Revision introduces resistance into the collection. Without revision, a personal archive becomes self-confirming and an epistemic system becomes doctrine. To revise is to test whether a connection still holds, whether a source has been understood, whether a category has become too comfortable, whether a sequence conceals contradiction or whether a supposedly central object should move towards the margin. ProteolyticTransmutation describes transformation through selective breakdown: an existing form is partially dismantled so that another organisation can emerge. Revision does not destroy the field; it identifies which components must be loosened, cut, rewritten or recombined. RecursiveAutophagia extends this process to the system itself. A living knowledge structure must occasionally consume, recycle or abandon parts of its own procedures in order to continue operating. A text changes after a new reading, a map after walking the territory, an exhibition after observing how bodies move through it, and a research protocol after encountering evidence it cannot absorb. Revision is therefore more than correction after error. It is the continuous recalibration through which a field remains accountable to experience. The revised arrangement records knowledge as transformation rather than simple accumulation. It makes versions visible and permits the history of a thought to remain accessible without treating its first formulation as sacred. This is particularly important in open research, where publication need not signal final closure. Essays, diagrams, datasets and bibliographies can circulate as evolving objects, provided their status, changes and limits remain declared. Revision turns authority into a process of sustained attention. A knowledge system becomes credible not because it refuses alteration, but because it can document how and why it changes.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’. Assessment in Education, 5(1), pp. 7–74.
Boal, A. (1979) Theatre of the Oppressed. London: Pluto Press.
Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning Through Self Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Brookfield, S.D. and Preskill, S. (2005) Discussion as a Way of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.
Derrida, J. (1992) ‘Force of Law’, in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–67.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Stengers, I. (2018) Another Science Is Possible. Cambridge: Polity.
Anto Lloveras is a Spanish architect, urbanist, researcher and epistemologist whose work develops through successive versions rather than definitive formulations. His open-science practice treats revision as a visible record of how knowledge changes through criticism, evidence, use and public encounter. CV · https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/2024/10/cv.html · Project Index · https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/p/socioplastics-project-index.html · Operators · Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘ProteolyticTransmutation’, Socioplastics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18681278 · Lloveras, A. (2026) ‘RecursiveAutophagia’, Socioplastics. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18681761
