[Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion

[Larry Purss]

Cliff,
The wide ranging exploration and questions concerning text and context overlap with your questions on the beneficial results of finding common ground using specific terms such as [activity setting, intersubjectivity, and joint action]. 

James Ma took a turn questioning if text/context can be answered within a causal sequence?
Alfredo then, in his turn, suggested an even *better* question concerning the epistemology the epistemology posing the question in just those terms of *before or after*. 
He says when we put the question in just those terms we are already assuming that there must be a temporal delay between these two somethings and suggests a 3rd possibility is that they arise simultaneously. His next point is that any one of the 3 *possibilities* already begin from a view of the world as a *set* of *substances* that can be *ordered temporally* or sequentially. Some substance being figure while the other substance being background. 

Now Alfredo invites us to travel towards another way of relating to questions of temporality that suggest these questions of whappens before and what happens other make *no sense* From this alternative way of relating to epistemology the question changes to :
“What kind of historical unfolding phenomenon leads to [a travelling metaphor] just THIS way of asking the text/context relational question? 
 Then what is *specified* in particular is the historical conditions that *allow* the existence of anything like the text/context question. Alfredo calls this an ecological approach or *way* and points to Bateson and Birdwhistle discussing this way of exploring context.

I mention these turn taking moves in the conversation  of James and Alfredo as examples of what is occurring as your article keeps opening onto other vistas or horizons and other epistemologies as ways of understanding theory and practice. 

These differing ways of travelling is the context in which I return to your question if any of these current openings would have changed any of the community interventions presented in your article?  
Following David Kellogg I believe that the community interventions presented are text presentations and to say this  may be moving within a differing meaning of *sense* that asks us to leave the generality of activity settings to moving within particular kinds of activity settings that highlight sense and meaning rather than highlight activity settings. 
When your article says that culture is ‘shared meaning’ David is suggesting this way of understanding culture  is therefore metaphorical semantic understanding. 

Cliff, in the 2012 article you sent says you expanded the scope of activity settings towards *all human behaviour and experience* and proposed this theory of activity settings as guiding community strategies for change. Through shared experiences, participants develop common experiences. 
Activity setting theory unifies the objective and subjective by showing how activity *intersubjectively develops.
The higher the level [can we say the sense] of intersubjectivity the higher the sense of community which translates as sense of belonging. [Seymour Sarason]. 
You differentiate two kinds of feelings of belonging. A person can feel a sense of belonging to school teams or neighbourhood without a high degree of intersubjectivity. They share a sense of community without engaging in shared activities with other members of the community. 
However, intersubjectivity CAN *only* develop through shared activities with others.
THIS theory therefore posits intersubjectivity as *key* to well being [which goes beyond mental health focus]. 
You then mention that the more experiences people have in common [including language and cultural traditions] the more likely for intersubjectivity to develop. Intersubjectivity can only be *high* among members who participate in common activity settings. 

Therefore cultural community psychology posits the key focus of development to be  the generation and germinating of intersubjectivity through activity settings. 
The creation of activity settings FOR  intentionally developing intersubjectivity and the *belief* that with high intersubjectivity comes well being. 

Cliff, I recognize that this approach [way of travelling] - if persuasive - will create settings in which the focus on intersubjectivity [as a metaphor] will emerge and be validated as occurring within these settings. I also acknowledge that *fields* and *archives* may develop alongside this theory as disciplinary ways of travelling together. 
This is a valid way to travel and if persuasive enough the current focus on objectivity or subjectivity may shift to emphasizing intersubjectivity. 
However, I would agree with David who suggests that this way of travelling together can also be approached through a theory of forming semantic webs [metaphor of weaving threads].
The term *intersubjectivity* has multiple other meanings and ways of understanding developing intersubjectivity. 
These multiple meanings of intersubjectivity emerge within a historical horizon of understanding and will converge and diverge in relation to  the sense of intersubjectivity presented in this article. 

I would focus on this process of historical translation as another aspect of developing cultural community psychology.     

     

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Cliff O'Donnell
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 4:06 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Article for Discussion

The many points raised in this discussion are certainly different than  
those raised among community psychologists. That's a good thing! They  
expand my thinking as I consider other perspectives.

I am particularly interested in learning about how your perspectives  
on context, or which comes first context or text, would have changed  
any of the community interventions we presented in our article. Would  
you have done anything differently in any one of them? Or perhaps  
interpreted our outcomes differently?

Cliff