Nate,
Thanks for posting those x-files! Like Andy and Phillip, I too was
initially surprised at these posts since I thought they were yours,
revealing a side heretofor unseen. I was also amazed thinking Engestrom had
bothered to join the discussion in a substantive way in response to your
(Arne's post). Then I understood but am grateful for your x-scholarship
nonetheless.
As always I'm awed by Arne Raithel's clear insight into the problems and his
ability to discern the key features, the differences that do make a
difference. While I'll still thought these posts were of the present I was
seconding Engestrom's suggestion concerning comparisons of the activity
theory approaches with "various text- and discourse-centered theories" but
the absence of those voices from this ongoing reading is quite evident.
There is a lot of material in what you have posted and I was just getting
ready to work with Ch 4 and Peter's synopsis. But it all makes one wonder
about continuity and social memory. Thanks.
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Schmolze <nate_schmolze@yahoo.com>
To: Xmca <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 4:03 PM
Subject: Safe now the blasts are over
> Sorry Peter or anyone else if this is seen as a diversion. They all come
> from the x-act archives starting in 1989 and across the first few months
of
> 90. I thought they might serve as a useful context for the present
> discussion with Mike's Rub questions and the terminology issues. Then as
now
> we call upon the Russians for guidence.
>
> BTW I put a paper by Stephen Kerr on my Vygotsky site that asks "Why
> Vygotsky" that is pretty interesting.
>
> who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> Nate Schmolze
> http://members.home.net/vygotsky/
> schmolze1@home.com
>
> who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:32 PST