Hi
I am not sure what this thread is about - but Ana is writing
interesting about play ("imagination is internalized play"). I am not
very god at scientific definitions but I am interested in what children
are doing when they are playing and in Vygotskij's text 'The role of
play in Development' (MiS, 1978) I found - to me - very practical and
helpful ideas. I like to think of play as a METHOD (activity!) in
development. Inspired by LSV I am working with (and writing about) five
'methods'. ('Vygotskij i praktiken',Strandberg, 2006 - in Swedish only)
1. Create an imaginary world
2. Put meaning over object.
3. Let thinking precede action
4. Focus on specific parts.
5. Use a pivot.
Together with teachers we try to practice these 5 methods together with
children diagnosed (not by me!) as Letter-kids (DAMP, ADHD, MBD
etctetera).
My point is that these kids sholud not be isolated ("they are so easily
influencs by others") but learn the methods of play (according to LSV).
Leif
2006-12-18 kl. 21.05 skrev Ana Marjanovic-Shane:
> I am also working on the role of play, as you know, and its role in
> learning and development.
> I find, however, that "PLAY" is a very heterogeneous and slippery
> concept and that many people have many different definitions.
> Actually, Brian Sutton-Smith even wrote a book on the rhetoric of play
> (Sutton-Smith, 1997, The Ambiguity of Play) -a very useful and well
> orienting pointer to the perils of misunderstandings about what is
> play, anyway.
> As I understand it (and always thought that Vygotsky understood it),
> is that play is imagination in action (and imagination is internalized
> play). -- That is a very broad definition, though, but allows for
> looking at the whole specter of imaginative activities, both
> interpersonal and intrapersonal as play-like activities which may
> become tool like mediators in the ZPD.
> Ana
>
> Mike Cole wrote:
>> When it comes to schooling, Paul, there IS cultural-historical
>> evidence that
>> is pretty
>> thick. Their early history casts a long light beam on the conditions
>> which
>> give rise to them and the ways they get incorporated in social
>> practice and
>> the process of human evolution on earth. Whether or not wants to call
>> this a
>> zoped (upward or downward) is a reasonable question to pose. And on
>> that
>> point we can have a hey-day of chatter!!
>>
>> I would have though that Vivian Paley also provides alternative ways
>> to
>> think about schooling, but so far as I can tell, I am the lone
>> stranger on
>> XMCA who thinks so on the
>> basis of the chapter of her book we discussed. I am still trying to
>> come to
>> gripts with
>> zopeds in ontogeny at present, and in particular the potential role
>> of play
>> as part of the design principles needed to create such potentials.
>> mike
>>
>> On 12/17/06, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> mike,
>>>
>>> Perhaps schools themselves are the problem. Montesorri (and perhaps
>>> the
>>> schools that came out of Rudolf Steiner) seemed to work around a
>>> concept
>>> more congenial to Vygotsky's notion of zopeds. And for this after
>>> school
>>> programs are much more congenial, no pressure from states imposing
>>> their
>>> ideological constructions. Online education approaches this but the
>>> problem
>>> is retention since everyone has already been trained to demand
>>> structure
>>> from the outside instead of following the instrinsic joy of learning.
>>>
>>> Paul Dillon
>>>
>>> *Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>>>
>>> This nicely states my view of the fullest way to think about zopeds,
>>> Aleksander:
>>> it might be useful to consider concept like mutual asymmetrical
>>> interaction
>>> (or
>>> reciprocal asymmetry or complementary asymmetry - and mutual
>>> development
>>> in the zoped or both sides development) where both partners could be
>>> to
>>> each other more developed partner.
>>>
>>> The great challenge is to arrange for such interactions in
>>> institutionalized
>>> school
>>> settings, which is why I prefer work after school. And the problem
>>> is, of
>>> course,
>>> much more general still.
>>> mike
>>> On 12/17/06, Aleksandar Baucal wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I share with Michael experience that teachers can learn a lot from
>>> > students as well as parents from children (actualy I share this
>>> with
>>> > students each time when we discuss Vygotsky's theory). Moreover,
>>> there
>>> > is a anecdote that is shared among my colleagues about Math prof
>>> who
>>> > tried to explain to students some topic, but he got impression
>>> that they
>>> > didn't understand. Than he explained them in another way, but
>>> again they
>>> > didn't understand. He didn't want to retreat and tried in third
>>> way, and
>>> > then he realized that actually he didn't understand this topic. I
>>> > believe in the happy end of the anecdote, that is that prof finally
>>> > understood the topic and after that he was able to help students to
>>> > build their understanding :)
>>> >
>>> > This kind of examples seems to ask for more inclusive
>>> interpretation of
>>> > the zoped (that supposes asymmetric interaction where actual
>>> pattern of
>>> > activity of participant at the lower level is transformed through
>>> joint
>>> > activity with more developed participants who brings new cultural
>>> form
>>> > of activity into the joint activity). Based on above examples it
>>> might
>>> > be useful to consider concept like mutual asymmetrical interaction
>>> (or
>>> > reciprocal asymmetry or complementary asymmetry - and mutual
>>> development
>>> > in the zoped or both sides development) where both partners could
>>> be to
>>> > each other more developed partner. For example, teacher who is more
>>> > developed than student regarding to understanding of certain topic
>>> from
>>> > curriculum and student who is more developed that teacher regarding
>>> > computer literacy and using Internet - they are searching internet
>>> > together trying to build interpretation and understanding of
>>> certain
>>> > natural phenomenon. It is not easy to imagine parallel example with
>>> > parents and children especially in this time of fast social
>>> changes. If
>>> > parents and children would have just one sided asymmetric
>>> relations it
>>> > would end up with confused children since tools they appropriate
>>> through
>>> > relationship with parents would misfit to social condition in
>>> which they
>>> > will be adults. Moreover, it seems that children serve as more
>>> competent
>>> > partner to parents when it comes to emerging forms of culture.
>>> >
>>> > Sasha
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Michael Glassman wrote:
>>> > > I have been reading some of the discussion on Zoped and have been
>>> > wondering more and more if Anselm Strauss' ideas on negotiated
>>> ordering
>>> > might have some important implications for the way some people
>>> view the
>>> > Zoped as a concept. Strauss suggested that the ordering in
>>> activity - he
>>> > did not really talk about development (he was Mead's student) - but
>>> > concentrated more on the ongoing dynamic activity itself. What he
>>> suggested
>>> > was that the relationship between those who were in charge and
>>> knew what
>>> to
>>> > do, and those who looked to those people in charge, was dynamic and
>>> > dependent on the problems that were being faced. The hierarchy and
>>> also
>>> the
>>> > allocation of resources (which I find interesting and possibly one
>>> of
>>> the
>>> > core issues) is predetermined. But in the process of the ongoing
>>> activity,
>>> > as the problems changed, the actual ordering within the community
>>> changes to
>>> > meet the problem at hand. One of his most interesting studies was
>>> of an
>>> > emergency room in San Francisco. While on paper and in allocation
>>> of
>>> > resources doctors were the titula heads of the emergency room, when
>>> crises
>>> > occurred there was a reordering of roles, where the nurses became
>>> the
>>> > defacto heads of the activity, and the doctors looked to the
>>> nurses and
>>> > understood this. I think one of the problems is that what happens
>>> is
>>> that
>>> > what happens in process is then not re-translated into
>>> understanding.
>>> The
>>> > doctors re-claim their roles as experts after the crisis and from
>>> what I
>>> can
>>> > tell make little effort to share resources with the nurses.
>>> > >
>>> > > Perhaps negotiated ordering has important implications for the
>>> Zoped
>>> as
>>> > well (is such a concept applicable to Vygotsky? Well I continue to
>>> believe
>>> > that Vygotsky was reading Dewey in his early career and was
>>> influenced
>>> by
>>> > him - but of course even saying this gets a lot of people angry.
>>> And
>>> Anselm
>>> > Strauss was working from a base developed by Mead and Dewey). From
>>> what
>>> I
>>> > have been reading, one of the things people are trying to explore
>>> is
>>> this
>>> > notion is that there is some sense of negotiated ordering in the
>>> Zoped
>>> > where, when facing different problems, different members of a
>>> learning
>>> > community take different positions in the learning/development
>>> equation
>>> (can
>>> > we really differentiate learning from development and would we want
>>> > to?). This maybe works especially well if we are looking at
>>> learning
>>> from a
>>> > dialectical perspective - because what needs to happen for
>>> learning to
>>> occur
>>> > is for something to make you question what you are thinking, to
>>> cloud
>>> the
>>> > issues that you were sure of. I think of Piaget and the early work
>>> he
>>> did
>>> > with his own children. Wasn't Piaget actually learning - in a
>>> dialectical
>>> > fashion - from his own children. I think of my relationship with
>>> my own
>>> > children and I know they did things that completely threw me for a
>>> loop,
>>> > completely made me re-think issues I thought were set in my mind.
>>> They
>>> were
>>> > creating a natural disturbance in my Zoped. But by admitting this
>>> I have
>>> to
>>> > admit I learn from my three year old - not in a cute type way, but
>>> in a
>>> real
>>> > way where I have to give up my mantle of expert in our
>>> relationship.
>>> > >
>>> > > Yet we have a great deal invested in this culture of the expert
>>> - the
>>> > idea that the expert teaches and the student learns. I hate to say
>>> it -
>>> > because I'd rather stay away from economic issues - but it is also
>>> a
>>> part of
>>> > our capitalist base and how we allocate resources. We pay experts
>>> more
>>> > because they are experts, we hire them as consultants because they
>>> are
>>> > experts, we let them act as gate keepers and decision makers
>>> because
>>> they
>>> > are experts. I wonder to what extent Vygotsky has been assimilated
>>> in to
>>> > this entire culture of experts?
>>> > >
>>> > > Michael
>>> > >
>>> > > ________________________________
>>> > >
>>> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Mike Cole
>>> > > Sent: Sun 12/17/2006 10:47 AM
>>> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] Zopeds at the cultural historical level
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Andy-- When you write:
>>> > > Hegel does not talk about "assisting" the
>>> > > learning subject, but rather of subordinating them.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think you get near the heart of Yrjo's thought experiment in
>>> > "development
>>> > > as breaking away" and
>>> > > socialization theories (which, heaven help us, are often the
>>> implicit
>>> > > theories behind talks concerning
>>> > > zopeds). The adults in Yrjo's (Hoag's) story are seeking to
>>> "raise
>>> > > up/normalize" the children by subordinating
>>> > > them to a social order with lots of rules and strictures as the
>>> means
>>> to
>>> > > their "development", e.g. growing up
>>> > > to replicate that order. Breaking away is the only way UP as
>>> well as
>>> > OUT.
>>> > > But, of course, such subordination
>>> > > is talked about as benevolent assistance.
>>> > >
>>> > > What makes it all very complicated even in the ontogentic case
>>> is that
>>> > > subordination and assistance are so
>>> > > closely related to each other. The duality of structure? After
>>> all,
>>> the
>>> > core
>>> > > of the method of dual stimulation,
>>> > > in Vygotsky's words, is to "subordinate oneself to an external
>>> stimulus"
>>> > as
>>> > > a means of achieving self control
>>> > > "from the outside" in order to break free of local situational
>>> > constraints.
>>> > >
>>> > > As problematic as this is at the ontogenetic, intergenerational
>>> level,
>>> > it
>>> > > simply gets more so at the culturalhistorical
>>> > > level.
>>> > >
>>> > > Might not institutions such as, for example, the National
>>> Academy of
>>> > > Sciences, be a social instrument whereby certain
>>> > > individuals are chosen to act as more knowledgable peers, who
>>> society
>>> > uses
>>> > > as a means to its own self development?
>>> > > Or, if one approves less secular social instrumentalities, the
>>> synod
>>> of
>>> > > bishops?
>>> > >
>>> > > Thoughts for a spinkly sunday morning where the sun is making its
>>> > > reappearance after a too-brief visit of some rain.
>>> > > mike
>>> > >
>>> > > On 12/17/06, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> I don't know, Hegel was theorising modernity not
>>> multiculturalism.
>>> But
>>> > >> according to Hegel social learning is not a process of
>>> imitation, or
>>> > >> civilisation "rubbing off" on people, but of the production and
>>> use
>>> of
>>> > the
>>> > >> artefacts of a society in the production of the needs of that
>>> society
>>> > >> according to its laws. True, Hegel does not talk about
>>> "assisting"
>>> the
>>> > >> learning subject, but rather of subordinating them.
>>> > >> Andy
>>> > >> At 06:07 PM 15/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> Andy,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I totally agree with your extended analysis of Hegel. The
>>> problem
>>> > is
>>> > >>> that when we look at the reality of the relations that arise
>>> between
>>> > >>> conquered and conquerers the patterns of assimilation are
>>> really
>>> quite
>>> > >>> different. The conquered often "shuck and jive", move slowly,
>>> > withdraw
>>> > >>> into smaller and smaller universes where they preserve the
>>> core of
>>> > their
>>> > >>> identity prior to being conquered. Eric Wolf called this the
>>> "gods
>>> > >>> beneath the altar". As I remember Benjamin's "Theses on
>>> Historical
>>> > >>> Materialism", he pointed to this: histories are stopped but not
>>> > >>> necessarily eliminated, these chronological frameworks within
>>> which
>>> > the
>>> > >>> phylogenetic zopeds exist, but they are waiting to begin
>>> > again. History
>>> > >>> isn't unilinear, something Marx saw quite clearly in the
>>> ethnological
>>> > >>> studies he was undertaking at the end of his life. For Hegel,
>>> history
>>> > >>> was unilinear and Reason was the telos toward which everything
>>> > cultural
>>> > >>> and historical moved. Not so Marx.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Another important thing I remember about the hegelian
>>> master-slave
>>> > >>> dialectic concerns the role of work in developing the universal
>>> > essence
>>> > >>> that later becomes the basis of the post-feudal civilizations.
>>> Very
>>> > >>> materialistic really.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The question I think about a lot, especially in light of the
>>> "andean
>>> > >>> cosmovision" movements, of which Evo Morales is a happy
>>> surfer, is
>>> > >>> whether the elements that have been conserved can be developed
>>> again
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> with
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> their own dynamic, that the "other" way of putting the pieces
>>> together
>>> > >>> can become a dynamic in it's own right. There is a very
>>> advanced
>>> > >>> movement down here in that direction. Right now, the City of
>>> Villa
>>> el
>>> > >>> Salvador, originally a "squatter's settlement" to the south of
>>> Lima
>>> > >>> (something very comparable to El Alto's relationship with La
>>> Paz in
>>> > >>> Bolivia) is hosting a "Reawaken the Native Gods (wakas)"
>>> reunion,
>>> > >>> inviting shamans from the highlands to Paracas (the third most
>>> > important
>>> > >>> ceremonial site at the time of the Conquest) for three days to
>>> pray
>>> > and
>>> > >>> dance and revitalize those spiritual forces. A lot of people
>>> here
>>> > move
>>> > >>> in that direction which isn't a simple nationalism since it is
>>> > >>> pan-Andean, refers to the non-European, to another ontology as
>>> one
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> friend
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> puts it.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Like I said, I don't think Hegel sheds much light on this
>>> process or
>>> > >>> how the conquered manage to preserve that sense of identity in
>>> codes
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> that
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> resist rational penetration.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Paul
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> > >>> Paul, I let my contribution to this thread drop, because I
>>> wasn't
>>> > sure
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> how
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> much a compare-and-contrast of Hegel's master-servant and
>>> Vygotsky's
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> ZOPED
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> was useful. But anyway ...
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The essence of the master-slave dialectic is this (IMO): the
>>> master
>>> > >>> incorporates the material energies of the servant into its own
>>> system
>>> > of
>>> > >>> needs and their satisfaction, so that all the artefacts of the
>>> > conquered
>>> > >>> subject are destroyed as artefacts and their materiality (the
>>> land,
>>> > >>> products, etc and the bodies of the human individuals) is
>>> re-organised
>>> > as
>>> > >>> part of the subjectivity of the coloniser (their meaning is
>>> changed),
>>> > by
>>> > >>> virtue of the dominated people labouring under the direction
>>> of the
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> master,
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> meeting the master's needs according to the methods of the
>>> master,
>>> the
>>> > >>> servant's lands and bodies being redefined as resources for
>>> meeting
>>> > the
>>> > >>> needs of the master. The servant not only loses all control of
>>> their
>>> > own
>>> > >>> activity, but are forced into activity which they neither
>>> understand
>>> > nor
>>> > >>> see the need for. Thus the "unhappy consciousness." But as Paul
>>> says,
>>> > by
>>> > >>> performing the activity defined by the coloniser's
>>> subjectivity,
>>> they
>>> > >>> become officienados in that activity, thus arises (development
>>> and)
>>> > >>> self-consciousness.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The servant's material activity mediates between the master's
>>> needs
>>> > >>> (consciousness) and their satisfaction in the form of culture;
>>> the
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> master's
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> culture and consciousness mediates between the slave's
>>> activity and
>>> > their
>>> > >>> consciousness of that activity.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> The shared core of this conception with Vygotsky's ZPD is that
>>> of
>>> the
>>> > >>> dominant culture, represented by a dominant subject,
>>> determines both
>>> > the
>>> > >>> activity that the 'learner' must perform and the needs being
>>> > fulfilled;
>>> > >>> doing without understanding leads to understanding of doing,
>>> > ultimately,
>>> > >>> the non-subject becomes a free and equal member of the dominant
>>> > activity
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> an
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> culture by learning to reproduce it by their own activity.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> For Hegel this is the dialectic by which *self-consciousness
>>> emerges*;
>>> > it
>>> > >>> is the dialectic relating subjective consciousness and
>>> objective
>>> > >>> consciousness.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I don't know if that help anything or not. I'm not sure.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Andy
>>> > >>> At 01:45 PM 15/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>> mike,
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> I've just gone back to read some xmca posts -- been computer
>>> deprived
>>> > >>>> for a bit and stuck to using internet cabinets in Lima for
>>> very
>>> brief
>>> > >>>> stuff. I had erased a lot of messages but found that I hadn't
>>> read
>>> > the
>>> > >>>> one you originally posted, to which I'm now replying, probably
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> postponing
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> it until I could read more carefully. Then I went to the xmca
>>> website
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> to
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> check the thrread in detail and found it had bifurcated,
>>> someone
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> posted a
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> reply, changing the subject name to something about more
>>> competent
>>> > >>>> peers. That thread grew a lot and I haven't read all those
>>> messages
>>> > so
>>> > >>>> I'm not sure whether the original thread concerning
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> cultural-historical
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> zopeds continued there.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> The way you phrased the problem was quite clear and Andy's
>>> response
>>> > >>>> about conquest and colonization most interesting. resonating
>>> with
>>> an
>>> > >>>> earlier exchange around the book about native american
>>> science. In
>>> > the
>>> > >>>> 1500s the conquering Europeans were arguably less culturally
>>> advanced
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> in
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> many fields of human practices (engineering, mathematics,
>>> astronomy,
>>> > >>>> agriculture, institutional administration, just to mention a
>>> few)
>>> > than
>>> > >>>> the people they conquered. They really only had an advantage
>>> in
>>> > >>>> weaponry. And there was absolutely no zoped functioning in
>>> either
>>> > >>>> direction it seems, just a master-slave relation. For Hegel
>>> that
>>> > >>>> relation turns into a pyrrhic victory followed by the
>>> esse"Unhappy
>>> > >>>> Consciousness" in which the dominated slave realizes its own
>>> nce to
>>> > be
>>> > >>>> the negation of the Individual and the true universality of
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> consciousness
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> as something trans-individual. The slave realizes that s/he
>>> is the
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> truth
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> of the Master. I always recall the scene from the movie
>>> Spartacus
>>> > when
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> the
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> Roman general asks: Who is Spartacus? and one by one all of
>>> the
>>> > >>>> rebelling slaves stand up and claim to Spartacus. Then they
>>> are all
>>> > >>>> crucified, of course. But that transition isn't an example of
>>> a
>>> zoped
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> so
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> Hegel isn't much help here.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> The problem of more advanced cultural forms is certainly an
>>> important
>>> > >>>> one, but when I wrote the query concerning the historical
>>> dimensions
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> of
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> the zoped, I wasn't really thinking about the problem in
>>> quite the
>>> > way
>>> > >>>> you phrased it, that is I wasn't really thinking about more
>>> or less
>>> > >>>> advanced cultures as defined in terms of specific practices (I
>>> don't
>>> > >>>> think it would be possible to specify that one culture is
>>> superior
>>> to
>>> > >>>> another in any absolute sense, but yes at the level of
>>> specific
>>> > >>>> practices), I was really wondering about the transmission of
>>> customs
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> and
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> habits that seems to occur without any conscious teaching
>>> involved,
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> but
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> which is part of the package when a child is learning the
>>> basics,
>>> > that
>>> > >>>> historical dimension that moves at the backs of people,
>>> without
>>> their
>>> > >>>> knowledge or awareness. I don't see how we can doubt that
>>> this goes
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> on;
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> e.g., learning racism implicitly in nursery rhymes, learning
>>> the
>>> > >>>> individualism (looking out for good old number one first) also
>>> seems
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> to
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> qualify as something that isn't so much taught as a specific
>>> skill
>>> > >>>> imparted by a more knowledgeable member of the group, but as a
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> corrolary
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> to learning itself within certain cultures, just as learning
>>> that
>>> the
>>> > >>>> family comes first is dominant in others. It's very clear to
>>> me
>>> that
>>> > >>>> there is a big gap between people's real morality and their
>>> ideal
>>> one
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> and
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> that practicality (living in the world with the skills we've
>>> learned)
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> is
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> usually the reason given to explain the difference between the
>>> > >>>> two. Yeah, it'd be great to turn the other cheek but in
>>> reality no
>>> > one
>>> > >>>> does because that's just not the way the world works.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> If such is the case, that these dimensions, primarily moral
>>> and
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> ethical
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> ones, are transmitted first in this kind of "blind" way ,
>>> then the
>>> > >>>> modification of these levels must depend on something other
>>> than
>>> the
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> kind
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> of direct teaching that characterizes a zoped.
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Perhaps the examples given by Yrjo point in this direction
>>> more
>>> than
>>> > I
>>> > >>>> realized and I'll have to go back and look at that: but as I
>>> > remember,
>>> > >>>> these "expansions" involved breaking out, destroying old
>>> structures,
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> and
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> clearing a space for new ones. What bigger space than a raft
>>> on the
>>> > >>>> Mississippi River? The idea that a zoped is a conversation
>>> with a
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> future
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> seems very useful to me, the question of course: what is that
>>> > >>>> future? Andy's statement that phylogenesis is about "pulling
>>> oneself
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> up
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> by the bootstraps" enters here. But really, how is it
>>> possible to
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> avoid
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> teleology?
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> Lately I've been very much impressed what could be called
>>> "historical
>>> > >>>> traumas", events and processes extending over a period of
>>> time,
>>> that
>>> > >>>> leave what I can only describe metaphorically as topography
>>> within
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> which
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> the rivers of consciousness/mind flow. This a result of living
>>> again
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> in
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> the Andes where a suppressed past is constantly whispering
>>> beneath
>>> > the
>>> > >>>> present day-to-day activities. There are major traumas: the
>>> Conquest
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >> in
>>> > >>
>>> > >>>> the Americas , extirpation of idolatries=attempted
>>> destruction of
>>>
>>> === message truncated ===
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> Ana Marjanovic'-Shane,Ph.D.
>
> 151 W. Tulpehocken St.
>
> Philadelphia, PA 19144
>
> Home office: (215) 843-2909
>
> Mobile: (267) 334-2905
>
> ana@zmajcenter.org <mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org>
>
> http://www.speakeasy.org/~anamshane
> <http://www.speakeasy.org/%7Eanamshane>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST