[First let me say that I am taken with Batesons style of metalogues - the
structure of the discussion among participants is relevant to the
problematic subject. This is an attempt to engage you in a type of
theoretic frolicking over email. Hopefully this caveat will preclude the
necessities of later apologies.]
Looking into Naoki's previous posting on mutual constitution and
interrelatedness, I have taken some liberties in doing a mapping between
'oldtimers' and 'artifacts, 'newcomers' and 'subjects', in Naoki's original
posting the end of July '97, i.e. a simple, but plausible, substitution of
words:
["]One more point is that ways of participation of the parties are
mutually shaped. For example, artifacts and subjects in a practice
reciprocally constitute each other. The categories such as artifact and
subject are ways of organizing mutual participation rather than the labels
for participants in a practice. Thus, a way of participation is always
reciprocally shaped with others' ways of participation in the context. ["]
Hmm... The artifact-in-itself distinction dissappears - and it would
appear that the primary/secondary/tertiary categorization is primarily one
of abstraction. In other words, it is one dimension among which artifacts
can be delineated by us as researchers, with a high level of abstraction,
for the purposes of understanding cultural interactions. But Mike, if an
artifact can be primary, secondary or tertiary, depending upon its use,
then I have difficulty understanding why that distinction is made unless it
has some utility (which I presently do not see) or unless it is part of a
more comprehensive description. I am elated with this fictitious finding.
So does it make sense to define artifacts in other ways?
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]