here is my vote - the questions of relativism and inscription - the
relation between emotions and perception, activity, are pervasively absent
in this lists' interests - a discussion of the
researcher-theorist-as-human/feeling-being would be a significant move
towards something substantially unique, don't you think?
such ideas, offered by Nishizaka, are also quite brilliantly incorporated
and
tightly woven with research motives, in Michael's paper available at
http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00rothetal-e.htm
so this is my vote:
Abstracts for Volume 7, Nos. 1 & 2 of Mind, Culture, and Activity
Seeing What One Sees: Perception, Emotion, and Activity
Aug Nishizaka
In this paper, it is demonstrated (1) how seeing is organized in the
spatiotemporal arrangement of bodies and conduct within which the
participants display and manage their orientations to the ongoing activity,
and (2) how seeing and emotion are mutually constituted in the precise
coordination of conduct and how they, along with other various kinds of
things, can constitute resources for organizing the ongoing activity. The
view advanced in this paper sharply contradicts the traditional conception
of visual perception, according to which the verb 'see' names a discrete
process, event or state hidden under the individual's skin. Seeing is
rather
an organizational feature of an embodied, visible activity.
**********************************************************************
: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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:11 PST