[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: The emergence of Boundary Ojbects
Well I am now hooked on this topic
I am pro-foundly curious about "living the question" and your question is calling me to the "depths" of my shared question.
"How is the doing, which is primary AND the coming along a trajectory conceptual development related to each other.
In other words, how are place/place-making and "meaning" related?
I will now move to focus attention on the relation of "making" and "design". The design team must first design/engage in a place-making activity FOR (in order to) their collaborative setting. In other words attend to taking "care" and focusing this design moment prior to attending to future imaginal design moments.
I want to share a word in Japanese that I find relevant to this topic/narrative of place/meaning. It is the word "ma" which can be translated as "interval"
An example: In greeting another you bow down and then arise. However there is an interval/pause between the bowing down and arising. The design performance INCLUDES this interval BETWEEN movements. This pause is PRIMARY in expressing the doing of place-making.
I share this focus on "ma" as a way of expanding the movements of "repair" to include the "tarrying in place" (the place of rest and stillness) in our notions of "care" and "repair".
I am exploring this notion of "making/construction" as focused on the active doing. place-abiding (as meaning) may also consider the place of rest (the interval as a form of "care".
I am now translating (and entering your question).
It may overlap with per-forming and de-sign as another aspect of meaning/place.
The "/" can be read as an interval, a moment of stillness and coming to rest in our "making" and "doing" The place of "ma" as the interval in time.
I am deeply moved by your profound way of "living the question" which opens a space for focusing our awareness on performance and coming into existence what has been previously imagined.
I will pause at this place and listen with care to others reflections.
Thank you for this opportunity to think out loud
From: "Alfredo Jornetgil" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: 2015-07-15 8:18 AM
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [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...))