>Preferably they should have been actively present as
>"first"-co-participants for a considerable time.
>
>This means that some of these categories (plus many other categories of
>trouble) are available to us here for the movement from centered reflection
>over de-centering and into a re-centering phase of multi-voced perspectives
>(which I recognize in Ueno's three identities and three contexts).
>Other categories are probably not? So for those categories a discussion
>about *third context* will not be "for here" but has to be a "takeaway"
>discussion, and as such will have to be a de-centered discussion, reasoning
>about other contexts at "arms length".
>To me this can very well be done in
>morally responsible ways. In fact, this is how I see most discussions here
>about Others. Just as long as we remember that we *are* in a space aside.
Eva,
I just wanted to say that these issues may be also related to "Ueno"
in various contexts, that is the issue of the movement from centered reflection
over de-centering and into a re-centering phase of multi-voiced perspectives
if borrowing from your phrase.
We all have a only partial, local view. However, many of these "categories"
are overlappled and partial translation will be possible.
In other words, we can compare each other various kinds of *the third context*
and of de-centring or re-centering.
Further, these categories are embedded in everyday life in various ways.
In that sense, we all have resposible to these things even though we are
just local or partial, and it is not only for the task of "professional".
In some sense, it is also possible to say these categories are ourselves.
For example, able and disable are not independent categories.
Further, I think, we should focus on the issue of "professionals" who are
also partial and local as well.
This time, I would like to avoid the discussion about your "space aside"
or "arms length". Maybe, our discussion should restart from the meaning of
"space aside" or "arms length".
In short, I think, actually, we do not have pure "space aside" or pure
"arms length" anymore. That is why many are researching on inscriptions,
artifacts and network. Even "face to face" communication cannot be treated
as face to face communication. Any work cannot be done without
inscriptions, artifacts and network.
The criticism of "macro" includes the criticism of "micro" as well, I think.
I know my above explanation is not enough. Please give me time to elaborate
my explanation.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo