Re: e.g., a practice-based methodology?

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 21:23:45 +0100

At 09.22 -0800 97-11-21, diane celia hodges wrote:
>Re-forming institutions won't help because
>of the way the materials are re-instated - and so limited -
>
>in the notion of "forming" something again (reshape... can't turn a
>porcelain vase into a stainless steel bucket)

Diane, Diane: watch your metaphors. They're fun and drastic... and could be
played with (like using the vase for a potty...) but how well do they fit
the re-forming potentials AND constraints and inertias of human societal
institutions? You break a vase and get a heap of shards that will probably
never again serve to contain a fluid. They made some mosaics in the
pavement of Brunnsparken from the broken china salvaged from the
east-indiaman Gotheborg -- nice to look at but not very walkable :-/ ...
You break an institution and you still got a lot of living people you
cannot very well make pavement mosaics of. Even if you tear down the
buildings (which seems kind of a waste) and burn the books because there's
no

>value of knowledge-for-knowledge's-sake (which I admit I used to support
>but lately am thinking it's just another ruse...)

How about knowledge for life's sake: I'm all for weeding as opposed to
bonfires.

And something entirely(?) different:
>(oiy: "my" project, she sez, like she owns it..., see? ownership. it's
>everywhere)

Perhaps it is yours because YOU belong to IT? or because you participate,
are a constitutive part of it... or... it of you? I dont remember where I
read it, but I know I cannot take sole credit for this doubt that the
"possessive" pronomina are all about ownership. They can and do also mean
other close relations.

Eva