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

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

Eric
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.

Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
Date: Thursday, April 22, 2010 8:06 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Larry: 
> 
> You misunderstood me.  Fogady et al state in their artilcle 
> that infants 
> develop (not have) understandings of emotions based upon their 
> attachment 
> 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 
> miscommunication. 
>  I wrote the post quickly (as I usually do) and perhaps it 
> is easily 
> misinterpreted.
> 
> My understanding of intersubjectivitly theory is that it 
> preconceives 
> humans with the innate ability of empathy whereas mentalization 
> theory 
> 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)
> 
> eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 04/22/2010 09:21 AM
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> 
>  
>         
> To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" 
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>        cc: 
>         
> Subject:        Re: [xmca] 
> intersubjectivity = Piaget, mentalisation = LSV
> 
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca