Dear Mike et al,
I'm afraid I pressed send a bit quickly on my last message. I should
have read through it. Some minor editing below clarifies it a bit, I
hope...
***edited version of my last message***
I may be a bit confused now ;-)
What are you calling "joint activity" Mike? Like you I can't imagine an
"engagement with others' ideas devoid of embodiment in joint activity."
Short of telepathy it seems to me that whether the activity is
conversation, some other kind of physical activity, written
correspondence (computer-mediated or not), engagement with
socioculturally designed artifacts, etc. it is embodied and it is
“joint” in some sense of that word.
But I get the impression that conversation may not count as "joint
activity" as you use it. It seems that the weight on the word
"embodiment" suggests some physical exertion beyond conversation, for
example.
Or, on a related point, it seems like you are saying that engagement
with ideas as they are embodied in artifacts in the world is
insufficient engagement with "others" to count as "joint activity."
That makes me reflect on asynchronous e-mail echange. Isn't engagement
with things in the world (artifacts) on some level simply a form of
asynchronous engagement with others.
So, I guess, ultimately I'm agreeing with you Mike, except that I can't
imagine David was suggesting any form of non-engagement with others, so
a lot seems to hinge on what is meant by "joint activity."
Have I made any sense? To anyone but myself, that is. ;-)
In Peace,
K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST