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

[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities

One more reflection.
You contrast what is *in focus* IS  either a suspension of disbelief OR a suspension of belief.
I have a bias to understand moving into and out of focus the *as-if* and the *what-if*.
To focus on either one side or the other of this boundary marker as foregroundd leaves the other side in the shadows or withdrawn or absent.
I want to see being *in focus* as a fluid boundary marking.
Both/and prior to either/or.
The actual is imaginal AND the imaginal is actual.
Focusing on both.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Lplarry" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
Sent: ‎2016-‎03-‎02 7:03 AM
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyondoppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promotelearningpossibilities

I have a concept of dialogue that includes the notion of *inter/subjectivity* but  I  believe the general meaning of this concept assumes we start with two separate embodied bodies who then enter into a place or zone to create or construct shared worlds. This puts the subject over and the place under in the intersubjective time-space.
I want to start within  places  (as both material and psychic place) and these places are where intersubjective phenomena manifest within awareness (perceiving/movement) prior to  being reflected *upon* through discourse/rhetoric. 
A key notion is the *speaking subject* within places who is invited or received into *voice* and this contrasts with finding one's own authentic voice existing as a subject first and projecting one*s unique voice into the intersubjective place. This version of intersubjectivity is a focus on legitimate *rights* which each subject inalienably *possesses* as a right. 
So when playing with notions of endowing or embodying the focus on bodies *made flesh* extends beyond the subjective person to include embodied or endowed places within which intersubjective perceiving/moving occurs manifesting experiences of subjectivity.
This may occur at the level of awareness prior to becoming consciously aware and articulating then articulating this awareness. In this process identity and subjectivity emerge in the moment of the *speaking subject* occurring within psychic/material places.
I also believe these places are always both imaginal and material places that are structured within different boundary markings of the horizon of places with differing degrees of the imaginal or the real being foregrounded (and the other aspect thereforewithdraws into the background as *absence* from presence.

Dialogue as intersubjective phenomena can be imagined as either foreground subjects who bring forth their own unique speaking voice as embodied speaking then projecting into shared places. This imagines two unique subjects as the foreground.
Intersubjective can also imagine places as being foregrounded as embodied and endowed dwelling places and from these psychic/material places *speaking voices* emerge into ontological existence within embodied endowed places that matter. The focus shifts or inclines or leans into developing places as foregrounded and what occurs in these places manifests intersubjectively as subjectivity.
What is imagined as legitimate rights attaches to these concrete/imaginal places.
The example of Merleau-Ponty and the phantom limb phenomena and how the virtual/real box transforms subjectivity and embodied identity by placing the limb in the imaginal/real box as framework (both imaginal and real simultaneously).
Dialogue must *give place a chance*

From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane
Sent: ‎2016-‎03-‎01 11:10 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities

Dear all,

Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would also
love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as it is
clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP
being used."

Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of
dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think that we
find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is dialogue
and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic pedagogy?

So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe Dialogic


On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:

> Brian, Helen, Larry,
> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice.  I can imagine how
> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what
> adventures they might go on today¹, the apparently dialogic processes and
> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions.
> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your concept
> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different
> interpretations and versions of DP being used.
> Larry I don¹t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs in the
> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and teachers) are
> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than they
> might in Œreal life¹.  As to being Œcaptured¹ in a positive way, at times
> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is committed
> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group Œflow¹ emerges I guess you
> could say, and you know the group has been Œcaptured¹ in an engaged and
> committed way.
> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play and
> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he
> discussed the idea of a Œdual affective plan¹ is of relevance.  In the
> text it famously says ³Thus, in play a situation is created in which, as
> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child weeps
> in play as a patient, but revels as a player² (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p. 11).
> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the
> concept of Œmetaxis¹ which is where a dual state is entered and where
> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g. Understanding
> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism emerging in
> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person¹s
> real-world attitudes and beliefs).
> Kind regards
> Sue
> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu> wrote:
> >Hi Larry
> >
> >I¹m using Vygotsky¹s idea that when we play we foreground what we imagine
> >over material reality so that the meaning of what we do predominates. We
> >we play we are intending to pretend - you can¹t be made to play - that¹s
> >what I mean by Œat will'. I¹m not sure which metaphor captures that
> >experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or stepping
> >Œin' and Œout' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds.
> >
> >On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of Œbeing captured
> >by¹ - e.g. when the adults in the class I¹m teaching initially pretended
> >to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join in -
> >they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with little
> >intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some
> >Œwill' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In a
> >similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really interested in
> >a book they are likely to Œlean in¹ physically and be Œdrawn in¹ to the
> >world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend to
> >talk like a character which Œcaptures¹ their interest and brings meaning
> >to the dialogue Š
> >
> >Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action?
> >
> >Brian
> >
> >> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian,
> >> Just to  echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces AT
> >>ONCE. This means simultaneously.
> >> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one
> >>time-space being over the other which also indicates the other
> >>time-space becomes under.
> >> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one time-space
> >>or the other *at will*.
> >> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding) movement
> >>which is meaning making is always *at will*.
> >> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which
> >>contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
> >> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur
> >>prior to developing s

[The entire original message is not included.]