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

[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

If we go down to the level of action, Larry, we run the danger of loosing
contact with the fact that the problem of linking action and activity get
lost, and with it links to the concept of community.

Part of the frustration of such boundary crossing discussions that David
was referring to, I expect.


On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:48 AM, <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read the article and was drawn to the concepts [activity setting]
> [intersubjectivity] and [joint action]. I decided to explore the meaning of
> the concept [joint action] as referenced to Gunther Knoblich. This is the
> article I located which helped to situate what this months article for
> discussion is referring to by the name [joint action].
> This article is referencing cognitive psychology and psycho-neurology.
> Of particular interest is the way this article references James *ideomotor
> theory* and the way this theory has been extended into *common coding
> theory*[page 3]. This theory postulates that the same representations are
> involved in action production and action observation.
> On page 4 this paper suggests that for the effect of joint action to
> manifest requires only the *belief* that the other person will perform the
> other *part* of a joint task. The joint action does not require the direct
> observation of the other’s task performance.
> This paper’s understanding of this phenomena is that a task representation
> that *includes the potential* actions of others can be as effective in
> activating representations as the **observation* of somebody else’s actions.
> In other words the mirror neuron *functionality* is CONSTRAINED by a
> higher *form* or *gestalt* task representation that allows one to keep
> one’s own and the other’s *part* of the task *apart* without giving up the
> *basic mirror neuron* inter/subjective *link* provided by the functionality
> of the mirror neuron system.
> In other words the nonsymbolic and nonintentional *basic* or primary
> inter/subjective inter/action shares a basic inter/est  [read as
> inter/esse] within a shared eco/logy as the primary *domain* or *field*.
> The other domain or field is the intentional sharing of symbolic signs
> between subjects.
> The question being explored as a shared inter/esse is this question:
> Can joint action [understood as the ability to re/present others’
> *potential* actions work in the SAME WAY  [same form or gestalt] as one’s
> own actions. Can this joint action  occur in the *absence* of perceptual
> evidence.
> I hope this article is helpful to others to situate the meaning of *joint
> action* as a concept central to this months article for discussion.
> The article helped me situate this central concept within an ideomotor
> background gestalt.
> Larry
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2016 9:19 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion
> Thanks Cliff and Mike for sharing this interesting article. I was not
> familiar to cultural community psychology and this and the other papers in
> the symposium do a great job introducing and concisely describing the
> field, and how it evolved from community to cultural community psychology.
> As I was reading, I wondered how much the influence of CHAT literature had
> influenced the development of community psychology itself from the start.
> As I progressed in my reading, I then found clear references to these
> influences, which even meant the delay of the publishing of Roland's work,
> I assume, due to the important input that Vygotsky's publications meant for
> the project. But then I wondered on what had been other sources. What were
> other foundational influences to the field? I'd be interested to know about
> them in part because, while the paper discusses many examples in which CHAT
> gives input to CC, I would like to know more about the (possible) inputs in
> the other direction.
> Also, I found interesting the mention of a new center of commonality in
> psychology in general. I was glad to see, however brief, mentions to
> research in cognitive science and psycho-neurology. In your paper, Delta
> theory is mentioned as a move forward towards integration. In the case of
> CHAT, this was pursued by means of developing a scientific discipline based
> on dialectical materialism and the sociogenetic method. Delta theory (I
> just had a very brief first contact) seems to build upon the notion of
> psychosocial systems. This sounds very much in line with Vygotsky, who
> surely is a central source. Again, here I would love to hear what other
> insights/sources are involved that may provide new insights to those more
> familiar to CHAT but not so much with CC and Delta theory.
> Thanks,
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> Sent: 18 March 2016 02:39
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l]  Article for Discussion
> Dear XCMA-er-o-philes-
> We thought it appropriate to put up for discussion the paper by Roland
> Tharp and Cliff  O'Donnell from the most recent issue of MCA. Roland wanted
> to stimulate discussion among what he and Cliff saw as people with a strong
> family resemblance. He passed away before this part of the discussion could
> take place.
> Roland and Cliff argue for the mutual relevance of Cultural Community
> Psychology and Vygotskian inspired research in the approach referred to
> often in these pages as CHAT, not only because it is an acronym for
> cultural-historical activity theory, but because we have a tradition of
> chatting here about the ideas in papers that sample our different
> interests.
> In this case, Cliff is intending to send this message and an invitation to
> people from Community Psychology to join in. May it be celebratory of
> Roland's long life seeking to promote growth enhancing communication.
> get your copy at
> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current
> Enjoy, and of course, send along to others you think might be interested.
> Its legal, free, above board, and, hopefully, interesting!
> mike
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
> that creates history. Ernst Boesch


It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object
that creates history. Ernst Boesch