「친환경에너지타운」 조성 의미와 추진 방향

조현수,Jo, Hyeon-Su 환경보전협회 2015 환경정보 Vol.419 No.-

이제 안정적인 폐기물 처리와 자원순환 사회 구축, 기후변화 대응과 친환경 에너지 확보는 더 이상 미룰 수 없는 과제이다. 우리 스스로 더욱 노력해 폐자원 에너지화 기술개발과 함께 친환경에너지타운 조성사업 속도를 낼 때이다. 친환경 에너지타운이야말로 기피 혐오시설을 활용하여 에너지를 생산함으로써 환경과 에너지 문제를 동시에 해결할 수 있는 최선의 대안이라고 확신한다.

실내공기질 관리방향

조현수,Jo, Hyeon-Su 환경보전협회 2004 환경정보 Vol.26 No.7

실외공기는 주요 환경문제로 인식되어 이미 다양한 법과 정책으로 관리되고 있으나 실내공기질의 경우 학계의 연구결과와 사회적 관심증가로 인하여 새로운 환경문제로 부각되고 있다.<중략>

깔짚우사 내 젖소분뇨 발생량 평가

조현수,이승훈,이재희,안희권,Jo, Hyun-Soo,Lee, Seung-Hun,Lee, Jae-Hee,Ahn, Hee-Kwon 한국축산환경학회 2015 한국축산시설환경학회지 Vol.21 No.1

This study was conducted to determine the amount of manure production from Holstein dairy cattle raised in bedded pack barn and the appropriate bedding material removal time. Total six heads of dairy cows (about 715 kg weight) were raised in three pens (two heads per pen) for 62 days. Average daily production of manure containing sawdust bedding was 21.2 kg per head and that of manure excluding bedding was 18.7 kg. Moisture content of bedding materials were significantly increased up to 86% of water holding capacity (WHC) of sawdust during the first 30 days. It kept very stable level after 30 to 50 days. Theoretically, 30 days after adding fresh bedding seems to be proper removal time only based on WHC. On the other hand, from a practical perspective, maximum 50 days after adding new bedding would be fine by comprehensively considering various factors such as bedding material purchasing cost, feeding environment and manure treatment.

베르그손 <지속> 이론의 근본적인 변화

조현수(Hyun Soo Jo) 철학연구회 2011 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.95

Bergson`s second work, matter and memory, shows a considerable change in his understanding of time`s nature. There, time is no more something indivisible, the distinction of past and present being taken as it`s essential feature. Bergson asserts that the past, by it`s nature, is something that never ceases to be. His assertion of this immortality of the past leads many people to think that, for him, it`s by virtue of the past that duration is possible. Deleuze, an excellent commentator of Bergson`s thinking, constructs a really sophisticated argumentation to explain how this immortal ontological past makes possible the passage of time. But we think that the past, as well as the present, tends only to be spatialized, if it is left alone without the help of the future: the ontological past can not make possible time. We try to show how the future can save past and present from their inherent tendency of spatialization: it is by virtue of the future that time(duration) is possible.

'잠재적인 것'은 '현실적인 것'에 대해 과연충분 근거일 수 있는가?

조현수(Hyun Soo Jo) 철학연구회 2015 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.108

Deleuze``s idea of ``the actualisation of the virtual`` seems to assert that the virtual, a totally ideal(immaterial) entity, engenders the actual which is fully material. But between something immaterial and something material, there seems to be but the relation of mutual exclusivity, which would make it impossible for the former to play the role of engendering the latter. What is the way for the virtual to avoid this difficulty. Some thinks that there is no other way than to make a more moderate understanding of Deleuze``s idea. According to this moderate understanding, the role of the virtual does not lie in engendering the actual, but in giving the rule governing the formation of the latter. But this attempt to sidestep the difficulty can not but fail because Deleuze``s theory of ``static genesis`` demands the virtual to be the sufficient reason of the actual and that this demand can be satisfied only in so far as the virtual can really engender the actual. In what way, then, can the virtual really accomplish this seemingly impossible mission, i.e. to create the full materiality of the actual out of it``s integral immateriality? We believe that Deleuze does not succeed in finding out this way. This paper is mainly to explain the reason of why we believe so.

베그르손 철학에서 시간은 과연 잴 수 없는 것인가?

조현수(Jo, Hyun-Soo) 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2007 철학사상 Vol.24 No.-

베르그손의 아인슈타인 비판-무엇이 잘못되었나? (1)

조현수(Jo, Hyun-Soo) 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2008 철학사상 Vol.30 No.-

FastText를 적용한 한국어 단어 임베딩

조현수(Hyunsoo Jo),이상구(Sang-goo Lee) 한국정보과학회 2017 한국정보과학회 학술발표논문집 Vol.2017 No.12

반복에 대한 순수 과거의 이중적 관계

조현수(Hyun Soo Jo) 한국철학회 2012 철학 Vol.0 No.112

Through his theory of three synthesis of time, Deleuze wants to establish that repetition is a all-dominating fundamental character of our psychic system, as it does for any other system in the world, and that it does, at all the moments of its progress, never cease to produce differences irreducible to a more fundamental identity. The principle task of this paper is to show it is ‘why’ the pure past, constituted by the second synthesis of time, that makes repetition be such a thing and how it can do that. Deleuze claims that the perfect completion of repetition lies in establishing the 〈absence of origin〉 and that it is only when we could arrive at the stage of the third synthesis of time, the eternal return, that such a perfect completion of repetition can be accomplished. But what we endeavor to do in this paper is to show that such a perfect completion of repetition can be, in fact, already done by the pure past, which succeeds in eliminating the illusion of the priority of the original over the copies. By showing this, we propose the idea that the way how the eternal return overcomes the insufficiency of the pure past does not consist in bringing in something new, totally deficient to the pure past, but in developing rightly what this latter envelops already in itself.

들뢰즈의 차이의 존재론과 신다윈주의의 만남

조현수(Hyun Soo Jo) 철학연구회 2014 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.104

Deleuze`s ontology of difference poses a perfect identity between Being and Difference, which enables it to say that everything in the world exists as being in the movement of differenciation. So, according to this ontology, there is a permanent tendency toward change in the very internal nature of living being and this internal nature is the reason why it evolves. But neo-darwinism contradicts this view by insisting that the internal nature of living being does not consist in a tendency toward change, but in a invariant self-replication. Evolution happens, according to this theory, because an external force comes to perturb the normal functioning of this self-replication. That is to say, if a living being evolves, it is not by it`s own internal nature, but it is rather forced to evolve, despite it`s own internal tendency toward invariant self-replication. Therefore, it seems that there is an non-conciliable opposition between Deleuze`s ontology of difference and neo-darwinism. But, surprisingly, Deleuze tries to get from this opposing theory an argument capable of demonstrating his own idea of internal tendency of living being toward change. This argument arrives at the conclusion that a movement of decoding is always already immanent to the code. And this conclusion leaps to a highlighting proposition of Deleuzian philosophy: “an absolute deterritorialisation is always already immanent to any relative deterr itorialisaion and, by consequent, to any territory and any stratum. [...] A permanent mutual immanence of strata and plan of consistance.” Here, we can see that the very idea of Plan of Consistance(Body without organs) have, as it`s source, the argument which Deleuze wish to derive from the neo-darwinism in order to appropriate it in favour of his own idea of the evolution. In so far as we know, Deleuze proposes no other argument which can play the role of the source from which the very idea of Plan of Consistance would be originated. Even if there is such an other argument, this ‘argument from ned-darwinism’ would still remain one of the most important source. So we are permitted to believe that Deleuze`s rencontre with the neo-darwinism is far from being an transitory episode, never indispensable for the construction of his philosophy, but an crucial moment which lays the very foundation stone supporting the whole weight of the magnificent theoretical architecture of Deleuze`s philosophy. If this foundation stone is shaken, this magnificent architecture will collapse immediately, like a castle in the air. This paper knocks on this foundation stone in order to see if it is really solid. How can Deleuze make his most dangerous enemy(neo-darwinism) his best friend?