Re: [xmca] Re: Engagement with Activity Theory.

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Hi Huw--

Interesting take on appreciation. Add to your remarks that whatever we are
"pointing to" here in discussing appreciation is *both* polymorphic and
polysemic, and it might lead one to believe that human experience involves
a good deal of imagination. :-)

Which it does.


mike

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On 27 December 2011 20:22, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Christine --
>>
>> I have also been thinking about "appreciation." My musings led me to
>> connect the idea of "I appreciate the effort you made" with the idea of
>> appreciation in a phrase such as "The price of my house appreciated."
>>
>
>> In both cases, it appears that there is some sort of increase in "value."
>> If someone else appreciates what I do, my "self" (lets make that my
>> "dialogic self") increases by some measure of the greater valuing of me by
>> the person doing the appreciating. Ditto if I appreciate what someone else
>> does (such as writing a thought provoking note on xmca).
>>
>> Around the intervention methodology folks I hang out with, the idea of
>> "reciprocal relations of exchange" which Olga Vasquez has favored gets a
>> lot of, well, appreciation.
>>
>>
> Always and over again the issue off what constitutes reciprocity is right
>> in the middle of the enagement.
>>
>
> Its interesting too to consider the flux of polymorphic appreciations
> (relations).  How, for example, it may be difficult to 'embed' a particular
> appreciative insight/understanding within social norms, such as the
> capacity for reflection in action.  Also interesting is the relation
> between speaking (pointing) and appreciating.  In this regard the notion of
> 'introvert' (the psychological term, not shyness) can be partially thought
> of as someone who habitually seeks to appreciate beyond what is
> conventionally allowed for in their social circles.
>
> Huw
>
>
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 10:28 PM, christine schweighart <
>>
>> schweighartgate@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >  Dear Mike,
>> >
>> > I read  your joint article in the special issue of T&P 2011 and
>> > appreciated the notion of mutual appropriation - I was contrasting with,
>> > and have not found myself able to 'project' into 'formative teaching
>> > experment'  - though this would be another thread. Also in that issue
>> Yryo
>> > used a definition of 'intervention' from Gerald Midgley, who I am
>> working
>> > with now, his contribution has been to introduce a concept of 'boundary
>> > critique' -influenced by Ullrich -into  'Critical Systems Thinking'.
>> >
>> > I became interested in 'activity theory' after responding to a call for
>> > papers for ISCAR 2005 Seville - and you responded! Also in that
>> conference
>> > you gave a very moving talk WITH from and back to your audience - I
>> enjoyed
>> > that - but of course the 'content' has now gone in memory.  It was only
>> > when Seth Chaiklin moved to the UK and 'rounded up'  stragglers that I
>> > engaged 'theoretically', very slowly and with very different values
>> about
>> > research, but I got to the question I asked Andy, and still have -  in
>> > there somewhere-my historical traces to understand my communions and
>> > differences etc..  Going back into 'systems'  - with  the opacity of
>> > 're-entry',  initial dialogues show appreciation ' we haven't got a
>> theory
>> > of activity' :).  Though their background has a stong history of
>> community
>> > developmental work, and environmental developmental intervention .
>> >
>> > In using this list serve, my email doesn't seem to 'reply' to messages
>> in
>> > the way others mange to- I don't get a smooth 'title' and copy message,
>> so
>> > I've not just quite got the hang of this. It meant that I couldn't
>> direct
>> > comments - so early on I 'lost' responding to David Kellog on the
>> > discussion f the wine and bottles - and also on the talk of
>> recognition. I
>> > have attempted to present a distinction of subjectification and
>> > 'appreciation' in recent talks - but this is 'unappreciated' with those
>> > deeply immersed in the notion of subjectification --  So I read greg's
>> > comments and will re-read the whole thread- it went very quickly!
>> >
>> > Also I can't get an 'automatic' email to open on Bruce's link ( same
>> > problem with my hotmail set up) - so if there are any guidelines as to
>> what
>> > is acceptable in terms of links to other websites etc  please point me
>> > there( and how to 'reply' in threads  with more focus/proximity). Live
>> > links are stripped out , sometimes they are 'accidentally' cut and
>> pasted
>> > in haste, - but don't know the trouble this might provoke your server
>> etc.
>> >
>> > Many thanks, Christine.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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