Re: . rRe: reflection (on ending duels - still belabouring)

From: Judy Diamondstone (diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu)
Date: Fri Apr 27 2001 - 18:13:35 PDT


 
Paul, it's pretty clear to me that there is no such a thing as
comprehension that is not also interpretation,
and no matter what the topic or the listserve, an email message is not and
can never be equivalent to its supposed explicit referential meanings.

I and many others here have found Bakhtin very helpful for articulating why
that is.

Judy

On the other hand, listservs devoted to topics in
 The only time anything
>clear cut would emerge would be when someone made a statement that was
>simply a misrepresentation of the text at the comprehension, not the
>interpretation level;

 eg, statements to the effect that 2+2=5 or that
>Vygotsky's dog salivated upon hearing the bell ring, or other such
>statements. If such statements are made and someone else points to the
>error it would seem that we would fall back on the first rule (non-activity
>system derived -- rather using Lakoff's principle that conversation is meant
>to be helpful) to determine whether the individual or the interaction is the
>focus of the assertion. And sometimes people, through this process, also
>find out that they were mistaken and improve their comprehension in the
>process. So you ask: does the person say: "Q is not X" or does she say "You
>are wrong that Q is Y."

>I guess it just goes to show that their are boolean and fuzzy list servs and
>activity systems and that people in fuzzy ones shouldn't blame other
>people's understanding/insight/judgment/personality/character/etc in
>disagreements about where the boundary is.
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:06 PDT