Jay,
In your response to Bill I believe you jumped over the main idea Bill was
presenting; that the context of applying skateboard park building is what
decides the relevance of 'construction theory' during the actual constructing
of the park. It sounds as if other construction companies who understand
'construction theory' have been unable to duplicate the results of the
company that contextually applies the theory in a functional manner. The
context of the construction phase will determine method of implimintation and
the relevance for accepting or rejecting common 'construction theory'.
Jay you write, "Bill's example of the
skateboarder-builders at work does represent our ideal of small group
coherence and cooperative labor. But what about the higher scales of
organization? universities, corporations, cities, global economic
enterprises and associations? What are the kinds of technologies needed to
organize at these scales? and to integrate across scales? What are the
limits of our existing social technologies? ... not just their moral
defects, but their practical limitations?"
My response is that unless construction of solid practice is done within
contextual arrangements the resulting plan will not function. As Bill's
example so brilliantly illustrates; context determines function.
What do you think?
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 01 2001 - 01:01:24 PDT