Free Movies En Espanol Online

Gottfried Jäger: image photography system

The manual "Image Science: disciplines, subjects, methods," by Klaus Sachs-Hombach (2005, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp) is also an article on the image photography system.
The author believes that, based on a single technique (able to record the permanent traces of electromagnetic radiation, mainly light, on a radiation-sensitive material) differentiated a generative system. Subsystems differ in regard to a) motif, b) image strategy, c) image type, d) criteria, e, f) function bases) image methods / style and image g) Methods photo / photo styles. It is common to bays but the "nuclear material" (sic) of art.
hunter differs suggests four phases of the evolutionary design system image photography, which does not come off, but are in tension with each other.
first Appropriation

• motif is the acquisition of external reality.
• image strategy is the mapping of the visible
• type of image is the image or icon
• Fotoart is a reporting Photography
• relevant Criterion is the realistic image of the object reference
• function basis is the similarity between symbols and image object
• Picture Styles objectivity, objectivity and realism
• are photographic methods are the realistic photography, the factual and documentary photography and photo reportage

the heart of nature is as object, which is aimed by means of self-recorded, a true reflection of the outside world. The light is the aigentliche agent of record. The first reproduction of Daguerre and Nicéphore Nièpce were arrested just this claim. These photos are shots they hold the world in detail.

So like you go Next, work beckons ...

second Agencies

• motif is to provide internal images
• image strategy is the representation of the invisible
• image type is the symbol or icon
• Fotoart is a representational photography
• the relevant criterion is the equivalence to the subject
• function basis is the correspondence between symbols and images mean
methods
• image / picture styles are alienation, abstraction and symbolism
• photo photo styles and methods are Formative photography, subjective photography, visuals and all photography photo staging

It is therefore now bewußt, dass die Fotgrafien inszeniert sind. Portraitfotos und Fotomontagen kommen auf. Wann immer man fragt, was das Bild bedeuten soll, was es enthüllt etc., bewegt man sich auf der Ebene der Vermittlung bzw. kann on Sinnbildern sprechen. Aber während Passfotos etc. ein äußeres Wahrheitsmoment zukommt, beinhalten die Bilder eine innere Wahrheit. Benjamin steht genau auf dieser Schwelle. er erkennt die Dialektik im Stillstand in den Bildern und erkennt die Suhe nach naturgetreuer Fotografie als blaue Blume des Apparats. Seine Forderung, dass durch die Fotografie neue Verhältnisse geschafft werden sollen, wird im dritten Typus von Jäger verfolgt.

3. Schaffung

• Bildmotiv ist die Schaffung neuer Conditions
• image strategy is to generate visibility
• image type is the structure diagram and symptoms and indices
• Fotoart is the generator of Photography
• the relevant criterion is the autonomy in the image reference
• function basis, the relationship of symbols and images cause
• image methods / image styles of composition, design and concretism
• photo Methods / Photo styles are the concrete photography, experimental photography, generative photography and photographic composition

In this phase, photo techniques are used deliberately to provoke other viewing habits or awareness raising problems with the images. In order to win The photography is a utopian, socio-political dimension. It raises questions to their own techniques. In the literature this would be the difference between Kafka and Brecht.

4th Reflection

• motif is the reflection of media reality
• image strategy is the review of views
• image type is the reflected image (indexes)
• Fotoart the Analytical Photography
• the relevant criterion is the self-reference to its own medium
• function basis is the identity between symbols and image process methods
• image / picture styles analysis, verification methods and conceptualism
• photo / photo style sind Konzeptfotografie, Demonstrative Fotografie, Medienreflexion und Fotorecycling

Im vierten Stadium befinden wir uns also auf der modernen Systemebene. Die Fotografie beobachtet sich selbst. Über den Produktionsprozess hinaus wird nun das Foto selbst zum Objekt der Konstruktion. Dekonstruktive prozesse legen den Konstruktionscharakter der Bilder selbst frei. Während in der dritten Phase das Konstruktionsmoment zum Mittel wird, um bestimmte Sinnbezüge herzustellen, wird nun dieses Verhältnis selbst reflektiert.

Diese vier Teilsysteme des Bildsystems Fotografie sind aber doch zu rationalistisch gedacht. Jäger verbindet diese Phasen stets mit einem Datum und mit exemplarischen Kunstwerken. Obwohl gerade die last phase could be described as sociological, because it takes into account the form of construction and construction process gelichermaßen, makes such a typology, especially if it presents an evolutionary to a one-sided rationalism suspicious. The photograph is smarter every day.
would be here again to refer again to the progress of criticism of Walter Benjamin, who (is konstruktiviert read here, as alluded) in the last phase probably would have seen a konstruktivierten naturalism. Because the system-theoretical perspective to an operational objectivity (she claims to be so, idelogiefrei be in their overall theme), would now like to guiding difference (or nach relevanten Kriterien beobachten).
Nichtsdestotrotz ein brauchbares Schema, um in einem ersten Zugang Fotografien sortieren und entsprechend analysieren zu können.

Slow Growing Breastcancer

Sendepausende

Habe gestern beim suchen nach Luhmanns Matrix auf den äußerst interessanten Hypertextband zu Medien von Sybille Krämer gestoßen. Vor allem der Aufsatz von Thomas Khurana zur Erarbeitung einer Medientheorie im Anschluss an Derrida und Luhmann könnte eine schöne Schnittstelle unserer Perspektiven darstellen.

Very Early Pregnancy Dry Throat

Technorati

Ich habe das Weblog mal bei Technorati registriert....

Indian Ladies In Sarees With Nice Boobs

God or evolution? Yes, please!

Zwar ist mir die Ges. der Ges. noch nicht über the way gone, but I versucghe yet another volte.

ad God & Evolution: I think the use of evolution for a secular substitute for the function of God himself always sounds even on the concept of evolution is a ontogeny beyond an understanding of historical contingency: "Evolution" historical contingency tried so its complexity to deprive (whether by "selection" or "drift" or "survival of the fittest" as a function), which I think seen analytically useful than bring it to a "common denominator". Terms such as "differentiation" or "increased complexity" are simply "empty", so they can fill different werden (je nach Gebrauch). Naja anders ausgedrückt: Wenn man bei einer Antwort nur zwischen Gott und Evolution (oder Intelligent Design oder Ausserirdische oder sonstige "letzte Prinzipien") wählen kann, ist vielleicht die Frage falsch gestellt, dann zielt man auf eine Art theologisch-teleologisches Erkenntnis/Erklärungsmodell.

Zu Deinen/Luhmanns drei Punkten:

1. Komplexitätssteigerung: okay gibt es, selektiert aber die Anschlusskommunikationen oder bringt andere Erwartungshaltungen hervor. Die Frage bleibt schließlich, ob sich die K-Steigerung auf die strukturelle Zusammensetzung oder auf die Anschlußmöglichkeiten bezieht (Es wäre ja auch denkabr, das z.B. Hybridgemenge (z.B. Gummi und Porzellan) hochkomplex aufgebaut sind und auch noch eine höhere Verwertbarkeit (also Anschlüsse) als die anderen besitzen.

2. Die Frage zwei lässt sich nicht beantworten, da es zwar strukturelle Koppelungen gibt, aber die beeinflussen ja die anderen Erwartungshaltungen nicht direkt. Der Staat z.B. mag seine Aufgaben nur noch in der Grundsicherung des gesellschaftlichen Lebens sehen und diese Selektion als Evolution betrachten (heißt das, dass ein liberaler Staat eine anderes System des Wohlfahrtsstaates darstellt? Oder stellt diese eine Umorganisation des politischen Systems dar?) Gleichzeitig mag die Bevölkerung noch immer dieselben Forderungen (Erwartungshaltungen) an den Staat erheben (egal ob es eine Umstrukturierung, an evolution or an increase in complexity is). So I would not assume that a selection of leading communications connection to a change in the expectations have. I do not know if I can actually agree with this observation.
third Heteronomy of car or Evolution: Since I stay dialectic own actions objectify itself in the exchange with the environment and contribute back structuring - so they should not be deterministic, but the system does not leave sufficient degrees of freedom to decide whether to deal or not. And the system structure requires then, as it deals with it, otherwise the forces so strong that it hazardous for system could be (social facts have forced character!). No, the principle of self-development irritated from the outside I do not see. I think that society is taking both heteropoietisch genesis and autopoietic.

ad "company in another state beyond": In the tradition of Marx socialization is seen as not necessary, and certainly not for the future. What connects the Sytemtheorie with the KT insight into a historical contingency, what separates them is the acceptance / rejection of a futuristic contingency. The company must follow for Benjamin not just society that is indeed understood as a non-transparent structure of the individual (so far systems theory would be an analysis of the current situation, but not the desired state), just to be blown up. That other systems and are transparent themselves, may make from their systemic nature, but perhaps not all systems, which provides social organization us. I hope at least ...

What Does Chip Runner Do?

Evolution - goes on

Dear Hr. Alberth, here is the next course of your abdomen and stomach, or you could also say theory and awareness course: Evolution (with or without lobster).

Actually I am if your sharp words against the most analytically only difficult to replace the concept of evolution, rather surprised. Sit on it but to be able to observe in the past evolution (If the question is allowed, go to your sociological theory assumes that you and your theory was created by God, I miss it then just the text that which says: And God created the Critical Theory and looked ... well, I will not say, after a further order ... but so ...), in the direction you require for the future that may not even know it (unless you are prophet), a radical ( R) evolution.

Lars wrote: "it is not about the historical genesis of the system, but the" blowing out "of the" now "from the historical continuum."

a collapse of the system of society is apparently a new system of society . Follow One in which all the parts at one time have been replaced, that can stabilize and still be unequal to much more complex than it is the (high) modern Ges. And the structures that make be expected, are in the destructive criticisms.

....-----

One can observe evolution taking place as always, but this is not the core message. I must have expressed myself wrong, so you had to read the text of Sun Pardon!

Maybe we should go point by point (I'm really looking forward to working with you to work in parallel on Luhmann text ... do not worry, it's still there ... just only read the lobster in it ...)

(1) Evolution I always have: Achieving a new level of complexity. It's simple: hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) are in themselves phenomena with special properties. Under certain circumstances, however, they can combine to form water (H ² O) and develop entirely new abilities, but also lose what they had as individual phenomena yet.

you see it that way?

(2) If we have to do it then with a new "system" that is entirely different than that from which it has developed, without which it would not be able to develop, we can not then this system things expected with a probability that we can expect it is only because there is this new phenomenon?

you see it that way?

(3) Can we observe in common that systems evolve only themselves, but that while the environmental conditions to which it must adapt, can certainly degrees of freedom / self-limitations of the system affect destructive? An example would be for me: Penguin lands in the Sahara and having to change Each Aerosoft survive. He begins with the perception that it is responsible (it is way too hot!) To confuse himself and exchanged by and by old, no longer valid points against new, more customized items. In the beginning, like this mini-evolution (yes, he does not sleep morning as old-school Penguins, and wakes up at night as a new school penguin, but he needs time) the observer (this includes the Penguin when he for the cognitive capacity for it, features a striking not) easy, but after some time major changes are easier to observe. He is inspired by the heat in its evolution, but was not determined.

See it that way?

---...----

I leave it at that for now, but your description of modern and unmodern ST also think, well and look forward to your next post.

thousand kisses, your heart you are finished ... no, not Talcott, but ... Yes, if I were not myself intra span rent so ... But the fact remains: A thousand kisses!

Shopping With No Under The Skirt Movie

lobster soup - primordial soup - Uhrsuppe ...

was eating Whether Hummer moral or not is an open question (though I leave your request, the finger of morality, because that is morally, not divide would - I am a little too easy, but maybe that is also just the brandy in my chocolates - then I will understand why you have to find them).

When I run the Total of the Society on the way (Dear Daniel, you are sure that you the Hummer is more of a lost or they are familiar - perhaps? In heat - book) I will be with you in the third Chapter sink. For

me it sounds with the evolution with you more like Axomatik "Evolution always takes place in the system ...".

----- short with morality: the dictatorial character of axioms: do not question but accept it as neither provable nor refutable: it should apply, dass .. "-----

brings me in a tricky position: My question is now whether evolution is an adequate term to describe the system differentiation - and in response I get: Evolution always existed * At the head scratch *

ad schizophrenia 2: Well, clear: the concept of evolution. is a paradox ... but - correct me - put the system in response to the paradox of form and function dar. But that paradox replies a paradoxical concept.

ad primordial soup / Uhrsuppe: That a continuous period of a social organization was, and that can organize it still different (at the same time the linear idea of \u200b\u200ba progressive history, there is indeed circular representations of recurring patterns, such as calendar) is indeed that there is no system-specific need to see a development or evolution as a leading paradigm of social differentiation. So that there should be a big bang (again, there are a cyclical view of the universe), depends on our organization by the time clock and narrative. Somehow I feel the same radically modern system theory and radically unfashionable same time:

Modern because they experience the classic of the modern (development, differentiation, continuity, rationality, Forschrittsnarrativ, increasing complexity, etc.)
unfashionable because they objectify can not be because she claims to be all described from a perspective and to objectify (even if they know that there are various descriptions).

paradox ... but to tie it, I leave Dir

Rewetting Drops Silicone Hydrogel

morning on lobster

"Hi Hummer! Where are you from? Intelligent Design? Drug-induced psychosis?" (Representative cross selected operation of a student breakfast cognition ...* Laughs * ... * Cough * ... * Spitting blood *...)

----------...----

Evolution, Mr Alberth is, in Niklas Luhmann (whether it is good or bad, is a question advance of morality, well, if made, even has a moral issue ... therefore better: Stay away from the moral), for example in the Ges Ges treated, Chapter 3

is analytically impossible to save the term, but he surely ought to be in a situation that could differ in one to save or prefer to unwind. The observation that results in systems with a separate, self-reproducing operation way of making the improbable be expected on the structure of education, then we can either say, was that always there (Did Hummer has always been? Was it the science has always been? (Creation / Construction)) or, we observe such a way that we think were certain phenomena for some time, for developed (the education system consists of certain elements (communications), the gain but only in the education system be expected, they have. For example. One observes paper and his handing round some time, and in other contexts, but all at once can be expected with a certain regularity, that paper, imprinted with "evidence" of each year in the summer there. And with what is on the papers (I mean, there are indeed only figures and abstract concepts like "art" on it) very specific connections are likely, namely, admission to the next grade or not. But if you can maintain a loving relationship or not, so first time to do absolutely nothing (what would be sad for youth!) (Kontingenzbildung)).

finds evolution always takes place in the system, there is no equivalent for that which takes place in the system, in the environment. The environment is unobservable - too complex. We observed only Mr Alberth and not all-other (we wash dishes at the sink and do not scratch from the universe).

your term schizophrenia paradox reminds me a lot of problems in systems theory be treated. In fact, the beginning is undecidable, because it presupposes already that someone asks about the beginning and him of something different, what then but just as much a part of the beginning like the beginning itself, it is the unobservable context that mitsch weaves always, but not is observed. The question of the beginning is made Mittenmang and when they re-enter into itself, it can only choose "the beginning is the beginning" (a tautology) or "not the beginning is the beginning" (paradox). And they would overturn their observation of the operation if they would not start by using self-and external reference to develop the operation and say, "This is part of the beginning of it .. and the one to the beginning than to its context / environment / Milleu in which it is located on this, but so far no part of it. But let us not forget that the beginning when he observes himself (as one side of a distinction), a distinction which is then observed difference in itself and therefore processed only oscillations ... this takes time.

is ultimately the system itself is not transparent and the environment for the system and also why some start to say they understand the environment, while they only understand that they can not be understood, nor the environment.

-----...---

"Oh no, now is the lobster made from there. No matter, its environment, no matter where he is, is still there. Then I eat shut ... * Do-not-laugh *...* Knurr stomach * "

Brett Corrigan Move Free

sister, the double tongs please ...

simple attacks, unfortunately only in one direction (Hummer is due!)

ad schizophrenia: I mean absolutely no development or adaptation, but simply state of the notion of "evolution" of a drift (ie, movement) or even denotes connotations, but which is observable only as an updated breakdown. Evolution does not seem to decide whether to flow or break now.
beloved addressee stay quiet for a moment a few inches off the ground, because I agree in the context of systems theoretical considerations on a phenomenological-analytical Level (from the side so it can no objections to the theory given as a system), but consider the concept of evolution of these same considerations for not adequately because undecidable (= "schizophrenic" in popular language use).
Since help thinking of Maturana and Varela even more limited (ascertaining numerical even if they want to make the effects of internal only)
way, there would be another question that you could perhaps save the term:
Is Evolution may therefore only observed internally, but never, however, externally? Evolution is even what one might call a first-order observation of a specific subsystem? Is there therefore a differentiation in the system, that his observation concerned only with the change of the system, although the system would be an observation of 2nd order, but certainly for the Subsystem 1ter right? Perhaps therein lies the Nichtkommunizierbarkeit the drift, because it can be communicated only ex post as the difference? But no, so the state would be the "everything is communication" Lever ...
All roads that I bestride to rescue the concept of evolution will fail.
Oh, Daniel, help! Where is the good Niklas (no, not the good Talcott) deals with the concept? Maybe you can find there a solution (or evolution)?

PS: Is there a state of apparent complexity? (Perhaps as a terrible inflation of the males on the courtship?)

Free Letter Of Condolence From Church

sister, caliper please ..

If you agree with me more readily Mr Alberth, we have to have so thoroughly written over one another laughing * cough *...* *...* float away *. ..
----...---
Structural drift of a system is only possible if the system already exists. Is, since a boundary between system and environment and on the system side of the border is, the organizational form an operational unity to: ". Your identity is characterized by a network of dynamic processes that do not exceed the effect of the network"
(Maturana / Varela, Tree of Knowledge, p.100)
Within this system there are specific forms of operation carried out by certain final elements (eg communication in social systems, systems of thought in consciousness).
With each operation, ie, with each self-preservation (soperation), the system's new frontier and differentiates itself from time and again. there is no operation is, there is no system. The operation will burn up as it were, from the moment of completion.
The evolution has taken place, can be seen probably really only in retrospect, because the observers are blind to the current operation, what will be its effects. Empirically will be probably find that there are systems in which only allow very specific communications port communications expected because structures were trained, be expected due to make a function that is given. So we can now - in hindsight watching - that there is a Gastronomic subsystem that can be communicated in the only successful, which is about Tasty / non-Tasty, while not eaten 60Years in National Socialism and Fascism, what political / nationalist " degenerate "was. And with this difference had almost everything else are encoded (illness, politics, art ...).

Team Paper Plate Award Ideas

But that's my argument

Gee whiz, you're right completely. However, denke ich, dass der Begriff der Evolution diesen Komplexitätssteigerungen und Selektionen nicht gerecht wird.
Maturana/Varela schreiben ja: "Wir sehen die Evolution hier als ein strukturelles Driften bei fortwährender phylogenetischer Selektion. Dabei gibt es keinen 'Fortschritt' im Sinne einer Optimierung der Nutzung der Umwelt, sondern nur die Erhaltung der Anpassung und Autopoiese in einem Prozeß , in dem Organismus und Umwelt in dauernder Strukturkoppelung bleiben" (S. 127).
Also entweder haben wir es mit einem Drift zu tun, dann ensteht eine Bewegung des Übergangs, wie es Maturana/Varela nahelegen oder wir haben es mir einer sprunghaften Komplexitätssteigerung zu tun, denn es lässt sich indeed observe only the difference, but not the process of differentiation (unless you play flip, but then organize the differences after an evolutionary view and one gets always watching what you want and that is and will remain boring and there would be no counter code - that is, the zero -. to 'evolve'
I hereby plead for schizophrenia of evolution and thus indeed for their creativity and productivity, but not for appropriateness as an analytical concept

Mondeo Outside Temperature Gauge Not Working

Some notes ... to say

... before the feast of the intellect. (Pentecost) crazy ...

makes first: Find the proposal very well and I will look again, where is the Brandy chocolates in the beautifully wrapped box of critical theory are.

---------...----------------
A little about ...

EVOLUTION

evolution of systems theory is NOT: (linear) evolution from worse to better, or perhaps "less viable to viable," but from a level of complexity to another.

The focus is on selection processes that allow variations in the system - ie: You can select specific, not because everything must be selected.

The greater the complexity of a system (that they exist, must have provided be - and they can / will be observed separately by their system limits of their environment), the more evolutionary possibilities (possibilities for change with subsequent re-stabilization) are given to him. That means: The more selections of elements relation can realize it.

The relation of elements created in this way, you know to new / different qualities than the previous years or than the qualities possessed by the individual elements on their own merits. The whole here is more than the sum of its parts and less than the sum of its parts at once.

systems are to be considered but never isolated but always in a systems environment. Although the environment has no Control options (except destruction) and can not be controlled by the system. But she has by mutual irritation impact on system development. Also, in the environment of a system, there are several other systems, which are special environments.

It is expected that there may be more complexity in a system only if other systems could develop in the environment also have a higher complexity in order to meet requirements that one system is now on its environment, but their solution It even does not accept.



It is not clear who was first developed - the system or its environment - but it is Co-Evolution . An example is the co-evolution of social systems and consciousness systems, but also the evolution of individual social systems in modernity, but for the same evolution of other social systems that take each own unfulfilled tasks that would not have been possible (the science system is rely on in the environment, someone cares about politics and the economy, and the economy is not without science and policy in its present form possible). About Structural coupling, individual elements so even used by multiple systems together (eg certificates), but after intrinsic specific Process further processed (Economics: setting skills; Science: Career differentiations (?)).

Power Wood Carvers Bench Plans

call / Proposal

Dear Daniel,

Mindful of our mutual time management (you and Mr. Rustemayer - Me and my weekend seminar), I would ask you and suggest I still want and call us to take the opposite side.

How about if we each have a adulation of the other side. would make (but do system-level!), ie to perform a reconstruction of the theory-based rationality (s) from an affirmative perspective.

Well, how about it? (* Provocative Change wink *)

How Much Does Hair Coloring Cost At Jcpenney

Policy (protest) formula

also Luhmann last phrase (... and virtually anything can be) is political!
But the use of the natural sciences implies this
The out blasting is of course a political demand, but there is precisely the finding is that a continuity (and no matter how erratic) - ergo and evolution - a political strategy of legitimizing social organization. But understood quite right: I actually deny that the presence of an evolution, this is a system-specific observation and therefore particularity = political (in specific sense, a rationality).
The blasting out the possibility the "... and virtually anything can be changed" to override.

The question of whether I am to say goodbye from sociology / science was once an open question - to me, the value of freedom (Edo sink was due) is lit before - but I share so not the incommensurability and mutual opacity of psychological and social systems. The question of how it is now even possible otherwise, without insisting on a predominant logic / rationality is precisely the main question of my study of sociology and science. If it is then a shift or by the code is all the better.

After I read your post again: A paragraph on evolution.

"... but of advancing evolution by continuous selection, with no prospect of real, lasting stability can be observed clearly everywhere."

I can actually observe no evolution, except for one constant sense of selection sets with the same evolution. But then coincide meaning and evolution (and the question is, why it needs the concept of meaning or evolution). There can be cracks, displacements, observed changes, ie more precisely, breaking and splitting, and Borders and walls, cracks and difference etc, but not the process of establishing itself (at least not directly) but precisely this evolution means the process-based, transition, and not the break. Evolution is so to speak, a second level of meaning, the attributes of mind "is something different now," a historical continuity. These ideas are also based on the theories of social differentiation. In other words, differences exist (and systems) but it says nothing about how, when and in comparison to what they were created, ie whether their differentiation or evolution (as actio) is based..

Can I Get Compensation? Due To Flat Above Flooded

"Everything could be different ...

... and virtually anything can be changed. "(Niklas Luhmann, cited by Alois Hahn).

Not quite sure if the phenomenon of social differentiation of society, which is already in Simmel and Durkheim, and then at Parsons and Luhmann described will be questioned or whether the epistemological principle of the system / environment difference is rejected as implausible, although it is supported not only by physical and biological research but also psychologically and sociologically successful descriptions such as 2nd order cybernetics, autopoiesis, operative closure is introduced, etc., I leave this issue this time on the sidelines and try to the point of contingency to close.

I would say to Benjamin, however, that making history never is, "know it '. How it was actually happened'"

can probably agree to the systems theory sense, because - as in the Post "write-ups" bereits steht - erscheint die Vergangenheit, stets im Licht der Gegenwart. Auch die Vergangenheit verändert sich fortlaufend, wird vergessen, erinnert, umgeschrieben und umgedeutet. Nichts desto trotz schließen Gegenwärtige Operationen an vergangene an - und zwar so, wie sie diese thematisieren und so, wie es Strukturen (als Erwartungen) aus der Vergangenheit zulassen, wobei hier kein deterministischer trivial-Maschinen-Output erwartet werden darf, sondern es in der Verantwortung des Systems als Entscheidendem liegt, welche Anschlussoperation erfolgt. Allerdings ohne die Zusicherung, dass es damit genau das erreicht wird, was erreicht werden soll - wenn man denn so naiv war und konkrete Vorstellungen über die unbestimmte Zukunft hegt.

es geht nicht um die historische Genese des Systems, sondern um die "Heraussprengung" des "Jetzt" aus dem historischen Kontinuum.

Scheint eine politische Protestformel zu sein. Es sei denn, es meint das Reisen in eine unbekannte Zukunft, die als Ressource begriffen werden soll. Das wäre dann wohl auch eins der Phänomene der (hoch-)modernen Gesellschaft.

die wertvolle Erkenntnis Luhmanns, dass alles anders hätte kommen können.

und es dennoch ganz enorme Einschränkungen bzgl. des aktuellen/gegenwärtigen selektierens von Möglichkeiten gibt (oft laufen Prozesse, die nur mit Fortsetzung od. Totalabbruch beantwortet werden können). Zum others have varying scope are discovered only once (perhaps a productive outlet for critical theorists), which, if one can describe them, but justify still no variation hype would (if since it is an absolutely incredible performance to keep structures for functional performance stable) But by advancing evolution by continuous selection, without any prospect of real, lasting stability can be observed clearly everywhere. What

back to Constructivism (including autopoiesis) leads by We also note that we can observe emergent units that produce and reproduce itself and it added in a - if you will: - absolute truth, that they can see but never and will therefore be discarded irrelevant as such can / arcane environmental fremdreferentiell locate meanings of natively recognized, but their blind spot with their self-reference them actually admits only the possibility of self-description - because of where the system is at the moment. The company may then describe themselves in sociology even / make Selbsbeschreibungen specifically in the medium in which it reproduces itself and takes on forms: in which the communicative language used.

Are U Dry Before Period

Once more with feeling ...

your surprise, surprise me. I below communication Section (after Deleuze and Guattari one must always make cuts to produce something that is likely to stutter say the machines ...) have published, resulted from the assumption that our dialogue takes place entirely in a medium that it is not public, but in an always precarious field oscillates between privacy and the public. Also, I thought that that beautiful dialogue that potential private / public parties (4th, 5th, xter) should be made available (where did just my sobriety in the expression of your wonderful metaphors, unfortunately oppose any adequate aesthetic - from the quantitative relationship silent we do .. .). Besides explaining these mails the very Renaming of "versus" in "true". Therefore ... Once more with feeling ...

My criticism of the scheme of functional differentiation is indeed that, especially when it is combined with an evolution erases the historical contingency. The problem is that can not plausibly explain whether a development or differentiation has occurred. Finally, we write from a scientific point of view, to characterize the state as result from ignoring the not the result of a development in itself, but also an unlikely viewing position. That is the description of a differentiated society has absolutely nothing to do with a system differentiation, but is a Startegie the truth that a given state as (but random and improbable) but necessary consequence of a process view of differentiation.
history, it never is. To argue with Foucault: Social differentiation sit hsitorisches a priori for the theory of social differentiation, especially if it is an evolution (ie, a progression - what - where?) states. No, that will not do.
I would however say with Benjamin, that history never write to say, "know it's how it was actually was. '" The connections to the natural sciences sought to undermine the valuable knowledge Luhmann, that everything else had to come. But this Genesis of Historicizing makes a difference with totality. For it is not about the historical genesis of the system, but the "blow out" of the "Now" from the historical continuum. Truth is indeed a code of the science system, but because truth is always involved in power games, it is always an object of political strategies.

The problem of social technology and critical theory is something more complicated than you could describe it. (Notice, please?)
The concern of critical theory yes, the decoupling of the rationality problem was on the usability. That is, it came to design a nichtteleologische conception of rationality (see near, the Horkheimeraufsatz to Kritschen and traditional reason). This means that you can blame all sorts of critical theory, but not a Verwertungbarkeit (which is causing an internal struggles). The reason is so their ban on images of the "truth". Not allowed to specify telos that follows the refusal of usability. Sure, they want a reign of freedom, but that also means to become fei of recovery, to some extent by the telos of freedom from domination.
Whenever you write a telos iht so wants to shoot off the mark KT.
The problem is indeed just around different: Sure there are real no absolute truth, but that does not mean that there could be none. And this does not depend on the degree of differentiation, but its form.

PS: Perhaps it should be mentioned that the KT the prominence of social differentiation so as implausible appear because their own experience is not such a was able to confirm - however it is when then to be understood as an ideal type in Weber's sense, as a background against which describe the inadequacy of the real non-or de-differentiation can.
Oh, would have the science system but separated from the political system.

Literature:
Benjamin, Walter (1940): On the Concept of History / History of Philosophy thesis.
Horkheimer, Max (1937): Traditional and critical theory.
Adorno, Theodor W. (1969): Introduction in: The positivists had to ride in German sociology.

Fibroids And Ablation

" Please never, ..

...> this is boring, I know that already <. Das ist die größte Katastrophe! Immer wieder zu sagen, > I have no idea, I want to relive <." (Heinz von Foerster)

This post is also - in particular! - Characterized by surprise, that here again found fragments of a private communication in the Sphere, which serves as a pool of public opinion. By the transformation from public to private, I can only state wins, the text can be read by another observer side and to thereby enable new / different meaning horizons. Yes and intriguing to the fact that he originally reported (to the great interests) of the person "Daniel" was the person "Lars" understood provided with meaning and is now part of the person "Lars" the same text (even with the same addressee name!) reported to be (ie the communication intention "Lars" can be assumed!) and of the person "Daniel" as a not-more-from-your-read text communicated. Where one might have said earlier: "The text has become alien to their own", one can now "according to Luhmann," say, "communicates the communication itself It is the consciousness of man, the body removed and reproduces itself!"

....----------...

on the mass of the distinctions in recent posts has been processed, is unfortunately now not be discussed due to time constraints, only I can perhaps mention two things in short

less ontological than the system theory (which starts even from an evolutionary principle = functional differentiation)

without know why there should be little ontological auszugehenen of it if it is assumed that certain things as they an observer (or two observers: Delleuze / Guattari) appear, then actually occur so in the environment ( they are there !: Yes of course! For the observer know ... "There are systems" (Luhmann)) is the deonthologisierende joke in system theory of that (and therefore also Systems theory could de facto claim as a universal theory and develop only because ) may be observed as a self-theory in itself occurring. This makes them naturally (and the claim was not raised even Luhmann) are not only possible, only truth stressful theory (there's no reason that there are several self-referential theories side by side is), but to one that uses its resources, with their ability to observe ( and that includes even and especially in sociology always this inexplicable "what" questions) can all social observers at their system-specific way.

-----------------...------------------

...und der Punkt mit der Sozialtechnologie bezieht sich darauf (NICHT auf die Aufgabe der Universalistischen Position), dass der Kritischen Theorie und der ganzen emanzipatorisch-moralischem Theorie, mit der nun an die ehemals kritische Theorie angeschlossen, ihre Zielgerichtetheit, ihre Verwertbarkeit ("Heal the world, make a better place, for me and for you (...nach meinen Vorstellungen)) schwer abzusprechen ist und der Verwertungsvorwurf sich nicht gegen eine beschreibend-bezeichnende Systemtheorie zu richten hat, es sei denn in dem Sinne, dass es dort um Wissenschaft geht und nach alles bzgl. des Codes wahr/falsch "verwertet", aber besser "beobachtet" wird.

Panties With Landing Strip

K meets K - K meets A?

     From: "Daniel Kofahl" 
 To: "Lars Alberth" 
 Subject: Dearest ;-) 
 madman! 
 
 (please forgive me any rudeness, for they are quite friendly 
, admiration ... oh what you pick out what is acceptable ... 
 
 you meant!) 
 
 What ever since yesterday of new vitamins in your 
 Kellogsfrühstückmischung is that you publish at once and publish 
, witty, and at the same time leave of his senses 
 ... one of my a few days need to be read 
 in 
 these large estates spirits. (Especially since I have now pushed a hr.Rustemeyer 
 20S.English Unit to NEXT Wednesday as "forced voluntary" vigorously 
 eye 
). 
 
 In this sense, the simultaneously-warming write it as much 
 
 (as determined by intellectual value), how horrified rattling (because 
 write 
 so much and determines everything from intellectual value), 
 
 Daniel, your  
    

  
  > --- Original Message ---  

> Von: Lars Alberth
> An: daniel Kofahl
> Betreff: RE: Herr im Himmel
> Datum: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:54:57 +0200 (CEST)
>
> Tu nur, Ich habe da durchaus nichts einzuwenden,
> Kritik trifft System klingt definitiv besser...
>
>
>

>
>
> daniel Kofahl schrieb:
>
> > Hallo Lars aus Wuppertal!
> >
> >
> > Gut wieder in der überschaubaren Wahlheimat
> > angekommen, bin ich, geplagt von
> > Nervous, pre-decision-damaged
>> hubris manic
>> Blinheit (stains everywhere !!!), to
> tempted> been a
>> fatal justify (in theory hardly
>>) to do step.
>>
>> I published in "our blog".
>>
>> Yeah, I do not my turn, you also have other things to do
>> and in general are
>> They now even social technologist and not a critical
>> more theorists (Lower
> > mit dem Universalismus...) und und und...
> >
> > Aber mir erschien es als praktisch, um ihnen noch
> > ein paar Informationen
> > mitzuteilen (und welche Mitteilungsabsicht Sie mir
> > unterstellen wollen,
> > bleibt sowieso Ihnen überlassen).
> >
> > Generell erscheint mir das Konzept "Kritik" GEGEN
> > "Kybernetik" etwas scharf
> > und ich würde für ein etwas anderes Konzept, etwa
> > "Kritik" TRIFFT
> > "Kybernetik" plädieren, so dass man den
> > Sabotage constraints against the
>> not as compared to manufacture, and deadly
>> Engravings> easier from the
'Nothing can deceptively put calmness with which one has the
>> "enemy" duped during a
>> intellectual information banter.
>>
>>
>> We also still the odd
> had>-body problem - if I
>> remember you said, who said the body, also said
>> Spirit. When Benny's
>> capitalism fragment is true and correct is
>> Who says that money, even
>> Spirit says, then we may all be prostitutes.
>>
>> ... I wonder if the beautiful is not? ...
>>
>>
>> unevenness is my bed and I'm in now -
>> is still the entry
>> free.
>>
>> Get deep bow and a couple of them
>> calculus rays dispatching,
>>
>> Your Daniel

Mucus In Eye With Flu

examples materialist constructivism 'I: the dispositive

What is a dispositif?

definition: ". It is composed of lines of different nature" "First, it is a mess, a multi-linear ensemble,

surround these lines in the posture or surrounded not about systems, their each were homogeneous in itself: the object, language, etc.,

instead:

- they follow orientations,

- trace operations

- lines are always in disequilibrium

- you approach times to remove and another

lines are broken in and are therefore subject to changes in direction
subject lines and branch out and bifurcate and are therefore subject deviations.

Visible Items , worded statements , forces exerted and positioned subjects are vectors and tensors.

- There are three major categories: knowledge , power and subjectivity . These lines are not universal, but historically contingent.

"There Sedimentierungslinien says Foucault, but also, and Spaltungs', Bruch' lines"

And

"If you want to untangle the lines of a dispositive, we must in any case a card make, we must map out, measure unknown lands - the very thing he calls, working in the field '. One must adjust to the lines themselves, not content with being a compile dispositive, but it - from north to south, from east to west, or diagonally - to cross and carried away with itself "(p. 153).

1 +2. For Foucault, there is the curves of visibility and the curves of the statements .

dispositifs are so machines that look impressive or do that can make or speak to speak.

this visibility refers not to a light that shines on an object from the outside, but on light lines, bring out the dispositive specific figures. - One always has a light dispositive order! (The Panopticum. See without being seen and being seen, without even seeing the viewer)

The Story of a dispositive order is thus in a light and a statement of procedure that are neither subjects nor objects. Statement processes curves are spread on which differential positions and items.

Both systems have their differences, transformations and mutations. Lines to overcome this threshold, the change and transform them.

third Lines of force: These run on the other lines from one point to another, they are directed from the other lines, touching or connect to other lines. (From Seeing to speak). Dioe lines of force to thwart all places of a dispositive, SIDN crack which is invisible and ineffable and yet associated with these lines: There are lines of power as the third dimension of the dispositifs inner space.

4th Lines of subjectification: forces bend lines to form meander act on itself rather than on other lines (it creates a fold). It escapes the other lines, "gets to it," escapes: the subjectivity is a process which, although it produces a value (the subject) but was not dispositive in each is.

Deleuze the question is whether the subjectification not constituting the outermost edge of a dispositive, they arise because of power and new forms of knowledge, the dispositive break with "old" and move on to new ones. Subjectification so that would be the double of deterritorialization and reterritorialization

we have:

visibility lines, message lines, power lines , Subjektivierungslinien, Rißlinien, split lines, fault lines.

you intersect, mingle, give the other as a back vary, mutate chain, he create other lines.

For Deleuze result from this two conclusions: first

Rejection of the universals: She said nothing, but must be explained. There are no coordinates, only variation lines: objects, Subjects, the whole truth are no universals, but singular processes of objectification, subjectification, verification etc.

This means that a posture is always a multiplicity, not a condition but becoming.

This rationality is also a variety of forms. There are surely a system close to the theory. Just train the different dispositifs no balance. For Deleuze and Foucault, there is not dispositive, that could be introduced as a second-order observer ranking or rating. Instead, make up the dispositifs inherent possibilities of escape, freedom and the aesthetics, creativity etc. die Rationalität, an der sich die Entwicklung eines Dispositivs bewerten lässt (aber auch nicht anhand der Codes, sondern anhand deren Auflösungen).

2. Die Orientierung muss daher vom Ewigen zum Neuen umschenken: Das Neuartige sind keine Differenzierungen von Aussagen sondern die Fähigkeiten von Aussageordnungen hinsichtlich ihrer Selbsttransformation oder Selbstspaltung in der Zukunft. Subjektvierungslinien scheinen sich dafür besonders gut zu eignen.

Aktualität als Neuartigkeit bedeutet dabei ein in actu , ein sich im Werden befinden, das Verhältnis eines Dispositivs zu seinen Vorgängern: Es geht also um die Anteile the history and the shares of the current , the analysis and diagnostics. denotes the Archive the state that we are less and less, while the New a inactuality, a the temporal order is through breaking .

The lines of the dispositive can thus be divided as to whether they lines of stratification and sedimentation or lines are updating or creativity .

Literature:

Gilles Deleuze (1991): What is a dispositif, in Francios Ewald and Bernhard Waldenfels (Eds.): Games the truth. Michel Foucault's thinking, Frankfurt / Main: Suhrkamp, \u200b\u200bp. 153-162.

Cancer Ruby Red Tattoo

materialist constructivism: Power, System, Territory

So at least another attempt to Deleuze and Guattari:

For Deleuze and Guattari's social conditions exist in the organization of streams. Sense ensteht thus as in the Sysatemtheorie through productive processes, but not in the form of an awareness training, but in the form of sedimentation and folding of particles (individuals, sets, data, etc.) As such, they are less ontological than the systems theory (which by a Evolution principle = functional differentiation starts).
Deleuze and Guattari ask not for how these currents are generated - they are here! Their formation, however, is historically contingent, ie sedimentation processes (deposits of non-sense and sense) and their folding (the organization of these elements - layered, differentiated, stratified) can take different forms.
Man I have at this is that there's a level that is undifferentiated and the spread flows (money, materials, raw materials), elements and particles (groups and individuals).
This plane is called by them the body without organs, which has not yet defined, but always present. The currents, elements and particles move in a layer above this level, and between these two form now automatic (ie produktive) Gefüge, die eben gleichzeitig Sedimente ablagern und abgelagerte Sedimente falten. Es bilden sich Moleküle und molare Einheiten.
Der Witz bei Deleuze und Guattari besteht nun unter anderem darin, dass sie zwischen Codierung, Decodierung und Supercodierung unterscheiden.
Codierung geht mit einer Territorialisierung einher, d.h. es erfolgt eine Organisation der Ströme auf der Ebene (Grenzziehungen, Installation von Verkehrswegen, Ballungen etc.)
Weil aber durch diese Prozesse immer etwas verloren geht (aktives Entfliehen, Reibungsverluste im Sinne des 2. thermodynamischen Hauptsatzes) entsteht gleichzeitig eine Decodierung und Auflösung der Organsiation, d.h. es gibt mit jeder Territorialisierung eine Deterritorialisierung (Auschluss aus dem System, Delegitimierungen, Migration, Fluchten usw).
Die Dritte Beobachtung konstatiert schließlich, dass dieses "Mehr" an Strömung, das stets aus der Territorialisierung flieht, mit anderen Strömen zusammenfließen kann und sich somit reterritorialisieren kann (also die einzelnen Codes der Ströme supercodiert - hier haben wir auch die Vorstellung des leeren Signifikanten bei Laclau/Mouffe wieder). Mehr noch: Eine Reterritorialisierung kann nur auf der Basis einer weitgehenden Deterritorialisierung stattfinden: Dies bedeutet, eine Neuorganisation (z.B. auch eines Sytems) kann also nur da auftauchen, wo sich bisherige Organisationen deterritorialisiert haben. Eine ethnische Minderhiet kann z.B. nur vor the disorganization of a national majority arise - or bureaucracy as rational actual organization of society is possible only if other forms of government have become irrational - or (Note: sideswipe !!!): systems theory can only dadurvch as a universal theory reterritorialisieren within the Soztiologie so far as other theories have abandoned their claim to universality or lost. To make it to an example: The system theory could be de facto claim as a universal theory only, and develop, as Habermas has taken part in this development, so accepted the idea of \u200b\u200ba system of education, so that other models (such as Dialectic of Enlightenment), rejected and thus eine Deterrirorialisierung der Kritischen Theorie ermöglichte. Wohlgemerkt, dies ist also nicht ein reiner Gewinn inheränter systemischer Theoriebildung, sondern diese wurde erst durch die Auflösung anderer Territorien ermöglicht. So fließen in der Luhmannsche Theorie die Ströme der Kybernetik, des Konstruktivismus, des Idealismus, der Evolutionstheorie, Old River Parsons (der gute Talcott), der Dialektik und der Bürokratie zusammen und reterritrialisieren sich auf dem deterritorialisiertem Feld universalistischer Gesellschaftstheorie...Alles klar?

BTW: Warum ist die Aufgabe einer universalistischen Position mit der Einnahme einer sozialtechnologischen Position gleichzusetzen? Wohlgemerkt: Universalismuskritik heißt ja nicht, das Erklärungsfeld zu reduzieren (die Gesellschaft) oder sich auf eine therapeutische Position zu begeben (was ich bislkang unetr Sozialtechnologie verstehe), sondern sowohl das Explanans als auch das Explanandum selbst als historisch und sozial kontingent zu verstehen, d.h. dass sich hinter der Theoriebildung keine Transzendentalien (wie etwa eine Evolution) verbergen: Universalismuskritik hießt, Oberflächenkunde zu betreiben, also Karten anlegen und keine tiefenheremeneutische Theorie zu entwickeln - a lles ist da, man muß nur hinsehen und aufzeichnen.

Literatur:

Gilles Deleuze/Félix Guattari (1997): Tausend Plateaus. Kapitalismus und Schizophrenie, Berlin: Merve.
Gilles Deleuze (1993): Unterhandlungen 1972-1990, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Larner, Wendy/Walters, Wiliam (2004): Globalization as Gouvernmentality, in Alternatives, Vol. 29, S. 495-514.

Douglas Pouch Fluid Drawing Line

constructivism, idealism, and inclusive, the third

Nun,

ich denken nicht, dass Luhmann recht hat, wenn er den Idealismus mit der Konfrontation von Erkenntnis und Objekt identifiziert. Der Unterschied zwischen Konstruktivismus und Idealismus liegt auf einer operativen Ebene, aber nicht auf einem unterscheidlichen Erklärungszusammenhang. Wenn für den Phänomologen klar war, dass sich die Dinge in der Erkenntnis organisieren und dass darüber hinaus keine andere Realität existiert, die dahinter steht, dann klingt das schon ziemlich nach Konstruktivismus. The dialectic is indeed related to constructivism, a method that looks at the blind spot excluded middle. Constructivism makes the excluded middle only the form that organizes and brings it to a different way in again: The system is the included / inclusive, third parties, the distinction between system and environment.

Nevertheless, there are the idealists, not necessarily a distinction between knowledge and object. Instead, the idealism out in the end so only the consciousness of meaning as an operator. The difference is instead of materialism in the rejection of an idea form visual instances beyond consciousness. Therefore systems theory can ebhaupten also that the environment can produce only irritated but Never remove systems. I doubt it would register, and not on the question of whether consciousness is transcendental or surgery. I am going to speak to the hegemony of consciousness in the system theory.

If today I still find the time, I'll try that argument by Adorno and Deleuze and Guattari, to support (which explicitly represent a materialist constructivism).

Boa Intestinal Blockage

First ... and then: objectivism, subjectivism, constructivism

First: Blog to pass parallel time / system time in the environment at the same time an infinite number of others, unalterable, many things. For example calendar pages will be demolished. Since the last blog Operation sind deren viele im (hoffentlich) Altpapier gelandet. Das ist natürlich kein Grund dafür, dass dieser Beitrag an so anderem Inhalt orientiert ist als der vorangegangene, aber vielleicht ein Indiz für eine Information.

Nach einem Abendessen bei Lars -( über das (wie immer bei Mahlzeiten, deren Ursprung an die Person "Lars" adressiert werden) nur Beiträge zu vernehmen sind, die bezüglich der Anschlussseite des Gourmetcodes ("wohlschmeckend") zu verorten sind)- kam es zu einem Gespräch, dessen Irritationen zu folgenden Zeilen führten:

-------------------->>>>

Während Objektivismus/Realismus und Idealismus auf der Suche nach der "Realität behind it "(behind which - behind the detected object of observation) on the lookout, is the recognition of constructivism, surgery and observation, for which there is in the environment of the observing system, no correlation and therefore no environmental knowledge is produced, but with an intrinsic distinction between knowledge and object (knowledge # object) operates

of objectivism is `problem:" How can I describe all knowledge as a state or the process in a specific object - that is, without its environmental relationships? "

Only the idealism is based on a direct. conflict between knowledge and subject matter (knowledge vs. subject) from. His problem, which he himself stellt: "Wie kann man mit Rückgang auf Selbstreferenz des eigenen Bewusstsein Urteile über die Welt der anderen fällen?;
Er fragt: "Wie kommt man zur Einheit?" und benutzt die Dialektik.

Der Konstruktivismus kommt über das Unterscheiden nicht hinaus. Das Erkennen kann hier gerade noch sich selbst erkennen, wobei es erkennt, dass es nicht mehr gibt als nur das Erkannte. Und dieses Erkennen(#Nicht-Erkennen) ist Folge und Leistung einer jeweils speziellen, einmaligen System-Umwelt-Differenz und somit kein zweites Mal in der Umwelt des Systems zu finden. Es werden keine Gründe gefunden. Und wenn Einheiten, dann nur als zueinander passende Differenzen. Und Beschreibungen von systemintern Erkanntem sind nur systemintern gültig.





(Objektivismus vs. Idealismus) vs. (Konstruktivismus)

-----------------------------...-

verwendete Literatur:

Niklas L. (Systemtheoretiker): Das Erkenntnisprogramm des Konstruktivismus; in: Soz. Aufklärung Bd.5