[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
- From: Larry Purss <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:26:53 -0700
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <OFBA8A7131.E198BD87-ON8625770D.0052403E-8625770D.0052D70D@spps.org>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- Priority: normal
- References: <OFBA8A7131.E198BD87-ON8625770D.0052403E-8625770D.0052D70D@spps.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
My question is really partly my process of reflection on these topics as I attempt to development more coherence on these topics.
In that spriit of inquiry the place of "attachment" in becoming human is for me a central preoccupation.
When Valsinger mentions goal directed activity I'm wondering if one of the basic central goals around which becoming human PIVOTS is the goal of ENGAGEMENT [recognition and response]
It seems to me that "attachment" theory is centrally about the tension and movement of withdrawal and engagement.. This movement is goal directed and motivating.
At a moral level of discourse how do we create/construct institutional contexts where we facilitate more engagement and less withdrawal. I believe what is required are more symmetrical relational patterns of participation.
Eric I was really using your comments as an opportunity to continue to muse on this theme.
----- Original Message -----
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:06 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
> You misunderstood me. Fogady et al state in their artilcle
> that infants
> develop (not have) understandings of emotions based upon their
> to caregivers. Piaget would believe that emotions are
> innate. I agree
> with Fogady and believe emotions to develop within the infant
> based upon
> their interactions with caregivers. I apologize for any
> I wrote the post quickly (as I usually do) and perhaps it
> is easily
> My understanding of intersubjectivitly theory is that it
> humans with the innate ability of empathy whereas mentalization
> summizes that empathy is a developed "skill" via attachment with
> cargivers. ala Valsiner I would go so far as to say that
> this development
> occurs in a goal directed activity (i.e. feeding, playing peek-a-
> boo, etc)
> Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent by: email@example.com
> 04/22/2010 09:21 AM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> cc:
> Subject: Re: [xmca]
> intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
> 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-
> 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
> engagement [PERCEIVED and EXPERIENCED communication BETWEEN self
> and other
xmca mailing list