When you wrote:
>cascading activity systems was along the lines of Barry Kort's model. But
>that has been addressed in an earlier message, my larger point was a
>concern of "development of activity systems" in the context of
>(quanatative) the graphs. It just may be the universalistic implications
>graphs and models have on me and a concern of those patterns becoming
>naturalized as normal or universal. Don't get me wrong, I found the graphs
>very informative, yet at the same time, I was aware that they made it all
>seem more legitimate ("scientific", "universal") than just words. A
It doesn't concern me so much. Yes, to my mind, trained as a physicist, the=
graphs showing patterns feel scientific to me, because those were the tools=
I used often as a scientist. They are certainly *do not* feel more=
scientific than words, however, because I used those even more as a=
scientist. What I am concerned about is the flip side to the sentiment=
that graphs are more scientific. As the pendulum swings away from =
pseudo-scientific practices, and determinism, and positivism -- I hope=
that people on the list won't reject or devalue patterns simply on the=
basis of their being quantitative. Graphs offer insights that can be=
difficult to put so succinctly into words. On the other hand more people=
are skilled in decoding words than they are graphs. Careful work with=
quantitative patterns and models often indicates that these are just as=
context dependent as words are.
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790=20
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]