On Wednesday 30 October 2002 08:54 pm, Jay Lemke wrote:
Something [a person or a thing, my insert] occupies that role because we put
it there, not because its nature compels it to be in one role or another.
I'd like to clarify that I interpret the "we" in "we put it there" is in the
complete inclusive sense. In contrast, the sentence could be read that a
person's role is imposed by the others in Activity -- but I think a close
reading of Jay's writing about semiotic ecology indicates that the full
agency that shapes a person's role includes the person. Individual-as-actor
is not obviated by greater socio-technical agencies, but instead is one
causal force, in a network of causal forces, and directed both towards and
away from the self.
Judy's comment toward the "complexity of representing
dialogue in activity, especially given its multifunctionality" sums up well
her problematizing posting which has also been puzzling me since. So we
agree.
Not making any new points here -- just writing for deeper personal
understanding.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST