> And, as I understand you, this isn't a propadeutic, for on the
>other side of this determination of how our reading is shaped, there is
>still no possibility of a corrective lens that might bring history into
>focus so we can see it for what it is . . .
history for what it is...? isn't a dispersed set of perspectives? the idea
here is to bring these perspectives into a conversation, not assert a
particular History....
>
>i wonder if this is necessarily so and if this really constitutes a
>productive way to orient the discussion here, since some of us pursue
>practical activities among people who don't deal with texts in this sense
>at
>all and our engagement with texts is meant to inform that practice whose
>outcome is not simply the production of further texts but practical
>liberations of various degrees and kinds (eg., education)
again, the idea is not to produce implications for each person's
individual practice,
but to draw more attention to ourselves, as participants in a list of
diverse membership,
one that rarely makes room for the kinds of diversities that might yet be
revealed
in a conversational atmosphere. if we can abandon ideas of what's the
"true" perspective and seek more understandings about different
perspectives, it seems to me, and others here, that we are closer to
exploring what cultural-historical activity can be -
that is, to situate here amongst ourselves.
diane
**********************************************************************
: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 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:26 PST