Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Eric
You mention infants HAVE EMOTIONS based upon attachment. 
You also mention intersubjectivity is the process of seeing other persons point of view.

I want to open dialogue and think out loud as I RESPOND.  
When we say that infants HAVE emotions, [subjective phenomenology] I struggle with the notion of emotions as HAVING A RELATIONSHIP that moves us in a process of recognition and response. This movement or e-motion emphasizes SYMMETRICAL ENGAGEMENT through ATTUNEMENT.

Intersubjectivity theory can also be understood NOT as SEEING the other person's point of view [theory of mind] but rather as attunement and engagement [PERCEIVED and EXPERIENCED communication BETWEEN self and other

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:49 am
Subject: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Hello all:
> 
> Following the recent conversation on XMCA has provided great 
> food for 
> thought and it has encouraged me to reread both chapter 6 in 
> Thought and 
> Language as well as the Fonadgy et al. article pertaining to the 
> parent/child diad.  What I have taken away from this is 
> something I would 
> like to share in infant form and perhaps other will see the 
> correlation as 
> well.
> 
> For me Chapter six is not necessarily a formulated theory 
> pertaining to 
> how children form scientific concepts but rather an argument 
> that pertains 
> to Piaget being wrong in his theory of development.  Over 
> and over LSV 
> states that instruction should lead development but what he 
> doesn't say is 
> at what time and for how long and pertaining to what subject but 
> rather 
> insists that by leading development eventually something will 
> click in the 
> child and the concept shall be formed.  This is different 
> than Piaget who 
> lays out innate levels that are achieved and then built upon.
> 
> In the Fonagy et al. article he refutes the intersubjectivity 
> theory based 
> upon the idea that it assumes that humans have an innate ability 
> to see 
> from other's point of view and replaces with a mentalisation 
> theory that 
> states humans formulate an ability to 'mentalize' how others 
> have emotions 
> based upon the attachment that person has as they are 
> developing.  In this 
> essence Fonagy is extremely similar to LSV that Fonagy does not 
> state a 
> specific amount of interactions but rather states there is a 
> window of 
> opportunity for the child to develop this mentalisation and for 
> some it 
> will take a certain level of interactions and for others it will 
> be 
> different.  LSV and Fonagy both theororize that instruction 
> leads 
> development and innateness is not the answer.
> 
>  hoping for more rainfall up north here so the morel 
> picking will be 
> bountiful
> 
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> 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