc.
What is Sovereign Computing?
Sovereign computing is peer-to-peer social networking taken to extremes. It is the freedom to share information and hardware resources with your friends any way you please. Learn more.
Sovereign applications are open source, peer-to-peer, social network applications.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2797">http://projectdanube.org/three-visions/
@language rest
This is an open-source project offering software for identity and personal data services on the Internet. The core of this project is an XDI-based Personal Data Store - a semantic database for your personal data, which always remains under your control. Applications on top of this database include the Federated Social Web, the selective sharing of personal data with organizations, and much more.
*comentarios:*
- Ver Identidad digital para proveedores relacionados con Inames.
- El video de las tres versiones es muy claro en la explicación. La intención de montar un enrutador de identidad digital es
**totalmente compatible con la visión de danube**
- El proyecto aún no ha liberado un software estable y está haciendo pruebas en el back-end con los protocolos como se ve en:
http://projectdanube.pbworks.com/w/page/31395581/PDS-Dev-Plan</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2798">http://ostatus.org/2010/10/26/ostatus-interview-markus-sabadello
@language rest
Uno de los creadores de la red social federada, desde muchos protocolos como XDI i-names, etc. Tiene un par de prototipos funcionales (ver enlaces)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2799">https://pds.fullxri.com/pds.web/
@language rest
:tags: prototipo,</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2800"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2801">http://www.monkinetic.com/2011/01/own-your-data-contd.html
@language rest
Muestra dos autores que están trabajando en la idea de ser dueños de nuestros datos en la web.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2802"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2803">http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/blogging_forefather_seeks_to_re-invent_blogging_ag.php
@language rest
"The important thing is that you and your ideas live outside the silo and are ported into it at your pleasure," Winer wrote in a blog post today. "You never have to worry about getting your stuff out of the silo because it never lived in there in the first place."</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2804">http://www.zeldman.com/2011/01/10/own-your-data/
@language rest
Una interesante charla en los comentarios a este post. Zeldman se equivoca el asunto de twitter es la brevedad, no lo efimero y está orientado hacia el paso de mensajes, que pueden ser más largos (como cuando se comparten enlaces).
Interesantes comentarios de Jay_ y su uso de logs de AMSN en wordle.net para construir una nube de emociones y de Foltzwerk sobre como los juicios sobre qué es importante cambian y como poseer tus datos puede darle un giro al tema de las redes sociales (son *un lugar más donde nos articulamos*, no *el lugar por excelencia* donde nos articulamos. Están los comentarios de Tantek, por supuesto, que tienen enlace aparte.
.. _Jay: http://www.kilobitspersecond.com/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2805">http://tantek.com/2011/010/b1/owning-your-data
@language rest
Un post que contiene la información sobre varias conversaciones que iniciaron y dan contexto al movimiento.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2806">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/08/1825239/Are-You-Ready-For-the-Digital-Afterlife?
@language rest
"Dave Winer's call for Future-Safe Archives goes mainstream in Rob Walker's NY Times Magazine cover story on how the Internet can provide a certain kind of immortality to those who are prepared. To illustrate how digital afterlives might play out, Walker cites the case of 34-year-old writer Mac Tonnies, who updated his blog on Oct. 18, 2009, sent out some public tweets and private messages via Twitter, went to bed and died of cardiac arrhythmia. As word of his death spread via his own blog, Tonnies's small, but devoted audience rushed in to save his online identity. 'Finding solace in a Twitter feed may sound odd,' writes Walker, 'but the idea that Tonnies's friends would revisit and preserve such digital artifacts isn't so different from keeping postcards or other physical ephemera of a deceased friend or loved one.' Unfortunately, how long Mac Tonnies's digital afterlife will remain for his Web friends and parents is still a big question, since it's preserved in a hodge-podge of possibly gone-tomorrow online services for which no one has the passwords. Hoping to fill the need for digital-estate-planning services are companies like Legacy Locker, which are betting that people will increasingly want control over their digital afterlife. 'We're entering a world where we can all leave as much of a legacy as George Bush or Bill Clinton,' says filmmaker-and-friend-of-Tonnies Paul Kimball. 'Maybe that's the ultimate democratization. It gives all of us a chance at immortality.'"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2807"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2808">http://searchsystemschannel.techtarget.com/generic/0,295582,sid99_gci1365210,00.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2809">http://www.neoppod.org/
@language rest
NEO is a distributed, redundant and transactional storage designed to be an alternative to ZEO and FileStorage.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2810"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2811">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ung-Home.Page/#ungdocs
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2812">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ung-Home.Page </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2813">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/guideline/tio/tiolibre-Libre.Definition
@language rest
una definición similar deberíamos tener en mutabit.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2814">https://www.tiolive.com/why </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2815">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2816">http://www.freecloudalliance.org/fca-Home/fca-Free.Cloud.Alliance/view </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2817">http://cloud9ide.com/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2818"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2819">http://www.salmon-protocol.org/
@language rest
Una forma de unificar conversaciones de manera tal que cuando alguna publicación recibe un comentario, en cualquiera de los sitios que la replican, el lugar donde se hizo la publicación original puede traer ese comentario de vuelta y ponerlo en contexto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2820">http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/
@language rest
Un hub de publicaciones que permite publicar en un sólo sitio y ver como dichas publicaciones se actualizan en diferentes servicios (microblogs, blogs, redes sociales) en tiempo real.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2821">http://hueniverse.com/2010/05/jrd-the-other-resource-descriptor/
@language rest
JRD, pronounced “Jared” and stands for JSON Resource Descriptor, is a JSON-formatted XRD document. It takes the XRD schema and converts it to a JSON structure, giving up some XML-based features, but gaining simplicity and adaptability to JSON-centric protocols and applications. JRD is based on a few simple rules.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2822">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2823"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2824">http://onesocialweb.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2825"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2826"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2827">http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox
@language rest
Inspired by Eben Moglen's vision of a small, cheap and simple computer that serves freedom in the home. We are building a Debian based platform for distributed applications.
Freedom Box is about:
* privacy
* control
* ease of use
* dehierarchicalization</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2828"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2829"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2830">http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview/67936dc2abc317c54e7bed3b07de0fce6c277511 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2831">http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/selfhost.wiki </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2832">http://web2py.com/book/default/chapter/11#Using-Replicated-Databases </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2833">http://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2834">http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/
@language rest
La sección 6, privacidad, es particularmente importante en el correlato de aplicaciones web que funcionan on-line / off-line.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2835">http://camlistore.org/
@language rest
Camlistore is:
* a way to store, sync, share, model and back up content
* a work in progress
* Open Source (Apache licensed)
* an acronym for "Content-Addressable Multi-Layer Indexed Storage", hinting that Camlistore is about:
content-addressable storage
* separate interoperable parts (storage, sync, sharing, modeling), with well-defined protocols and roles
* your "home directory for the web"
* pro-JSON (yet aggressively format agnostic)
* pro-OpenPGP (for signing claims)
* pro-paranoia and privacy
* ambitious, but ...
* simple!
* programming language-agnostic (parts and different implementations in Go, Python, Java, Perl, Bash, ... the language doesn't matter.)
What matters is well-defined, simple HTTP interfaces.
* neither "Cloud" nor "Local". happily both.
* a "20% project" from a few Google employees, but not Google-centric nor endorsed by Google (other than them letting us open source our
side project)
* ready for developers (at least those without strong color preferences)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2836"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2837">http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-couchdb/index.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2838">http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/CouchDB_in_the_wild </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2839">http://lethain.com/entry/2008/aug/18/an-introduction-to-using-couchdb-with-django/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2840">http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Getting_started_with_Python </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2841">http://69.164.211.38:5984/power/_design/reports/index.html
@language rest
This JQuery plugin lets you map a CouchDb view to a html grid. That's it. I looked at the other JQuery grid plug-ins - many of which are really great -</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2842">http://guide.couchdb.org/editions/1/en/index.html
@language rest
Esta es la tabla de contenido de la primera edición en inglés. El vínculo "Home" lleva a la carátula del libro con ediciones en otros idiomas y, eventualmente, futuras ediciones. El texto está cubierto por una licencia CC-BY-3.0
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2843"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2844">http://harry.me/2011/01/27/today-web-development-sucks/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2845"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2846">http://blogs.lainformacion.com/legal-e-digital/2011/01/25/%C2%BFes-legal-tu-blog/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2847"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2848">http://www.microsiervos.com/archivo/internet/como-puede-ley-sinde-amordazar-internet.html
@language rest
La redacción actual de la Ley Sinde [PDF 147 KB] no limita el ámbito de actuación de esta a los enlaces, sino que dice que
La sección podrá adoptar las medidas para que se interrumpa la prestación de
un servicio de la sociedad de la información que vulnere derechos de
propiedad intelectual o para retirar los contenidos que vulneren los citados
derechos siempre que el prestador, directa o indirectamente, actúe con ánimo
de lucro o haya causado o sea susceptible de causar un daño patrimonial.
Y esto puede ser un gran problema para los que publicamos blogs y similares, ya que estamos más que acostumbrados a coger contenido de otros sitios, fundamentalmente imágenes, para ilustrar nuestras anotaciones, pero resulta que aunque citemos al autor, eso no es suficiente.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2849"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2850">http://softlibre.barrapunto.com/softlibre/11/02/08/0932204.shtml
@language rest
No es un grupo parlamentario, sino un grupo local de usuarios. El EPFSUG es el European Parlament Free Software User Group, o grupo local de usuarios del parlamento europeo. Fundado por el eurodiputado estonio Indrek Tarand (Los Verdes) y un puñado de sus asesores, el grupo está abierto a todos los que trabajen en el Parlamento Europeo, incluido personal administrativo y asistentes de los grupos poliicos. Su objetivo es fomentar el uso del software libre en la infraestructura de las tecnologías de información del Parlamento Europeo. Parte de la inspiración para arrancar el grupo es la desesperación con las carencias del sistema actual, totalmente privativo. Por ejemplo, el servidor de correo privativo y el navegador privativo actuales no son capaces de dar acceso remoto al correo a los eurodiputados y sus asistentes, según dice Erik Josefson, uno de los asesores de tecnología de Los Verdes. Así que para ellos un primer paso sería conseguir que el Parlamento Europeo se mudara a un servidor de correo y un navegador libres. Eso sí, el paso es glacial. La primera sesión está programada para el 19 de Abril.
**Comentarios**
Podría intentarse alternativas similares acá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2851">http://www.attac.es/islandia-y-los-medios-de-comunicacion/
@language rest
Como los medios de comunicación invisibilizan alternativas de organización revolucionarias.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2852">http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/zombie-pc-prevention-bill-to-make-security-software-mandatory/8487 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2853">http://www.233grados.com/blog/2011/02/twitter-publico-y-publicable.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2854"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2855">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
Hay una interesante distinción de cuáles servicios son SaaS y cuáles no. Si bien la postura sobre usar servidores para publicar información es ambivalente, diciendo que servicios de publicación como twitter o identica no presentan el problema del SaaS, lo cual es cierto desde ese punto de vista pero no desde el Own your data o la idea de una web federada.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2856"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2857">http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/vivir/articulo-281564-fin-mas-plata-ciencia
@language rest
Hay planes de financiamiento para doctores y proyectos que los involucren. Tengo que apelar a este fondo de doctorado.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2858"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2859"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2860">https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Plug_computer
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2861">http://www.openplug.org/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2862">http://plugcomputer.org/plugwiki/index.php/Main_Page
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2863">http://www.amahi.org/
@language rest
Powerful, Simple, Home Server
Stream and share your audio and video collection to your devices and screens. Centralize your backups and easily run webapps and media apps like a pro!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2864">http://www.ionicsplug.com/products.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2865">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2866">http://www.globalscaletechnologies.com/t-guruplugdetails.aspx </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2867">http://www.plugapps.com/index.php5?title=Portal:Plugbox_Linux
@language rest
:tags: arch linux,
PlugApps Linux is natively compiled on a plug computer. It's lightweight and fast. All packages are natively compiled (you can argue that this gives a slight speed boost). All package sources are either from the Arch Build System or our Github page. It's also geared toward casual users as much as developers with a minimal learning curve into package development. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2868">No es propiamente una "parte dura", pero está muy ligada al hardware (de hecho intenta emularlo)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2869">http://www.proxmox.com/products/proxmox-ve
@language rest
Proxmox Virtual Environment is an easy to use Open Source virtualization platform for running Virtual Appliances and Virtual Machines.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2870">http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/virtual-private-servers.ars
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2871"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2872">http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/cdigital/31-164683-2011-03-22.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2873">Definitivamente los contenidos que más se mueven ahora son los enlaces. Es el que naturalmente más lo hace en HackBo, y está muy bien ubicado como lugar de acción en otros hábitats digitales que hemos configurado. Sin embargo, algunos enlaces aún no tienen una comunidad particular para compartirlos y definitivamente las prácticas comunitarias no tienen sentido fuera de los colectivos que las necesitan y dinamizan.
Esto quiere decir que mi primera necesidad hacia ubakye va a ser un directorio de enlaces. No uso Delicious o incluso Freelish.us no son lo que requiero, el primero por ser privativo y el segundo por su caracter eminentemente on-line, su caracter no autocontenido y las complejidades de la interface.
Este será el primer proyecto entonces a realizar en web2py. Algunas de las ideas rápidas serán:
* Uso off-line y online.
* Sólo contendrá como único item necesario la dirección web, con unos items extra:
* Por visitar,
* Etiquetas (emergentes).
* Título
El modelo de base de datos requeríría entonces
* Una tabla principal con:
ID,
url.
* Otra tabla establecería una relación muchos a muchos con las etiquetas.
* Una tabla con una relación muchos a uno, con la etiqueta, por visitar. (¿requiere una tabla específica o se puede colocar en la anterior?.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2883"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2884"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2885">Pregunta en el blog:
Hi,
I'm interested in using digital technology for mapping and visualizing political debate on my country (Colombia). I see Cohere and Compendium and seem really good, but both seem to be abandoned and with no active users or developers communities behind. Can you inform me about the health status of this projects and their future?
Thanks
-- Mayo 4 de 2010</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2886"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2887">241.48First Position: 0, 0 Duration: 241480
Frame Rate: 25
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x8c14ef3e, pid=9928, tid=2384935792
#
# JRE version: 6.0_25-b06
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (20.0-b11 mixed mode linux-x86 )241.48First Position: 0, 0 Duration: 241480
Frame Rate: 25
#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
# SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x8c14ef3e, pid=9928, tid=2384935792
#
# JRE version: 6.0_25-b06
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (20.0-b11 mixed mode linux-x86 )
# Problematic frame:
# C [libfobs4jmf.so.0+0x4f6f3e] signed char+0xe
#
# An error report file with more information is saved as:
# /home/offray/Programas/Compendium/2.0-beta/hs_err_pid9928.log
#
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/webapps/bugreport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
#
Compendium.sh: línea 1: 9928 Abortado java -Xmx512m -cp .:System/lib/compendiumcore.jar:System/lib/compendium.jar:System/lib/AppleJavaExtensions.jar:System/lib/jhall.jar:System/lib/kunststoff.jar:System/lib/jabberbeans.jar:System/lib/mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar:System/lib/derby.jar:System/lib/triplestore.jar:System/lib/xml.jar:System/lib/jmf-all.jar:System/lib/crew.jar:System/lib/fobs4jmf.jar com.compendium.ProjectCompendium
# Problematic frame:
# C [libfobs4jmf.so.0+0x4f6f3e] signed char+0xe
#
# An error report file with more information is saved as:
# /home/offray/Programas/Compendium/2.0-beta/hs_err_pid9928.log
#
# If you would like to submit a bug report, please visit:
# http://java.sun.com/webapps/bugreport/crash.jsp
# The crash happened outside the Java Virtual Machine in native code.
# See problematic frame for where to report the bug.
#
Compendium.sh: línea 1: 9928 Abortado java -Xmx512m -cp .:System/lib/compendiumcore.jar:System/lib/compendium.jar:System/lib/AppleJavaExtensions.jar:System/lib/jhall.jar:System/lib/kunststoff.jar:System/lib/jabberbeans.jar:System/lib/mysql-connector-java-5.1.6-bin.jar:System/lib/derby.jar:System/lib/triplestore.jar:System/lib/xml.jar:System/lib/jmf-all.jar:System/lib/crew.jar:System/lib/fobs4jmf.jar com.compendium.ProjectCompendium</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2888"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2889"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2890"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2891"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2892">:title: Organizations. Social Systems Conducting Experiments
:author: Jan Achterbergh y Dirk Vriens
:year: 2009
:editorial: Springer-Verlag
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2893"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2894">file://home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/organizationsSocialSystemsConductingExperiments.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2895"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2896">http://developer.appleseedproject.org/profile/michael.chisari/journal/the-end-of-facebook-and-free-software's-quiet-revolution
Obsérvece la interface. Una página limpia y sencilla que muestra al autor y diferentes secciones de contenido para el o ella: Page, Info, Friends, Journal, Photos. Podrían reemplazarse por: Perfil (sería un Info + Contacto, con un breve perfil que muestre quién es y qué identidades tiene en línea), Blog, Wiki y Galería de Medios (fotos, imágenes, audio, videos)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2897">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/docs/future/socialnetworking/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2898">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/docs/future/appleseed/
Explora los componentes para construir una red social distribuida y extensible usando como base la experiencia de Appleseed. Hay ideas importanes sobre perfiles e identidad, que se conectan con desarrollos similares a los "hubs de identidad" como about me.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2899">http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/download/
El sitio web establece que "Appleseed requires a system running PHP 5, MySQL 5, and Apache 2", es decir, un entorno LAMP. En general el entorno de desarrollo y el de ejecución están separados en un entorno LAMP, a diferencia de lo que ocurre con web2py, donde están integrados, siguiendo una tradición inaugurada por Smalltalk y sus descendientes Squeak/Pharo, sin embargo el entorno de web2py es mucho más minimalista y el lenguaje y herramientas está más posicionado que en la familia Smalltalk.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2900"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2901">:author: Ducasse, Stephane; Black, Andrew; Nierstrasz; Pollet, Damien
:title: Pharo by Example
:date: 2009
:publication:
:pages: 352
:url:
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2902">If you look at the senders of drawOn: in AtomMorph»drawOn:, you will
see that it is a super send. So we know that the method that will be
executed will be in AtomMorph’s superclass. What class is that? Action-
click [browse] -> [hierarchy implementors] and you will see that it is EllipseMorph.
--{
La notación de Clase»Método presupone que debería encontrar AtomMorph en el
browser, sin embargo no lo encuentro. Cuando lo intento con Canvas»draw: y uso
la opción Action-click -> [browse] -> [browse hierarchy], obtengo una captura
de pantalla similar a la referida en el texto.
}--
The implementors browser works in a similar way, but instead of listing
the senders of a message, it lists all of the classes that implement a method
with the same selector. To see this, select drawOn: in the method pane and
select browse implementors (m) (or select the “drawOn:” text in the code pane
and press CMD –m). You should get a method list window showing a scrolling
list of the 90-odd classes that implement a drawOn: method. It shouldn’t be all
that surprising that so many classes implement this method: drawOn: is the
message that is understood by every object that is capable of drawing itself
on the screen.
--{
Las ventanas de los senders y los implementators son las mismas, siguiendo el procedimiento descrito en el texto.
}--</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2903">En el navegador de las versiones del código (pg 113) se podría usar como ejemplo el código del juego de Ligths Out que ya ha tenido un par de versiones en las correcciones.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2904">Anotación de campo [jul-21-2011 9:48 am]
Al leer el libro siento un "inconveniente". A pesar de que es un libro completo, que lo lleva a uno por varios aspectos de la informática, como la programación orientada a objetos, la programación por mensajes, las pruebas unitarias, el cotrol de versiones distribuido, la metaprogramación, etc. no tiene un proyecto que "toque el mundo" y que se explique de cabo a rabo a través de estos temas. No hay un ejemplo que a la vez sea aglutinante y pertinente. En algún punto uno se siente haciendo pequeño código para ilustrar conceptos, que serán útiles algún día, pero que dejan de tocar un proyecto "del mundo real". Lo mismo pienso para el caso del libro de web2py, lo cual me recuerda la aproximación de Paulo Freire a la alfabetización de adultos que pretendía apelar a problemas contextuales que motivaran el aprendizaje. En general es difícil mantener la motivación con un nivel de abstracción tan alto, la ciencia en contexto de la que habla Jonas requiere de este correlato en el mundo. Proyectos como Ubakye y zoOMixer deben asumir este enfoque alternativo.
Anotación de campo [jul-22-2011 1:15 pm]
Estuve mirando proyectos hechos en Smalltalk y llegué a Sophie, que fue portado a Java. Después de preguntar en las litas de Pharo y Squeak, encontré esto:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=984735&cid=25252253
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2009-November/140655.html
Tener comunidades activas de usuarios y desarrolladores es clave en la sobrevivencia del proyecto. En ocasiones esto implica elegir lenguajes populares, y este no es el caso de Pharo/Squeak. Sin embargo, proyectos como Scratch logran popularidad sin estar hechos en una tecnología mainstream y tienen un activo grupo de desarrolladores. Se requiere algo como Squeak/Pharo by Projects, que sería un libro en el que se le dice a las personas interesadas, cómo participar de estos proyectos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2905"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2906">
:author: Jonas, Wolfgang
:title: Mind the gap! on knowing and not knowing in design Or: there is nothing more theoretical than a good practice
:date: 2004
:publication:
:pages:
:url:
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2907"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2908">http://www.ub.edu/5ead/PDF/KS/Jonas.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2909">My conceptual tools for understanding the mechanisms that produce and destroy design artefacts and knowledge comprise: (1) Sociological systems theory (Luhmann) with the concept of autopoiesis, including the shift from identity to difference, (2) evolution theory (Darwin, Luhmann), and (3) evolutionary epistemology (Campbell, Riedl) and the concept of action research.
[...]
(1) Is there an essence of design / designing?
(2) What is the overall function of design?
(3) What is the specific nature of knowing in design?
(4) What about the relation design / science?
(5) How to improve the process of "problem-solving" through research?
One may object, that the very product of designing, the artefact, is missing. In my view artefacts are not central, they are necessary but contingent materializations in the never-ending process, which can, at best, be interpreted retrospectively (with benefits for further projects, of course).
[...]
Since the early 1970s we could know that in ill-defined, wicked problem situations problems and solutions evolve in a parallel process. If at all, the problem can be stated when a solution is achieved. And then the solution is the problem! I am convinced that this is true for design problems as well as for design theory problems.
[...]
But I do not accuse design for not showing much progress in this sense, because, as I argued, *design is the agency of bridging the gap, the interface*. There is no reference point for defining progress, but merely fit or non-fit. Is Mac OS X a design progress compared with OS 9, or just an increase in functional complexity?
[...]
fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (A.N. Whitehead)
[...]
To sum up: Generative principle A1 seems to be a bit "more basic" than the rest, because it contains the other ones plus itself. This shows the fractal character and self-reference of design theory, and, this is important, allows, to integrate the "Buchanan meme" into the general process of knowledge generation.
[...]
The argument of naturalized epistemology appears in various forms and formulations. Another prominent representative is John Dewey (1986). In his view processes of circular action, driven by intentionality, are the essential core of knowledge generation. The separation of thinking as pure contemplation and acting as bodily intervention into the world becomes obsolete. Quite the reverse: Thinking depends on real world situations that have to be met, initiated by the necessity to choose appropriate means with regard to expected consequences. The projected active improvement of an unsatisfactory, problematic situation is the primary motivation for thinking, designing, and, finally - in a more refined, purified, quantitative manner - for scientific research and knowledge production. Knowing is a manner of acting and "truth" is exchanged by "warranted assertibility".
[...]
Design(ing) is the discipline of creating contingent fits / interfaces between bodies, consciousnesses and communications by means of artefacts (see question 2).
[...]
Luhmann distinguishes (heteronomous) mechanical systems / artefacts and (autonomous) self-organizing systems. The latter comprise organisms, consciousnesses, and communications as autopoietic systems.
--
si los artefactos se crearan a sí mismos, serían autónomos? (esta capacidad debería estar en los artefactos creados también)
[...]
We should seriously take into account the operational closure of autopoietic systems and consider any temporal development as a co-evolution of isolated systems. This avoids the illusion of control (through design) in social situations, which always refer to all three domains, or, "to the whole of life", as John Chris Jones would call it.
[...]
Consciousnesses, communications, organisms, and artefacts create the "swamp", which is a provisional metaphor for the interaction / development of this mess. Design deals with this situation and sticks to the optimistic opinion that prognosis as to the success of design interventions is possible. And this (design´s ignorance of its ignorance) is what makes design so attractive to other disciplines, even to the sciences (Baecker 2000):
*"Design as a practice of not-knowing will be readable with respect to various interfaces, but probably the interfaces between technology, body, psyche and communication will be dominant: as soon as these 'worlds', which, for themselves, are described by a more or less elaborate knowledge each, are set into difference to each other, this knowledge disappears and makes room to experiments, which are the experiments of design. ... Considering nothing as self-evident here any more, but discovering the potential of dissolution and recombination everywhere, becomes the playground of a design, which finally reaches into pedagogy, therapy, and medicine. "*
[...]
*This view implies a change from a concept of design as a causal field with (still) some white spots into design as an - in principle unpredictable, non-causal - field with some unconnected islands of causality, mainly referring to isolated technical or scientific facts. It implies the renunciation of a scientific knowledge base in favour of a functional scheme. A knowledge base, due to the necessarily trans-disciplinary nature of design activities, would have to comprise "everything" (as Friedman´s canonical lists are impressively demonstrating) yet without being able to re-connect the islands. Finally it implies the renunciation of the concept of progress. While design is installing fits between dynamic systems (which may claim progress for themselves), there is no reasonable criterion of progress for design itself. Design is evolving.*
*To go a step further: Design is acting as a kind of, often useful, sometimes annoying, parasite (Serres 1987), creating interfaces, couplings, aids, prostheses, meaning, etc. Design is permanently observing the field for wishes, unsatisfied needs, potential links, seizing the opportunities that are showing up. Design observation is always second order observation (observation of observations). Causality, as soon as introduced by an observer, will be absorbed by uncontrollable deviations and interactions. If the parasite sounds too negative: others prefer the joker.*
[...]
In his main oeuvre (1997) he has started to work out the concept of social evolution.
Firstly, evolution theory is based on the system / environment distinction. It is this difference, which enables evolution. Secondly, it does not distinguish historical epochs, but variation, selection, and re-stabilization. Re-stabilization is the essential condition for variation and selection being possible at all. *Evolution theory serves for the unfolding of the paradox of the probability of the improbable*, thus explaining the emergence of essential forms and substances from the accidental.
*Evolution theory is neither a theory of progress, nor does it deliver projections or interpretations of the future.* The concept of autopoietic systems enforces a revision of the theory of "adaptation", which is a condition, not the goal or outcome of evolution. *On the basis of being adapted it is possible to produce more and more risky ways of non-adaptation* - as long as autopoiesis continues.
[...]
Back to design: The present does not at all mark the wavefront of progress, but merely consists of what has remained from the past. And so it happens that we do not live in the best of all possible worlds. Harmony, if at all, is "post-stabilized" harmony, which we are creating in our narratives. The study of failed innovations ("floppology") might be a promising approach to improve designing. The "dark side" of the field is probably richer than the "best practice" view.
-- Cita para el seminario.
[...]
Design activities intervene into the relations of co-evolving autopoietic systems by means of creating artefacts that pretend to improve those relations. The basic problem is neither lacking individual creativity nor insufficient planning, but the uncontrollable and unpredictable behaviour of consciousness and communication in the environment of the artefacts. Design activities are bound to the time-structures of other systems as *economy*, science, *politics*. Design has no "Eigen-time". Its scattered structures evolve "in-between". *The most developed, almost universal, instrument for bridging this kind of gaps is language, which enables communication*. Functioning communication is highly improbable, as we know. Functioning design is even more improbable
[...]
Pragmatically spoken: the acquisition of competence in dealing with uncertainty means that we have to make the right mistakes faster than others.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2910"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2911"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2912">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/Jonas-Chow-MAPS-theoretical-background.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2913"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2914">Design is a *process* which uses knowledge to generate new *forms* and new (forms of) *knowledge*.
[...]
Research Through Design (RTD) (Jonas 2007) is the appropriate model of
Design Thinking processes. It conceives the research process as a situated /
contextualized design process aiming at knowledge generation for the improvement of
situations. Design thinking and systems thinking seem to be closely related.
[...]
Open transdisciplinarity as suggested by Valerie Brown (2010) implies the synthesis /
integration of different knowledge cultures in a collective learning / designing cycle of
the Kolb type:
Individual knowledge: Own lived experience, lifestyle choices, learning style, identity.
Content: identity, reflections, ideas.
Local community knowledge: Shared lived experience of individuals, families,
businesses, communities. Content: stories, events, histories.
Specialized knowledge: Environment and health science, finance, engineering, law,
philosophy, etc. Content: case studies, experiments.
Organizational knowledge: Organizational governance, policy development, legislation,
market. Content: agendas, alliances, planning.
Holistic knowledge: Core of the matter, vision of the future, a common purpose, aim of
sustainability. Content: symbol, vision, ideal.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2915"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2916">:author: Luna Cárdenas, Offray Vladimir
:title: Hackerspaces y \*\ labs como lugares para explorar y configurar tecnologías sociales digitales autopoiéticas
:date: Abril, 2011
:publication: Ponencia en el X Festival Internacional de la Imagen, Manizales
:pages:
:url: http://hackbo.co/home/ponenciaDoctoralFestival2011.pdf/view
:licence: CC-By-SA 3.0 unported license.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2917"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2918">http://hackbo.co/home/ponenciaDoctoralFestival2011.pdf/view </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2919"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2920">:author: Maturana, Humberto y Varela, Francisco
:title: Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living
:date:
:publication: Revista Estudos Feministas.
:pages: 385 - 405
:url:
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2921"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2922">http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nVmcN9Ja68kC&dq=Maturana++Varela+Autopoiesis+Cognition&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=vN1YS_eUGqD20wSjzLHxBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2923"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2924">:author: Maxwell, J. W
:title: Tracing the Dynabook
:date: Noviembre, 2006
:publication: Tesis Doctoral
:pages:
:url: http://thinkubator.ccsp.sfu.ca/Dynabook/dissertation
:licence:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2925"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2926">:author: Perez-Bustos, Tania
:title: Reflexiones sobre una Software etnografía feminista del Software Libre en Colombia
:date: mayo-agosto 2010
:publication: Revista Estudos Feministas.
:pages: 385 - 405
:url: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v18n2/06.pdf
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2927"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2928">file://home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/perezBustosTania-ReflexionesSobreUnaEtnogragiaFeministaDelSoftwareLibre.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2929">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/perezBustosTania-TesisVF.pdf
:author: Perez-Bustos, Tania
:title: Los márgenes de la Popularización de la ciencia y la tecnología: Conexiones feministas en el sur global.
:date: Abril, 2010
:publication: Tesis doctoral
:place: Bogotá, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional.
:pages:
:url:
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2930"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2931">:author:Saikaly, Fatina.
:date:2005
:title: Approaches to Design Research: Towards the Designerly Way
:publicacion: memorias Design System Evolution: 6th European Academy of Design Conference, Bremen, pp. 29-31 March 2005,
:url: http://www.verhaag.net/ead06/fullpapers/ead06_id187_2.pdf
:recuperado: 29 de septiembre de 2007.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2932"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2933"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2934"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2935">http://espaciopsicoanaliticopampeano.blogspot.com/2011/01/acerca-de-el-artesano-de-richard-sennet.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2936">http://cjkampos.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/richard-sennet-el-artesano/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2937">http://es.paperblog.com/el-artesano-260495/
@language rest
Un muy buen cubrimiento, con interesantes fotos ilustrativas de los temas abordados por Sennet en su libro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2938">http://www.librosintinta.com/busca/richard+sennet+el+artesano/pdf/
@language rest
Varios pdf descargables con información sobre El Artesano. Fue de allí que descargué el texto completo.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2939"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2940">http://www.richardsennett.com/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2941">http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sennett </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2942"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2943">http://yamidencine-y-filo.blogspot.com/2011/03/resena-carne-y-piedra-richard-sennett.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2944"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2945">:titulo: Tecnologías para la inclusión social y políticas públicas en América Latina
:autor: Thomas, Hernan
:fecha: ?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2946"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2947">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/HernanThomasTecnologiasparalainclusionsocialypoliticaspublicasenAmricaLatina.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2948"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2949">Las tecnologías desempeñan un papel central en los procesos de cambio social.
Demarcan posiciones y conductas de los actores; condicionan estructuras de
distribución social, costos de producción, acceso a bienes y servicios; generan
problemas sociales y ambientales; facilitan o dificultan su resolución.
No se trata de una simple cuestión de determinismo tecnológico. Tampoco de una
relación causal dominada por relaciones sociales. Las tecnologías son construcciones
sociales tanto como las sociedades son construcciones tecnológicas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2950">Desde mediados de la década del ‘60, comenzó a proliferar la producción de
tecnologías denominadas “apropiadas”, “intermedias”, “alternativas” o, más
recientemente, “innovaciones sociales”, “grassroots”. El objetivo explícito de estas
tecnologías ha sido responder a problemáticas de desarrollo comunitario, generación
de servicios y alternativas tecno-productivas en escenarios socio-económicos
caracterizados por situaciones de extrema pobreza (en diferentes países
subdesarrollados de Asia, África y, en menor medida, América Latina). Son ejemplos
arquetípicos de estas tecnologías los reactores de biomasa, algunos sistemas
energéticos de bajo costo (basados en energía solar y eólica), técnicas constructivas
para viviendas sociales y sistemas de cultivo agroecológico (o, recientemente,
proyectos educativos de alcance masivo como “One Laptop Per Child”).[O1]_
.. _[O1]: El problema de iniciativas como OLPC es que vienen configuradas desde el centro, no desde la periferia.
Es posible definir Tecnología Social como una forma de diseñar, desarrollar,
implementar y gestionar tecnología orientada a resolver problemas sociales y
ambientales, generando dinámicas sociales y económicas de inclusión social y de
desarrollo sustentable.
La Tecnología Social alcanza un amplio abanico de producciones de tecnologías de
producto, proceso y organización: alimentos, vivienda, energía, agua potable,
transporte, comunicaciones, entre otras. [O2]_
.. _[o2]: Las tecnologías blandas (software, video, música, imagen) pueden ayudar a la configuración de otras tecnologías rígidas (físicas) debido al tránsito desde la "plusvalía simbólica" a procesos autosostenibles.
Mis Comentarios:
================
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2951">¿Desarrollar tecnologías sociales como componentes clave de estrategias de
inclusión social de todos? [o ¿sólo de los pobres?] [o1]_
.. _[o1]: Esta es una dicotomía superable.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2952">Los actores fundamentales de los procesos de desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales en
la región son:
* movimientos sociales,
* cooperativas populares,
* ONGs,
* unidades públicas de I+D,
* divisiones gubernamentales y organismos descentralizados,
* empresas públicas (y, en menor medida, empresas privadas).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2953">A lo largo de la historia de más de medio siglo de concepción y uso de tecnologías
orientadas a la resolución de problemas de pobreza y exclusión social es posible
registrar una significativa cantidad de experiencias consideradas como fracasos.
No parece fácil desarrollar e implementar este tipo de tecnologías. Muchos de estos
desarrollos tecnológicos fueron discontinuados, o generaron significativos efectos no
deseados.
Así, es necesario responder cuatro preguntas básicas:
• ¿Por qué “funcionan” algunas tecnologías sociales?
• ¿Por qué “no funcionan” algunas tecnologías sociales?
• ¿Para quién “funcionan”?
• ¿Para quién “NO”?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2954">* aspectos político-institucionales:
* privatización de la empresa (comunitaria) de servicios sanitarios
* aspectos socio-institucionales:
* inexistencia de una estructura local permanente de toma de decisiones y
administración
* falta de mantenimiento por técnicos capacitados
* aspectos socio-culturales:
* reciente desconfianza de los pobladores ante una tecnología que
comenzaron a percibir como inestable, y poco confiable
*lo anterior en el ejemplo de los colectores de niebla*
Estas disfunciones no se explican, simplemente, por motivos sociales de “no-adopción”
de un artefacto “técnicamente bien diseñado”. El *diseño completo* de los atrapanieblas
suponía una cierta organización social, unas capacidades cognitivas por parte de los
usuarios, una administración local. El diseño completo de los biodigestores suponía que
el excremento gratuito nunca se convertiría en un bien de cambio, que nunca habría
conflictos respecto de la apropiación de beneficios directos y derivados.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2955"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2956">
A inicios de la década del ‘60, Lewis Mumford denunciaba los riesgos políticos de la
producción en gran escala. En su conocido artículo Authoritarian and Democratic
Technics (1964) planteaba que el advenimiento de la democracia política durante los
últimos siglos había sido impedido por tecnologías de gran escala que, dadas sus
necesidades de operación, siempre connotaban direcciones centralizadoras, y dadas
sus necesidades de control, autoritarias.
Frente a ello, Mumford contrapone la necesidad de desarrollar “tecnologías
democráticas”, caracterizadas por producciones de *pequeña escala*, basadas en las
habilidades humanas, la energía animal, o en pequeñas máquinas, bajo una activa
dirección comunitaria, con un uso discreto de los recursos naturales (para una enfoque
similar véase Winner, 1988).
Los desarrollos conceptuales de Mumford constituyen un antecedente fundamental
para comprender la matriz en la que se generaron las primeras conceptualizaciones de
“tecnología apropiada”. Pero también explicitan, en su relación causal directa y
necesaria entre *gran escala y autoritarismo*, una concepción *determinista tecnológica*
de la *relación tecnología/sociedad.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2957"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2958">Tanto la *escala reducida* como la utilización de insumos de *costo residual* permitirían un
bajo nivel de inversión -lo que, en muchos casos suponía una escasa o nula relación
con el mercado- (véase Schumacher, 1973; Jecquier, 1976 y Kohr, 1981). Se
consideraba que las tecnologías apropiadas (orientadas al consumo de grupos
familiares o comunitarios, sin expectativas de comercialización) serían no-alienantes,
siguiendo a Mumford, democráticas y, dado su menor impacto ambiental (comparado
con las producciones a escala industrial) ecológicas.
[...]
Pero algunas de sus determinaciones normativas, derivadas de
una visión determinista tecnológica: *rechazo a la gran escala*, adopción de tecnologías
intensivas en mano de obra, también signaron una forma de producción de bienes y
servicios limitada tanto en el plano socio-económico (promoción, en la práctica, de
economías de dos sectores) como cognitivo (promoción de *tecnologías simples* y
maduras, de *bajo contenido científico y tecnológico*) [o1]_
.. _[o1]: ¿Cómo se calcula el "bajo costo"? en casos como web2py vs Zope. Hay que probar la aproximación en doble vía: deconstruir desde lo complejo y construir desde lo simple (a pesar de mis preferencias particulares).
derivaron en experiencias “paternalistas” (tecnólogos de países desarrollados diseñaron y
transfirieron tecnologías maduras, con operaciones de *downsizing* [P]_ ), orientadas a la
*resolución de problemas puntuales*. [o2]_
.. [o2]_ El caracter versátil del computador le permitiría resolver problemas múltiples... aunque todos dentro de una plano digital. Sólo comunicar la capa digital y la análoga, permitiría ese tránsito (de nuevo acá la plusvalía simbólica parece lo más adecuado)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2959">*enfoque desde la ingeniería y economía*
Según Robinson (1983) la definición de una “tecnología apropiada” debía incorporar el
análisis de diferentes variables: disponibilidad de mano de obra calificada y su valor
relativo, capital incorporado en la maquinaria, en los insumos y en el proceso de
producción, y disponibilidad de recursos humanos de gestión. Estas variables deberían
reflejar la escasez o abundancia de recursos particulares en la composición de los
insumos necesarios, sustituyendo el capital (por ejemplo, en una economía donde la
mano de obra fuese abundante y el capital escaso).
La complejización conceptual de la “tecnología apropiada eficiente” intentó definir –de
forma abarcativa- tecnologías apropiadas tanto para los países en desarrollo como
para países desarrollados; tanto para pequeñas comunidades como para empresas
multinacionales. [...] La noción de eficiencia
según el contexto de aplicación es aplicada sobre cualquier tipo de desarrollo
tecnológico.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2960">También en los ´80, se alzaron algunas voces críticas. Para Dickson (1980), la
implementación de tecnologías intermedias y apropiadas, sin un previo *cuestionamiento de la racionalidad tecnológica occidental dominante*, conllevaba una *concepción neutral, y por lo tanto determinista, de la tecnología como medio de cambio social*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2961">
Mantiene la inhibición sobre tecnologías conocimiento-intensivas- para la producción de bienes y servicios, tiende a generar, en la práctica, *economías de dos sectores*.[p]_ Por otra parte, *al restringir las operaciones tecnológicas a acciones de downsizing de tecnologías maduras, resulta, en términos dinámicos, una estrategia anti-innovativa.* [o1]_
.. _[o1]: No es el caso de web2py. No es un downsizing de nada. Esta inspirado en varios frameworks maduros, pero el caracter minimalista y autocontenido no lo convierte en downsizing y por el contrario tiene altos niveles de innovación, a pesar de no ser tan cognitivo intensivo como sus contrapartes.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2962">Con el objetivo de salir del problema conceptual, Dickson planteó la necesidad de
instrumentar “tecnologías alternativas”: instrumentos, máquinas y técnicas necesarios
para reflejar y mantener modos de producción social no-opresores y no-
manipuladores, y una relación no-explotadora con respecto al medio ambiente natural.
(Dickson, 1980).
En este sentido, el aporte de Dickson puede ser considerado más un criterio
ideológico-político que un programa de producción e implementación de tecnologías. De
todos modos, no consiguió escapar de la restricción determinista tecnológica que
cuestionaba.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2963">A diferencia de todos los planteos anteriores, Grassroots supone la valorización del
conocimiento tácito y consuetudinario acumulado por las poblaciones en situación de
pobreza.
[...]
La propia estructura de microcréditos y asociativismo de la Red Honey Bee parece
suponer otro límite de las experiencias, *basadas excluyentemente en relaciones de mercado* (y la subyacente idea de generación de micro-entrepeneurs).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2964">A diferencia de la innovación convencional, que se concentra en objetivos económicos
orientados al aumento del lucro, la innovación social se preocupa por alcanzar metas
sociales, culturales y políticas. La innovación social no es producida exclusivamente
por expertos o científicos, sino que incluye conocimientos prácticos derivados de la
experiencia.
[...]
A diferencia de las propuestas anteriores (con la excepción de Gupta), la propuesta se
basa en nuevos desarrollos teóricos de la economía del cambio tecnológico, poniendo
especial consideración en el uso de TICs.
Concebida en países desarrollados, la propuesta implica, en la práctica, un planteo
ofertista asistencialista, y supone, al mismo tiempo, una convergencia de intereses
entre sociedad civil y mercado. En este sentido, tiende a *considera a los innovadores sociales como entrepreneurs beneficiarios de renta capitalista*. No por casualidad, una de las principales preocupaciones normativas de las propuestas de social innovations
es la *propiedad intelectual*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2965">*orientada al 80% de la población mundial pobre*
La propuesta “base de la pirámide” remite a la creación de un mercado de
consumidores (habilitados a partir de la percepción de pequeñas rentas, de
microcréditos y del accionar de ONGs comunitarias), que posibilite su acceso a bienes
diseñados ad hoc, producidos por empresas transnacionales. Explora una dimensión
poco explotada –si no directamente dejada de lado- por otros abordajes.
Pero, paradójicamente, despliega pocas especificaciones respecto de la participación
de los usuarios en el diseño de los artefactos.
Basada excluyentemente en relaciones de mercado, supone el riesgo de cristalización
de la exclusión por otras vías. Y la explotación de un mercado donde, probablemente,
el principal beneficiario desea la propia empresa transnacional.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2966">En los países vascos, la Asociación para la Promoción de la Tecnología Social
(APTES) define la Tecnología Social como una aplicación de conocimientos científicos
y tecnológicos orientada a la resolución de problemas de subsistencia, salud,
educación, envejecimiento y discapacidad.
Si bien la adopción del concepto “re-aplicación” constituye un aporte significativo, la
conceptualización de tecnología social adoptada aún supone amplios márgenes de
ambigüedad. ¿Se trata de una propuesta ofertista (a partir de un banco de tecnologías
registradas)? ¿Se restringe a la concepción de tecnologias orientadas por la resolución
de problemas puntuales de grupos desfavorecidos? ¿Reitera los problemas señalados
en las conceptualizaciones anteriores? ¿Constituye una propuesta de inclusión socio-
económica o tiende a generar economías de dos sectores?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2967">Cada una de las definiciones disponibles presentan restricciones y
contradicciones significativas, de distinto signo:
* Determinismo tecnológico
* Ofertismo
* Voluntarismo
* Paternalismo
* Uso excluyente de tecnologías maduras
* No uso intensivo de conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos
* No uso de conocimientos tácitos y consuetudinarios
* Uso intensivo de mano de obra
* Restricción al uso intensivo de maquinaria y sistemas complejos
* No aprovechamiento de economías de escala
* Resolución de problemas puntuales (soluciones no sistémicas)
* Ignorancia de relaciones de mercado
* Generación de economías de dos sectores
*Uso parcial o inexistente de herramientas de análisis disponibles (por ej: economía de la innovación)
* Restricción a la dinámica del mercado como vía excluyente de relaciones económicas
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2968"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2969">Por eso, es tan necesario como ineludible revisar las conceptualizaciones sobre
tecnologías “sociales” disponibles, abandonando su concepción original como recursos
paliativos de situaciones de pobreza y exclusión, para pasar a concebirlas como
sistemas tecnológicos orientados a la generación de dinámicas de inclusión, vía la
resolución de problemas sociales y ambientales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2970">como intervenciones paliativas, destinadas a usuarios con escasos niveles educativos,
acaban generando dinámicas top-down (“paternalistas”). Así, por un lado, privilegian el
empleo de conocimiento experto, ajeno a los usuarios-beneficiarios, y por otro sub-
utilizan el conocimiento tecnológico local (tácito y codificado) históricamente acumulado.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2971">Desde esta perspectiva, las Tecnologías Sociales se vinculan a la generación de
capacidades de resolución de problemas sistémicos, antes que a la resolución de
déficits puntuales. Superan las limitaciones de concepciones lineales en términos de
“transferencia y difusión” mediante la percepción de dinámicas de integración en
sistemas socio-técnicos y procesos de re-significación de tecnologías. Apuntan a la
generación de dinámicas locales de producción, cambio tecnológico e innovación
socio-técnicamente adecuadas.
constituir la resolución de los problemas vinculados a la pobreza y la exclusión en un
desafío científico-técnico. De hecho, el desarrollo local de Tecnologías Sociales
conocimiento-intensivas podría generar utilidad social de los conocimientos científicos y
tecnológicos localmente producidos, hasta hoy sub-utilizados (Thomas, 2001; Kreimer
y Thomas, 2002 a y b).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2972">La diferenciación de productos, la adecuación y mejora de procesos productivos,
*el desarrollo de nuevas formas de organización, la incorporación de valor agregado, la intensificación del contenido cognitivo de productos y procesos* son cuestiones clave
tanto para concebir un cambio del perfil productivo de las economías en desarrollo
como para generar una mejora estructural de las condiciones de vida de la población
(mejoras en productos y servicios, calidad y cantidad de empleos, mejoras en el nivel
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2973">Dado que la adecuación socio-técnica de las Tecnologías
Sociales constituye una relación problema-solución no lineal, será necesario desarrollar
nuevas capacidades estratégicas (de “diagnóstico”, planificación, diseño,
implementación, gestión y evaluación).
¿Cómo generar nuevas dinámicas tecno-productivas locales basadas en Tecnologías
Sociales?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2974">El tratamiento de las Tecnologías Sociales con herramientas correspondientes a los
campos de la economía del cambio tecnológico y la sociología de la tecnología posibilita
la aplicación de un nuevo arsenal de conceptos:
relaciones usuario-productor,
procesos de aprendizaje,
dinámicas co-evolutivas,
trayectorias tecnológicas y tecnoeconómicas,
sistemas locales de innovación,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2975">Sobre los procesos de concepción e implementación de Tecnologías Sociales. Así, es posible conectar –tanto en el plano
teórico como en el político-económico- las experiencias de Tecnologías Sociales con
contextos socio-económicos e institucionales innovativos. Obviamente, como en el
caso de las tecnologías convencionales, ni los abordajes “vinculacionistas” (Thomas y
Dagnino, 2005) ni modelos Demand Pull resultan adecuados para el desarrollo de
Tecnologías Sociales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2976">Lejos de la estática invención de una solución “apropiada”, el desarrollo de Tecnologías
Sociales puede implicar la gestación de dinámicas locales de innovación, la apertura de
nuevas líneas de productos, de nuevas empresas productivas, de nuevas formas de
organización de la producción y de nuevas oportunidades de acumulación (tanto en el
mercado interno como en el exterior), así como la generación de redes de usuarios
intermedios y proveedores.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2977">problemas socio-políticos pueden ser abordados desde la perspectiva de las
Tecnologías Sociales. La realización de experiencias basadas en Tecnologías Sociales
supone también obvias ventajas políticas: resolución de problemas de inclusión,
selección de objetivos y beneficiarios, legitimación y visibilidad del accionar
gubernamental. Al incorporar la dimensión organizacional, el uso de nuevas
Tecnologías Sociales puede extenderse al tratamiento de otros problemas, tales como
prevención y seguridad, acceso a derechos y bienes culturales.
La generación de nuevas formas de gestión adecuadas al diseño, producción,
implementación y evaluación de Tecnologías Sociales implica no sólo la acumulación de
aprendizajes en el plano de la política pública y la acción del estado, sino también la
habilitación de nuevos canales de decisión y concepción de estrategias de
intervención. Las áreas prioritarias de alimentación, salud, vivienda y energía
constituyen sectores clave tanto para las políticas públicas como para las estrategias
de desarrollo local y regional.
Esta dinámica puede abrir una nueva posibilidad de profundización de las relaciones
democráticas: la incorporación de los usuarios-beneficiarios en las decisiones
tecnológicas. Así, la inclusión de los usuarios-beneficiarios en los procesos de diseño y
producción de Tecnologías Sociales genera la posibilidad de desarrollar una nueva
dimensión de las sociedades democráticas: la ciudadanía socio-técnica.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2978">¿cómo incorporar activamente a los usuarios-beneficiarios finales (movimientos
sociales, ONGs, cooperativas populares, organizaciones de base) en los
procesos de diseño e implementación?
¿cómo el sistema científico y tecnológico local puede aportar soluciones a
problemas sociales? ¿cómo integrar los recursos humanos científicos y
tecnológicos altamente calificados disponibles en la generación de innovaciones
en Tecnologías Sociales?
¿cómo gestionar y evaluar programas de Tecnologías Sociales?
¿cómo generar nuevas estrategias de desarrollo basadas en Tecnologías
Sociales?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2979">La adopción de un abordaje socio-técnico constructivista como matriz conceptual del
abordaje constituye una operación clave para captar la multidimensionalidad del objeto
“Tecnologías Sociales”.
Desde esta perspectiva, no es posible considerar a los artefactos y sistemas como
meros derivados de la evolución tecnológica (determinismo tecnológico) o simples
consecuencias de los cambios económicos, políticos o culturales (determinismo
social), sino como resultados de la dinámica de procesos de constitución de
“ensambles socio-técnicos” (Bijker, 1995).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2980"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2981">Este concepto sistémico sincrónico permite insertar en un mapa de interacciones, una
forma determinada de cambio socio-técnico, por ejemplo, un proyecto de tecnología
social, una serie de artefactos, una trayectoria socio-técnica, la construcción e
interpretación de una forma de relaciones problema-solución. Incluye un conjunto de
relaciones tecno-económicas y socio-políticas vinculadas al cambio tecnológico, en el
nivel de análisis de un ensamble socio-técnico (Wiebe Bijker), un gran sistema
tecnológico (Thomas Hughes), una red tecno-económica (Michel Callon) o, un sistema
nacional local de innovación (Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Chistopher Freeman).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2982">
proceso de co-construcción de productos, procesos productivos y organizaciones,
instituciones, relaciones usuario-productor, *relaciones problema-solución*[o1]_,
procesos de construcción de “funcionamiento” y “utilidad” de una tecnología,
racionalidades, políticas y estrategias de un actor (ONG, institución de I+D,
universidad, etc.), o, asimismo, de un marco tecnológico (Bijker) determinado
(tecnología nuclear, siderurgia, etc.).
.. _[o1]: cómo vamos a negociar estas relaciones?
Este concepto –de naturaleza eminentemente diacrónica- permite *ordenar relaciones causales entre elementos heterogéneos en secuencias temporales,* tomando como punto de partida un elemento socio-técnico en particular (por ejemplo, *una tecnología social-artefacto*, proceso, organización determinada-, una empresa, un grupo de I+D).
Las dinámicas socio-técnicas son más abarcativas que las trayectorias: toda
trayectoria socio-técnica se desenvuelve en el seno de una o diversas dinámicas
socio-técnicas y resulta incomprensible fuera de ellas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2983">proceso *auto-organizado* de generación de *entidad y sentido* que aparece cuando un elemento (idea, concepto, artefacto, herramienta,
sistema técnico) es trasladado de un contexto sistémico a otro. La inserción de un
mismo significante (por ejemplo, una tecnología social) en un nuevo sistema (ensamble
socio-técnico, sistema local de producción, formación histórico-social) genera la
aparición de nuevos sentidos (funciones, disfuncionalidades, efectos no deseados,
etc.).
Estos nuevos sentidos no aparecen simplemente por la agencia que los diferentes
actores ejercen sobre el significante, sino en virtud de la resignificación generada por el
particular efecto "sintáctico" de la inserción del significante en otra dinámica socio-
técnica.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2984">forma relativamente estabilizada de producir tecnología y de
construir su “funcionamiento” y “utilidad”. En tanto herramienta heurística, permite
realizar descripciones enmarcadas en la concepción constructivista de las trayectorias
y dinámicas socio-técnicas. Supone complejos procesos de adecuación de respuestas
tecnológicas a concretas y particulares articulaciones socio-técnicas históricamente
situadas: “la adaptación al entorno culmina en estilo" (Hughes).
Un estilo socio-técnico –de un grupo o comunidad determinada- se conforma en el
interjuego de elementos heterogéneos: relaciones usuario-productor, sistema de
premios y castigos, distribución de prestigio, condiciones geográficas, experiencias
históricas regionales y nacionales, etc.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2985">operación de reutilización creativa de tecnologías previamente disponibles. Las operaciones de resignificación de tecnología no son
meras alteraciones "mecánicas" de una tecnología, sino una reasignación de sentido
de esa tecnología y de su medio de aplicación.
Resignificar tecnologías es refuncionalizar conocimientos, artefactos y sistemas. El
conocimiento requerido es –en muchos casos- de la misma índole que el que exige, por
ejemplo, la fabricación de la maquinaria original, y es similar en sus condiciones y
características a la actividad de diseño básico. Las operaciones de resignificación de
tecnología se sitúan en la interfase entre las acciones sociales de desarrollo
tecnológico y las trayectorias tecnológicas de concretos grupos sociales, en el “tejido
sin costuras” de la dinámica socio-técnica.
El diseño y desarrollo de Tecnologías Sociales suele caracterizarse por una intensiva
aplicación de operaciones de resignificación de tecnología.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2986">los “problemas ” y las relaciones de
correspondencia “problema-solución” constituyen construcciones socio-técnicas. En
los procesos de co-construcción socio-técnica de las Tecnologías Sociales, la
participación relativa del accionar problema-solución alcanza tal carácter dominante
que condiciona el conjunto de prácticas socio-institucionales y, en particular, las
dinámicas de aprendizaje y la generación de instrumentos organizacionales.
El conocimiento generado en estos procesos problema-solución es en parte codificado
y en parte tácito (sólo parcialmente explicitado: signado por prácticas cotidianas,
desarrollado en el marco del proceso de toma de decisiones).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2987">el “funcionamiento” o “no-funcionamiento” de un artefacto es
resultado de un proceso de construcción socio-técnica en el que intervienen,
normalmente de forma auto-organizada, elementos heterogéneos: condiciones
materiales, sistemas, conocimientos, regulaciones, financiamiento, prestaciones, etc.
El “funcionamiento” (Bijker, 1995) de los artefactos no es algo dado, “intrínseco a las
características del artefacto”, sino que es una contingencia que se construye social,
tecnológica y culturalmente. Supone complejos procesos de adecuación de
respuestas/soluciones tecnológicas a concretas y particulares articulaciones socio-
técnicas históricamente situadas.
Así, el “funcionamiento” o “no-funcionamiento” de los artefactos debe ser analizado
simétricamente. El “funcionamiento” de una máquina no debe ser considerado como el
*explanans sino como el explanandum.* |?|
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2988">proceso auto-organizado e interactivo de integración de
un conocimiento, artefacto o sistema tecnológico en una dinámica o trayectoria socio-
técnica, socio-históricamente situada. Estos procesos integran diferentes fenómenos
socio-técnicos: relaciones-problema-solución, dinámicas de co-construcción, path
dependence, resignificación, estilos tecnológicos.
Los procesos de producción y de construcción social de la utilidad y el funcionamiento
de las tecnologías constituyen dos caras de una misma moneda de la adecuación
socio-técnica: la utilidad de un artefacto o conocimiento tecnológico no es una instancia
que se encuentra al final de una cadena de prácticas sociales diferenciadas, sino que
está presente tanto en el diseño de un artefacto como en los procesos de re-
significación de las tecnologías en los que participan diferentes grupos sociales
relevantes (usuarios, beneficiarios, funcionarios públicos, integrantes de ONGs, …).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2989"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2990">plantear nuevos conceptos y criterios para el diseño, generación e
implementación de “tecnologías sociales" en base al concepto de “adecuación
socio-técnica”.
El abordaje socio-técnico provee una serie de criterios generales para el diseño,
producción, implementación y evaluación de tecnologías sociales. El criterio principal,
en principio, es el de “adecuación socio-técnica”. No existen tecnologías sociales de
validez universal. Difícilmente tal proceso de adecuación se genere de una sola vez, y
para siempre. De hecho, todas las tecnologías son objeto de procesos de testeo,
transformación y ajuste a condiciones de uso y contexto. La utilidad de las Tecnologías
Sociales es socio-técnicamente construida.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2991">los contextos regulatorios y sus significados. *Ninguna tecnología funciona fuera de una matriz socio-técnica, históricamente situada.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2992"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2993">Un aspecto central de la noción de simetría se expresa en la consideración de toda
cultura como tecnológica y de toda tecnología como expresión cultural. La inclusión de
las culturas locales, de los usuarios finales es absolutamente relevante en la dinámica
de construcción de funcionamiento de las Tecnologías Sociales. Esto no implica
restringir las posibilidades de desarrollo tecnológico a los estándares de la cultura del
grupo beneficiario, sino registrar el potencial aprovechamiento de los conocimientos
locales (codificados y tácitos), en combinación con otros conocimientos (codificados y
tácitos) generados en terceras culturas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2994">En sentido estricto, todas las tecnologías son conocimiento-intensivas. En algunos
casos, intensivas en conocimientos científicos y tecnológico; en otros, tácitos y
consuetudinarios; en otros, estéticos y normativos. La percepción de los artefactos
como “híbridos de tecnología y cultura” puede ser una imagen particularmente útil a la
hora de diseñar Tecnologías Sociales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2995">Un abordaje en términos socio-técnicos tiende a focalizar las relaciones problema/
solución como un complejo proceso de co-construcción. Esto configura, en la práctica,
una visión sistémica, donde difícilmente exista una solución puntual para un problema
puntual. Por el contrario, esta visión sistémica posibilita la aparición de una nueva forma
de concebir soluciones socio-técnicas (combinando, por ejemplo, la resolución de un
déficit de energía con la gestación de una cadena de frío, vinculada a su vez a un
sistema de conservación de alimentos y la potencial comercialización del excedente).
Ajustando el concepto, tal vez sería conveniente hablar de Sistemas Tecnológicos
Sociales, antes que de Tecnologías Sociales puntuales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2996">La adopción del concepto de “transducción” permite criticar las nociones lineales,
estáticas y mecánicas de “transferencia” y “difusión”, normalmente utilizadas en el
campo de las tecnologías sociales como acciones deseables. Como se explicita en el
concepto de re-aplicación, utilizado por la Rede de Tecnología Social de Brasil, cada
proceso de implementación local de una tecnología implica nuevas acciones de
desarrollo tecnológico, nuevas operaciones cognitivas, nuevas relaciones usuario-
productor. La aplicación del concepto “transducción” en el análisis de dinámicas de
desarrollo e implementación de Tecnologías Sociales puede permitir una reducción de
efectos no deseados, y, en última instancia, de la tasa de desarrollos considerados
“fracasos”.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2997">Precisamente la eliminación de los conceptos de “transferencia” y “difusión” permite
superar la falsa contradicción entre diseño universal de las tecnologías y aplicaciones
locales. Al mismo tiempo, posibilita dejar de lado la idea de que tecnologías “bien
concebidas” en términos técnicos universales presentan problemas locales de
implementación y gestión. **Si la distinción universal/local es absurda en las tecnologías convencionales (todas las innovaciones son locales, planteó Freeman hace más de 20 años), cuánto más lo será en el territorio de las Tecnologías Sociales (donde no es posible registrar mercados globales, ni situaciones isomórficas en diferentes sociedades).**
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2998">La noción de “adaptación” –comúnmente utilizada en los textos de tecnología
apropiada- también presenta problemas. En principio, porque comparte con las de
transferencia y difusión la idea determinista tecnológica de la unicidad del artefacto, no
importa en qué sistema de relaciones socio-técnicas éste se inserte. Por otro lado,
porque supone una secuencia de diseño original y adaptación a algunas variables
discretas correspondientes a la situación local (como si esto fuera suficiente para
construir el funcionamiento del artefacto). La noción de resignificación de tecnologías
parece más adecuada para dar cuenta del complejo proceso de reasignación de
sentidos de los artefactos tecnológicos, en el marco de dinámicas locales de
construcción de funcionamiento, y co-construcción de las interacciones entre usuarios
y artefactos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.2999">Las Tecnologías Sociales no funcionan simplemente porque resuelven un problema
puntual, sino porque consiguen insertarse como causas eficientes en la generación de
procesos de cambio tecnológico y social. Es la adecuación socio-técnica de las
tecnologías convencionales lo que permite que sean aceptadas, utilizadas,
compatibilizadas y apropiadas por los usuarios. Las tecnologías sociales suponen un
grado más en esta construcción de funcionamiento: son concebidas para participar
activamente en procesos de cambio socio-político, socio-económico y socio-cultural.
Constituyen una base material de afirmaciones y sanciones destinada a promover el
desarrollo socio-económico y sustentar procesos de democratización.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3000">Vienen 4 tables muy interesantes que establecen el resumen de las posibilidades entre esas dos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3001"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3002"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3003">Normalmente, se ha considerado que las Tecnologías Sociales son más un territorio de
“extensión” que de investigación y desarrollo. Y, por derivación, que la inserción de
estas temáticas en la agenda de investigación científica y tecnológica implicaba serios
riesgos para la carrera del investigador o tecnólogo. Y esto ha sido verdad en términos
de tecnologías apropiadas o intermedias, que proponían la utilización y adaptación de
tecnologías maduras o de bajo contenido cognitivo. Pero resulta falso en términos de
Tecnologías Sociales del tipo propuesto en el presente trabajo
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3004">Las tecnologías apropiadas se han caracterizado por sub-utilizar los conocimientos
científicos y tecnológicos disponibles. Al mismo tiempo, muchas veces han subutilizado
el conocimiento tácito y consuetudinario disponible. El desarrollo de Tecnologías
Sociales, en cambio no implica límite alguno en términos de contenido científico y
tecnológico de los artefactos y sistemas a generar.
La generación de funcionamiento de las tecnologías sociales demanda uso intensivo
del conocimiento disponible que resulte pertinente al sistema a desarrollar. Lejos de un
límite, constituye una oportunidad para la generación de nuevas tecnologías, nuevos
sistemas operativos, nuevos conocimientos sociales, nuevos conocimientos
científicos. Así como nuevas oportunidades de cooperación transdisciplinar, mezcla de
tecnologías, diálogos transculturales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3005">Sería erróneo encarar semejante desafío como la construcción de una oferta de un
stock de conocimientos, que esperasen la demanda de los potenciales usuarios
sociales. Tampoco sería funcional relevar un listado de demandas y necesidades, y
proponer su satisfacción a actores e instituciones.
Como en el caso de la innovación convencional, directamente vinculada a la obtención
de lucros, sólo la generación de dinámicas de interacción entre productores y usuarios
de conocimientos (finales e intermedios: ONGs, divisiones del estado nacional,
provincial y municipal, agencias gubernamentales, etc.) posibilitará la aparición de
*acumulaciones de aprendizajes por interacción*, la gestación de redes de cooperación y
la construcción de funcionamiento de las tecnologías diseñadas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3006">Contrariamente a los abordajes lineales S&T Push y Demand Pull, la producción,
implementación, gestión y evaluación de Tecnologías Sociales responde a una
dinámica problema/solución *no-lineal*. *El foco de esta dinámica es la calidad de las interacciones*. [o1]_
.. _[o1]: al ser "no lineal" no basta iterar sobre un mismo problema sino mirar los nexos del problema con otras cosas.
El análisis de estas dinámicas supone, en la práctica, la posibilidad de renovar nuestra
comprensión acerca de los procesos de innovación y cambio tecnológico, no
solamente en el campo de las Tecnologías Sociales, sino de las dinámicas de cambio
socio-técnico en general.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3007">Dadas las características de las Tecnologías Sociales y sus procesos de construcción
de funcionamiento socio-técnico, será necesario desarrollar nuevas capacidades, tanto
en el plano del diseño estratégico de
*artefactos y sistemas*,
como del diseño de
*intervenciones sociales* y
*políticas públicas*;
tanto en el plano de la orientación de
proyectos de investigación y desarrollo como en la dirección de instituciones
vinculadas a la producción de conocimientos científicos y tecnológicos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3008">El estado tiene una responsabilidad irrenunciable en la resolución de los problemas de *exclusión social*. E invierte crecientes porciones de su presupuesto en la formación de
recursos humanos (que tienen dificultades de inserción en el mercado laboral) y la
producción de conocimientos (que normalmente no son aprovechados por las
empresas locales). *Su sistema científico y tecnológico no puede mantenerse ajeno a esta responsabilidad sin pagar los costos políticos de deslegitimación y aislamiento social.*
La inclusión de las Tecnologías Sociales en la agenda de las políticas de Ciencia,
Tecnología e Innovación supone un aporte fundamental para la visibilidad y la
legitimación del gasto público en I+D. Como contrapartida, los grupos de investigación
locales podrían producir conocimientos de calidad (en términos de investigación de
excelencia, publicable en revistas de referencia) y relevantes (en términos de su
inmediata aplicación en la resolución de los problemas más apremiantes de la
población).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3009"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3010">En América Latina se verifica una paradoja del subdesarrollo: en tanto los países de la
región no han desplegado plenamente el potencial de sus sistemas productivos,
millones de personas se encuentran fuera de las relaciones de trabajo y generación de
bienes y servicios, e impedidas de acceder a ellos.
Las Tecnologías Sociales constituyen una forma legítima de habilitación del acceso
público a bienes y servicios, *a partir de la producción de bienes comunes*[o1]_. En este
nivel, las tecnologías sociales pueden desempeñar tres papeles fundamentales en una
economía en desarrollo:
.. _[o1]: mirar la relación con Vercelli
* Generación de relaciones económico-productivas inclusivas, más allá de las restricciones (coyunturales y estructurales) de la economía de
mercado
* Acceso a bienes, *más allá de las restricciones del salario de bolsillo*
* Generación de empleo, más allá de las restricciones de la demanda laboral empresarial local
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3011">Tres errores son comunes en la concepción de Tecnologías Sociales en contextos
capitalistas:
1) concebirlas fuera de las relaciones de mercado, como si no se insertaran en
relaciones de intercambio, como si no fueran afectadas por procesos de
formación de precios, como si formaran parte de una economía solidaria
paralela, aislada del resto de las relaciones económico productivas.
2) concebirlas, al estilo de “la base de la pirámide” o algunas “social innovations”
como procesos convencionales de búsqueda de formación de renta vía
innovación tecnológica, como negocio para transnacionales o salvación para
entrepreneurs locales
3) concebirlas como mecanismos destinados a salvar las fallas del sistema de
distribución de renta, como parches tecnológicos a problemas sociales:
servicios y alimentos baratos para población en situación de extrema pobreza.
Ahora bien, es posible concebir procesos de cambio social donde las Tecnologías
Sociales ocupan un espacio estratégico, tanto en términos de dar sustento a
transiciones de puesta en producción, de cambio de hábitos de consumo, de
integración paulatina, como en términos de generación de dinámicas endógenas de
innovación y cambio tecnológico.
Esto *no significa que las Tecnologías Sociales tiendan a reproducir –inexorablemente- las relaciones sociales capitalistas existentes.* Un *diseño estratégico de Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales permitiría dar soporte material a procesos de cambio social, relaciones económicas solidarias, ampliación del carácter público y de libre disponibilidad de bienes y servicios, abaratamiento de costos, control de daños ambientales y disminución de riesgos tecnológicos, al tiempo que sancionaría relativamente (cuanto menos por su presencia como alternativa tecno-productiva) a procesos de discriminación y desintegración, acumulación excesiva, productos suntuarios, producciones ambientalmente no sustentables.*
En otros términos, *la generación de nuevos Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales permitiría generar ciclos de inclusión social, precisamente donde las relaciones capitalistas de mercado impiden la gestación de procesos de integración, y consolidan dinámicas de exclusión social*. Porque, precisamente por su carácter “misión orientado” (de
abaratamiento de costos, racionalización de la producción, promoción de usos
solidarios, distribución del control social de los sistemas productivos, resolución
sistémica de problemas tecno-productivos), las Tecnologías Sociales pueden
desempeñar un papel anticíclico en economías signadas por crisis recurrentes.
Tecnologías Sociales orientadas por criterios de inclusión social posibilitarían la
construcción de sistemas socio-económicos más justos en términos de distribución de
renta, y más participativos en términos de toma de decisiones colectivas. Lejos de una
mera reproducción ampliada, la proliferación de Sistemas Tecnológicos Sociales
permitiría dar sustentabilidad material a nuevos órdenes socio-económicos.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3012">Por eso, las nuevas Tecnologías Sociales *deben ser conocimiento-intensivas*: para responder al desafío de sustituir con ventaja las alternativas tecno-productivas convencionales. Nuevas formas de producción, nuevos productos, nuevos sistemas
organizacionales orientados tanto a la inclusión social de los productores como de los
consumidores y usuarios. No sólo a paliar la situación de grupos desfavorecidos por la lógica interna de las “mejores prácticas” de las tecnologías “rent seeking”.
*Si estas nuevas Tecnologías Sociales no logran ser tan o más eficientes que las convencionales, si no consiguen transformar el sentido común, y con él la noción misma de eficiencia, imponiéndose como solución a las ineficiencias sistémicas de las tecnologías convencionales, sólo generarán –a mediano plazo- nuevas situaciones problemáticas de asimetría interna, exclusión social y desbalance económico.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3013">La adecuación socio-técnica de productos y procesos constituye, en la práctica, un
motor de generación de procesos de diferenciación de productos y diversificación de
procesos. *La respuesta socio-técnicamente adecuada a las concretas condiciones locales tiende a consolidar acumulativamente trayectorias diferenciales de diseño, explotación de potenciales locales (materiales, calificación de mano de obra, integración de contenidos culturales, utilización de materias primas, technology blending, etc.).*
La adecuación a condiciones locales abre, de hecho, un potencial de re-aplicación en
escenarios que respondan a condiciones similares. *Las mismas acciones de re-aplicación tienden, a su vez, a la introducción de innovaciones incrementales de producto y proceso.* Se abre así un abanico de posibilidades de desarrollo e innovación
de Tecnologías Sociales, al mismo tiempo que se expande su utilización en terceros
escenarios –a nivel regional y nacional-.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3014">Es necesario incorporar en el diseño e implementación de programas de desarrollo
basados en Tecnologías Sociales la existencia de procesos de conversión de los
bienes de uso en bienes de cambio. Esto permite anticipar efectos no deseados, evitar
riesgos de tensión social y conflictividad, prevenir potenciales efectos de
desintegración comunitaria, o de generación de situaciones de exclusión dentro de la
población beneficiaria.
Al mismo tiempo, posibilita integrar la circulación de bienes y los mecanismos de
financiación dentro del diseño estratégico de los programas, posibilitando la generación
de nuevos recursos económicos y la aparición de mecanismos de re-inversión y
crédito.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3015">Los diseños de tecnologías apropiadas normalmente se han basado en un par binario
de productores y consumidores, cuando no en la creación de un sujeto único
productor-consumidor (en estrategias de sostenimiento de economías de auto-
consumo). Esta definición del alcance implica, en la práctica, la generación de redes
cortas, unidas por vínculos poco densos y escasamente complejos.
Los sistemas tecno-productivos basados en Tecnologías Sociales deberían poder
superar esta barrera de escala y alcance (scope), reconociendo la existencia de
usuarios-productores intermedios, en redes productivas que incorporen un mayor
grado de complejidad en la división técnica del trabajo.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3016">Es posible -y económicamente viable- generar así un complejo sistema de relaciones
de mercado y no-de mercado- que se integre en una dinámica de distribución equitativa
de la renta, acceso igualitario a bienes y servicios e inclusión social.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3017">* Desarrollo socioeconómico y democracia
* El riesgo político de la economía de dos sectores
* La incorporación de las tecnologías de organización
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3018">Una de las tendencias más evidentes de las dinámicas socio-técnicas vinculadas con
el desarrollo capitalista es la reducción del espacio público y la profundización de los
procesos de apropiación privada de bienes, conocimientos y espacios. Esta
apropiación es acompañada de nuevas tecnologías de control social y regulación de
conductas de la población.
El ejemplo del desarrollo de Internet –concebida como un bien común, como un espacio
público de libre circulación y acceso- puede ser tomado como una clara ilustración del
papel que las tecnologías pueden desempeñar como elementos clave en procesos de
creación y democratización de los espacios. *Al mismo tiempo, las actuales tendencias de control empresarial sobre la propiedad intelectual y el libre acceso a bienes culturales muestran cómo la dinámica privatizadora se extiende sobre estos nuevos espacios.*
*Las Tecnologías Sociales suponen la posibilidad de una ampliación radical del espacio público. No se trata simplemente del espacio público entendido como plazas y parques, calles y ciudades, museos y reparticiones del estado, sino del acceso irrestricto a bienes y servicios, a medios de producción, a redes de comunicación, a nuevas formas de interrelación.*
[...]
*¿Y por qué es conveniente ampliar el espacio de lo público y la producción de bienes comunes? Porque es una de las formas más directas y eficientes de redistribuir la renta, de garantizar una ampliación de los derechos, de viabilizar el acceso a bienes y servicios, y, por lo tanto, de resolver situaciones de exclusión y democratizar una sociedad.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3019">
<<@cita>>
Las Tecnologías Sociales proponen la generación de nuevas vías de construcción y de
resolución de problemas socio-técnicos. Pero, fundamentalmente, suponen una visión
no ingenua de la tecnología y de su participación en procesos de construcción y
configuración de sociedades. También implican la posibilidad de elección de nuevos
senderos, y de participación en esas decisiones tanto de los productores como de los
usuarios de esas tecnologías.
Así, las Tecnologías Sociales no sólo son inclusivas porque están orientadas a
viabilizar el acceso igualitario a bienes y servicios del conjunto de la población, sino
porque explícitamente abren la posibilidad de la participación de los usuarios,
beneficiarios (y también de potenciales perjudicados) en el proceso de diseño y toma
de decisiones para su implementación. Y no lo hacen como si esta participación fuese
un aspecto complementario, al final del proceso productivo, sino porque requieren,
estructuralmente, de la participación de estos diversos actores sociales en los
procesos de diseño e implementación.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3020">Hasta hoy, la tecnología ha sido manejada como una caja negra, como una esfera
autónoma y neutral que determina su propio camino de desarrollo, generando
inexorables efectos, constructivos o destructivos a su paso. Esta visión lineal,
determinista e ingenua de la tecnología permanece aún vigente en la visión ideológica
de muchos actores clave: de los tomadores de decisión, de los tecnólogos, científicos
e ingenieros. Lejos de un sendero único de progreso, existen diferentes vías de
desarrollo tecnológico, diversas alternativas tecnológicas, distintas maneras de
caracterizar un problema y de resolverlo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3021">Si las tecnologías no son neutrales, si existen alternativas tecnológicas y es posible
elegir entre ellas, si los actores sociales pueden participar de estos procesos, y si las
tecnologías constituyen la base material de un sistema de afirmaciones y sanciones
que determina la viabilidad de ciertos modelos socio-económicos, de ciertos regímenes
políticos, así como la inviabilidad de otros, parece obvio que es imprescindible
incorporar la tecnología como un aspecto fundamental de nuestros sistemas de
convivencia democrática.
Resulta tan ingenuo pensar que semejante nivel de decisiones pueda quedar
exclusivamente en manos de “expertos” como concebir que la participación no
informada puede mejorar las decisiones. Parece insostenible continuar pensando que la
tecnología no es un tema central de nuestras democracias.
Lejos de una mera abstracción, se deriva de esta conceptualización toda una línea
acciones políticas. La primera: es necesario realizar un viraje estratégico en la política
científica y tecnológica, orientado a:
* aumentar la participación de las unidades públicas de I+D en las
dinámicas de cambio socio-técnico y
* alinear la producción de conocimiento científico y tecnológico con la
satisfacción de las necesidades sociales locales.
El destino de nuestras sociedades, la estabilización y profundización de nuestras
democracias, la ampliación del espacio público, la producción de los bienes públicos y
la construcción del futuro de la región dependen, probablemente, de la adecuada
concepción de estrategias de desarrollo basadas en la aplicación de Tecnologías
Sociales.
No como una forma de minimizar los efectos de la exclusión de los pobres.
Sino como una forma de viabilizar la inclusión de todos en un futuro posible.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3022"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3023">http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/424822/22211ebd31dfdca3/
@language rest
Un artículo que explica las ideas claves de Unhosted. Cómo dicen, no puede reemplazar cualquier SaaS y aún no está muy maduro.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3024">http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tiddly_on_tahoe
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3025">http://openmesh.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/a-list-of-open-source-ad-hoc-network-and-routing-protocolsplatforms/
@language rest
A list of open source ad-hoc network and routing protocols / platforms.
January 30, 2011 //
Providing local information during an “internet kill switch”.
Due to recent events in Egypt and the speed of the shutdown.
Most of these projects are open to contribution and further development.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3026">http://hispamp3.yes.fm/2004/11/13/como-evitar-la-censura-en-internet
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3027">http://blogs.fsfe.org/fellowship-interviews/?p=299 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3028"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3029">:author:Etienne, Wenger
:date:1998
:title: Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity
:publicacion: Cambridge University Press; 1 edition
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3030"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3125"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3126">Un muy interesante artículo que presenta la otra cara de esta
discusión se puede descargar en el siguiente vínculo
Acceso abierto a las publicaciones científicas : definición, recursos,
copyright e impacto http://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/1486
otro artículo al respecto, desde el punto de vista económico, el
enfoque de su publicación:
Economic Overview of Open Access and the Public Domain in Digital
Scientific and Technical Information 8 Economic
http://books.nap.edu/html/openaccess/29-32.pdf
y otros artículos sobre temas relacionados:
http://www.bienescomunes.org/lectura/
-- Befana
Le añado otro texto a las propuestas de Pilar:
http://onthecommons.org/michel-bauwens-and-peer-production-economy y
solo quiero cerrar diciendo que el hecho de que la sociedad en que
vivimos se llame "sociedad del conocimiento" niega de plano el
supuesto de German
-- Carobotero
Documentos Académicos:
Tesis Doctorado Españolas: http://www.tdr.cesca.es/
Revistas Científicas: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/ http://www.scielo.org/
Bancos de Documentos Académicos: http://roar.eprints.org/ (Colombia tiene
18, la mayoría de Universidades)
-- Ulises
http://ordenadoresenelaula.blogspot.com/2010/10/el-modelo-1x1-una-computadora-por.html
-- Karel
Diplomado Scratch: http://goo.gl/fRB2r
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3127">http://thepowerofopen.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3128">Anna Calvera:
El libro de las dos culturas es muy antiguo y es una conferencia de Snow. Seguro que lo encuentras. Otro libro que te puede interesar, a tí y también a todos los doctorandos es el de Schön: "El practicante reflexivo".</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3129"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3130">http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html
@language rest
:Accesado: Septiembre 17 de 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3131"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3132"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3133">p128
> Digital technology is programmed. This makes it biased toward those with the
> capacity to write the code. In a digital age, we must learn how to make the
> software, or risk becoming the software. It is not too difficult or too late
> to learn the code behind the things we use-- or at least to understand that
> there is code behind their interfaces. Otherwise, we are at the mercy of
> those who do the programming, the people paying them, or even the technology
> itself."
>
> p133
> "Programming is the sweet spot, the high leverage point in a digital
> society. If we don't learn to program, we risk being programmed ourselves."
> </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3134">The great funding in the 60s was done mostly by the government, and for personal
computing and pervasive networks was spread over more than 15 universities and
research companies who formed a cooperative research community. (The story of
this is told in "The Dream Machine" by Mitchel Waldrop).
-- Alan Kay</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3135">La cultura, la ciencia y la tecnología, aunque distintas en niveles específicos,
han estado, y siguen estando, inextricablernente unidas entre sí de tal modo
que, en realidad, cada una de ellas se funde en las otras, esrableciendo líneas
de contacto y apoyo.' Estas relaciones implican una especie de complejidad que
nos impide afirmar que alguna de ellas sea distinti- vamente anterior,
primordial o fundamental en relación a cualquiera de las otras. Se derivan (y
son posibles) varios tipos de relaciones: la tecnología moldea la cultura; la
ciencia proporciona una base episte- mológica a la tecnología; la ciencia como
epistemología presupone lo tecnológico; la (recnojculrura produce
(tecnociencia; la cultura siem- pre es tecnológica pero no siempre científica,
y así sucesivamente. Además, la ciencia a menudo legitima una práctica cultural
a expen-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3136">
@language rest</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3137">For us late moderns, however,information has now become a thing, and not only
that but also an economically valuable thing. Why is this so, how did it come to
happen, and what are its consequences, particularly now, in the so-called
information age? How did we arrive at this reified and commodified notion of
knowl- edge or of becoming informed? And what have we forgotten in this his-
torical process?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3138">In this book, I examine texts of three information ages: European docu-
mentation before and soon after World War II, United States information
theory and cybernetics soon after World War II, and the “virtual” age that
is proclaimed today. I attempt to show how professional and authorita-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3139">and history toward creating the present and the future. If, as I believe, the
history of information is a privileged site for understanding the intersection
of language and political economy in modernity, then an analysis of the his-
tory of information first of all involves the untangling of the language of
information and its ideological supports and interests.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3140">My argument is not only that the history of information has been for-
gotten but also that it must be forgotten within any “metaphysics” or ide-
ology of information, because information in modernity connotes a fac-
tuality and pragmatic presence (what Heidegger in Being and Time termed
a “present-at-hand” [vorhanden] quality) that erases or radically reduces
ambiguity and the problems of reading, interpreting, and constructing
history—problems that are intrinsic not only to historiographic construc-
tion but also to historical agency.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3141">opposite those intended by the original authors. Lévy’s work performs a
similar but more pronounced appropriation of language, history, and
culture for the purposes of professional and political capitalization and
control than that performed by the European documentalists and by
Weaver’s and Wiener’s popular writings. His work casts an interesting light
on the information age’s ability to bend history and social space through
the prisms of ideology.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3142">The fifth chapter introduces modernist attempts at critical intervention
into the construction of an information culture. In this chapter, I exam-
ine theories of the production of information and information culture
from the aspect of a critique of metaphysics (Martin Heidegger) and from
the aspect of a formalist Marxist critique (Walter Benjamin). The purpose
of this chapter is to recover historically forgotten critical interventions of
“information” that attempted to examine and exploit those processes of
reproduction through which information is reified and commodified,
both as a concept and as actual values, and through which it becomes a
historical force.
[...]
Throughout this work, it is my desire to expose the process by which
language passes through the machinery of authoritative rhetorical devices
and institutions for the purposes of ideological control. Professional dis-
courses, particularly in management, organizational theory, and informa-
tion science, sometimes contain rhetorical edifices built upon tropes such
as “Information Management,” “Knowledge Management,” and “Information Architecture.” The attempt in this book is to put critical pressure
on professionally and politically based reifications and commodifications
of language and to demonstrate some of the plays of power and ideology
that are involved in the rhetorical and aesthetic capitalization and exploi-
tation of human relations and affects in the names of “information” and
“communication.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3143">historical and political agency. In many ways, the death of materialist
analysis and of personal agency in the twentieth century follows the rise
of the ideology of information. And with this death, the struggles, affects,
and language of individual lives lose their power within the categories of
acceptable meaning.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3144">The original title for this book was Where Do You Want to Go Tomor-
row?, which was a pun on Microsoft’s late-1990s ad campaign, “Where
Do You Want to Go Today?” Given that the latter phrase is owned as a
Microsoft trademark, and given that Microsoft has, apparently, in the past
threatened to sue others for the use of the former phrase as well as the lat-
ter, I decided not to use that title. This situation, I think, speaks loudly
of the problems of ownership and control of language and history by dom-
inant players in information and communication technologies. We need
to take language and historical agency back and thus take back from the
information and communication technology “prophets” and profits their
determination of our todays and our tomorrows. I hope that this book will
be one part of this critical praxis in its attempt to demystify the trope of
information in modern culture.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3145">ce que la documentation? (1951). The distinguishing characteristic of docu-
mentation in Europe, in contrast to both librarianship in Europe and to
what would subsequently become information science in the United
States, was the manner in which documentation understood the relation-
ship between information technology and social systems. For documen-
tation, the technical retrieval of materials was deeply tied to the social and
institutional use and goals for documentary materials. In contrast to the
functions of libraries and librarians, which defined themselves in terms of
the historical collection and preservation of books, documentalists empha-
sized the utilitarian integration of technology and technique toward spe-
cific social goals.
[...]
The founders and leaders of European documentation were advocates of
documentation as an upcoming profession, distinct from librarianship, based both
within and serving the development of science in modernity. As an organized
system of techniques and technologies, documentation was understood as a player
in the historical development of global orga- nization in modernity—indeed, a
major player inasmuch as that organi- zation was dependent on the organization
and transmission of informa- tion. **It was within the context of a “scientific” culture of modernity that documentation could be understood as not simply bibliographical technique but as a cultural technique.**
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3146">Otlet’s trope of the book referred to both the physical object
of the book and, even more importantly, to a cultural concept of the book
as a unifying form for positive knowledge. Inasmuch as this concept not only
embodies the physical object of the book but also is reflective of social and
natural “facts,” it represented for Otlet a concrete embodiment of the
history of true knowledge and is thus a vehicle to global understanding.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3147">By means of literary devices, Otlet’s text goes beyond its own
time, projecting humanity into a future that Otlet desired to create, both
through information technologies and techniques and through the very
rhetorical force of his texts.
[...]
As a trope for architectural, social, and natural orders, the book
constitutes, at least since the sixteenth century, an exemplary instance of
the ability of one technology, raised by institutions and rhetoric to a cul-
tural level, to historically and socially organize other series of bodies, tech-
nologies, and actions.
Notas:
Esto no es forzosamente malo!!
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3148">Not only through a technological regime but also through the circula-
tion of rhetorical tropes between wider cultural domains, technologies
emerge in both design and social meaning. Cultural metaphors act as in-
fluences on technological designs (for example, computers should act like
the mind) that then, in turn, influence larger cultural realms (for example,
the mind should act with the instrumentality of a computer). Rhetorical
diffusion leads to technological design, development, and acceptance as
well as to the shaping of culture according to technological models. Tropes
of technology, and especially of information, not only metaphorically
repeat themselves through different domains of culture but also meto-
nymically leverage history, forcing societies to develop according to “in-
evitable” technological models.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3149">How far the book (and its successors) constitutes a trope upon which
the future can be determined is perhaps not a task for the historian alone
but for the cultural critic as well, since the trope of the book occupies a
series of rhetorical substitutions not only in historiography but in culture
at large, which claims “the future” for itself. What is at stake in reexamin-
ing the texts of information proponents, such as Otlet, is the right of a
certain produced sense of information to claim our future.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3150">In this chapter of the Traité, Otlet conceptualizes the book as a con-
tainer of knowledge. Knowledge for Otlet is a substance in the form of
facts, and facts flow between the world, books, and thinkers in a circulat-
ing manner. Consequently, Otlet’s understanding of the book simulta-
neously encompasses three models: an organism, a dynamic embodiment
of energy (which Otlet often refers to as l’esprit [mind or spirit]), and a
machine of production.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3151">Rhetorically, as well as technologically, the book moves diachronically back
and forth through twentieth-century culture, tracing and retracing a cul-
ture of knowledge and social control marked by a dialectic between glo-
bal unification and local networks. This cultural trope of the book thus
not only reflected but also shaped the meaning and development of in-
formation and communication technologies in the twentieth century as
well as the meaning of those technologies in social space and as a symbol
for social space.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3152">Despite having a formal structure that
is unitary and singular, Otlet’s book-organism is not closed and self-con-
tained in its origins and future. Instead, the bibliographical “law of orga-
nization” suggests that books contain and constitute networks or webs
(“réseau”), both internally and externally in their relations with one another
and to the world at large (Traité 423). The concept of réseau is very im-
portant for Otlet because it designates not only the internal structure of
the book itself but also the relation of books to one another, to facts, and
to thought. At its inner parameter, along with the model of the machine,
it signifies the functional and generative interaction of words, phrases,
sentences, and other grammatical elements within the book. At its outer
parameter, it is a term that signifies universal or global collections, whether
in the form of paper codices, bibliographies, museum collections, elec-
tronic networks, or, at the most extreme, the “biblion” of all these medi-
ums in relation to one another.
Otlet conceives of the expansion of the book’s intellectual totality in
terms of historically determined social systems of input, production, and
output. For Otlet, books are part of an evolutionary process of thought,
and as such, books contain what came before them in other books. The
[...]
Otlet’s conception of the social and historical attributes of texts thus
demands that texts be understood in terms of their networked and evo-
lutionary relations to one another and, subsequently, that knowledge be
understood in terms of these relations. For Otlet, texts are networked to
one another in terms of historical influence and interpretation, and ex-
ternal organizational devices, such as the Universal Decimal Classification
system, are explicit acknowledgments of shared genealogies and histori-
cal alliances.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3153">For Otlet, the evolutionary development of the world through knowl-
edge is related to the expansion of knowledge through books and other
documentary forms. Evolution is both progressive and paradigmatic. Any
particular book, for Otlet, is an example of a specific historical object
whose unique meaning is contingent on the historical past and the evolv-
ing future. Otlet’s containment of bibliographical historicity within the
notion of scientific laws, however, means that Otlet’s vision of the book
and of the world is highly deterministic.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3154">this evolution from one book to another is very specific: it
occurs in terms of “répétition” (423). Repetition, for Otlet, is a universal
law of not simply repeating the same with the same result, but it is a pe-
culiar type of repeating that is characterized as an amplification (“La loi
de répétition amplifiante” [422]). Repetition, as an amplification, leads to
the universal and “geometric” expansion of knowledge (422). Such an
expansion suggests that there is a change of scale for the nature and value
of knowledge. For Otlet, texts are both vehicles and embodiments of dy-
namic repetition, leading to an expansion of knowledge and to a change
in the form of knowledge.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3155">Ubicación: Mi biblioteca.
:author: Zygmunt, Bauman
:title: La sociedad sitiada
:date: 2008 - Quinta Edición
:publication: Libro
:pages: 298
:url: none
:licence: copyright by Fondo de Cultura Económica
:editor: Fondo de Cultura Económica
:printed in: Buenos Aires
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3156"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3157">http://www.amazon.com/Cybernetics-Human-Knowing-Second-Order-Cyber-Semiotics/dp/0907845924/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3158"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3159">http://www.enolagaia.com/AT.html
@language rest
The Biology of Cognition, Autopoietic Theory, and Enactive Cognitive Science
The Theories of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela
Analyzing Essential Circularities Without Circular Reasoning
Hay un escrito introductorio en forma de tutorial. Empezar por ahí.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3160">http://archonic.net/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3161"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3162">
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3163"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3164">this study locates itself in the wake of what has often been characterized as the
“crisis” of postmodern theory, a crisis brought about by what Jean-François Lyotard,
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Gilles Deleuze, and other leading
theorists of “the postmodern condition” have characterized (to use Lyotard’s phrase)
as an “incredulity toward metanarratives.” According to Lyotard, whose work on
the postmodern may be taken as exemplary, this crisis is twofold. First, “to the ob-
solescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation corresponds, most notably,
the crisis of metaphysical philosophy” — that is, of the traditional philosophical and
critical paradigms of the Enlightenment and of the modern period generally (sub-
ject versus object, culture versus nature, organism versus environment, spirit versus
matter), which have historically enabled philosophy and cultural critique of either
the realist/materialist (Marx) or idealist (Descartes, Kant, Hegel) variety.1 Second —
and perhaps more important, depending on your view of the proper relationship of
philosophy and political practice — this crisis is anything but merely theoretical,
for, as Lyotard points out, the traditional philosophical paradigms and the metanar-
ratives they make possible provided the foundation for the political projects of moder-
nity, which base themselves on “the progressive emancipation of reason and free-
dom,” whether in the form of historical materialism, parliamentary liberalism, or in
other ways.2
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3165">intellectuals have found themselves faced with the following conundrum: On the
one hand, the critiques of the traditional philosophical paradigms of positivism, em-
piricism, and the like, which stress instead the contingency and social construction
of knowledge (pragmatism, poststructuralism, materialist feminism), would seem po-
litically promising because they hold out hope that a world contingently constructed
might also be differently (i.e., more justly) constructed. But, on the other hand, that
very constructivist account has left intellectuals seeking grounds for their own po-
litical practice without a foundation from which to assert the privilege of their own
positions. Having undercut the philosophical footing of those in power, contempo-
rary intellectuals find their own supposedly more progressive claims in danger as
well of being “just another” contingent (and, from a cynical point of view, self-serv-
ing) interpretation.
[...]
To which critics of postmodernism respond in turn that
these theorists cannot claim that such a breakdown of realism has taken place with-
out engaging in a self-refuting paradox; as one recent study puts it, *“How does one rule out categorical theories in principle without getting categorical? How does one universalize about theory’s inability to universalize?”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3166">What they overlook is that for both realism (and its extreme form, positivism)
and idealism (and its extreme form, relativism), “ ‘making true’ and ‘representing’
are reciprocal relations: the nonlinguistic item which makes S true is the one repre-
sented by S,” with the realist believing that “inquiry is a matter of finding out the
nature of something which lies outside the web of beliefs and desires,” and the ide-
alist holding that one can “derive the object’s determinacy and structure from that
of the subject” or, in more contemporary versions, from “mind” or “language” or
“interpretive communities” or “social practice” (ORT 4, 96, 5). The problem with
both of these positions, and with the representationalist frame in general — and here
postmodern theory would seem to coincide for once with our commonsensical in-
tuitions — is that
neither does thought determine reality nor, in the sense intended by the re-
alist, does reality determine thought. More precisely, it is no truer that “atoms
are what they are because we use ‘atom’ as we do” than that “we use ‘atom’
as we do because atoms are as they are.” Both of these claims, the antirepre-
sentationalist says, are entirely empty. (ORT 5)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3167">most of what is important in lifes is [...] ‘a social construction.’ ” As Taussig puts it, when theory came
to understand that “race or gender or nation . . . were so many social constructions,
inventions, and representations, a window was opened, an invitation to begin the
critical project of analysis and cultural reconstruction was offered.” But “what was
nothing more than an invitation, a preamble to investigation has, by and large, been
converted instead into a conclusion — e.g. ‘sex is a social construction,’ ‘race is a social
construction,’ ‘the nation is an invention,’ and so forth, the tradition of invention.”8
Taussig’s invocation of “the tradition of invention” is entirely to
the point, for, as Brian Massumi suggests, the hegemony of this sort of social con-
structionism has ironically created a situation in which “the classical definition of
the human as the rational animal returns in a new permutation: the human as the
chattering animal.” What started out as a revisionist theoretical program devoted to
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3168">that lends its name to my title: the problem of the “outside” of theory. Hence, the
double imperative of this study, the first more theoretical and indeed epistemologi-
cal in focus, the second more explicitly material and political: first, to explore how
the varieties of postmodern theory examined here (pragmatism, poststructuralism,
and systems theory) confront the specter of philosophical idealism and the “unfettered
anthropomorphism” that perpetuates it in theorizing their relation to an “outside,”
an object, or, if you like, a “real world” not wholly constituted by discourses, lan-
guage games, and interpretive communities; and second, to assess those confronta-
tions in light of an essentially pragmatic view of theory, one that constantly asks
what practical and material difference it makes, and to whom, how these fundamen-
tal epistemological problems are negotiated.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3169"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3170">For my purposes here, “pragmatism” may be characterized by
two main features: first, in epistemological terms, its resolute antifoundationalist and
antirepresentationalist stance, which eschews philosophy as a mode of “transcen-
dental inquiry”; and second, its relative instrumentalism and commitment to fore-
grounding the practical, material effects of thinking, its interest in what James called
“the cash value of thought.” Pragmatism is also distinguished — not only in Emer-
son, James, and Rorty, but also in Deleuze and in *Maturana and Varela* — by its in-
tegrationist and contextualist rather than atomistic and analytical approach, one that
holds that experience is rendered meaningful and coherent by organizing structures,
patterns, gestalts, or language games that are themselves denied any foundational
ontological status. Hence — and again this links both *systems theory* and *Deleuzian poststructuralism* rather directly with the *philosophy of James and Peirce* — pragmatism holds a particular theory of truth: an operationalism for which “Truth is
‘the successful working of an idea’ within a specific (and always limited) context.
Truth is verification in practice.” In view of the pragmatist impulse that stretches
from James to the poststructuralism of Deleuze, *the function of philosophy and theory is thus the creation of new concepts whose value is to be judged largely by their effects in a whole range of contexts*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3171">philosophy — or, as Heidegger might almost have put it, as unself-imposed.” And as
for the instrumentality of philosophy, it could be argued that pragmatism is in fact more committed in this regard than Marxism, simply because it is open to a wider range of instrumentalities than Marxism, which has typically maintained that commitment in the more narrow terms of the class struggle or the economic as such.
tem in large part from pragmatism’s characteristic posture ( (to use Rorty’s phrase) “we already have enough theory.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3172">of the picture from the outset those social others whose very otherness or differ-
ence might lead to the critical reassessment of the beliefs of the liberal ethnos. Hence,
these versions of mainstream American pragmatism give us no way to theorize the
productive and necessary relationship between antagonistic beliefs in the social sphere.
It is on the terrain of this last problem that both poststructuralism and systems
theory will take a decisive step beyond mainline American pragmatism — a step pred-
icated on the understanding that a philosophical commitment to theorizing the prag-
matics of contingency *needs more epistemology-centered philosophy, not less.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3173">As we will see in chapter 2, the priority of systems theory resides
in its pursuit, rather than “evasion,” of the problem of the contingency of knowl-
edge — a problem from which systems theory will attempt to derive a thoroughgo-
ing theoretical pluralism. In contemporary systems theory, the problems of circu-
larity, self-reference, and the unpredictable effects of recursivity serve as the keystone,
rather than the bête noire, for a pluralist theory of interpretation and observation.
Like Rorty, Niklas Luhmann stresses the contingency of interpretation (or “obser-
vation,” to use his term), but then takes a crucial additional step in arguing that all
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3174">observations are based on a constitutive distinction (between figure and ground,
say, or legal and illegal) that is paradoxical because it posits the identity of differ-
ence (the distinction between legal and illegal is itself made within the legal, i.e.,
within one side of the distinction). For Luhmann as for Humberto Maturana and
Francisco Varela, the only way to cut the “Gordian knot” of the realism/idealism
debate is to follow through to its conclusion the problem of contingency, to assert
that *“everything that is said is said by someone,”* and to then remember that all such
assertions are based on a “blind spot” of paradoxical distinction that not the ob-
server in question, but only other observers, can disclose (one cannot acknowledge
the paradoxical identity of legal and illegal, for example, and at the same time oper-
ate within the legal system; only another observation, made from another system,
can make such a critical observation). *Self-critical reflection is thus, strictly speaking, impossible, and must instead be distributed in the social field among what Luhmann calls a “plurality” of observers*. Thus, Luhmann — contra Rorty — derives from the
epistemologically tautological and self-referential status of any observation the ne-
cessity of the observations of others, thus installing the epistemological conditions of
possibility for an incipient pluralism at the heart of the foreclosed Rortyan “we.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3175">Like the theorists of social antagonism, Luhmann insists that such
“blockages,” “deadlocks,” or aporias do not impede but rather make possible a plural-
ist society; hence, a truly pluralist philosophy must be postmodernist in the sense
that it must avoid at all costs the quintessentially modernist and Enlightenment
strategy of reducing complexity in the name of social consensus.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3176">theory has its roots in American soil. But an even more important reason I include
it here is that the epistemological problems vigorously engaged by systems theory
across disciplinary lines (in biology, sociology, information engineering, and much
else) have, *in the humanities, been typically posed as problems of language or textuality*. It is precisely here, I think, that we should remember the sorts of admonitions about facile constructivism that we find in Taussig and Massumi, and remind our-
selves how often humanist theory has simplified itself — purified itself, as it were —
by positing a privileged relation of the human to either the presence or the absence
of language, the signifier, the phallus, the soul, reason, toolmaking, and so on. It is
here that attention to the encounters with the “outside” of theory in areas in like
cognitive science (instead of literary theory) and under the paradigm of “observa-
tion” (instead of interpretation) might prove useful in confronting the human sci-
ences with a disciplinary “outside” that might help reveal some of the humanities’
underexamined assumptions and procedures.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3177">In this light, we need to keep in mind that the “outside” of my
title refers not to ecology in the usual sense nor to “the Real” of psychoanalysis, but
rather to one side of the system/environment distinction, a distinction utilized not
only by systems that are either language- or text-based — that is to say, not only by
systems that are either human and/or humanist. This seems to me an especially dis-
tinctive and promising feature of systems theory, one that might more readily en-
gage the “hybrid” or “cyborg” networks of postmodernity (compellingly theorized
by Bruno Latour, Donna Haraway, and others), which include all sorts of nonhu-
man agents and actors — a challenge to which the old ontological dualisms of sub-
ject/object, organism/machine, and so on would seem to be woefully inadequate.19
This crucial posthumanist dimension suggests the priority of systems theory not only
over deconstruction for “new social movements” such as ecology and animal rights,
but also over the theory of social antagonism as we find it in Ziˇ ek, which remains
ineluctably tied to the figure of the Human and the Oedipal (even if it reverses hu-
manism’s ethical valences).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3178">linguistic, or semiotic model distinguishes the work of Deleuze and Foucault from
other versions of poststructuralism. At the same time, however, a signal difference
between systems theory and poststructuralism is that the Achilles’ heel of the for-
mer has so far been its lack of a coherent account of its own ethical and political im-
plications, about which even its main practitioners (Maturana and Varela on the one
hand, and Luhmann on the other) would seem to be in utter disagreement, with
Luhmann often endorsing what amounts to a liberal technocratic functionalism not
very different from Rorty’s own, and Maturana and Varela espousing a suspiciously
humanist ethics that seems completely at odds with their posthumanist epistemo-
logical innovations. And even if we do not (and I think we should not) agree with
the garden variety ideological critiques of systems theory — that it is, as Peter Gali-
son puts it, “the apotheosis of behaviorism,” which makes “an angel of control and
a devil of disorder” — we are nevertheless forced to conclude that a serious short-
coming for systems theory has been its inability or unwillingness to confront the
problems of power and social inequality that belie its theory of the formal equiva-
lence and contingency of all observation, and often render such equivalence beside
the point; for, as Donna Haraway rightly reminds us, *observation “is always a question of the power to see.”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3179">”A commitment to confronting the dynamics of power and its relation to
multiplicity and difference is everywhere present, of course, in the work of
Foucault and Deleuze, and it is that unstinting interest that leads me to read them
as exemplary poststructuralists for the pragmatist orientation of this study. In my
view, Deleuze and Foucault not only may but must be read as distinctly postmodern
pragmatists who seek to theorize the relation between contingency, the “aleatory
Outside,” and what Deleuze finds in Foucault: *the possibility of “new coordinates for praxis.”* Once we have dispensed with Rorty’s (mis)reading of Foucault — which
hinges in no small part on its failure to understand the importance of what Foucault
characterizes as the “productivity” of power and the materiality of practice — we
can better see what joins Foucault with Deleuze: a commitment to an “ethics of
thought” that places a premium on the production of new concepts by means of the
*continual confrontation of thought with its own outside.*
And here, precisely, is where the prying open of pragmatism by
systems theory via a renewed interest in epistemological problems like *“the observation of observation”*
is joined not only by the theory of social antagonism, but
also by the work of Deleuze, which provides what is finally an ontology rather than
an epistemology of the conditions of possibility for democratic pluralism. As in sys-
tems theory’s vision of the distribution of observation in a horizontal, functionally
differentiated social space, Deleuze’s work, as Michael Hardt suggests, helps us *“develop a dynamic conception of democratic society as open, horizontal, and collective,”*
as *“a continual process of composition and decomposition through social encounters on an immanent field of forces.”* As we shall see, the aim of Deleuze’s meta-
physics is not to discover a resting place for thought or existence, but rather to open
up this field of forces to analysis toward thoroughly pragmatic ends. The political
dimension or “relevance” of Deleuze’s thought, which often seems oblique, resides
in no small part in its refusal to see its vocation as providing “grounds” or “frames”
or “foundations” for a particular practice. *Deleuze’s thinking is concerned instead with the conditions and dynamics under which specific forms of resistance are possible in the ongoing struggle between hegemonic social cartographies or “diagrams” and their own outsides.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3180">traditional Marxism has often discounted as “epiphenomenal” or “diversionary.” For
Deleuze, what the events of May 1968 in France demonstrated was the inability of
traditional frames of the theory/praxis relation to understand that the truly revolu-
tionary political potential of the moment lay beyond the strict domain of the class
contradictions of capitalism. What is invaluable for pragmatist theory about Deleuze’s
work, in other words, is its recognition of the *crucial micropolitical dimension of capitalist culture* — a recognition shared even more pronouncedly in Foucault’s articulation
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3181">Similarly, what Foucault characterizes as the *“ethics of thought”* is
a *“constant ‘civil disobedience’ within our constituted experience,”* as
John Rajchman characterizes it, one that “directs our at-
tention to the very concrete *freedom of writing, thinking and living in a permanent questioning of those systems of thought and problematic forms of experience in which we find ourselves.*”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3182">least in what Deleuze theorizes as “the fold” — a difficult and ambitious figure that
attempts, through a topographical treatment, to make good on the impulse at work
in systems theory: to see the outside not as a naturally given ground or totality, but
as the outside of the inside. Unlike systems theory’s handling of the problem, how-
ever, Deleuze’s fold crucially reverses this orientation and pursues the inside as “the
inside of the outside,” a reorientation that is symptomatic of Deleuze’s final com-
mitment to ontology and the univocity of being, rather than (as in systems theory)
to epistemology and difference. The Deleuzian fold would suture closed with onto-
logical substance, as it were, the open space or vacuum between points, observations,
and, finally, between the inside and outside that systems theory attempts to leave
open.
Comentarios
===========
Este concepto no me queda claro. Necesito interlocutores y guías al respecto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3183">We must opt instead, I argue, for what Kenneth Burke calls a
“comic perspective” on the relationship between a theoretical commitment to con-
tingency, difference, and “permanent critique” on the one hand, and a political com-
mitment to material and social praxis on the other, with each serving as the other’s
“bad conscience” in a ceaseless, democratically productive antagonism. The comic
frame, according to Burke, *“considers human life as a project in ‘composition,’ ”one that offers “maximum opportunity for the resources of criticism”; it should “enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting,”* and push the thinking subject
to “ ‘transcend’ himself by noting his own foibles.” *The comic frame does not provide a “ground” or “foundation” for praxis but only “damage control” for praxis,*
which is always reductive of difference (or, in systems theory language, of an outside
environment that is always already more complex than the system itself). But the
Burkean “comic” attitude in and of itself, of course, is not enough, because express-
ing the desirability of open-mindedness or self-criticalness is not, by a long shot,
the same as having a rigorous and coherent theoretical account of that desirability’s neces-
sity. Whether or not the “comic attitude” constitutes a distinctly “postmodern” so-
lution to the relationship between theory and politics — and how that solution re-
lates to the problem of increasingly globalized capitalism — is an issue on which
major theorists such as Jameson and Luhmann disagree. But we need both, I think —
and their disagreement — to provide a theoretically compelling and politically re-
sponsive account of our contemporary situation.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3184"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3185"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3186">thinking as “finding” rather than the “founding” of foundational philosophy.
I should like to suggest here is that both these view are mistaken because
the model they hold in common is mistaken. Our beliefs are not obstacles
between us and meaning, they are what make meaning possible in the first
place. Meaning is not filtered through what we believe, it is constituted by
what we believe. (780)
of “Against Theory”) that “it does not make sense to say that you choose to be-
lieve anything at all.” This is so, he argues, because the epistemological freedom
required by the category of “choice” is fundamentally at odds with the epistemological compulsion named by the category of “belief.” Michaels’s version of the paradox goes like this: if you are free enough from assumptions and beliefs to make a choice that is truly a free choice, then you are by that same logic unable to make any choice at all because you will have no criteria on which to base that choice. Conversely, if you do possess the necessary criteria to make such a choice, then it will no longer be a free choice at all, but rather an action compelled and produced by those Pragmatism beliefs and assumptions that provided the criteria for choosing in the first place
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3187">rather is the condition of his existence.”6 And “the naturalist logic,” it turns out, is
the same logic that constitutes the economic totality called “the market,” which, in
its all-constituting power, resists all attempts to ameliorate or temper it. In fact (as
practiced readers of New Historicism will have already guessed), Michaels suggests
that such attempts only serve to siphon off or neutralize potentially explosive (per-
haps even revolutionary) desire and discontent, thereby further reinforcing the dom-
inance of the market and extending its logic even more insidiously into incompletely
colonized enclaves of social life. In Michaels’s reading, the subject is not what makes
the market and its fundamental structures possible (the exchange principle, for in-
stance), but is rather an effect and expression of the market. And this leads Michaels,
in turn, to suggest that we abandon the concept of ideology as a critical tool and re-
place it with the concept of “belief” (a suggestion we will take up in more detail
shortly).
[...]
It is this internal difference that sets going the “logic of natural-
ism” by which the self seeks to escape the market and the ceaselessly self-reproducing play of exchange by clinging “to definitions of texts, selves, or money,” in Evan
Carton’s words, “as stable and essential quantities.” *The fundamental instability of the market creates a self who therefore has, as Michaels puts it, “an insatiable appetite for representation” (GS 19), which manifests itself in the belief that gold is the site of natural economic value, the text is the site of stable inherent meaning apprehended by the critic’s adequated critique, and the subject is the site of inalienable self-possession and free self-proprietorship.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3188">But, in Michaels’s view, this unstable desire, far from destabiliz-
ing the system, only serves further to perpetuate it, because desire is “not subversive of the capitalist economy but constitutive of its power”</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3189">To put it another way, “desire,” like “belief,” offers no means in Michaels’s
critique by which the self might be anything other than a purely reproductive agent
of the market and its logic. It is clear from this vantage why the promise of a prag-
matist micropolitics, more than hinted at in “Saving the Text,” will remain unful-
filled in Michaels’s later work: there is simply nothing for it to do.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3190">From this vantage point, James’s attempt to save the self from
the brutalities of the early modern American variety of capitalism — with its Tay-
lorization, its imperialist incursions in both Atlantic and Pacific, and its “abstrac-
tion” and “rationalization” (as James liked to call it) of cultural and intellectual life —
turns out to be an unwitting repetition and indeed an insidious internalization of
that very social and economic totality. Far from providing a stay against alienation
and ruthless competitive individualism, James’s Lockean property model of selfhood
guarantees it, because freedom on this model is the right to dispose of and enjoy
the property of the self, its capacities and potentialities (including, of course, its
labor power), as one wishes — a freedom that cannot help but be limited and threat-
ened, however, by other self-proprietors who are trying to achieve the same sort of
freedom. All of which is simply to grant the classic Marxist critique: that insofar as
the self is conceived as a kind of private property, I will alienate and threaten your
freedom insofar as I realize my own, and vice versa.16
[...]
“It seems,” James writes, “as if the elementary psychic fact were not thought
or this thought or that thought but my thought, every thought being owned.” “In the
widest possible sense,” James continues, “a man’s self is the sum total of all that he can call
his.” Like Michaels, Lentricchia recognizes that James’s “overt commitment to
the inalienable private property of selfhood . . . is an inscription of a contradiction at
the very heart of capitalism” — namely, that property “can be property only if it is
alienable,” and that a self so conceived, therefore, is perforce an alienated self.
[...]
For Lentricchia, James’s discursive complicity
with the system is only one component of a larger project for social change, an un-
dertaking that, being quintessentially pragmatist, is willing to use all that there is to
use — including (especially) the politically powerful means of rhetorical identification.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3191">mogenization of the social space in his reading of James’s discursive complicity.“To attempt to proceed in purity,” Lentricchia writes, “— to reject the rhetorical
strategies of capitalism and Christianity, as if such strategies were in themselves respon-
sible for human oppression — to proceed with the illusion of purity is to situate oneself
on the margin of history. . . . It is to exclude oneself from having any chance of mak-
ing a difference for better or for worse”
Burke writes — in a wonderful meditation on what he calls the “unintended by-products” of abstract concepts — “would note how the
particular choice of materials and methods in which to embody the ideal gives rise
to conditions somewhat at variance with the spirit of the ideal,”
*Does the world rise or fall in value when any particular belief is let loose in the world?”* (“Philosophers of Modernism” 805).
For Lentricchia, this is James’s “most unsettling insight: that a rigorous philosophy of
practice and consequences cannot in advance secure consequences without estab-
lishing precisely the sort of imperial authority. . . which that philosophy is dedicated
to undermining.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3192">”For West, the essence of Jamesian pragmatism is its revisability; its first principle, in West’s
words, is that *“the universe is incomplete, the world is still ‘in the making’ owing to the impact of human powers on the universe and the world”*. For West as for Lentricchia, Jamesian pragmatism insists on the gap between concept construction
on specific discursive sites and concept circulation in a broader set of contexts, and
it is in that gap that the possibility of the social and the historical resides.
All of which seems to raise for a pragmatist critique two opposite
problems, which are nevertheless inextricably linked. On the one hand, this posi-
tion seems to tell us that knowledge in the pragmatist sense is so deferred, dis-
persed, and contingent that it is hard to see how we can we reflect in any meaning-
ful way not so much on what we think, but rather (as Michaels might phrase it) on
what what we think does. On the other hand, the primacy of pragmatist agency would
seem to imply that we can know, in a fairly direct and precise way, exactly what we
are doing (hence we can, in Burkean good faith, rhetorically enlist support for it).
James’s pragmatic theory of truth “preserves a realist ontology” even as it “rejects all forms of foundationalism”
In James’s words, “with some such reality any statement, in order to be counted true, must
agree” (quoted in West, The American Evasion of Philosophy 64). At the same time,
In Lentricchia’s reading of James, it is as if theory and practice
are engaged in a never-ending battle on the terrain of belief.
flounder on one of James’s strongest insights — that theory cannot be iden-
tified with agency and the self-conscious individual [and so cannot be re-
jected in the sense of “Against Theory”], that theory is the sort of force that
tends to control individuals by speaking through them. And so does James. . . .
*The epistemological move to generalization may well be an “appetite of the mind”* . . . [b]ut the economic and political move to generalize — the global
generalization of labor known as capitalism — is not an unhistorical appetite;
it is a locatable, historical phenomenon whose role tends to be blurred and
repressed by James’s liberal ideology of the autonomous self.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3193">“that the philosophical tradition which stems from Plato is an attempt to
avoid facing up to contingency, to escape from time and chance,”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3194">psychoanalysis and feminist film theory.29 In Rorty’s seminal Philosophy and the Mirror
of Nature we find, as Cornel West puts it, *“a wholesale rejection of ocular metaphors in epistemology”*; “The picture which holds traditional philosophy captive,”
Rorty writes in that text,
is that of the mind as a great mirror, containing various representations —
some accurate, some not — and capable of being studied by pure, nonem-
pirical methods. Without the notion of mind as mirror, the notion of knowl-
edge as accuracy of representation would not have suggested itself. Without
this latter notion, the strategy common to Descartes and Kant — getting
more accurate representations by inspecting, repairing, and polishing the
mirror, so to speak — would not have made sense.
[...]
*“our only usable notion of ‘objectivity’ is ‘agreement’ rather than mirroring”* (PMN 191).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3195">In his most recent work, Rorty has extended and refined this critique of representa-
tionalism and realism: of the former’s assumption that “ ‘making true’ and ‘repre-
senting’ are reciprocal relations: the nonlinguistic item which makes S true is the
one represented by S”; and of the latter’s “idea that inquiry is a matter of finding
out the nature of something which lies outside the web of beliefs and desires,” in
which “the object of inquiry — what lies outside the organism — has a context of its
own, a context which is privileged by virtue of being the object’s rather than the in-
quirer’s” (ORT 4, 96). Instead, Rorty argues, we should reduce this desire for objec-
tivity to a search for “solidarity” and embrace a philosophical holism of the sort
found in Dewey, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger, which holds that “words take their
meanings from other words rather than by virtue of their representative character”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3196">“How does one rule out categorical theories in principle without getting cat-
egorical? How does one universalize about theory’s inability to universalize?”31 This
epistemological objection often leads, in turn, to the sort of sweeping political de-
duction we find exemplified by the Marxian theorist Norman Geras: “If there is no
truth, there is no injustice. Stated less simplistically, if truth is wholly relativized or
internalized to particular discourses or language games or social practices, there is
no injustice. . . . Morally and politically, therefore, anything goes.”
[...]
it is not clear why “relativist” should be thought an appropriate term . . .
[f]or the pragmatist is not holding a positive theory of truth which says that
something is relative to something else. He is, instead, making the purely
negative point that we should drop the traditional distinction between knowl-
edge and opinion, construed as the distinction between truth as correspon-
dence to reality and truth as a commendatory term for well-justified be-
liefs. . . . [W]hen the pragmatist says that there is nothing to be said about
truth save that each of us will commend as true those beliefs which he or
she finds good to believe, the realist is inclined to interpret this as one more
positive theory about the nature of truth: a theory according to which truth
is simply the contemporary opinion of a chosen individual or group. Such a
theory would, of course, be self-refuting. But the pragmatist does not have a
theory of truth, much less a relativistic one. As a partisan of solidarity, his
account of the value of cooperative human inquiry has only an ethical base,
not an epistemological or metaphysical one.
Rorty’s Deweyan reduction of objectivity to solidarity provides the ethical basis for
the pragmatist’s Wittgensteinian epistemology, which insists that “it is contexts all
the way down,” that “we can only inquire after things under description,” and that
“ ‘grasping the thing itself’ is not something that precedes contextualization, but is
at best a focus imaginarius”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3197">It would appear, then, that for Rorty, as for Michaels, the “out-
side” of belief or description (what used to be called the “referent”) is always al-
ready inside, insofar as meaning (to borrow once again Michaels’s formulation) is
not filtered through what we believe, but is rather constituted by what we believe.
The problem with this position, however, is that it immediately raises the suspicion,
as Rorty recognizes, that “antirepresentationalism is simply transcendental idealism
in linguistic disguise . . . one more version of the Kantian attempt to derive the ob-
ject’s determinacy and structure from that of the subject” (ORT 4). Critics of anti-
representationalism imagine “some mighty immaterial force called ‘mind’ or ‘lan-
guage’ or ‘social practice’ . . . which shapes facts out of indeterminate goo”; and so,
Sellars and Davidson, Rorty writes that “what shows us that life is not just a dream,
that our beliefs are in touch with reality, is the causal, non-intentional, non-repre-
sentational, links between us and the rest of the universe” (ORT 159). The pragma-
tist “believes, as strongly as does any realist, that there are objects which are causally
independent of human beliefs and desires” (ORT 101); she “recognizes relations of
Pragmatism
justification holding between beliefs and desires, and relations of causation holding
between those beliefs and desires and other items in the universe, but no relations
of representation” (ORT 97)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3198">Rorty’s pragmatist and Jamesian point is that there is nothing to stop you, on
purely epistemological grounds, from believing whatever you like, but that belief itself
will have consequences because it is subject to “pressure from the outside.” This is
the sense, I think, of Donald Davidson’s assertion, which Rorty quotes approvingly,
that *“most of our beliefs are true” — because we are still around to talk about them!*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3199">Rorty’s specifically pragmatist intervention here, then, is that
the imperative to theory, to reflection on belief, derives not from an essentialist
“appetite of the mind” (to use James’s phrase), nor from a desire for transcendence
in either its realist or idealist incarnation (as the Knapp and Michaels critique of
theory would have it), *but rather from the strategic, adaptive, pragmatic value of theory that any act of intellection will ignore only at its own peril*. One might well insist, with James, that the desire to theorize is “characteristically human,” but “this
would be like saying,” Rorty writes, *“that the desire to use an opposable thumb remains characteristically human. We have little choice but to use that thumb, and little choice but to employ our ability to recontextualize”* (ORT 110). Thus, *the pragmatist “takes off from Darwin rather than from Descartes,* from beliefs as adaptations to the environment rather than as quasi-pictures”; *he thinks “of linguistic behavior as tool-using, of language as a way of grabbing hold of causal forces and making them do what we want, altering ourselves and our environment to suit our aspirations”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3200">is to modulate philosophical debate from a methodologico-ontological key
into an ethico-political key. For now one is debating what purposes are worth
bothering to fulfill, which are more worthwhile than others, rather than which
purposes the nature of humanity or of reality obliges us to have. For antiessen-
tialists, all possible purposes compete with one another on equal terms, since
none are more “essentially human” than others.
[...]
What Rorty does not recognize, in other words, is that there is a fun-
damental contradiction between his putative desire to extend liberal advantages to
an ever larger community, and the fact that those advantages are possible for some
only because they are purchased at the expense of others. As Nancy Fraser puts it,
the problem with “the communitarian comfort of a single ‘we’ ” is that
Rorty homogenizes social space, assuming tendentiously that there are no
deep social cleavages capable of generating conflicting solidarities and op-
posing “we’s.” It follows from this assumed absence of fundamental social
antagonisms that politics is a matter of everyone pulling together to solve a
common set of problems. Thus, social engineering can replace political struggle.
*Disconnected tinkerings with a succession of allegedly discrete social problems can replace transformation of the basic institutional structure.*
Rorty constantly invokes the liberal intellectual’s dedication to ex-
panding the range of democratic privileges, freedoms, and values, but what becomes
clear in his recent work is that such an expansion can take place *only after the democratic ethnos has been purified of the sort of dissent it needs to encourage.*
problem with Rorty’s “partition position,” as she calls it, is twofold: first, “the social
movements of the last hundred or so years have taught us to see the power-laden,
and therefore political, character of interactions that classical liberalism considered
private” (*as in feminism’s well-known shibboleth “the personal is the political”*);
<-- ¿es acá donde está lo micropolítico?
But what is even clearer is that Rortyan pragmatism, as
Cornel West puts it, “though pregnant with possibilities . . . refuses to give birth to
the offspring it conceives. Rorty leads philosophy to the complex world of politics
and culture, but confines his engagement to transformation in the academy and to
apologetics for the modern West” (206–7). In the end, then, representationalism is
undone on the philosophical level in Rorty’s pragmatism, but only to reemerge in
more powerful and insidious form on the plane of the political.
Rortyan pragmatism, in other words, expresses a desire for alterity but is unable
to provide an adequate theory of that alterity’s necessity.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3201"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3202">“what would happen to philosophy if we took the search for foundations from it
and replaced it with the search for finding oneself?”50 In this light, Cavell’s version
of pragmatism is even more firmly within the purview of humanism than Rorty’s.
But Cavell’s humanism is, as we shall see, of a rather unusual, self-deconstructing
sort, concerned as it is to bring to light not an unchanging human essence but rather
a dynamic, “homeless” self of “transience” and “onwardness,” a self that consists (or
maybe “subsists”) in always leaving itself behind.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3203">We can grasp more fully the importance of Cavell’s reading of
Emerson by briefly situating it in immediate critical context. The central interest,
and the political promise, of Cavell’s Emerson is that he offers an exemplary attempt
to think through — but also to own, own up to — the necessity of selfhood without
specifying, in a reductive or absolutist way, the contents of that selfhood. In doing so,
Cavell would seem to agree with deconstruction that unreconstructed concepts of
the subject of Marxian or feminist stripe are unacceptably totalizing in their reduc-
tion of the full complexity of the subject in the name of class or gender.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3204">In what Cavell playfully calls “the story of the discovery of the individual,”
Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” constitutes an important revision,
in the light of skepticism, of the Cartesian cogito. The central fact of what Cavell
calls the Cartesian “proof” of selfhood is the “discovery that my existence requires,
hence permits, proof (you might say authentication) — more particularly, requires
that if I am to exist I must name my existence, acknowledge it” (Quest 106). From
this vantage, Emerson’s allusion to Descartes in “Self-Reliance” assumes new sig-
nificance: “Man is timid and apologetic,” Emerson writes; “he is no longer upright;
he dares not say ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage.” For Cavell, the
power and rigor of Emerson’s revision of the Cartesian proof of selfhood is that it
“goes the whole way with Descartes’s insight” by continuing to require the proof of
selfhood without allowing us to rely on a preexistent, “quotable” content to under-
write the proof. The “beauty” of Emerson’s answer to Descartes, Cavell continues,
lies in its weakness (you may say its emptiness) — indeed, in two weaknesses.
First, it does not prejudge what the I or self or mind or soul may turn out to
be, but only specifies a condition that whatever it is must meet. Second, the
proof only works in the moment of its giving, for what I prove is the existence
only of a creature who can enact its existence, as exemplified in actually giv-
ing the proof, not one who at all times does in fact enact it. The transience
of the existence it proves and the transience of its manner of proof seem in
the spirit of the Meditations. . . . Only in the vanishing presence of such ideas
does proof take effect — as if there were nothing to rely on but reliance it-
self.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3205">But as persuasive and appealing as Cavell’s reading of Emerson-
ian individualism is, it is difficult to see how such a self could ever engage in social
and political praxis — that is, in the directed transformation of the social and mater-
ial conditions of freedom.
[...]
he will only go so far as to say that “For Emerson, as for Kant, putting the philo-
sophical intellect into practice remains a question for philosophy” (95). For Cavell,
[...]
individual’s ethical relationship to it. For Emerson, the material character of social
actions and forms renders them always epiphenomena of the subject, whose project
of edification they can serve or express but never determine.
For Cavell too, the value of action is not that it has real effects
on the shared, material world of others, but rather that it always returns to the self
as a “resource” in an essentially isolate journey of moral perfectionism.
[...]
the mood of the one prepared to be useful to the world is different from that of the
one prepared to adapt to it. . . . The existence of one of these worlds of life depends
on our finding ourselves there” (This New 96). Yes, but only if the exteriority and
materiality of practice, its “world,” is simply a negative moment in a fundamentally
private, individual drama. In which case, we are forced to say — borrowing Emer-
son’s phrase in “Compensation” — that all actions finally are “indifferent.”
<--
In “Self-Reliance,” Cavell writes, Emerson tells us in so many words that
“politics ought to have provided conditions for companionship, call it fraternity;
but the price of companionship has been the suppres-
sion, not the affirmation, of otherness, that is to say, of difference and sameness,
call these liberty and equality. A mission of Emerson’s thinking is never to let poli-
tics forget this” (Quest 119). This seems to me perfectly accurate in its account of
the negative, critical power of Emerson’s defense of difference, freedom, and all
that he means when he writes “Whim.” But the larger point here is that Emerson’s
vision of freedom is so pure that it prevents political praxis and collective action in
its antinomian insistence that the fluid “active soul” be true only to itself, above all
compromise, beyond all cooperation. This is the Emerson who calls on us to *“shun father and mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me,”*
<-- El peligro de todo intelectual: desconectarse del mundo en busca de una verdad trascendente.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3206">“that the world exists as it were for its own reasons” </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3207">According to Cavell, Emerson after Nature does not work around Kant but rather
works through him; he takes the claims of skepticism more seriously than Kant
himself did by turning the Kantian position back upon itself and subjecting the very
terms of Kant’s argument to transcendental deduction. What Kant conceived as a
problem of thinking and philosophy, Emerson will confront more rigorously as a
problem of language and writing as well, so that the “stipulations or terms under
which we can say anything at all to one another” will themselves be subjected to
scrutiny (This New 81).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3208">Emerson characterizes it this way in the late essay “Fate”: “Intel-
lect annuls fate. So far as a man thinks, he is free.” “This apparently genteel thought,”
Cavell writes, “now turns out to mean that . . . our antagonism to fate, to which we
are fated, and in which our freedom resides, is as a struggle with the language we
emit, of our character with itself”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3209">After all, what a curious — and curiously self-defeating — formulation
this is: if you can imagine Utopia, then the justice of the present society is “good
enough.” And if it is not good enough, then recourse to the Utopian ideal is not
available to you. In which case, we are forced to say that if Utopia must be a version
of, a perfection of, presently existing society, and not a break or rupture from it,
then who needs Utopia anyway? One would have thought that the necessity and
power of Utopian thought was that it challenged, rather than took for granted, the
assumption that we exist in a world of “good enough justice.”
[...]
Is philosophy, as Emerson calls for it . . . an evasion of actual justice? . . . I
think sometimes of Emerson, in his isolation, throwing words into the air,
as aligned with the moment at which Socrates in the Republic declares that
the philosopher will participate only in the public affairs of the just city,
even if this means that he can only participate in making — as he is now do-
ing — a city of words.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3210">But one need only register the point that all “voices” —
even in a society with “good enough justice” — do not enter
the “conversation” of justice with the same sort of power, authority, and resources
to make themselves heard and binding. Such “voicing” — the democratic rationale
for moral perfectionism — is enabled or compromised by goods and resources that
are not equally or evenly distributed. Cavell’s vision of moral perfectionism and the
conversation of justice is thus blind to the real inequality of goods and the power they
confer — call them the resources of voicing — in the realm of everyday material life
by telling us that freedom to enter the conversation of justice and the project of
democracy is shared equally by all in the realm of ideas.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3211">freely acknowledges, “to think about the structural relationships of epistemology
with economy, of knowing with owning and possessing as the basis of our relation
with things” (This New 104). But when we do pursue that invitation — as the perva-
sive rhetoric of property in the Emersonian text everywhere compels us to — we
find that, here again, Emerson does not so much question the constitution of the
self by the logic of property, the construction of “am” by “have,” but rather con-
firms it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3212">is a product of the simple fact of scarcity. As Perry Anderson reminds us, “ut-
terance has no material constraint whatever: words are free, in the double sense of
the term. They cost nothing to produce, and can be multiplied and manipulated at
will, within the laws of meaning. All other major social practices are subject to the
laws of natural scarcity: persons, goods or powers cannot be generated ad libitum and
ad infinitum.”70
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3213">If selfhood is conceived in terms of self-possession of one’s own person, capacities, and energies, then the self’s
freedom, as C. B. McPherson puts it in his classic account, consists in its “right to
enjoy them and use them and to exclude others from them; what is more, it is this
property, this exclusion of others, that makes a man human.” As Marx character-
izes it, this type of individual will see in others “not the realization but the limitation
of his own freedom,” because freedom for such a self means the right “to enjoy and
dispose of one’s resources as one wills.”73 All of which seems to be borne out by the
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3214"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3215">phase of Michel Foucault’s career, whose “genealogical” aim is to “account for the
constitution of knowledges, discourses, domains of objects, etc., without having to
make reference to a subject which is either transcendental in relation to the field of
events or runs in empty sameness throughout the course of history” by virtue of
his — and it must be “his” — privileged relation to either the presence or the absence
of the phallus, language, the symbolic, property, productive capacity, toolmaking,
reason, or a soul.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3216">logue, presence to oneself, intersubjectivity.” As Latour recognizes, posthumanist
theory cannot proceed simply by historicizing the human; instead, he argues, “we
first have to relocate the human, to which humanism does not render sufficient jus-
tice.” And in this project of relocation, historical and dialectical means of resituat-
ing the human are not enough.
[...]
theorists have recognized that Marxism’s liberation of “the total life of the individ-
ual” (to borrow Marx’s phrase from The German Ideology) is purchased at the ex-
pense of its brutal objectification of nature and the nonhuman — a dynamic deeply
symptomatic, in turn, of its Enlightenment inheritance that imagines that man-the-
producer liberates himself insofar as he fully exploits and raises himself above that
object and resource called “nature.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3217">As Foucault remarks in an early essay, “dialectics does not liberate differences; it guarantees, on the contrary,
that they can always be recaptured. The dialectical sovereignty of similarity consists
in permitting differences to exist, but always under the sign of the negative, as an
instance of non-being.”7
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3218">taken the conceptualization of humanist subjectivity at its word and then shown
how humanism must, if rigorously pursued, generate its own deconstruction, once
the traditional marks of the human (reason, language, tool use) are found beyond
the species barrier. Donna Haraway summarizes many of these developments in her
groundbreaking “A Cyborg Manifesto.” “By the late twentieth century in United
States scientific culture,” she writes,
the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached. The last
beachheads of uniqueness have been polluted, if not turned into amusement
parks — language, tool use, social behavior, mental events. Nothing really
convincingly settles the separation of human and animal. . . . Movements for
animal rights are not irrational denials of human uniqueness; they are clear-
sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach of nature
and culture.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3219">http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Haraway/CyborgManifesto.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3220">us, most unmistakably in the sciences, technology, and medicine. Haraway has ar-
gued as forcefully as anyone that our current moment is irredeemably posthumanist
because of the boundary breakdowns between animal and human, organism and
machine, and the physical and the nonphysical (“Manifesto” 151–55) — a triple hy-
bridity that we can find readily exemplified any evening on cable television, as in a
recent program on the U.S. Navy’s Marine Mammal project, in which highly trained
bottlenose dolphins (human/animal) are fitted with video apparatuses (organism/
machine) to locate underwater objects and beam their location back on the Carte-
sian grid of satellite mapping (physical/nonphysical).
a cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the
planet. . . . From another perspective, a cyborg world might be about lived
social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kin-
ship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities
and contradictory standpoints. The political struggle is to see from both
perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities
unimaginable from the other vantage point. (“Manifesto” 154)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3221">But if the modernist constitutional separation of
human and nonhuman has the practical advantage of allowing the proliferation of
hybrid networks, it also has the pragmatic drawback (as the strategy of repression
always does) of ill equipping contemporary society to explore in a thoughtful way
how its relations to and in hybrid networks should be lived.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3222">“The political task starts up again, at a new cost, It has been necessary to modify the fabric of our
collectives from top to bottom in order to absorb the citizen of the eighteenth cen-
tury and the worker of the nineteenth. We shall have to transform ourselves just as
thoroughly in order to make room, today, for the nonhumans created by science
and technology,” for “so long *as humanism is constructed through contrast with the object that has been abandoned to epistemology, neither the human nor the nonhuman can be understood”*
Most important obligations and passions in the world are unchosen; “choice”
has always been a desperately inadequate political metaphor for resisting
domination and for inhabiting a livable world. Interpellation is not about
choice; it is about insertion. . . . If technological products are cultural actors,
and if “we,” whoever that problematic invitation to inhabit a common space
might include, are technological products at deeper levels than we have yet
comprehended, then what kind of cultural action will forbid the evolution
of OncoMouse™ into Man™?
Donna Haraway
:etiquetas: exadoc</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3223">[I Disagree by all] means [that] we should redouble our commitment to what Harding has called “strong ob-
jectivity” — a leaner if not meaner scientific method that would “identify and elimi-
nate distorting social interests and values from the results of research” by “system-
atically examining all of the social values shaping a particular research process.”
The problem with Harding’s position, of course, is that it assumes that there is some
space from which to survey our “social interests and values” without at the same
time being bound by those interests and values — a space, in other words, of non-
contingent observation, a place where one can tally up all of the “blind spots” with-
out having that tally compromised, rendered less than “objective,” by its own blind
spot. Even if Harding wants to break with an “absolute” sense of objectivity that
presumes what Richard Rorty calls “a God’s-eye standpoint,” a “view from nowhere,”
she does so only to rely on a “procedural” form of objectivity that assumes that the
chaff of “distorting social interests and values” can be objectively separated from
the wheat of nondistorting ones.15 And when one asks, “distorting in relation to what"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3224">Harding’s “strong objectivity” is in the end just a form of “weak repre-
sentationalism” — representationalism with apologies, as it were — because, in say-
ing “that different perceiving organisms simply have different perspectives on the
world,” it “continues to treat the world as pregiven; it simply allows that this pre-
given world can be viewed from a variety of vantage points.”
These difficulties are symptomatic of the essential fallacy at work
in the assumption, to borrow Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s characterization,
that objectivism is wrong when practiced by the wrong people for the wrong
reasons, but right when practiced by the right people for the right reasons:
specifically, that objectivist arguments are culpably “authoritarian” when
they issue from powerful agents attempting to justify their own self-interested
actions, but laudably “critical” when they issue from disinterested agents
exposing the unjust acts of powerful people against subordinated people.
Such distinctions, however, are impossible to maintain either theoretically
or practically.
[...]
To put it another way, Harding’s polemical/political project wants to open up sci-
ence as an institution to social representation, but her theoretical and epistemologi-
cal premium on “objectivity” — in separating social interests and values from the
objects of research, in separating distorting from nondistorting values — only rein-
forces the disciplinary insularity of science as a discursive community from the rest
of social discourse.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3225">rejecting realism is the same thing as rejecting everything that realists think is real”. As
we have already seen, the pragmatist, as Rorty explains, “believes, as strongly as
does any realist, that there are objects which are causally independent of human be-
liefs and desires”, but in granting this “causal stubbornness” to the
world she does not grant the “real” or the “object” “an intentional stubbornness, an
insistence on being described in a certain way, its own way”.
[...]
The pragmatic critique, then, does not say that the “real world” does not exist, that
there is no such thing as a “fact,” or that we can blithely falsify the data as we go
along. It simply means that we should jettison the epistemological pretensions that
want to ground certain practices and values in “objectivity” and ground them in-
stead in whether or not they work, as agents of adaptation to an environment, for
contingent, revisable purposes. Thus, “from a pragmatist point of view,” Rorty writes,
to say that what is rational for us now to believe may not be true, is simply
to say that somebody may come up with a better idea. It is to say that there
is always room for improved belief, since new evidence, or new hypotheses,
or a whole new vocabulary, may come along. For pragmatists the desire for
objectivity is not the desire to escape the limitations of one’s community,
but simply the desire for as much intersubjective agreement as possible.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3226">Facts are hybrid entities; that is, the causes of the assertability of sentences
include both physical stimuli and our antecedent choice of response to such
stimuli. To say that we must have respect for the facts is just to say that we
must, if we are to play a certain language game, play by the rules. To say
that we must have respect for unmediated causal forces is pointless. It is like
saying that the blank must have respect for the impressed die. The blank
has no choice, and neither do we. (ORT 81)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3227">Science, on this view, is privileged not because of its representational
transparency to the real, but rather because it works. And this
fact, in turn — despite the realist attempt to use science’s effectivity as evidence of
the freedom of science’s truth claims from the arena of social power and political
rhetoric — only foregrounds the imbrication of science in that very arena, for the
question we then must ask is, “works for whom, for what purposes?” In this context,
it makes sense, of course, that feminist philosophy of science would want to trade
upon the considerable rhetorical power of “objectivity” to affect social and institu-
tional change. But the problem, as we have seen, is that these claims for “objectiv-
ity” are made not within a rhetorical, political frame.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3228">una descripción que hubiera podido hacerse de otra forma</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3229">In the meantime, to avoid constantly undercutting their politi-
cal critique with an epistemology ill equipped to serve it, when Haraway in “Situ-
ated Knowledges” says “objectivity” she should instead say what she really means,
which is “situatedness” and “responsibility,” and when Harding says “objectivity”
she should instead just say “democracy” and “representation of marginalized voices.”
This will be difficult for feminist philosophy of science to do, because it is, after all,
philosophy of science. But once it has affected this disengagement, it will have much
to teach pragmatists like Rorty, whose complacent ethnocentrism, as we have al-
ready seen, needs to be confronted with the more muscular pragmatism that is alive
and well in Haraway, Harding, and Fox Keller,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3230"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3231">:etiquetas: exadoc
In light of the posthumanist imperative I have been invoking thus far, systems theory
has much to offer, I believe, as a general theoretical orientation. Unlike feminist
philosophy of science, it does not cling to debilitating representationalist notions.
And unlike Enlightenment humanism in general, its formal descriptions of complex,
recursive systems are not grounded in the figure of “Man” and in the dichotomy of
human and nonhuman. Indeed, in light of the posthumanist context I have sketched
here, the signal virtue of systems theory is, as Dietrich Schwanitz puts it, that it has
*“progressively undermined the royal prerogative of the human subject to assume the exclusive and privileged title of self-referentiality (in the sense of recursive knowledge about knowledge).” The promise and power of systems theory reside not only in its posthumanism, however, but also in its ability to offer a much more rigorous and coherent way to theorize the extraordinarily complex “hybrid” or “cyborg” networks of the sort described in much of Haraway’s work, and by Latour* in the opening
pages of We Have Never Been Modern. Recounting the experience of reading a news-
paper article on the ozone layer, Latour observes:
The same article mixes together chemical reactions and political reactions.
A single thread links the most esoteric sciences and the most sordid politics,
the most distant sky and some factory in the Lyon suburbs, dangers on a
global scale and the impending local elections or the next board meeting.
The horizons, the stakes, the time frames, the actors — none of these is com-
mensurable, yet there they are, caught up in the same story. (1)
What suggests a privileged place for systems theory, then, in meeting the theoreti-
cal challenges posed by the cyborg hybridity of postmodern society is its ability to
mobilize the same theoretical apparatus across domains and phenomena tradition-
ally thought to be pragmatically discrete and ontologically dissimilar, while at the
same time offering (as we shall see with recent work on “the observation of observa-
tion”) a coherent and compelling account of the ultimate contingency of any inter-
pretation or description.
[...]
“these are really at stake, but in a new form that has a simultaneous impact on the nature
of things and on the social context, while it is not reducible to
one or the other”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3232">For the contextualism that, as Lilienfeld
reminds us, links systems theory rather directly to the pragmatism of Peirce and
James, “The world is seen as an unlimited complex of change and novelty, order
and disorder,” which is organized by certain contexts, by “organizing gestalts or pat-
terns,” that give meaning to what would otherwise be an unpatterned “noise” of de-
tail (9). As Bateson characterizes it in a particularly instructive discussion:
[...]
“From the assumptions of contextualism a specific
theory of truth emerges — operationalism. . . . Truth is ‘the successful working of a idea’
within a specific (and always limited) context. Truth is verification in practice”.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3233"> the word “idea,” in its most elementary sense, is synonymous with “differ-
ence.” Kant, in the Critique of Judgment — if I understand him correctly —
asserts that *the most elementary aesthetic act is the selection of a fact*. He
argues that in a piece of chalk there are an infinite number of potential
facts. The Ding an sich, the piece of chalk, can never enter into communication
or mental process because of this infinitude. The sensory receptors cannot
accept it; they filter it out. What they do is to select certain facts out of the
piece of chalk, which then become, in modern terminology, information.
I suggest that Kant’s statement can be modified to say that there is an in-
finite number of differences around and within the piece of chalk. There are
differences between the chalk and the rest of the universe, between the chalk
and the sun or the moon. And within the piece of chalk, there is for every
molecule an infinite number of differences between its location and the lo-
cations in which it might have been. Of this infinitude, we select a very lim-
ited number, which become information.
As Bateson is fond of saying (invoking Korzybski’s famous dictum), “*the map is not the territory*” (Steps 449; emphasis in the the sort of knowledge (or information) you get depends on the context (or code) you deploy, and not — here we
should remember Rorty’s critique of representationalism — on a more or less transparent reflection of the “substance” of the object being described.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3234"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3235">“When we talk about the processes of civilization, or
evaluate human behavior, human organization, or any biological system,” Bateson
writes, “we are concerned with self-corrective systems. Basically these systems are
Systems Theory always conservative of something. As in the engine with a governor, the fuel supply is
changed to conserve — to keep constant — the speed of the flywheel, so always in
such systems changes occur to conserve the truth of some descriptive statement,
some component of the status quo”
In Bateson’s view, the “essential min-
imal characteristics of a system” — be it biological, mechanical, or social — are
(1) that the system operates upon differences, deviations from a norm or baseline
that are processed as information;
(2) that it consists of “closed loops or networks of
pathways along which differences and transforms of differences shall be transmit-
ted” (as when a thermostat detects the difference between its setting and the room
temperature, activating the furnace to restore the total loop of room/furnace/ther-
mostat to the desired homeostatic state);
(3) that “many events in the system shall be energized by the respondent part rather than by impact from the triggering part”
(a principle most clear, perhaps, in phenomena such as color vision, and in the vari-
ous tricks and demonstrations, such as the parallax effect, which show how the ner-
vous system actively and constructively responds to environmental stimuli rather than
simply registering them in a linear fashion);
(4) that systems “show self-correctiveness in the direction of homeostasis and/or in the direction of runaway”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3236">negative feedback, in which information is processed by the system in such a
way as to maintain the harmony, homeostasis, or directionality of the system,
and
positive feedback, in which information is processed in a such a way as to destabi-
lize the system and create what is sometimes called a “vicious cycle” (what Bateson
calls “runaway”).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3237">a process that “uses the results of its own operations as the basis for further opera-
tions — that is, what is undertaken is determined in part by what has occurred in
earlier operations. In the language of systems theory. . . one often says that such a
process uses its own outputs as inputs.”28
Niklas Luhmann</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3238">(i) Observations are not absolute but relative to the observer’s point of view
(i.e. his coordinate system: Einstein); (ii) Observations affect the observed
so as to obliterate the observer’s hope for prediction (i.e. his uncertainty is
absolute: Heisenberg).
After this, we are now in the possession of the truism that a description
(of the universe) implies one who describes (observes it).29
<-- me recuerda el soñador y el soñado de Castañeda.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3239">loops such as those imagined by Bateson must always turn into “strange” loops of
the sort imaged by M. C. Escher’s Möbius strip. As *Ranulph Glanville and Francisco Varela* remind us in their elegant little demolition of total loops titled “Your
Inside Is Out and Your Outside Is In (Beatles, [1968]),” the distinction between in-
side and outside, system and environment, mind and nature, always contains a para-
dox that makes the distinction turn back upon itself to form a “strange” loop. This
is so, they argue, because when we draw any putatively final distinction in either in-
tension or extension — when we attempt to distinguish either the elementary or the
universal — “we require that its distinction has no inside and, at the same time we
place, in this non-existent inside, a further distinction which asserts that the dis-
tinction of the fundamental was the last distinction!”31 Thus, they continue, *“at the extremes we find there are no extremes. The edges dissolve because the forms are themselves continuous — they re-enter and loop around themselves”* (640).
<--- leer el texto de Varela y Glanville</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3240">“every world brought forth necessarily hides its origins. By existing, we generate cognitive ‘blind spots’ that can be cleared only
through *generating new blind spots in another domain*. We do not see what we do
not see, and what we do not see does not exist.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3241"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3242">“*Organization denotes those relations that must exist among the components of a system for it to be a member of a specific class”*; it is that which “signifies
those relations that must be present in order for something to exist.” *Structure, on the other hand, “denotes the components and relations that actually constitute a particular unity and make its organization real”* (Tree 46, 47). For example, the basic
and necessary organization of the water-level regulation system in a toilet consists of
a float and a bypass valve. But in terms of the structure, the float that is made of
plastic could be replaced by one made of wood “without changing the fact,” as Mat-
urana and Varela somewhat infelicitously put it, that there would still be “a toilet
organization” (Tree 46). This basic distinction between organization and structure
will mark a crucial epistemological innovation in their attempt, as they put it, to
“walk on the razor’s edge, eschewing the extremes of representationalism (objec-
tivism) and solipsism (idealism)” (Tree 241). It will also, more broadly, enable a recon-
ceptualization of the *relationship between system (organization + structure) and environment (everything outside the system’s boundaries)* that will mark a definitive break with the first-order cybernetics of Bateson.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3243">In more general terms, what this means is that all autopoietic entities are closed — or, to employ Niklas
*Luhmann’s preferred term, “self-referential” — on the level of organization, but open to environmental perturbations on the level of structure*. This is clearest, perhaps, in Maturana and Varela’s contention that all autopoietic entities are defined by “opera-
tional closure.” “It is interesting to note,” they write,
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3244">of Marvin Minksy, “that brains use processes that change themselves — and this means
we cannot separate such processes from the products they produce” (quoted in Em-
bodied Mind 139).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3245">their entire epistemological project, which aims to “negotiate a
middle path between the Scylla of cognition as the recovery of a pregiven outer
world (realism) and the Charybdis of cognition as the projection of a pregiven inner
world (idealism).” “These two extremes,” Varela et al. contend, “both take represen-
tation as their central notion: in the first case representation is used to recover what
is outer; in the second case it is used to project what is inner” (Embodied Mind 172).
that *“everything said is said by someone”* — to foreground, in short, the problem of
observation (Tree 135). As Varela et al. put it, “Our intention is to bypass entirely
this logical geography of inner versus outer by studying *cognition not as recovery or projection but as embodied action*” (172) — *“embodied”* because cognition depends on the “individual sensorimotor capacities” of the embodier in situ, and *“active”* (or “enactive”) because the cognitive structures that guide perception and ac-
tion — as dramatically demonstrated by the example of color vision — “emerge from
the recurrent sensorimotor patterns that enable action to be perceptually guided”
Instead, it recasts the relationship between a system and its elements (or, to
use the language of Maturana and Varela, an organization and its structure) as
open-ended and yet not random, fundamental and yet not foundational in the
usual ontological sense. As Dietrich Schwanitz puts it, “the elements function
as units only within the system that constitutes them, they are neither just
analytical constructs nor do they rest in some ontological substance. They
really do exist, but their existence is only brought about by self-reference and
cannot in any way be explained by reference to preexisting ideas, substances or
individuals”.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3246">as in an evolutionary process, one neuronal ensemble (one cognitive sub-
network) finally becomes more prevalent and becomes the behavioral mode for
the next cognitive moment. By “becomes more prevalent” I do not mean to
say that this is a process of optimization: it resembles more a *bifurcation* or
symmetry-breaking form of chaotic dynamics. *It follows that such a cradle of autonomous action is forever lost to lived experience since, by definition, we can only inhabit a microidentity when it is present, not when it is in gestation.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3247">domain) are valid because, as they put it, “a description, as an actual behavior, exists
in a matrix of interactions which (by constitution) has a logical matrix necessarily
isomorphic with the substratum matrix within which it takes place” (quoted in ibid.,
69). But this, Zolo argues, only redoubles the contradictory status of the claims of
autopoiesis. “They forget,” Zolo writes,
that they have already argued that it is impossible to distinguish “between
perception and hallucination in the operation of the nervous system”; . . .
that nothing can be said about the “substratum” of observation; that knowl-
edge has no object and that everything that can be said is always said by an
observer. Thus, it is meaningless to postulate the existence of a “logical iso-
morphism” between the substratum of the observation and the language of
description. (69)
The problem foregrounded but not fully understood, I think, by
Zolo’s critique — nor, it should be added, is it always clearly articulated by Matu-
rana and Varela — is one we have already mentioned: the problem of observation.
Maturana offers what is in effect a response to Zolo’s critique, and in particular to
Zolo’s rather fast and loose mobilization of the dichotomies objective/subjective,
realist/idealist, and so on:
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3248"> The fact that science as a cognitive domain is constituted and validated in
the operational coherences of the praxis of living of the standard observers
as they operate in their experiential domains without reference to an inde-
pendent reality, does not make scientific statements subjective. The dichotomy
of objective-subjective pertains to a cognitive domain in which the objective
is an explanatory proposition that asserts, directly or indirectly, the opera-
tional possibility of pointing to an independent reality. Science does not,
and cannot, do that.
<-- necesito revisar esto con detenimiento.
In his essay “Science and Daily Life,” Maturana offers an even
more nuanced explanation of his concept of observation, one that helps us to see
how Zolo’s critique is mounted upon a foundation of epistemological reductionism.
In Maturana’s view, by contrast, the
nonreductionist relation between the phenomenon to be explained and
the mechanism that generates it is operationally the case because the
actual result of a process, and the operations in the process that give
rise to it in generative relation, intrinsically take place in
independent and nonintesecting phenomenal domains. This situation is the
reverse of reductionism scientific explanations as generative
propositions constitute or bring forta generative relation between
otherwise independent and nonintersectinphenomenal domains, which they
thus de facto validate. (“Science and DaiLife” 34)
What this means, I take it, is that the scientific explanation or observation consti-
tutes the relation between “the phenomenon to be explained” (the observer’s view of
the system in its environment, which is not possible from the vantage of the system)
and the “mechanism” or “operations” (the relation between the system’s operationally
closed organization and its structure, which is open to environmental triggers).
The key words here, then, are “actual” and “nonintersecting”;
the “result of a process” is “actual” not only because it is what the observer sees, but
also because (as we have already seen in our discussion of emergence) the descrip-
tive specification she chooses to make in her observation is binding with regard to
how the “generative” processes — the relation between system and environment,
system and element, organization and structure — can be construed. *Once the observer has specified the system in question in her account of the phenomenon, the generative relations between organization and structure in the system being observed are not random or whimsical but must in fact be systematic*. All of which is to
say that the observation and explanation of a phenomenon constitute, de facto vali-
date, and in this sense “generate” the relationship between the observed phenome-
non (the “actual result of a process” of system plus environment) and the operations
of the system that give rise to it. Most important, we must remind ourselves that
the phenomenon and those generative operations take place in “nonintersecting
domains” that become joined — but also potentially confused — in scientific expla-
nation. As Maturana and Varela put it, *“The problem begins when we unknowingly go from one realm to the other” — from the vantage of the environment to that of the system, both of which are joined by the observer in the observed “phenomenon to be explained” — “and demand that the correspondences we establish between them (because we see these two realms simultaneously) be in fact a part of the operation of the unity” (Tree 135–36). And this means, in turn, that we must attend assiduously to the distinction between operation and observation.*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3249"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3250">:etiquetas: exadoc
Luhmann’s theory of observation attempts to
make use of the much-maligned ocular metaphor by divorcing it from its represen-
tationalist associations, which are critiqued by Rortyan philosophy only to reappear
in Rortyan politics. For Luhmann, all observations are constructed atop a constitu-
tive distinction that is paradoxical or tautological, and that the observing system
which utilizes the distinction cannot acknowledge as paradoxical and at the same
time engage in self-reproduction. All systems, in other words, are constituted by a
necessary “blind spot” that only other observing systems can see, and the process of
social reproduction depends on the “unfolding,” the distribution and circulation, of
these constitutive paradoxes (which would otherwise block systemic self-reproduc-
tion) by a plurality of observing systems — not by observation but by “the observa-
tion of observation.” Both Luhmann and Rorty begin from the Wittgensteinian po-
sition that “a system,” as Luhmann puts it, “can see only what it can see. It cannot
see what it cannot.” But Luhmann, unlike Rorty, derives from this formulation
not the irrelevance of other observing systems (or Rortyan “beliefs”) — not their ex-
clusion from the conversation of social reproduction — but rather their very necessity.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3251">to social systems as well. *“If we abstract from life and define autopoiesis as a general form of system building using self-referential closure,” Luhmann writes, “we would have to admit that there are nonliving autopoietic systems.”* For Luh-
mann as for Maturana and Varela, the attraction of the concept of autopoiesis — or
what Luhmann will more often treat under the term “self-reference” — is not least
of all that the theorization of systems as both (operationally) closed and (struc-
turally) open accounts for both high degrees of systemic autonomy and how systems
change and “adapt” to their environments (or achieve “resonance” with them, as
Luhmann puts it in Ecological Communication).
<-- podría un sistema afectar el entorno? cómo sería la resonancia entonces?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3252">“Autopoietic systems... are sovereign with respect to the constitution of iden-
tities and differences. They, of course, do not create a material world of their own.
They presuppose other levels of reality. . . . But whatever they use as identities and
as differences is of their own making”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3253">the distinction between a system’s operation and its observation. “By opera-
tion,” he writes, “I mean the actual processing of the reproduction of the system.”
“By observation, on the other hand,” he continues, “I mean the act of distinguish-
ing for the creation of information” (Self-Reference 83). The distinction between op-
eration and observation, Luhmann writes elsewhere, “occupies the place that had
been taken up to this point by the unity-seeking logic of reflection. (This means,
therefore, a substitution of difference for unity)” — about which we will say much more
in a moment (“Cognitive Program” 68; my emphasis).
Luhmann distinguishes a third term here as well: self-observa-
tion. “Self-referential systems are able to observe themselves,” he writes. “By using
a fundamental distinction schema to delineate their self-identities, they can direct
their own operations toward their self-identities” (Self-Reference 123). If they do not
do so — *if they cannot distinguish what is systemic and internal from what is environmental and external — then they cease to exist as autopoietic, self-producing systems.* This is why Luhmann writes that the distinction between “internal” and
“external” observation “is not needed,” that “the concept of observation includes
‘self-observation’ ” (Self-Reference 82). In other words, *to observe at all requires an autopoietic system, and an autopoietic system capable of observation cannot exist without the capacity for self-observation* — that is, without the capacity “to handle
distinctions and process information.” Hence, *observation and, within that, self-observation, are themselves necessary operations of autopoietic systems.*
[...]
“An operation that uses distinctions in order to designate something we will call
‘observation.’ We are caught once again, therefore, in a circle: *the distinction between operation and observation appears itself as an element of observation*”
[...]
types” of Russell and Whitehead, which tried to solve such antinomies:44 that draw-
ing such a distinction, the elementary constitutive act of observation, is always either
paradoxical or tautological, and that this is both *necessary and unavoidable*. *“Tautologies are distinctions,”* Luhmann writes.
What is decisive about Luhmann’s intervention here is his in-
sistence on the constitutive blindness of all observations, a blindness that does not
separate or alienate us from the world but, paradoxically, guarantees our connection
with it. As Luhmann explains it in a remarkable passage:
The source of a distinction’s guaranteeing reality lies in its own operative
unity [as, for example, legal versus not-legal]. It is, however, precisely as this
unity [or paradoxical identity] that the distinction cannot be observed — ex-
cept by means of another distinction which then assumes the function of a
guarantor of reality. Another way of expressing this is to say the operation
emerges simultaneously with the world which as a result remains cogni-
tively unapproachable to the operation.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the connection with the re-
ality of the external world is established by the blind spot of the cognitive
operation. *Reality is what one does not perceive when one perceives it*. (“Cogni-
tive Program”
Luhmann’s negotiation of this problem is possible only on the strength of systems theory’s articulation of the observation of observation, which enables us to view the “blind spot” or “latency”
of the observations of others not merely as ideological bias or the distortion of a pre-given reality knowable by “science,” but rather as the *unavoidably partial and paradoxical precondition of knowing as such*.
[...]
[Luhmann] position on how the practical-political “unfolding” of tautology and paradox ought
to be handled separates him from consensus-seeking liberals such as Rorty or Haber-
mas; for, if the processes of “deparadoxization” require that a system’s constitutive
paradox remain invisible to it, then the only way that this fact can be known as such
is by an observation made by another observing system. As Luhmann puts it, “Only an [other] observer is able to realize what systems themselves are unable to realize”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3254">cthe unity (of self-reference) that would be unacceptable in the form of a tau-
tology (e.g. legal is legal) or a paradox (one does not have the legal right to
maintain their legal right) is replaced by a difference (e.g. the difference of
legal and illegal). Then the system can proceed according to this difference,
oscillate within it and develop programs to regulate the ascription of the
operations of the code’s positions and counter-positions without raising the
question of the code’s unity. (xiv)45
[...]
self-descriptions. This is so, Luhmann argues, because “an observer can realize
the self-referential systems are constituted in a paradoxical way. This insight itself,
however, makes observation impossible, since it postulates an autopoietic system
whose autopoiesis is blocked” (Self-Reference 139). The only way past this obstacle
or blockage is that self-referential paradoxes must be — in Luhmann’s somewhat
frustrating nomenclature — “unfolded” by the system. We have already mentioned
two ways in which such unfolding might take place: the unsatisfactory theory of
logical types of Russell and Whitehead, which “interrupts” or unfolds the vicious
circle of paradoxical self-reference “by an arbitrary fiat: the instruction to ignore
operations that disobey the command to avoid paradoxes” (EC 24); and the opera-
tional reliance on binary coding, which enables the system to not so much “depara-
doxize” itself as reorient its operations toward the difference of x and not-x ( legal
and nonlegal, for example) without ever raising the question of their paradoxical
identity.
<-- la diferencia es una forma de escapar a la paradoja.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3255">for Luhmann — contra Hegel and Kant — “complexity can never be fully reduced
to an underlying simplicity since simplicity, like complexity, is a construct of obser-
vation that could always be other than it is. *Contingency, the ability to alter perspectives, acts as a reservoir of complexity within all simplicity.”*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3256">http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a776221472&db=all
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3257">http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/4/3/0/pages254309/p254309-42.php
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3258">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/similar?doi=10.1.1.109.5557&type=ab
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3259">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.2.2757
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3260">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.131.6147
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3261"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3262"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3263">Ubicación: Mi biblioteca.
:author: Salomon, Gavriel (compilador)
:title: Cogniciones distribuidas
:date: 1993
:publication: Libro
:pages: 329
:url: none
:licence: copyright by Amorrortu Editores
:editor: Amorrortu Editores
:printed in: Buenos Aires
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3264"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3265"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3266">This creates a dilemma: Research on everyday practice typically focuses on the
activities of persons acting, although there is agreement that such phenomena cannot be analyzed in isolation from the socially
material world of that activity. But less attention has been given to the difficult task of conceptualizing relations between persons
acting and the social world. Nor has there been sufficient attention to rethinking the “social world of activity” in relational terms.
Together, these constitute the *problem of context*.
[...]
If context is viewed as a social world constituted in relation with persons acting, both context and activity seem inescapably flexible and changing. And thus characterized, changing participation and understanding in practice – *the problem of learning* – cannot help but
become central as well.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3267"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3268"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3269">Primer sector: Estado
Segundo sector: privado.
Tercer sector: Economía solidaria
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3270">http://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090202131209AAKRLny</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3271"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3272">http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~creller/web/tricks/reST.html
@language rest
Un excelente tutorial sobre texto reestructurado. La forma visual muestra los ejemplos de código al mismo tiempo que la salida. Una opción para copiar cuando la quiera explicar a más personas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3273"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3274"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3275"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3276">* Feedback: Autopoiesis
* Regrouping: Trabajo colaborativo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3277">Derecho a la ciudad: Autogenerativo - Cíclico.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3278">Zonas olvidadas.
Dispositivos. Una madeja que no consideran espacios homogéneos: objeto, sujeto, etc. Deluze.
Experiencias desde el SUR
= Medialab temporal átomosybits (sur de Europa). =
Ruinas del futuro.
Somos una plataforma abierta para dinamizar cosas
No somos: un colectivo ni un...
Filosofía DIWO
* N-1: n-1.cc
* Joaquin Bale</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3279">Platohedro: donde platón guardó el conocimiento.
Colectivo audiovisual + nuevos medios en poblaciones
Formación en "Telecentros" entendidos como procesos.
Matinee Tapete Volador</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3280">Un video que nos hacía ser parte de la misma cosa. (identitario)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3281">=====
Muros
=====
antenamutante.net
Palestina:
==========
Palestinos / Israelitas (franja de Gaza) 271 km.
Bogotá:
=======
Chapinero / Sur del cielo / Calera
Campaña: traspasa los muros. www.traspasalosmuros.net
* la cana city:
Desvalorizar para repoblar. "Espacio cerrado, recortado, vigilado, en cada uno de sus puntos" Focault. Manuel delgado: instaurar una contraciudad.
WarLab: Colombia es un laboratorio de guerra.
Conexión con traficantes de sueños, Madrid, lavapies.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3282">Participantes:
* Tati Wells, Recife
* Ricardo Brazileiro,
* Miguel Prado
Convergencia de movientos (del 90 al 2000):
* Metáfora -> Metareciclagem
* Indymedia
* Forum Social Mundial
* FISL
* Laboratorios Mídia Tática
* SubmidialogiaS
Lab Brasileños
==============
Trabajo nómada
Autónomos.
Itinerantes
Precario.
Apoio Internacional
Relaciones Instituciones Nacionales enturbiadas (2002 --> hoy)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3283">Paisajes Sonoros, vigilancia y libertad</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3284">Narrativas visuales y nuevos artes.
En Tijuana.
* http://dalab.ws/
Proyectos:
* Protolab: protolabmovil.cc
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3285">www.geomalla.net
Separación entre el espacio de los flujos y el espacio de los lugares.
Memoria imaginada vs la memoria imaginada.
La memoria colectiva: como se consensa la memoria.
Memoria pública: aquella que se da en la calle.
La política desarticulada del poder.
Memorias aisladas e incomunicadas del presente.
Panóptico, Jeremy Bentham.
La ciudad laberinto: la ciudad donde uno se pierde vs los mapas (OSM)
Política: encuentro de los individuos alrededor de la cotidianidad.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3286">Comunicación natural y humana. Al nivel del otro.
Estrategias:
* Radio que se escucha
* La radio que se ve
* Autonomía alimentaria: Grupo de 101 familias.
* Minga Social.
* Féminas festivas, Comuna 3 y aguablanca.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3287"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3288">En el desarrollo, lo importante fueron las cañas (birras)
Sala de exposiciones y espacio público.
Conferencia como práctica performatica, (orientada a cambios en las prácticas políticas)
Incubadora de emprendedores.
Laboratorio del procomún aplicado a las artes escénicas.
Repositorio de proyectos no-natos: Cosas/ideas que no se formalizaron.
Laboratorio de los nuevos modelos de producción cultural emergentes.
Sistemas operativos culturales
==============================
Performancia -> experiencia -> Experticia
La inauguración
---------------
Desacralizar a partir de la intensidad (el espacio expositivo es un lugar
más de la dirección). Modelo vertical.
Investigación visible.
Modelo en gerundio (presente progresivo)
Tres categorías
===============
* Transparencia radical
* Creación de prototipos
* Cooperación transdisciplinar
Las dos culturas:
* Ciencias
* Humanidades
La tercera cultura: Comunicación intercultural entre disciplinas.
Eduard O. Wilson: Consilience.
<<Performatividad>>
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3289">El campo de encuentro es la performatividad. Lo será en el siglo XXI, como lo visible será performátic, hático, carnal (lo relacional, el cuerpo).
Un discurso que crea acción.
Discurso --> Acción --> Discurso (circularidad teutológica), relacionado con la capacidad de producir subjetividad, significación. Es clave en el empoderamiento social.
John L. Austin. Cómo hacer cosas con palabras. Los enunciados performativos no describen la realidad, la crean. Yo prometo vs la botella medio llena.
* Derridá: El caracter subversivo de lo performativo y lo irreductivilidad (capacidad disrruptiva).
* Deleuze. El acontecimiento/agenciamiento es aquello que produce enunciados performativos (allí donde se mezclan prácticas
* Pickering: El Roddillo de la practica, Science, Society and Becoming
* Schechner: Performance Theory. Problematizar nuestra figura investigativa.
La performatividad como método
------------------------------
Varela --> Enácción : Plateamiento de la relidad como emergencia. Un sujeto que conoce.
Latour --> Antropología ANT (Los objetos son performativos).
Las ciencias económicas no son un agente neutral.
Karen: Performatividad en el ámbito de la física. (La materia se reconfigura en nuestra apelación a ella).
**La performatividad permite analizar los problemas del mundo y también actuar sobre ellos**
El artista como persona para crear entornos disrruptivos es un agente de primer marco.
Comunidad líquida de constribuyentes: Queremos trabajar con muchos, pero no con todos.
Producir contexto en lugar de crear obras.
Open think tank: tener presumpciones.
Marcos de colaboración entre la investigación científica y la cultural.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3290"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3291">
<<Participantes>>
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3292">Alejandro
=========
Volver a la noción de centro cultural, no de museo.
Angel: Laboraty Life
=====================
Trabajo de Bruno Latour sobre el trabajo de la ciencia.
Un proyecto que mezcla personas del campo científico y otras del campo artístico.
Una mutante de drosófila que puede vivir en saturno.
Representación popular de la ciencia a partir de monólogos escuchados a ciencia que son dibujados y luego son animados.
Máquina de tatuajes con microinyecciones dentro de las células.
Mantener los niveles de rigor de la ciencia al mismo tiempo que se mantienen los niveles de metáfora, ambiguedad y poesía propias del arte.
Alejandra Iguita
================
Dibujo e ilustración.
Tomas Campusano
===============
Artista visual y animación.
Laura Helena Ramirez.
=====================
Artista de diseño. Cultura y música (vive en Bogotá).
* En Happens: hacer que las cosas pasen
Propuesta culturales en las que se trabaje de manera interdisciplinaria, participativa y colaborativa, potencializando el capital humano en la ciudad.
Maria José Mejía
================
Fundación Vallejo (7 años).
Alejandra
=========
Hipertrópico.
Marcos García
=============
Medialab prado.
Oscar
=====
Cómo ha de ser un centro cultural. Qué ha de ser un artísta.
El arte debe entenderse como un contexto, no como una disciplina.
Mónica Bello
============
Arte y vida</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3293">* Prototipes/Proyectos
* Identidad
* Articulación
What is the value of being in the network?
* Instuticionalidad
* Inclusión.
* Financiación:
Combinación de financiación publica y privada.
Private funding is more realible. State: Quantity over Quality, deliver, short times.
Indicator they can understand: Press coverage.
Convince founders that process is interesting. (Ejp: Mozilla Foundation and Open web).
Abstraer cosas como la colaboración.
Necesita tiempo. Three Years. Like in a relationship.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3294">La pregunta por lo identitario:
* Cómo nos llamamos
* Para dónde vamos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3295">julio 4 de 2011
Leyendo el libro de Pharo by Example, me doy cuenta de que, definitivamente, mucho de lo que hacen otros campos de la informática es una reinvención a medias de lo que propuso Smalltalk hace rato: OLPC, Sugar, e incluso web2py y Leo tienen ideas en proyectos desarrollados en Smalltalk, así lo hayan o no mirado como inspiración. web2py con la aplicación de andamiaje se parece a las imágenes de Smalltalk que se modifican para lograr la aplicación deseada, así como ocurre en Seaside y Leo con su entorno analítico para el software, se parece a lo que provee Moose_, sin embargo digo "a medias" porque ciertas ideas ocurridas en esos otros lugares no han pasado o bien en el mundo de Smalltalk o bien en el mundo de proyectos "parecidos", como Leo y web2py. Esto me enfrenta a la disyuntiva de qué tecnología elegir para explorar mis proyectos de bootstrapping tecnocultural: ¿será Leo + web2py + Fossil o será Pharo + Seaside + Monticello? Desde las lecturas recientes, parecería que fuera la última combinación, pues hay una tecnología integrada, autocontenida y multiplataforma lista para usar, mientras que con la primera tengo tecnologías diversas, aún incomunicadas y no listas aún, sin embargo el salto conceptual propuesto por Smalltalk es difícil de dar para personas con experiencias en otras tecnologías, por un lado, y por otro hay cosas en la primera combinación que no son provistas por Smalltalk, entre otras el uso de clones y el soporte para escritura de documentos de estructurados y algo de la experiencia más fluida de desarrollo en web2py versus una que no lo es tanto en Seaside, como aparece en Smalltal Zen[*]_. Leo me permite unificar el disperso mundo de la informática, mientras que Smalltalk me da ya una experiencia integrada, pero sin acceso a algunos lugares que tienen ideologías diferentes (PyQt y el software de tableros digitales inspirado en MyPaint, por ejemplo)... afortunadamente no tengo que elegir, puedo continuar un diálogo entre las dos culturas para crear una expericia integrada pero en diálogo con la diversidad.
.. _moose: http://www.moosetechnology.org/
.. _[*] http://smalltalkzen.wordpress.com/2011/02/01/a-secret-passion-and-your-choice-of-web-framework/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3296">1. Instalar Moose.
2. Crear un proyecto para mutabit en Fossil.
3. Indagar sobre las vistas en Moose.
4. Colocar botones de automatización para tareas en Leo y vistas. Volver a activar la participación en la comunidad.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3297">levantar info para caracterizar los roles.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3298">Mayo 11, 2011.
Después del LabSurLab, mi llegada a Bogotá estuvo marcado por el vertiginoso ritmo del proyecto conocido como la #LeyLleras en las redes de microblogging. Luego de que hicimos las reuniones preliminares, fuimos al senado de la república y asistimos al primer debate. La puesta en escena del mismo, con la nutrida inasistencia de los participantes, y la falta de atención de los ponentes y el ministro Vargas Lleras, más preocupados de su BlackBerry que de la discusión que se estaba llevando a cabo así como la propuesta de David Zapata, mi compañero de estudios doctorales, sobre etnodocumentales, me hicieron pensar en algo para los futuros debates.
Ocurre que teníamos dos pantallas "oficiales" en el evento, una que mostraba la transmisión que ocurría por el canal gubernamental y otra que mostraba la página de Twitter de la dirección nacional de derecho de autor, es decir, teníamos en pantalla las voces del debate desde la mirada de quienes impulsaban el proyecto de ley y no de sus detractores. Fue durante la reunión posterior con Fredy, Jorge y Luis Cano que se me ocurrió que necesitábamos algo más performativo para nuestro siguiente debate, una pantalla extra de modo similar a lo propuesto por David, donde se mostraba la otra voz (para el caso del documental étnico, la del indigena, para el de nosotros, la del cibernauta común y corriente). Esto se podía hacer empleando las redes de microblogging que transmiten en tiempo real, recogiendo parte de lo propuesto en mi proyecto final de arte interactivo, pero también dando cuenta de la estructura subyacente detrás del debate. Luego de planear con Fredy el modelo entidad relación del software para esto, que se pensaba sería principalmente web (y hecho en web2py, para conectarlo con otros intereses) empecé a indagar sobre qué había en Internet que ya hiciera algo como lo que queríamos. Fue así como encontré los mapas argumentativos y Compendium y Cohere, que parecen ser de lo más avanzado en ellos con un historia investigativa de 15 años detrás[*].
.. _[*] A Compendium lo había encontrado como 4 años en el pasado, pero había preferido cosas como Freemind o Xmind para representaciones visuales de mis ideas, pues compendium quería representar no las ideas de una persona, sino más bien un diálogo entre varias voces, lo cual es necesario ahora, pero no en ese entonces. Hice un espacio en Holónica para recolectar información sobre estos programas y los mapas argumentativos en general, que puede verse en http://holonica.net/home/infoviz
El único inconveniente de ambos programas es que si bien muestran la estructura del diálogo, es decir responden a la pregunta de "¿qué se dijo?", no responden a la pregunta de "¿quien dijo qué?", lo cual es clave en un debate político como este, pues asumir una postura u otra, tiene costos políticos y de imagen. Contacté entonces a los desarrolladores y me dieron guías sobre cómo empezar a hackear el software para incorporar esta necesidad, sin embargo, mi falta de conocimiento de java, la falta de interés/tiempo de quienes sí sabían en el momento, el hecho de que la versión que usaba no permitía el re-escalado de imágenes y mostraba errores al intentar embeber videso, sumado mi interés por aprender Smalltalk me hicieron pensar en hacer un pequeño y más modesto software, inspirado en Compendium, pero sobre Pharo/Smalltalk y con las alternativas multimediales listas. Para esto requeriría cubrir las ideas básicas del libro _"Pharo by Example" y luego sí dedicarme a este proyecto particular. Esto a su vez confluía con la intensión de crear un programa de presentaciones, similar de Prezi pero en Smalltalk.
.. _"Pharo by Example": http://pharobyexample.org
Hay mucho de deseo en todo lo anterior. La motivación por programar algo para producir un cambio (social) y esto me llevó a preguntarme si la gente que conozco quería programar. La primera persona a la que le pregunté fue Luis Cano, quien me dijo que programaba en varios lenguajes, de acuerdo a la necesidad, pero no al deseo. Continuaré con estas preguntas a otras personas de la comunidad.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3299">Mayo 21 de 2011
Después de terminar el seminario con mis estudiantes el 14 de mayo, nos preguntábamos al final cómo pasar del "simulacro de la comunidad", propuesto como práctica legítima del aula[*]_ a una comunidad genuina. Revisamos con ellos qué podría constituir una práctica genuina para nosotros de forma tal que pudieramos catapultar tránsito dicha comunidad. Nos dimos cuenta que a pesar de la diversidad de intereses y prácticas educativas que en principio imposibilitarían la constitución de la comunidad, había algo que sutilmente se había colado en nuestras formas de hacer cotidianas y era el uso de mapas mentales, conceptuales y prezi como mediaciones para presentar ideas. Esta práctica era, entonces, la que podíamos afectar. Esto coincidía con el proyecto de "mapas argumentativos"_. La idea era entonces iniciar haciendo un sistema de presentaciones tipo Prezi, que luego se complementara con mapas argumentativos, mentales y conceptuales. Emprender el problema de presentaciones con Zoom se volvió prioritario debido a la coincidencia de este desarrollo con una exposición en la que me solicitaban explícitamente no usar Prezi, a pesar de que me invitaban debido a una presentación que la que lo había usado. Indagando sobre opciones de software libres similares a prezi, encontré Jessy Ink y Sozi, el cual me pareció mucho más fácil de usar que el primero, pero no admitía zoom dentro de zoom, una característica clave en ciertas presentaciones. Mi frustación del pasado respecto a esperar que el desarrollador implementara una característica y la "falta de continuidad" entre la aplicación y el entorno de desarrollo me hicieron pensar que era una buena oportunidad para empezar a aprender en serio Smalltalk e intentar tener un borrador de esta aplicación con motivo del viaje a México. Fue gracias a lo anterior que el proyecto zoOMixer salío: Un software de presentaciones, similar a Prezi, inspirado en Sozi, que usa el formato SVG como salida y el navegador como lugar de visualización, con futuro soporte para HTML5, que permite hacer fácilmente zoom dentro de zoom y que integrará progresivamente características como los mapas argumentativos, mentales y conceptuales. Veremos cómo nos va.
.. _[*] Brown y otras reportan que la práctica legitima del aula es la de ser un simulacro de una comunidad de práctica, donde circulan los conocimientos disciplinares del tema que se están aprendiendo
.. _"mapas argumentativos": http://holonica.net/home/infoviz/app_all?Subject%3Alist=mapas%20argumentativos</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3300">http://tantek.com/2011/181/b1/google-plus-pownce-friends-federation-data-export-summer-social-war
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3301">http://benward.me/blog/understand-the-web </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3302">http://www.webhooks.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3303"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3304"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3305"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3306">http://paver.github.com/paver/index.html
Paver is a Python-based software project scripting tool along the lines of Make or Rake. It is not designed to handle the dependency tracking requirements of, for example, a C program. It is designed to help out with all of your other repetitive tasks (run documentation generators, moving files about, downloading things), all with the convenience of Python’s syntax and massive library of code.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110711092925.3307">http://tantek.com/2010/281/b1/what-is-the-open-web
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4392">http://project.friendika.com/node/123 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4393">http://project.friendika.com/node/124 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110714094207.4433">http://noosfero.org/Site/About
No es propiamente una red social distribuida, pero sí tiene muchas funcionalidades interesantes, como un blog y galerías personales, así como una interface más amigable. Definitivamente Ruby on rails es algo que hay que tener bajo la manga para ofrecer soluciones web y la metodología de uso de Leo como sistema de deconstrucción, neutral respecto a la infraestructura específica es algo que hay que fortalecer.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2314">http://eco.microsiervos.com/noticias/trabajar-21-horas-al-mes.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2315">http://mipymelibre.org/
Un sitio sobre software libre y economía solidaria.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.2316">http://thenextweb.com/video/2011/04/13/video-africans-have-facebook-account-before-email-address/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4286">http://geeksonaplane.com/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4287">http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2011/07/13/the-problem-with-silicon-valley-is-itself/
Adquirir valor primero, haciendo una diferencias frente a los problemas del mundo real.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110718073918.4288">http://dilmanarede.com.br/profile/marcelo </t>
<t tx="offray.20110718121320.2326">http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_mackinnon_let_s_take_back_the_internet.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110719130259.4299">file:///home/offray/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110719130259.4300"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2380">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/smalltalk/seaside
Incluye excelentes tutoriales, videos y más.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2381">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/jquery-for-seaside </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2382">http://www.slideshare.net/MarcusDenker/seaside-1921396 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2383">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/5-steps-to-mastering-the-art-of-seaside </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2384">http://www.slideshare.net/renggli/seaside-past-present-and-future </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2385">http://scriptaculos.seasidehosting.st/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2386"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2387">http://www.swazoo.org/
El servidor web detrás de Aida/Web.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2388">http://www.swazoo.org/documentation.html
El enlace de documentación contiene un ejemplo minimalista e interesante</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2389">http://www.eranova.si/
Our company Eranova d.o.o. is dedicated entirely to leveraging object technology for the new web enabled economy. We design information systems based on our own object-oriented Web Application Server, Aida/Web, based on Smalltalk object technology. And Aida/Web is Open Source! You can try it and develop web applications with dynamic content yourself!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2390">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDA/Web </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2391"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2392">http://blog.doit.st/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2393">http://scriptaculos.seasidehosting.st/
Seaside-Hosting is a free hosting service for non-commercial Seaside applications. In contrast to a standard file hosting or a virtual server hosting this service provides a simple to use interface to set up and run your Seaside applications. It allows you to put your own application online within minutes.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2394"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2395"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2396">@language smalltalk
|form |
form := (Form fromBinaryStream: (HTTPSocket httpGet:
'http://ubuntu.ecchi.ca/wallpapers/10.04/' ,
'Maraetaibeforesunrise.jpg')).
World backgroundImage: form layout: #scaled.
| x |
x := ImageMorph new.
x image: (Form fromFileNamed: '/home/offray/Temp/opBlackFace.png').
x openInWorld.
| joe bill |
joe := Morph new color: Color blue.
joe openInWorld.
bill := Morph new color: Color red .
bill openInWorld.
bill position: (joe position + (100@0))</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2397">En pharo se ejecuta el siguiente código:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository';
package: 'ConfigurationOfAida';
load.
((Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfAida) project version: '6.2') load.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2398"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110721112225.2399">http://forum.world.st/Web-framework-or-Web-Application-Server-tt123928.html
To me, we want people who are:
Opinionated :)
They love Smalltalk, or are at least open to learning and loving Smalltalk.
They love Turtles all the way down.
The more they can do with the chosen tool, the better.
The less they have to look elsewhere to solve the problem, the better. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2372">http://www.lordzealon.com/articulos-tutoriales/aidaweb-tutorial/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2373">http://ftp.eranova.si/aida/mivsek-aida-tutorial-esug09.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2374">http://forum.world.st/Seaside-vs-Traditional-tt123504.html
Tiene varios comentarios sobre el proceso de aprender Smalltalk que son muy valiosos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2375">http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/seaside/tutorial
Uno de los mejores y mas comprehensivos tutoriales. Es recomendable empezar por acá.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2376">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.73.700&rep=rep1&type=pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110722090302.2377">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2384"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2385">http://www.moosetechnology.org/download </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2386">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/wettel/codecity.html
CodeCity is an integrated environment for software analysis, in which software systems are visualized as interactive, navigable 3D cities.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2387">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/petitparser-1/
PetitParser is a parsing framework different to many other popular parser generators. For example, it is not table based such as SmaCC or ANTLR. Instead it uses a unique combination of four alternative parser methodologies: scannerless parsers, parser combinators, parsing expression grammars and packrat parsers. As such PetitParser is more powerful in what it can parse and it arguably fits better the dynamic nature of Smalltalk.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2388">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/wettel/codecity-wof.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2389">http://www.moosetechnology.org/tools/retired/py2mse
py2mse is a parser for Python the AST of Python programs in MSE format. py2mse was written by Martin von Löwis.
The project also consists of the Python AST implementation in VisualWorks and the generation of FAMIX models from the AST.
-->
El proyecto ya no está activo
<-- </t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2390">http://www.inf.usi.ch/phd/lungu/softwarenaut/
Softwarenaut is a static analysis tool that supports architecture recovery through visualization and interactive exploration. Softwarenaut is built on top of the Moose analysis platform.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2391">http://code.google.com/p/twitter-client/
No está muy mantenido, pero puede ser un interesante punto de ingreso. El cliente de OpenSocial en Pharo ni siquiera estaba iniciado en ago 1 de 2011.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2392">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/Bung09a.pdf
:author: Phillip Bunge</t>
<t tx="offray.20110801113419.2393">What distinguishes browsers from other user interfaces is the structure of the underlying data and how
it is mapped to the visual representation shown to the user.
Reenskaug, however, never intended for the breaking of encapsulation that the pattern pro-
motes. He wrote later that the “top level goal was to support the user’s mental model of
the relevant information space and to enable the user to inspect and edit this information.”
-->
Lo que quiero hacer es esto, al crear el TreeSpace, entendiendo mi modelo mental en Leo
a Smalltalk.
<--
Much can be gained from a framework that simpli es the construction of browsers. Re-
searchers can create browsers to gain a better understanding of their models and end users
can be permittedx direct access to the underlying objects. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2404">http://www.slideshare.net/esug/esug-unicode</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2405">http://magaloma.blogspot.com/2011/07/twm-docking-windows.html
Using Pharo 1.4 and latest TWM packages, you can now group windows as tabs.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2406">http://www.pharocasts.com/2010/08/see-how-to-get-data-from-url-parse-xml.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2407">Well, autosaving image is not so scary thing and it is possible without
troubles. And it is a must for any image-based persistency solution.
Current Aida one-click has for instance an hourly snapshot enabled by
default. Also I have all my images snapshoted automatically every hour,
being production or development. Both VW and gradually Pharo ones too.
Not to mention that image running Squeak website snapshots every hour
for years too.
You snapshot Squeak/Pharo image by:
SmalltalkImage current saveSession
In any case, we need to recheck and cleanup that snapshot procedure to
be safe and viable solution for persistency, if there are really some
problems yet there to popup. If visualWorks can spapshot cleanly, why
Pharo cannot?
Best regards
Janko</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2408">http://book.pharo-project.org/book/Tidbits/CustomizingPharo/WorldMenuRegistration
Muestra cómo cambiar el WorldMenu de Pharo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2412">http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/pharo-how-to-load-a-metacello-configuration-into-an-offline-image/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110802141824.2413">We propose to map the entities of the domain models onto panes, which have a xed po-
sition within a browser and take arbitrary presentations which can be changed on the fly.
The navigation within the domain model is complemented by specifying the ow of data
between the panes. Since the ow is triggered by actions performed upon a pane, the con-
nections between panes are called transmissions. In this sense, our model is again a directed
and *possibly cyclic* graph—albeit of a different abstraction than the domain model.
The actual rendering then requires only a model consisting of these components and is entirely
*independent of the underlying domain model*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2422">https://plus.google.com/photos/100238778462210489846/albums/5629087019815403777 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2423">
Método 2:
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'Glamour';
package: 'ConfigurationOfGlamour';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfGlamour)
perform: #loadDefault
Da cómo mensaje:
This package depends on the following classes:
SubscriptionRegistry
You must resolve these dependencies before you will be able to load these definitions:
SubscriptionRegistry>>glmSubscriptions
Y luego:
This package depends on the following classes:
SubscriptionRegistry
You must resolve these dependencies before you will be able to load these definitions:
SubscriptionRegistry>>hasHandlerFor:
SubscriptionRegistry>>lookFor:
SubscriptionRegistry>>lookFor:ifNone:
SubscriptionRegistry>>unsubscribeForEvent:
Select Proceed to continue, or close this window to cancel the operation.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110803171050.2424">GMLCustomCell accessing span
span
^span ifNil: [span _ Period or right bracket expected ->1]</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2428"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2429"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2430">http://web.mac.com/rodriguezdelasheras/e-textos/indice.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2431">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/FusterMorell-Paper.pdf</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2432">@language smalltalk
"
Instalando seaside en Pharo:
"
Gofer new
squeaksource: 'MetacelloRepository';
package: 'ConfigurationOfSeaside30';
load.
(Smalltalk at: #ConfigurationOfSeaside30) load.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2433">@language smalltalk
"
Luego de instalado hacemos clien en //Tools -> Seaside Control Panel//
En la ventana que se despliega hacemos click en el panel superior luego escogemos
//Add adaptator// --> //WAComancheAdaptator// y el puerto (usualmente el 8080) y luego
hacemos click en [Start]
"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2434"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2435">WAComponent is the basic component provided by Seaside. That means every visible component inherits from WAComponent. There are many more components you can use, like WATask, but more on that later. For now, just keep WAComponent in mind.
Declaramos el componente raíz de la aplicación, que será, entonces una instancia de WAComponent.
@language smalltalk
WAComponent subclass: #StRootComponent
instanceVariableNames: ''
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2436">To generate HTML code from within your Smalltalk code, you need a renderer. WAComponent ensures that the method #renderContentOn: is called. By giving the method a renderer you have access to all WACanvas methods provided by Seaside. So let us keep that theoretical stuff in mind and create the first component of our ToDo Application
En el componente raíz StRootComponent necesitamos entonces un método #renderContentOn: que simplemente muestre el título de la aplicación,
invocando para esto el objeto html. Dicho objeto conoce las formas de mostrar contenido en html y podemos enviarle otros mensajes, por ejemplo si queremos que muestre algo como texto. En el siguiente ejemplo hacemos eso para que muestre el título de la aplicación y la fecha.
@language smalltalk
renderContentOn: html
"Muestro todo invocando a 'html' "
html text: 'Cosas pendientes'.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2437">Queremos que componente que declaramos pueda ser raíz de la aplicación, así que indicamos esto, cambiando de la instancia a la clase y creando un método de clase llamado #canBeRoot
@language smalltalk
canBeRoot
^true
Esto cambia el método #canBeRoot que para todos las instancias de la clase WAComponent retorna falso por omisión.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2438">Suponemos que ya tienes experiencia con Pharo, al menos mínima y con el lenguaje Smalltalk y su sintaxis. Que entiendes el paso de mensajes y los fundamentos de la programación orientada a objetos. En caso de no ser así, te recomendamos el libro Pharo By Example.
Tips:
Si usas un teclado en español y quieres obtener el carater "^", que es usualmente empleado para simbolizar "return" en otros lenguajes deberás emplear la combinación de teclas [Alt Gr] + [^] + [^] (es decir, presionas la tecla del caracter "^" dos veces).</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2439"> * Vamos a `http://localhost:8080/config/`
* Hacemos click en el botón "Add" de la parte superior izquierda.
* En el formulario siguiente colocamos el nombre "pendientes" y decimos que se trata de una aplicación en el menú desplegable. Luego presionamos [OK]. Se despliega otro formulario.
* En este formulario, en la sección "General", en el menú desplegable "Root Class" seleccionamos "StRootComponent" y al final del
formulario seleccionamos [Apply].
* Ahora vamos a: `http://localhost:8080/pendientes` y debemos ver el mensaje que se despliega cuando definimos "renderContentOn: html"
en la sección anterior.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2440"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2441">El usuario:
@language smalltalk
Object subclass: #StUser
instanceVariableNames: 'id userName email tasks password'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'
Para llenar los métodos usamos el menú: Refactor class --> Accesors.
La tarea:
Object subclass: #StTask
instanceVariableNames: 'id completed deadline taskDescription taskName'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
category: 'STTutTodoApp'</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2442">Por acá debería empezar un tutorial, después de explicar por qué Seaside es diferente. Se puede complementar con las diapositivas de Lukas Renggli.
As we have already said, Seaside's way of creating Web applications is different from most other Web frameworks. Seaside adopts a component-based approach to tie different objects and their contents together and generate a single Web page from them. That way, web interfaces can be constructed as a hierarchical tree of stateful objects. To clarify this, imagine a simple standard Web page: usually, there is some kind of navigation means, a menu, and another part of the page contains the real contents corresponding to the particular menu items. This resembles a very simple component structure. The root component represents the visible page as a whole. If you put all your rendering code into this single component you would flinch at the immense complexity: there would be a massive amount of code pertaining to all kinds of different aspects, but no clear structure.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110804072256.2443">La aplicación tiene dos menús:
* Un menú para revisar las tareas, bien sea las pendientes o las terminadas.
* Un menú para mostrar la lista de dichas tareas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2460">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2461">Change is here with us to stay. Increasingly, software systems will need to
adapt to change dynamically, which means that software models must be acces-
sible at run-time. Ideally, models will be executable, and different versions of the
same models will need to be simultaneously active, and context-aware.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2462"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110806153210.2463">We give a special thanks to Avi Bryant and Julian Fitzell for inventing Seaside. In particular, they showed us that going against the current is possible when you have brilliant ideas and a powerful language such as Smalltalk.
Smalltalk typically encourages explicit naming and avoids abbreviations — the few seconds per day you save by typing an abbreviated method or variable name may often come back much later to haunt you or someone else reading your code as minutes or even hours spent trying to debug code with poor readability.
En el capítulo 9 no entiendo cuando se declaran las variables de clase y cuando las de instancia. Las de clase pertenecen a la colección
ordenada, las de instancia a los objetos que se almacenarían en dicha clase.
Componentes
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110806220931.2468">El siguiente código repite una imagen muchas veces (10):
html paragraph: [
10 timesRepeat: [
html image
url: 'http://www.seaside.st/styles/logo-plain.png';
width: 70 ].]
* Cómo hacer para que el 10 sea una variable en el ciclo? </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2454">http://singly.com/
La idea del locker es muy similar a la del enrutador de identidad digital. Tengo que empezar a escribir al respecto rápido!!!</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2455">http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/02/singly-locker-project-telehash.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2456">http://fizz.bloom.io/index.html
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2457">http://bloom.io/
Hermosa página y mucho de énfasis en lo visual. Afortunadamente con Smalltalk no tengo que pensar en otra tecnología para lograr lo que ellos, eventualmente podría requerir lenguajes de dominio específico para processing y otras cosas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2458">http://allthingsd.com/20110203/the-locker-project-helps-you-stalk-yourself-online/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2459">http://gigaom.com/2009/12/29/my-wish-for-2010-a-personal-dashboard-for-the-social-web/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110807152341.2460">http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/07/16/creating-a-portable-web-when-your-data-is-truly-yours/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2863">Es un CMS hecho en Seaside. Acá unas notas de uso:
Para hacer enlaces:
*mi enlace>http://midireccion.com*
Para llamar cambios en la apariencia del sistema:
+/system/components/designchooser+</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2864">http://vimeo.com/15509037
Empezar por acá. De todos los videos introductorios, este tiene audio e introduce los elementos claves para iniciar con Pier.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2865">http://vimeo.com/9114081
Esta opción es gratuita y permite un almacenamiento hasta de 200Mb.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2866"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110808135025.2867">http://vimeo.com/14679673 </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2544"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2545">http://www.tudorgirba.com/
Este debería ser uno de los modelos del enrutador de identidad digital.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2546"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2547"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2548">http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st/seaside/pier
Hay unos volantes de Smalltalk chéveres en varios idiomas (incluido español) colgados en su página que apuntan a las fuentes en LaTeX.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2549">http://damien.cassou.free.fr/smalltalk-flyer-spanish.pdf
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2550">http://smalltalk.cat/
La página contiene enlaces a varios proyectos en Smalltalk, incluyendo Scratch for Arduino.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2551">http://www.roard.com/
Recomendable la sección de fotografías, que integra LightBox2</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2552">http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2553">http://www.somethingiknow.com/
Usa el tema de eventos y lo adapta para hablar de bicicletas familiares. Las sillas de estas bicicletas podrían ser lo que necesite pare mi estudio.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2554">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/
El sitio del creador de Pier. Interesante ver cómo usa submenús en cada menú. Hay muchas presentaciones muy interesantes.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2555">http://getitmade.com/
Se parece a la idea de Kanashpi (atrapa sueños) de hace muchos años. Debí
escribir en su momento un blog post al respecto, pero es bueno verla realizada y
ahora tiene la ventaja de integrarse a las redes sociales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2556">http://www.sw-eng.ch/
Una página de una empresa consultora en tecnología. Este podría ser un modelo para
la página de Mutabit.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2557">http://scg.unibe.ch/
Nótese las migas de pan en la navegación! también hay que implementarla.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2558">Un buen blog personal, con mucha información sobre Smalltalk y Ruby.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2559"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2560">http://nicolas-petton.fr/2011/06/27/javascript-function-calls.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2561">http://www.a3aan.st/
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.2562">http://www.teodorov.ro/
La página de inicio tiene un estilo tipo "about me" pero está hecho en </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4536">En este nodo voy a considerar la posibilidad de importar desde diferentes lenguajes de etiquetamiento a Pier y a su vez de extender / modificar el lenguaje de etiquetamiento provisto por omisión por Pier. La intensión es soportar txt2tags o reStructuredText. El inconveniente del primero es la ausencia de soporte nativo para notas al pie de página y el complicado soporte para las mismas, así como otros elementos entre los que están el resaltado sintáxtico de algunos códigos fuente y la inclusión de extensiones como asciiMath. reStructuredText soporta todo esto pero es más verborrageo y no tan fácil de aprender, sin embargo es en lo que estoy escribiendo mi tesis actualmente.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4537"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4538">Hi,
I really like txt2tags but I’m missing two characteristics to prefer it over reStructuredText (I know that they both have different targets). The first one is the possibility to use natively footnotes and bibliographical entries (more for a printed output instead of web) without using the workaround of TeX and the second one is the possibility to embbed/connect external syntaxes and tools, for example to use asciimath inside txt2tags or having syntax highlighting for code. Please let me know about your thoughts on both characteristics.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4539">http://wiki.txt2tags.org/index.php/Main/TiddlywikiPlugin </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4540">http://wiki.txt2tags.org/index.php/Main/Cookbook </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4541">http://www.merten-home.de/FreeSoftware/moin2rst/
Funciona sobre la versión 1.5 de MoinMoin y requiere de los formateadores para ello. La versión en El Directorio es la 1.6.3, pero los formatos de etiquetamiento no han cambiado sustancialmente, así que podría funcionar importar la info de El Directorio en la versión 1.5 y aplicar este macro para la conversión a texto re-estructurado. El uso de PettitParser puede ser una opción de importación alternativa ocurriendo únicamente desde Smalltalk. La ruta sería </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4542">http://code.google.com/p/db2rst/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4543">http://blog.nyaruka.com/making-moinmoin-pygments-and-codemirror-all-p </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4544">http://txt2tags.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/use-txt2tags-markup-in-plone/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4545">http://markitup.jaysalvat.com/home/
Podría usarse como *frontend* para Pier?</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4546">http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/how-to-transform-almost-plain-ascii-text-to-lulu-ready-pdf-files-part-1/
Una serie de 3 artículos sobre cómo escribir textos usando txt2tags. Comenta cómo resolver el problema de los pies de página. Usa LaTeX como solución final de exportación a pdf y maquetado.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4547">http://darchino.ch/txt2tags
Está en italiano. El blog tiene otros enlaces interesantes, como matemática, teología y sociedad. </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4548">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/esclinux/kde_geany_t2t.png</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4549">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/textallion/docs/presentation.html
An easy-to-use tool for publishing prose, literature, poetry in html, pdf or epub, and using txt2tags as a back end.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4550">http://anamnese.online.fr/site2/txt2tex/samples/sample_en.html
combinación de txt2 y TeX para el procesamiento de textos.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4551">http://norbert.hartl.name/
El sistema tiene soporte para nubes de etiquetas en Pier.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4552">http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia
With helveltia we explore a lightweight approach to embed new languages into the host language. The approach reuses the existing toolchain of editor, parser, compiler and debugger by leveraging the abstract syntax tree (AST) of the host environment. Different languages cleanly blend into each other and into existing code.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4553">http://scg.unibe.ch/research/helvetia/examples </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4554"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4555"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4556">http://coding.smashingmagazine.com/2007/01/19/53-css-techniques-you-couldnt-live-without/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20110809083539.4557">http://www.mikemcpherran.com
Chéveres algunas cosas del diseño.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4718"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4719"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4720">
<<Servidor Web Cherokee>> </t>
<t tx="offray.20110812101833.4721">Lanzamos la interface administrativa de Cherokee:
.. code:: bash
#!/bin/bash
cd /tmp/
sudo nohup cherokee-admin &
less nohup.out
La salida nos muestra una contraseña que se genera cada vez que ejecutamos Cherokee, algo como:
.. code:: bash
Cherokee Web Server 1.0.15 (Dec 29 2010): Listening on port 127.0.0.1:9090, TLS
disabled, IPv6 enabled, using epoll, 1024 fds system limit, max. 505
connections, caching I/O, 10 threads, 50 connections per thread, standard
scheduling policy
Login:
User: admin
One-time Password: 9NV7fu2dybuu318l
Web Interface:
URL: http://127.0.0.1:9090/
Entramos a la interface administrativa de Cherokee, colocando los datos que aparecen en el mensaje previo. En caso de que no estemos ejecutando cherokee localmente será necesario hacer un tunel ssh a la máquina remota, para lo cual hacemos:
.. code:: bash
ssh -L 9090:localhost:9090 root@ip.del.servidor
Bien sea que hayamos usado el tunel o estemos en conexión directa, basta con colocar en nuestro navegador en `localhost:9090` para entrar a la interface administrativa de cherokee.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2570"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2571">:author: Ruskoff, David
:title: Program or be programmed
:date:
:publication:
:pages: 385 - 405
:url: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/ref/v18n2/06.pdf
:licence: copyright 2010
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2572">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/programOrBeProgrammedTenCommandsForADigitalAge.pdf </t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2587">But so far, anyway, too many of us are finding our digital
networks responding unpredictably or even opposed to our
intentions.
Retailers migrate online only to find their prices
undercut by automatic shopping aggregators. *Culture creators seize interactive distribution channels only to grow incapable of finding people willing to pay for content they were happy to purchase before*. Educators who looked forward to accessing
the world’s bounty of information for their lessons are
faced with students who believe that finding an answer on
Wikipedia is the satisfactory fulfillment of an inquiry. Parents
who believed their kids would intuitively multitask their way
to professional success are now concerned those same kids are
losing the ability to focus on any one thing.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2588"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2589">Young people who saw in social networks a way to
redefine themselves and their allegiances across formerly
sacrosanct boundaries are now conforming to the logic of
social networking profiles and finding themselves the victims
of marketers and character assassination.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2590">It doesn’t have to turn out this way. And it won’t if we
simply learn the biases of the technologies we are using and
become conscious participants in the ways they are deployed.
Faced with a networked future that seems to favor the
distracted over the focused, the automatic over the considered,
and the contrary over the compassionate, it’s time to press the
pause button and ask what all this means to the future of our
work, our lives, and even our species.
But the cybernetic organism, so far, is more like a cybernetic mob than new
collective human brain. People are being reduced to externally configurable
nervous systems, while computers are free to network and think in more advanced
ways than we ever will.
The human response, if humanity is going to make
this leap along with our networked machines, must be a
wholesale reorganization of the way we operate our work,
our schools, our lives, and ultimately our nervous systems
in this new environment.
With the advent of a new medium, the status quo not only
comes under scrutiny; it is revised and rewritten by those who
have gained new access to the tools of its creation.
Likewise, the invention of the printing press in the
Renaissance led not to a society of writers but one of readers;
except for a few cases, access to the presses was reserved, by
force, for the use of those already in power. Broadcast radio
and television were really just extensions of the printing
press: expensive, one-to-many media that promote the mass
distribution of the stories and ideas of a small elite at the
center. We don’t make TV; we watch it.
Computers and networks finally offer us the ability to
write. And we do write with them on our websites, blogs,
and social networks. But the underlying capability of the
computer era is actually programming—which almost none
of us knows how to do. We simply use the programs that have
been made for us, and enter our text in the appropriate box
on the screen. We teach kids how to use software to write,
but not how to write software. This means they have access to
the capabilities given to them by others, but not the power to
determine the value-creating capabilities of these technologies
for themselves.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2591">We don’t celebrate the human stars of this medium, the way
we marveled at the stars of radio, film, or television; we are
mesmerized instead by the screens and touchpads themselves.
Likewise, we aspire less to the connectivity enjoyed by our
peers than to the simple possession of the shiny new touchpad
devices in their laps. Instead of pursuing new abilities, we
fetishize new toys.
As a result, instead of optimizing our machines for
humanity—or even the benefit of some particular group—we
are optimizing humans for machinery. And that’s why the
choices we make (or don’t make) right now really do matter as
much or more than they did for our ancestors contending with
language, text, and printing.
The industrial age challenged us to
rethink the limits of the human body: Where does my body
end and the tool begin? The digital age challenges us to rethink
the limits of the human mind: What are the boundaries of my
cognition? And while machines once replaced and usurped
the value of human labor, computers and networks do more
than usurp the value of human thought. They not only copy
our intellectual processes—our repeatable programs—but they
also discourage our more complex processes—our higher order
cognition, contemplation, innovation, and meaning making
that should be the reward of “outsourcing” our arithmetic to
silicon chips in the first place.
The way to get on top of all this, of course, would be
to have some inkling of how these “thinking” devices and
systems are programmed—or even to have some input into the
way it is being done, *and for what reasons*.
Every Google search is—at least for most of us—a Hail Mary
pass into the datasphere, requesting something from an opaque black box. How does it
know what is relevant? How is it making its decisions? Why
can’t the corporation in charge tell us? And we have too little
time to consider the consequences of not knowing everything
we might like to about our machines. As our own obsolescence
As our own obsolescence
looms, we continue to accept new technologies into our lives
with little or no understanding of how these devices work and
work on us.
We do not know how to program our computers, nor
do we care. We spend much more time and energy trying to
figure out how to use them to program one another instead.
And this is potentially a grave mistake.
We are living through a real shift—one that has already
crashed our economy twice, changed the way we educate
and entertain ourselves, and altered the very fabric of human
relationships. Yet, so far, we have very little understanding
of what is happening to us and how to cope. Most of the
smart folks who could help us are too busy consulting to
corporations—teaching them how to maintain their faltering
monopolies in the face of the digital tsunami. Who has time to
consider much else, and who is going to pay for it?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2592">Freedom—even in a digital
age—means freedom to choose how and with whom you do
your reflection, and not everything needs to be posted for the
entire world with “comments on” and “copyright off.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2593">All media and all technologies
have biases. It may be true that “guns don’t kill people, people
kill people”; but guns are a technology more biased to killing
than, say, clock radios. Televisions are biased toward people
sitting still in couches and watching. Automobiles are biased
toward motion, individuality, and living in the suburbs. Oral
culture is biased toward communicating in person, while
written culture is biased toward communication that doesn’t
happen between people in the same time and place.
We can’t quite feel
the biases shifting as we move from technology to technology,
or task to task. Writing an email is not the same as writing
a letter, and sending a message through a social networking
service is not the same as writing an email. Each of the acts
not only yields different results, but demands different mind-
sets and approaches from us. Just as we think and behave
differently in different settings, we think and behave differently
when operating different technology.
Only by understanding the biases of the media through
which we engage with the world can we differentiate between
what we intend, and what the machines we’re using intend for
us—whether they or their programmers even know it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2594">So programmers decided that computers
shouldn’t live in time at all. (Yes, there are clocks running in
the background on all computers, but they take their orders
regardless of the passage of time.)
Instead of operating in time, computers operate from
decision to decision, choice to choice. [...] The machine waits
for the next command, and so on, and so on. The time between
those commands can be days, or a millisecond.
time. The first interactive device most of us ever used was
the remote control. More than simply allowing us to change
channels at the end of a TV program, the remote control gave
us the ability to change channels during a TV program. The
remote control allowed us to deconstruct the narrative of a
show, or even a commercial.
Until interactivity, we were defenseless emotional
targets for the advertiser, who could use a linear story to put
us in a state of vulnerability. Think of almost any television
commercial[...]
To be released from tension, we must accept the storyteller’s
answer—meaning the advertiser’s product. We may have
understood that the people making us anxious were not our
friends—that the stuff on television is called “programming”
for a reason. But we were relatively powerless to do anything
about it other than not watch at all.
Before the remote control, [...] The amount of effort
outweighed the anxiety we were to endure by sitting through
the rest of the commercial. But after the remote control,
escape from the advertiser’s spell becomes effortless. With
a micro-motion of the thumb, we are gone. The interactive
device introduces discontinuity into an otherwise continuous
medium. And this discontinuity—this deconstruction of
story— *is a form of power*.
The spirit of the digital age still finds its expression in this
reappropriation of time. Our cutting and pasting, mash-ups
and remixes, satires and send-ups all originate in this ability to
pause, reflect, and rework.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2595">As Internet connections grow faster, fatter, and freer,
however, we are more likely to adopt an “always on” approach
to media. [...] Anytime anyone or anything wants
to message, email, tweet, update, notify, or alert us, something
dings on our desktop or vibrates in our pocket. Our devices
and, by extension, our nervous systems are now attached to the
entire online universe, all the time. Is that my phone vibrating?
[...]
We work against the powerful bias of a timeless technology, and
create a situation in which it is impossible to keep up. And so
we sacrifice the thoughtfulness and deliberateness our digital
media once offered for the false goal of immediacy—as if we
really can exist in a state of perpetual standby.
The results aren’t pretty. Instead of becoming
empowered and aware, we become frazzled and exhausted.
[...]
Everything must happen right away or, better, now.
There is no later. This works against the no-time bias of digital
media, and so it works against us, even though it might work
for the phone company programming the device and inducing
our dependence and compliance. (Yes, each variety of beep is
studied and tested for its ability to entrain our behavior.)
[...]
Of course, the simplest way out is to refuse to be always
on. To engage with the digital—to connect to the network—
can still be a choice rather than a given. That’s the very
definition of autonomy. We can choose to whom or what
we want to be available, and when. And we can even choose
people for whom we want to be always on. Being open to a
call from a family member 24/7 doesn’t require being open to
everyone. The time it takes to program your phone to ring for
only certain incoming numbers is trivial compared to the time
wasted answering calls from people you don’t want to hear
from.
[...]
And the more we live this way, the more we value the
digital’s definition of the now. Our search engines preface their
more relevant results with a section of “live” links to whatever
blog comment, social networking message, or tweet has most
recently been posted containing the words in our queries.
The only weighting that matters is how few seconds have
transpired since it was blurted. This in turn encourages us to
value the recent over the relevant.
[...]
Rather than accepting each tool’s needs as a necessary compromise in
our passively technologized lifestyles, we can instead exploit
those very same leanings to make ourselves more human.
Our computers live in the ticks of the clock. We live in
the big spaces between those ticks, when the time actually
passes. By becoming “always on,” we surrender time to a
technology that knows and needs no such thing.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2596">We strive to multitask, attempting to give partial attention
to more than one thing at a time, when all we really do is move
as quickly as possible from one task to another. No matter how
proficient we think we are at multitasking, studies show[1] our
ability to accomplish tasks accurately and completely only
diminishes the more we try to do at the same time. This is not
the fault of digital technology, but the way we use it.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2597">It’s not that the net has somehow changed from an
asynchronous medium to a synchronous one. No, it’s all
still just commands existing in a sequence, outside time.
But those commands are coming at us now in increasingly
rapid bursts, stimulating us to respond at rates incompatible
with human thought and emotion—and in ways that are not
terribly enjoyable. Try as we might, we are slow to adapt to the
random flood of pings. And our nervous systems are not happy
with this arrangement.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2598">Cell phone users now complain of “phantom vibration syndrome,” the sensation of
a cell phone vibrating on your thigh, even though there’s no
phone in your pocket.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2599">as much as our habits and outlook. Yes, thanks to what is
known as neuroplasticity, our brains do change depending
on what we do. A brain learning on computers ends up wired
differently than a brain learning on textbooks. This is nothing
new. Brains learning through text are different than ones that
learned through oral teaching, too. Likewise, a kid who plays
mostly with dolls ends up wired differently than one who
builds bridges with blocks.
-->
El salto de la neuroplasticidad a los "nativos digitales"
es, sin embargo, peligroso.
<--
similar critique even back then. We have been consistently
using our brains less as hard drives and more as processors—
putting our mental resources into active RAM. What’s different
now, however, is that it’s not just lists, dates, and recipes that
*are being stored for us, but entire processes*. The processes we
used to use for finding a doctor or a friend, mapping a route,
or choosing a restaurant are being replaced by machines that
may, in fact, do it better. What we lose in the bargain, however,
is not just the ability to remember certain facts, but to call
upon certain skills.
[...]
So instead of simply offloading our memory to external hard drives, we’re
beginning to offload our thinking as well. And thinking is not like a book you can
pick up when you want to, in your own time. It is something
that’s always on. Are we choosing to surrender the ability to do
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2600">We arrive at a seemingly identical party, but it’s the one
that Gina has decided is “the place to be” tonight. Instead
of turning the phone off and enjoying herself, however, she
turns her phone around, activates the camera, and proceeds to
take pictures of herself and her friends—instantly uploading
them to her Facebook page for the world to see. She does this
for about an hour, until a message comes through one of her
networks and she’s off to the next location for the cycle to
begin all over again.
Gina is the girl who is everywhere at once, yet—
ultimately—nowhere at all. She is already violating the first
command by maintaining an “always on” relationship to her
devices and networks. This has in turn fostered her manic,
compulsive need to keep tabs on everything everyone else
is doing at all times. It has not only removed her from linear
time, however, but also from physical place. She relates to
her friends through the network, while practically ignoring
whomever she is with at the moment. She relates to the places
and people she is actually with only insofar as they are suitable
for transmission to others in remote locations. The most social
girl in her class doesn’t really socialize in the real world at all.
the bias of the networks were absolutely intended to favor
decentralized activity. After all, the net was developed as a
communications platform capable of withstanding nuclear
attack. Messages—whether text, audio, or video—move
through the network as “packets,” each taking different routes
from node to node until they find their destination. The
*network is still controlled centrally by an authority* (we’ll get
to this later), but it functions in a decentralized way.
As a result, digital media are biased away from the
local, and toward dislocation. Just as television is better at
broadcasting a soccer game occurring on the other side of the
world than it is at broadcasting *the pillow talk of the person next to you in bed*
As the promoters of distance over the local, media have
also promoted the agendas of long-distance interests over
those of people in localities.
Mass media became the non-local brand’s way of
competing against the people with whom we actually
worked and lived. Local businesses competed against both
national brands and retail chains for local dollars—and mass
media favored mass production and mass marketing over
local production and community relationships.
The power of a local business—or any
local enterprise—is its connection to a particular region
and people. Its locality is its strength. By turning to a
decentralized medium to engage with people right around
the corner, a local business loses its home field advantage.
Further, for people who already know each other well
in real life to engage online is very different than engaging
with strangers we know only online. The net can reinforce real
world relationships when those relationships already exist.
-->
Sin embargo también permite con gente que de otro modo no
conoceríamos
<--
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813074057.2601"></t>
======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2609">@language rest</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2610"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2611">
As the postmodernists would remind us, we have stuff, we have signs for stuff,
and we have symbols of signs. What these philosophers feared was that as we came
to live in a world defined more by symbols, we would lose touch altogether with
the real stuff; we would become entranced by our simulated reality, and
disconnect from the people and places we should care about.
[...]
What the postmodernists may have underestimated, however, was the degree to
which the tools through which these symbolic worlds are created—and ways in
which they might be applied—would remain accessible to all of us. And how
willing we may still be to use them. Just as the framers of the Constitution and
the Talmudic scribes before them understood, abstract codes of laws are fine—so
long as we’re the ones writing them.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2613"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2614"> * La información está en los archivos (pasivos) y un conjunto de utilidades (software) jerárquicas acceden a ellos y los hacen "dinámicos".
* Las lógicas para programar cada utilidad de software pueden ser diversas: objetual, funcional, lógica, etc. que alientan la diversidad,
pero también la complejidad.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2615">los datos y los métodos constituyen el objeto. Los primeros contienen la información, los segundos la forma de operarla. El enfoque es sólo uno, pero consistente a lo largo de todo el paradigma. Es altamente escalable y fue pensado para lidiar con la complejidad.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2616"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2617">* Unix-Gnu/Linux, llevarme la distrubución conmigo fue crear una variante en LiveCD (Tangram Linux)</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2618"> * Luego de conocer toda esta diversidad se asemejaba a
"cuando lo único que uno conoce es un martillo, todo parecen clavos"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2619"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2620">
* "Bootiar" era un ritual casi-satánico (~2004)
* La mayoría tenía entornos windows ya instalados.
* Se hizo una versión "portable" con VirtualBox para correr un entorno gráfico liviano y el pesado "Sage"</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2621"> * Para Windows: portableapps.com
* Podría hacerse en Linux portablelinuxapps.com</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2622">La web es un escenario de articulación, pero también un campo de batalla</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2623">
* Es un proyecto interesante, pero "sólo" web... aunque eso ya está cambiando, pero no tiene soporte para metamodelos.
* Tengo que cambiar de modelo cognitivo dependiendo donde estoy:
* Bases de datos relacionales para el modelo.
* Plantillas para la vista (un lenguaje embebido de "templates" particular).
* Objetos y funciones para el controlador
La aplicación "admin" sería "auto-referencial" en el sentido de que permite generar otras aplicaciones dentro de web2py y modificarlo.
Del libro de web2py y la capacidad de modificarse a sí mismo:
The application contains other types of files (database, session files, error
files, etc.), but they are not listed on the edit page because they are not
created or modified by the administrator; they are created and modified by
the application itself.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2624">
* Vía Seaside, Aida, Illiad
* Podría desarrollar para escritorio sin cambiar de entorno, ni de paradigma.</t>
<t tx="offray.20110813115122.2625"></t>
<t tx="offray.20110828072608.2768">[Audience hasQuestions] whileTrue: [
self answer: Audience nextQuestion].
Audience do: [:you | self thank: you].
self returnTo: Audience
</t>
<t tx="offray.20110901173223.4927">http://hyry.dip.jp/sphinxbook/index.html
@language rest
El texto está en chino, aunque se puede traducir con servicios automáticos y cuenta como usar Leo Sphinx y LaTeX para la escritura de un libro. Bien interesante y pertinente para mi tesis.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111104043907.3308">http://miktex.org/portable/about
Este entorno lo voy a necesitar para habilitar un *entorno portable* en Windows de escritura de texto, como tesis y otras cosas. El contexto y
el sentido dirán si es necesario crear _pronto_ una versión de Leo Portable sobre Windows (y luego pensar en una para Linux y otra para Mac, particularmente considerando las dificultades del Toolkit Qt en Machintosh).</t>
<t tx="offray.20111114071815.3136"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3709">Estos scripts son para generar un archivo html o pdf, siguiendo los lineamientos explicados (en literalmente en chino) en: "@url Write a book with Sphinix"
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3711">@first #coding:utf-8
# 自启动程序由于其危险性，缺省是关闭的，请设置myLeoSettings.leo中的
# @bool scripting-at-script-nodes = True
# 以开启自启动
c.frame.resizePanesToRatio(0.25,0.7)</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3712">g.es(c.frame.resizePanesToRatio(0.25,0.7))</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3713">g.es(c.frame.resizePanesToRatio(0.0,0.7))</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3714">@first #coding:utf-8
"""
本程序寻找当前节点的路径以及所有父路径下的make.bat文件，
当找到时，运行make.bat html命令，编译html文档。
并根据父节点中的@auto-rst，打开相应的html文档。
"""
def process():
os.system("make.bat html")
for parent in p.self_and_parents_iter():
if parent.h.startswith('@auto-rst'):
html_name = parent.h.replace('@auto-rst ', '').replace('.rst', '')
break
else:
html_name = 'index'
os.system(r"build\html\%s.html" % html_name)
<<search_make>></t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3716">@first #coding:utf-8
"""
本程序寻找当前节点的路径以及所有父路径下的make.bat文件，
当找到时，运行make.bat latex命令，编译latex文档。
"""
def process():
conf = {}
execfile(r"source\conf.py", conf)
target_name = conf["latex_documents"][0][1]
g.es(target_name)
os.system("make.bat latex")
os.chdir("build/latex")
os.system("xelatex %s -interaction=nonstopmode -quiet" % target_name)
os.system("xelatex %s -interaction=nonstopmode -quiet" % target_name)
os.system(target_name.replace(".tex", ".pdf"))
<<search_make>></t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3718">@first #coding:utf-8
def process():
os.system("make.bat clean")
<<search_make>></t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3719">import os
import os.path as path
cwd = os.getcwd()
try:
d = c.scanAllDirectives(p)
_path = d.get('path')
while True:
make_path = path.join(_path, "make.bat")
if path.exists(make_path):
os.chdir(_path)
process()
break
else:
if path.dirname(_path) == _path:
break
_path = path.dirname(_path)
finally:
os.chdir(cwd)</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.3720">@first #coding:utf-8
import re
from string import Template
macros = (
"table",".. table:: ",
"inc>(.+?)>(.+?)",".. literalinclude:: codes/$o0|\n :section: $o1",
"inc",".. literalinclude:: codes/|\n :section: 1",
"inc>(.+?)",".. literalinclude:: codes/$o0|\n :section: 1",
"math",".. math::\n \n ",
"fig>(.+?)",u"\ :ref:`fig-$s0`\ \n\n.. _fig-$s0:\n\n.. figure:: images/$o0.png\n :width: 12.0cm\n\n 标题",
"fig","\ :ref:`fig-|`\ ",
"_s",".. _sec-|:\n",
"_f",".. _fig-|:\n",
"sec","\ :ref:`sec-|`\ ",
"m",u"\ :math:`|`\ ",
"tl",".. tlink::\n\n ",
"tt",".. ttip::\n\n ",
"tw",".. twarning::\n\n ",
"tc",".. tcode::\n\n ",
"ta",".. tanim::\n\n ",
"cb",".. code-block:: none\n\n ",
"t",".. topic:: |\n\n ",
"l","\ `| <http://>`_\ ",
"1",u"❶",
"2",u"❷",
"3",u"❸",
"4",u"❹",
"5",u"❺",
"6",u"❻",
"7",u"❼",
"8",u"❽",
"9",u"❾",
"0",u"❿",
"->",u"→",
)
macros = [(x,y) for x,y in zip(macros[::2], macros[1::2])]
def tuple2dict(t):
d = {}
i = 0
for tmp in t:
for item in tmp.split(">"):
d["o"+str(i)] = item
d["s"+str(i)] = item.replace("_","").replace("-","")
i+=1
return d
def expand_macro(line):
#for key in macros.keys():
for key, macro in macros:
r = re.search(key + "$", line)
if r:
return r.start(), Template(macro).safe_substitute(tuple2dict(r.groups()))
return None
w = c.frame.body.bodyCtrl
i = w.getInsertPoint()
pos = i
while pos>0:
char = w.get(pos-1, pos)
pos -= 1
if char == "\n": break
line = w.get(pos, i).strip()
pos = i - len(line)
line = w.get(pos, i)
result = expand_macro(line)
if result != None:
pos = pos+result[0]
text = result[1]
try:
cursorpos = text.index("|")
except:
cursorpos = len(text)
text = text.replace("|","")
@
if pos>0 and w.get(pos-1, pos) != "\n" and w.get(pos-1, pos) != " ":
text = "\ " + result[1]
@c
w.replace(pos, i, text)
w.setInsertPoint(pos + cursorpos)</t>
<t tx="offray.20111115100810.5314"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111127144824.3202">@language rest
Este exámen tiene dos partes, el exámen del proyecto de investigación, que ya sustenté y el exámen del suficiencia teórica. Acá estarán las preguntas del segundo. Las iré construyendo en la medida en que avance en las lecturas.</t>
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<t tx="offray.20111127144824.3203">
* Línea de investigación: Arte, Ciencia y Tecnología
* Coordinador de línea: Dr. Adolfo León Grisales.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111127144824.3204">Si bien no tiene mucho sentido preguntar en abstracto qué sea el diseño, dado que eso es remitir a una pluralidad de puntos, con frecuencia contrarios, en cambio sí es necesario que toda investigación defina la perspectiva teórica y disciplinar desde la que se orienta, y esto, además porque en relación con un mismo campo temático, es posible investigar desde diversas disciplinas, así, por ejemplo, en torno a la imagen puede darse tanto una investigación filosófica, como una investigación en diseño,... está además la cuestión epistemológica del diseño, en la que se trata más que de un campo científico con un objeto definido, de un cierto campo intelectual en el que necesariamente se cruzan muchas disciplinas. Desde la perspectiva de la "creación", explique las relaciones que establece entre Diseño, Arte, Ciencia y Tecnología en su propuesta de tesis doctoral en referencia con un contexto específico de posible intervención. Así mismo: cuál es la concepción del diseño que orienta su investigación? qué es lo que hace que la suya sea una investigación en diseño?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111127144824.3205">Sobre la base de las innovaciones de la robótica actual y los conceptos relativos
a la identidad de lo humano en su vinculación con las máquinas:
* Qué funciones específicas podría cumplir a futuro el diseño de objetos para
uso humano? (Tomar la noción de 'objeto' en su sentido más amplio, no
sólamente como 'objetos materiales': objetos, ideas, artes).
* Qué futuro le espera al diseñador humano si acaso el desarrollo de la
'inteligencia artificial' conduce a que las máquinas logren generar por su
cuenta el diseño de objetos, según se perfila ya?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3210">http://gonnagrowwings.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/empathy-as-a-facilitator-of-cognitive-emergence-in-complex-social-systems/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3211">http://p2pfoundation.net/Social_Currencies </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3212">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/why-no-one-is-going-to-succeed-at-building-the-notfacebook.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3213">http://web.docuticker.com/go/docubase/65613
Contiene un enlace al pdf completo. Acá una cita a modo de introducción:
There are now a great variety of exchange systems that exist alongside the traditional cash economy, ranging from babysitting clubs to Nectar points. Some of them revolve around complementary currencies, like time dollars or the new Transition currencies like the Brixton pound. Others are built on systems of mutuality that may be supplemented by the use of cash or complementary currencies, like peer lending schemes or the Southwark Circle.
A range of typologies could be drawn up to encompass this growing field. This one is organised around objectives, because it is built on the assumption that exchange systems exist to meet particular needs which can be categorised together. It is very much designed with public services in mind and aims to clarify the roles that different exchange systems could play to support the delivery of public outcomes.
The main distinction is between two different kinds of reciprocal exchange:
1. Social exchange: designed primarily to motivate people’s behaviour, to meet social objectives.
2. Economic exchange: designed primarily to circulate and to meet economic objectives.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3214">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/FSWS2010_-_Projects
Contiene enlaces a </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3215">http://www.anybeat.com/
No es software libre ni federado, pero es interesante la alusión de un "tercer lugar" para alejarse del lugar de trabajo y del lugar del hogar. No sé si realmente sea necesario ese tercer lugar de encuentro con extraños. El sitio dice que lo es, obviamente, pues ese es el servicio que ofrecen.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3216">http://www.barnraiser.org/prairie
Prairie is a lightweight OpenID based Internet identity server. Instead of registering at every web site with different username and password combinations you use your identity server to log you in.
(desafortunadamente su implementación requiere PHP y Apache).</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3218">http://decafbad.net/2011/02/08/the-diaspora-that-wasnt-and-the-way-into-the-walled-gardens/
@language rest
No es propiamente un post sobre el proyecto DiSo, pero sí sobre la construcción de una web social alternativa que aliente los protocolos primero y la implementación después. Voy a discutir mi proyecto del enrutador de identidad digital en la lista de web2py y luego comentarlo acá.... esto útlimo ya no es necesario, ahora que revisito este nodo. El proyecto del enrutador se irá por la implementación primero y luego por los protocolos. La escogencia de Seaside/Smalltalk ya es un hecho también.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3219">http://liberationtech.tumblr.com/post/13377461578/how-the-next-generation-diaspora-should-be-built-to
You may immediately notice, however, that this economics story is one-sided: The assumption is that advantages in network size will create an inexorable trend towards consolidation, yet the disadvantages in network size that could create an equally strong or more powerful effect away from consolidation is left unexplored. We know, however, that such effects exist. Otherwise, how would MySpace have replaced Friendster in the first place? Or how would Facebook have replaced MySpace?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3220">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_institution
One final possibility comes from the realm of total institutions. A total institution can be defined as a place of work and residence where a great number of similarly situated people, cut off from the wider community for a considerable time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life. Examples of total institutions include monasteries, the army, prisons, and psychiatric institutions, among many others. Total institutions are dense locations of activity, where ideas can spread quickly, and thus they are ideal locations for fostering the growth of social networking sites.
*Comentarios:*
La idea de una institución "autocontenida" y "aislada del sistema" me recuerda algunos de los propósitos que algunos miembros han establecido como deseables para el HackBo, como un lugar para trabajar y para dormir y quedarse, si es necesario. La idea de instituciones autocontenidas/autónomas que interactuan con otras, pero que no derivan su control de estas, sino que coevolucionan con ellas, es decir con clausura operacional es consecuente con la idea de las instituciones totales. Habría, sin embargo, que definir cuáles características determinan a una institución con estas condiciones, cuáles son sus bordes y *cómo es operacionalmente completa internamente*.
**************
Are there other total institutions out there that social networking entrepreneurs can tap into to challenge Facebook’s dominance? I don’t really have a good answer to this question, so it remains rhetorical. But to the extent that Diaspora* has gotten more traction than other social networking sites, it is because it has tapped into the free culture movement, hackerspaces and maker spaces, and so on.
*Similarly, though Silicon Valley has an aversion to politics, a social networking site that is built out of movements such as Anonymous, WikiLeaks, or the Occupy movement may be able to attain significant traction, if timed properly. In short, while the number of pure total institutions in our society is limited, it is clear from Diaspora*’s experience that a group-based social networking recruitment approach may work better for social networking entrepreneurs than the traditional individual-based approach they have followed to date.*
En realidad lo que se necesita es un enfoque mixto. Instituciones totales (con políticas y ethos distintos) donde al mismo tiempo
que se empoderan los grupos lo hagan también los individuos, por ejemplo usando una combinación Cynin + Ubakye.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3221">A secure, private, and decentralized communication platform would help support activist efforts to this end. And such a platform only needs traction among activists, not all mainstream users, to succeed. In other words, it needs to solve the activist problem, not the mainstream user’s problem, to be most effective.
As my doctoral dissertation shows, before a movement, an activist needs a private and secure platform to organize with a small group of people. These are the people who lay the groundwork for what the movement is to become. Authoritarian regimes understand this, which is why they seek to stamp out the early-movers, and why they immediately crack down on any signs of free assembly. *When groups of people are able to assemble in such environments, that’s when the regime’s days are numbered.*
But as we have seen, large mainstream social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are more effective at doing this task. Once activists get to the broadcasting stage, *what becomes more important to them is to protect their identities as they spread the movement’s message*[#]_. But the organizing task is never completed. The organizing task continues. *And it is this organizing task that I care about most. This critical organizing task is done by a small group of people that need to be able to maintain strong ties to one another in a secure and private fashion if they are to succeed.*[#]_
.. [#] ovlc: también se puede escoger el camino totalmente opuesto y es ser absolutamente visibles.
.. [#] ovlc: sin embargo el pequeño grupo de coordinación sigue siendo cierto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3222">Decentralization means that instead of having to post a message to a central server like Facebook, and then wait for that server to transfer that message (or not, in the case of censorship) to your friend, you send that message to your friend directly. To achieve this, *communication must be machine-to-machine, where the sender controls the first machine and the recipient controls the second, and the message that is transmitted is encrypted to ensure that only the sender and the recipient can read it. In other words, the sender and recipient must have an easy and fast means to install and manage the software on their machines — whether these machines are servers, computers, or phones, as in the FreedomBox vision*. Furthermore, the sender and the recipient must have the ability to stop using their machines and seamlessly use new ones, should the original machines be compromised for whatever reason by an authoritarian regime. *The software would need to have an easy “self-destruct mechanism” such that the data can be destroyed immediately in an emergency. At the same time, the “right to forget” would have to be embedded from the get go, such that the data would self destruct after a certain period of time to prevent a trail of communication that would make it easy for an authoritarian regime to track down the activists*. As such, *the next generation of secure, private, and decentralized social networking site would create a one-click turnkey solution for activists* that could easily be discarded if compromised and whose data could be destroyed automatically as the utility of the data diminishes while organizing unfolds.[#]_
.. [#] acá puede haber un interesante nicho para el enrutador de identidad digital y una razón más para usar Smalltalk en lugar de otras tecnologías no tan maduras. </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3223">Moreover, connectivity will vary greatly. At times the activist may have access to broadband Internet, but other times, she may need to connect via a 56K modem, a mobile connection, a mesh network, or perhaps even a satellite link. The social networking site will need to be accessible regardless of the connectivity, which means significant work on data compression will be required to ensure that the software’s performance remains nimble under such disparate conditions.[#]_
.. [#] otra posibilidad es simplemente poder trabajar off-line y sincronizarse cuando se esté en línea. La compresión de datos, sin embargo sigue siendo importante.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3224">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HootSuite
El sitio web es: http://hootsuite.com/. Un sistema de valor agregado, tipo hootsuite, podría servir para financiar ubakye.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111130141938.3236"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111130141938.3237">http://www.little-idiot.de/teambuilding/apache-structure.pdf
Abstract:
The relationships among modules in a software
project of a certain size can give us much information
about its internal organization and a way to control and
monitor development activities and evolution of large
libre software projects. In this paper, we show how
information available in CVS repositories can be used to
study the structure of the modules in a project when they
are related by the people working in them, and how
techniques taken from the social networks fields can be
used to highlight the characteristics of that structure. As
a case example, we also show some results of applying
this methodology to the Apache project in several points
in time. Among other facts, it is shown how the project
evolves and is *self-structuring*, with developer
communities of modules corresponding to semantically
related families of modules.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111204091721.3235">La relación del diseño con el arte ha sido bastante conflictiva, desde sus
inicios, con la Bauhaus, la historia del diseño se cruza con la del programa
utópico de las vanguardias, y el diseño se definirá a partir del ideas de
reconciliación del arte con la vida, de humanizar la técnica por el camino del
arte. Para otros, Gillo Dorfles por ejemplo, el diseño viene a ser propiamente
el arte que corresponde a nuestros días, atrás queda, dirá, la fase artesanal
del arte; y en fin, para otros, el vínculo del diseño con el arte se considera
nocivo porque distorsiona la finalidad práctica y funcional del diseño.
Reconstruya las líneas fundamentales de este debate y justifique el punto de
vista que al respecto tomará en su tesis.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111204091721.3236">El mundo contemporáneo se enfrenta a lo que algunos denominan un cambio de
paradigma. Se habla, por ejemplo, de un giro a la visualidad. Umberto Eco alguna
vez consideró que esto era un retroceso en la cultura, ya que pasábamos de la
esfera de un pensamiento abstracto, caracterizado por el libro, a una esfera de
pensamiento concreto centrada en la imagen. Pero la verdad el asunto es mucho
más complejo, para algunos, seguir llamando "imágenes" a todo esto que nos
inunda, por Internet, pero también en el espacio público, es apenas un uso
inercial del término y consideran que no debería llamarse propiamente "imagen".
Algunos hablan de la "muerte de la imagen", otros hablan de una historia de la
mirada, otros de lo que implicó el paso de la era de la imagen en la era del
arte, otros de un cambio en el régimen "escópico", se habla de un "giro
pictórico", de una epistemología de la visualidad, de las mutaciones de la
cultura en la época de su distribución electrónica. Todo esto, por supuesto, ha
tenido un gran impacto en el diseño. A propósito de esto hay entonces dos
preguntas, una cómo podríamos hoy definir la imagen? y dos, qué implicaciones
tiene esta resignificación, este giro a la visualidad, en el campo del diseño,
en la teoría del diseño?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111204091721.3237">El concepto de creación está asociado en inicios de la modernidad con la figura
de "genio", del artista, en Kant, expresamente se dirá que mientras el arte es
un producto del genio, es una creación, la ciencia en cambio exige un trabajo
metódigo. Ya en el siglo XX el concepto de creación se ampliará a nuevos
ámbitos, incluso al de la ciencia. En el caso de la teoría de las revoluciones
científicas, de T. Kuhn es claro que los cambios en la ciencia no se pueden
explicar sólo desde la perspectiva del método, se requieren rupturas radicales
que no se pueden entender desde el paradigma imperante. El de creación es un
concepto difícil de precisar, si tenemos en cuenta que este es un programa en
"diseño + creación" es necesario que se intente caracterizar y precisar el
alcance de tal concepto. La pregunta entonces es qué habrá que entender por
creación? Plantee su respuesta en una perspectiva histórica, es decir, en
función de una reconstrucción (o deconstrucción) histórica del concepto de
creación.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111204091721.3238"> * Definición de los alcances y límites teóricos en los cuales se propone la respuesta a cada una de las preguntas del exámen.
* Coherencia de la producción textual.
* Pertinencia de los diferentes desarrollos teóricos realizados y apoyos bibliográficos empleados.
* Proceso de acompañamiento en la elaboración del examen. Asistencia al menos a 2 asesorías en las que se validen con los profesores
los avances logrados.
* Calidad del producto final entregado: uso adecuado del lenguaje, coherencia y cohesión discursiva, desarrollo conceptual
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111218115620.4980"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111218115620.5556">@language rest
@tabwidth -4
@others
.. Warning: this node is ignored when writing this file.
.. However, @ @rst-options are recognized in this node.
#############################################################
Exámen de suficiencia teórica, Doctorado en diseño y creación
#############################################################
:autor: Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
:correo: offray@mutabit.com
.. contents::
.. raw:: pdf
PageBreak oneColumn
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111219064941.2906">Empezaré por cuál es la perspectiva teórica y disciplinar que orienta mi
investigación y por qué, desde dicha perspectiva, la mía es una investigación en
diseño, respondiendo así, cuál es la concepción de diseño que orienta mi
investigación. Finalmente le daré paso a la discusión sobre las relaciones entre
diseño, arte, ciencia y tecnología.
Adopto la perspectiva teórica y disciplinar desarrollada por Jonas [Jonas01] en
cuanto al diseño como un puente posible entre los sistemas autopoiéticos de lo
orgánico (organismos), lo social (comunicaciones) y lo mental (conciencias), y
sistemas heteropoiéticos de los artefactos y mecanismos. La preocupación
principal de este autor está en los fundamentos de la transdiciplina del diseño.
Considera que para desarrollar una genuina identidad del diseño, es necesario
mantener la pregunta por los fundamentos abierta y viva, lo cual implica
aspectos ontológicos, epistemológicos y metodológicos como:
1. ¿Hay alguna esencia del diseño / diseñar?
2. ¿Cuál es la función general del diseño?
3. ¿Cuál es la naturaleza específica del conocer en diseño?
4. ¿Cuál es la relación entre diseño y ciencia?
5. ¿Cómo mejorar el proceso de "resolución de problemas" a través de la investigación?
Jonas afirma que en estas preguntas el producto mismo del diseño, el artefacto,
está perdido, pero continua diciendo que el artefacto es una materialización
necesaria pero contigente en el proceso nunca terminado de diseño, que puede, en
el mejor de los casos ser interpretada en retrospectiva y con beneficios a
futuro.
Jonas critica algunos de los fundamentos clásicamente dados como aquellos
basados en la definición y deducción de Friedman y los principios generativos de
Buchanan y propone otros 3: la epistemología evolucionaria, la teoría de los
sistemas sociales (basado principalmente en Luhmann) y la teoría de la evolución
socio-cultural. Lo interesante del enfoque de Jonas es que vincula los sistemas
autopoiéticos y el diseño, lo cual es una preocupación principal de mi
investigación, al mismo tiempo que da una base sólida para tal vínculo. Desde su
aproximación, Jonas, siguiendo a Luhmann, establece que existen sistemas
heterónomos: los artefactos o mecanismos, y sistemas autónomos autopoiéticos:
los organismos, la conciencia, la comunicación ó, en otra acepción, lo orgánico,
lo mental y lo social. Al diseño le corresponde abordar las brechas entres las
estas cuatro tipos de entidades, con lo cual se tienen las siguientes
combinaciones:
a) Artefactos / Organismos
b) Artefactos / Conciencia
c) Artefactos / Comunicaciones
d) Artefactos / Organismos / Comunicaciones
e) Artefactos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones
f) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia
g) Artefactos / Organismos / Conciencia / Comunicaciones.
Mi proyecto de investigación se centra en el literal e) Artefactos / Conciencia
/ Comunicaciones, o dicho de otro modo, los artefactos, lo mental y lo social,
pues a través del diseño y puesta en contexto de artefactos digitales
autorreferenciales se pretenden explorar/consolidar dinámicas autopoiéticas en
los que ese contexto apropie y modifique los artefactos tenológicos digitales de
software, que a su vez modifican a las personas y comunidades que los usan.
Debido a que dichos contextos incluyen individuos y colectivos, las
consideraciones de índole mental y social se exploran en este interjuego de
apropiación y modificación mutua de artefactos y contextos. La hipótesis
específica a explorar es que al explicitar el caracter altamente
autorreferencial de los artefactos digitales usados por la comunidad particular
de HackBo (el Hackerspace de Bogotá) se dinamizará la coevolución de sistemas
interrelacionados en los que encuentran los artefactos digitales, las
comunidades y los individuos, facilitando así el tránsito de persoas usuarias a
hacedoras de artefactos digitales y de este modo permitiendo el empoderamiento
de las comunidades vía las tecnologías digitales y la acción de dichas
comunidades en el mundo. Se espera entonces caracterizar la coevolución de los
sistemas comunidades - individuos - artefactos, una vez se introducen artefactos
digitales altamente autorreferenciales (para esto último se proponen 3
tecnologías específicas: Leo, Smalltalk y web2py, pero una explicación detallada de las
mismas y el porqué de su caracter autorreferencial se considera fuera de esta
respuesta, aunque es abordada en el escrito de la tesis). Al ser el diseño una
transdisciplina que se ocupa de los puentes entre estos sistemas y su
coevolución, la teoría de sistemas es un fundamento para el lugar epistemológico
en el que se desarrolla esta reflexión. [[zoom: eventual, con el texto de Cary
Wolfe]]
Ahora bien, nos queda la pregunta por la relación entre Arte, Ciencia, Diseño y
Tecnología. De nuevo acá me suscribo a Jonas [Jonas01][224], pues comparto con
él la idea de que la ciencia como el diseño se mueven en un híbrido donde se
propagan los así llamados, cuasi-objetos, que son mixturas entre lo material y
lo humano, lo social y lo cultural y hay un paralelismo entre el diseño
produciendo artefactos y la ciencia produciendo hechos. La diferencia radica en
que la ciencia realiza un proceso de "purificación" en el que se deprende del
contexto, lo contingente, lo biográfico y lo local, mientras que el diseño lo
tiene en cuenta permanentemente. El palabras de Jonas:
"Las ciencias construyen lo universal, lo global, lo de-contextualizado y lo
eterno. El diseño crea lo ejemplar, lo local, lo contextual y lo temporal[...]
Tal vez deberíamos dejar de quejarnos acerca del caracter no-científico del diseño.
Somo diferentes de los demás. Nuestra disciplina es la base de cada actividad
humana productiva y orientada hacia afuera, incluso la base de la producción
científica de hechos". [Jonas01][224-225]
En esta relación entre Ciencia y Diseño, vale la pena hacer un zoom en las
similitudes [Jonas01][216-217]:
* El diseño debe adecuarse, también la ciencia: La adecuación (*fitness*) se
refiere al concepto de interface en diseño. Debido a las demandas que se
hacen a la ciencia por éxito, la sociedad le pide que se preocupe más por
contexto, como lo ha hecho previamente el diseño.
* El diseño nunca termina, tampoco la ciencia: El diseño se ocupa de pasar de
una situación existente a una deseada y de allí su caracter proyectivo: la
solución a un problema es la semilla de un nuevo problema. Lo mismo ocurre
con la ciencia contextualizada.
* El diseño es un arte especial, también la ciencia: ([[zoom: requerido]])
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111220122255.3881"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112084016.3156"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112084016.3157">And although this reformulation is neither, strictly speaking,
a politics nor an ethics, *it does provide a rigorous and persuasive theorization of the compelling necessity of sociality as such*. It offers an epistemologically coherent and
compelling model of *necessary reciprocal and yet asymmetrical relations between self and other, observer and observed, relations that can no longer be characterized in terms of an identity principle (be it of class, race, or what have you) that woul reduce the full complexity and contingency — the verticality, if you will — of the observer’s position in the social space*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3160">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/caryWolfeCriticalEnvironmentsPostmodernTheory.pdf
:author: Wolfe, Cary
:title: Critical Environments Postmodern Theory and the Pragmatics of the “Outside”
:date: 1998
:publication: Libro
:pages: 204
:url: none
:licence: copyright By Regents of the University of Minnesota
:editor: University of Minnesota Press
:ciudad: Minneapolis
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3161"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3162">Zizek, however, like Luhmann, does not disavow the “broken and perverted”
(i.e., paradoxical and tautological) nature of communication, but rather derives from
that brokenness the necessity of sociality as such. He holds that “what this fetishis-
tic logic of the ideal is masking, is, of course, the limitation proper to the symbolic
field as such: the fact that the signifying field is always structured around a certain
fundamental deadlock” (259) or what Luhmann characterizes as the “blockage” of
paradoxical self-reference.
Like the theorists of social antagonism, then — and like them,
against Habermas and against Rortyan ethnocentrism — Luhmann insists that the
distribution of the problem of paradoxicality and the circulation of latent possibili-
ties can take place only if we do not opt for the quintessentially modernist and En-
lightenment strategy of the hoped-for reduction of complexity via social consensus.
If all observation is made possible by a paradoxical distinction to which it must re-
main blind, then
this is why all projection, or the setting of a goal, every formation of episodes
necessitates recursive observation and why, furthermore, recursive observa-
tion makes possible not so much the elimination of paradoxes as their tem-
poral and social distribution onto different operations. *A consensual integration of systems of communication is, given such conditions, something that should sooner be feared than sought for. For such integration can only result in the paradoxes becoming invisible to all and remaining that way for an indefinite future*. (“Cognitive Program” 75)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3163">:etiquetas: exadoc
the traditional attribution of cognition to “man” has been done away with.
It is clear here, if anywhere, that “constructivism” is a completely new theory
of knowledge, a post-humanistic one. This is not intended maliciously but
only to make clear that the concept “man” (in the singular!), as a designa-
tion for the bearer and guarantor of the unity of knowledge, must be re-
nounced. The reality of cognition is to be found in the current operations
of the various autopoietic systems. (“Cognitive Program” 78)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3164">It is important to note, however, that Luhmann makes it abun-
dantly clear in many, many places that the pragmatic value of his theorization of
complexity and functional differentiation is to enable this world — and, more specifi-
cally, this liberal, Western, capitalist world — to engage in systemic self-reproduction
without destructive blockages of autopoiesis, the better to achieve maximum reso-
nance between the system and its environment</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3165">every operational act, every structural process, every partial system partici-
pates in the society, and is society, but in none of these instances is it possi-
ble to discern the existence of the whole society. Even the criticisms of soci-
ety must be carried out within society. Even the planning of society must be
carried out within society. Even the description of society must be carried
out within society.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3166">As Zolo puts it, Luhmann interprets
the crisis of the welfare state in terms of the loss of the law’s regulating abil-
ity. Accordingly, legislation invades private spheres as well as other func-
tionally differentiated and autonomous sub-systems. In doing so, the wel-
fare state’s interventionist strategy overloads the law to the point of
distorting its regulatory function. This overload results in chaotic legislation
which complicates the legal system and prevents its rational self-reproduc-
tion. Against this, Luhmann and the reflexive law theorists defend the au-
topoietic autonomy of social sub-systems — particularly those concerning
economy, education, and family life. Thus, the autopoietic paradigm sup-
ports deregulatory policies.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3167"> “the movement from a capitalist to a post-capitalist society cannot be con-
ceived of as a reduction of the complex to the simple, or the differentiated to the
unified,” but rather “would involve a movement towards greater social complexity,
even hypercomplexity.”59. But Luhmann’s complacent taking for granted of Western
capitalist liberal society short-circuits one of the most politically promising aspects
of his work: his rigorous theorization of the epistemological necessity and full com-
plexity of sociality as such, of the fact that the social is always virtual, partial, and
perspectival, mutually constituted by observers who can and must expose the apor-
ias of one another’s positions.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3168">What Haraway wants is a concept of “situated knowledges” (188) that emphasizes the physical and social positionality of the observer —
not least of all, for Haraway, the observer’s gender — the specific conjuncture of
qualities that mark the possibilities and limits of what a specific observer can see. In
Haraway’s articulation of observation and vision, “embodiment” names contingency,
“objectivity” names political and ethical responsibility for one’s observations, and
both are “as hostile to various forms of relativism as to the most explicitly totalizing
versions of claims to scientific authority” </t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3169">:etiquetas: exadoc
— Luhmann’s position seems ripe for interpellation into Haraway’s reading of
systems theory in terms of the historically specific “management” strategies of
post–World War II liberal capitalist society, in which systems theory ( like sociobi-
ology, population genetics, ergonomics, and other field models) is crucial to “the
reproduction of capitalist social relations” in the specific era of “an engineering sci-
ence of automated technological devices, in which the model of scientific interven-
tion is technical and ‘systematic,’ . . . [t]he nature of analysis is technological func-
tionalism, and ideological appeals are to alleviation of stress and other signs of
human obsolescence.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3170">:etiquetas: exadoc
Luhmann levels it by refusing to complicate his epistemological pluralism — that we are
all alike in the formal homology of our observational differences — with an account
of how in the material, social world in which those observations take place some
observers enjoy more resources of observation than others. The complexifying and
open-ended imperative of Luhmann’s theory is, following George Spencer Brown,
“distinguish!” and “observe!” but we must still subject that imperative to the critique
leveled by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner at the metaphor of cultural “conversa-
tion” of diversity and plurality as it is deployed by Rorty: “that some people and
groups are in far better positions — politically, economically, and psychologically —
to speak [or to observe, we might add] than others. Such calls are vapid when the
field of discourse is controlled and monopolized by the dominant economic and po-
litical powers” (Postmodern Theory 288).
<-- mejores condiciones para observar qué?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3171">We might say, then — to broach a topic I will take up in my con-
clusion — that Luhmann’s “blind spot,” his unobservable constitutive distinction, is
his unspoken distinction between “differentiation” and what historicist, materialist
critique has theorized as “contradiction,” a blind spot that manifests itself in Luh-
mann’s inability or unwillingness to adequately theorize the discrepancy between
the formal equivalence of observers in his epistemology and their real lack of equiv-
alence on the material, social plane.
[...]
Luhmann’s epistemological idealism refuses to confront is that the differentiation,
autonomy, and unfolding of complexity it imagines remains muffled and mastered
by the economic context of identity and exchange value within which systems theory
itself historically arises. And in that refusal, in its pragmatic effect of socially repro-
ducing the liberal status quo, it is clear that there are powerful ideological reasons,
as well as epistemological ones, why one cannot see what one cannot see.
[...]
It is true, as Steve J. Heims points out in his social history
of the Macy cybernetics conferences of 1946–53 (Constructing a Social Science for Post-
war America), that the conferences themselves were conducted in the stringently
apolitical atmosphere of the Cold War that hung over first-order cybernetics as a
whole, an atmosphere in which questions of politics, ideological differences, and al-
ternative social configurations were strongly discouraged, if not forbidden. But if
these sorts of critiques may be valid for first-order cybernetics, it is difficult to see
how they would hold for second-order cybernetics, with its emphasis on the radical
contingency of observation, the embodiment of knowledge, and the irreducible com-
plexity of systemic description that flows from both. As we have already seen, sec-
ond-order cybernetics, by pursuing the full implications of the principle of recur-
sivity held at bay in its predecessor, concerns itself at least as much with the creative,
emergent, and unpredictable capacities of self-organizing and autopoietic systems
as with the mechanisms of control and closure foregrounded by the Macy confer-
ences.
It is more useful, I think — and more a propos the theoretical
commitments of second-order cybernetics — to reframe the work of systems theory
(despite its shortcomings in Luhmann’s hands) in terms of what Merchant calls the
need for “reconstructive knowledge” that should be based on “principles of interac-
tion (not dominance), change and process (rather than unchanging universal prin-
ciples), complexity (rather than simple assumptions), contextuality (rather than con-
text-free laws and theories), and the interconnectedness of humanity with the rest
of nature” (107). If it seems far-fetched to read the second-order cybernetics of
Maturana and Varela in this light, we should remember that they themselves have
cast the pragmatic and ethical import of their theoretical work very much in these
terms. As they put it at the end of The Tree of Knowledge:
The knowledge of knowledge compels. It compels us to adopt an attitude of
permanent vigilance against the temptation of certainty. . . . It compels us to
realize that the world everyone sees is not the world but a world which we
bring forth with others. It compels us to see that the world will be different
only if we live differently.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3172"> “We affirm that at the core of all the troubles we face today
is our very ignorance of knowing. It is not knowledge, but the knowledge of knowledge,
that compels” (248). The “knowledge of knowledge” leads Maturana and Varela to
now conclude, in a quite remarkable passage, that second-order cybernetics “implies
an ethics we cannot evade”:
If we know that our world is necessarily the world we bring forth with oth-
ers, every time we are in conflict with another human being with whom we
want to remain in co-existence, we cannot affirm what for us is certain (an ab-
solute truth) because that would negate the other person. If we want to co-
exist with the other person, we must see that his certainty — however undesir-
able it may seem to us — is as legitimate and valid as our own. . . . Let us not de-
ceive ourselves; we are not moralizing, we are not preaching love. We are
only revealing the fact that, biologically, without love, without acceptance
of others, there is no social phenomenon. (246–47)
all points of view are not equally valid precisely because they have material ef-
fects whose benefits and drawbacks are distributed asymmetrically in the social field.
And this asymmetry, in turn, makes it vastly easier for some groups and persons to
enjoy the luxury of freely accepting the “validity” of points of view other than their
own. This, after all, is the point of Fox Keller’s assertion that the practice of knowl-
edge always works at something specific and for a particular “we.” </t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3173">But what becomes clear in later chapters is that this
“pragmatic method” consists of repeated calls for us to heed the wisdom of Bud-
dhist “mindfulness” and “egolessness” to solve by ethical fiat and spiritual bootstrap-
ping the complex problems of social life conducted in conditions of material scarcity,
economic inequality, and institutionalized discrimination of various forms. This is
especially clear in their critique of Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons,”
where they respond to the problem of scarcity and the self-interested conduct it
generates in terms already familiar from The Tree of Knowledge: “We believe that the
view of the self as an economic man, which is the view the social sciences hold, is
quite consonant with the unexamined view of our own motivation as ordinary, non-
mindful people” (246). And the “pragmatic” answer to self-interested conduct cre-
ated by conditions of economic scarcity, they tell us, is not to address that material
scarcity and inequality itself, but rather to encourage through enlightenment “an at-
titude of all encompassing, decentered, responsive, compassionate concern,” which
“must be developed and embodied through a discipline that facilitates letting go of
ego-centered habits and enables compassion to become spontaneous and self-sus-
taining” (252).
But clearly, as we have already suggested, this amounts to little
more than telling people that the problems of scarcity and the maldistribution of
wealth and power will stop being problems if we all simply stop being so selfish — a
claim, of course, that is very easy for some to make and very hard for some to hear.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3174"> As Vincent Kenny and Philip Boxer put it in
their comparison of Maturana and Lacan, “What does make the difference between
the family, the asylum and the concentration camp as forms of social structural cou-
pling? If there are those who would argue that these are all the fruits of reflection
and an ‘opening up of room for existence,’ are reflection and love enough therefore
as an ethics?”64
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3175"> The subject is a paradoxical entity which is so to speak its own
negative, i.e. which persists only insofar as its full realization is blocked — the fully
realized subject would be no longer subject but substance” (254). We will remem-
ber that the Lacanian name for this substance is, of course, the Real, or what Kant,
in the Critique of Practical Reason, called the “pathological” Thing, das Ding. And in
this light, it becomes clear that Maturana and Varela’s terrifying injunction (“Love!”)
is, from a psychoanalytic point of view, a call for an end to the problem of desire, a
call for the continued repression of the Thing at the heart of the subject — of the
“biology,” if you will, at the heart of the “biological process.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3176"> It is not simply that Maturana and Varela
frame their ethics solely in terms of the reciprocal relations between human beings,
and in doing so undercut the promise of their epistemology by leaving aside the
very posthumanist imperatives — of ecology, of animal rights, of the political and
ethical challenges of technoscience — which we mentioned at the beginning. It is
rather the sort of jarring, symptomatic contradiction on which their ethical project
runs aground again and again: on the one hand, it persuasively argues (following
groundbreaking work in cognitive ethology over the past two decades) that the hu-
man species is not the only one to participate in social, cultural, and linguistic do-
mains, and it recognizes the importance of individual temperament and ontogeny
for social organization and communication among nonhuman animals — all of which
are factors that, by their own definition, constitute grounds for ethical considera-
tion.66 On the other hand, their work systematically invokes and praises some of the
most invasive and brutal animal research on monkeys, cats, rabbits, and other non-
human animals conducted in recent decades.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3177"> Maturana and Varela’s humanist ethics thus fails
precisely because it is humanist; it attempts to solve by ethical fiat the posthumanist
political challenges that their epistemology, as a possible “reconstructive form of
knowledge,” might help us to theorize. Their ethics forgets what their epistemol-
ogy knows: that in the cyborg cultural context of OncoMouseTM and hybrids of na-
ture/culture, the question is not who will get to be human, but what kinds of cou-
plings across the humanist divide are possible — or unavoidable — when we begin to
observe the end of Man. A frontal engagement with those very questions will oc-
cupy the subjects of our next chapter, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3178"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3179">For both, then, the theoretical challenge at hand is always “relations of power” — or of “force” in
Deleuze’s lexicon — “not relations of meaning.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3180"> Both critique the assumption that “Reason” is a transcendental pursuit, and hence both rightly have been called
antihumanists, if by “humanism” we mean the view that the role of culture and phi-
losophy is to bring to light and develop a given, inner human nature.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3181">Like Dewey, Rorty’s American Foucault “tells us that
liberal democracies might work better if they stopped trying to give universalistic
self-justifications, stopped appealing to notions like ‘rationality’ and ‘human nature’
and instead viewed themselves simply as promising social experiments”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3182"> also urges us to engage in cease-
less self-invention, endless rearticulation, and to “have thoughts which no human
being has yet had” (EHO 193)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3183"> Rorty’s pragmatism paints an oversimplified picture of
the malleability of those “tools” that one chooses to use, and it essentially ignores
the countervailing, subjectivizing force of the “tools” that use the subject just as
surely as the subject uses them.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3184">The historical transition documented [in Discipline and Punish] is conceived
by Foucault not in terms of a reduction in the use of “violence” in the exer-
cise of power and a concomitant increase in “consent,” but in terms
of . . . a new form of “pastoral power” over the social, that is to say the de-
ployment of various measures directed to the health, well-being, security,
protection, and the development of both the individual and the population . . .
the development of individualizing techniques and practices which are re-
ducible neither to force nor to consent, techniques and practices which have
transformed political conflict and struggle through the constitution of new
forms of social cohesion. (161–62)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3185"> The force of Foucault’s work on the mi-
crodisciplines and the techniques of subjection and normalization is to remind us
that the new forms of social cohesion that he studies depend less on what the sub-
ject thinks than what the subject does. In contrast to the humanist and more explic-
itly phenomenological Marxism of Lukács and Gramsci, where critical conscious-
ness is a central concern.
[...]
an even stronger reading of Foucault would say that the humanist belief that critical
consciousness will set you free is itself an essential ruse of the system that, in the
name of “well-being” and “individual development,” channels revolutionary desire
into merely thinking freedom rather than acting it. Foucault’s point is not so much
that, in the new modes of social cohesion, it does not matter what you think, but
rather that society is willing to give the subject generous latitude in this regard — is
T H E even willing to nurture the subject and provide therapeutic and educational support
to this end — so long as the subject undergoes the disciplines of subjectification that
distribute her in an analytic social space, render her visible and knowable, and lead
her to inscribe the mechanisms of discipline on her very body, in her very actions,
through *regimes of “health,” sexuality, and other “technologies of the self.”*
[...]
Religious belief, for example, is not merely or even primarily an inner con-
viction, but the Church as an institution and its rituals (prayer, baptism,
confirmation, confession . . .) which, far from being a mere secondary exter-
nalization of the inner belief, stand for the very mechanisms that generate
it. . . . That is to say, the implicit logic of his argument is: kneel down and
you shall believe that you knelt down because of your belief — that is, your follow-
ing the ritual is an expression/effect of your inner belief, in short the “exter-
nal” ritual performatively generates its own ideological foundation.22
[...]
You write a prayer on a paper, put the rolled paper into a wheel, and turn it
automatically, without thinking. . . . In this way, the wheel itself is praying
for me, instead of me — or, more precisely, I myself am praying through the
medium of the wheel. The beauty of it all is that in my psychological interi-
ority I can think about whatever I want, I can yield to the most dirty and
obscene fantasies, and it does not matter because — to use a good old Stalinist
expression — whatever I am thinking, objectively I am praying. (Sublime Ob-
ject)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120114082501.3470">http://www.frontiersin.org/computational_neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055/full </t>
<t tx="offray.20120114082501.3473">http://community.paper.li/2011/11/30/michel-bauwens-a-peer-to-peer-economy/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3481">http://emergentbydesign.com/2012/01/10/core-principles-for-the-new-economy-human-agency-enlightened-self-interest/
Interesante debate sobre la colaboración y la cooperación. El tema de formar grupos rápidos para sacar algo adelante y luego hacer parte de otro grupo, vs lazos más duraderos.
:etiquetas: revisar, leer</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3485">http://nomada.blogs.com/jfreire/2012/01/plataformas-digitales-emergentes-y-cultura-abierta.html
Interesante los tres lugares de interacción Nube, Dispositivos móviles y Redes Sociales. Debemos apuntarle a esos tres con infraestructuras libres. Sin embargo no es cierto que no existan alternativas libres en esos escenarios.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3488">https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-debate-begins-peer-to-peer-and-marxism-analogies-and-differences-jean-lievens-interviewed-with-michel-bauwens/
Apartes:
*But in the field of making we have exciting developments towards shared material infrastructures such as co-working and hacker spaces,* product-service systems for car sharing and many other services, and the miniaturization of production via 3D Printing and Fab Labs, all of which also have open source versions and aspects.
[...]
This is not a scientific scenario with a certain and unavoidable ending but rather a description of the field of tension in which peer production develops.
[...]
The realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way they could not do before, forces social movements to look for new ways of governance… but these are not given, and have to be discovered experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn from predecessor movements!
[...]
The realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which *distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way they could not do before*, forces social movements to look for new ways of governance… but these are not given, and have to be discovered experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn from predecessor movements!
[...]
The first part forces them to a certain type of strategic behaviour that fosters sharing, while the second requirement forces them to maintain a general context of continued dominance. This is in essence *the new social tension of the emerging p2p age, between communities of peer producers and the platform owners*. The key for peer producers is *to gain control of their own livelihoods and social reproduction*, and in my view this can best be done by creating their own cooperative/corporate vehicles, which I call, following Neil Stephenson in The Diamond Age and the lasindias.net suggestions, “Phyles”, i.e. community-supportive entities that allow commoners to sustain their work in the commons, and to substract it from the mainstream economy of profit-maximization.
[...]
*This is why netarchical capitalists invest in platforms, and this is why the alternative ethical economy needs to do the same, and if they do, they could replace the for-profit corporation at the heart of our economy.*
[...]
The second leads to what I call *diagonal politics*, i.e. mutual adaptation between emerging p2p forces and practices, and the old institutional realities. To the degree that this is ineffective, it pushes from the solution coming from the first aspect, i.e. prepares for a more radical and revolutionary re-ordering of our institutions.
[...]
Tellingly, a Swedish pirate party member once wrote that *the Pirate Party is the last chance to avoid revolution*. *To the degree that the present system refuses adaptation, to that degree they heighten the need and push for more radical transformations*.
[...]
*p2p movement is actually an expression of the new dominant layer of cognitive workers, who in the West are the mainstay of productive labour. P2P is their culture and what needs to happen to do productive and useful work. In that sense, the P2P movement is the new labour movement of the 21st century*, with the Indignados and Occupy as the first expression of that new labour but also civic, sensibility.
[...]
Marx was right about capitalism, but wrong about socialism and I believe the politically driven model of social change, when not based on an existing prior new productive model, was ill-conceived. The P2P movement is therefore poised to realize what the 19th and 20th century social movements couldn’t, because the hyperproductive alternative was not available to them. The politics of P2P flow from an already existing social practice, that is a really key difference.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3489">The conclusion to be drawn is that open source software does attract volunteers, but not for serious projects that are competitive with proprietary software. These almost always have substantial corporate backing.
[...]
In Raymond’s model, work is rewarded with an intangible return rather than a monetary one. Fortunately, it’s easy to establish today that there is a strong monetary return for many Open Source developers. But that return is still not as direct as in proprietary software development.
Perens goes on to argue that open source is economically rational for certain classes of *software that he calls non-differentiating*: technology that is used to support the functions of a business, but isn’t a competitive advantage. These are things like computer operating systems, web servers, web browsers, database software, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. which can be considered part of the infrastructure of a business. Often, *differentiating technology is built out of these components*, and Perens uses the example of Amazon’s book recommendation software – customers might go to Amazon because of this feature, which Barnes & Noble does not have, so *this should be kept proprietary*.
Historically, corporations have used private, closed consortia to collaborate on software infrastructure – member companies agree to fund the development of software and make it available to each member. In many cases these have become outmoded and replaced with open source projects. [...] Taligent consortium to standardize Unix has been replaced by the open source Linux project, and the Common Desktop Environment was replaced by the open source GNOME Project. But the consortium model continues to be relevant in other areas, especially in developing industry standards: the Unicode Consortium, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Systems Consortium are all funded and staffed by major internet companies.
[...]
Perens makes the case that private competition and open cooperation are not opposed to each other – cooperation at the level of non-differentiating technology allows corporations to focus their efforts on proprietary innovation and differentiating technology.
<-- podría el factor diferenciador provenir de la recontextualización (Software as a Service, el conocimiento tácito, la interpretación
y la experiencia vivencial? Ejp: mutabiT Open Eduworkshops, mutabiT Learning Communities.
En un mundo perfectamente copiable hay que centrarse en la interpretación que conlleva luego a la implementación. La implementación
daría cuenta de la interpretación y estaría en diálogo con ella. Por ejemplo Cynin es un esfuerzo por vincular comunidades de
práctica en lugar de crear aulas virtuales.
The conclusion that I want to draw is a very simple one: these connections demonstrate that, in practice, the open source software movement is compatible with and influenced by capitalism. This casts doubt on overly optimistic claims that peer production is intrinsically anti-capitalist, but also on less radical perspectives that see open source software as more protective of consumer rights. We see some evidence that Linux kernel development prioritizes the needs of large enterprise customers over the needs of individual home users.
<-- habría que mirar cómo se compara con los postulados de Bauwens en términos de una producción p2p más eficiente y orientada hacia
un modelo no capitalista.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120117065158.2866">http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/es/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
Lessing's metaphor on RW culture lacks of eXecution. First 2 are for culture as content. Last one is for culture as experience: libresociety.org</t>
<t tx="offray.20120117065158.2867">http://openmatt.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/who-owns-you/
La iniciativa de Mozilla sobre una web centrada en las personas. Debería escribirles un correo.
:etiquetas: revisar, correo: escribirles</t>
<t tx="offray.20120119105059.3228">No creo que el diseño sea el arte que corresponde a nuestros días. Desde la
perspectiva teórica a la que me afilio y mencionada en la respuesta 1, tanto al
diseño, como al arte y a la ciencia les corresponden formas similares de abordar
los problemas, en términos de su caracter recursivo que apela a un proceso
iterativo e incremental en la apuesta final por una resolución siempre parcial
(esta parcialidad ha sido reforzada en el caso de la ciencia con los trabajos de
Heisenberg y Gödel, entre otros, que han arrojado límites dentro de la
disciplina científica a lo que el propio saber disciplinar puede lograr y ha
sido reforzada por los estudios críticos sobre la ciencia). Sin embargo,
mientras que el diseño es contextual y particular, la ciencia a fin de lograr la
"universalidad" se desprende de su caracter contextual. Para el caso del arte y
el diseño las diferencias continúan existiendo. Yo diría que el caracter
altamente interpretativo y personal del arte lo diferencia del diseño, donde la
resolución de las brechas
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120119105059.3229">Considero que el "giro pictórico" ya ocurrió y ahora estamos atestiguando el
"giro hacia el *performance*", pero el giro pictórico no implicó una muerte del
texto, ni el giro hacia el performance implicara alguna lapidaria y académicista
"muerte de la imagen". Todos ellos son sistemas que conviven mutuamente y hacen
parte del repertorio cultural, sin embargo la preponderancia de uno sobre otro
tiene que ver más bien con la forma en que transita masivamente la cultura y
cuál es la acepción de "ser culto". Durante la época de la preponderancia del
texto ser culto era haber leído mucho o, mejor aún, escribir cosas para que
otros leyeran. El giro pictórico hizo que la forma de tránsito y construcción de
la cultura más reconocida como importante no fuera la del texto, sino la de la
imagen y entonces se habló de la cultura de masas, algo que no requería una
particular filiación académica o literaria como hasta entonces y que hacía
manifiestas las múltiples formas de lectura y escritura que habían más allá del
texto (lo cual se hace más evidente si comparamos el contenido que el
ciberespacio guarda y cómo se producen más contenidos que son imágenes a
contenidos que son textos --las redes sociales son una viva prueba de ello). Aún
así, ante esa pluralidad y facilidad reconocida en cómo se construye cultura,
ahora mismo lo importante en términos del tránsito y la construcción compartida
de cultura son las acciones y no los contenidos, como lo muestran la primavera
árabe, el movimiento de indignados a nivel global, las protestas locales por la
llamada Ley Lleras o el venidero Marzo Negro en contra de los monopolios de
distribución de contenidos como disqueras, editoriales y otras compañías
Hollywoodenses. En un mundo donde los contenidos (ya sea estos imágenes, texto o
de otra índole) se construyen y comparten tan fácilmente, el cambio actual de
paradigma, si puede llamarse así, no está sobre el giro del texto a la imagen,
sino en la convivencia entre ellos y sobre todo de los contenidos con las
acciones y como estas pueden ser coordinadas descentralizadamente para contruir
una postura crítica frente a las hegemonías de poder.
Por otro lado, el hecho de que el texto sea más abstracto que la imagen, en términos de su bajo nivel de iconocidad (siguiendo a Costa), no le quita complejidad a la segunda e invalidaría la idea de "retroceso" en la crítica de Eco y, de hecho, no es gratuito que él se encargue de escribir textos, en lugar de producir imágenes para el medio impreso, la fotografía, el cine, la televisión o el Internet. Estos debates académicos (un poco estériles a mi juicio) suelen ocurrir porque quienes se quejan de las transformaciones, la involución, los giros, las muertes y otras suelen ya no estar "parados en el cucurubito del mundo" y ven cómo los cambios actuales en este favorecen las *amateurización* masiva y la desintermediación, lo que genera la queja de los que hasta ahora siempre han sido los expertos e intermediarios entre la "cultura abstracta y textual" o "la imagen como lugar de referencia" y otras formas de construcción compartida de cultura y colocación de lo valioso y la experticia. En este conflicto de saberes y puestas en escena de los mismos atestiguamos dos extremos: por un lado la subvaloración de la experticia o lo que llamo la diatraba contra el experto, y por otro el caracter reaccionario del experto que invalida otros lugares de mirada y otras experiencias no construidas desde la validación de su lugar como *el lugar central* desde el que se articula el discurso, es decir una lucha entre el "todo vale y por tanto no nos hable como experto" y el "soy el experto, luego lo que digo yo es mas valioso". Para no caer en ninguno de estos extremos es que debemos buscar los puntos intermedios.
No creo, por tanto, que sea necesario participar de este conflicto puramente académico a partir de los giros y las muertes y tampoco que sea necesario redefinir la imagen para que de cuenta de nuestros tiempos. En ese sentido la definición de imagen me tiene sin cuidado y se la dejo a cualquiera de los estudiosos consagrados a ella, de modo que no pretendo defender mi preferencia personal por alguna de esas definiciones para convertirla en la definición canónica y desde allí defender sus impactos en la teoría del diseño. Por el contrario, pienso que hay que desenfatizar y quizás abandonar la metáfora visual de la imagen como lugar central del diseño o pensar que el diseño se encarga "las imágenes", incluso las mentales o no visuales. Siguiendo la filiación teórica planteada en la respuesta 1 y la idea del diseño como aquella transdisciplina que se encarga de las brechas entre los sistemas orgánicos, mentales, sociales y los artefactos, lo importante sería pasar de la imagen a la observación de primer y segundo orden, siguiendo los planteamientos de Maturana, Varela y Luhmann, así como de otros estudiosos de la cibernética, y desenfatizando en la idea de observación el problema de la imagen, al menos como es abordada desde teoría del arte [[Referencia]] y pensar en percepción, retroalimentación y coevolución de sistemas interactuantes, que se observan mutuamente y que, en dicho proceso, pueden llegar a revelar sus puntos ciegos. Y aclaro acá que si bien "observación", "puntos ciegos" e "imagen" apelan a la metáfora visual, la propuesta es dejar de pensar el problema de la imagen o los giros pictóricos o de otra índole como un problema central del diseño y más bien pensar en brechas (*gaps*), adecuación (*fitness*) y coevolución entre los sistemas mencionados como el problema central del diseño, al menos si se reconoce que hay varias teorías del diseño con sus propias epistemologías y que a estas les compenten diferentes miradas sobre el diseño y sus problemas centrales, e incluso que ellas y sus preocupaciones entrarán en coevolución también.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120122101819.2874">Creo que habría que precisar en esta pregunta qué es lo humano. Considero que lo
humano no está dado, no pre-existe y es una construcción cultural que de hecho
al ser construida por humanos suele ser "*humanocéntrica*" e intenta darnos un
lugar privilegiado. Desde las críticas del post-humanismo valdría la pena
revisar aquellas características que supuestamente nos hacen únicos (uso del
lenguaje y herramientas, capacidades cognitivas) para apreciar nuestro lugar en
relación con lo otro y con los otros (humanos o no) para valorarlos en lo
compartido y apreciarlos también en su diferencia y unicidad.
El codiseño entre lo humano y lo no humano para producir una mejor adaptación,
en la cual esta noción de mejor sea más acordada y valoradora de lo diverso es
una apuesta política por un codiseño más participativo e incluyente, que permita
trascender las barreras entre usuario y hacedor. Las máquinas serían las
mediadoras de tales acciones de codiseño y ayudarían en las mismas, como ya
ocurre, por ejemplo, en las comunidades *hackers* del núcleo de Linux o en la
Wikipedia, donde lo artificial informático ayuda en la coordinación de lo humano
para la producción de nuevos artificios en coevolución con lo humano y que les
favorecen a sus diseñadores/hacedores y a gente por fuera de ese círculo, a
pesar de que no están cerrados a la crítica y que más bien gracias a esa
interacción con otros sistemas en el entorno y con el entorno mismo pueden
continuar su coevolución (en el caso de la Wikipedia por ejemplo está Critical
Point of View y también se han hecho críticas a proyectos "emancipadores" o
"colonizadores" como One Laptop Per Child).
Al respecto de la segunda posición y en particular en referencia a la
inteligencia artificial, creo que es importante que las personas en general y
los diseñadores en particular empiecen a manejar más el lenguaje del código
informático además de otros lenguajes y códigos en su actual acervo. Esto es
porque, como lo dice Rushkoff[año] en programar o ser programado, a diferencia de otros
artefactos no programables, aquellos que lo son, pueden llegar a no requerirnos
y en la dinámica de la coevolución podríamos estar preparando artefactos que ni
nos requieren, ni entendemos y que sean parte de la experiencia generalizada de
uso del mundo (ya pasa con las redes sociales, los teléfonos celulares y los
computadores, y si bien hay otros que usamos y no entendemos, por ejemplo, los
automóviles, también lo es que el nivel de automatismo de estos últimos es muy
bajo comparado con los primeros).
La coevolución de sistemas, tanto humanos como no humanos es la clave que, en resumen,
quiero presentar como alternativa de respuesta a esta pregunta, abordandola así desde
una perspectiva posthumanista. Lo artificial no-humano "sabe" cada vez más de nosotros, en el sentido
en el que almacena y procesa progresivamente mayor información nuestra, mientras que los
humanos ignoramos, cada vez más, como funcionan aquellos artificios automatizados que nos
conocen cada vez mejor. Esta asimetría sería el preludio de una preocupante relación de
coevolución y mi apuesta va en que dicha coevolución sólo puede ocurrir desde el conocimiento
mutuo. Tal mutualidad implica distinción, para saber qué partes distintas se relacionan a través
del mutualismo y en ese sentido podría intentar una definición de lo humano en esta tentativa de
respuesta, ya que fue presupuesta como tácita en la pregunta. Entonces, dado que cualquier definición distingue,
y hace que una cosa no sea igual al resto, cabrían definiciones de lo humano que lo diferencien de lo no humano
en términos operativos y si se quiere ontológicos, pero que no le den, por esto, un lugar privilegiado, sino que,
desde su diferencia lo articulen con sistemas más grandes. Por ello, manteniendo el preconcepto tácito de lo humano
en la pregunta, profundizaré la respuesta desde la perspectiva de la participación en dichos sistemas ampliados humano/no-humano, partiendo de un caso particular: Internet [#NoRobotica]_.
.. [#NoRobotica] Si bien la pregunta se refería a las innovaciones de la robótica actual y la identidad de lo humano
en relación a las máquinas, considero que Internet nos permite similares reflexiones en dicha relación, con la
ventaja de ser un escenario tecno-político mucho más cercano a las mayorías. Aunque el *Hackerspace* donde
haré mi estudio de campo ha abordado los temas de la computación física en general y la robótica en particular,
incluso en lugares como este, aún son temáticas exóticas, cuando se comparan con Internet, cuya lucha a favor
y en contra se está librando mientras escribo esta respuesta, como se verá más adelente. Así las cosas, la
reflexión teórica entre la identitario humano, la relación con las máquinas y el papel del diseño, debe
ocurrir de modo urgente en el escenario de Internet, mientras que la robótica aún puede esperar.
Mendoza[Mendoza01] define Internet de la siguiente forma:
Internet puede ser entendida como una gran entidad híbrida, o como los sociologos gustan decir 'un
ensamblaje', de diversos actores, tanto humanos como no humanos. Estos actores son: 1) Humanos,
que abarca sus yos biológicos y sus culturas e instituciones. 2) Hardware, incluyendo computadoras,
aparatos móviles, instalaciones de almacenamiento masivo, equipos de transmisión, cables transoceánicos,
entre otros. 3) Código, incluyendo una vasta jungla de protocolos en evolución permanente y software.
Es sólo comprendiendo que la Internet es un profundo entramado de *hardware*, *software* y *wetware*
(nosotros, otras entidades biológicas, y el planeta) que una respuesta suficientemente robusta a las
amenazas puede ser articulada. [Mendoza01][pg: 3]
Antes de continuar valdría la pena hacer detenerse en dos términos:
* *wetware* cuya traducción literal sería "parte húmeda". Nótese que Mendoza no hace alusión a otro término
usualmente empleado que es *humanware*, pues con "parte humeda" extiende el entramado de Internet a otras
entidades biológicas y al planeta como un todo. *Bioware* también sería una acepción corta pues dejaría
por fuera la cultura (*etnósfera*), así que podemos decir que el *wetware* es, en la acepción de Mendoza
la suma de biósfera + etnósfera.
* *software*, que a persar de ser traducido como la "parte blanda", usalmente se refiere sólo al soporte lógico
que hace que el hardware funcione y que, si bien contiene datos preexistentes, se encarga de procesar y producir nuevos datos, entendidos
estos como la parte pasiva que es transformada vía el código. Si bien esta distinción entre código (activo/transformador)
y datos (pasivo/almacenador) es más explícita hoy en día, en lenguajes como Lisp o Smalltalk los datos
podían ser código y viceversa. En ese sentido podemos entender código como algo que ya integraría a
los datos, pero ahora que se habla del *prosumidor* ([Jenkins01]) y se le restringe a la capa de los datos
(o contenidos, como también se les llama) para que los cree, pero no se preocupe en las plataformas de quién
lo hace y a quien empodera y enagena mediante ese acto, vale la pena que revisemos esa infraestructura
subyacente y las connotaciones políticas de su invisibilidad o explicitación y consideremos el código como
un continuo que va desde las infraestructuras hasta las supraestructuras.
Lo anterior sólo muestra que los niveles de complejidad en el entramado de definición propuesta por Mendoza
son, cuando intentamos disgregarlos, aún más complejos de lo que se puede derivar en una primera mirada y
entonces Internet, en particular, vincularía a *partes de* hardware, código, datos, la biosfera y la etnosfera.
Estaríamos así ante una definición que no diferencia, sino que integra, propia de la época en que vivimos.
Obsérvese que en la definición digo que vincula "partes de" y no que "incluye a todo el", pues si así fuera
tendríamos que entonces preguntarnos que *no* es Internet, y la definición, al incluirlo todo, no definiría nada
(a menos que estemos ante definiciones abarcantes del tipo Universo, Ser o Cosa, pero definir Internet requiere
un esfuerzo particularizante).
Preguntarnos por el papel de lo humano y el diseño frente a definiciones como las anteriores es preguntarnos por la
relación de lo humano como parte de entramados más amplios y en ese sentido subrayo de nuevo cómo mi respuesta, más allá de explicitar
el tácito "preconcepto" de lo humano, sólo puede ser dada en términos de coevolución de sistemas (humanos y no-humanos)
y de las condiciones, los códigos y los protocolos que la hacen posible, no para predecir y controlar dicha coevolución, pues al darse en un sistema complejo esto no es posible, sino para alentarla en términos generativos y vitales, en lugar de propiciar su degeneración y su muerte.
Mantener "vivos" los sistemas complejos es una idea que también alienta Mendoza cuando afirma:
El desafío político supremo que la defensa de la Internet debe encarar hoy en día es asegurar
su salud duradera para esta forma de vida híbrida hecha de metal, código y carne.
Vista sólo como el resultado de las fuerzas culturales, económica y políticas humanas, la vida
maquinal parece esclavisable.
En una famosa charla precediendo el encuentro de los últimos años del eG-8, Sarkozy dijo que
"La Internet es la nueva frontera, un terrotorio a conquistar". Es, para empezar, extremadamente
preocupante aprender que la Francia del siglo XXI aún tiene un presidente que cree que
*'territorio' y 'conquistar' son palabras que naturalmente van de la mano*. Mr Sarkozy luego
procedió a explicar como este 'territorio' "no puede ser el Salvaje Oeste".
*La Internet no es un terrotorio para ser conquistado, sino una vida para ser preservada y permitirsele
la evolución libre.* (pag 4)(el énfasis es mío)
Precisamente, nuestra adscripción teórica a los sistemas auto-poiéticos (mentales, sociales, biologicos) y hetero-poiéticos (artefactuales y mecánicos) de Luhmann y la conceptualización de Jonas del diseño como puente entre los primeros y los segundos, es clave para abordar el papel del diseño en la interacción de sistemas extendidos humano/no-humano, usando para ello el caso particular de Internet, pero con la posibilidad de extendernos a otros escenarios de interacción similar, como se hará a continuación.
Si bien no puedo (aún) adscribirme a la idea de "vida maquinal" para Internet propuesta por Mendoza, sí puedo usar los referentes teóricos antes mencionados para leer esta idea de "(co)evolución libre" de sistemas, en el caso de la pregunta planteada acá del tipo humanos/no-humanos, de los cuales Internet es un interesante y hoy polémico ejemplar [#LeyLleras2]_. Los sistemas autopoiéticos, según Luhmann, se definen como "una forma general de construcción de sistemas que usa la clausura auto-referencial". A partir de esto Luhmann afirma que entonces habrían otros sistemas autopoiéticos, aparte de los biológios, que serían las conciencias (mentales) y las comunicaciones (sociales) y los distingue así de otras entidades heteropoiéticas (artefactos y mecanismos). Es de anotar que todo sistema autopoiético usa la autorreferencia, es decir un ciclo en el cual la salida del sistema sirve también como entrada, lo cual le permite "observarse" a sí mismo y regularse en relación con su estado interno y la interacción del entorno. Algunos artefactos análogos, como la sisterna de baño o el termostato tienen esta característica autorreferencial, pues el nivel del agua o la temperatura se usan, respectivamente, para controlar futuros estados de dichos artefactos. Sin embargo, es en los artefactos digitales donde vemos un alto potencial para la autorreferencialidad y donde las salidas del artefacto pueden ser incorporadas como entradas e incluso hacer parte del mismo artefacto, como en los casos de Smalltalk y Lisp, antes mencionados, donde el código puede convertirse en datos que modificarían el código mismo (metaprogramación). Lo anterior nos permite decir que Internet como ensamblaje incluye las entidades autopoiéticos y heteropoiéticos de Luhman, con una particularidad y es que no sólo en las primeras hay un alto nivel de autorreferencialidad, que sino éste *también* subyace en las segundas, por su caracter digital. Abordar la entidad compleja de Internet sirve para apuntalar la respuesta: El diseño acá no sólo tiene que preocuparse de los puentes entre unas y otras entidades, sino en explicitar el caracter autorreferencial de los artefactos digitales de modo que estos favorezcan la coevolución del sistema ampliado del que ellos y nosotros hacemos parte, ya sea que nos paremos en la frontera-puente humano/no-humano, en *hardware*/*software*/*wetware*, ó biológico/mental/social/artefactual, entre otras tantas. Es por ello que incluir dentro del acervo de códigos del diseño, aquellos propios de la informática y en particular la programación es importante. De lo contrario, la posibilidad del diseñador humano, de operar la en dichas fronteras-puentes para favorecer la coevolución libre, diversa, generativa y vital de los sistemas en los que participa y codiseña, se irá escapando progresivamente, para participar, por el contrario, de lo esclavizante, totalitario, hegemónico, degenerativo y mortal y frente a la opción de Rushkoff de programar o ser programado, eligiremos, por desconocimiento, inacción o despreocupación, lo último.
.. [#LeyLleras2] Precisamente mientras escribo esto se ha aprobado en segundo debate el proyecto de Ley 201 de 2012, también conocido
en las redes de microblogging con el *hash tag* #LeyLleras2, que violenta seríamente los derechos civiles de Internautas, favoreciendo
monopolios, a expensas del balance que debería existir en el derecho de autor para el avance de una sociedad y de espaldas a la
mayoría de la gente, que fueron representados por las minorías en el Senado y Cámara, mientras que los monopolios lo fueron por
las mayorías. Los "territorios" por "conquistar" en el ciberespacio de Sarkozy están muy bien representados en las cabezas del
Ministro del Interior, Germán Vargas Lleras, el Ministro de TIC, Diego Molano Vega y el de Comercio ...
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.3175"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.3176">http://www.scoop.it/t/peer2politics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5314">http://learningfreedomandtheweb.org/ebook/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5315">http://p2pfoundation.net/Understanding_Peer_to_Peer_as_a_Relational_Dynamics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5316"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5317">http://p2pfoundation.net/From_Designing_Products_to_Thinking_New_Systems </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5318">http://p2pfoundation.net/How_to_Design_and_Manufacture_an_Open_Product </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2890">If we should retain the concept of ideology, it is rather because it focuses our attention on the
bidirectionality of practice, the materiality and externality of belief: not only on the
use of the cultural tools by the Deweyan believers, but the use of the Deweyan be-
lievers by the tools. From this critical vantage and in view of Foucault’s immense
contribution to it, Rorty’s “end of ideology” position is revealed to be thoroughgo-
ingly ideological in a somewhat different and quite specific sense: its strategic mis-
recognition of ideology as an affair of thought only, a misrecognition that affirms
the freedom of individual self-fashioning and ironist redescription (including, of
course, Zizek’s “lurid fantasies”) while leaving wholly undisturbed the external and
material “reality” of this liberal fantasy.
The whole apparatus of the liberal democratic state . . . insured that once the Indian had the sense to
get into the queue early, he was going to have more years in which to drink than he would otherwise have had”
“the fact that lots of doctors, lawyers, and teachers are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes
of their patients, clients and students does not show that anything is taking place in
the dark. There is light enough for them to get their job done, and to do it right”
Like Ronald Reagan’s homeless, who are
“free” to sleep on the street if they so wish, Rorty’s Indian is free to drink himself to
death and thereby reconfirm a pernicious marginality whose conditions of social
production are left bracketed, as if there were no relation at all between liberal eth-
nocentrism and the history of Native Americans’ oppression and the social patholo-
gies it has generated, no systematic connection at all between how well the legal
system functions and for whom, depending on the citizen’s economic standing or
race.
a perfectly plausible Foucauldian reading of that instance which
would see the Indian’s refusal to give up his alcoholism not as a sign of repression
and normalization but rather as a kind of “microresistance” to the system’s manage-
ment strategies;
For Foucault, to critique liberal foundationalism (as Rorty does with Habermas) while leaving the
institutions and structures of liberal society unchanged is merely to show how little
philosophy of a certain brand matters.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2891">For Foucault, then, the intellectual does not have a representational relationship to
the people in either the epistemological or the political sense; he is neither one who
accurately reflects and mirrors the truth of a constituency back to it in more refined
form, nor one who represents (as in “representational” democracy) the interests of
a constituency in the culture at large. For Foucault, this “universal” intellectual has
given way to what Foucault calls the “specific” intellectual. “It is in this context,”
“What can be the ethic
of an intellectual if not that: to render oneself permanently capable of getting free
of oneself?” (quoted in Bernauer, Michel Foucault’s Force of Flight 179)
Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same.
<-- Somos un patrón que se sostiene y cambia (ref: A. Kay)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2892">Foucault’s position is that intellectuals are inextricably in-
volved in a struggle over “the status of truth and the economic and political
role it plays” and that the option before radical intellectuals is not that of
“emancipating truth from every system of power (which would be a chimera,
for truth is already power) but of detaching the power of truth from the
forms of hegemony, social, economic, and cultural, within which it operates
at the present time.” (“Politics of Truth” 165–66)
The aim of Foucault’s genealogical critiques, Smart writes, is “to identify
strengths and weaknesses in the networks of power, to provide in short,
tools or ‘instruments for analysis’ and to leave the question of tactics,
strategies, and goals to those directly involved in struggle and resistance” (167).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2893">It is over life, throughout its unfolding, that power establishes its domina-
tion; death is power’s limit, the moment that escapes it; death becomes the
most secret aspect of existence, the most “private.” It is not surprising that
suicide . . . became, in the course of the nineteenth century, one of the first
conducts to enter the sphere of sociological analysis; it testified to the indi-
vidual and private right to die, at the borders and in the interstices of power
that was exercised over life. (Foucault Reader 261)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2894">Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are, but to refuse
what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get
rid of a political “double bind,” which is the simultaneous individualization
and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion would be . . .
to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization
which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity
through refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us
for several centuries. (Foucault Reader 22)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2895"> Foucault writes, “if they failed to teach the
author something he hadn’t known before, if they didn’t lead to unforeseen places,
and if they didn’t disperse one toward a strange and new relation with himself. The
pain and pleasure of the book is to be an experience” (Foucault Reader 339).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2896">Foucault’s style mirrors the fundamental urgency of his thought, which is less to con-
vince than to agitate, to compel a desire for flight, to afflict the reader with
a pressure or force. (Bernauer, Michel Foucault’s Force of Flight 6)
<-- Que bonito!!
“Foucault directs our attention to the very concrete freedom of
writing, thinking and living in a permanent questioning of those systems of thought
and problematic forms of experience in which we find ourselves.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2904"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2905"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2906">What most conspicuously links the Rorty of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature to
the Foucault of Discipline and Punish is a thoroughgoing critique of the cultural
work done by *optical metaphors and cartographies*. But it would be a mistake to col-
lapse the figure of vision tout court into Panopticism, to see the visual as always al-
ready a form, as it were, of the Look. Or that is the position, at least, of Gilles Deleuze
in his difficult and important book on Foucault, which argues that the signal ad-
vance of Discipline and Punish lies not in its Orwellian vision of the “hard” totality of
*Panoptical society*, but rather in its potentially liberatory *mapping* of “new coordi-
nates for praxis35 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2907"> “the aim is not to rediscover the eternal in the universal, but to find the conditions under which some-
thing new is produced (creativeness)” that the aim of philosophy is to analyze “the
states of things” — which “are neither unities nor totalities, but *multiplicities*” — “in
such a way that non-pre-existent concepts can be extracted from them.”
<-- hay manifestaciones múltiples donde subyacen unidades o totalidades, pero que
precisamente por lo primero, no pueden ser reducidas a lo último? Esto cuestionaría:
Todo es un objeto, todo es una función y los paradigmas de programación o los
lenguajes? Qué es el lenguaje?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2908"> not “ ‘passive prag-
matist’ measuring things against practice” — or against what Lyotard calls the “per-
formativity principle” of a “positivist” pragmatism, where utility and results are all
that count but [...] “ ‘constructive’ pragmatist whose aim is
‘the manufacture of materials to harness forces, to think the unthinkable.’ ”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120129210250.2914">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/discussing-the-p2p-driven-crisis-of-value-2-open-source-abundance-destroys-the-scarcity-basis-of-capitalism/2012/01/27 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120131114429.3674">http://www.cccb.org/lab/es/general/lopacitat-tecnologica-el-que-no-veiem-en-les-maquines/
La primera cita de Zikek y la última del autor del escrito pueden complementar las referencias a las "cajas negras" colocadas en la justificación.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120131114429.3675">http://www.cccb.org/lab/es/que-es/
Acá podrían haber contactos e intercambios internacionales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120201120434.2920"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120201120434.2921"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120201120434.2922">pluralidad: En la creación de la cultura y lo cultural hay códigos intangibles que valdría la pena articular a la respuesta.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120201120434.2923">Heideger: Arte y poesía,
Sennet
La obra del arte en la era de la reproductividad técnica.
Shäffner design thinking mezclas entre los haceres y los conocimientos configuran otras formas de creación.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120210150049.5449">Ping.fm
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120210150049.5450">http://bufferapp.com/
You're browsing the web and finding great content. Buffer takes care of sharing that content on a schedule your followers will love. Collect and share from anywhere:</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214113500.2934">http://opensource.com/business/10/4/why-open-source-way-trumps-crowdsourcing-way</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214113500.2935">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/video-of-the-day-mindful-maps-presents-collaborative-consumption/2012/02/08 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120214170032.3296">Deleuze understands (as does Guattari):
that genuinely radical politics cannot simply make rational appeals to sub-
jects concerning the nature of their oppression and provide cogent reasons
why they should overthrow their oppressors. . . . A traditional rationalistic
macropolitics leaves the terrain of desire, culture, and everyday life uncon-
tested, precisely the spaces where subjects are produced and controlled, and
where fascist movements originate. (Best and Kellner, Postmodern Theory 94</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214170032.3297">In view of the Deleuzian micropolitical
perspective, collectivity happens not by forging traditionally “grounded” alliances
with other subjects, by joining a bloc whose coherence depends on paring away
anything other than the singular “identity” (of class, of gender) that binds the group
together, but rather by recognizing — as the work of Donna Haraway and Bruno
Latour so powerfully does — that the imaginary “Self” of capitalist/patriarchal cul-
ture is already a concrete “superindividual composed of a multitude of subindividu-
als” (Massumi, User’s Guide 81). </t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3300">“Why, through what necessity, and for what use must concepts, always new
concepts, be created? and in order to do what?” the answer is a thoroughgoingly
pragmatic one — but pragmatic in a Foucauldian rather than a Rortyan sense.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3301">The “concept” for Deleuze is thus precisely the opposite of what
it was for Adorno.47 As Todd May summarizes it, it “is not a representation in any
classical sense. Rather, it is a point in a field — or, to use Deleuze’s term, on a ‘plane’ —
that is at once logical, political, and aesthetic. It is evaluated not by the degree of its
truth or the accuracy of its reference, but *by the effects it creates within and outside of the plane on which it finds itself.”*</t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3302">“Ontological speculation prepares
the terrain for a constitutive practice; or rather, after ontological speculation (as
Forschung) has brought to light the distinctions of the terrain, this same terrain is
traversed a second time in a different direction, with a different bearing, with a
practical attitude (as Darstellung).” Thus, “we can give a Deleuzian reading to Lenin’s
insight. ‘Without theory, no revolutionary practice’: Without theory there is no
terrain on which practice can arise, just as inversely, without practice, there is no
terrain for theory. *Each provides the conditions for the existence and development of the other*.”
For Deleuze, *philosophy is above all experimental thinking with a pragmatic rationale*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3264"> Deleuze’s thinking is con-
cerned instead with the *conditions of possibility* (he would say, I think, the conditions
of existence) for politics — that is, with the conditions and dynamics under which
specific forms of power and domination persist, and the forms of resistance it is
possible to imagine that they generate, in the ceaseless struggle between exclusion-
ary, identitarian social forms (be they of economics, gender, sexuality, or whatever)
and their own outsides. In this deeper sense, as Hardt points out, Deleuze “can help
us develop a dynamic conception of democratic society as open, horizontal, and
collective"</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3265">It is also to miss the central linkage between contingency, pragmatism, and resistance in Deleuze’s Foucault: that
the *repetition and reproduction* of statements, archives, and all that comes from the
strata of historical “knowledge” *takes place in a context of multiplicity and contingency*, which is simply to say that *pure repetition is impossible*, that repetition always takes place with a difference — and from that fact springs what Deleuze calls
“microagitations,” the emergence of new forms of thought and practice. The cru-
cial pragmatic point of Foucault’s work after the Archaeology is that “the final word
on power is that *resistance comes first*.
“This,” Deleuze concludes, “is the whole of Foucault’s philosophy, which is a *pragmatics of the multiple”* (83–84).
<-- Mi tesis no necesita ser LA tesis, sólo UNA tesis, que apela a un concepto importante, que es
el de auto-referencialidad y auto-poiesis.
Hay una matriz de co-evolución y cocreación entre lo autónomo y lo heterónomo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3266">“Power is epiphenomenal to the flow of desire. Second, and consequently, the
lines of flight are fundamentally positive and creative, rather than lines of resistance
or counter-attack.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3267">If the visible and the articulable are irreducibly different assemblages of
heterogeneous, multiple elements, then how is it that their operations are so often
coordinated with devastating pragmatic consequences in the social field? After all,
there is certainly a very tight coordination between the set of statements that con-
stitute the penal code and the set of visibilities put to service in the Panopticon. So
even though the visible and the articulable are irreducible in their difference, how
do we explain their “coadaptation”?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3268">, as Discipline and Punish demonstrates, “discipline cannot be identified with
any one institution or apparatus precisely because it is a type of power, a technol-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4303"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4305">http://geeksroom.com/2012/03/primer-trailer-del-documental-free-the-network-de-la-free-network-foundation/59375/
:etiquetas: revisar</t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4307">http://medialab-prado.es/article/mesa_4_mas_alla_del_evento_continuidad_evolucion_y_legado_de_proyectos_y_plataformas
:etiquetas: revisar</t>
<t tx="offray.20120403134959.3298">http://www.openp2pdesign.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3300"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3301">Long ago I grew tired of reading books that criticized some aspect of our society without offering a positive alternative. Then I grew tired of books that offered a positive alternative that seemed impossible to reach: "We must reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent." Then I grew tired of books that offered a plausible means of reaching it but did not describe what I, personally, could do to create it.
I myself was tempted to tone down my description, to make it more plausible, more responsible, more in line with our low expectations for what life and the world can be. But such an attenuation would not have been the truth.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3302">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-the-p2p-foundation-is-paying-its-salaries-in-bitcoin/2012/03/28 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3303">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/20124395428374962.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3304">http://matslats.net/ijccr-software-review </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3305"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3306">inner workings of our networks, computers, mobile devices, search
engines, or social media are a matter of public concern rather than just corporate stockholders
and hired engineers and politicians.
<<Def Internet>>
A perfect storm of counterintuitive grey ethical areas, the Internet is metal, code and flesh
looking for harmony. This harmony will only come as the full potential of the assemblage is
realised, as (and if) it overcomes the enclosures that contain it:
* capitalist mandates of profit and accumulation,
* modern human fear and pettiness, and
* the artificial territorial boundaries imposed by the Westphalian nation-state.
The ultimate political challenge the defence of the Internet must face today is to secure lasting
health for this hybrid life-form made of metal, code and flesh.
Seen as just a result of human cultural, economic and political forces, machinic life
seems enslavable.
In a famous speech preceding last years eG-8 summit, Sarkozy stated that “the Internet is the
new frontier, a territory to conquer.” It is, to begin with, extremely concerning to learn that in
the XXIst century France still has president who believes that *‘territory’ and ‘conquer’ are words that naturally go together*. Mr. Sarkozy then proceeded to explain how this ‘territory’ “cannot be a Wild West.”
The Internet is not territory to be conquered, but life to be
preserved and allowed free evolution.
Thinking the web in terms of *machinic life* is important in practice for three powerful reasons:
First, it guides us through the building of political models that encompass the human and the
non-human, a politics for radical yet peaceful diversity needed now more than ever. Second it
unveils the ethical dimensions beneath seemingly neutral issues, allowing stronger defense for
ACTA, detached from democratic process under the veil of ‘trade
agreement’ negotiations, and created by powerful nations to lock their domination over the rest
of the world, is in this sense in dual violation of the rights of Flesh (i.e. humanity).
It is worth noting that the project of a ‘Rights of the Internet’ charter is completely different from
recent European legislation that declares that the Internet is ‘a human right’. The ‘Rights of the
Internet’ depart from modern anthropocentrist instinct.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3314"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3315">http://nicolasmendo.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/network-for-survivors-mendozadraft.pdf</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3316">To be more precise, the *Internet is the son of the apocalypse*. It was conceived not as a
means for capitalistic hegemony, or even as a means of defence, but rather as a tool for
the survivors.
One of the main arguments of this essay is that because the Internet was conceived to
perform as a sort of life support machine through the permanent communication and
cooperation of survivors in a postapocalyptic environment, with a systematic disregard of
any political, economical or cultural consideration, it is essentially, fundamentally,
detached from the continuum of socio-philosophical evolutions by which we normally
understand social (and therefore media) phenomena.
“The creation of the Internet was not only a technological but
also an imaginative feat. The conceptual structure of the Internet is an imaginative
response to the threat of an annihilating catastrophe” (Corcoran 1997, p. 343)
Can we start to think about this drama in order to grasp the ontology of the Net before it
exploded, in a similar way as physics research the Big Bang to understand the universe?
If the Internet is a manifestation of the problematic of the survivor (or, better, of the
apocalyptic survivor), then its nature is not related to the forces that transformed
sovereign societies into disciplinary societies, ultimately evolving into societies of
control.
Clark enumerates the priority list of the characteristics of the Internet:
1. Internet communication must continue despite loss of networks or gateways
2. The Internet must supply multiple types of communications service
3. The Internet architecture must accommodate a variety of networks
4. The Internet architecture must permit distributed management of resources
5. The Internet architecture must be cost effective
6. The Internet architecture must permit host attachment with a low level effort
7. The resources used in the internet architecture must be accountable
(Clark 1988, p. 107)
He elaborates on how *the principles of agency and survivability contradict the logic of power and control*, as it is
detached from the ethos of the original Internet:
“...since this network was designed to operate in a military context, which
implied the possibility of a hostile environment, survivability was put as a first
goal, and accountability as a last goal. During wartime, one is less concerned
with detailed accounting of resources used than with mustering whatever
resources are available and rapidly deploying them in an operational manner.
While the architects of the Internet were mindful of accountability, the problem
received very little attention during the early stages of the design, and is only
now being considered. An architecture primarily for commercial deployment
would clearly place these goals at the opposite end of the list” (emphases mine)
The protocols that structure the network were built to provide the user with maximum agency as
opposed to control him.
Alex Galloway has coined the term *“Protocologic Control”* to describe the notion that the
underlying protocols that make electronic networks operational are the instruments of a
grand shift in contemporary societies to become the Deleuzian “Societies of Control”.
The political nature of protocol then raises a simple
question: If protocol is political, then why were Internet protocols designed with such a
libertarian ethos? Why, in the wake of the Deleuzian Societies of Control, was the most
empowering possible design the chosen one? We have given the answer already: because
*the society that made the choice was not the Society of Control, but the Postapocalyptic Society of Survivors.*
The troubling *paradox* is that the Internet’s
flexibility and its empowering architecture being fertile ground for anything, it is also
fertile ground for overregulation, surveillance and distributed control. Such is its *destiny*
if nothing is done to prevent it.
*cyberspace will be the most regulable space humans have ever known.*
*The greater struggle, however, is ultimately between a pre apocalyptic society of control, and a postapocalyptic fantasy of survival that got out of hand*
*We can thus understand the Internet (and, I would argue, TCP/IP) as a kind of Terminator: a disruptive postapocalyptic entity loose in an arcane environment (the present) that fights back. It is a clash of two worlds, two logics, one of which is the result of a Baudrillardian simulacrum of a radioactive, subterranean, desperately lonely civilization that never took place, and the other a corporate, globalized, and capitalistic society of control*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3317">http://www.realitysandwich.com/print/104594</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3318"> The notion of ‘generativity’ is central to Zittrain’s thought. It is characterized as a
property that some human inventions possess consisting on their ability to open the
possibility of further innovation</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3319">Protocols are (can be, should be) enablers of free communication.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3320">While ‘tactical media’ (Lovink 2008)
may be a liberating practice, *resistance must be structural*. The original integrity of the
datagram is essential: as long as the web revolves around the systematic transfer of
10datagrams (as long as it continues to lack a diagram ), resistance is possible
--> structural = infraestructural
Defend the datagram by defending those protocols that negate ownership, proposing new protocols
that enable freedom, and denouncing the protocols of control. This mission requires an
understanding of protocological diversity.
The technical, the legal, the political and the cultural: all part of a rich, thick,
protocological diversity that mustn’t be feared or hated, but studied and understood,
because it is only by doing so that we will be able to trace the strategies that ensure that
the ones that prevail are the protocols of freedom.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120410114420.3328">The Internet can then be understood as a large hybrid entity, or as sociologists like to say ‘an
assemblage’, of diverse actors both human and non-human. These actors are: 1) Humans,
encompassing their biological selves and their cultures and institutions. 2) Hardware, including
computers, mobile devices, mass storage facilities, transmission equipment, transoceanic cables,
and so on. 3) Code, including a vast wilderness of ever evolving protocols and software. It is
only by understanding that the Internet is a deep entanglement of hardware, software and
wetware (us, other biological entities, and the planet), that a sufficiently robust response to the
threats it faces will be articulated.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120410114420.3329">:author: Mendoza, Nicolas
:title: Metal/ Code/ Flesh. Why we need a ‘Rights of the Internet’ declaration
:date: Feb 2012
:place: Chiang Mai, Thailand.
:publication:
:pages:
:url: http://nicolasmendo.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/metal-code-flesh-profanity-final.pdf
:licence: classical copyright
:last visit: abril, 9, 2012</t>
======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3210">http://gonnagrowwings.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/empathy-as-a-facilitator-of-cognitive-emergence-in-complex-social-systems/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3211">http://p2pfoundation.net/Social_Currencies </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3212">http://www.monkinetic.com/2010/05/why-no-one-is-going-to-succeed-at-building-the-notfacebook.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3213">http://web.docuticker.com/go/docubase/65613
Contiene un enlace al pdf completo. Acá una cita a modo de introducción:
There are now a great variety of exchange systems that exist alongside the traditional cash economy, ranging from babysitting clubs to Nectar points. Some of them revolve around complementary currencies, like time dollars or the new Transition currencies like the Brixton pound. Others are built on systems of mutuality that may be supplemented by the use of cash or complementary currencies, like peer lending schemes or the Southwark Circle.
A range of typologies could be drawn up to encompass this growing field. This one is organised around objectives, because it is built on the assumption that exchange systems exist to meet particular needs which can be categorised together. It is very much designed with public services in mind and aims to clarify the roles that different exchange systems could play to support the delivery of public outcomes.
The main distinction is between two different kinds of reciprocal exchange:
1. Social exchange: designed primarily to motivate people’s behaviour, to meet social objectives.
2. Economic exchange: designed primarily to circulate and to meet economic objectives.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3214">http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/FSWS2010_-_Projects
Contiene enlaces a </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3215">http://www.anybeat.com/
No es software libre ni federado, pero es interesante la alusión de un "tercer lugar" para alejarse del lugar de trabajo y del lugar del hogar. No sé si realmente sea necesario ese tercer lugar de encuentro con extraños. El sitio dice que lo es, obviamente, pues ese es el servicio que ofrecen.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3216">http://www.barnraiser.org/prairie
Prairie is a lightweight OpenID based Internet identity server. Instead of registering at every web site with different username and password combinations you use your identity server to log you in.
(desafortunadamente su implementación requiere PHP y Apache).</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3218">http://decafbad.net/2011/02/08/the-diaspora-that-wasnt-and-the-way-into-the-walled-gardens/
@language rest
No es propiamente un post sobre el proyecto DiSo, pero sí sobre la construcción de una web social alternativa que aliente los protocolos primero y la implementación después. Voy a discutir mi proyecto del enrutador de identidad digital en la lista de web2py y luego comentarlo acá.... esto útlimo ya no es necesario, ahora que revisito este nodo. El proyecto del enrutador se irá por la implementación primero y luego por los protocolos. La escogencia de Seaside/Smalltalk ya es un hecho también.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3219">http://liberationtech.tumblr.com/post/13377461578/how-the-next-generation-diaspora-should-be-built-to
You may immediately notice, however, that this economics story is one-sided: The assumption is that advantages in network size will create an inexorable trend towards consolidation, yet the disadvantages in network size that could create an equally strong or more powerful effect away from consolidation is left unexplored. We know, however, that such effects exist. Otherwise, how would MySpace have replaced Friendster in the first place? Or how would Facebook have replaced MySpace?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3220">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_institution
One final possibility comes from the realm of total institutions. A total institution can be defined as a place of work and residence where a great number of similarly situated people, cut off from the wider community for a considerable time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life. Examples of total institutions include monasteries, the army, prisons, and psychiatric institutions, among many others. Total institutions are dense locations of activity, where ideas can spread quickly, and thus they are ideal locations for fostering the growth of social networking sites.
*Comentarios:*
La idea de una institución "autocontenida" y "aislada del sistema" me recuerda algunos de los propósitos que algunos miembros han establecido como deseables para el HackBo, como un lugar para trabajar y para dormir y quedarse, si es necesario. La idea de instituciones autocontenidas/autónomas que interactuan con otras, pero que no derivan su control de estas, sino que coevolucionan con ellas, es decir con clausura operacional es consecuente con la idea de las instituciones totales. Habría, sin embargo, que definir cuáles características determinan a una institución con estas condiciones, cuáles son sus bordes y *cómo es operacionalmente completa internamente*.
**************
Are there other total institutions out there that social networking entrepreneurs can tap into to challenge Facebook’s dominance? I don’t really have a good answer to this question, so it remains rhetorical. But to the extent that Diaspora* has gotten more traction than other social networking sites, it is because it has tapped into the free culture movement, hackerspaces and maker spaces, and so on.
*Similarly, though Silicon Valley has an aversion to politics, a social networking site that is built out of movements such as Anonymous, WikiLeaks, or the Occupy movement may be able to attain significant traction, if timed properly. In short, while the number of pure total institutions in our society is limited, it is clear from Diaspora*’s experience that a group-based social networking recruitment approach may work better for social networking entrepreneurs than the traditional individual-based approach they have followed to date.*
En realidad lo que se necesita es un enfoque mixto. Instituciones totales (con políticas y ethos distintos) donde al mismo tiempo
que se empoderan los grupos lo hagan también los individuos, por ejemplo usando una combinación Cynin + Ubakye.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3221">A secure, private, and decentralized communication platform would help support activist efforts to this end. And such a platform only needs traction among activists, not all mainstream users, to succeed. In other words, it needs to solve the activist problem, not the mainstream user’s problem, to be most effective.
As my doctoral dissertation shows, before a movement, an activist needs a private and secure platform to organize with a small group of people. These are the people who lay the groundwork for what the movement is to become. Authoritarian regimes understand this, which is why they seek to stamp out the early-movers, and why they immediately crack down on any signs of free assembly. *When groups of people are able to assemble in such environments, that’s when the regime’s days are numbered.*
But as we have seen, large mainstream social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are more effective at doing this task. Once activists get to the broadcasting stage, *what becomes more important to them is to protect their identities as they spread the movement’s message*[#]_. But the organizing task is never completed. The organizing task continues. *And it is this organizing task that I care about most. This critical organizing task is done by a small group of people that need to be able to maintain strong ties to one another in a secure and private fashion if they are to succeed.*[#]_
.. [#] ovlc: también se puede escoger el camino totalmente opuesto y es ser absolutamente visibles.
.. [#] ovlc: sin embargo el pequeño grupo de coordinación sigue siendo cierto.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3222">Decentralization means that instead of having to post a message to a central server like Facebook, and then wait for that server to transfer that message (or not, in the case of censorship) to your friend, you send that message to your friend directly. To achieve this, *communication must be machine-to-machine, where the sender controls the first machine and the recipient controls the second, and the message that is transmitted is encrypted to ensure that only the sender and the recipient can read it. In other words, the sender and recipient must have an easy and fast means to install and manage the software on their machines — whether these machines are servers, computers, or phones, as in the FreedomBox vision*. Furthermore, the sender and the recipient must have the ability to stop using their machines and seamlessly use new ones, should the original machines be compromised for whatever reason by an authoritarian regime. *The software would need to have an easy “self-destruct mechanism” such that the data can be destroyed immediately in an emergency. At the same time, the “right to forget” would have to be embedded from the get go, such that the data would self destruct after a certain period of time to prevent a trail of communication that would make it easy for an authoritarian regime to track down the activists*. As such, *the next generation of secure, private, and decentralized social networking site would create a one-click turnkey solution for activists* that could easily be discarded if compromised and whose data could be destroyed automatically as the utility of the data diminishes while organizing unfolds.[#]_
.. [#] acá puede haber un interesante nicho para el enrutador de identidad digital y una razón más para usar Smalltalk en lugar de otras tecnologías no tan maduras. </t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3223">Moreover, connectivity will vary greatly. At times the activist may have access to broadband Internet, but other times, she may need to connect via a 56K modem, a mobile connection, a mesh network, or perhaps even a satellite link. The social networking site will need to be accessible regardless of the connectivity, which means significant work on data compression will be required to ensure that the software’s performance remains nimble under such disparate conditions.[#]_
.. [#] otra posibilidad es simplemente poder trabajar off-line y sincronizarse cuando se esté en línea. La compresión de datos, sin embargo sigue siendo importante.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111128033218.3224">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HootSuite
El sitio web es: http://hootsuite.com/. Un sistema de valor agregado, tipo hootsuite, podría servir para financiar ubakye.</t>
<t tx="offray.20111130141938.3236"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111130141938.3237">http://www.little-idiot.de/teambuilding/apache-structure.pdf
Abstract:
The relationships among modules in a software
project of a certain size can give us much information
about its internal organization and a way to control and
monitor development activities and evolution of large
libre software projects. In this paper, we show how
information available in CVS repositories can be used to
study the structure of the modules in a project when they
are related by the people working in them, and how
techniques taken from the social networks fields can be
used to highlight the characteristics of that structure. As
a case example, we also show some results of applying
this methodology to the Apache project in several points
in time. Among other facts, it is shown how the project
evolves and is *self-structuring*, with developer
communities of modules corresponding to semantically
related families of modules.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20111218115620.4980"></t>
<t tx="offray.20111220122255.3881"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112084016.3156"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112084016.3157">And although this reformulation is neither, strictly speaking,
a politics nor an ethics, *it does provide a rigorous and persuasive theorization of the compelling necessity of sociality as such*. It offers an epistemologically coherent and
compelling model of *necessary reciprocal and yet asymmetrical relations between self and other, observer and observed, relations that can no longer be characterized in terms of an identity principle (be it of class, race, or what have you) that woul reduce the full complexity and contingency — the verticality, if you will — of the observer’s position in the social space*.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3160">file:///home/offray/Documentos/U/Doctorado/Tesis/Referencias/caryWolfeCriticalEnvironmentsPostmodernTheory.pdf
:author: Wolfe, Cary
:title: Critical Environments Postmodern Theory and the Pragmatics of the “Outside”
:date: 1998
:publication: Libro
:pages: 204
:url: none
:licence: copyright By Regents of the University of Minnesota
:editor: University of Minnesota Press
:ciudad: Minneapolis
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3161"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3162">Zizek, however, like Luhmann, does not disavow the “broken and perverted”
(i.e., paradoxical and tautological) nature of communication, but rather derives from
that brokenness the necessity of sociality as such. He holds that “what this fetishis-
tic logic of the ideal is masking, is, of course, the limitation proper to the symbolic
field as such: the fact that the signifying field is always structured around a certain
fundamental deadlock” (259) or what Luhmann characterizes as the “blockage” of
paradoxical self-reference.
Like the theorists of social antagonism, then — and like them,
against Habermas and against Rortyan ethnocentrism — Luhmann insists that the
distribution of the problem of paradoxicality and the circulation of latent possibili-
ties can take place only if we do not opt for the quintessentially modernist and En-
lightenment strategy of the hoped-for reduction of complexity via social consensus.
If all observation is made possible by a paradoxical distinction to which it must re-
main blind, then
this is why all projection, or the setting of a goal, every formation of episodes
necessitates recursive observation and why, furthermore, recursive observa-
tion makes possible not so much the elimination of paradoxes as their tem-
poral and social distribution onto different operations. *A consensual integration of systems of communication is, given such conditions, something that should sooner be feared than sought for. For such integration can only result in the paradoxes becoming invisible to all and remaining that way for an indefinite future*. (“Cognitive Program” 75)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3163">:etiquetas: exadoc
the traditional attribution of cognition to “man” has been done away with.
It is clear here, if anywhere, that “constructivism” is a completely new theory
of knowledge, a post-humanistic one. This is not intended maliciously but
only to make clear that the concept “man” (in the singular!), as a designa-
tion for the bearer and guarantor of the unity of knowledge, must be re-
nounced. The reality of cognition is to be found in the current operations
of the various autopoietic systems. (“Cognitive Program” 78)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3164">It is important to note, however, that Luhmann makes it abun-
dantly clear in many, many places that the pragmatic value of his theorization of
complexity and functional differentiation is to enable this world — and, more specifi-
cally, this liberal, Western, capitalist world — to engage in systemic self-reproduction
without destructive blockages of autopoiesis, the better to achieve maximum reso-
nance between the system and its environment</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3165">every operational act, every structural process, every partial system partici-
pates in the society, and is society, but in none of these instances is it possi-
ble to discern the existence of the whole society. Even the criticisms of soci-
ety must be carried out within society. Even the planning of society must be
carried out within society. Even the description of society must be carried
out within society.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3166">As Zolo puts it, Luhmann interprets
the crisis of the welfare state in terms of the loss of the law’s regulating abil-
ity. Accordingly, legislation invades private spheres as well as other func-
tionally differentiated and autonomous sub-systems. In doing so, the wel-
fare state’s interventionist strategy overloads the law to the point of
distorting its regulatory function. This overload results in chaotic legislation
which complicates the legal system and prevents its rational self-reproduc-
tion. Against this, Luhmann and the reflexive law theorists defend the au-
topoietic autonomy of social sub-systems — particularly those concerning
economy, education, and family life. Thus, the autopoietic paradigm sup-
ports deregulatory policies.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3167"> “the movement from a capitalist to a post-capitalist society cannot be con-
ceived of as a reduction of the complex to the simple, or the differentiated to the
unified,” but rather “would involve a movement towards greater social complexity,
even hypercomplexity.”59. But Luhmann’s complacent taking for granted of Western
capitalist liberal society short-circuits one of the most politically promising aspects
of his work: his rigorous theorization of the epistemological necessity and full com-
plexity of sociality as such, of the fact that the social is always virtual, partial, and
perspectival, mutually constituted by observers who can and must expose the apor-
ias of one another’s positions.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3168">What Haraway wants is a concept of “situated knowledges” (188) that emphasizes the physical and social positionality of the observer —
not least of all, for Haraway, the observer’s gender — the specific conjuncture of
qualities that mark the possibilities and limits of what a specific observer can see. In
Haraway’s articulation of observation and vision, “embodiment” names contingency,
“objectivity” names political and ethical responsibility for one’s observations, and
both are “as hostile to various forms of relativism as to the most explicitly totalizing
versions of claims to scientific authority” </t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3169">:etiquetas: exadoc
— Luhmann’s position seems ripe for interpellation into Haraway’s reading of
systems theory in terms of the historically specific “management” strategies of
post–World War II liberal capitalist society, in which systems theory ( like sociobi-
ology, population genetics, ergonomics, and other field models) is crucial to “the
reproduction of capitalist social relations” in the specific era of “an engineering sci-
ence of automated technological devices, in which the model of scientific interven-
tion is technical and ‘systematic,’ . . . [t]he nature of analysis is technological func-
tionalism, and ideological appeals are to alleviation of stress and other signs of
human obsolescence.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3170">:etiquetas: exadoc
Luhmann levels it by refusing to complicate his epistemological pluralism — that we are
all alike in the formal homology of our observational differences — with an account
of how in the material, social world in which those observations take place some
observers enjoy more resources of observation than others. The complexifying and
open-ended imperative of Luhmann’s theory is, following George Spencer Brown,
“distinguish!” and “observe!” but we must still subject that imperative to the critique
leveled by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner at the metaphor of cultural “conversa-
tion” of diversity and plurality as it is deployed by Rorty: “that some people and
groups are in far better positions — politically, economically, and psychologically —
to speak [or to observe, we might add] than others. Such calls are vapid when the
field of discourse is controlled and monopolized by the dominant economic and po-
litical powers” (Postmodern Theory 288).
<-- mejores condiciones para observar qué?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3171">We might say, then — to broach a topic I will take up in my con-
clusion — that Luhmann’s “blind spot,” his unobservable constitutive distinction, is
his unspoken distinction between “differentiation” and what historicist, materialist
critique has theorized as “contradiction,” a blind spot that manifests itself in Luh-
mann’s inability or unwillingness to adequately theorize the discrepancy between
the formal equivalence of observers in his epistemology and their real lack of equiv-
alence on the material, social plane.
[...]
Luhmann’s epistemological idealism refuses to confront is that the differentiation,
autonomy, and unfolding of complexity it imagines remains muffled and mastered
by the economic context of identity and exchange value within which systems theory
itself historically arises. And in that refusal, in its pragmatic effect of socially repro-
ducing the liberal status quo, it is clear that there are powerful ideological reasons,
as well as epistemological ones, why one cannot see what one cannot see.
[...]
It is true, as Steve J. Heims points out in his social history
of the Macy cybernetics conferences of 1946–53 (Constructing a Social Science for Post-
war America), that the conferences themselves were conducted in the stringently
apolitical atmosphere of the Cold War that hung over first-order cybernetics as a
whole, an atmosphere in which questions of politics, ideological differences, and al-
ternative social configurations were strongly discouraged, if not forbidden. But if
these sorts of critiques may be valid for first-order cybernetics, it is difficult to see
how they would hold for second-order cybernetics, with its emphasis on the radical
contingency of observation, the embodiment of knowledge, and the irreducible com-
plexity of systemic description that flows from both. As we have already seen, sec-
ond-order cybernetics, by pursuing the full implications of the principle of recur-
sivity held at bay in its predecessor, concerns itself at least as much with the creative,
emergent, and unpredictable capacities of self-organizing and autopoietic systems
as with the mechanisms of control and closure foregrounded by the Macy confer-
ences.
It is more useful, I think — and more a propos the theoretical
commitments of second-order cybernetics — to reframe the work of systems theory
(despite its shortcomings in Luhmann’s hands) in terms of what Merchant calls the
need for “reconstructive knowledge” that should be based on “principles of interac-
tion (not dominance), change and process (rather than unchanging universal prin-
ciples), complexity (rather than simple assumptions), contextuality (rather than con-
text-free laws and theories), and the interconnectedness of humanity with the rest
of nature” (107). If it seems far-fetched to read the second-order cybernetics of
Maturana and Varela in this light, we should remember that they themselves have
cast the pragmatic and ethical import of their theoretical work very much in these
terms. As they put it at the end of The Tree of Knowledge:
The knowledge of knowledge compels. It compels us to adopt an attitude of
permanent vigilance against the temptation of certainty. . . . It compels us to
realize that the world everyone sees is not the world but a world which we
bring forth with others. It compels us to see that the world will be different
only if we live differently.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3172"> “We affirm that at the core of all the troubles we face today
is our very ignorance of knowing. It is not knowledge, but the knowledge of knowledge,
that compels” (248). The “knowledge of knowledge” leads Maturana and Varela to
now conclude, in a quite remarkable passage, that second-order cybernetics “implies
an ethics we cannot evade”:
If we know that our world is necessarily the world we bring forth with oth-
ers, every time we are in conflict with another human being with whom we
want to remain in co-existence, we cannot affirm what for us is certain (an ab-
solute truth) because that would negate the other person. If we want to co-
exist with the other person, we must see that his certainty — however undesir-
able it may seem to us — is as legitimate and valid as our own. . . . Let us not de-
ceive ourselves; we are not moralizing, we are not preaching love. We are
only revealing the fact that, biologically, without love, without acceptance
of others, there is no social phenomenon. (246–47)
all points of view are not equally valid precisely because they have material ef-
fects whose benefits and drawbacks are distributed asymmetrically in the social field.
And this asymmetry, in turn, makes it vastly easier for some groups and persons to
enjoy the luxury of freely accepting the “validity” of points of view other than their
own. This, after all, is the point of Fox Keller’s assertion that the practice of knowl-
edge always works at something specific and for a particular “we.” </t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3173">But what becomes clear in later chapters is that this
“pragmatic method” consists of repeated calls for us to heed the wisdom of Bud-
dhist “mindfulness” and “egolessness” to solve by ethical fiat and spiritual bootstrap-
ping the complex problems of social life conducted in conditions of material scarcity,
economic inequality, and institutionalized discrimination of various forms. This is
especially clear in their critique of Garret Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons,”
where they respond to the problem of scarcity and the self-interested conduct it
generates in terms already familiar from The Tree of Knowledge: “We believe that the
view of the self as an economic man, which is the view the social sciences hold, is
quite consonant with the unexamined view of our own motivation as ordinary, non-
mindful people” (246). And the “pragmatic” answer to self-interested conduct cre-
ated by conditions of economic scarcity, they tell us, is not to address that material
scarcity and inequality itself, but rather to encourage through enlightenment “an at-
titude of all encompassing, decentered, responsive, compassionate concern,” which
“must be developed and embodied through a discipline that facilitates letting go of
ego-centered habits and enables compassion to become spontaneous and self-sus-
taining” (252).
But clearly, as we have already suggested, this amounts to little
more than telling people that the problems of scarcity and the maldistribution of
wealth and power will stop being problems if we all simply stop being so selfish — a
claim, of course, that is very easy for some to make and very hard for some to hear.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3174"> As Vincent Kenny and Philip Boxer put it in
their comparison of Maturana and Lacan, “What does make the difference between
the family, the asylum and the concentration camp as forms of social structural cou-
pling? If there are those who would argue that these are all the fruits of reflection
and an ‘opening up of room for existence,’ are reflection and love enough therefore
as an ethics?”64
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3175"> The subject is a paradoxical entity which is so to speak its own
negative, i.e. which persists only insofar as its full realization is blocked — the fully
realized subject would be no longer subject but substance” (254). We will remem-
ber that the Lacanian name for this substance is, of course, the Real, or what Kant,
in the Critique of Practical Reason, called the “pathological” Thing, das Ding. And in
this light, it becomes clear that Maturana and Varela’s terrifying injunction (“Love!”)
is, from a psychoanalytic point of view, a call for an end to the problem of desire, a
call for the continued repression of the Thing at the heart of the subject — of the
“biology,” if you will, at the heart of the “biological process.”
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3176"> It is not simply that Maturana and Varela
frame their ethics solely in terms of the reciprocal relations between human beings,
and in doing so undercut the promise of their epistemology by leaving aside the
very posthumanist imperatives — of ecology, of animal rights, of the political and
ethical challenges of technoscience — which we mentioned at the beginning. It is
rather the sort of jarring, symptomatic contradiction on which their ethical project
runs aground again and again: on the one hand, it persuasively argues (following
groundbreaking work in cognitive ethology over the past two decades) that the hu-
man species is not the only one to participate in social, cultural, and linguistic do-
mains, and it recognizes the importance of individual temperament and ontogeny
for social organization and communication among nonhuman animals — all of which
are factors that, by their own definition, constitute grounds for ethical considera-
tion.66 On the other hand, their work systematically invokes and praises some of the
most invasive and brutal animal research on monkeys, cats, rabbits, and other non-
human animals conducted in recent decades.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3177"> Maturana and Varela’s humanist ethics thus fails
precisely because it is humanist; it attempts to solve by ethical fiat the posthumanist
political challenges that their epistemology, as a possible “reconstructive form of
knowledge,” might help us to theorize. Their ethics forgets what their epistemol-
ogy knows: that in the cyborg cultural context of OncoMouseTM and hybrids of na-
ture/culture, the question is not who will get to be human, but what kinds of cou-
plings across the humanist divide are possible — or unavoidable — when we begin to
observe the end of Man. A frontal engagement with those very questions will oc-
cupy the subjects of our next chapter, Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3178"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3179">For both, then, the theoretical challenge at hand is always “relations of power” — or of “force” in
Deleuze’s lexicon — “not relations of meaning.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3180"> Both critique the assumption that “Reason” is a transcendental pursuit, and hence both rightly have been called
antihumanists, if by “humanism” we mean the view that the role of culture and phi-
losophy is to bring to light and develop a given, inner human nature.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3181">Like Dewey, Rorty’s American Foucault “tells us that
liberal democracies might work better if they stopped trying to give universalistic
self-justifications, stopped appealing to notions like ‘rationality’ and ‘human nature’
and instead viewed themselves simply as promising social experiments”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3182"> also urges us to engage in cease-
less self-invention, endless rearticulation, and to “have thoughts which no human
being has yet had” (EHO 193)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3183"> Rorty’s pragmatism paints an oversimplified picture of
the malleability of those “tools” that one chooses to use, and it essentially ignores
the countervailing, subjectivizing force of the “tools” that use the subject just as
surely as the subject uses them.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3184">The historical transition documented [in Discipline and Punish] is conceived
by Foucault not in terms of a reduction in the use of “violence” in the exer-
cise of power and a concomitant increase in “consent,” but in terms
of . . . a new form of “pastoral power” over the social, that is to say the de-
ployment of various measures directed to the health, well-being, security,
protection, and the development of both the individual and the population . . .
the development of individualizing techniques and practices which are re-
ducible neither to force nor to consent, techniques and practices which have
transformed political conflict and struggle through the constitution of new
forms of social cohesion. (161–62)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120112092437.3185"> The force of Foucault’s work on the mi-
crodisciplines and the techniques of subjection and normalization is to remind us
that the new forms of social cohesion that he studies depend less on what the sub-
ject thinks than what the subject does. In contrast to the humanist and more explic-
itly phenomenological Marxism of Lukács and Gramsci, where critical conscious-
ness is a central concern.
[...]
an even stronger reading of Foucault would say that the humanist belief that critical
consciousness will set you free is itself an essential ruse of the system that, in the
name of “well-being” and “individual development,” channels revolutionary desire
into merely thinking freedom rather than acting it. Foucault’s point is not so much
that, in the new modes of social cohesion, it does not matter what you think, but
rather that society is willing to give the subject generous latitude in this regard — is
T H E even willing to nurture the subject and provide therapeutic and educational support
to this end — so long as the subject undergoes the disciplines of subjectification that
distribute her in an analytic social space, render her visible and knowable, and lead
her to inscribe the mechanisms of discipline on her very body, in her very actions,
through *regimes of “health,” sexuality, and other “technologies of the self.”*
[...]
Religious belief, for example, is not merely or even primarily an inner con-
viction, but the Church as an institution and its rituals (prayer, baptism,
confirmation, confession . . .) which, far from being a mere secondary exter-
nalization of the inner belief, stand for the very mechanisms that generate
it. . . . That is to say, the implicit logic of his argument is: kneel down and
you shall believe that you knelt down because of your belief — that is, your follow-
ing the ritual is an expression/effect of your inner belief, in short the “exter-
nal” ritual performatively generates its own ideological foundation.22
[...]
You write a prayer on a paper, put the rolled paper into a wheel, and turn it
automatically, without thinking. . . . In this way, the wheel itself is praying
for me, instead of me — or, more precisely, I myself am praying through the
medium of the wheel. The beauty of it all is that in my psychological interi-
ority I can think about whatever I want, I can yield to the most dirty and
obscene fantasies, and it does not matter because — to use a good old Stalinist
expression — whatever I am thinking, objectively I am praying. (Sublime Ob-
ject)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120114082501.3470">http://www.frontiersin.org/computational_neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2011.00055/full </t>
<t tx="offray.20120114082501.3473">http://community.paper.li/2011/11/30/michel-bauwens-a-peer-to-peer-economy/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3481">http://emergentbydesign.com/2012/01/10/core-principles-for-the-new-economy-human-agency-enlightened-self-interest/
Interesante debate sobre la colaboración y la cooperación. El tema de formar grupos rápidos para sacar algo adelante y luego hacer parte de otro grupo, vs lazos más duraderos.
:etiquetas: revisar, leer</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3485">http://nomada.blogs.com/jfreire/2012/01/plataformas-digitales-emergentes-y-cultura-abierta.html
Interesante los tres lugares de interacción Nube, Dispositivos móviles y Redes Sociales. Debemos apuntarle a esos tres con infraestructuras libres. Sin embargo no es cierto que no existan alternativas libres en esos escenarios.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3488">https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-debate-begins-peer-to-peer-and-marxism-analogies-and-differences-jean-lievens-interviewed-with-michel-bauwens/
Apartes:
*But in the field of making we have exciting developments towards shared material infrastructures such as co-working and hacker spaces,* product-service systems for car sharing and many other services, and the miniaturization of production via 3D Printing and Fab Labs, all of which also have open source versions and aspects.
[...]
This is not a scientific scenario with a certain and unavoidable ending but rather a description of the field of tension in which peer production develops.
[...]
The realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way they could not do before, forces social movements to look for new ways of governance… but these are not given, and have to be discovered experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn from predecessor movements!
[...]
The realization of historical moment of Peak Hierarchy, the moment in which *distributed networks asymmetrically challenge vertical institutions in a way they could not do before*, forces social movements to look for new ways of governance… but these are not given, and have to be discovered experimentally, and of course, there will be valuable lessons to learn from predecessor movements!
[...]
The first part forces them to a certain type of strategic behaviour that fosters sharing, while the second requirement forces them to maintain a general context of continued dominance. This is in essence *the new social tension of the emerging p2p age, between communities of peer producers and the platform owners*. The key for peer producers is *to gain control of their own livelihoods and social reproduction*, and in my view this can best be done by creating their own cooperative/corporate vehicles, which I call, following Neil Stephenson in The Diamond Age and the lasindias.net suggestions, “Phyles”, i.e. community-supportive entities that allow commoners to sustain their work in the commons, and to substract it from the mainstream economy of profit-maximization.
[...]
*This is why netarchical capitalists invest in platforms, and this is why the alternative ethical economy needs to do the same, and if they do, they could replace the for-profit corporation at the heart of our economy.*
[...]
The second leads to what I call *diagonal politics*, i.e. mutual adaptation between emerging p2p forces and practices, and the old institutional realities. To the degree that this is ineffective, it pushes from the solution coming from the first aspect, i.e. prepares for a more radical and revolutionary re-ordering of our institutions.
[...]
Tellingly, a Swedish pirate party member once wrote that *the Pirate Party is the last chance to avoid revolution*. *To the degree that the present system refuses adaptation, to that degree they heighten the need and push for more radical transformations*.
[...]
*p2p movement is actually an expression of the new dominant layer of cognitive workers, who in the West are the mainstay of productive labour. P2P is their culture and what needs to happen to do productive and useful work. In that sense, the P2P movement is the new labour movement of the 21st century*, with the Indignados and Occupy as the first expression of that new labour but also civic, sensibility.
[...]
Marx was right about capitalism, but wrong about socialism and I believe the politically driven model of social change, when not based on an existing prior new productive model, was ill-conceived. The P2P movement is therefore poised to realize what the 19th and 20th century social movements couldn’t, because the hyperproductive alternative was not available to them. The politics of P2P flow from an already existing social practice, that is a really key difference.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120115131027.3489">The conclusion to be drawn is that open source software does attract volunteers, but not for serious projects that are competitive with proprietary software. These almost always have substantial corporate backing.
[...]
In Raymond’s model, work is rewarded with an intangible return rather than a monetary one. Fortunately, it’s easy to establish today that there is a strong monetary return for many Open Source developers. But that return is still not as direct as in proprietary software development.
Perens goes on to argue that open source is economically rational for certain classes of *software that he calls non-differentiating*: technology that is used to support the functions of a business, but isn’t a competitive advantage. These are things like computer operating systems, web servers, web browsers, database software, word processors, spreadsheets, etc. which can be considered part of the infrastructure of a business. Often, *differentiating technology is built out of these components*, and Perens uses the example of Amazon’s book recommendation software – customers might go to Amazon because of this feature, which Barnes & Noble does not have, so *this should be kept proprietary*.
Historically, corporations have used private, closed consortia to collaborate on software infrastructure – member companies agree to fund the development of software and make it available to each member. In many cases these have become outmoded and replaced with open source projects. [...] Taligent consortium to standardize Unix has been replaced by the open source Linux project, and the Common Desktop Environment was replaced by the open source GNOME Project. But the consortium model continues to be relevant in other areas, especially in developing industry standards: the Unicode Consortium, the World Wide Web Consortium, the Internet Systems Consortium are all funded and staffed by major internet companies.
[...]
Perens makes the case that private competition and open cooperation are not opposed to each other – cooperation at the level of non-differentiating technology allows corporations to focus their efforts on proprietary innovation and differentiating technology.
<-- podría el factor diferenciador provenir de la recontextualización (Software as a Service, el conocimiento tácito, la interpretación
y la experiencia vivencial? Ejp: mutabiT Open Eduworkshops, mutabiT Learning Communities.
En un mundo perfectamente copiable hay que centrarse en la interpretación que conlleva luego a la implementación. La implementación
daría cuenta de la interpretación y estaría en diálogo con ella. Por ejemplo Cynin es un esfuerzo por vincular comunidades de
práctica en lugar de crear aulas virtuales.
The conclusion that I want to draw is a very simple one: these connections demonstrate that, in practice, the open source software movement is compatible with and influenced by capitalism. This casts doubt on overly optimistic claims that peer production is intrinsically anti-capitalist, but also on less radical perspectives that see open source software as more protective of consumer rights. We see some evidence that Linux kernel development prioritizes the needs of large enterprise customers over the needs of individual home users.
<-- habría que mirar cómo se compara con los postulados de Bauwens en términos de una producción p2p más eficiente y orientada hacia
un modelo no capitalista.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120117065158.2866">http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/es/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
Lessing's metaphor on RW culture lacks of eXecution. First 2 are for culture as content. Last one is for culture as experience: libresociety.org</t>
<t tx="offray.20120117065158.2867">http://openmatt.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/who-owns-you/
La iniciativa de Mozilla sobre una web centrada en las personas. Debería escribirles un correo.
:etiquetas: revisar, correo: escribirles</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.3175"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.3176">http://www.scoop.it/t/peer2politics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5314">http://learningfreedomandtheweb.org/ebook/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5315">http://p2pfoundation.net/Understanding_Peer_to_Peer_as_a_Relational_Dynamics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5316"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5317">http://p2pfoundation.net/From_Designing_Products_to_Thinking_New_Systems </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125035801.5318">http://p2pfoundation.net/How_to_Design_and_Manufacture_an_Open_Product </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2890">If we should retain the concept of ideology, it is rather because it focuses our attention on the
bidirectionality of practice, the materiality and externality of belief: not only on the
use of the cultural tools by the Deweyan believers, but the use of the Deweyan be-
lievers by the tools. From this critical vantage and in view of Foucault’s immense
contribution to it, Rorty’s “end of ideology” position is revealed to be thoroughgo-
ingly ideological in a somewhat different and quite specific sense: its strategic mis-
recognition of ideology as an affair of thought only, a misrecognition that affirms
the freedom of individual self-fashioning and ironist redescription (including, of
course, Zizek’s “lurid fantasies”) while leaving wholly undisturbed the external and
material “reality” of this liberal fantasy.
The whole apparatus of the liberal democratic state . . . insured that once the Indian had the sense to
get into the queue early, he was going to have more years in which to drink than he would otherwise have had”
“the fact that lots of doctors, lawyers, and teachers are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes
of their patients, clients and students does not show that anything is taking place in
the dark. There is light enough for them to get their job done, and to do it right”
Like Ronald Reagan’s homeless, who are
“free” to sleep on the street if they so wish, Rorty’s Indian is free to drink himself to
death and thereby reconfirm a pernicious marginality whose conditions of social
production are left bracketed, as if there were no relation at all between liberal eth-
nocentrism and the history of Native Americans’ oppression and the social patholo-
gies it has generated, no systematic connection at all between how well the legal
system functions and for whom, depending on the citizen’s economic standing or
race.
a perfectly plausible Foucauldian reading of that instance which
would see the Indian’s refusal to give up his alcoholism not as a sign of repression
and normalization but rather as a kind of “microresistance” to the system’s manage-
ment strategies;
For Foucault, to critique liberal foundationalism (as Rorty does with Habermas) while leaving the
institutions and structures of liberal society unchanged is merely to show how little
philosophy of a certain brand matters.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2891">For Foucault, then, the intellectual does not have a representational relationship to
the people in either the epistemological or the political sense; he is neither one who
accurately reflects and mirrors the truth of a constituency back to it in more refined
form, nor one who represents (as in “representational” democracy) the interests of
a constituency in the culture at large. For Foucault, this “universal” intellectual has
given way to what Foucault calls the “specific” intellectual. “It is in this context,”
“What can be the ethic
of an intellectual if not that: to render oneself permanently capable of getting free
of oneself?” (quoted in Bernauer, Michel Foucault’s Force of Flight 179)
Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same.
<-- Somos un patrón que se sostiene y cambia (ref: A. Kay)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2892">Foucault’s position is that intellectuals are inextricably in-
volved in a struggle over “the status of truth and the economic and political
role it plays” and that the option before radical intellectuals is not that of
“emancipating truth from every system of power (which would be a chimera,
for truth is already power) but of detaching the power of truth from the
forms of hegemony, social, economic, and cultural, within which it operates
at the present time.” (“Politics of Truth” 165–66)
The aim of Foucault’s genealogical critiques, Smart writes, is “to identify
strengths and weaknesses in the networks of power, to provide in short,
tools or ‘instruments for analysis’ and to leave the question of tactics,
strategies, and goals to those directly involved in struggle and resistance” (167).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2893">It is over life, throughout its unfolding, that power establishes its domina-
tion; death is power’s limit, the moment that escapes it; death becomes the
most secret aspect of existence, the most “private.” It is not surprising that
suicide . . . became, in the course of the nineteenth century, one of the first
conducts to enter the sphere of sociological analysis; it testified to the indi-
vidual and private right to die, at the borders and in the interstices of power
that was exercised over life. (Foucault Reader 261)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2894">Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are, but to refuse
what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get
rid of a political “double bind,” which is the simultaneous individualization
and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion would be . . .
to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization
which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity
through refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us
for several centuries. (Foucault Reader 22)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2895"> Foucault writes, “if they failed to teach the
author something he hadn’t known before, if they didn’t lead to unforeseen places,
and if they didn’t disperse one toward a strange and new relation with himself. The
pain and pleasure of the book is to be an experience” (Foucault Reader 339).
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125190234.2896">Foucault’s style mirrors the fundamental urgency of his thought, which is less to con-
vince than to agitate, to compel a desire for flight, to afflict the reader with
a pressure or force. (Bernauer, Michel Foucault’s Force of Flight 6)
<-- Que bonito!!
“Foucault directs our attention to the very concrete freedom of
writing, thinking and living in a permanent questioning of those systems of thought
and problematic forms of experience in which we find ourselves.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2904"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2905"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2906">What most conspicuously links the Rorty of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature to
the Foucault of Discipline and Punish is a thoroughgoing critique of the cultural
work done by *optical metaphors and cartographies*. But it would be a mistake to col-
lapse the figure of vision tout court into Panopticism, to see the visual as always al-
ready a form, as it were, of the Look. Or that is the position, at least, of Gilles Deleuze
in his difficult and important book on Foucault, which argues that the signal ad-
vance of Discipline and Punish lies not in its Orwellian vision of the “hard” totality of
*Panoptical society*, but rather in its potentially liberatory *mapping* of “new coordi-
nates for praxis35 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2907"> “the aim is not to rediscover the eternal in the universal, but to find the conditions under which some-
thing new is produced (creativeness)” that the aim of philosophy is to analyze “the
states of things” — which “are neither unities nor totalities, but *multiplicities*” — “in
such a way that non-pre-existent concepts can be extracted from them.”
<-- hay manifestaciones múltiples donde subyacen unidades o totalidades, pero que
precisamente por lo primero, no pueden ser reducidas a lo último? Esto cuestionaría:
Todo es un objeto, todo es una función y los paradigmas de programación o los
lenguajes? Qué es el lenguaje?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120125213619.2908"> not “ ‘passive prag-
matist’ measuring things against practice” — or against what Lyotard calls the “per-
formativity principle” of a “positivist” pragmatism, where utility and results are all
that count but [...] “ ‘constructive’ pragmatist whose aim is
‘the manufacture of materials to harness forces, to think the unthinkable.’ ”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120129210250.2914">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/discussing-the-p2p-driven-crisis-of-value-2-open-source-abundance-destroys-the-scarcity-basis-of-capitalism/2012/01/27 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120131114429.3674">http://www.cccb.org/lab/es/general/lopacitat-tecnologica-el-que-no-veiem-en-les-maquines/
La primera cita de Zikek y la última del autor del escrito pueden complementar las referencias a las "cajas negras" colocadas en la justificación.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120131114429.3675">http://www.cccb.org/lab/es/que-es/
Acá podrían haber contactos e intercambios internacionales.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120210150049.5449">Ping.fm
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120210150049.5450">http://bufferapp.com/
You're browsing the web and finding great content. Buffer takes care of sharing that content on a schedule your followers will love. Collect and share from anywhere:</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214113500.2934">http://opensource.com/business/10/4/why-open-source-way-trumps-crowdsourcing-way</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214113500.2935">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/video-of-the-day-mindful-maps-presents-collaborative-consumption/2012/02/08 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120214170032.3296">Deleuze understands (as does Guattari):
that genuinely radical politics cannot simply make rational appeals to sub-
jects concerning the nature of their oppression and provide cogent reasons
why they should overthrow their oppressors. . . . A traditional rationalistic
macropolitics leaves the terrain of desire, culture, and everyday life uncon-
tested, precisely the spaces where subjects are produced and controlled, and
where fascist movements originate. (Best and Kellner, Postmodern Theory 94</t>
<t tx="offray.20120214170032.3297">In view of the Deleuzian micropolitical
perspective, collectivity happens not by forging traditionally “grounded” alliances
with other subjects, by joining a bloc whose coherence depends on paring away
anything other than the singular “identity” (of class, of gender) that binds the group
together, but rather by recognizing — as the work of Donna Haraway and Bruno
Latour so powerfully does — that the imaginary “Self” of capitalist/patriarchal cul-
ture is already a concrete “superindividual composed of a multitude of subindividu-
als” (Massumi, User’s Guide 81). </t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3300">“Why, through what necessity, and for what use must concepts, always new
concepts, be created? and in order to do what?” the answer is a thoroughgoingly
pragmatic one — but pragmatic in a Foucauldian rather than a Rortyan sense.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3301">The “concept” for Deleuze is thus precisely the opposite of what
it was for Adorno.47 As Todd May summarizes it, it “is not a representation in any
classical sense. Rather, it is a point in a field — or, to use Deleuze’s term, on a ‘plane’ —
that is at once logical, political, and aesthetic. It is evaluated not by the degree of its
truth or the accuracy of its reference, but *by the effects it creates within and outside of the plane on which it finds itself.”*</t>
<t tx="offray.20120215095033.3302">“Ontological speculation prepares
the terrain for a constitutive practice; or rather, after ontological speculation (as
Forschung) has brought to light the distinctions of the terrain, this same terrain is
traversed a second time in a different direction, with a different bearing, with a
practical attitude (as Darstellung).” Thus, “we can give a Deleuzian reading to Lenin’s
insight. ‘Without theory, no revolutionary practice’: Without theory there is no
terrain on which practice can arise, just as inversely, without practice, there is no
terrain for theory. *Each provides the conditions for the existence and development of the other*.”
For Deleuze, *philosophy is above all experimental thinking with a pragmatic rationale*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3264"> Deleuze’s thinking is con-
cerned instead with the *conditions of possibility* (he would say, I think, the conditions
of existence) for politics — that is, with the conditions and dynamics under which
specific forms of power and domination persist, and the forms of resistance it is
possible to imagine that they generate, in the ceaseless struggle between exclusion-
ary, identitarian social forms (be they of economics, gender, sexuality, or whatever)
and their own outsides. In this deeper sense, as Hardt points out, Deleuze “can help
us develop a dynamic conception of democratic society as open, horizontal, and
collective"</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3265">It is also to miss the central linkage between contingency, pragmatism, and resistance in Deleuze’s Foucault: that
the *repetition and reproduction* of statements, archives, and all that comes from the
strata of historical “knowledge” *takes place in a context of multiplicity and contingency*, which is simply to say that *pure repetition is impossible*, that repetition always takes place with a difference — and from that fact springs what Deleuze calls
“microagitations,” the emergence of new forms of thought and practice. The cru-
cial pragmatic point of Foucault’s work after the Archaeology is that “the final word
on power is that *resistance comes first*.
“This,” Deleuze concludes, “is the whole of Foucault’s philosophy, which is a *pragmatics of the multiple”* (83–84).
<-- Mi tesis no necesita ser LA tesis, sólo UNA tesis, que apela a un concepto importante, que es
el de auto-referencialidad y auto-poiesis.
Hay una matriz de co-evolución y cocreación entre lo autónomo y lo heterónomo.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3266">“Power is epiphenomenal to the flow of desire. Second, and consequently, the
lines of flight are fundamentally positive and creative, rather than lines of resistance
or counter-attack.”</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3267">If the visible and the articulable are irreducibly different assemblages of
heterogeneous, multiple elements, then how is it that their operations are so often
coordinated with devastating pragmatic consequences in the social field? After all,
there is certainly a very tight coordination between the set of statements that con-
stitute the penal code and the set of visibilities put to service in the Panopticon. So
even though the visible and the articulable are irreducible in their difference, how
do we explain their “coadaptation”?
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120228141302.3268">, as Discipline and Punish demonstrates, “discipline cannot be identified with
any one institution or apparatus precisely because it is a type of power, a technol-
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4303"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4305">http://geeksroom.com/2012/03/primer-trailer-del-documental-free-the-network-de-la-free-network-foundation/59375/
:etiquetas: revisar</t>
<t tx="offray.20120306092158.4307">http://medialab-prado.es/article/mesa_4_mas_alla_del_evento_continuidad_evolucion_y_legado_de_proyectos_y_plataformas
:etiquetas: revisar</t>
<t tx="offray.20120403134959.3298">http://www.openp2pdesign.org/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3300"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3301">Long ago I grew tired of reading books that criticized some aspect of our society without offering a positive alternative. Then I grew tired of books that offered a positive alternative that seemed impossible to reach: "We must reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent." Then I grew tired of books that offered a plausible means of reaching it but did not describe what I, personally, could do to create it.
I myself was tempted to tone down my description, to make it more plausible, more responsible, more in line with our low expectations for what life and the world can be. But such an attenuation would not have been the truth.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3302">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/why-the-p2p-foundation-is-paying-its-salaries-in-bitcoin/2012/03/28 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3303">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/20124395428374962.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3304">http://matslats.net/ijccr-software-review </t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3305"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120408183351.3306">inner workings of our networks, computers, mobile devices, search
engines, or social media are a matter of public concern rather than just corporate stockholders
and hired engineers and politicians.
<<Def Internet>>
A perfect storm of counterintuitive grey ethical areas, the Internet is metal, code and flesh
looking for harmony. This harmony will only come as the full potential of the assemblage is
realised, as (and if) it overcomes the enclosures that contain it:
* capitalist mandates of profit and accumulation,
* modern human fear and pettiness, and
* the artificial territorial boundaries imposed by the Westphalian nation-state.
The ultimate political challenge the defence of the Internet must face today is to secure lasting
health for this hybrid life-form made of metal, code and flesh.
Seen as just a result of human cultural, economic and political forces, machinic life
seems enslavable.
In a famous speech preceding last years eG-8 summit, Sarkozy stated that “the Internet is the
new frontier, a territory to conquer.” It is, to begin with, extremely concerning to learn that in
the XXIst century France still has president who believes that *‘territory’ and ‘conquer’ are words that naturally go together*. Mr. Sarkozy then proceeded to explain how this ‘territory’ “cannot be a Wild West.”
The Internet is not territory to be conquered, but life to be
preserved and allowed free evolution.
Thinking the web in terms of *machinic life* is important in practice for three powerful reasons:
First, it guides us through the building of political models that encompass the human and the
non-human, a politics for radical yet peaceful diversity needed now more than ever. Second it
unveils the ethical dimensions beneath seemingly neutral issues, allowing stronger defense for
ACTA, detached from democratic process under the veil of ‘trade
agreement’ negotiations, and created by powerful nations to lock their domination over the rest
of the world, is in this sense in dual violation of the rights of Flesh (i.e. humanity).
It is worth noting that the project of a ‘Rights of the Internet’ charter is completely different from
recent European legislation that declares that the Internet is ‘a human right’. The ‘Rights of the
Internet’ depart from modern anthropocentrist instinct.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3314"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3315">http://nicolasmendo.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/network-for-survivors-mendozadraft.pdf</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3316">To be more precise, the *Internet is the son of the apocalypse*. It was conceived not as a
means for capitalistic hegemony, or even as a means of defence, but rather as a tool for
the survivors.
One of the main arguments of this essay is that because the Internet was conceived to
perform as a sort of life support machine through the permanent communication and
cooperation of survivors in a postapocalyptic environment, with a systematic disregard of
any political, economical or cultural consideration, it is essentially, fundamentally,
detached from the continuum of socio-philosophical evolutions by which we normally
understand social (and therefore media) phenomena.
“The creation of the Internet was not only a technological but
also an imaginative feat. The conceptual structure of the Internet is an imaginative
response to the threat of an annihilating catastrophe” (Corcoran 1997, p. 343)
Can we start to think about this drama in order to grasp the ontology of the Net before it
exploded, in a similar way as physics research the Big Bang to understand the universe?
If the Internet is a manifestation of the problematic of the survivor (or, better, of the
apocalyptic survivor), then its nature is not related to the forces that transformed
sovereign societies into disciplinary societies, ultimately evolving into societies of
control.
Clark enumerates the priority list of the characteristics of the Internet:
1. Internet communication must continue despite loss of networks or gateways
2. The Internet must supply multiple types of communications service
3. The Internet architecture must accommodate a variety of networks
4. The Internet architecture must permit distributed management of resources
5. The Internet architecture must be cost effective
6. The Internet architecture must permit host attachment with a low level effort
7. The resources used in the internet architecture must be accountable
(Clark 1988, p. 107)
He elaborates on how *the principles of agency and survivability contradict the logic of power and control*, as it is
detached from the ethos of the original Internet:
“...since this network was designed to operate in a military context, which
implied the possibility of a hostile environment, survivability was put as a first
goal, and accountability as a last goal. During wartime, one is less concerned
with detailed accounting of resources used than with mustering whatever
resources are available and rapidly deploying them in an operational manner.
While the architects of the Internet were mindful of accountability, the problem
received very little attention during the early stages of the design, and is only
now being considered. An architecture primarily for commercial deployment
would clearly place these goals at the opposite end of the list” (emphases mine)
The protocols that structure the network were built to provide the user with maximum agency as
opposed to control him.
Alex Galloway has coined the term *“Protocologic Control”* to describe the notion that the
underlying protocols that make electronic networks operational are the instruments of a
grand shift in contemporary societies to become the Deleuzian “Societies of Control”.
The political nature of protocol then raises a simple
question: If protocol is political, then why were Internet protocols designed with such a
libertarian ethos? Why, in the wake of the Deleuzian Societies of Control, was the most
empowering possible design the chosen one? We have given the answer already: because
*the society that made the choice was not the Society of Control, but the Postapocalyptic Society of Survivors.*
The troubling *paradox* is that the Internet’s
flexibility and its empowering architecture being fertile ground for anything, it is also
fertile ground for overregulation, surveillance and distributed control. Such is its *destiny*
if nothing is done to prevent it.
*cyberspace will be the most regulable space humans have ever known.*
*The greater struggle, however, is ultimately between a pre apocalyptic society of control, and a postapocalyptic fantasy of survival that got out of hand*
*We can thus understand the Internet (and, I would argue, TCP/IP) as a kind of Terminator: a disruptive postapocalyptic entity loose in an arcane environment (the present) that fights back. It is a clash of two worlds, two logics, one of which is the result of a Baudrillardian simulacrum of a radioactive, subterranean, desperately lonely civilization that never took place, and the other a corporate, globalized, and capitalistic society of control*
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3317">http://www.realitysandwich.com/print/104594</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3318"> The notion of ‘generativity’ is central to Zittrain’s thought. It is characterized as a
property that some human inventions possess consisting on their ability to open the
possibility of further innovation</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3319">Protocols are (can be, should be) enablers of free communication.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120409165937.3320">While ‘tactical media’ (Lovink 2008)
may be a liberating practice, *resistance must be structural*. The original integrity of the
datagram is essential: as long as the web revolves around the systematic transfer of
10datagrams (as long as it continues to lack a diagram ), resistance is possible
--> structural = infraestructural
Defend the datagram by defending those protocols that negate ownership, proposing new protocols
that enable freedom, and denouncing the protocols of control. This mission requires an
understanding of protocological diversity.
The technical, the legal, the political and the cultural: all part of a rich, thick,
protocological diversity that mustn’t be feared or hated, but studied and understood,
because it is only by doing so that we will be able to trace the strategies that ensure that
the ones that prevail are the protocols of freedom.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120410114420.3328">The Internet can then be understood as a large hybrid entity, or as sociologists like to say ‘an
assemblage’, of diverse actors both human and non-human. These actors are: 1) Humans,
encompassing their biological selves and their cultures and institutions. 2) Hardware, including
computers, mobile devices, mass storage facilities, transmission equipment, transoceanic cables,
and so on. 3) Code, including a vast wilderness of ever evolving protocols and software. It is
only by understanding that the Internet is a deep entanglement of hardware, software and
wetware (us, other biological entities, and the planet), that a sufficiently robust response to the
threats it faces will be articulated.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120410114420.3329">:author: Mendoza, Nicolas
:title: Metal/ Code/ Flesh. Why we need a ‘Rights of the Internet’ declaration
:date: Feb 2012
:place: Chiang Mai, Thailand.
:publication:
:pages:
:url: http://nicolasmendo.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/metal-code-flesh-profanity-final.pdf
:licence: classical copyright
:last visit: abril, 9, 2012</t>
======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
<t tx="offray.20111218115620.4980"></t>
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<t tx="offray.20120411071934.4982">@language rest
@tabwidth -4
@ @rst-options
call_docutils=False
code_mode=False
generate_rst=True
http_server_support = False
show_organizer_nodes=True
show_headlines=True
show_leo_directives=True
stylesheet_path=..\doc
write_intermediate_file = True
verbose=True
@c
@all
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120411071934.4983"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120411071934.4985">c.rstCommands.rst3()
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120411071934.4986">Esta definición será clave en mi tesis. Las pistas están entre operacionalmente cerrado pero estructuramente abierto (o es al contrario?)
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3364"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3365">@language rest</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3366">Areas prioritarias
7) Tecnologías de la información y las comunicaciones
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3367">1. Matrícula.
2. Sostenimiento mensual hasta por 6 smlv (salarios mínimos legales vigentes).
3. Pasantía en el exterior hasta por 6 meses, la cual incluye:
* Sostenimiento mensual hasta por USD 1600.
* Seguro médico hasta por USD 400 por seis meses.
* Tiquete aereo ida y regreso en tarifa económica hasta por una sóla vez.
4. Gastos de presentación y defensa de la tesis hasta por $2'000.000</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3368">El candidato deberá:
<<Diligenciar/actualizar Hoja de vida CvLAC>>
<<Inscripción aplicativo créditos condonables>>
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3369">http://201.234.78.173:8085/divrechum/becarios/index.jsp </t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3370">1. Diligenciar o actualizar la hoja de vida en la herramienta CvLAC de la plataforma Scienti de COLCIENCIAS. Este
aplicativo se encuentra en el sitio web scienti de COLCIENCIAS</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3371">Inscripción aplicativo créditos condonables</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3372">http://www.colciencias.gov.co/scienti/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3373">Toda la documentación no debera ocupar más de 1.5 mb en una resolución no inferior a 200dpi</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3374"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3375">Dos referencias académicas debidamente firmadas que certifiquen las calidades académicas y profesionales del candidato según formato Ver anexo 2. </t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3376"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3377">Certificado de notas de pregrado y maestría firmado por la oficina responsable de la universidad, en el cual se señale de manera explícita el promedio acumulado de los estudios en escala de 1 a 5, así como las notas obtenidas en cada una de las asignaturas.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3378">Candidatos en estado de "Admitido" o "Estudiando": certificación expedida por la universidad en la cual se indique el estado de admitido oficialmente o se especifique el último semestre aprobado para quienes ya están estudiando.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3379"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3380">Con fecha posterior al 15 de marzo de 2010.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120504121959.3381">Se trata de un texto en el que el postulante presenta de manera concisa la investigación que está adelantando o adelantará en el doctorado.
Requisitos:
* Nombre del candidato.
* Documento de identidad.
* Título
* Planteamiento del problema
* Objetivo general
* Objetivos específicos
* Resultados esperados.
* Justificación de la coherencia del la propuesta de investigación con el área estratégica seleccionada (ver numeral 2)
* Sistema de citación de acuerdo al área de experticia.
* Arial 12 a doble espacio, 2.500 palabras.</t>
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3395"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3396"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3397">http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2011/11/24/hackerspaces-as-startup-incubators/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120528183521.3401">http://www.darkreading.com/security/news/231300269/mudge-announces-new-darpa-hacker-spaces-program.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20120528183521.3990">http://onthecommons.org/magazine/pirate-party-shakes-european-politics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120529105355.6663">http://meedabyte.com/2012/05/28/towards-a-cooperative-small-scale-local-p2p-production-future-back-from-the-ouishare-summit-in-paris/
Excelente presentación con una mirada panorámica de lo que podría ser el futuro. En la parte de los *gaps* reales se puede establecer
un vínculo con Jonas desde la perspectiva del diseño.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3407">ia</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3408">http://www.k-government.com/category/ars-2/</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3409">https://www.box.com/s/f824a7d862eab196e65d</t>
<t tx="offray.20120616092341.3648">16 de junio de 2012
Iniciar con ubakye, el enrutador de identidad digital, era una idea que en alguna medida me libraba de
estar lidiando con todo el desgaste de las negociaciones respecto a las tecnologías y sus implementaciones.
Debido a su caracter de personal, podía simplemente elegir la tecnología que yo prefiriese e implementarlo
para mí, al margen de si otras personas estaban de acuerdo sobre los detalles internos de dicha implementación.
Sin embargo entre febrero y abril se hizo claro que, si lo clave es el contexto,
por un lado y por otro qye si la comunidad en la que decidí realizar mi
investigación es la de HackBo, el camino __no__ era empezar por algo personal,
sino por los espacios comunitarios de dicha comunidad. De hecho la preocupación
por el espacio, en particular el físico, es clave en un hackerspace (de hecho es
parte de su nombre) y en HackBo esto se ha visto permanentemente en la búsqueda
de nuevos lugares y dinámicas del habitar que hagan el proyecto sostenible. Por lo
anterior, el primer lugar digital a intervenir en la búsqueda de nuevas dinámicas que
permitan es tránsito de usuarios a hacedores es el propio sitio de HackBo en lugar de
ubakye, intentando que el caracter de empoderamiento de lo identitario que ocurría en
el último, siga pasando en el primero, pero empiece desde las formas comunitarias de
habitar, es decir que hackbo.co se convierta progresivamente un espacio comunitario más propicio
para las dinámicas comunitarias y también en un lugar para empoderar a los indivios que lo
habitan, no sólo en su interacción dentro de HackBo (tanto digital como análoga) sino
en el resto de lugares en la *web* que habita (en particular redes de microblogging, como
Twitter o identica). A continuación detallaré parte de las transformaciones pensadas para
hackbo.co y cómo estas se conectarían con ubakye y se darían dentro de las dinámicas que
también se diseñaran para potenciar el tránsito de comunidades de usuarios a hacedores.
Antes (julio 4 de 2011) había hablado de no tener que elegir lo que podríamos llamar tecnologías
autorreferenciales y autocontenidas en Smalltalk (Seaside, Aida, Pier, Monticello) y tecnologías
autorreferenciales autocontenidas en Python (web2py, Leo, Fossil [#autocontenido]_) sino explorarlas
ambas
.. _autocontenido: Si bien Fossil *no* es autorreferencial, en el sentido de que no se
puede cambiar desde sí mismo, sino que es neceario "salir" a un entorno de desarrollo
y recrearlo desde allí, sí es autocontenido en el sentido de que una vez hecha la
descarga para un sistema operativo, Fossil funcionará sobre este sistema con los
requerimientos estandar que éste brinda por omisión y bastará con transportar una carpeta
para continuar haciéndolo funcionar en otro computador con el mismo sistema operativo.
Para una discusión detallada sobre autocontenido esto véase el nodo [[autocontenido]]
Por otro lado, fossil no está hecho en Python, pero brinda un conjunto de funcionalidades
requeridas para la gestión de históricos y el trabajo colaborativo que serían necesarias
en el paradigma de "todo es un archivo" y que otros sistemas como Mercurial o Bazaar brindan
en el mundo Python, pero que no hacen tan fácil el transportar ni la infraestructura, ni
los históricos de un proyecto.
Un hacer demasiado disperso.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120616092341.3649">En teoría de sistemas, el límite entre el sistema y el entorno no pone el observador.
Entonces, A qué nos referimos en esta tesis cuando hablamos de un sistema "autocontenido"?
Dónde está el límite entre el sistema y el entorno que hace que el primero se denomine
autocontenido frente a otros que no lo son, si cuando el observador define una frontera entre sistema y
entorno, es claro que el sistema está contenido dentro de esa frontera y lo que está por
fuera es el entorno.
El caracter autocontenido *en los sistemas informáticos acá considerados*, se refierá a contener
las dependencias que lo hacen funcionar en un sistema operativo estandar y poder ser transportado
con facilidad entre diferentes máquinas con el mismo sistema operativo, sin requerir de un proceso
de instalación en cada una de ellas. Tendríamos entonces aplicaciones de descargue y ejecute, versus
descargue, *instale* y ejecute. Dicha diferencia es importante si consideramos que el problema de los
permisos de instalación de software en las máquinas es un problema de micro-política en el sentido de
que permite o no ejercer actos de empoderamiento a quien usa dichas máquinas. Si bien los sistemas
complejos tienen funcionalidades que implican el acceso diferencial a recursos en el mismo, la
situación actual, en la que hay que pedir permiso hasta para convertir al computador en máquina de escribir
instalándole un procesador de palabra y poder así escribir una carta, es una situación distópica del ejercicio
del poder, en la cual las plataformas de computo se han vuelto enajenantes y al servicio de monopolios
transnacionales y su modelo de lucro a través de la venta de permisos (licencias) para cada cosa, en lugar de
ser máquinas al servicio de la persona que tienen en frente.
Es en el sentido anterior que la definición de autocontenido para los sistemas
informáticos acá considerados es una que resalta ese caracter micro-político en
el ejercicio por omisión de las libertades de los usuarios y que va más allá de
las 4 libertades del software libre a su ejercicio práctico por parte de las
personas que usan computadores y el hecho de *no* requerir de permisos especiales de
"administrador" o "superusuario" para instalación, uso y eventual modificación del software
que los empodera. No basta entonces un sistema operativo tipo Unix con las 4 libertades
si en la práctica cotidiana no puedo ejercerlas, a no ser que tenga un conjunto de permisos
especiales. En ese sentido sistemas como los *Portable Apps* de Windows, el 0-install multiplataforma
ó sistemas para descomprimir, portar y usar como web2py, fossil o Smalltalk serían autocontenidos,
mientras que *la mayoría de las aplicaciones informáticas de la actualidad no lo serían*.
Ahora bien, el caracter autorreferencial acá se referirá a
Es decir que mientras que lo autocontenido se refiere al ejercico práctico de las libertades de uso y
distribución, el caracter autoreferencial se refiere al ejercico práctico de la libertad de modificación.
Si bien estas libertades fueron explicitadas principalmente por el proyecto Gnu, ya se encontraban
presentes en otros proyectos anteriores, como BSD, pero la práctica cotidiana de las mismas dista mucho
de ser fluida hoy en día, bien sea por los modelos enagenantes de permisos en sistemas operativos o por la ausencia
de continuidad entre el código fuente del hacedor y la aplicación binaria del usuario, lo cual hace que modificar
la aplicación, es decir realizar un tránsito de usuario a hacedor, sea muy complejo (hay implícitas un conjunto
difícil de elecciones y aprendizajes como el lenguaje de programación, el entorno de desarrollo,
el sistema de control de versiones, etc.). El proyecto Smalltalk como dice Hilaire Fernandez, era software
libre en la práctica 15 años antes de la existencia del proyecto Gnu, pues facilitaba el libre uso y
modificación del software pues el documento, la aplicación, el entorno de programación, el lenguaje y el código
fuente habitaban un continuo que siempre era entregado al usuario permitiéndole convertirse, en caso de interesarle
en hacedor. De hecho el término "usuario final" es considerado como despectivo por Alan Kay, uno de los creadores
de Smalltalk.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120619175430.10478">19 de junio, 2012
Principio de la tragedia de superposición de los geeks:
- si se reunen muchos geeks en un mismo espacio para realizar un proyecto
la charla se discipará en los detalles y no terminarán nunca el proyecto.
- Si se reunen muchos geeks a sacar un proyecto apasionante, cada uno se
preocupará de sus propias pasiones y no por las del proyecto en general.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3654"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3655"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3656">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2012/06/12/elinor-ostroms-legacy-managing-resources-without-government-or-private-property/
If the people who most need the commons can’t fire those who fail to protect it, the tragedy is inevitable.
Disputes are inevitable: dispute resolution methods are necessary, and do evolve.
when local acceptance and monitoring of rules is strong, violations are rare, usually accidental, and typically resolved without the need for violence.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3657">http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2012/06/lin-ostrom-on-the-future-of-the-commons-beyond-market-failure-and-government-regulation.html
Video</t>
<t tx="offray.20120629074334.3662"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120629074334.5594"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120629074334.5595"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120705175802.3692">http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/commons-champion-elinor-ostrom-1933-2012 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3728"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3729"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3730">https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Bibliography_Management </t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3731">http://people.mbi.ucla.edu/leec/docs/relatex/tutorial.html
ReLaTeX takes text from your input latex file and “injects” it into a latex template e.g. a standard latex template for submitting to a specific scientific journal. To illustrate, here’s one paper that I’ve injected into a series of different templates using ReLaTeX, going all the way from reStructured Text to latex templates for different journals</t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3918">http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/aaron-peters/unsourcing-does-free-labour-ultimately-require-free-goods-too </t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3920">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/christian-siefkes-on-the-abundance-debate-digital-plenty-versus-natural-scarcity/2012/07/07
Commons-based peer production has produced astonishing amounts of freely usable and shareable information. While that is amazing in itself, many people think that it is all, arguing that peer production flourishes in the digital realms of the Internet—and only there. This would mean that peer production could never be more than a niche phenomenon, since nobody can survive on information alone. This article challenges the conventional viewpoint, arguing that the potential of peer production extends far beyond the digital sphere into the sphere of physical production and that corresponding developments are already under way.
[...]
It might seem as if the plenty originates in the digital nature of the Internet itself. But that would be a wrong impression. Digital technology is only the foundation; the producers of the plenty are the people who use the Internet and make it all happen. I will return to that issue, but prior to doing so I will look a the limitations of the physical world which make it appear so different from the digital plenty of the Net. *The Ecological Footprint: Is Scarcity “Natural”*?
[...]
We who live in highly industrialized countries, thus not only live at the cost of future generations, but also at the cost of people in other parts of the word. Our consumption patterns are only possible because people elsewhere consume much less.
[...]
Scarcity means that there is not enough of something, hence it depends, first, on how much of a good is needed (and by whom) and, secondly, on how much of a good is produced (and by whom). Scarcity is thus a social phenomenon, never a natural one.
[...]
This concept of plenty isn’t focused on the accumulation of things, but on the satisfaction of needs.
[...]
First, the goal of every capitalist entity, every investor and every company, is to “make money,” that is, to turn money into more money. [...] The capitalist process thus has a built-in, infinite urge to grow, to produce more and to use more resources. Over-exploitation of the biocapacity is the logical result. With capitalism, the only alternative to growth is crisis: investments fail, leading to a loss of capital with companies going bankrupt.
[...]
Work seems to be something that you only do if you have to, if it’s forced upon you by economic necessity or social pressure.
[...]
Commons-based peer production is no longer a marginal phenomenon, but an essential part of the modern world. The Internet largely runs on free software; Wikipedia has become a primary source of information for many people.
[...]
Peer production is *benefit-driven*: in contrast to capitalist production, the goal is not to “make money” (turn money into more). Instead, the specific needs, desires, and goals of the participants determine what happens. This changes the nature of the activity: many of the participants don’t get involved in order to make money (though that happens as well), but because they like doing the things they can do there or out of an interest in the goods produced (e.g. the free software developed in a project). Other frequently pursued goals are to learn something or “to give something back to the community” (cf. Lakhani and Wolf 2005).
[...]
resources and goods that are developed and maintained by a community and shared according to community-defined rules. It’s important to note that the *community makes its own rules—they aren’t predefined or imposed from above*. Commons are usually shared among the community members or beyond—free software and free content are commons that everyone can use and improve, without exclusions. Free licenses (such as the GNU GPL and the Creative Commons licenses) codify these community rules in a way that makes them legally binding.
[...]
Participants leave hints about tasks they have started and things they would like to see, encouraging others to take over. Bug reports in software projects and “red links” (pointing to missing articles) in the Wikipedia are examples of such hints. [...] Can peer production achieve that which capitalism cannot: produce plenty (in the sense of “what you need, when you need it”) for everyone? Not just in some specific areas (e.g. software) and not just for some people, but in all areas, for everybody?
[...]
*[PILAS!!!]*
To make this possible, peer production needs to grow beyond the immaterial into the material world, producing not just information, but also physical goods and services. But is that even possible? “An abundance of information about how we might make things is not the same as an abundance of things—it is an abundance of recipes not an abundance of food,” the economist and community activist Brian Davey (2010) argues, complaining that commons-based peer production can produce only the information (recipes), but not the physical things (food). The underlying notion, shared by both proponents and critics of peer production, is that it excels in the sphere of information, which is so easy to copy and change, but fails in the material world, which isn’t.
*But this argument misses the fact that it’s not an inherent property of information that makes it so easy to copy, but rather a question of infrastructure*. 30 years ago, only corporations with extremely expensive specialized machinery were able to reproduce music, as Glyn Moody (2010) points out. Only the spread of broadband Internet connections and sufficiently large hard discs made it commonplace.
[...]
The reproduction of physical things is possible if three conditions are met:
* you need access to the complete design,
* to the required resources and
* to the necessary means of production.
In the following section, I will try to briefly outline how generalized peer production may become able to fulfill these conditions.”
[...]
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3921">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-abundance-debate-2-maurizio-teli-on-the-new-post-scarcity-epistemology-of-peer-production/2012/07/08
What contemporary research has made clear is that this kind of development is going to be possible because of the recursive practices of Free Software developers, engaged with a deeply practically based enlargement of the boundaries of their concerns, that bring together technical and social understanding of the Internet as the centre of their discourse.
[...]
The classic example is the one of an apple, considered a rival good because it can be consumed by a single individual at once (or shared with others but divided in small pieces). That is actually a correct conceptualization if we move away the practical and situated perspective of someone engaging with the act of eating or sharing the apple. When we move into the situated realm, we move away from the abstract definition of rivalry and scarcity to ask: how many apples are available for the people observed? Are these apples completely equivalent? If the answer to such questions is the presence of many apples which are equivalent one to the other, then there is no situated scarcity or situated rivalry. Such a starting point can be used for envisioning a new form of economic practice not based on exchange.
[...]
Also what is actually regulated by intellectual property law is always the material expression of what is supposed to be regulated (and made scarce). There is no idea to be patented without a patent specification, there was no idea to be privileged without a privilege system (Biagioli, 2011)?. Socially, there is no immaterial good, there are only different material configurations of concepts, ideas, and so on and so forth.
[...]
Let me stick with the apples example, moving toward the act of seeding apples-trees. Imagine a situation in which many people are eating apples, abundant and equivalent one to the other, and their questioning of how long the apples will be available and how apples can be made a durable presence in their life. In such a perspective, *the ability to mobilize the knowledge required to seed apple-trees and to preserve the abundance of apples become a crucial question*.
[...]
the challenge of overcoming scarcity as a social phenomenon is the one of identifying the different material configurations of scarcity as a social phenomena and to work out perspectives of providing different material configurations. An example from the social world of Free Software is the one of different software licences, that are opening up different spaces for the social construction of scarcity, or more mundane aspects of the distribution of software via the Internet, that is depending upon infrastructural constrains in many parts of contemporary world.
[...]
An example from the social world of Free Software is the one of different software licences, that are opening up different spaces for the social construction of scarcity, or more mundane aspects of the distribution of software via the Internet, that is depending upon infrastructural constrains in many parts of contemporary world. Probably the overcoming of the commodities regime should find other perspectives, richer than that of the commons, codified as oppositional to private property or state property in the actual debate, in order to also include the complexities of cultural expressions outside the limitations of contemporary Western societies.
[...]
Free software is not immune from commodification, as pointed out also by “open source” (not free software!) advocates like Asay (2006)?, who clearly establishes a positive relationship between open source and commodification as the mature stage of capitalism. Escaping the commodities trap requires the understanding and re-framing of the process of commodification, in order to engage at the level of the practices of use of software and other goods that are considered as the leverage for commodification as a process, such as, for example in the case of software, being ‘user friendly’, ‘cool’, or ‘innovative’. Conclusions.
[...]
cultural, institutional, and situational elements should be part of the elaboration of a political perspective on the overcoming of capitalism by peer production.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120720172858.5474">In general, the ITS system can be said to have been designer implemented and user designed. The problem of unrealistic software design is greatly diminished when the designer is the implementor. The implementor’s ease in programming and pride in the result is increased when he, in an essential sense, is the designer. Features are less likely to turn out to be of low utility if users are their designers and they are less likely to be difficult to use if their designers are their users.
**Usuario como desarrollador/diseñador**</t>
<t tx="offray.20120812081257.3772">http://p2pfoundation.net/Why_It_Is_Crucial_that_Peer_Production_Companies_Refuse_Venture_Capital_Investments
Esquema de microfinanciación de Wikispeed para evitar la influencia de modelos orientados únicamente al costo
y ganancia monetaria desde la perspectiva capitalista en lugar de en la generación de valor social. Clave:
- Conservar la IP (modelos de lienciamiento de libre cultura)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120815093609.4467">http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/circuitcourt/2006/10/72001</t>
<t tx="offray.20120821075953.3782">http://www.ted.com/talks/ross_lovegrove_shares_organic_designs.html
El caracter orgánico se refiere acá a los objetos físicos. En el caso de los objetos lógicos, lo orgánico lo he
definido como ese agregar ramas al árbol de leo... podría se de otra forma?
Por otro lado la charla tiene mucho de auto-promoción, como se ha vuelto una desafortunada moda en TED.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3716"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3717">http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/06/reality-sandwich-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/
Acá sólo hay una referencia bibliográfica. Habría que cambiarlo por algo más complejo luego.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3718"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3719">http://tent.io/blog/introducing-tent
Tent is a new protocol for open, distributed social networking.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3720">http://tent.io/blog/the-tent-manifesto</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3721">http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2012/08/futurological-defenses-of-automation.html
Una crítica fuerte a las labores de la "inteligencia colectiva". La pregunta es quien es el dueño del
valor que las colectividades generan y cuáles son los modelos de gobernanza: es de Los colectivimos mismos
(como en el software libre y la wikipedia) o son de terceros (Facebook, YouTube)?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3722">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/fight-control-internet-become-critical</t>
<t tx="offray.20120824103457.3730">jAugust 24, 2012. Friday.
As Jhon W. Maxwell told in Tracing the Dynabook, Smalltalk didn't loose the fight for the
future of the informatics against another programming languages, it did it against the
operative systems paradigm as a way to stablish the interaction between the user and
the computer. Smalltalk was an integrated experience under an unified conpcept:
"Everything is an object" that included all in the user experience: GUI, networking,
interaction, etc. In the Smalltalk view there were no apps, instead we have object that
talk each other (vía messages) and their interaction conform the user experience. The
user would be able to change that objects, create new ones and recombine them to suit
his/her own needs. Instead we now have the operative system with another mantra:
"everything is a file" and you have programs that operate on them. In the Unix philosophy
they were small, do one thing and do it right (windows screw all that). In operative systems
there is not just one language or paradigm of programming, but a diversity of them, while
Smalltalk have not this diversity integrated in their view.
Some times in this diversity you can see, as a resulting "user experience", a poor reimplementation
of the Smalltalk ideas, but some others you can see a lot of interesing and mature ones.
Now I want to make some reimplementation again of the Smalltalk ideas in this diverse environment,
(lets hope is not a poor one) using python technologies (web2py, leo, txt2tags, ipython)
and see how it maps to Smalltalk, where are the differences and the gains of that variations.
The reason to choose python is its wide acceptance in different technical communities, its flexible
syntax and the bridges with several existing environments (so it can be a good vehicle for testing
connections in that diversity).
The first idea will be to mix web2py, a web application server, Leo, an outliner environment,
and etherpad, a collaborative writing environment, to create a tree web view of outlines and
organize in this way collaborative projects. I will be posting updates of this advances
in the mixing of this ideas and their interplay with human collectives that use them and
eventualy modify them.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120921061712.4069">http://berlinergazette.de/symposium/digital-backyards/</t>
<t tx="offray.20120925050004.4981">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122277438762233.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20121022191633.3738">http://www.deskmag.com/en/when-coworking-spaces-fail-571
</t>
======= COMMON ANCESTOR content follows ============================
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3395"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3396"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120528115513.3397">http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2011/11/24/hackerspaces-as-startup-incubators/ </t>
<t tx="offray.20120528183521.3401">http://www.darkreading.com/security/news/231300269/mudge-announces-new-darpa-hacker-spaces-program.html </t>
<t tx="offray.20120528183521.3990">http://onthecommons.org/magazine/pirate-party-shakes-european-politics </t>
<t tx="offray.20120529105355.6663">http://meedabyte.com/2012/05/28/towards-a-cooperative-small-scale-local-p2p-production-future-back-from-the-ouishare-summit-in-paris/
Excelente presentación con una mirada panorámica de lo que podría ser el futuro. En la parte de los *gaps* reales se puede establecer
un vínculo con Jonas desde la perspectiva del diseño.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3407">ia</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3408">http://www.k-government.com/category/ars-2/</t>
<t tx="offray.20120530155948.3409">https://www.box.com/s/f824a7d862eab196e65d</t>
<t tx="offray.20120616092341.3648">16 de junio de 2012
Iniciar con ubakye, el enrutador de identidad digital, era una idea que en alguna medida me libraba de
estar lidiando con todo el desgaste de las negociaciones respecto a las tecnologías y sus implementaciones.
Debido a su caracter de personal, podía simplemente elegir la tecnología que yo prefiriese e implementarlo
para mí, al margen de si otras personas estaban de acuerdo sobre los detalles internos de dicha implementación.
Sin embargo entre febrero y abril se hizo claro que, si lo clave es el contexto,
por un lado y por otro qye si la comunidad en la que decidí realizar mi
investigación es la de HackBo, el camino __no__ era empezar por algo personal,
sino por los espacios comunitarios de dicha comunidad. De hecho la preocupación
por el espacio, en particular el físico, es clave en un hackerspace (de hecho es
parte de su nombre) y en HackBo esto se ha visto permanentemente en la búsqueda
de nuevos lugares y dinámicas del habitar que hagan el proyecto sostenible. Por lo
anterior, el primer lugar digital a intervenir en la búsqueda de nuevas dinámicas que
permitan es tránsito de usuarios a hacedores es el propio sitio de HackBo en lugar de
ubakye, intentando que el caracter de empoderamiento de lo identitario que ocurría en
el último, siga pasando en el primero, pero empiece desde las formas comunitarias de
habitar, es decir que hackbo.co se convierta progresivamente un espacio comunitario más propicio
para las dinámicas comunitarias y también en un lugar para empoderar a los indivios que lo
habitan, no sólo en su interacción dentro de HackBo (tanto digital como análoga) sino
en el resto de lugares en la *web* que habita (en particular redes de microblogging, como
Twitter o identica). A continuación detallaré parte de las transformaciones pensadas para
hackbo.co y cómo estas se conectarían con ubakye y se darían dentro de las dinámicas que
también se diseñaran para potenciar el tránsito de comunidades de usuarios a hacedores.
Antes (julio 4 de 2011) había hablado de no tener que elegir lo que podríamos llamar tecnologías
autorreferenciales y autocontenidas en Smalltalk (Seaside, Aida, Pier, Monticello) y tecnologías
autorreferenciales autocontenidas en Python (web2py, Leo, Fossil [#autocontenido]_) sino explorarlas
ambas
.. _autocontenido: Si bien Fossil *no* es autorreferencial, en el sentido de que no se
puede cambiar desde sí mismo, sino que es neceario "salir" a un entorno de desarrollo
y recrearlo desde allí, sí es autocontenido en el sentido de que una vez hecha la
descarga para un sistema operativo, Fossil funcionará sobre este sistema con los
requerimientos estandar que éste brinda por omisión y bastará con transportar una carpeta
para continuar haciéndolo funcionar en otro computador con el mismo sistema operativo.
Para una discusión detallada sobre autocontenido esto véase el nodo [[autocontenido]]
Por otro lado, fossil no está hecho en Python, pero brinda un conjunto de funcionalidades
requeridas para la gestión de históricos y el trabajo colaborativo que serían necesarias
en el paradigma de "todo es un archivo" y que otros sistemas como Mercurial o Bazaar brindan
en el mundo Python, pero que no hacen tan fácil el transportar ni la infraestructura, ni
los históricos de un proyecto.
Un hacer demasiado disperso.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120616092341.3649">En teoría de sistemas, el límite entre el sistema y el entorno no pone el observador.
Entonces, A qué nos referimos en esta tesis cuando hablamos de un sistema "autocontenido"?
Dónde está el límite entre el sistema y el entorno que hace que el primero se denomine
autocontenido frente a otros que no lo son, si cuando el observador define una frontera entre sistema y
entorno, es claro que el sistema está contenido dentro de esa frontera y lo que está por
fuera es el entorno.
El caracter autocontenido *en los sistemas informáticos acá considerados*, se refierá a contener
las dependencias que lo hacen funcionar en un sistema operativo estandar y poder ser transportado
con facilidad entre diferentes máquinas con el mismo sistema operativo, sin requerir de un proceso
de instalación en cada una de ellas. Tendríamos entonces aplicaciones de descargue y ejecute, versus
descargue, *instale* y ejecute. Dicha diferencia es importante si consideramos que el problema de los
permisos de instalación de software en las máquinas es un problema de micro-política en el sentido de
que permite o no ejercer actos de empoderamiento a quien usa dichas máquinas. Si bien los sistemas
complejos tienen funcionalidades que implican el acceso diferencial a recursos en el mismo, la
situación actual, en la que hay que pedir permiso hasta para convertir al computador en máquina de escribir
instalándole un procesador de palabra y poder así escribir una carta, es una situación distópica del ejercicio
del poder, en la cual las plataformas de computo se han vuelto enajenantes y al servicio de monopolios
transnacionales y su modelo de lucro a través de la venta de permisos (licencias) para cada cosa, en lugar de
ser máquinas al servicio de la persona que tienen en frente.
Es en el sentido anterior que la definición de autocontenido para los sistemas
informáticos acá considerados es una que resalta ese caracter micro-político en
el ejercicio por omisión de las libertades de los usuarios y que va más allá de
las 4 libertades del software libre a su ejercicio práctico por parte de las
personas que usan computadores y el hecho de *no* requerir de permisos especiales de
"administrador" o "superusuario" para instalación, uso y eventual modificación del software
que los empodera. No basta entonces un sistema operativo tipo Unix con las 4 libertades
si en la práctica cotidiana no puedo ejercerlas, a no ser que tenga un conjunto de permisos
especiales. En ese sentido sistemas como los *Portable Apps* de Windows, el 0-install multiplataforma
ó sistemas para descomprimir, portar y usar como web2py, fossil o Smalltalk serían autocontenidos,
mientras que *la mayoría de las aplicaciones informáticas de la actualidad no lo serían*.
Ahora bien, el caracter autorreferencial acá se referirá a
Es decir que mientras que lo autocontenido se refiere al ejercico práctico de las libertades de uso y
distribución, el caracter autoreferencial se refiere al ejercico práctico de la libertad de modificación.
Si bien estas libertades fueron explicitadas principalmente por el proyecto Gnu, ya se encontraban
presentes en otros proyectos anteriores, como BSD, pero la práctica cotidiana de las mismas dista mucho
de ser fluida hoy en día, bien sea por los modelos enagenantes de permisos en sistemas operativos o por la ausencia
de continuidad entre el código fuente del hacedor y la aplicación binaria del usuario, lo cual hace que modificar
la aplicación, es decir realizar un tránsito de usuario a hacedor, sea muy complejo (hay implícitas un conjunto
difícil de elecciones y aprendizajes como el lenguaje de programación, el entorno de desarrollo,
el sistema de control de versiones, etc.). El proyecto Smalltalk como dice Hilaire Fernandez, era software
libre en la práctica 15 años antes de la existencia del proyecto Gnu, pues facilitaba el libre uso y
modificación del software pues el documento, la aplicación, el entorno de programación, el lenguaje y el código
fuente habitaban un continuo que siempre era entregado al usuario permitiéndole convertirse, en caso de interesarle
en hacedor. De hecho el término "usuario final" es considerado como despectivo por Alan Kay, uno de los creadores
de Smalltalk.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120619175430.10478">19 de junio, 2012
Principio de la tragedia de superposición de los geeks:
- si se reunen muchos geeks en un mismo espacio para realizar un proyecto
la charla se discipará en los detalles y no terminarán nunca el proyecto.
- Si se reunen muchos geeks a sacar un proyecto apasionante, cada uno se
preocupará de sus propias pasiones y no por las del proyecto en general.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3654"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3655"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3656">http://anarchywithoutbombs.com/2012/06/12/elinor-ostroms-legacy-managing-resources-without-government-or-private-property/
If the people who most need the commons can’t fire those who fail to protect it, the tragedy is inevitable.
Disputes are inevitable: dispute resolution methods are necessary, and do evolve.
when local acceptance and monitoring of rules is strong, violations are rare, usually accidental, and typically resolved without the need for violence.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120622093340.3657">http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2012/06/lin-ostrom-on-the-future-of-the-commons-beyond-market-failure-and-government-regulation.html
Video</t>
<t tx="offray.20120705175802.3692">http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/commons-champion-elinor-ostrom-1933-2012 </t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3728"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3729"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3730">https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Bibliography_Management </t>
<t tx="offray.20120706121153.3731">http://people.mbi.ucla.edu/leec/docs/relatex/tutorial.html
ReLaTeX takes text from your input latex file and “injects” it into a latex template e.g. a standard latex template for submitting to a specific scientific journal. To illustrate, here’s one paper that I’ve injected into a series of different templates using ReLaTeX, going all the way from reStructured Text to latex templates for different journals</t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3918">http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/aaron-peters/unsourcing-does-free-labour-ultimately-require-free-goods-too </t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3920">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/christian-siefkes-on-the-abundance-debate-digital-plenty-versus-natural-scarcity/2012/07/07
Commons-based peer production has produced astonishing amounts of freely usable and shareable information. While that is amazing in itself, many people think that it is all, arguing that peer production flourishes in the digital realms of the Internet—and only there. This would mean that peer production could never be more than a niche phenomenon, since nobody can survive on information alone. This article challenges the conventional viewpoint, arguing that the potential of peer production extends far beyond the digital sphere into the sphere of physical production and that corresponding developments are already under way.
[...]
It might seem as if the plenty originates in the digital nature of the Internet itself. But that would be a wrong impression. Digital technology is only the foundation; the producers of the plenty are the people who use the Internet and make it all happen. I will return to that issue, but prior to doing so I will look a the limitations of the physical world which make it appear so different from the digital plenty of the Net. *The Ecological Footprint: Is Scarcity “Natural”*?
[...]
We who live in highly industrialized countries, thus not only live at the cost of future generations, but also at the cost of people in other parts of the word. Our consumption patterns are only possible because people elsewhere consume much less.
[...]
Scarcity means that there is not enough of something, hence it depends, first, on how much of a good is needed (and by whom) and, secondly, on how much of a good is produced (and by whom). Scarcity is thus a social phenomenon, never a natural one.
[...]
This concept of plenty isn’t focused on the accumulation of things, but on the satisfaction of needs.
[...]
First, the goal of every capitalist entity, every investor and every company, is to “make money,” that is, to turn money into more money. [...] The capitalist process thus has a built-in, infinite urge to grow, to produce more and to use more resources. Over-exploitation of the biocapacity is the logical result. With capitalism, the only alternative to growth is crisis: investments fail, leading to a loss of capital with companies going bankrupt.
[...]
Work seems to be something that you only do if you have to, if it’s forced upon you by economic necessity or social pressure.
[...]
Commons-based peer production is no longer a marginal phenomenon, but an essential part of the modern world. The Internet largely runs on free software; Wikipedia has become a primary source of information for many people.
[...]
Peer production is *benefit-driven*: in contrast to capitalist production, the goal is not to “make money” (turn money into more). Instead, the specific needs, desires, and goals of the participants determine what happens. This changes the nature of the activity: many of the participants don’t get involved in order to make money (though that happens as well), but because they like doing the things they can do there or out of an interest in the goods produced (e.g. the free software developed in a project). Other frequently pursued goals are to learn something or “to give something back to the community” (cf. Lakhani and Wolf 2005).
[...]
resources and goods that are developed and maintained by a community and shared according to community-defined rules. It’s important to note that the *community makes its own rules—they aren’t predefined or imposed from above*. Commons are usually shared among the community members or beyond—free software and free content are commons that everyone can use and improve, without exclusions. Free licenses (such as the GNU GPL and the Creative Commons licenses) codify these community rules in a way that makes them legally binding.
[...]
Participants leave hints about tasks they have started and things they would like to see, encouraging others to take over. Bug reports in software projects and “red links” (pointing to missing articles) in the Wikipedia are examples of such hints. [...] Can peer production achieve that which capitalism cannot: produce plenty (in the sense of “what you need, when you need it”) for everyone? Not just in some specific areas (e.g. software) and not just for some people, but in all areas, for everybody?
[...]
*[PILAS!!!]*
To make this possible, peer production needs to grow beyond the immaterial into the material world, producing not just information, but also physical goods and services. But is that even possible? “An abundance of information about how we might make things is not the same as an abundance of things—it is an abundance of recipes not an abundance of food,” the economist and community activist Brian Davey (2010) argues, complaining that commons-based peer production can produce only the information (recipes), but not the physical things (food). The underlying notion, shared by both proponents and critics of peer production, is that it excels in the sphere of information, which is so easy to copy and change, but fails in the material world, which isn’t.
*But this argument misses the fact that it’s not an inherent property of information that makes it so easy to copy, but rather a question of infrastructure*. 30 years ago, only corporations with extremely expensive specialized machinery were able to reproduce music, as Glyn Moody (2010) points out. Only the spread of broadband Internet connections and sufficiently large hard discs made it commonplace.
[...]
The reproduction of physical things is possible if three conditions are met:
* you need access to the complete design,
* to the required resources and
* to the necessary means of production.
In the following section, I will try to briefly outline how generalized peer production may become able to fulfill these conditions.”
[...]
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120708123146.3921">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/the-abundance-debate-2-maurizio-teli-on-the-new-post-scarcity-epistemology-of-peer-production/2012/07/08
What contemporary research has made clear is that this kind of development is going to be possible because of the recursive practices of Free Software developers, engaged with a deeply practically based enlargement of the boundaries of their concerns, that bring together technical and social understanding of the Internet as the centre of their discourse.
[...]
The classic example is the one of an apple, considered a rival good because it can be consumed by a single individual at once (or shared with others but divided in small pieces). That is actually a correct conceptualization if we move away the practical and situated perspective of someone engaging with the act of eating or sharing the apple. When we move into the situated realm, we move away from the abstract definition of rivalry and scarcity to ask: how many apples are available for the people observed? Are these apples completely equivalent? If the answer to such questions is the presence of many apples which are equivalent one to the other, then there is no situated scarcity or situated rivalry. Such a starting point can be used for envisioning a new form of economic practice not based on exchange.
[...]
Also what is actually regulated by intellectual property law is always the material expression of what is supposed to be regulated (and made scarce). There is no idea to be patented without a patent specification, there was no idea to be privileged without a privilege system (Biagioli, 2011)?. Socially, there is no immaterial good, there are only different material configurations of concepts, ideas, and so on and so forth.
[...]
Let me stick with the apples example, moving toward the act of seeding apples-trees. Imagine a situation in which many people are eating apples, abundant and equivalent one to the other, and their questioning of how long the apples will be available and how apples can be made a durable presence in their life. In such a perspective, *the ability to mobilize the knowledge required to seed apple-trees and to preserve the abundance of apples become a crucial question*.
[...]
the challenge of overcoming scarcity as a social phenomenon is the one of identifying the different material configurations of scarcity as a social phenomena and to work out perspectives of providing different material configurations. An example from the social world of Free Software is the one of different software licences, that are opening up different spaces for the social construction of scarcity, or more mundane aspects of the distribution of software via the Internet, that is depending upon infrastructural constrains in many parts of contemporary world.
[...]
An example from the social world of Free Software is the one of different software licences, that are opening up different spaces for the social construction of scarcity, or more mundane aspects of the distribution of software via the Internet, that is depending upon infrastructural constrains in many parts of contemporary world. Probably the overcoming of the commodities regime should find other perspectives, richer than that of the commons, codified as oppositional to private property or state property in the actual debate, in order to also include the complexities of cultural expressions outside the limitations of contemporary Western societies.
[...]
Free software is not immune from commodification, as pointed out also by “open source” (not free software!) advocates like Asay (2006)?, who clearly establishes a positive relationship between open source and commodification as the mature stage of capitalism. Escaping the commodities trap requires the understanding and re-framing of the process of commodification, in order to engage at the level of the practices of use of software and other goods that are considered as the leverage for commodification as a process, such as, for example in the case of software, being ‘user friendly’, ‘cool’, or ‘innovative’. Conclusions.
[...]
cultural, institutional, and situational elements should be part of the elaboration of a political perspective on the overcoming of capitalism by peer production.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120720172858.5474">In general, the ITS system can be said to have been designer implemented and user designed. The problem of unrealistic software design is greatly diminished when the designer is the implementor. The implementor’s ease in programming and pride in the result is increased when he, in an essential sense, is the designer. Features are less likely to turn out to be of low utility if users are their designers and they are less likely to be difficult to use if their designers are their users.
**Usuario como desarrollador/diseñador**</t>
<t tx="offray.20120812081257.3772">http://p2pfoundation.net/Why_It_Is_Crucial_that_Peer_Production_Companies_Refuse_Venture_Capital_Investments
Esquema de microfinanciación de Wikispeed para evitar la influencia de modelos orientados únicamente al costo
y ganancia monetaria desde la perspectiva capitalista en lugar de en la generación de valor social. Clave:
- Conservar la IP (modelos de lienciamiento de libre cultura)</t>
<t tx="offray.20120815093609.4467">http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/circuitcourt/2006/10/72001</t>
<t tx="offray.20120821075953.3782">http://www.ted.com/talks/ross_lovegrove_shares_organic_designs.html
El caracter orgánico se refiere acá a los objetos físicos. En el caso de los objetos lógicos, lo orgánico lo he
definido como ese agregar ramas al árbol de leo... podría se de otra forma?
Por otro lado la charla tiene mucho de auto-promoción, como se ha vuelto una desafortunada moda en TED.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3716"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3717">http://www.phibetaiota.net/2012/06/reality-sandwich-the-open-source-everything-manifesto/
Acá sólo hay una referencia bibliográfica. Habría que cambiarlo por algo más complejo luego.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3718"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3719">http://tent.io/blog/introducing-tent
Tent is a new protocol for open, distributed social networking.</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3720">http://tent.io/blog/the-tent-manifesto</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3721">http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2012/08/futurological-defenses-of-automation.html
Una crítica fuerte a las labores de la "inteligencia colectiva". La pregunta es quien es el dueño del
valor que las colectividades generan y cuáles son los modelos de gobernanza: es de Los colectivimos mismos
(como en el software libre y la wikipedia) o son de terceros (Facebook, YouTube)?</t>
<t tx="offray.20120823092504.3722">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/fight-control-internet-become-critical</t>
<t tx="offray.20120824103457.3730">August 24, 2012. Friday.
As Jhon W. Maxwell told in Tracing the Dynabook, Smalltalk didn't loose the fight for the
future of the informatics against another programming languages, it did it against the
operative systems paradigm as a way to stablish the interaction between the user and
the computer. Smalltalk was an integrated experience under an unified conpcept:
"Everything is an object" that included all in the user experience: GUI, networking,
interaction, etc. In the Smalltalk view there were no apps, instead we have object that
talk each other (vía messages) and their interaction conform the user experience. The
user would be able to change that objects, create new ones and recombine them to suit
his/her own needs. Instead we now have the operative system with another mantra:
"everything is a file" and you have programs that operate on them. In the Unix philosophy
they were small, do one thing and do it right (windows screw all that). In operative systems
there is not just one language or paradigm of programming, but a diversity of them, while
Smalltalk have not this diversity integrated in their view.
Some times in this diversity you can see, as a resulting "user experience", a poor reimplementation
of the Smalltalk ideas, but some others you can see a lot of interesing and mature ones.
Now I want to make some reimplementation again of the Smalltalk ideas in this diverse environment,
(lets hope is not a poor one) using python technologies (web2py, leo, txt2tags, ipython)
and see how it maps to Smalltalk, where are the differences and the gains of that variations.
The reason to choose python is its wide acceptance in different technical communities, its flexible
syntax and the bridges with several existing environments (so it can be a good vehicle for testing
connections in that diversity).
The first idea will be to mix web2py, a web application server, Leo, an outliner environment,
and etherpad, a collaborative writing environment, to create a tree web view of outlines and
organize in this way collaborative projects. I will be posting updates of this advances
in the mixing of this ideas and their interplay with human collectives that use them and
eventualy modify them.
</t>
<t tx="offray.20120921061712.4069">http://berlinergazette.de/symposium/digital-backyards/</t>
<t tx="offray.20120925050004.4981">http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122277438762233.html</t>
<t tx="offray.20121022191633.3738">http://www.deskmag.com/en/when-coworking-spaces-fail-571
</t>
======= MERGED IN content follows ==================================
<t tx="offray.20120629074334.3662"></t>
<t tx="offray.20120629074334.5595"></t>
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
</tnodes>
</leo_file>