to all (and Genevieve):
It seems to me that all of what was brought up before this last paragraph
is essentially consistent with the views expressed in the chapter.
The last paragraph of Genevieve's leads me to think I'm missing something
or reading something in here or maybe Genevieve is reading in something I
did not intend, nor, I think the authors of the chapter intended. I cannot
see how there can be a synthesis involving things which are the same; what
would there be to synthesize?
Now maybe I'm wandering too far in the darkness of my not understanding
what the point is here, but maybe these comments will help someone to help
me to "get" what I am missing...
It seems to me that the authors were saying that looking at Vygotski and
Leont'ev helped them understand their experiences with their project better
and that they had something to offer in return, which comes out of their
original point-of-view.
I think that the authors are trying to "pursue synthesis in a discourse
community." I did not see the chapter nor did I intend the review to be in
a "basic argumentative style [which] builds on an adversarial premise--find
a hole in someone else's argument and stake your claim to fame, and so on."
There's a difference between this and attempting to clarify in what ways
one agrees with the perceived point-of-view of others and how one disagrees
and why and in what ways this lack of agreement is manifest.
Unfortunately, _any_ situation in which there is some difference in pov
_could_ be handled in an argumentative, adversarial, aggresive style and it
seems that regardless of how a difference of pov is addressed, someone
_could_ choose to "take" or view this handling as argumentative and
adversarial. Neither I nor, I think, the authors intend to function this
way. I do not like the zero-sum or even negative-sum game of
one-ups_man_ship either, but then I do not think that the handling of
differences has to be this way and that when there really _is_ synthesis
the result is a positive-sum. I hope that it is clear that I agree with
Angel Lin's comments (on adversarial discourse vs. communication Thu, 23
Nov 1995 12:51:39) along these lines.
If we cannot clarify for ourselves and each other the differences in our
pov's without getting distracted by applying names to what each other is
doing, then I find it hard to see how we can ever achieve synthesis,
because when we are busy labeling, we are usually not "hearing" what the
other is saying. If we can never hear or express our differences, then
what's to synthesize?
Now I'm back where I started. Have I totally missed the boat here? I
always thought that xmca (xlchc) was a place that we didn't have to be
Romans.
Thanks in advance for any help anyone has to offer.
Dewey
ps:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr. Phone: (208)385-3105
Professor of Physics Dept: (208)385-3775
Department of Physics/SN318 Fax: (208)385-4330
Boise State University dykstrad who-is-at varney.idbsu.edu
1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++