I think my take on the exchange of an N for a V -- constructioNism to
constructiVism -- ought to be compatible with Gary's. Even though my little
note was flipped away between chores on an all-too-busy afternoon, and
though there is a way of reading it as poking fun at the great importance
of the exchange of one letter for another, or even at the exchange of
thinking-things inside for thinking-things outside (toys will be toys as
boys will be boys, and waterproofing my theory will not mend my leaking
balcony window anyhow...) -- even so it was also a gesture towards what
Gary treats so much more articulately as constructiVism falling into the
trap of the Cartesian enclosure of mind in an Inside (individual or
collective) paradoxically cut of from any Outside, versus constructioNism
as (here I was guessing and asking rather than telling, as I know Papert's
ideas about powerful and real tools for thinking, but not his specific
treatment of the N-ism) ... ... ... hmff... ... versus constructioNism as
an acknowledging of the crucial role of external signs, models and symbols
for any development (and maintenance) of thinking. How far in the direction
of integration of mind into world would you say, Gary that the N-ism goes?
When writing this (offline, on a rainy Saturday afternoon) I hope, Mike,
that there are others, elsewhere, doing more to help us map anti-cartesian
territory.
Eva
Monday P.S: and so there were...