[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: The emergence of Boundary Ojbects

Thanks, Larry, for your very interesting reading of the topics in our article. I like very much your metaphor of the table, which points out the organizational aspect that we aimed to describe with regard to boundary objects. Rolf has done an excellent case about this in his previous e-mail.

I'd like also to pick up on your comments about subject matter. Indeed, the title of the paper, "The Matter of Space" was intended precisely as a play on words that was to mark the issue of space both as matter, and as subject matter. As to the connections with Mead, I have only recently begun to read him, and actually motivated by some of the last e-mails in this list about Mead. But I definitely think that one of the points was what I heard Jean Lave say in a lecture that Andy uploaded here( https://vimeo.com/28855105 ):  "We always learn what we are already doing". So, one question we set up for ourselves in this paper was: how is the doing, which is primary, and the coming along a trajectory of conceptual development related to each other?


((Sorry I write outside of the thread of e-mails, but I am having some troubles to publish in xmca from my e-mail address and I must do some tests. The e-mail below aimed to address Larry's last e-mail on the article's discussion thread. This e-mail may end up appearing several times. Apologies...))