Phillip wrote:
> you suggested that there is a particular ethics within activity theory
>itself - what ethics are you thinking of?
I'm not sure, Phillip; I've been thinking 'towards' this question for a
while.... an ethic entailed by a 'pattern that connects'?"
> i've finished YE's third chapter and now i'm wondering about Bateson's
>multiple admonitions against purposive, instrumental activities, and
>contrasting this to chat and chapter three.
>
> could you help me out here, you Judy, or anyone else?
This is also a problem I'm wrestling with.... Bateson argued that
conscious purpose makes visible a tiny arc of a wide and complex circuit of
relations. I think he would say the same whether the subject and project
were individual or collective. I need to read further in LBE to get a
better sense of how Yrjo contextualizes conscious purpose. I hope Yrjo will
say more to help us think about these issues.
SNIP
> YE uses two examples from literature in which he identifies level iii
>learning as a result of a double-bind, but these examples are the actions
>of social-outliers (rather like in The Borderliners), responding to the
>double-binds of social institutions, one of them being education. yet,
>how could a social institutions insitutionalize activities that place
>itself at risk - and, not everyone within a given chat want to see the
>institution of education problematized - in fact, to judge by the
>barrage of state sanctioned tests to enforce academic standards, it could
>be said that many wish to not problematize the institution of education,
>but rather the opposite. and are their values and beliefs to be ignored?
Thanks for foregrounding these questions.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:11 PDT