Co-Designly Practice, (CDLY P) case study 3:

In situ and ontological; dialogic dialogue is integral to Co-Designly Practice praxis: 

​

​

'My Mum says "Words have power"'.

​

"Do you think images or objects, people, places, and things have power too?"

​

"She said my words have power". (S., 6)

​

 

We start by drawing our profiles; we struggle to apply an abstract concept, such as a profile to a friend sitting beside us. Then,

on card, we design two animal heads in profile facing each other, cutting them out with scissors, again, there is confusion about

what a profile is. Using white plastic clothes pegs, we glue each jaw to the moveable top and bottom of the peg; tricky to do,

this "gets gluey!"

A discussion about conversational dialogue and dialogic debate ensues – how to speak and listen as equals, fairly and in turns,

with a back-and-forth relational, question-and-answer reciprocity. Then, we discuss how to share topics, build convivial rapport,

be empathic, understanding, disagree, negotiate a compromise, or politely agree to disagree. We look at Hegel’s dialectical

method; a thesis, a statement of an idea, for example, “I like onions.” Then its antithesis, a polemical response that contradicts

or negates, “Well, I hate onions.” Then comes synthesis, a statement through which the differences between the two points are reconciled; we concur, “Onions can taste better cooked.” 
​
Following this, we discuss (the Socratic method) how asking difficult questions can make a statement clearer (elenchus). “Argu-

ment of disproof or refutation; cross-examining, testing, scrutiny esp. for purposes of refutation whereby a series of questions

clarifies a more precise statement of a vague belief, logical consequences of that statement are explored, and a contradiction is discovered”.
​
We discover that dialogue, just like thought can be discursive, “like a wandering stream” (of consciousness) and intuitive, where-

by information passes “from our senses,” sensibles (sense-based) “to thinking about” intelligibles (intellect).

 

We also discuss possible assumptions, biases, or imbalances in power relations, for example, in the dynamic between a Pegasus

and a Lion. “What if it was a child and a teacher character!?” (K., 7.)

​

We each select a peg character and in turn at the front of the class, have a short "dialogic conversation" with another person's

character. They have terrific fun at snack time feeding their chatty, “Snappy, snap, snap!” (S., 6) rude peg characters.
 
Later, there's a big debate (and more furore) about onions as “Lion likes to eat onions” and “Pegasus doesn’t. He prefers carrots

like Peter Rabbit.” (S., 6.) The conversation wanders off to carrots or sticks and the intricately-tense relationship between Peter

Rabbit, Mr Todd (the fox), and Tommy Brock (the grouchy old badger). 

​
After hot milk and reading practice at bedtime, my child and I always improvised a story about the imaginatively outrageous ad-

ventures of Sebastian Frog and the animal characters at the pond. (Valentina Frog, Suki Luki the Koi fish mother, Gita Beetle,

Aloysius Newt, Birdie Lurdy, Lucky Ducky, Hilda Hippo, Honey Bunny (who speaks in rhyme), Helga Hedgehog, Herdy Gerdy

Cow, Sidney Snake, Mr Parrot Parrot (who repeats everything), Mr Black Bird, Isobel Giraffe, Henry Rat, and Nuts The Squirrel.)

Bar-bar-baloot In His Rainbow Suit was a mythic 'Übermensch,' magically sliding down the rainbow the instant someone needed

help. Sebastian routinely used narrative storytelling and comics, such as his "Silly Stickman", to find comfort, catharsis, or figure

things out for himself – via proxy phenomenologies of his real-life friends and family. His cartoon books and journalistic, avatar

adventures were a great source of existential joy, imaginative expression, and self-comforting solace.

​
In English Comprehension, the class decide to write Beatrix Potter / Sebastian Frog-type stories with their own characters, Cutie

Tutti the Bunny, Slithery Eel, Lemony Bird, etc., to further explore dialectics and “happy endings” (I., 6). We look at character dev-

elopment, nuanced caricature illustration, writing dialogue in speech marks – to use in our imaginatively eclectic stories.

We mock-up our stories into A5 illustrated books.
​
In a later class about comics S.'s, (6) character (and now alter ego!) is Elemental Man; "harnessing the power of the earth, water,

fire, wind, and air for superpower POWER".

 

J., (6) generously puts his comic about terrifying robot monsters into the school library "to share my characters with everyone."
​
In English Comprehension, we "co-designly" write a 30-minute, scene-by-scene, TV soap script using colloquial dialogue between multiple, fictional characters. Situated at a scuba diving school in coastal Australia, it centres around a love story trope with a 

rogue, "bad guy" driving a pick-up truck and "a dangerous saltwater croc." After snack time, we act out the script, testing if voice

inflection and gesture lends character. We use CDLY P methodology with great effect/hilarity – where there are conflicts about

what happened or should happen, we use flashbacks or imagined scenes set in the future to express each (rounded) character's uniquely phenomenological perspective. We cut to ad break when "In an [unanticipated} explosion of blood and guts, the croc

gobbles up the tasty morsel bad guy." I., (6) 

​

​

We conclude something to the equivalent of “Hegel’s thought is a mark rather than a concept. A suspension rather than a conclus-

ion. A dash rather than a full stop. Speculation is the thought that thinks its own suspension: in order to jump better– further, higher,

today, tomorrow.” Jean-Luc Nancy

 

​