Syftet med föreliggande doktorsavhandling i teknikhistoria är att öka kunskapen om varför, men framförallt hur och under vilka villkor den första elektrifieringen av en statsägd järnväg genomfördes i Sverige. Arbetet med Riksgränsbanans elektrifiering pågick 1908-1917 och var på många sätt ett unikt pionjärprojekt. Två stora tekniska system skulle där komma att sammankopplas med varandra; artonhundratalets mogna järnvägssystem med nittonhundratalets nya elkraftsystem. Riksgränsbanan, den omkring 130 km långa nordligaste delen av Malmbanan mellan Kiruna och Riksgränsen, var världens dittills nordligaste järnväg att elektrifieras och det subarktiska klimatet ställde stora krav på utförandet av tekniska komponenter. Den geografiska lokaliseringen innebar dessutom att de långa avstånden till beslutsfattare inom statsförvaltning och företag måste hanteras. Därutöver genomfördes projektet i en tidsperiod präglad av protektionism, nationalism och internationella konflikter, yttre faktorer som alla också påverkade projektets utformning och genomförande. Att det var Riksgränsbanan som blev den första statliga järnvägslinje att elektrifieras i Sverige berodde på att staten 1907 gått in som hälftenägare i gruvbolaget LKAB och att nya avtal fastställde en ökad brytning och transport av järnmalm, från 1,5 miljoner ton årligen 1908 till 3,85 miljoner ton 1918. Denna mängd kunde inte transporteras inom befintligt system med ångdrift utan omfattande investeringar, vilket innebar att en systemomvandling till elektrisk drift ansågs vara ett bättre alternativ. I maj 1910 beslutade riksdagen anslå 21,5 miljoner kr till projektet som skulle drivas av Järnvägsstyrelsens byrå för elektrisk drift i samverkan med företagen Siemens och ASEA. Kontraktsskrivningen ställde hårda krav på företagen gällande prestanda och utförande och Järnvägsstyrelsen kunde när som helst, senast två år efter övertagandet av driften av banan, besluta att upphäva kontraktet och kräva att företagen återställde anläggningen till ursprungligt skick.Det var en mängd tekniska subsystem och komponenter som skulle färdigställas och sättas samman för att det tekniska primärsystemet ”den elektrifierade Riksgränsbanan” skulle fungera. Speciellt färdigställandet av loken och isolatorerna till ledningssystemet omgärdades av problem som kom att försena projektets färdigställande. Problemen var både organisatoriska och tekniska till sin natur men kunde efterhand åtgärdas genom att det utarbetades bättre rutiner vid korrespondens och annan kontakt mellan aktörerna samt genom att det togs större hänsyn till lokala klimatologiska förhållanden i samband med teknikutveckling. I sin roll som byrådirektör för byrån för elektrisk drift skulle Ivan Öfverholm visa sig vara en stark representant för beställaren och han spelade en central roll för projektets genomförande. Öfverholm kan i detta sammanhang kategoriseras som en offentlig systembyggare som med fast hand styrde projektet. Ibland innebar detta att Öfverholm hamnade i direkt konflikt med företagens representanter men ofta fungerade han också som medlare i de konflikter som ideligen uppstod mellan Byråns och företagens lokala representanter vid anläggningen. Den tvååriga garantitiden inleddes den 1 oktober 1915 och i slutet av 1917 hade nästan samtliga kvarstående arbeten vid anläggningen fullföljts och SJ kunde ta över anläggningen. Slutomdömet om Riksgränsbanans elektrifiering var överlag positivt och 1919 beslutade riksdagen att elektrifiera resterande del av Malmbanan, vilket var genomfört från Narvik till Luleå sommaren 1923. Det banbrytande arbetet i den norrländska ödemarken med att elektrifiera Sveriges nordligaste järnväg var därmed avslutat. / <p>Godkänd; 2012; 20120221 (roiwik); DISPUTATION Ämnesområde: Teknikhistoria/History of Technology Opponent: Dr Mats Fridlund, Institutionen för filosofi, lingvistik och vetenskapsteori, Göteborgs universitet Ordförande: Biträdande professor Kristina Söderholm, Institutionen för ekonomi, teknik och samhälle, Luleå tekniska universitet Tid: Fredag den 20 april 2012, kl 10.15 Plats: A1547, Luleå tekniska universitet</p>

There were two-way and non-governmental communications between China and the United States in the field of agriculture throughout twentieth century. During the late nineteenth century, Chinese intellectuals already recognized the importance of western agricultural science and technology, and they began actively to court modern agricultural knowledge from western countries. The Plant Improvement Project (PIP) conducted by Cornell University and the University of Nanking from 1925 to 1931 was the groundbreaking agricultural cooperation in agricultural science and technology between the United States and China. Although most of the activities of this project were non-governmental, organized by two universities, and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the PIP broke new ground. In 1925, Professor H. H. Love of Cornell University was invited to the University of Nanking to lead a five-year cooperative program of crop improvement, which was called the PIP. From 1925 to 1931, Love along with C. H. Myers and R. G. Wiggans of Cornell University went to China to implement PIP. With the joint efforts of specialists from Cornell University and the University of Nanking, many high-yielding crop varieties were bred and distributed to farmers to improve yields and fight hunger; at the same time they trained a professional group of crop breeders and extension workers to continue crop breeding and distribution. PIP sought a new model for China’s application of the American concept of the integration of agricultural research, education, and extension, which resulted in both success and failure. PIP, however, exerted profound influence on the follow-up work not only at Cornell and Nanking but also for the governments of United States and Nationalist China.  <div><br></div><div>Following the PIP, in 1934, aiming to increase the well-being of rural populations, the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) trustee committee approved its first comprehensive program (China Program) for rural reconstruction in China. The RF established the North China Council for Rural Reconstruction (NCCRR) in 1936. By studying the policy, hopes, and outcomes of the NCCRR, this chapter provides a specific example of the problem western civil organizations faced in reshaping non-western rural societies. The NCCRR developed techniques for modernizing rural Chinese society; however, constant warfare, political instability, and funding shortages hindered the success of this endeavor. Its impact on China’s rural development remained after the termination of the China Program in 1944.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Then, to promote China’s post-World War II economic reconstruction and hunger relief, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry developed their transnational cooperation with the International Harvester Company from 1945 to 1948. In 1945, the Agricultural Engineering Program for China was proposed by Dr. P. W. Tsou, then a member of the Executive Committee of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the resident representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the Nationalist government in the U.S., to the International Harvester Company. This initiative was supported by International Harvester Company to help China quickly achieve agricultural mechanization. This program was composed with Harvester Fellowships to sponsor Chinese students to learn agricultural engineering in the U.S. and from the committee’s field investigations, demonstrations, and teaching in China. The Chinese Ministry of Education selected ten students who had graduated from agricultural universities and ten students who had graduated from the engineering universities with two to three years of practical work experience. In total twenty students went to the U.S. to study agricultural engineering. Those from engineering universities were sent to the University of Minnesota while those from agricultural universities received admission into master’s program of Iowa State College (later Iowa State University). In two years’ time, they took engineering courses and completed the master’s degree in agricultural engineering. Then, they received a one-year internship at local farms to practice. In September 1948, the first student group returned to China. These twenty students were the first group of Chinese graduate students to study agricultural engineering in the United States. After they returned home, most of them became China’s leading agricultural engineering experts for the People’s Republic of China. In addition, four experienced agricultural engineers (Edwin L. Hansen, Howard F. McColly, Archie A. Stone, and J. Brownlee Davidson) in the United States formed the Committee on Agricultural Engineering to conducted extensive field investigations in China from January 1947 to December 1948 until political and military conditions were not suitable for them to stay in China.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Except for the cooperation with the private sectors in the U.S., the Nationalist government also proposed to the U.S. government cooperation to organize a joint program to provide economic and technical assistance to China’s agricultural industry. In June 1946, the China-United States Agricultural Mission initiated its work. The committee members from the U.S. included Claude B. Hutchison as the head of the U.S. delegation and Raymond T. Moyer as deputy head. Committee members from China included Zou Binwen as the head of the Chinese delegation and Shen Zonghan as the deputy head. After the investigation of fifteen provinces, delegation members provided their findings and suggestions on the reconstruction of Chinese agriculture in their reports. In 1947, the Report of China-United States Agricultural Mission was released by the two governments. This report is a comprehensive agenda for agricultural construction which put forward feasible and systematic plans for agricultural management, crop improvement, and rural education. This plan did not get adopted in mainland China, but it incubated an organizational structure for the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction and provided a blueprint for agricultural reform in Taiwan. This mission had a profound effect on later cooperation in the field of agricultural science and technology between the two countries, which merits scholarly attention. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Final success of this transnational agricultural communication and cooperation was in Taiwan under the direction of the Sino-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction from 1948 to 1979. This program, funded by the U.S. government, had a distinct success in agricultural development in Taiwan, but it eventually ended after the Carter Administration withdrew diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 1979. Later this commission became part of the Council of Agriculture in the Executive Yuan of the Republic of China (ROC). <br></div><div><br></div><div>This agricultural communication and interaction between China and the U.S. made long-term impacts to China, the U.S., and the rest of the world. For the ROC and the PRC, these organized programs and cooperation gradually developed agricultural science and technology, increased agricultural production, and cultivated agricultural experts. These programs did not achieve their pre-set purpose to prevent communism from expanding in rural China, however, both the Nationalist government and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) enjoyed those rewards. The ROC directly benefitted from this assistance while PRC also indirectly obtained agricultural science and technology through those trained experts who chose to stay in the mainland after the revolution.<br></div><div><br></div><div>For the United States, these attempts in China helped Americans to expand and reevaluate their global assistance and development projects and governmental agencies, including the Marshall Plan, the Technical Cooperation Administration (TCA), the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA), and later the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). <br></div><div><br></div><div>For the rest of the world, new global agricultural cooperation, such as Green Revolution agricultural science, eradicated starvation and famine in many developing countries such as India, Mexico, and the Philippines. Meanwhile, global agricultural cooperation generated new problems including environmental degradation and pesticide contamination. Further international cooperation and agricultural development can be tracked back to the U.S.-China agricultural cooperative experience.<br></div>

What does it mean to do philosophy historically, and when does the legend of philosophy begin? When Hegel tried to give a logical explanation of philosophy''s history, was he doing the same thing as Eduard Zeller in his account of Creek thought, or Kuno Fischer in his narrative of modern philosophy? l do not believe so, and I shall sugges t in the following that we should carefully differentiate between the different activities commonly referred to as the history of philosophy. I will point out the enormous productivity of the 19th century in terms of printed books devoted to the history of philosophy. I will also point to the context in which these were produced and used rather than examining individual works or authors. There is an entirely new context in the 19th century, which is the study of philosophy. A proper culture developed around the historical interest in philosophy, and it is this culture I want to sketch here.

Gegen die Unumgänglichkeit des philosophiehistorischen Wissens sich zu stellen, haben verschiedene Denker unternommen, andere wollen die Umgangsformen der Philosophiegeschichte reformieren und neue Modelle des (historischen) Umgangs einführen. Gilles Deleuze nun scheint beides zu versuchen, indem er dem philosophiehistorischen Wissen als Philosoph jede Evidenz bestreitet und es zugleich als Philosophiehistoriker in einer neuen Umgangsweise aufhebt. Seine Philosophie ist offenbar verträglich mit einer Rede über andere Philosophien, ja scheint sie sogar zu fördern, wenn man so die Tatsache interpretieren will, daß Ddeuze eine ganze Reihe von Büchern zu einzelnen Denkern veröffentlicht hat. Wie diese Beziehung von Philosophie und Philosophiegeschichte bei ihm aussieht, ist bisher nicht untersucht. Zum paradoxen Unterfangen von Gilles Deleuze, Philosophiegeschichte zu treiben und sie zugleich zu unterlaufen, die folgenden Überlegungen, deren vorläufiger Charakter daran zu erkennen ist, daß sie sich an verstreuten expliziten Äußerungen orientieren.

Daß Cousin heute weitgehend vergessen ist, liegt eben daran, daß sein Tun und Wirken als Philosoph eng mit der Bildungspolitik seiner Zeit verwoben ist. Daß unsere Lehrbücher der Philosophiegeschichte ihn lediglich anführen als einen, der das Studium der Philosophiegeschichte gefördert habe, ist ein dialektischer Rückschlag der von Cousin selbst ins Werk gesetzten Historisierung, denn Cousin hat schnell das Prestige des „großen\' Philosophen verloren, das - nach seinen eigenen Vorstellungen - Unvergeßlichkeit garantiert. Vermeren zeigt überzeugend, daß es einen Weg gibt, diesem Vergessen mit Erkenntnisgewinn entgegenzusteuern, eben auf dem Weg einer Intellektuellengeschichte.

This PhD dissertation surveys the development of the concept and the academic discipline of mathematical logic in the transitional period between late Republican and early socialist China. Providing a contrastive analysis of the main developmental aspects of its conceptual variegations, its institutional life and research-related development, this dissertation focusses on the main continuities and discontinuities between these two important periods of its existence in the period of China's modernisation. The main analytical apparatus of this treatise is divided into two main parts. The first part outlines the main developmental milestones in research and teaching of mathematical logic in Chinese academic community in the late Republican period (1930-1949). Its main focus lies on the establishment of mathematical logic as a philosophical discipline in framework of the "Qinghua School of Logic" at National Qinghua University, on the one side, and the beginnings of Chinese mathematicians' research in mathematical logic in the early 1930s, on the other. The second part, on the other hand, closely examines the main three aspects of change which the idea and discipline of mathematical logic underwent in the first decade after the founding of the People's Republic (PRC): from its unique role in Chinese...

<p>  </p> <p>Retired from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 2007, the Chief Illiniwek mascot remains a pervasive image throughout the Champaign-Urbana, Illinois area. This dissertation explores the concept of collective memory, particularly in memory’s role in forming a collective identity. Chief Illiniwek, for many in this community, symbolizes honor and loyalty. More broadly, the Chief is part of the community’s collective memory and discussing the Chief evokes feelings of pride and nostalgia for many community members. This work puts Native American sports mascots in conversation with other controversial objects such as monuments to Confederate soldiers and Christopher Columbus – both of which are images of great pride for some groups and hate and exclusion for others. </p> <p>This dissertation also explores the rise of the internet’s role in memory-making and preservation. I analyze the content posted in two Facebook groups dedicated to preserving the memory of Chief Illiniwek, and in some cases campaigning to reinstate him as the mascot/symbol of the university. Additionally, I analyze the material culture of Chief Illiniwek by exploring the current state of buying used and new Chief Illiniwek merchandise. I connect the current collecting of Chief merchandise to the historical practice of museums and academics collecting indigenous material culture and human remains. Both acts are predicated on the perceived need to preserve a group that no longer exists and alter narratives to fit within a white supremacist framework. </p> <p>I argue that the Chief maintains a presence within the Champaign-Urbana community due to the power of collective memory. More specifically, the Chief works as a way to memorialize a white supremacist culture. Efforts to rid Chief imagery are met with outrage and disgust by supporters and in these groups any supporters refer to those that are anti-Chief as outsiders or politically correct activists. I argue that the Chief debate extends far beyond the confines of the university and should be discusses as a community issue rather than a campus problem. As the university continues to distance itself from this racist imagery, many in the community still celebrates the Chief and the image continues to circulate and be displayed. </p>

[pt] Esta pesquisa é o resultado parcial e provisório do confronto com a questão da relação entre filosofia e Violência: sob esse horizonte, esboçou-se uma história da Hierarquia Abstração-Matéria no interior da história da filosofia ocidental, focando-se na Antiguidade grega e na Modernidade. Após delinear a perspectiva adotada através dos conceitos de Abstração, Matéria e Hierarquia Abstração-Matéria, optou-se por um procedimento de levantamento abrangente e subsequente análise de aspectos já bem conhecidos e consensuais de diversos autores cujas obras podem ser enquadradas como filosóficas. Tal percurso exploratório de busca por conexões entre os filósofos se iniciou com Heráclito e passou por Parmênides, Zenão, Platão, Aristóteles, Montaigne, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Adorno e Horkheimer, tendo em seu começo e fim suas principais referências teóricas e temáticas. Ao longo dele, emergiu também a questão dos lugares do conceito de razão e da noção de Diferença no interior dessa história, sendo eles centrais para o tratamento dado à relação entre Abstração e Matéria. / [en] This research is the partial and provisional result of confronting the question of the relation between philosophy and Violence: encompassed by this horizon, a history of the Abstraction-Matter Hierarchy within the history of western philosophy was sketched, focussing on Greek Antiquity and on Modernity. Having outlined the current perspective with the concepts of Abstraction, Matter and Abstraction-Matter Hierarchy, a broad survey and subsequent analysis of well known and agreed-upon aspects of several authors whose works can be considered philosophical was carried out. Such exploratory path in search of connections between the philosophers had Heraclitus at its beginning, followed by Parmenides, Zeno, Plato, Aristotle, Montaigne, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Adorno and Horkheimer, with its main theoretical and thematic references at the first and final steps. Through it, the question of the places given to the concept of reason and to the notion of Difference in this history also emerged as central to handling the relation between Abstraction and Matter.

No description available.

No description available.