that in a discussion that does not make the Modern presupposition that
there should, finally, emerge ONE victorious theory as True there is a dire
need for mindful negotiations about any object (concept, term) placed on
the floor of discussion. And I agree, also, that closing down the
discussion because each theory IS what it IS and never can they meet is
Modernity disappointed, Modernity gone cynical.
I think we do not need this for the growth and honing of our theories.
So when I ask for a bit of bracketing, a bit of suspended comprehension as
to how others use a certain terminology it is because I care about keeping
discussion alive and fruitful -- NOT because I'm some kind of Mum imposing
table manners (although when confronted with the stereotype I all too
easily trip myself into that guilt trap).
Now, in the current thread I get a strong sense that Edouard is using
"community" in a quite different sense from, say, Yrj=F6. Who focusses on th=
e
(emerging) object as the core that "defines and delimits" a community of
practice. Edouard seems rather to demand a certain quality of intense
involvement -- could you perhaps explain it a bit more?
Eva
Eva.Ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se