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

From: <ERIC.RAMBERG who-is-at>
Date: Mon Nov 19 2007 - 07:57:51 PST


I was able to access the powerpoint presentations but am unable to view the
streamed discussion. I get the 'page cannot be displayed' message. Very
unfortunate, I was hoping to expand upon my limited knowledge.


                      "Mike Cole"
                      <lchcmike@gmail. To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <>
                      com> cc:
                      Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] Streamed Discussion of Development in CHAT theory
                      11/18/2007 09:12
                      Please respond
                      to mcole; Please
                      respond to
                      "eXtended Mind,

Owing to multiple distractions this past week, I have lost track of where
the thread discussing the interchange between LCHC (including Pentti and
Eugene and.....and Helsinki (including
Yrjo, Paulina and .....) has gotten to. Can anyone summarize?

On Nov 15, 2007 10:22 PM, Paul Dillon <> wrote:

> David,
> I didn't take offense at anything you said although I disagreed with it.
> And since your last post didn't really address any of my comments I just
> take it that you don't find them relevant to your concerns. You are
> perfectly within your rights to change the topic, return to a topic from
> which my comments might have diverted you, or even to simply ignore what
> wrote that doesn't concern you.
> I think we have different understandings of the what's important in the
> Vygotsky/AT/CHAT traditions and it's not even clear that trying to work
> those differences has any importance for moving us farther along in
> those distinct concerns. I'm not a fundamentalist or a missionary and am
> not looking to convince anyone with a different understanding of the
> of the theories we discuss on xmca, that mine is right. But since xmca
> is presumably a space for developing multilogues about the theories
> emanating from that tradition, the essential of which I understand to be
> attempt to develop a dialectical materialist psychology parallel to
> dialectical materialist economics, I present my comments seeking
> clarifications of the interpretations posted here that are clearly at
> with my understanding of that tradition.
> If where I'm coming from doesn't fit your understanding of this
> theoretical lineage , it's not a problem for me, although I might still
> post queries and challenges that, as I wrote above, you are perfectly
> to disrregard . It won't offend me in the least since the
> intellectual/theoretical exchanges such as those taking place on xmca are
> not the ground on which the value of those concepts is really worked out
> anyway, at least that's one of the basic premises of the conception of
> social phenomena on which Vygotsky's ideas were based. But when there is
> fundamental agreement about the premises, or the willingness to deal with
> the disagreements, I've found that xmca multilogues are fruitful for
> expanding the practice in which any theory must ultimately demonstrate
> value.
> Paul
> .
> David Kellogg <> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> issue of silence playing a role in the construction of a piece of music
> 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
> 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
> like the choice of subject line. To return (somewhat selfishly) to MY
> 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
> 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
> 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
> "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?
> haven't had any acknowledgment of our submission yet, and in fact I have
> 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.
> 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
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Nov 19 08:00 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:41 PST