Jay, I really like your definition of reflection (I missed it in our
previous discussion of "scientific and everyday concepts" -- I'm
wondering if my increased sensitivity to your emphasis on
"alternatives" was developed by reading your book "Textual
politics"). "I had proposed that a critical element of the former
was the habit of seeing each possible action or opinion as one of a
set of alternatives." I'd add emotion, goal, value, belief, etc. to
your list of "action or opinion." I also like your example and
analysis of dancers.
Vera, you wrote, "I just would like to add to your comment about
painters, etc. that many of these individuals have sketchbooks,
choreographic visual codes, etc. which allow a backward and
forward look about one's ongoing processes of construction." I'm
really interested in your comment. In the last issue of MCA (Mind,
Culture & Activity), Keith Sawyer discusses improvisational
performance and product creativity. I'm wondering this feature of
mediational tools allowing "backward and forward look about
one's ongoing processes of construction" relate to product creative
in contrast to improvisational performance where reflection occurs
on-fly.
Connie, thank you for your interesting analysis of ASL (and
references). Your sentence, " While hearing people sometimes
played a role in promoting the use of signed languages (in
educational settings for example), signed languages are the natural
languages of deaf people around the world and were not 'invented'
by the hearing for the deaf" made me think about several issues.
First, it seems to me that you point out at a very interesting
phenomenon of being "invented" and being "organically natural." I
always had some resistance to call language as a tool, or better to
say calling language as a tool seems to me to be metaphorical
rather than conceptual. Can you elaborate a bit more on this
interesting issue? Second, I hear from your message that there is a
political agenda of acknowledging ASL as 1) "real" language; 2)
language independent from oral language. I'm not very familiar
with community of deaf people but it seems to me (seeing what is
going on in other communities) that there might be at least two
paradigms now about deafness: 1) deficit of hearing (i.e., "normal"
people minus hearing) or 2) a different culture. Is it right? Can you
elaborate?
Have a nice weekend,
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz