Re: social games & artifacts (was Re: All the way with Piaget)

Naoki Ueno (nueno who-is-at nier.go.jp)
Sat, 9 May 1998 00:47:50 +0900

At 0:50 PM 5/7/98 -0700, Mike Cole wrote:
> I also think that bringing Harroway in the discussion is very
>helpful. It is a key text used in my department and one that I find
>very helpful as a border object between various sub-disciplines/perspectives
>in the department.
>
> On cooins as tools of reflection: Note the conditions under which
>you can see two sides of the coin at once. The obvious way is to see
>the edge and one side. But that is the coin seen held at a distance.
>
>What if you bring the coin, vertically, as if standing on a table,
>up close to your nose, right between your eyes. YYou will find there is
>a moment when you can see the "two sides" but when this happen, the
>edge side goes out of focus.

Mike,

In this case, maybe, coin is not a good artifact.

The object is reshapable even though it is not so easy task,
and by this rehaping the object, the relation of observers will change.

Many of us feel we ourselves are not pyschologist, not sociologist, not
anthropologist, not cognitive scientists, not linguist any more but
another kind. It does not mean we all became the same kind.
Maybe we are constructing the new kind of relation each other.

It means that the shape of object we are seeking is pretty different
from that of the traditional research domains although the object does
not have the clear shape from the beginning.

Reshaping object and reorganizing the relation are mutually
constituted.

It does not mean that we get the special, global, bird' s eye view.
We are still local. However, this process of rehaping object and
reorganization of relation of perspectives will make us see
something new.

That is the new metaphor for "boundary crossing" or "boundary
reconstitution". and it seems to be actually occurring around us
although it is not so freqently yet.

Let' s go out from coin metaphor.

Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo