HI Bruce,
Yes, I agree I can make derogatory remarks too. Calling it my cultural
programming don't make it right.
What I'm trying to unpack is, if using activity as a means of understanding how
people coordinate their thinking with other forms of action, can we
discriminate between eclectic and non-eclectic forms, which could then, if one
wished, make value judgements about which is to be preferred. When I think of
in terms of mediation by tertiary artifacts, I cannot come up with why a
disparate ensemble of tertiary artifacts (a tentative definition of "eclectic")
is a disadvantage relative to a more coordinated ensemble. It would seem to
depend upon the context -- what actions are possible with one ensemble vs.
another, in relation to other elements of activity, i.e. the object(s),
community and so on.
Perhaps if we continue this discussion we can get past the miscommunications
that arrive with having such little time to post more thoughtfully worded
messages.
bb
--- Bruce Robinson <bruce.rob@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > IMHO Those that are consistent about what it is to be eclectic, are not
> > necessarily the same as those that are eclectic,. One can think of it
> this
> > way: sheep have some way of telling themselves from the wolves.
>
> Bill,
>
> I totally agree with you here. But it seems to me to indicate that your
> analysis of eclecticism using AT is somewhat beside the point. Nobody doubts
> that eclecticism is possible - as in Alice in Wonderland, it is possible to
> believe a hundred different things before breakfast. But you are
> _advocating_ eclecticism, rather than simply being analysing it.
>
> > But I like the idea of oxymorons and will think about such things some
> more.
> > After all, an oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, and contradictions can
> > serve to reveal the fragility of human thought.
>
> There is a difference between using contradiction as a method of thought (as
> in the ancient Greek notion of dialectic as a dialogue of contradiction) and
> advocating a jumble of ideas that have no consistent guiding principle. (Or
> perhaps the only guiding principle is their immediate usefulness - is this
> really an argument about American pragmatism rather than Vygotsky's
> monism??)
>
> Non-eclecticism perhaps, is
> > the "hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and
> philosophers and
> > divines."
>
> Who's using derogatory terms now?
>
> Bruce (also in a hurry)
>
> > This is a strong claim. And I think it is in relation to the crises.
> >
> > But beyond that, I have not a clew. bahaaaaa. And I'm probably wrong.
> But I
> > must rise in 4 hours to catch a plane, which is not so easy nowadays, so
> I'm
> > keeping it short.
> >
> > And I really must tell you that I deplore the term "bubbleheaded".
> Generally
> > speaking, derogatory terms have an unpleasant effect.
> >
> > Catch my drift, dude? The challenge facing white american males is how to
> be
> > respectful while also living up to their conditioning of being a rebel.
> It's
> > some sort of cosmic puzzle, which one never quite completes. Like walking
> a
> > knife-edge, you're always too far on the wrong side, regardless of which
> side.
> >
> > Totally cosmic.
> >
> > bb
> >
> >
> > =====
> > "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
> > [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > http://personals.yahoo.com
> >
>
=====
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 01 2001 - 01:00:49 PST