Ana's reference to Bateson and play is a wonderful insight, having read Mike's
plea for the bigger picture. "this is play" communicates to frame an activity
among participants. What this (what we are communicating now arouind Thibault)
seems to be about is just that (that being Mike's and Ana's ideas combined) --
finding an interpretive frame for observing and thinking about human
interaction.
I complained about using spatial metaphors and suffering their excess semiotic
baggage - levels implies hierarchy (especially, as B&G might argue is a
phenomenon of capitalist society), but then there are layers, channels and
dimensions, all of which can go on in parallel and mutual influence, i.e.
bidirectional causality.
Mike seems to say bio-evo-psychologists are playing a bigger game, and he
doesn't want chat'ers excluded from it.
How to take phylogeny into account for chat studies? Eeek! Tongue in cheek,
does it not belong to the generations of researchers to follow? Is this too
much to bite off?
Although it makes sense, I am clueless.
bb
=====
"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."]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:00:55 PDT