These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
"Broken tools" is not the central idea, it's just the lead example.Heidegger would say we can use tools zuhanden-ly without (in the context of this thread) being "conscious" of them in the same way as when we think about them as vorhanden -- like a scientist engaged not in using it, but in theorizing about it. When a tool stops working, then we shift attitude from using it in its Zuhandenheit to attending to it consciously in its Vorhandenheit. The broken tool is just the classic example in H, but I think the concepts might apply also to the Zuhandenheit of the printed words when reading for the meaning, versus the Vorhandenheit of the printed text when it, for whatever reason, becomes the focus of conscious attention.
I don't want to say more about this since others on this list are so much more knowledgeable than I am about Heidegger.
I don't know much about reading instruction, but I do know absolutely how it was in my Chinese classes. It was in the third year class that we could read texts in Chinese characters aloud at a reasonable pace. When others were reading aloud, I could follow the text with understanding. When I was the one reading aloud, I was one of the more proficient lectors in the class; but when I reached the end of my reading I could say nothing about what I had just read.
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Mike Cole wrote:
Sorry this came to me via gmail in two disparate threads. So Andy IS talking about operations-actions. Tony asks about broken tools, which, in a way, typos are. To put a tiny bit more flesh on my questions about consciousness. A standard procedure in my college classes when issues of reading instruction come up is to ask a student to read a passage from the assigned readings out loud. Sans typos, the standard reaction, even with text that student can discuss pretty well, is that the person who reads out loud cannot say anything about the content of the paragraph read. What does this mean for the discussion of consciousness? Why is reading aloud a standard practice in reading instruction classrooms? mike
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca