I am way behind in my reading and just started CH 3 this morning. I don't
know what to say -- it's obviously brilliant. There are also several
similarities with ideas I was struggling with in an article submitted 2? 3?
years ago to MCA and STILL in the process of revision (supposedly only to
reduce the excessive use of dashes, but in fact, held up once again by an
idea inserted during the last revision.... I have, on this text, repeatedly
pointed ahead of myself to intertextual territory that I have yet to cover).
Here is one still formulative thought --- I'll finish the chapter and catch
up on the conversation after tossing this bit of marginalia into the
discussion.
First, I am struck by the description of Learning II as an oscillation
between "2 kinds of generalization", which parallel Bateson's distinction
between shot-gun and rifle shooting -- a useful analogy -- or two ways of
*making models* -- the shot-gun shooter uses a trial and error method; the
rifle shooter calculates her aim and then makes corrections that lead to a
better calculation. Yrjo points out that these are two methods of ?coming
up with? the means to carry out a goal-oriented action successfully -- in
other words, he focuses on differences/changes in mediational means. This
led me to think about what, exactly, the instrument would be that a shotgun
shooter 'comes up with.' I imagine the 'new' mediational means to be some
sort of co-ordinated, embodied movements-with-shotgun more likely than not
to lead to linking up the nose of the shotgun with the highest density of
birds in flight. Contrast this embodied means with the one the rifle
shooter comes up with. The shotgun shooter can't really pass on the new
instrument, but the rifle shooter, who focuses aim with a cross-hatch on
the lens of the rifle, can represent mis-shoots so that better
cross-hatches can be developed.
There is so much more to write, but I'm wondering whether there's any point
to going ahead with this already so out-of-date article on my desk!
Judy
At 08:29 AM 4/29/01 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Eric-- I doubt if your understanding of levels of learning would satisfy
>with Skinner or Engestrom. The latter can speak for himself.
>m ike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:10 PDT