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

[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

A further extension carrying forward Rod’s  in/sights. 

Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts  the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'.

This relation as a phenomena of *marking* a boundary moving between *between* [abstracted concepts] and *within* [history of shared experiences].  This phenomena as a boundary marking may also be calling for  our attention in Knoblich’s exploration of [joint action]. This marking of the boundary as a gestalt [form] between notions of *between* and *within*.

I also want to high/light [illuminate] Rod’s notion of [layers] of understanding [intersubjectivity]
When he says:

I think we have to re/cognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play.

This focus on *layers* of understanding [intersubjectivity].

Now I want to call forth a concept from Aristotle. What Aristotle calls [ta eikota] which can be translated AS [the plausabilities]. 
Aristotle perceives these plausabilities [ta eikota] as *organized* into and consolidated by the community [community psychology??] *through* [a travelling metaphor] the socioecological circulation of social *value* [time in Greek]. What is critical is that Aristotle understands this way of travelling AS *persuasivity* This is a hermeneutical *as* which is affect/becoming/cognition. 

Therefore icosis as a social ecology of persuasion AND ecosis as a social ecology of community con/form/ation are two different social ecologies. However these two social ecologies are inter/twined.
Icosis orients towards *opinions* first presented AS *plausible* and then through travel becoming *true* as re/presented *facts* of the matter. Ecosis AS focusing on the collective presenting of norms of behaviour and attitudes. [in Aristotle’s case the attitudes AS good or just].

To the extent that both [icosis] and [ecosis] are *social ecologies* that *organize* social behaviour within habitualized ways that are *preconscious* and pre/cede human *agency*. 
Icosis and ecosis [related to eikos and oikos] can also travel together with [joint action] and cultural community psychology. 
They *organize* our *callings* [in contrast to namings of things] without our conscious intentional *doing*.
The forming of *beliefs* and their/there relation to *mirror neurons* that are a relation central to Knoblich’s  notion of [joint action] can travel intimately with notions of [ta eikota = plausabilities] which intertwine eikos and oikos. 
To become *within* is to become *housed*. 
The emphasis on inter/subjectivity as a notion of two subjectivities moving *between* is a marking of intersubjectivity with a different *sense* than inter/subjectivity as occurring *within* a place/house which can be called [as an invitation] the oikos realm.

To explore *community* and *communication* is to travel both *between* and *within*. It is not an either/or relation. It is a gestalt *form* or *way* of moving. A sociocultural ecological circulation within our shared or mutual *calling* to *each* other. 
This is NOT an autonomy [an auto/nomos] or naming only. It is a freedom as *calling forth* within a house of becoming. This as *a way* forward that is not transcendental [positing a subjectivity FIRST] that then becomes inter/subjective [as a between form]. THIS is another *way* forward. A travelling *within* houses of becoming. 

This returns us to Rod’s focus on “layering” and being *rooted* within shared history.

A calling *us* to this *way* of orienting as a *within* phenomena . A particular *form* or gestalt travelling beyond *naming* towards orienting to *calling* when we say:
“In the beginning was the word*

I am attempting to call forth other notions of *community* that we exist *within* as our shared or mutual history together. 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Rod Parker-Rees
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 4:15 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

I was driven to respond to David's earlier comments about context since my own understanding of this term is in the context of trying to understand how preverbal children make sense (meanings framed by social and physical contexts more than by systems of concepts). Here it is difficult to separate a text out of the context, an 'individual' thought process apart from the interactions in which it can occur.

It strikes me that Andy's point about the contexts in which concepts have their meanings is particularly relevant here. The intersubjectivity available to a caregiver-child dyad or within a family is of a different order to that available between otherwise unconnected speakers of the 'same' language. Where one is rooted in a history of shared experiences in common contexts  the other is rooted in a history of more or less abstracted ideas (concepts) which refer to experiences but 'from above' rather than 'from within'. Knowing what someone else means is never completely achievable and I think the positive consequence of this is that intersubjectivity has to be understood as a process, a conversation rather than an answer. 'Feeling' with other people is not an achieved end but a means towards sharing understanding (I like the idea that the word understanding is misunderstood - 'under' deriving from the same root as 'inter' and meaning 'among' rather than 'below' - to understand something is to stand IN it).

We can know ABOUT other cultures through reading about them or watching films but how we know cultures in which we have stood is importantly different - I think. Meeting other people, or meeting with them, can enrich our personal understanding by exposing us to different ways of thinking but I think we have to recognise that thinking ABOUT ways of interacting has to be understood as a multi-layered thing, ranging from the thickest knowing of our lived and co-lived experiences to the ethereal abstractions of philosophical thought-play.

So sharing concepts out of context is doable but not achievable.

All the best,


-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: 20 March 2016 10:34
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

I don't know if the issue is having common interests, Cliff.
I think it's very productive, even necessary, that each little bunch of us has different concerns and shines light on different aspects of human life. But what we really need is shared concepts, through which we can understand each other and collaborate. So it is good news that CC has appropriated zone of proximal development, activity setting, shared activity and the law of genetic development.
I think we need to be very conscious of the dangers inherent in appropriating expressions like these though. You pointed out that in the early days of CC, "'cultural psychology' was generally practiced as 'cross-cultural', largely as comparison studies", but everything I read in your paper tends to suggest "culture" is still understood and used in just this sense. Consequently it is very easy to miss the meaning attached to "culture" in CHAT, which, after all, originated in pretty much a mono-cultural situation. One word can index different concepts. Achieving interdisciplinarity is only achieved by means of shared concepts. But on the other hand, since the content of a concept is ultimately the larger system of practices to which it is indigenous, it seems almost as if a concept can only be shared when the broader context of its use is already assimilated.
Along these lines, it was a little while before I realised that you were using the word "intersubjectivity" with quite a different meaning than I would. It seems to denote empathy. "Intersubjectivity involves co-actors feeling the same emotions and values in the same situations," and I don't even know it means to "feel values."
Connected with this the description of joint action, turned out to be in sharp contrast to my conception of it. As I see it, collaboration (my preferred term, rather than "joint
action") necessarily entails both moments of conflict as well as cooperation. Harmony and bliss are great things, but I think they are rather cheaply purchased simply by everyone marching in step.
I suspect that these two examples of shared words indicating different concepts are connected to the hope of mutual appropriation by means of having a "center of commonality."

*Andy Blunden*
On 20/03/2016 12:28 PM, Cliff O'Donnell wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Alfredo. Roland and I thought
> that although CC and CHAT have many common interests, most folks in
> each appeared to be unaware of the other (judging by the infrequency
> of common citations). As described in our article, we and several of
> our colleagues have been influenced by CHAT and have used CHAT
> concepts in our research and intervention programs.
> As for influence in the opposite direction, perhaps the KEEP project,
> Seymour Sarason's work, and some of Maynard's work with Greenfield.
> Also Kurt Lewin is a source common to both CC and CHAT. I too would be
> interested to hear of additional influence in the opposite direction.
> You are correct that Delta Theory builds on psychosocial systems with
> Vygotsky as an important source. Delta Theory boldly attempts to be a
> universal theory of how change occurs using Delta as the symbol for
> change.
> I'm pleased that you found the discussion of cognitive science,
> psycho-neurology, and a potential center of commonality in psychology
> of interest! That is the goal of the article, i.e., to show how the
> commonality of CC and CHAT have the potential to form that commonality
> with developmental, educational, cognitive, and neuro-psychology.
> Hopefully this discussion format will facilitate interest in the
> process.
> Cliff
> On Mar 19, 2016, at 6:17 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>> 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
> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
> Professor Emeritus
> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA
> Division 27)
> University of Hawai'i
> Department of Psychology
> 2530 Dole Street
> Honolulu, HI 96822


This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.