Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  schemata
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The Ouroboros Model proposes a brain inspired cognitive architecture including detailed suggestions for the main processing steps in an overall conceptualization of cognition as embodied and embedded computing. All memories are structured into schemata, which are firmly grounded in the body of an actor. A cyclic and iterative data-acquisition and -processing loop forms the backbone of all cognitive activity. Ever more sophisticated schemata are built up incrementally from the wide combination of neural activity, concurrent at the point in time when the memory is established; i.e., distinct representations are accrued. Later on, an entire schema can be reinstated from diverse subsets of its constituent features. In order to decode or compile ever more elaborate constructions, extant building blocks are concatenated. They are serially linked via common or “connection-attributes” of different representations and symbols, and they are employed for serial perception, processing and action, in particular, also for language production. At various levels, commonalities between different schemata lead to a similar preferred use of their respective tokens and subsequently shared categorizations. Rules, for the concatenation of words, akin to the ones governing chemical reactions, can be abstracted. As special kinds of symbols, words and word-classes along with the whole grammar of a language can thus be seen as a direct consequence of the processes outlined in the Ouroboros Model. Strong emphasis is put on the dimension of time over short intervals during active experience and performance, and, in particular, during interactions with other agents.
EN
The article analyzes the novel “Živite v Moskve” (2000) by the conceptual writer and artist Dmitrij Prigov (1940–2007). The main aim of the paper is to find out how the author approaches the issue of memory and remembering. The article shows that the novel does not attempt to reconstruct the factual past events. It uses memory as an instrument for the production of fictional events which are based on the narrative and discursive schemata embedded in the narrator’s conscience. Therefore, the act of remembering can be seen as platonic anamnesis (recollection). It means that the narrator recollects the schemata, however, the latter do not exist as “pure” forms, but they are graspable only in the form of a very concrete literary realization.
3
61%
Praktyka Teoretyczna
|
2016
|
vol. 21
|
issue 3
163-173
EN
Retracing the philosophical origins and initial usage of habitus by Bourdieu to account for the historical disjuncture wrought by theAlgerianwar of national liberation and the postwar modernization of the French countryside allows us to clear up four recurrent misunderstandings about the concept: (1) habitus is never the replica of a single social structure but a dynamic, multiscalar, and multilayered set of schemata subject to ‘permanent revision’ in practice; (2) habitus is not necessarily coherent and unified but displays varying degrees of integration and tension; (3) because it is not always congruent with the cosmos in which it evolves, habitus is suited to analysing crisis and change no less than cohesion and perpetuation; but (4) it is not a self-sufficient mechanism for the generation of action: the dissection of dispositions must always proceed in close connection with the mapping of the system of positions that alternately excite, suppress, or redirect the socially constituted capacities and inclinations of the agent. Crucially, in Bourdieu’s hands, habitus is not an abstract concept issued from and aimed at theoretical disquisition, but a stenographic manner of designating a research posture that puts the genetic mode of thinking at the heart of social analysis.
PL
Prześledzenie filozoficznych źródeł i wczesnych zastosowań habitusu u Bourdieu – które wyjaśniały historyczne zerwania, spowodowane czy to wojną wyzwoleńczą w Algierii, czy to powojenną modernizacją francuskiej wsi – pozwala na skorygowanie czterech uporczywie powracających nieporozumień dotyczących tego pojęcia: (1) habitus nie jest nigdy repliką pojedynczej struktury społecznej, stanowi raczej, wielopoziomowy i dynamiczny zestaw schematów, który podlega „permanentnej rewizji” w praktyce; (2) habitus niekoniecznie jest koherentny i spójny, odznacza się raczej zróżnicowanymi poziomami integracji i napięcia; (3) ponieważ nie zawsze pozostaje w zgodności ze światem społecznym, w którym się rozwija, habitus jest tak samo odpowiedni do analizowania kryzysu i zmiany, jak do badań spójności i trwania; (4) nie jest samowystarczalnym mechanizmem generującym działanie: wnikliwa analiza dyspozycji musi więc przebiegać w ścisłym związku z odwzorowaniem całego systemu pozycji, które naprzemiennie pobudzają, tłumią bądź przekierowują skłonności podmiotu działającego. Co kluczowe, w ujęciu Bourdieu habitus nie jest abstrakcyjną koncepcją będącą wynikiem teoretycznych dywagacji i przeznaczoną dla tego typu rozważań; jest on przede wszystkim stenograficznym sposobem wyznaczającym postawę badawczą, który stawia w sercu analizy społecznej genetyczny sposób myślenia.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.