Latin American Language Poetry, Themes and Techniques: A Renewal of Poetic Discourse in Post-Millennium Authors provides a study of Latin American poetry with works from the second half of the 20 th and first two decades of the 21 st Centuries. This study analyzes the works of David Rosenmann-Taub (Chile 1927), José Kozer (Cuba 1940), and José Morales Saravia (Perú 1954) to reveal the themes and techniques they utilize as tools in their labors. On the lyrical and literary level, the investigation provides a briefing of sound, identity, and the anabatic or ascension theory in relationship with their works and post-contemporary sociocultural endeavors. Additionally, it focusses on the new approaches and paths they take within their poetic styles and the new elements and components that characterize their works. While these poets are now considered under the Neobaroque style, their approach based on the crafting and molding of language accommodates their works under the umbrella of "Post-Millenium Latin American Language Poetics." This fact renews poetic discourse in the field. The research establishes a theoretical frame to study the themes and techniques. It also presents a descriptive approach along with a concise poetry analysis of several works by the above-mentioned authors and renders a view of their evolution and accessibility of their works. iii DEDICATION I dedicate this dissertation to my mother and father, Blanca Luna Victoria, and Oswaldo Walasky; to my grandmother Ofelia, and my husband César. Also, to my youngest son Erick, who constantly encouraged my endeavors and rewarded my work with incentives from Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Beijing, Shang-Hai, Tokyo, etc. And, to Dominican religious Mother Angel, and Mother Katelyn, my Kindergarten and 3 rd Grade teachers, respectively, who taught me persistence, discipline, and hard work can make a difference in life.

In 1994, while working on a collection of articles on the interaction between research in Artificial Intelligence and Cybernetics and the Humanities, Stefano Franchi and Güven Güzeldere visited Heinz von Foerster in Pescadero, California, the small town on the Pacific coast about 40 miles south of San Francisco he had settled in after retiring from the University of Illinois. There were several reasons that prompted us to seek a meeting with meet with Heinz. We both had a long-standing interest in the history of mechanized intelligence, and we shared the conviction that cybernetics, in all its different varieties, had not been given the credit it deserved by the standard accounts. We also shared the conviction that one of the most interesting aspects of Heinz von Foerster's work was his willingness to forgo disciplinary boundaries and let his research dictate the boundaries of his discipline. We felt that his radical attitude toward the vexed issue of interdisciplinarity could provide a useful perspective in a period of acknowledged stasis in Artificial Intelligence research, and we were eager to listen to a first-hand account of its benefits and perils. And last but not least, we thought that it would be improper to defy the goddess of Fortune by ignoring the opportunity she was giving us: at the time we were both at Stanford, a mere 40 minute drive from the residence of a scientist who had proved so important in the development of our field of studies and whose work had been a determinant factor in Stefano's decision to leave his home country and continue his studies in the US. Our questions were shaped by these interests, and they mostly focus on the theoretical and institutional history of Cybernetics and its often tumultuous relationship with AI. We cannot underestimate how much we learned about history and scientific methodology from that afternoon with Heinz in Pescadero and from the ensuing exchanges.

A few years ago, in a conference devoted to the work of Italo Calvino, Giorgio Agamben pointed out that the discussion of the limits of representation, Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy, the ontological implications of quantum mechanics, and so forth, are issues debated so often in recent times that they have become virtually meaningless.

In 1994, while working on a collection of articles on the interaction between research in Artificial Intelligence and Cybernetics and the Humanities, Stefano Franchi and Güven Güzeldere visited Heinz von Foerster in Pescadero, California, the small town on the Pacific coast about 40 miles south of San Francisco he had settled in after retiring from the University of Illinois. There were several reasons that prompted us to seek a meeting with meet with Heinz. We both had a long-standing interest in the history of mechanized intelligence, and we shared the conviction that cybernetics, in all its different varieties, had not been given the credit it deserved by the standard accounts. We also shared the conviction that one of the most interesting aspects of Heinz von Foerster's work was his willingness to forgo disciplinary boundaries and let his research dictate the boundaries of his discipline. We felt that his radical attitude toward the vexed issue of interdisciplinarity could provide a useful perspective in a period of acknowledged stasis in Artificial Intelligence research, and we were eager to listen to a first-hand account of its benefits and perils. And last but not least, we thought that it would be improper to defy the goddess of Fortune by ignoring the opportunity she was giving us: at the time we were both at Stanford, a mere 40 minute drive from the residence of a scientist who had proved so important in the development of our field of studies and whose work had been a determinant factor in Stefano's decision to leave his home country and continue his studies in the US. Our questions were shaped by these interests, and they mostly focus on the theoretical and institutional history of Cybernetics and its often tumultuous relationship with AI. We cannot underestimate how much we learned about history and scientific methodology from that afternoon with Heinz in Pescadero and from the ensuing exchanges.

The Heritage of Heinz von Foerster his prologue to an interview with Heinz von Forster I conducted several years ago, Francisco Varela (1995) wrote that "As the dust settles with time, the role of Heinz von Foerster in contemporary science becomes sharper and more vivid." Although Varela meant those words as a homage to the scientist who -as he recounts -played a decisive role in his professional and intellectual development, I think we could and should wish a different fate for his work. Since its inception and long after its eventual and perhaps provisional demise, second-order cybernetics had the gift of producing sharply divided opinions about the scientific relevance of its theories and results. Against the undivided enthusiasm of the participants in von Foerster's intellectual adventure -his students and collaborators, the visitors and fellows at the BCL, etc. -stood the hostile skepticism of the vast majority of the scientific community. Whereas some hailed him as one of the greatest minds of the century, others dismissed him an intellectual fraud. The heritage of second-order cybernetics needs less sharpening -it needs to be brought into a blunt confrontation with the disciplines it helped create and those it antagonized. It needs a broad and far-reaching discussion of its assumptions and history, its conceptual tools, and its implication for current work in cognitive science as well as all the discipline pertaining to the explanation, simulation, and potential replication of cognitive abilities.