Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory

            Aha:

Having absorbed as much as I can up to this point in the discussioon, I am
reminded why I brought Kurt Lewin into the discussion. Within Lewin is the
concept of fields; fields that are not left but that remain as intact
contextual agents. LSV states that syncratic/complex/concept is the
development of human maturation. LSV and Lewin do not remove any of their
fields from consideration when moving onto a new realm of maturation but
rather view each field to be a place for regression or growth. The trick
(or as researchers refer to methodology) is to capture how this movement
between fields is navigated. Obviously semiotic mediation is one aspect;
beyond this I have nothing of concrete value that contributes.

other ideas?

      To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
      cc:
      bcc:
      Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT
theory
David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
11/15/2007 02:53 PM PST
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
size=-1></font>

Dear Paul:

No offense intended. I was trying, in my clumsy way, to get back to
discussing the video. I didn't mean to ignore what you said, all of which I
found interesting but not all of which I understood.

I am now even more confused than ever, I'm afraid. It seems to me that the
issue of silence playing a role in the construction of a piece of music IS
actually relevant to Halliday's remark about Nigel's fourteen-day-old
communicative act. (I even think it's relevant to the more recent talk
about the role of noise in Glenn Gould!) So I really can't see that I am
off topic.

But it may well be that the choice of topic is a battle of wills, a little
like the choice of subject line. To return (somewhat selfishly) to MY
chosen subject line, I was puzzled last night (watching the video for the
fourth time) by Penti's remark that play is concerned with SENSE making
rather than MEANING making.

Of course I know what he is referring to: it is the distinction between
"sense" and "meaning" based on Paulhan that LSV takes up at the end of
"Thinking and Speech". But I never really figured out what LSV was
referring to, since Paulhan himself doesn't take this distinction
seriously.

Assuming that LSV means what Paulhan says, "sense making" would be
PRAGMATIC, POLYSEMIC and PERSONAL while "meaning making" is SEMANTIC,
CONCEPTUAL and SOCIAL. On what grounds does Pentti think that the latter is
"realistic" whle the former is not? That goes against what I think about
play (and also against what Vygotsky writes in Chapter Seven of Mind in
Society and elsewhere).

Speaking of which, is there any word on the "Play" special issue of MCA? I
haven't had any acknowledgment of our submission yet, and in fact I have no
word at all from MCA (except a whopping bill for 530 dollars for my 2008
subscription! Apparently Taylor and Francis think I am an institution.
Being institutionalized would be cheaper....)

David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education

---------------------------------
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it
now.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Nov 15 16:52 PST 2007