View current page...more recent posts
chicken wire glass
pink moon saloon Adelaide
'67 Cougar resto
J B Weld - epoxy metal glue
stable conversion with sculptural beam (multipurpose, 'autonomous furniture piece') workspace instalation Flanders
nice one over in Jim Louis MB land.
Linear Cabin Wisconsin
Kerf wall systems
2 x 20' container house canada
“The Architecture of Neoliberalism is a devastating portrait of contemporary architecture as the phantasmagoria of neoliberal capitalism. Spencer deftly deconstructs the current architectural ideology as a melange of counter-cultural tropes and vitalist celebrations of flexibility, empowerment, spontaneity, and the market as the final arbiter of freedom. The result is a powerful plea for critique in the face of the architectural prophets who proclaim 'there is no alternative'.” – Benjamin Noys, Professor of Critical Theory, University of Chichester, UK
-via bart lootsama
Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation
Because of the need to devise systems for electronic communication on the internet, multi-agent computing is moving to a model of communication as a structured conversation between rational agents. For example, in multi-agent systems, an electronic agent searches around the internet, and collects certain kinds of information by asking questions to other agents. Such agents also reason with each other when they engage in negotiation and persuasion. It is shown in this book that critical argumentation is best represented in this framework by the model of reasoned argument called a dialog, in which two or more parties engage in a polite and orderly exchange with each other according to rules governed by conversation policies. In such dialog argumentation, the two parties reason together by taking turns asking questions, offering replies, and offering reasons to support a claim. They try to settle their disagreements by an orderly conversational exchange that is partly adversarial and partly collaborative.
rooftop work-cube Chile
signature raw oak floorboards
pierced block crib Viet Nam
Clipper Seed Cleaner (here)
California job (type) case
The acclaimed Italian designers Ludovica+Roberto Palomba carve a serene retreat out of a 17th-century oil mill in Salento, filling it with custom creations and their greatest hits.
crystal set radio
From James Joyce to Howdy Doody: Deconstruction and deindustrialization after 1968
Those years, 1971-1972-1973, were eerie. It seemed that all the revolts of the previous three decades had faded away with remarkable speed, leaving behind only the “new social movements” of women, blacks, Latinos, gays, and ecologists, mainly battling their way into the mainstream. Decompression: all the dark underside, all the “repressed,” all the “illicit” of the previously-cloistered milieus of cultural opposition of the earlier period had surfaced violently to become licit and explicit. “Underground” was the belabored, much-overused word of the day, but these were finding their place in the dominant order. Long before Francis Fukuyama made him into a fad, we were delving into Kojève’s Introduction to the Reading of the Philosophy of Hegel, which seemed to echo our sense of being at the end of something, if not exactly the “end of history.”
In this atmosphere, some turned to Foucault, whose idea of épistème in The Order of Things seemed lifted from Heidegger’s notion of Geschick, the “destiny” or “sense of reality” beneath all consciousness or action of a culture that occasionally disappeared as mysteriously as it came. (That Geschick for the West was the metaphysics of “presence,” or Being reduced to “representation.”) It was a widespread feeling at the time, popularized above all in Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, that indeed historical epochs were underpinned by deep, unspoken, shared assumptions. Kuhn called them paradigms. The succession from one to the other could not be called “progress” toward any kind of “truth” outside such paradigms, however, and certainly could not be linked to anything like capitalist accumulation. The post-1960s funk was giving way, willy-nilly, to the “postmodern” belief that one could know only “signifiers,” and perhaps to the belief that there were only signifiers; few recognized then (as few recognize today) that such ideas were the night thoughts of capital in the same years, as it accelerated its mutation into its increasingly fictive form, seemingly detached from any relationship to production or reproduction.