[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Zukerman resumed

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

Galina, Alfredo,
The video of the mobius strip as a way of orienting or proceeding in the back and forth supports my re-trieving the reading (co-conversation) on page 8 of the article where Galina lays out some similar terms with similar meanings.
Communication : Collaboration
Collaboration : Joint action
Joint action : Form of interaction.

Therefore we can add the adjective (learning) to each of the above terms.
Learning communication
Learning collaboration
Learning joint action
Learning forms of interaction.

With these synonyms in hand we can now turn to the question Galina asks on page 8. What does the diagram (figure 1) *add* to the Vygotsky school’s understanding of the periods of children’s mental development?.

Notice page 9 where the figure 1 is labeled  - (Periodization of leading – and *enduring* forms of collaboration between children and an adult).

The key word i am focussing on is *enduring*. As Galina emphasizes this figure highlights that leading forms of communication/collaboration/joint action/forms of interaction *are enduring*. Galina in her own words says:

The wording regarding leading forms of interaction makes explicit an obvious fact that often *escapes attention*: The forms of collaboration children assimilate do not die off at the end of a given age once they have given rise to a particular néoformation... Rather than replacing the previous developmental stage, the new one *merges* with it. The birth of new forms of collaboration equips children with new techniques for initiating previous forms of communication. 

The two terms (enduring) and (merging) i believe are key terms to focus on in this addition to the Vygotsky school.

I have moved slowly, re-trieving and re-working and laying out for consideration a shift in accent, a new way of inclining into this body of work.

It is my way through the mobius strip to engage as a co-conversationalist in the slow lane.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
Sent: December 19, 2016 1:49 PM
To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: Galina Zuckerman
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Zukerman resumed

Galina, Alfredo,
In the spirit of moving slowly, travelling through the mobius strip as a single inter/ intrasubjective affect of (our) co-being i want to highlight the way Galina introduces this subject matter on page 3 and 4 of the article in exploring the birth of a subject (able to learn). This in contrast to a student who is an object of learning. Here is the way Galina clearly lays out the theme of the birth of the subject of learning :

In order to pinpoint the birth of a subject able to learn independently, we examine two possible relations of the set of concepts (interpsychic action) and (independent action) existing within the Vygotsky School :
1) As long as an action remains intermental and is carried out with the help of an adult, it is not independent
2) People can independently bring about a collaborative, intermental action, that they are unable to carry out individually.

The definition of  independent in the 1st set of relations between interpsychic action and independent action as freedom from external influence, compulsion, support, and assistance ....the capacity for independent action judgement, initiative, decisiveness,  points to the narrowness and impoverishment of this concept (independence) when it is understood as merely the result of mastering an action that becomes independent action.

The 2nd set of relations conceives a person independently bringing about an intermental collaboration in order to get assistance to carry out an action the person is not able to do individually.

As i read through this article i kept these two possible contrasting set of relations in view in the developing nature of a subject of learning who is (able to learn).

Keeping this topic of inter/intra mobius strip in the slow lane for further reflection.

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
Sent: December 19, 2016 11:45 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: Galina Zuckerman
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Zukerman resumed

Oh, I am so glad that this conversation is going on! Thanks Larry for your sustained effort to keep it going, to Mike for bringing the author in, and to professor Zuckerman for being so generous to join us. 

For those of you who, like me, had to go and do a search to see what a Mobius Strip was, see an illustration in this youtube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVsIAa2XNKc

I really liked the analogy, because any single action on the strip has effects that manifest distinctly, yet as a unity, in each side of the strip, which very nicely illustrates how one single fact (that of social life) manifests both, and yet inherently united within a self-developing whole, as the individual and as the social. 

I would also like to add two articles by F. T. Mikhailov, who writes about inter-intrasubjectivity, and speaks of purposively volitional action and freedom (which I think is, at the end of the day, the heart of the reflection that professor Zuckerman's chapter speaks about) as "a single intra- and intersubjective affect of humane co-being." Mikhailov's approach in these papers is much less empirical, yet I think adds value and a beautifully inspiring lenses to approach not only the empirical questions that raise in our research, when we try to theorise and provide answers to general questions on [teaching-learning] and development, but also to our everyday being together with others, with my children and partner at home, with other teachers and children at the elementary school where I am working, etc... I think the power of being mindful to the irreducibly unity of the inter- and the intra- at every step is that, when I approach an other, I may wonder not how can I change (teach?) her or him, but how can I change US. This may seem obvious, yet it does not come automatically; there is (reflective!) work to be done. 

Alfredo 

________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: 19 December 2016 17:48
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: Galina Zuckerman
Subject: [Xmca-l]  Fwd:  Zukerman resumed

Dear Colleagues-- Here is a response to Larry's note of a few days ago from
Galina Zuckerman. I will send along a copy of the Gordon's paper. Original
message below.

mike
----------------
I am extremely grateful to you and your colleagues for talking about
interpsychic action. This is a difficult conversation, so let us move
slowly. Today, I will answer only one fragment of the note from that
wonderful co-conversationalist (I do not dare call him simply by the name
of Larry - it's too familiar for Russian-speaking people).

"The notion of intermental processes as occurring between persons
actualizes an ongoing focus on what occurs between persons, and seems to
put in question the priority of internalized mastery of one’s own
interiorized mental activity."

Yes! Yes!!! However, is there any sense in raising the question of what is
more important - interpsychic or intra-psychic? What's more important for
walking - movement of the left or right foot? Those cultural means which I
have already mastered are the primary conditions to enter the new
interpsychic space that was closed to me before I have mastered a new
cultural means...

Also, there is no point in the question of what comes first - interpsychic
or intrapsychic. In order to join the interpsychic action to meet a
partner, I should have some margin of autonomy, initiative ...

The Mobius strip is the best symbol of the relationship of INTER and INTRA
in the development process, in which there is always a moment of
SELF-development.

I'm afraid to say more because I have not read neither the latest work of
Gordon Wells' work, nor his work "The complimentary contributions of
Halliday and Vygotsky to a Language Based Theory of Learning, 1994." If you
can send me a text, please do !!! I owe so much to this talented author;
His book Dialogic inquiry opened for me new ways of research.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Galina Zuckerman <galina.zuckerman@gmail.com>
Date: 2016-12-19 4:55 GMT-08:00
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Zukerman resumed
To: mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>


Дорогой Майк!


Я чрезвычайно благодарна Вам и Вашим коллегам за разговор об
интерпсихическом действии. Это трудный разговор, поэтому давайте двигаться
неторопливо. Сегодня я отвечу лишь на одну реплику замечательного
собеседника (не решаюсь называть его просто по имени Larry – для
русскоязычного человека это слишком фамильярно).


The notion of intermental processes as occurring between persons
actualizes an ongoing focus on what occurs between persons, and seems to
put in question the priority of internalized mastery of one’s own
interiorized mental activity.


Да! Да!!! Однако есть ли смысл в постановке вопроса о том, что важнее –
интерпсихическое или интрапсихическое? Что важнее для ходьбы – движение
левой или правой ноги? Те культурные средства, которые я уже освоила, это в
первую очередь условие вступить в новое интерпсихическое пространство,
которое было для меня закрыто до того, как я освоила новое культурное
средство…


Также нет смысла в вопросе о том, что первично - интерпсихическое или
интрапсихическое. Для того чтобы присоединиться к интерпсихическому
действию, чтобы встретиться с партнером, я должна обладать каким-то запасом
самостоятельности, инициативности…


Лента Мёбиуса – лучший символ отношения ИНТЕР и ИНТРА в процессе развития,
в котором всегда присутствует момент САМОразвития.


Боюсь двигаться дальше, так как не читала ни последних работ Гордона
Уэллса, ни его работу The complimentary contributions of Halliday and
Vygotsky to a Language Based Theory of Learning, 1994. Если можно, пришлите
мне текст, пожалуйста!!! Я очень многим обязана этому талантливому автору;
его книга *Dialogic* *inquiry* открыла для меня новые пути исследования.


Не знаю, упрощу или усложню дальнейшее обсуждение, но не могу не сослаться
на новую работу Бориса Эльконина (см. приложение).


Всего самого-самого доброго!

Галя Цукерман

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:48 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Dear Galina -- This is a serious response to your work and it would be
> great if you could find time to respond, at least the first part where Larry
> tries to summarize your view of the intermental. He is trying to be
> helpful and build on what people are writing, and some help from you would
> move the whole discussion along. We will worry about translation at this
> end......
>
> Bud' zdorova
>
> mike
>
>
> mike
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Zukerman resumed
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>
>
> The notion of intermental processes as occurring between persons
> actualizes an ongoing focus on what occurs between persons, and seems to
> put in question the priority of internalized mastery of one’s own
> interiorized mental activity. Am i misreading this emphasis in the article.
>
> Is this understanding of (intermental) that prioritizes dialogical
> activity with the other a different focus than the emphasis that Gordon
> Wells puts on the dual aspects of the language system as BOTH
> *a mediation of social activity by enabling participants to plan and
> coordinate and review their actions through EXTERNAL speech
>
> AND in addition language as
> *a medium in which those  above activities are SYMBOLICALLY REPRESENTED,
> providing the psychological sign/tool that mediates the associated ideal
> mental activities in the internal discourse of inner speech.
>
> This shift or crossing over from priority given to the actual physical
> discourse using language (the tool of tools -metatool) to priority given to
> the SYMBOLICALLY represented realm seems to be a key or hinge moment within
> the dual nature of language as both external and interior.
>
> Reading the Zukerman article and the focus on the (intermental) all the
> way down seems to put a different slant or incline to what Gordon Wells is
> exploring.
> My turn is up, but i could reference examples from the Zukerman article on
> the priority of the (intermental)
>
> For those interested i could send another article by Gordon Wells (The
> complimentary contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky to a Language Based
> Theory of Learning, 1994)
> Loose threads being picked up
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
>
>
>