With respect to "reliably reconstitutable phenomena," I suppose
one could say that was a critical way of identifying what some scientific
practices do or make, as opposed to critically pointing out all the things
they don't do, that some people have claimed they do.
Your investigations of active cognition in situ and projects of
growing activity in vitro as ways of extending cognition I see as moved by
similar impulses of understanding that
people are always trying to do things by their own best lights, no matter
how things may look from various distanced perspectives--and that one can
usually be of most help and support by working with and providing tools
for people's current projects (unless they are clearly destructive) and
the best way to draw people in new or more ambitious directions is to
provide conditions, opportunities, tools, and guidance that attract them
into new areas of activity and participation.
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> Chuck-- I like your idea of Reliably Reconstitutable Phenomena. I think
> it fits somehow with the notion of a "positive critical theory" that
> I have been playing with. Might they be thought of as coordinated
> sets of lenses?
>
> I also think this is related to the strategy I developed in
> the work described in Cultural Psychology. (On that topic, chapters 8-9
> seem either to have confused people or they are on vacation, or....
> Myself, I got a fine week away from work and near some beautiful
> mountains and lakes and trout.
> mike
>
>