Yes, Bill-- This occurrs to me as important too. That is, the vygotsky list
is all emphemeral (more or less) both materially and temporally. But when we
have more
massive parts of the built environment (artifacts, like pews and 10 story
building with
bars on them or glass windows) the "large sociocultural context") is no
longer so far off, or unintertwined at all. Plenty to think about.
mike
On 8/21/06, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>
> > Most generally, I worry that we conflate interweaving, relational
> notions of
> > contexts for container notions
>
> And yet, in the Nicolopoulou & Cole paper I'm reading, the library and the
> boys and girls club were not only relational contexts, but with the 5D
> embedded, physically, they were also, to a degree, containers. Perhaps if
> 'relational' were to include the spatial relations often implicit in the
> achitectural dimensions of our culture(s), then conflation would turn to
> integration. For example, a cathedral makes possible worship, as Barker
> might claim, with its pews facing the alter, but also with its surrounding
> icons, ennobled arches, lights, windows, and the walls that allow the
> bishop to be heard above all 'outside' distractions. (Just a divergent
> thought).
>
> I'm still figuring out alterity <-> intersubjectivity. I don't know why I
> find Wertsch so difficult to grok.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2006 - 08:14:31 PDT