El complejo tránsito al Postestructuralismo
[EN] Since the 1970s we have seen a predominance of processes, cognitive aps, that creatively housed the “subjects of the discipline”. The new citizen is currently being described as the contemporary “subject of profitability”. This means that the conditions that motivated the transition from struct...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2018 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) |
| Repositorio: | RiuNet. Repositorio Institucional de la Universitat Politécnica de Valéncia |
| Idioma: | español inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:riunet.upv.es:10251/111563 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/111563 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Estructuralismo Postestructuralismo Industria Alteridad Diferencia Diferimiento Structuralism Poststructuralism Industry Otherness Difference Differance |
| Sumario: | [EN] Since the 1970s we have seen a predominance of processes, cognitive aps, that creatively housed the “subjects of the discipline”. The new citizen is currently being described as the contemporary “subject of profitability”. This means that the conditions that motivated the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism have already been surpassed, and we have not even appreciated it. This speed forces us to review its background. We will take industrial architecture as a reference, as it is the most restrictive. We would like to highlight the following structure: the evolution of industrial architecture up to process architecture; the implementation of the two sides of critical theory, general and radical or postmetaphysical, that with similar objectives lead to different results; revision of the standard topologies for articulating solutions, that principally group them both without nuances; and exemplification in industrial works of these nuances. Debates that present two common background questions: firstly, the superseding of the antinomies that present and report these industrial systems, especially the subject-object antinomy, through the otherness and, secondly, construction, with these industry rules, of an open work; that on one hand leads to dialectic hermeneutics and on the other to difference and difference, which enables us to understand the proje ore” and, consequently, surpass the condition of “open work”. |
|---|