de_leser (de_leser) wrote,
de_leser
de_leser

The coordination

>>De Jaegher and Di Paolo define coordination as “the non-accidental correlation between the behaviours of two or more systems that are in sustained coupling [...] or have been coupled to another, common system” (2007, p. 490). A distinction (though not a very strict one) can be made when studying social interactions between different aspects of coordination. The distinction we are interested in here is that between coordination to and coordination with. The first is a one-sided coordination, i.e. where one of the coupled systems follows the lead of the other (think of Charlie Chaplin’s assembly line work in Modern Times).4 Coordination with, in contrast, entails co-regulation (Fogel 1993), i.e. it is interactionally achieved (for instance, sawing a tree with a two-man saw).

Such interactional coordination does not necessarily imply perfect synchronisation. On the contrary, it is the continuous fluctuation between synchronised, desynchronised and in-between states that drives the process forward. The to-and-fro between attunement and alienation is even necessary in order to understand each other without melting into each other. Perfect synchronisation would lead to an undifferentiated, homogeneous feeling state. Therefore, misunderstandings and irritations are necessary as the dialectical counterparts of understanding. They are like questions that lead to answers in the subsequent course of the interaction.

Now since in normal interaction none of the participants is able to completely steer the process deliberately but is drawn into the feedback and feed-forward cycles of the interaction, the process itself can become leading over the two interactors. Patterns and rhythms of coordination make them act and react in ways that they could not foresee. In other words: The interaction process gains a ‘life of its own’; it acquires a kind of autonomy ...<<

(Thomas Fuchs - Enactive intersubjectivity)

+++
Мне нравится этот вывод- The interaction process gains a ‘life of its own’.

Отношения и взаимодействия (напр между людьми, в обществе, или человека с природой) живут своей собственной жизнью. Можно даже представить это как неких духов, обладающих собственным характером, интенциями... ) Сказки о духах, богах не так уж глупы, если так на это посмотреть. Например в синтоизме.

Целое больше суммы частей. Взаимодействие, процесс координации, это нечто большее чем просто сумма действий каждого из участников. Эмергентность - появление у системы свойств, не присущих её элементам в отдельности.

Флюктуации и конфликты в этом процессе жизненно необходимы. И дьявол, как олицетворение этого всего, жизненно необходим. "я тот кто хочет зла, но вечно совершает благо" (Гете, Фауст).)))

"Я люблю хаос!" (Насcим Талеб, Антихрупкость)
Tags: embodiment
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments