On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, [iso-8859-1] Yrj=F6[iso-8859-1] [iso-8859-1] Engestr=
=F6m wrote:
> The "place" of the script in the
> activity system is not fixed. (I've discussed this in the following paper=
:
> Engestr=F6m, Y. (1996) Interobjectivity, ideality, and dialectics. Mind,
> Culture and Activity: An International Journal, 3 (4), 259-265.)
=09
=09Well, I've rummaged through all of my book cases - now I can't
find that particular article - and I have shared it in several doctoral
seminars that I've been in! So, someone must have borrowed the original -
and I'll track it down.=20
> How do we know that something is functioning as a tool rather than as a
> rule? One indicator is often the type of awareness or purposiveness
> involved. When you use the script for making a long-distance phone call,
> you typically relate to it in a fairly conscious, even goal-directed
> manner. But you are not often aware of the rules (scripts) that tell you
> how to behave like a parent, to use Phillip's example. This difference is
> not a strict rule, however!
=09I am glad to have my own thoughts confirmed that I can be flexible
in my interpretation - the critical element being that others who read
my papers agree. I am uncertain about how specific the purposiveness has
to be - me and my batesonian dissonance.
=09Thank you again, Yrgo, very much.
Phillip