I agree that "different social relationships" are in fact different "social
contexts/worlds". And I especially like your re-*minding* us that tools are
*instru-ments* --->they in-struct us how to think (*ment* or *mens* being a
very old Sanscrit root which meant(!): 'to think').
I also wanted to stress the emotional aspect of the process - we feel our
instru-ments and their working in the same way a blind person feels not a
stick in her hand but what the stick touches. If there is no feeling, there
can be no learning, nothing to notice - a void at the end of the stick.
I think that the quality of the emotion is of the greatest importance for
understanding the interactive (inter-mental) nature of meaning making and
development. Because, as Peter H=F8eg's story clearly shows, if there is no
trust between people, if there are reasons for doubt and suspition, if there
is no respect shown or felt, what is learned, or made out of an interaction,
will not be that what was *meant* (intended). And a system which is suposed
to in-struct, to afford new instru-ments may cause effects opposite from
those intended.
Ana=20
At 01:46 PM 9/28/96 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Ana, you captured quite well what I meant by the horizontal dimension
>of development. You wrote:
>
>"...it is not just a cognitive dissonance that drives the construction of
>meaning and developemnt, and it is not just appropriation of the cognitive
>tools, it is also a drama of conflicting social realtionships."
>
>I agree. Only instead of 'social relationships' I would emphasize different
>and conflicting 'social contexts' or 'social worlds', which in themselves
>include different instru-mentalities.
>
>Yrjo
>
>
>
>