[Xmca-l] Re: Zukerman resumed

[mike cole]

Nicely said, Henry.

As schematized in your note, Larry, the use of the word, "independent"
struck me rather forcefully.

What does an "independent" human organism possibly mean when any state of
independence is really a state of "suppressed" INTER-dependencies. No
(wo)man is an island is literally true. Or non-existence.

Isn't independence just what, in context, we attribute to particular forms
of interdependence?  We are always dealing with relations, most proximally
relations between human beings and between human beings interacting as part
of their local ecology.

Anyway, the notion of independent seems to need bracketing.

mike

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:04 PM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Check this out:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmqLFZISvfA <https://www.youtube.com/
> watch?v=FmqLFZISvfA>
>
> This mobius metaphor came up some time ago on the chat. Most of us, myself
> included, wouldn’t have heard and visualized Bach’s Crab Cannon as a mobius
> strip, but it sure works as music. In the same way discourse wouldn’t be
> (consciously) heard that way either. Yet every dialog “looks" both forward
> and backward at every moment, reprising/elaborating on previous turns,
> anticipating future turns.
>
> Henry
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> > <Mikhailov 2004 Object Oriented Activity Whose.pdf><Mikhailov 2006
> Problems of the Method of Cultural Historical Psychology.pdf>
>
>