As with every inquiry, one has to be familiar, first of all, with the procedures. It looks complex at first. But in fact, it is very simple and doesn’t depend on any prior knowledge or jargon (though we have some technical terms). The difficulty comes of the fact that most experiences are not easy to follow because the Moderns have tried to squeeze them into boxes not made for them. We want to try to repair this faulty construction by offering you other signposts to follow and other accounts of these experiences. The easiest way to get used to the procedure is to start with the interim report either in hard copy or in the (identical) form that you can find on this site. The book is handy, but the digital version is “augmented” with a number of additions: first it is easily navigable, then there is a detailed glossary, numerous notes, to which are also added documents which are quite long in themselves. (The map of the site is explained here.) Then, once you have assimilated the questions we are asking ourselves, you can take them up in the composition of your own notebook. There is nothing stopping you from adding contribution on the body of available data.

The hard-copy book is fairly unusual. It is written in the form of a “research report” in which one finds summarised, in the most condensed and undemanding form possible, fieldwork studies which were impossible to print in their entirety. So the book appears without any notes or references. This is why, even if the book holds up by itself, it only really makes sense through the proofs and developments that will test it on the site. Proofs and developments which, in turn, will get their meaning through what the readers, turning into co-researchers, might well bring to them. The interim report has the aim of preparing readers, if they wish, to become co-researchers. It has three parts: how to make possible an anthropological inquiry on the Moderns by removing methodological obstacles; how to take advantage of the pluralism of modes of existence in order to carry out the inquiry while cutting one’s teeth on the modes which the Moderns were having difficulty dealing with; and finally how to profit from this inquiry so as to redefine the very notion of collective in a new way by revisiting the traditional terms of society and economy. To make the reading easier, we have arranged the multiple sub-titles at the beginning of each chapter, and gathered them in a very detailed table of contents that allows one to get an overview of the book in a few minutes.

@AIMEproject

Professor at Sciences Po, Paris. He decided on this unusual way to do research after having carried out several fieldwork studies in the domains of the science and legal techniques. Having directed two international exhibitions (Iconoclash 2002 and Making Things Public at the ZKM in Karlsruhe 2005), he found he had a taste for collective work and the exploration of new modes of research and presentation in what are called “the humanities”. In the jargon of research projects, he is the PI (“principal investigator”) of the AIME project, which means he has a hand in everything without knowing very much.

@AIMEproject

Is a research scholar in the history of the most contemporary arts. He joined the project as project manager. As well as all the financial issues, day-to-day operations, organisation of the project and contact with institutions, he is exploring how new digital tools can inspire artists and energise their work in the context of this collective inquiry. He hopes that all the new software and modes of collaboration will allow for future methodological changes in the history of the sciences… and hopes to finish his thesis.

比特加速器修改vip时长

He has a Ph.D in communication design and specializes in the visual display of huge amounts of digital data. He is passionate about semiology and diagrams, and has joined the team in the hope of producing a hybrid of the great tradition of Italian design (he comes from Density Design de Milan) and the digital humanities, so as to produce a new standard for the future scholarly book. His thesis on social complexity and controversies is a perfect preparation for this project, which he still finds completely crazy !

@AIMEproject

Paul joined the Medialab team at Sciences Po since it began in 2009. His enthusiasm allied with his technical and organizational skills, has meant that Medialab has become one of France’s most active research centers investigating the links between the social sciences and the IT world. Being involved in every technical decision made by Medialab, he was immediately involved as an advisor in the AIME project. However, as the project grappled with the enormous difficulties and new challenges presented by the ‘digital humanities’ he rapidly took on the role of technical director. If this project can be said to work, it is certainly because thanks to Paul finding a way to coordinate the various professions needed to make this insane endeavor work.

@danieleguido

比特代理PC端使用教程-bit代理:比特代理自营代理服务器覆盖全国,专业提供:换ip软件,ip代理|动态ip,改ip软件,代理ip,ip代理软件,更改ip地址软件,http代理,自动换ip工具 粤ICP备17156305号 深圳市莱森供应链服务有限公司换ip软件 版权所有

@jacomyal

A recent member of the IT team, Alexis, who came to us from Linkfluence, a company with which Medialab has numerous ties, has given an important impetus to those programs vital to the project’s success by bringing to bear some of the work practices common in industry - and somewhat different we have to admit - to the innovative but not always particularly disciplined habits of our team.

@pierrejdlf

Pierre Jullian de la Fuente is a globetrotter that from time to time drops by Paris, for example, to manage programmes and extricate interfaces from whatever mess they have got themselves tangled up in. We count ourselves very fortunate to have him come by and help sort out our current enterprise and extend the AIME project by conjuring up new ways to enter the Inquiry.

@AIMEproject

A graduate student from Sciences-Po Lille and Waseda University, Guillaume Plique now offers the médialab his backend development skills as well as his profile in social sciences. He is therefore working since June 2013 on several projects such as IPCC mapping, AIME and develops scrapers aimed at social sciences researchers.

@robindemourat

Robin de Mourat, designer from l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan and doctoral student at l'Université de Rennes 2, decided that the AIME project was an excellent site to see out two usually contradictory desires: to put his hands directly on a project in progress and, at the same time, to study how this project conducts itself. As the AIME project is a genuine model of the managment of a highly complex and rapidly evolving project, it is not surprising that he would have come to study us and assist us at the same time.

比特加速器修改vip时长

Residing in Montreal, François made his name through his very innovative studies on organizational issues. Having found a highly innovative way of combining discourse analysis, ethnomethodology and STS he was able to redefine what it means to speak about organized action. Agreeing to play the complex role of a mediator in the AIME project, he has been following the modes and how the interplay between them perhaps offers the possibility of another way of describing the vast continent that is the economy. His familiarity with the English-speaking world has been invaluable in helping us guide our English-language readers through the inquiry

@ddebaise

Living in Belgium, Didier, a philosopher and father to two delightful twins is also among those researchers who have profoundly renewed what we can expect from metaphysics. Co-founder of the GECo with Isabelle Stengers, he is a specialist on Whitehead and particularly interested in questions relating to biology. On those questions of fundamental importance to anthropology, he has been able to guarantee that the AIME project has had high quality debates. Along with Aline and Nicolas, two colleagues that he brought onto the project to work with him, Didier will continue to guide, with his usual dexterity, the participants through the difficulties presented by the inquiry.

比特加速器修改vip时长

It is difficult to explain why a specialist in the history of religions, living in Quebec, accepted to join the 比特加速器修改vip时长 project. As it happens, it is partly due to the fact that Milad, an historian and specialist in ancient texts has become one of the most listened commentators on the changes taking place in digital cultures. It is thus an enormous opportunity for the project to benefit from not only from his keeping a watchful eye on the content but also on the project’s modus operandi. He will be helping the participants to modify the system so as to take maximum advantage of the power of those digital worlds placed at the service of this odd inquiry.

比特加速器修改vip时长

A sociologist of the economy, who after a long time at MIT has returned to France, Vincent brings the 比特加速器修改vip时长 project in his role as mediator, a fine-grained understanding of the social sciences and the world of finance. Having participated in research projects that pushed the analysis of the science of economics as a science — research that is of major importance to the project — he has allowed us to push the inquiry further and deeper than before, as well as mobilize co-inquirers from Europe and the United States.

@AIMEproject

比特球云盘软件下载_比特球云盘软件安卓版下载_情书手游:2021-4-9 · 《比特球云盘软件》一款速度稳定且使用起来非常靠谱的云盘软件，该软件还支持高清的在线浏览观看服务。可以多端口同步操作，在线办公什么的也能够起到作用，能够应用的地方很多，有需要这种云盘工具的可以了解一下！

@AIMEproject

A young philosopher finishing up his PhD in the philosophy of sport and new types of subjectivities, Pierre-Laurent has been, over the past year, part of the AIME staff and helping the other mediators and co-inquirers to participate in the project as efficiently as possible.

@AIMEproject

Patrice Manglier, a philosopher and specialist in questions pertaining to language, esthetics and society as well as a commentator on Saussure and Lévi-Strauss has taken quite a risk in graciously consenting to join our crazy project. More interested in the diplomatic procedure that we claim to be developing in the last part of the IME project, he will not be one of the mediators. Rather, he will be analysing these diplomatic encounters, on the fly, to see just whether or not they renew certain philosophical modes of discussion. As we muddle on, we will be turning to him to help us identify and rectify our numerous missteps.

@ArminLinke

Armin Linke is professor at the University For Arts and Design HfG Karlsruhe and an artist who works at the interface of photography and cinema and lives in Milan and Berlin. He is a virtuoso of closed spaces — laboratories and shop floors, moving through the towns of the modern desert, factories and control towers. He has acquiesced to allow his archives to be gently plundered to help us understand just what it is we are trying to do.

@AIMEproject

Aline Wiame, holds a PhD and is a Research Fellow at the F.R.S.-FNRS at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. Her thesis dealt with the concept of “disfigurement” as a conceptual operator between theatre and philosophy. She now works on developing the concepts of the “scene” and “image” drawing upon the work of William James and Henri Bergson. Her research themes concentrate on the intersection between esthetics and contemporary philosophy as they relate to theatre, cinema, graphic novels and animations. Since 2011 she has been a confounder of the “Souriau Workshop” dedicated to the philosophy of Etienne Souriau at the GECo of the ULB. In 2013-2014 she will be postdoctoral Fellow at the B.A.E.F. (Belgian American Educational Foundation) at Penn State University.

@AIMEproject

Nicolas is a physicist, philosopher and holds an MA in experimentation from Sciences Po. His thesis was on Félix Guattari, the philosophy of nature and community activism in defence of the environment. He teaches contemporary philosophy at the Ecole de Recherche Graphique de Bruxelles. Whether it be around controversies surrounding the danger of electromagnetic waves, GMO or the catastrophe at Fukushima, he focuses on the issues of ownership and the problems related to the co-production of knowledge.

We would especially like to thank all of the contributors who have helped us with the Inquiry:

You can also access the list of all the contributions through the Crossings english or french versions

求比特加速器_百度知道:2021-2-16 · 2021-07-20 求比特加速器安卓的资源 41 2021-01-04 求比特加速器的下载链接或二维码？ 4 2021-03-20 大佬好！ 能给我个比特加速器吗，感谢！！ 2021-12-01 比特加速器能发给我吗 9 2021-03-20 求助！哪位有比特加速器app，手机丢了，感谢！ 2021-02-14 17

Contributions are absolutely necessary to the success of the survey. All relevant contributions will be incorporated into the final versions – paper and digital – with each time, an acknowledgement of the author.

We cannot extract ourselves from our current difficulties unless we work together. We seek to share the research experience and as such we are very open. However, we only do so according to very specific protocols and rather demanding expectations and as such, we remain very closed! If we dare to maintain this paradox it is only because experience is sharable and because the protocols that are so strictly adhered to render themselves a source of concern and open to debate. In the meantime, metalanguage becomes entirely ‘disposable’.

A contribution is a not a comment. It is not enough to simply ‘like’ or ‘not like’. Nor is it like editing a wiki or reviewing. A contribution works in such a way that it subjects the Inquiry to the trials for which it was designed.
A contribution is an operation. It is a maneuver attempted during a diplomatic game. It is a practice that is both informed and free, operating within the intellectual machinery of the Inquiry. The co-inquirer can reformulate, complete and apply but he or she can also correct, test and protest. In every instance, it remains with the context of an empirical investigation.
Inasmuch as it is possible each contribution should attempt to build upon something new and be in the form of an annotated document that develops an argument or line of thought. The role of the mediators is to direct the work behind the contribution towards those beings that are less well represented.
The process of selecting contributions is performed with the mediators always keeping an eye towards the final phase of the Inquiry where the diplomatic operations and face-to-face rewriting sessions will take place. In this respect, the online platform serves as a kind of draft or preparatory document for these final meetings.

The term is a little simplistic, especially since we know from the sociology of science that data are always “obtained” and in no way arrive fully-formed. We are calling our research data, roughly, any document that undergoes a trial at the point where two modes really clash; this is what we call “category errors”. This clash allows us to draw out a contrast that we were not aware of until then. Many are proposed in the book and in the notes, but the point of the collective inquiry is to bring them together. So each time that you present a situation (by way of a text, a film, a radio program), fully referenced (date, source, context, copyright), and which you think, according to your commentary, can move one of our questions forward (or displace the question in an even more interesting way), then this, for us, is data.

Since the two projects have been running in parallel for over twenty-five years they obviously both have a great many connections. We have also maintained a kind of ‘software compatibility’ between the two projects. As a result, every research program that ‘runs’ on ANT should also ‘run’ on AIME! It is just that within the AIME project, the whole of the ANT approach becomes but one mode among many (it is called [NET] for ‘networks’). It is one of the two essential modes that render the inquiry feasible (the other being [PRE] for 'prepositions'). The difference in emphasis lies in the fact that ANT-based research relies on the question: ‘What is associated with what in the course of the inquiry?’ The multiplicity and surprises in the associations are the ‘truth conditions’ inherent to [NET]. However, such a description in no way stops the inquirer listening to other truth conditions for which the mere notion of ‘being associated’ is not enough. This is where the AIME project takes over but only after having first made an ANTish description.

This question is not unique to scientists but to any practitioner to whom the AIME project addresses itself. In general, a description of scientific practice carried out along the lines of the sociology and history of science, should represent a welcome change for scientists whose activity is usually described in the most abstract terms by epistemology or in the most cynical terms by critics. On the whole, science studies have been met with approval when they describe research and with misgivings or even fury when they propose an alternative account of scientific activities. Scientists who enter the project must not be too thin-skinned nor should they feel too insecure about the objectivity of their science. This however, is where the diplomatic encounters are of course useful and tough. The reason why scientists should feel reassured is because most conflicts do not deal with science as a practice but with another mode of existence, called Double Click [DC], that has made these debates fruitless. We hope that by barring [DC] from entering into the discussion, scientists will feel more welcome especially as they are now attacked by other scientists (controversies) and no longer carry the same authority as before.

Obviously, the project is systematic in the sense that it has been carried out for over twenty-five years and systematically pursued so that once a mode has been detected it is cross-referenced with all of the others modes. However, if by system it is meant that there are no other modes and that their description is complete, obviously AIME is not a system at all (compared to Hegel’s for instance) but firstly a recapitulation of certain ‘values’ most cherished by some of the informants interrogated by the author. This is to ensure that in the long run it is not transformed into a system but rather, that it has been conceived as an inquiry opened to many other co-inquirers other than the first one. On the whole, we think it is important that an inquiry into such an important topic as the anthropology of modernity be systematically pursued as each mode reacts to how another mode is understood. So, the postmodern obsession for avoiding systematicity at all costs, runs against the clarification that we wish to obtain.

The answer is definitely yes. It would be astonishing for an anthropological project not to take the invisible entities with which informants build their world very seriously. What is original about the AIME project is that it raises a set of questions that allow to the inquirer to define, for each claim to existence, the specifications of these entities. Thus, instead of a general division between the visible and invisible, the real and imagined, spiritual and material agents, a much larger gamut of possibilities of existence is envisaged, and as far as possible, precisely delineated. The expression ‘to take seriously’, when applied to these entities, is pushed to a new degree of precision because, contrary to all of the critical social sciences and much of ethnographic research, these specifications have to be ‘talked back to’ by those who are seriously engaged with them. In other words, the description by the AIME inquirers has to be proposed to the informants themselves. This is what makes the diplomatic encounters so interesting and risky.

The metaphor of diplomacy has been developed because there is no mediator above the parties doing the comparative anthropology. As long as there was the single Nature/multiple cultures paradigm, it is clear that mediator existed; an arbiter that could settle each dispute. This is why knowledge was the horizon of all possible anthropologies: ‘How do we know others?’ AIME is ‘sent’ on a ‘mission’ not just by knowledge but by diplomacy. That is, it states that there is no arbiter and asks the question: ‘Can we learn about and coexist with others?’ This is what opens up the possibility of a comparative anthropology understood as a negotiation of multiple ontologies. The ‘power’ that is represented in those encounters is probably the former Moderns who must now recognize that they have never been modern and that the Nature that they had imagined as a final arbiter is failing them, first as Knowledge, second as Gaia. However, the exact and variable shape of the parties in the negotiation is not defined in advance. So far, AIME is a peace proposal that comes after the disappearance of the state of war. It does not mean that diplomacy will really be happening.

Since every mode has so far been defined by trajectory, hiatus, reprise and specific category mistakes, and since every effort has been made to avoid undercutting the notion of ‘substance’, we thought that the labels given to them were not so important. This is why we always use acronyms ([REP], [FIC], [REF]) to make it clear that what we designate by those letters are not to be taken as the domains, regions, substances or stable ontologies of reproduction, fiction, reference etc. There is no general solution to the problem of names. Usage only shows what a word means. The only rule that we followed was to avoid inventing technical jargon.

In order to make best use of the platform, please choose the Google Chrome browser (please check for updates). And take a look at the tutorial.