pressures of work, the intensity of xmca chat and the effort it takes an
amateur like me to keep up, leaves me reading the list over the weekend in
order to to be able to absorb and reflect!! apologies! but wow! it is a
stunning experience being part of this list! i am firmly convinced that
activity theory has a crucial role to play in resolving the crisis we are
facing, but ... I am also dissatisfied in many ways ....
______________________________
Diane on - "the actual objective world always strikes me as kind of a red
herring - sure, it's there, but we can't know it"
what do you mean that "we can't know it?". what is this knowing? is it
something other than our activity which succeeds as well as it does in
reproducing ourselves? does the fact that we can't produce an identical
image of it in our heads mean "we can't know it?" surely not!! because
knowing is not reflecting in that camera sense, is it? our knowing it is
the adequacy of our social activity in it.
and to by-pass this fact has some significance. if we accept that the
objective world exists, we can assume all of us share the same one,
otherwise the terms "objective" and "world" are being mis-used.
the criterion of truth is therefore how we live. if you take away the
category of "objective world", you can choose your own truth. some people
do believe that individuals freely construct personal meaning for
themselves, ... but I don't think that's viable at all, do you?
Andy
At 08:30 AM 27/10/2000 -0600, you wrote:
>hworthen@igc.org writes:
>>There is the "objective" actual world.
>
>ok, i admit i've been out of this conversation for some time, too weary to
>pontificate or show off what i know, because, hey, what do i know?
>but the actual objective world always strikes me as kind of a red herring
>- sure, it's there,
>but we can't know it, so - isn't that a bit like hypothesizing a "real"
>world
>while admitting there is no way to access it?
>it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but in terms of materialism, and
>perception and perspective
>and that ever-haunting historicized body creeping itself all over
>everything we think we might
>know, or believe,
>i am not sure i see the value in believing in an "objective" world,
>because it assumes
>the "world" holds some sort of perspective, or position, that
>exceeds our (people) interactions with it - ?
>isn't objectivity a value-position?
>diane
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> :point where everything listens.
>and i slow down, learning how to
>enter - implicate and unspoken (still) heart-of-the-world.
>
>(Daphne Marlatt, "Coming to you")
>***********************************************************************
>
>diane celia hodges
>
> university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
>instruction
>==================== ==================== =======================
> university of colorado, denver, school of education
>
>Diane_Hodges@ceo.cudenver.edu
>
>
>
>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
| All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational |
| solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.|
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:36 PST