>Our discourses of space
>and time, however, do emphasize different aspects of interactivity, and
>either one will be misleading and incomplete without the other. Just as
>space and time are not a priori, or prior to interaction, so also our
>discourses of them are not foundational for discourse as such, and we
>certainly need to evolve better ways of talking about them. Topology can
>tell us much more about the possible discourses of space than our folk
>traditions, and I try to learn from it. So also both theories of
>multidimensional space-time and discourses that try to integrate space-time
>with interaction, rather than posit space-time as prior to interaction,
>need development........... Different kinds of interaction produce
>different relations of space and time,..............
Dear Jay,
Thank you so much for the above.
I agree with you on many points of the above.
I am interested in the issue how "different kinds of interaction produce
different relations of space and time" and related artifacts.
So, one of the issues I would like to seach is not what is correct
representation(artifacts) of time, environment, events, and activity
but how these representations(artifacts) and interaction are mutually
constituted although this is not the interest of Latour.
The direction Latour are trying to be beyond far/close,
micro/macro, and inside/ouside dichotomy or spacial metaphors looks
interesting as well.
I also think that "Topology can tell us much more about the possible
discourses of space than our folk traditions, and I try to learn from it."
By the way, Bowker and Star's paper"How things(actor-net)
work:Classification, magic and the ubiquity" I picked up from LCHC
homepage looks like very interesting. More politics oriented version
than apolitical looking ANT?
This is different approach to ANT from that in Reijo's paper.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo