>Now watch what happened! There is another thing that has emerged:
> " the one performing the act of 'seeing' ".
>This is, then, an_internal relation_ between
> *the act of 'seeing',
> *the object that is constituted by this act, and
> *the one performing the act of 'seeing'.
>The three constitute one another, mutually.
>(The mutual
>constitution of the subject, object and act of experiencing is described
>(A) in Husserls _Ideen...., Erstes Buch,_ and
>(B) in Eva Ekeblad's thesis "Children*learning*numbers")
Dear Piotr
You know how much it disturbs me each time that you push me down onto the
lap of old man Husserl. Even more so when you do it in public -- I have to
say this, so that people do not think I get conceited by being placed so
close in his company. Yes, I admit that the relational triad of the
subject, the act, and the object that I have employed may well be echoes
from the old man, but there are, in this case, un-named intermediaries and
intermediaries of intermediaries.
Part of my unease with the Husserlian vicinity may stem from my perception
of The Collected Works as a Multiple User Dungeon: one which once a reader
enters into she may never return out to the un-fore-seeable world -- she
will forever remain conversing with the other Players-of-Husserl, unless
she is brave enough to use her sword to break out. On the other hand, not
venturing into the Husserlian Labyrinth, evidently I also lose some
hindsight of knowing the sources of where my echoes come from.
All that I tried to do in my thesis was to say something that I wanted to
say about children, learning, and numbers IN A WAY THAT COULD BE HEARD AT
VERY SHORT RANGE. Where I was. And what I wanted to say was that there is
more to Children*learning*numbers than just cognition: Children are
affected by numbers and numbers by children, but most of all
Children*learning*numbers are affected by other people involved (I did not
write a lot, if anything, about the vice versa in the thesis). Now, I
didn't write about it in exactly these terms, and I don't know if
'affected' is the best word to use. I also think that what I wanted to say
is much less extraordinary here, on the xmca, than in the context where I
produced my thesis. However, to be able to say it where I was, at this
time, I have gone through many discursive contortions -- even taking a
pride in a certain lightness of choreography that makes the contortions
look graceful. I piloted myself through the pains of writing by allowing
myself the fun of irony: sometimes disguised as seriousness. Again I should
add the vice versa.
So I leave you with the riddle, Piotr: have I really understood the
relational triad, or have I just learned so well to simulate, and go on
simulating the kind of discourse that is woven in my closest research
community, stretching it just the wee bit that is possible without ending
up in the wilderness outside?
Eva
PS
You also wrote:
> (The discussion of this comes close to the discussion of
> 'the new that can/ /cannot be learned'; that's for Eva)
Do you realise, Piotr, that this is also something for Yrj=F6? With his
thesis on "Learning by expanding", where he tackles this problem of
philosophy and psychology in a brilliant way.