Frozen Pipe Pvc Pipe Burst Vs Copper

Correspondence on the subject of cannibalism

Dear Victor and Rodrigo Silva Browne:
After reading the book "cannibalism. The indiscipline of communication "would like to send you some brief remarks (and some concerns) about what they conveyed.
As this letter is intended to be an informal letter, let me speak in terms of what I mean and I do not understand the volume.
understand (and I think highly relevant) the proposition on the modes of resistance, which are arranged in several parts of the book and not always in a linear fashion. I mean what is explicitly outlined in Chapter 4 as the first two modes of resistance: resistance and resilience of archaeological resistance. In my view, these two "structure" the assertion of the book and suggested two alternatives to escape noxious dichotomous thinking and postmodern simulacrum. The big challenge is to try to locate volume in a third space that is in a location other than unsatisfactory extremes: the defense of absolute truth or the disappearance of truth, since both documents are authoritarian [1] (one for defending a truth that oppresses another and another to simulate a truth that washes the other) is located in a third space also is linked to specific problems of Latin American reality (reality that goes beyond the purely Latin American) : What to do when the nation-state is broken? How to resist the economic and cultural globalization? Also, if seen in terms of Hardt and Negri, the third space may also find an alternative to two forms of domination: the imperialist and imperial.
other hand, I understand that this third space is linked to the concept of cannibalism (as opposed to cannibalism), and that the option is linked to cannibalistic communication discipline, as outlined in the volume, because communication is condition for the possible third area of \u200b\u200bresistance. This means, in short, if Caliban is expressed in terms the language of Prospero and even ES Caliban Caliban and Prospero's language, it does not remove the possibility that the same language can not resist Prospero, without being trapped in a framework of cultural boundaries imposed to restrict their resilience. Thus, the importance of "desencasillar" communication method of amputation or any other science typically involves opening the possibility to:
The ways in which Caliban can re-think, re-invent itself and other game released
The ways in which Caliban can take other items from other cultures and resignified
Finally, assuming the communication discipline junto a la antropofagia, permite la posibilidad de independencia mental (por usar un término de Ardao), a pesar de que Caliban no pueda desprenderse de lo que lleva en el propio nombre (la imagen eurocéntrica del caníbal)
Caliban entonces, puede escapar así de dos opciones igualmente equívocas: o bien asumirse como caníbal (y así adoptar la dicotomía opresora eurocéntrica) o bien mimetizarse con Próspero, perdiéndose a sí mismo. La opción de la antropofagia, entonces, viene a ser el tercer espacio, en el cual sucede un cambio de mira en la percepción y auto-percepción de Caliban: pensar con la lengua del otro pero en los términos de sí mismo. En el libro hay dos claros examples that depict how can this change of focus:
the perception of Latin American artists themselves (as opposed to the view of Europeans, for whom the other is exotic, non-natural)
bossa nova, as fusion exogenous factors, but from the perspective of Brazilian culture itself. This looks
understand that change is necessary, and that enables a creative space or reinvention.
far as I understand ...

I do not understand is how all this relates to "throw them all" raised in the last chapter. But before proceeding, it is worth making a disclaimer: I have spoken from what I understand and I do not understand and, at this point, I must say what you mean this "not understand." In particular, results in the question: If I subscribe to this third space, what does this mean? Where do I stand?
fully support the need to escape the dichotomies (for endangering themselves from their own constitution, a clipping problem in the way of thinking). Also share the need to avoid falling into the "anything goes" or the banality of postmodernity (postmodernity understood in derogatory terms, of course). Share the need to resist the multiple processes of globalization and openness to share creative renewal. I do not share the "throw them all out" in many ways:
First, do not share the "throw them all" is really a popular proclamation, as it stands. The reading of the facts is, in my view, somewhat exaggerated, because the conflict in Argentina, Chile and Bolivia (among others) that review does not necessarily imply something like that cries out that the state should disappear. It seems the movement is not against the state but against certain operations of the state.
But put that point "to" I'm wrong because of ignorance or myopia of the facts. However, I realize what kind of anarchy or chaos remains after the "throw them all." What is being proposed? What gap is proposed to launch?
But let's say at point "b" I am wrong and that what seemed to me it is not so chaotic. Still do not see what ensures that small movements, groups, minorities, etc., Can achieve a sort of understanding after the "throw them all." One possibility would be to appeal to understanding Habermas's theory, but since that is not mentioned in the book, I feel that it would be unwise to associate the pose with that of Habermas.
But let's say at point "c" fruit of my prejudices rationalist, I have been wrong and has erroneously claimed that there must be something that "guarantee" a subsequent order. In that case, my question is much more minuscule: in case of joining the posing of "cannibalism": what should the intellectual who decides to follow the proposal?

In short, what I mean is that I share the reconstruction of the problem, but I fail to see what is the proper alternative. Visualize themselves an opening to the creative event but I do not think radical "to them all" is the best way to cause it. Does the "throw them all" leaves no step open for "anything goes" to the simulation and that the rule phagocyte us more quickly? Sincerely


Horacio Bernardo


From the paradox of "Anything Goes" by Paul Feyerabend to the fallacy of false Freedom by Horacio Bernardo *
The epistemologist Paul Feyerabend, who threw a vision "anarchist" of science, summarized critical theories in the phrase "anything goes". He objected also to a single "scientific method" as any of those known today as science possessed greater cognitive value than, say, alchemy or astrology. Behind the statement "anything goes" indeed, there is an attitude of rebellion and this leads us to believe that Feyerabend's criticisms lead us towards an intellectual and epistemological openness, struggling for the freedom of research and thought. I would like to dwell on this concept, that of freedom, related to the phrase "anything goes" of Feyerabend, because here, in my view, begins to take shape the fallacy and paradox of the claim. Consider this asunto.Dividamos the scope of the claim into two parts. The first addresses the 'anything goes' in terms of scientific method. For Feyerabend no scientific method that leads us to the "truth", which takes a radical position to say that any method is valid. If we admit the existence of the above range, then it follows the second: the "anything goes" on product knowledge. If any method is valid, then the product of any of them valid. For example, consider two theories which attempt to determine the age of man on earth. One of them used as a method of induction, and findings from analysis of fragments. The other is based on the analysis of the biblical text, proceeding to the count of days elapsed between the "birth" of Adam to our time. Let the product of two theories: the first determines that some two million years man appeared on earth, while the second states that about six thousand years. If for Feyerabend both methods are valid, then both products are valid, because if, for example, we admit the theory of analyzing the biblical text, would not accept the "anything goes" raised at the beginning. Even if both theories arrived at different conclusions from the same method, we could not rule any of them because, remember, the concept of 'anything goes' implies the incommensurability of scientific theories. Therefore, if for Feyerabend any of the methods used is valid, then the product of both methods will be valid también.Ahora let's focus on scientific theories. K. Popper says, rightly, that any scientific theory involves some kind of restriction. It is possible, therefore, be able to get two incompatible theories. In this case, how can it be valid, the 'anything goes' of Feyerabend? If adhered to, can we adhere to other incompatible? This is where the paradox begins to loom. We can summarize the above in the following scheme: a) if I say X about an event and, b) then I am denying Z (with Z than X) to the fact Y. Any theory, therefore, arrive at conclusions that undermined the whole Feyerabend uses because, since each theory implies endless denials, validate all methods quite "scientific" and therefore all possible theories, involve denying all. Now let's focus on testing the paradox in the 'anything goes' of Feyerabend. To do this, suppose that an epistemological theory, through a 'scientific' method M (valid for Feyerabend), up to the conclusion that in science "some things are worth and not others." For Feyerabend, the conclusion would be correct since, as we saw, the 'anything goes' of the product is clear of "anything goes" method. But if "anything goes" then the claim is not worth "some things are worth and not others" and whether it "some things are worth and not others" is not worth the statement "anything goes". Are we not, therefore, a paradox? If we accept this, then we should ask, how is behind this statement? Feyerabend finds arguments through a careful study of the history of science, and observation of the scientific community. His intention is to deprive the latter of the power autoadjudica, allow freedom of research, and even give fair share of "reason" to ordinary citizens. 'Anything goes' and freedom are concepts that seem to go together. No However, this association is misleading. If we abide by the "anything goes" of Feyerabend, and acknowledge that 'anything goes' of the method follows the 'anything goes' of the product, we will conclude that we can not accept a theory X as if they do, we necessarily deny a host of alternative and incompatible theories. Extending this reasoning shows that if you adhere to the theory "anything goes" we can not necessarily adhere to any other theory of any kind, because if someone would stop acceding to adhere to the theory "anything goes". Any theory that we should be displayed or processed systematically discarded. Ironically, the "anything goes" becomes an "anything goes". But, as the attentive reader will have noticed, "no good", is also a paradox, because if anything goes, it would not the statement "anything goes". The "anything goes" of Feyerabend, must be replaced by the phrase "no good, except this sentence." The "except this sentence" is not a mere "patch" to escape the paradox, but is of fundamental importance, since it implies, as we shall see, a question of legitimacy in the same denial. Asunto.Si better explain this I say "anything goes, except the phrase" I'm saying "this sentence is the only valid" with So my sentence is the only legitimate. But in whom lies the power and legitimacy needed to sustain such a position? What Feyerabend? How ordinary people? Of course, lie in a specific person or entity to which, for now, we will call X. Necessarily the person or entity X must have some justification that enable to say "anything goes" and thus claim "only this claim is valid." But there may be such person or institution? How would you justify your position? Justification is precisely the argument that supports freedom "absolute", accepted, no doubt, by the wider community because obviously no one would deny an assumption that "go towards freedom." But have you noticed what is the aberration of this contradiction?. We ended up giving to a person or entity X, in pursuit of freedom, the power to deny everything. Feyerabend's reasoning leads to what might be called "fallacy of the false freedom", defined as that postulated that, through the proclamation of absolute freedom, leads to the opposite position, that is, slavery or absolute immobility. Delve a bit more about this concept, noting how it operates the "fallacy of the false freedom" in the realidad.Vayámonos for a moment the scientific field e internémonos in the field of art. The "anything goes" of Feyerabend can be compared to the attitude of the artist Michel Duchamp, who introduced a hair dryer (including ordinary objects) as a work of art. His position is analogous to that of Feyerabend about science. If you adhere to the position of Duchamp, we have to admit that "anything goes" art. Not far from this statement of the tendency of contemporary art. Beatriz Sarlo points out this fact very well, showing the current crisis of art. If everything is art, what is the point of talking about art?. Comparing this approach with the "anything goes" of Feyerabend, the position of "anything goes" art end up being, "nothing true except this statement "and therefore not only come to a complete conceptual confusion, it will cancel all bids and try to define art. Obviously, in art there are no "ordinary" contradictory, so that the impact of this statement is different. However, both share the "fallacy of the false freedom ', whereby, in science, you get to deny any theory, and art, to create chaos at the expense of conceptual art itself. What do we mean by this? "We are against freedom? Not really. That is why we believe it is necessary to notice this fallacy, to really identify where it can be true sign of freedom and where not. Not discuss here what is meant by freedom. What it does do is illustrate with an example the person or entity X cited above, who have argued that part of the legitimacy of the fallacy. For this we turn to the economy política.Para neoclassical theory, the State should summarize their position to that of "judge and policeman", giving full economic freedom. For this theory, the economy if it is free, self-regulating. In the terms in which we are speaking, we can translate this into "the economy should enjoy absolute freedom." Did not like this statement to the intentions of "anything goes? We said, 'Anything Goes' leads to the conclusion "is worth nothing, except this sentence." We also saw that it was necessary some person or entity that could legitimize the phrase. In this example, we found the market as an abstract entity that legitimizes the fallacy. In the pure theoretical case, that of a perfectly competitive market, the absence of monopolies, oligopolies and government gives employers complete freedom to maximize their profit. However, further analysis, we see how, in this theory, "the market" is presented as a divine hand in the first place, manages to systematically determine the price of the goods (including wages) and reducing entrepreneurs gain - long term - to zero. For this reason, the purer is the perfect competition will be more fallacious, and peaked in absolute freedom will lead to absolute slavery, via deregulation of prices, reduction of state intervention in very low levels, labor flexibility, etc.. Notably, the neoclassical theory of perfect competition arises only as an example, it is not our intention exculsivamente reach a conclusion contrary to it. The ultimate intention is, therefore, as in the previous examples, invite reflection on the proposals for absolute freedom and on their statements, often false and dangerously misleading.
BA in Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences of Education (UDELAR), Uruguay, proximafrase@yahoo.com

[1] Linked to how it can be so commanding the defense of truth as any, I would get yourself a piece I wrote about it. This is based on the "anything goes" Feyerabend (as apparent total opening), work in which I attempted to show how to hold that "anything goes" is as pernicious as holding a single truth.

Echeto

Wives In Girdles Movies

Review: Analysis

Victor Silva / Rodrigo Browne Sartori
Cannibalism
The communication indiscipline

Editorial Biblioteca Nueva Madrid Spain
2007


By René Jara R.

With some recurrence open the archives of the discussion on the field of communications. Among its recent opening, the periodicity arises with re-thinking of certain topics: the scientific nature of the discipline, the object of study or their own epistemic possibilities of producing knowledge. And what type.

That is the argument that wants to engage in this work. Maybe that's why the first challenge, perhaps the most serious, says the very presence of the book. Is it possible communion between the test and communications? If possible, on what terms is likely to be raised?

can find some answers in these nine trials that boast a trench scriptural record, vigorous in the defense of the genre as a vehicle of expression and thought. In this game, the disclosure of the analysis tool brings up with her own precarious nature of the materials used. Thus, the quote is often used with a certain ease and freedom.

However, the weakness of the action for second source also plays another goal: to show the weakness of the theoretical apparatus deployed. Because of this argument parade concepts such as identity, culture, discipline, communication, multiculturalism and postcolonialism. Reviewed and criticized, appear at that time as a kind of marks, from simple labels to which the researcher works.

probably for this reason is that writing is committed to the navigation, one that seems to arrive in port. In light of the authors, are interested in working a look, a precision landing on the voices of speech, or complete and judicious voices. Rather fragmentary and dissolute, and Barber tell us Grüner-known by heart. No shortage of references to Canclini, Rossana Reguillo, Renato Ortiz or our closest Alicia Salomone and Red Grinor.

precisely these applications assumes the writing are the two purposes: an interest in the comprehensive review of the literature and a clear inclination towards the proposed program. Within this point, the idea that takes more strength and passing through the collection of essays is the idea of \u200b\u200bcannibalism. Treated with some caution by an archeology of the word, where cross writings as diverse as Shakespeare, Fernandez Retamar and Oswaldo Andrade, lights a beautiful job search and transcendence.

This road, built at the base exchange with Norval Bateillo Junior in Brazil, is the sort of political aesthetic platform stands as a way of thinking indiscipline of communication "between the leading Brazilian cannibalistic and Calibans revaluation of the Americas." The revitalization of the suggestive idea of \u200b\u200bcultural cannibalism serves, first of all, to explain the idea in Western culture iconophagy

Without ignoring the disparate nature of some of the work presented in this volume, obvious bias exercise. We are approaching some records that do not hide their preference for certain looks. For starters, the enormous influence of the current call poststructuralist embodied in Barthes, Deleuze, Foucault and Derrida. Also Hardt and Negri's Empire, as well of the unavoidable work of Edward Said.

can prove, then, the replacement of the process to the test. What are we looking at this trip, obsessed with the map, cartography, with the territories, while happy goes to the edge of the precipice? We note with caution the exercise we propose Silva Browne Echeto and Sartori in these pages, like someone waiting for the fruits of a harvest to come. We emphasize also the confidence, lightness and ease with which both authors approach to issues of great thickness, being an exercise of courageous rebellion against the clauses that raise the same academy and its disciplines.

Pilote Realtek Rtl8201e

René Jara Pablo Paroli

Analysis Paul Paroli, Bachelor of Philosophy, Honorary Collaborator

Transformation Project of Mediation: the conflict between tradition and transmission


In Chapter 1 the author uses a passage from Homi Bhabha which displays how establishing the "otherness", leaving no place established as an opposite to me, but from his refusal "Otherness should be seen as a necessary denial primary identity, cultural or psychological" (p. 28). In relation to the production of that otherness, says that communication networks is generated from a "no-time and non-place ', from which observes a war of identity vs otherness "without specific historical references or representative." Paroli Paul
Analysis, Bachelor of Philosophy, Honorary Collaborator Transformation Project Mediation: Conflict between Tradition
On Air and the media, later used the characteristics attributed to the truth by Paul Virilio and says there is a change of the royalties from which something is designated as true. Objectivity is passed to the present (p. 29). On the next page continues the theme of the live broadcast, said: "This apparatus produces a dramatic turn as an epistemological radical someone telling the truth when he says may indicate the complete opposite of this, just to utter a coherent and credible: the only requirement to go to be true. "

By the apocalyptic passage of the closure of the reference seems there is almost no distance, "the correspondence between word and thing, typical of the oral stage, which had been replaced by the notion of representation of the thing by the word the later stage of the invention of printing, now gives way to the creation of simulacra. " And here is the conclusion which has already been anticipated "The world is looking more and more drills that broadcast television or computer screens, that is, it seems encapsulated around a hidden message without references or representative patterns that can serve as a holder of it "(p.29).

i) The statement of the resemblance between the simulation and the world settles the absence of reference attributed to the drill. When we speak of a "similar" is trying to establish a relationship that links both domains. Is no longer talking in the plane of the symbolic system then will be reflected in a monitor, but it is a relationship between two different conujuntos: it displayed in the monitor and what exists outside it. Removed the idea of non-referentiality (because it actually comes into existence as a duo sign-reference) will have to discuss the degree of conventionality that can be attributed to the relationship and where it occurs.

ii) It is a fact that the world seems increasingly to broadcast on TV screens. And it looks as reflected in the photographs, film, in the drawings, sketches, etc. .. This statement is outrageous. Gombrich recalls Oscar Wilde, who said "there was no fog in London before Whistler painted it," or the "unrealistic and self-Goodman scandalous" nature is a product of art and discourse. " But here we can not infer that the world impose some correction to the representations it made. It is true that "almost anything can represent any other" (Goodman), but once you set a reference system, the objects that have a certain type of characters "automatically" be incorporated under a certain concept or representation. The conventionality of the sign does not imply relativity.


iii) The problem with questions like that of "closing the reference" which are critical means of production materials (digital) at the time of establishing the truth of representation, left in a dead end himself argument. If transmitted from digital media, then you should attach all of the proposals with these transfers, which means that any images presented on the basis of these media will become a sham, including own representations. Everything becomes a simulacrum. All that matters is that the logic of representation is consistent, so we "lose" the world to everyone (including the "Other").

What seems to be then? PURE FACTS. To counter the mediation of information in the book is constantly resorts to the "pure fact" as opposed to what is transmitted by means, for example when comparing reported by international chains during the Iraq war and what "really" happened. So as you can not accept that a transmission is "true" to be "live" can not accept that an observation is "real" for being "live." The observation is not neutral (Arnheim. Gombrich. Hoschberg, etc. Etc. Etc..)

Women In Panty Girdle

book Book presentation Cannibalism: Sergio Fiedler

cannibalism. To use the words of Oswald de Andrade, cannibalism is a cultural act of devouring an enemy to make it sacred totem. No talk of cannibalism that we debase and degrade us, but a human fiber diet in pragmatics of violence, we produce and teach us to love the moment of consumption and consummation. When we, academics, cannibals, we have to write, what we do in relation to a territory populated by signs, each with its own origin and destination, with our writing nothing but a particular intersection of multiple pathways that maintain these signs. We devoured the sign to turn it in concept. But we no concept of any sign. Just as the carpenter chooses a special wood to make the table you want, we choose the right material for the direction we want to compose. The choice we make through the reading and interpretation, which read and interpret the signs. The signs are qualities of color, texture, taste and affection, signs capable of being affected and subject to force, or signs that can affect and release a force.

The sign is like a brick, you can use to build a prison or bust a window, its meaning always depends on the force that is able to apprehend him. The sign is a potential indicator of future time, a multiplicity of levels and possible actions. Devour the sign is to give expression to a desired potential that exists within. Our script is then created, not simply a representation of the observed facts.

interpretation becomes in the specific application of a force, the meaning is then a result of an encounter between the lines of force, each of which is a complex of other forces. The process of reading and interpretation that takes place here can be described in any direction indefinitely, so no full expressive tie every significant element in a single logical node. There is no unity, only a light area where the arm meets Craftsman tool and the tool timber, the same way that the eye of the scholar-cannibal is the meaning and the meaning of the word. Here there is no dualism between subject and object, the arm is the raw material wood as well as the eye is the raw material of the word. The academic body of the cannibal is offering to be molded by the jaws of the sign, in the same way that the latter is eaten from the perspective of who reads and interprets. While the signs are not passive, the signs are somewhat somehow always defeated by the interpretation, and ultimately always locked content. The academic-cannibal who gives expression to that content through writing., Is the one who applies more force and takes the win until the text itself becomes a sign for another academic cannibal devour. Whenever we lose control of what they intended, devour the sign is transformed into a totem.

cannibal For the academic, the sense then and there under the despotic shadow of the single word, there is no inevitable and necessary relationship between the logic of the signifier and the logic of meaning, but the constant clash between the two occurred and displacement the creative event is the becoming cannibalistic. We will not sit and wait to be convicted or acquitted by the supreme court of those who defend the canon of the discipline. While our thoughts are stated and occurs within the institutional imagination symbolically demolished ordered but the university moves without rest for the exterior, without fear border guards, unafraid to turn into the brick pops the window.

In the words of Brian Massumi in Users Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia, I wonder and I ask the authors of this great book that is Cannibalism: what will be subject to throw the brick at the window? Is it an arm connected to a body? Or an arm attached to a brain caged in a body? What is the connection process between the brain and the brick making impossible without communication between culture and science? How can we explore the potential of their means of expression without being culturalism or naturalism? Is it not then also a mirror glass? Is it not an act of cannibalism to chew and swallow to find the human being to imagine the possibilities and ways of life values \u200b\u200bbeyond the purely human? Sergio Fiedler


ARCIS
Valparaiso University

What Does It Mean When A Man Wears Two Rings

Reviews: Roberto Follari

communication Vicissitudes of poststructuralism

Cannibalism (the discipline of communication), Victor Silva and Rodrigo Brownes Echeto Sartori, Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid, 2007, 172 pp. Welcome

the contentious mood and cognitive seriously put in the work of this pair of researchers working at universities in Chile (although Echeto Silva is a native of Uruguay). On the one hand, not in the current academic discussions to raise spirits, against those who suppress "on behalf of a misunderstood polite criticism and any confrontation of ideas. In turn, the care in the expository style as well as in the reference to the sources, makes it clear that intellectual rigor is a critical prerequisite to practiced by the poststructuralist formalism. If anyone thinks that deconstruction is synonymous with a crude anti-method, or the praise of the event as an excuse for intellectual laziness, this book is at odds with a flourish.

The work consists of a series of chapters largely independent of each other, even though intertwined with the approach that underlies-a quest to politicize the debate on communication, from a radical critique to modern notions of abstraction and conceptualization, as lead of homogenizing and generalizing.

no way follow the detail of the texts that make this work, which would lead us too far in length, but also does not do justice to the central idea that governs: the meanderings of reality should be followed by the thought its thoroughness and its inherent multiplicity. So, it is a synthesis that not be a betrayal of the previous version that was intended to synthesize (Which, for its part, in this situation will never be original.) Notably

-winning adaptation against much of the production on communication in the subcontinent, the book keeps a careful decision to intervene in politics: the chapter on Chile on September 11 and September 11 attack to the Twin Towers is eloquent in this regard, first and last name put some of those responsible are not always known, and consideration not just appreciative of cultural studies (in its version known complacent market capitalism), definitely make what we say.

The assumption of the post-structuralist is raised from the idea of \u200b\u200badapting to a post-modern episteme, in writing the book is true to the collapse of modernity, but not established in the abdication of critical thinking that are common to thinkers who are assumed to be postmodern. It is no accident that the authors being appealed (Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze) are not properly poststructuralist and postmodern, as in the past the edge of the denial has been consciously abandoned.

An issue as busy as of multiculturalism is working from innovative approaches and clumsy without giving into the notion of intercultural symmetry usually proposed from the canonical approach Benetton ": different cultures are in a position to also differ. The authors propose the importance of translation for mutual understanding, although the problem could be deepened in the limits of translation and the remainder is provided throughout the translation process. Doing so would be consistent with post-structuralist position that resists all homogeneity, also in the field of consciousness.

work while promoting a careful critique of postcolonialism (not Latin American versions, but in the original, eg., Edward Said), warns very well on the performative contradiction of those who criticize the binary from their positions Once binaries. You are cautioned that postcolonial are against the idea of \u200b\u200ba central contradiction vs colonialists. colonized, but his speech stated therein.

For our part, we would critique on another issue, which affects both posconialistas as poststructuralist criticism: the "binary" that is blamed Marxism seems not to fully understand this line of thought. Marxism-just see the old and Mao analysis on the secondary contradictions, never assumed that there is only a contradiction in capitalist society (bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat), but this is what the rest overdetermined. And this is a statement that can still be significantly if you want to understand contemporary societies.

For their part, the authors, in line with poststructuralist position, have an unfavorable account of Marxism (eg, on pg.35), we believe that this could be qualified, and also the idea that "power produce "taken from Foucault, and that it has often been presented as novel, it is perfectly compatible with previous notions of Marxist theory (perhaps the" production of hegemony "posed by Gramsci, clearly does not imply that the power produced, it is not just a machine to suppress and prevent? and ideology, which is above notion is not producing practical effects?).

It should be noted-and in reference to another theme of the book, the criticism made by authors to the hegemonic version of cultural studies, succumbed to much of the production of communication in recent decades. It is also suggesting the recovery of the constituent relationship between communication and culture, so that is not understood outside of their actual social realization. Of course, this means that you need to link communication to culture, but to place culture as part of the social-economic-including non-fetishized, and that must be assumed that the purpose of communication never overlaps with cultural as "plain." Thus, the communications expert is not a new anthropologist, but someone technically able to account for specific communication processes, illegible to Anthropology or any other existing discipline (although it is worth to them, eg. Semiotics, which gives A key part of such processes.)

is remarkable chapter on the Brazilian movement of Cannibalism, and the application of its impact on current thinking. There the authors show ample capacity to recover a key artistic movement almost idiosyncratic, and propose universal values \u200b\u200bregarding defensible: they assume without detriment to the Latin American universal.

Especially suitable for open discussion is the proposed space for thinking and interdisciplinary communication and discipline. Undoubtedly, communication is an area of \u200b\u200bintersection of disciplinary discourse, but that disciplinary proposals from previously consolidated (Communication appeals to sociology, linguistics, anthropology, etc.). Can you imagine an in-disciplined knowledge that no part of mixture and cannibalism already established disciplines? Personally, I pose a problem the possible influence of general discipline knowledge, which involve the simple removal of existing disciplines, but in any case would be to specify much more than what it is, rather than sustaining its conclusion a priori.

However, the authors argue openly challenge their own rituals and routines of thought as it is now codified, and this may be the basis for deep re-think this, to do a conversion material enough intense as to promote new horizons of intelligibility. It is also strong

the controversy begins with the idea of \u200b\u200b"thinking without a state" that bring the perpetrators, and to assume the contrary in fact produced in Marxism, when you want to delete State long-term, short-fortifying. And where the search for a common life involves stateless after a long struggle, precisely focused on the control of the state. However, it is not obvious that ignoring the state to allow disposal. Is it possible a kind of "subsumption" of the functions of the state by society as somehow raised Holloway? Or is it to ignore the rule if it still exists, which would be a negation of the illusory powers that there are combined?

However, the authors refer to "think outside the center, to think freely, to think without authority. For which they know to invite with intellectually demanding and rigorous thought. In this sense, if someone claims that poststructuralism is a simple call to the disorder, is completely wrong: freedom is won, and poststructuralism is an unwanted son, yes, of the Enlightenment.

Therefore, this book comes in handy for communication studies, where there are still those who believe that "theory" is a bad word, and more vulgar practicality that can be exercised on behalf of alleged "demands of reality" .-