[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

Thanks Ana!! :)

On 2015-10-31, at 9:00 AM, Ana Marjanovic-Shane wrote:

> Jen,
> This is a great issue!!! Thanks a lot!
> Ana
> ___________________________________________
> Ana Marjanovic-Shane
> Deputy Editor-in-Chief,
> Dialogic Pedagogy Journal <http://dpj.pitt.edu>
> Associate Professor of Education
> Chestnut Hill College
> Philadelphia, PA
> e-mail: anamshane@gmail.com
> phone: +(267) 334-2905
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>> Looks like a stunning issue, Jen!
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> On 31/10/2015 2:56 PM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>> Jennifer and Kim,
>>> This months article is sure to generate conversation.
>>> The 2nd paragraph on page 358 caught my attention.
>>> "Ethnographic evidence showed the children's justifications for their
>>> claims fell into four categories: experience, text, authority and
>>> reasoning. .... over time, justification for claims based on reasoning
>>> increased. The nature and the content of the dialogue transformed through
>>> group members practising in dialogue with each other."
>>> The question this generates concerns the notion of *space* of reasons. I
>>> hear a transfiguration from *foundational rule based* space TO *dialogical
>>> space* OF reasons.
>>> However are there other possible *spaces* of reason beyond either
>>> foundational or dialogical *spaces* of reason. For example *situational
>>> spaces* or *creative spaces* OF reason.
>>> Using a dramatical metaphor or table metaphor could the dialogical *space
>>> of reasons* be a particular type of situation  as answer to foundational
>>> rule based reason, but the deeper truth is that we are setting the table
>>> for multiple fluid "spaces* of reasoning. To justify claims may be deeply
>>> implicated WITHIN plural notions of *spaces*.
>>> Not either foundational or dialogical *spaces* but expanding to multiple
>>> mixtures of various notions of reasons.
>>> This in no way questions dialogical spaces of reason [as thinking] but
>>> invites deeper exploration to how we orient to these multiple *spaces*
>>> [each of which offers justifications.]
>>> To describe justification as re- semblance to a board game focuses
>>> attention on the RULES of the game. THIS is a norm based image of
>>> reasoning justifying moving *points* on the board as preconceived
>>> grid. Situational *spaces* of reason are more creative *spaces* of
>>> justification that are also historically implicated but more open to
>>> novelty.
>>> The question of justification is complicated and the relation of the 4
>>> types of justification far more entangled than reason [foundational or
>>> dialogical] overcoming the other 3 types assumes.
>>> The orientation moving away from foundational spaces of reason to
>>> dialogical spaces of reason is a profound transfiguration. It opens the
>>> space of reason to creative novelty. It is possible to continue going
>>> deeper to explore the profound depth of situations as *spaces* of reason.
>>> This months journal is moving across traditions and authorities and
>>> experiences. The concept of *situational* spaces is the Pragmatic
>>> tradition. Philosophical hermeneutics uses the concept *spaces of play*.
>>> Are concepts merely *resources* or do they exhibit other characteristics?.
>>> Dewey explored two notions of "have"
>>> A possessive "have" and a relational "have" [We have a friend]. We cannot
>>> possess *spaces* These *third* spaces have us and we *undergo* experiences
>>> WITHIN these spaces.
>>> The *space* of reasons also has this quality of being more than
>>> "resources"
>>> to use in our practices of justification. Reasons are more than tools of
>>> self management and self discipline. They are also *spaces* which have us.
>>> Reason is being re-thought and re-worked and will need multiple *settings*
>>> to stage this activity. The space of reasons as dialogical is one
>>> particular and valid and true space of justification. It is not the only
>>> space.
>>> Generating notions of *situations* and *spaces of play* and *zones* are
>>> speaking this multi-verse being acted out as dramas.
>>> The after school setting created a particular situation opening up a
>>> particular stage like *space* for generating particular types of
>>> justification. It was a *third* space in which the dialogical comes to the
>>> foreground. Ground is a fluid concept as is the concept of *concrete*
>>> experience. Creative worlds emerge or unfold within these *spaces* but
>>> they
>>> are not fundamentally grounded or permanently rule based. These worlds are
>>> foregrounded and backgrounded within particular situations [spaces of
>>> play]
>>> but they are primarily unknown on their way to be/coming known without
>>> end.
>>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Vadeboncoeur, Jennifer <
>>> j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> Dear XMCAers,
>>>> The special issue of Mind, Culture, and Activity on Engaged Philosophical
>>>> Inquiry is up and running.
>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current
>>>> Kim Skinner, author of Acts of thinking: At school but not during school,
>>>> has graciously agreed to make herself available for dialogue about her
>>>> article on XMCA.
>>>> If you have a moment to access and review the article, perhaps we can
>>>> begin discussion early or mid next week?
>>>> Best to all, jen