> How about meaning=process of making? Anyway, I was trying to
> indicate something like what you are suggesting, but in doing
> humans make, methinks.
Yes, we do make in doing . . . but I'm concerned (and I have this
feeling that it's central to the ideas I found most attractive in
Vygotsky & Bakhtin) that in using that kind of phrase we convert a
process into an object, and thus make it harder to think about it _as
process_. I'm interesting in the doing rather than the artifact that
shows it got done.
I'm not so sure that my sense that this is an important distinction
isn't a product of my own misunderstanding or oversimplification,
but I regularly have a feeling that in losing track of the _action_
we lose track of the actors. And of the fact that there have to be
at least two of them: I can't "mean" by myself. Or I can't do it
without at least a posited, internal other -- which I think I
learned from Vygotsky, and had confirmed by Bakhtin.
-- Russ
__|~_
Russell A. Hunt __|~_)_ __)_|~_ Department of English
St. Thomas University )_ __)_|_)__ __) PHONE: (506) 363-3891
Fredericton, New Brunswick | )____) | FAX: (506) 450-9615
E3B 5G3 CANADA ___|____|____|____/ hunt who-is-at StThomasU.ca
\ /
~~~~~~~~ http://www.StThomasU.ca/hunt/hunt.htm ~~~~~~~~