Jose Luna

This article explores the ethical considerations surrounding using Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in preserving movable cultural heritage, focusing specifically on its application in restoration, reconstruction, and recreation. While GenAI offers innovative methods for preserving and recreating cultural heritage, it also presents significant ethical challenges. The article reviews current studies on the role of GenAI in heritage preservation alongside relevant ethical guidelines and proposes a tailored ethical framework for its application in movable heritage. The framework addresses several critical ethical concerns, including cultural integrity and sensitivity, accuracy and authenticity, intellectual property rights, sustainability and social impact, and governance and ethical accountability. The article adopts a systematic methodology, combining a comprehensive literature review, thematic analysis, and expert evaluation to develop practical guidelines that ensure GenAI enhances rather than compromises movable heritage’s cultural and historical value. This ethical framework advocates for the responsible use of GenAI, emphasising the importance of collaboration with cultural experts and relevant communities, ensuring transparency in the use of data, and promoting robust ethical governance in AI-driven heritage preservation projects. Ultimately, the framework aims to guide practitioners and institutions in using GenAI in ways that respect and uphold the integrity of cultural heritage while also utilising the benefits of this cutting-edge technology as a tool for better assistance of heritage preservation.

O livro que ora apresentamos ao nosso público leitor é uma homenagem. Na verdade, ele pretende ser muito mais do que uma homenagem: pretende ser uma manifestação sincera de gratidão e um público reconhecimento de uma trajetória intelectual e profissional indiscutivelmente séria, profícua e influenciadora. Trata-se, portanto, de um Festschrift de ex-alunos em homenagem ao Professor Fernando Raul Neto, professor titular da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), por ocasião dos seus 50 anos de docência.

En este texto se describe la estructura del acto de la lectura como encuentro entre la conciencia del lector y el texto de ficción —teniendo en la base la imaginación—. Con este propósito en mente, se lleva a cabo una lectura complementaria entre la hermenéutica del texto de Ricoeur y los análisis sobre la conciencia de fantasía de Husserl, en tres momentos: 1) explicitación de la autonomía semántica del texto de ficción sobre la base de la constitución de mundos de fantasía en el modo “como si”; 2) descripción de la configuración de la experiencia de tiempo en el acto de la lectura como un modo de neutralización; y 3) descripción de la escisión del yo en el modo “como sí” constitutivo de los mundos de fantasía en la experiencia de la lectura como condición de posibilidad de la comprensión del sí mismo.This text describes the structure of the act of reading, based on imagination, as a meeting between the reader’s awareness and the fictional text. With this purpose in mind, a complementary reading is carried out between Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of the text and Husserl’s analyzes of fantasy consciousness, in three moments: 1) making explicit the semantic autonomy of the fictional text on the basis of the constitution of fantasy worlds in the “as if” mode; 2) description of the configuration of the time experience in the act of reading as a mode of neutralization; and 3) description of the splitting of the self in the “as-if” mode constitutive of fantasy worlds in the experience of reading as a condition of possibility of understanding the self.

The article at hand is an attempt to clarify some misunderstandings and non-logical conclusions that some scholars have arrived to in regards to the authorship and chronology found in the book of Daniel. Also, it appears that there is not a clear understanding of the roles played by Cyrus and Darius as co-regents of the Medopersian empire. In addition, many scholars attribute the second part of Daniel (chapters 7-12) to a pseudo Daniel from the 2nd century b.C. The internal evidence of the book itself prevents the careful reader to jump into that conclusion. -/- .