I believe the interweaving of text, dialogue, group discourse, etc. makes
sense as a metaphor for explaining the interface of individual action and
Also, Mike I appreciate the effort of supplying the historical context of
your use of the word interweaving.
xmca-whoever who-is-at com
cast.net (bb) To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture,
Sent by: Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
xmca-bounces who-is-at web cc:
er.ucsd.edu Subject: Re: [xmca] interweaving
Thanks Mike, those background texts are very helpful, and I appreciate the
time you have taken to locate them, and reproduce them here.
While on travel, I've been reading closely Gordon Well's 1996 paper in MCA
and I can see this metaphor of interweaving providing a visual for the way
sequences and episodes of communication, while beginning and ending,
contribute to the continuitiy of conversations, of texts, much as fibers
begin and end while making up a continuous thread (and communication on
xmca certainly can be considered supporting data that is in our faces,
which I will exploit in a moment).
To pursue what is relational with communication, drawing upon Halliday and
Hasan, there is a taxonomy of how reference is made in text -- with
reference being one form of relation, typically unidirectional.
For example, for me to now Address Andy's claim that writing with a
relational lexicon is the use of "motherhood" words is to make a reference
from this posting before you to that of Andy's -- and that of Andy's does
not reference this posting, having preceeded it in time, and without
anticipation for this posting. My posting is in relation to Andy's -- and
taking Michaels post in perspective, both are constitutive of a greater
textual whole. The full exchange: Andy's post, my response, Andy's
response, and this follow-up is an instance of a sequence of moves in which
those of Andy and mine are mutually (reciprocally) constitutive, each
contributes to making the next, as each is in response and in reference to
the other, i.e. in relation to the other. Gordon writes:
"In the co-construction of a text, the smallest building block is the Move,
for example a "question"
or an "answer.'" However, it is the Exchange -in which such
reciprocally-related moves combine-that
constitutes the minimal unit of spoken discourse." (p. 78)
Does this make sense?
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Mike Cole" <email@example.com>
> What follows are raw materials that are the beginning of a response to
> barowy's inquiry involving the use of the metaphor of interweaving in
> discussions of persons, actions, agency, situatedness, etc.
> I do not come to this discussion as a philosopher, let alone a Marxist
> scholar and dialectician. To some this would automatically exclude me
> any serious
> discussion of cultural historical activity theory. I am an auto-didact in
> these matters, coming to them through an odd pathway derived from
> via behaviorism and skinner (of easy to trash fame) and experimental
> psychology of learning. It was issues of cultural variation and processes
> development that led me to chat long after I worked with Luria.
> But perhaps consideration of the following statements by three scholars
> I take to be, on the surface at least, as markedly different from each
> as one could hope to find, both in their disciplinary allegencies, the
> empirical phenomena they studied, and their philosophies of science. What
> strikes me is the similarities in their intuitive efforts to deal with
> heterogeneity of the constituents of human
> the issue of relations of individual elements to their
> putative wholes, continuity/discontinuity, and the necessity for the
> of such phenomena over time.
> I will try to return to the specific text under discussion later this
> weekend if I can make it through the 101 spotted promotion files that I
> privileged to read and comment on about this time of year.
> So, here are the meditations, for your consideration
> The world is full of partial stories that run parallel to one another,
> beginning and ending at odd times. They mutually interlace and interfere
> points, but we cannot unify them completely in our minds. In following
> life-history, I must temporarily turn my attention from my own. Even a
> biographer of twins would have to press them alternately upon his
> attention. It follows that whoever says that the whole world tells one
> utters another of those monistic dogmas that a man believes at his risk.
> is easy to see the world's history pluralistically, as a rope of which
> fibre tells a separate tale; but to conceive of each cross-section of the
> rope as an absolutely single fact, and to sum the whole longitudinal
> into one being living an undivided life, is harder. We have indeed the
> analogy of embryology to help us. The microscopist makes a hundred flat
> cross-sections of a given embryo, and mentally unites them into one solid
> whole. But the great world's ingredients, so far as they are beings,
> like the rope's fibres, to be discontinuous cross-wise, and to cohere
> in the longitudinal direction. Followed in that direction they are
> many.(William James, *Lecture 4 Pragmatism - the one and the Many)*
> I'll tell you what I like to think about: sometimes I like to think of a
> rope. The fibers that make up the rope are discontinuous; when you twist
> them together, you don't make them continuous, you make the thread
> continuous. . . . even though it may look in a thread as though each of
> those particles are going all through it, that isn't the case. That's
> essentially the descriptive model. . . . Obviously, I am not talking
> the environment. I am not talking about inside and outside. I am
> about the conditions of the system (quoted in McDermott, 1980, p.
> Each of these children was seen to engage in a great many behavior
> a day]; the number of things a child did in a day, according to our
> of episodes, varied approximately from 500 to 1,300. . . . Most of the
> episodes did not occur in isolation. Behavior was more often like the
> interwoven strands of a cord than like a row of blocks in that the molar
> units often overlapped. . . . Most of the overlapping was a matter of
> intersection of the whole of a short episode and a relatively small part
> a longer one. . . . The behavior continuum was cordâ€'like, too, in the
> that overlapping episodes often did not terminate at the same time but
> formed an interwoven merging continuum (Barker and Wright, 1966, p. 464).
----- Message from "Mike Cole" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on Sat, 14 Oct 2006
16:03:20 +0000 -----
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
cc: Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition Internal List
Subject: [xmca] interweaving
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:14 PST