Hi Alfred,
I like your comment. But, I am in favor of asymmetry - however I understand
why you think that a more symmetrical language should be applied.
But I think there is a dynamic asymmetry at work in socio-psychological relations and
activities.
Something similar to the computerese use of object-oriented. I think that there is
a constant oscillation of transitions between the subject and the object - and in that
sense the relationship may be more symmetrical. However, at any given moment it
is asymmetrical, because there must be a functional differentiation between the two.
This is a rarely discussed issue but it is a recurring one and it recurs in different
guises
and forms. It is a transition between matter and energy, process and product, subject and
object, subject and predicate (see the controversial and opposite use of the word
"subject"),
etc...
Fascinating.
(I am well and following this discussion in detail but have little time to participate
fully)
Ana
> Hello Ana,
>
> great to see you participating in this list! How are you going?
>
> >How about "object-oriented activity" for "predmetnaya deyatelnost"??
> >
> >It is not "objective" in the sense English word has - but "related
> >to objects" therefore:"object-oriented"
>
> In reference to subject matter and context there are two reasons to
> prefer object-related.
>
> 1) Object-oriented emphasizes the perspective from the subject to the
> object. In the first instance this seems to fit into the idea of
> activity. Second gaze makes clear that activity is a two way process.
> Object-related is more neutral in this respect.
>
> 2) Object-oriented is used as a technical term in Computerese. In
> fact, with a very interesting meaning, especially in the context of
> relational systems. We may discuss that at a later occasion. Let me
> just say, the meaning object-oriented aims at would contradict the
> kind of relations AT assumes: that there is an active subject and a
> passive object. In the (technical) notion of object-orientation, this
> distinction is given up. Object-oriented clusters of code are both
> passive data and active programs, implying the any such cluster of
> code is as well an object-like entity subjecting itself to being
> treated by other such clusters and a subject-like entity
> knowledgeable about its potential in certain object domains and thus
> capable of treating other suitable clusters accordingly. I should add
> that in my view this is something we should probe in understanding
> the relation between complex systems such as persons and their
> environment. It may in fact be a much more symmetrical relationship
> than our subject-object and active-passive language and world view
> suggests.
>
> Alfred
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch
> Website: http://www.psy.unibe.ch/ukp/langpapers/
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Voicenet WebMail.
http://www.voicenet.com/webmail/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:23 PST