[Xmca-l] Re: Article for Discussion

Sat Oct 31 09:36:29 PDT 2015

Thanks for this, Andy, and thanks go to the lead editor Barbara Weber on this issue as well!

For folks who would like to know more about it, the editorial is also available for free. There are 6 articles and 6 commentaries—we were working toward a more dialogic feel—that move across and between philosophy, psychology, and education. In addition, we were able to include a book review on Jan Derry's fascinating book, Vygotsky, philosophy and education.

Our intention was to look at intersections of philosophy, psychology, and education and we were very fortunate to locate authors with both similar intentions and outstanding research to contribute. The congratulations go to them:

Wendy Turgeon
Christina Hendricks
Eva Marsal
Chiel van der Veen, Claudia van Kruistum, & Sarah Michaels
Marjolein Dobber & Bert van Oers
Claire Alkouatli, Negar Amini, and Jen
Kim Skinner
Doug Baker & Judith Green
Kym Maclaren
Peter Costello
Susan Gardner & Daniel Anderson
Natalie Fletcher
Arthur Wolf

Thanks to everyone!

Now, on to discussions of Kim Skinner's article!!

Best - jen

On 2015-10-30, at 10:17 PM, Andy Blunden 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 