I didn't understand Paul's response to Eva -- I will wait for her
re-processing of it. but I was intrigued by Eva's distinction between=20
>the very resistance of the phenomena and the stubborn entrenchments of the
>>discourses we're collectively struggling to transform=20
and
>the obstinacy of the multilogical process itself: the way that the waves of
>>our little ocean consists of the surfers themselves (i.e. the postings we
>>produce)
Surely, I thought, they must be interactive -- the stubborn entrenchments of
the discourses we're struggling to transform and those persistent waves of
kinds of messaging. Is this interaction what you are chewing on, Eva?
still trying to get ahead of the wave,
judith
At 12:26 PM 9/14/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Hello xmca
>
>I will hold off further comments on silence and participation for the
>moment, and try to answer to a couple of clarification points found by
>Genevieve in my second paper about "The emergence and decay of
>multilogue..." -- we had a little backstage exchange over this, and decided
>that I could forward her message, and respond to some of it in public. I
>will take Genevieve's advice for making the second paper a bit more
>independent from the first by including a version of my explanation of the
>"abductive multilogue" that appears in the first paper.
>
>The matter of self-organizing criticality I will save for later, but I
>thought I would try to amend my under-explaining of the two words I have
>appropriated from the vocabulary of Arne Raeithel: the counter-process and
>the re-centering.
>
>"Counter-process" is an innovation suggested by Raeithel (1992) in
>expanding on Leont'ev's concept of object-oriented activity, when he
>defines the general concept of 'operative means' as an operational,
>functional, and developing system encompassing (drawing on Marx' "three
>simple moments of labour") a subjective, an objective and a mediating
>"moment". Counterprocess comes in as the name for the "moment of the
>object":
>
>"The objective moment, being the encountered material (physical or
>semiotic) process that is transformed into a product but also has its
>'Eigensinn' (its proper natural or social dynamics) that is never fully
>known by the subject of work. Because of this dynamical autonomy from the
>subject I propose to call it 'counterprocess'. Translating this to German
>gives 'Gegenproze=DF', a new term that I have proposed as abbreviation of
>'gegenst=E4ndlicher Proze=DF', and as replacing 'Gegenstand' (object),=
because
>the latter term has too many connotations of static physical structures
>like chairs and hammers. This replacement is especially helpful when
>reproductive or communicative activities are to be analyzed" (Raeithel,
>1992)
>
>Ref: Raeithel, Arne. 1992. Semiotic self-regulation and work. An
>activity-theoretical foundation for design. In C.Floyd, H. Z=FCllighoven,=
R.
>Budde & R. Keil-Slawik (Eds.), Software development and reality
>construction (pp 391-415). Berlin: Springer
>
>So what is the counterprocess of multilogue? What is the obstinately
>resistant Other of discussions of CHAT? In a very serious sense it must be
>the very resistance of the phenomena and the stubborn entrenchments of the
>discourses we're collectively struggling to transform -- that which stands
>opposite to the discussants taken as a collective subject (and which the
>internal diversity of the discussing collective keeps current in the
>activity).
>
>However, this is hardly what the link maps allow me to explore. The
>counter-process I'm talking about in what Genevieve quotes below is rather
>the obstinacy of the multilogical process itself: the way that the waves of
>our little ocean consists of the surfers themselves (i.e. the postings we
>produce)... getting into the metaphors I cannot resist associating us
>readers and writers to Bateson's blind man with his stick:
>"But what about 'me'? Suppose I am a blind man, and I use a stick. I go
>tap, tap, tap. Where do *I* start?"
>
>"Re-centering" is, I think, less under-explained in my paper, so I take it
>that what Genevieve asks about is my specific application to mailinglist
>activity. The triad of centered, de-centering and re-centering practice
>plays an important part in Arne Raeithel's work. In his 1996 article he
>explains them by means of the ethnographers' participant and observer
>stances.
>
>"It is important to note that the incompatibility of the views of actor and
>observer is not overcome for good by recentring. This is no Hegelian
>synthesis from which another step of development to ever higher planes of
>the Spirit could start. On the contrary, the complementarity of centred and
>decentred stances means that the gulf between them cannot ever be bridged
>except for moments or phases. The discontinuous happening of new and
>non-anticipated events is the rule, and not the exception (see Wehner
>1992). Therefore, the third possible stance with regard to a socially
>distributed action pattern emerges in opposition to both the centred and
>the decentred one, and only for the phases and moments of true dialogue and
>cooperation" (Raeithel, 1996)
>
>Ref: Raeithel, Arne. 1996. On the ethnography of cooperative work. In: Y.
>Engestr=F6m and D. Middleton (Eds.) Communication and Cognition at Work.=
New
>York: Cambridge University Press
>
>What would re-centering mean on a mailinglist? I think a discussion like
>the current one on our own practices (and all the ones we've had before)
>could be taken as an example: a moment in the life of the list when we
>collectively spread out some of our options for continued activity,
>producing renewed opportunities for choosing our directions.
>
>Am I too optimistic?
>
>Eva
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>>Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
>>From: genevieve patthey-chavez <ggpcinla who-is-at yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Hello Eva, some questions
>>To: eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se
>>
>>Second, in classic Genevieve fashion, I managed to read the wrong paper
>>first! I read "The emergence and decay..." and was getting ready to ask
>>you some clarification questions, then talked to Paul and it became
>>clear that we were not discussing the same object! So, perhaps you'll
>>still indulge my questions about the wrong paper.
>>
>>You write: "The link maps ...[allow] exploration of the possible
>>relations between object-oriented activity and its counterprocess."
>>(p. 8/31, right above Three outstanding multilogues). What is "its
>>counterprocess"?
>>
>>What is abductive multilogue?
>>
>>What is a self-organizing criticality?
>>
>>What is mailing list re-centering? Could you give me an example?
>>
>>I enjoyed reading the (wrong) paper. It brings into focus my deep
>>ambivalence about a) my participation on xmca; b) my own applied work.
>>I won't go into the first. The utopian sentiment always lurking behind
>>the latter is becoming less and less compartmentalizable. Most of the
>>time I just push it in some little corner of my conscience and decide
>>I'm too busy to consider how much my own work plays right into the
>>"more,better,faster" theme grinding education into the dust. But it's
>>climbing right over the psychological barricades. More writing, better
>>writing, faster writing for all my students, yes! More teaching,
>>better teaching, faster teaching! More discussion, better discussion,
>>faster discussion! What am I saying??? It's comforting to read "a
>>self-organizing system is not really amenable to control or planned
>>change -- but it is, nevertheless, possible ... to learn to recognize the
>>moments when small interventions have a fair chance of triggering
>>noticeable effects." Ahhh, someone else is walking in my shoes ...
>**************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352=09
Graduate School of Education
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
10 Seminary Place =09
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183