Inspirations and conversations

In March of 1990, on her return from France, where she had done a post-doctorate program with Monique Vial at the Institut National de Recherche Pégagogique, an organization, now extinct but which was part of the French Ministry of Education, Nilda Alves brought in her suitcase two volumes, in the form of pocketbooks, of The Practice of Everyday Life, by Michel de ^{Certeau and others - these two books would later be translated in Brazil in 1994} and 1997.

Arriving in Brazil, just ten days before the confiscation of bank deposits under Zélia Cardoso de Mello's economic plan, during the Collor government (15.03.1990 to 29.12.1992), Nilda sought out Regina Leite Garcia to talk about these books. But the theoretical studies on Certeau, in both research groups, only started when the first book was translated and published by Editora Vozes, although the research they were already carrying out was based on this idea of curricula in everyday life⁵.

In Regina Leite Garcia's group her study includes text about rhizome, as dealt with by ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1995}), which she obtained in Buenos Aires at the time of a meeting at Flacso-Argentina.

Nilda Alves worked on the idea of networks and semi-networks that appear in the introduction of ^{Lefebvre's book (1983}). Another book by the same author also contributed to the development of the idea of everyday life in this group (^{Lefebvre, 1983}). The group also showed great interest in books by ^{Maffesoli (1996}, ¹⁹⁹⁷, ¹⁹⁹⁸), which also helped to better understand the research needs of this current.

When this group started working with images, a book by ^{Todorov (1997}) provided some valuable ideas. In particular, when this author recalled what he called ‘the Malraux formula’: “Holland does not invent putting a fish on a plate, but rather no longer making it the food of apostles” (^{Todorov, 1997}, p. 11).

It was at this moment, however, when questioned at length by Antônio Carlos Amorim about what the images meant in her texts, that Nilda Alves sought and found in ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1992}) the idea of "conceptual characters", today central to the group she coordinates. The group thus discovered - many years after Regina Leite Garcia's group and other groups working on everyday life, such as those coordinated by Janete Magalhães Carvalho and Carlos Eduardo Ferraço - the importance of Deleuze.

Another important author, who resonated with the groups that were being set up, was Maturana whose ideas gave rise to important dialogues and the emergence of a classical work for research on everyday life, written by ^{Carvalho (2011}).

Inês Barbosa de Oliveira´s post-graduate work with Boaventura de Sousa Santos enabled the works of this author to be more widely circulated among these groups.

The brief narrative of these theoretical conversations reminds us that this story is woven into many and in many different ‘spacetimes’⁶ of ‘practicestheories’ realizations within countless research projects, funded by many different organizations, carried out in different graduate programs, and presented in national and international congresses that incorporate researchers from other countries, especially from Latin America.

Current issues

If the variety of ways in which research on everyday life is developing is the initial moment, on the other hand, if we decide to tell one of its possible stories, we will raise the issues that are especially present in some of the groups that are part of it, based on the central quality they acquire in the work they develop and in the conversations they continuously develop among themselves.

The idea of 'movements necessary for this research' is one of these ideas. This idea initially appeared in the first theoretical-methodological work of this current of thought (^{Oliveira & Alves, 2001}), and was modified over the following years, undergoing a major transformation in an article published more recently (^{Andrade, Caldas & Alves, 2019}). Currently, it has been dealt with differently, as suggested by ^{Reis (2018}) in a dissertation written under the supervision of Conceição Soares, at the ProPEd/UERJ. Today these movements are thus named and worked on in some research groups into everyday life: The feeling of the world; Always go beyond what is already known; Create our ‘conceptual characters’; Narrate life, audio-visualize and literaturize the sciences; Ecce femina; The circulation of ‘knowledgemeanings’ as a necessity.

Another idea developed and worked on in some groups is that of understanding that our education and training take place in multiple and different educational networks that we ourselves create and through which we circulate. These networks are studied in a relatively recent book written by ^{Alves (2019}), being entitled and studied as follows: the ‘practicestheories’ of academic-school education and training; the pedagocical ‘practicestheories’ of everyday life; the ‘practicestheories’ of government policies; the collective ‘practicestheories’ of social movements; the ‘practicestheories’ of creation and 'use' of the arts; the ‘practicestheories’ of research in education; the ‘practicestheories’ of the production and 'uses' of media; and the ‘practicestheories’ of living in cities, in the countryside, and by the roadside.

In the conversations on Deleuze, important challenges were posed with respect to the practices and development of thought in research into everyday life. Deleuze's complex thinking regarding Philosophy is an invitation to transit in multiple dimensions, mediated by the sensations of the idea of deterritorialization, even though we know that we will create processes of territorialization, to then deterritorialize again.

To make use in education, and inspired by ^{Certeau (1994}), of Deleuze's idea of deterritorialization, is to create displacements and to make movements that go beyond what is already known. It is to break with dogmas, paradigms that hegemonize the epistemological, methodological, pedagogical, and curricular thought in educational processes, and increasingly highlight movements with everyday life as epistemological, theoretical and methodological in the scientific environment of education that perceives life as it is forged in the actions of its ‘thinkingpractitioners’ (^{Oliveira, 2012}).

To have everyday life as a methodological, pedagogical, and curricular compass is to be permanently evidencing the fringes, the multiple ‘practicestheories’ that coexist with the notion of a curriculum, hegemonically thought of as unilateral, and of limiting beliefs that neutralize teachers’ and students’ ‘dothink’. Mediated by the rhizome notion, we perceive the networks that we create, and which create us. Sensitive to this idea, we can perceive in the events of everyday life the emergence sometimes here, sometimes there, sometimes elsewhere of signs of expressiveness that are updated in the ‘practicestheories’ that we weave into these ‘deedsknowledge’ ‘studentsteachers’, creating and strengthening collective movements.

Deleuze in partnership with Guattari, where they see themselves as conceptual characters of each other, proposes to destabilize, or rather, make us realize, how unstable and provisional the ‘knowledgemeanings’ created in the sciences and in everyday life are. Their ideas really place us in a corporeal sensation of instability, of a body without organs, of the poetic freedom of wandering ‘thinkingpractitioners’. Deleuze puts us at the center and on the fringes of experiences, with resistances to strange agendas and the creation of the possible.

The idea of creating the possible presents us with the responsibility to observe ourselves as ‘thinkingpractitioners’ of Education, as drivers of virtualizations and producers of updates. Does this sound redundant? It is indeed. ^{Deleuze is redundant, he is repetitive, he is a veritable refrain (Deleuze & Guattari, 2012}), like a note that repeats over and over again. In fact, repetition in education and in human action, as in art, is the very art of creating the new through the act of repetition, because the repeated act never produces the same result, since we are other people listening with our ears, ears which have already been altered by previous acts of listening. A movement of repetition will never be the same as the previous one, much less the subsequent one, because it is a movement influenced by thoughts, sensations, feelings, and desires, which at a given moment is in virtuality and, at the same time, within the event that is updated by a repetition that is never the same.

If virtuality is that which is outside the present moment of the action - of the gesture of acting, being in the past or in the projection of the future, like the memory and the project, in it is where the environment of possibilities is made, which will be updated in the manner of ‘deedknowledge’.

Therefore, Deleuze leaves us entangled in our own fabulations, and seeks in Nietzsche's potency of the false our creative power of diverse realities, acting in our actions.

And it is by navigating through these inspirations and conversations with our conceptual characters - created by ourselves to think about - that we appropriate and make use of their ideas and theories and thoughts and encounters, amidst the many conversations and cineconversations “[…] which can be understood as conversations that take place based on films or movies that deal with social issues. Social issues turn into curriculum issues and these movements are the target of our interest” (^{Brandão, Mendonça, & Papini, 2020}, p. 1581).

In our particular research group, we understand images, sounds and narratives as our intercessors - those who help us to go beyond what is already known, ‘practicingthinking’ in research into everyday life. ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1992}) referred to these intercessors as 'conceptual characters' and this is what Deleuze used when dealing with all those with whom he decided to work in order to think what he wanted to think: other philosophers, like Spinoza, for example, but also writers like Proust and even artists like Francis Bacon and moviemakers, in his two books about cinema. This is why ^{Deleuze and Guattari (1992}, p. 85) remind us that the conceptual character “[…] has nothing to do with abstract personification, a symbol or an allegory, for he lives, he insists”. Similarly, for us, cultural artifacts - especially images and sounds in films or movies - have been essentially conceptual characters that have allowed us to ‘dothink’. There is a lot of research that has been done and is being done. And it is about this, using this that we have carried out conversations with different groups of teachers and students - teachers in training - trying to reveal in such virtualities events that are possible and necessary to everyday life in schools.

Deleuze, even before his encounter with Guattari, had worked with this idea - although he would only formulate it after his work with the latter, who eventually became his partner. Through his conversations with artists - painters, writers, moviemakers - as well as philosophers, to think and push forward what he was thinking, he allowed us to understand just how much multiple human realizations have to talk about. We find in ^{Damasceno (2015}, p. 138) conceptual characters as “[...] concept powerhouses who operate on a plane of immanence”. This author further makes us understand why the use of artists helped in Deleuze's thinking and has allowed us to move forward in the research we have conducted. She writes:

Art and philosophy cut through chaos and confront it, but not in the same way, nor do these disciplines populate their respective planes. Art produces a constellation of universe or affects and percepts and philosophy creates concepts from a plane of immanence. Art thinks through affections and percepts and philosophy thinks with concepts. But this does not mean that both disciplines are prevented from effecting their respective exchanges or melodic lines (^{Damasceno, 2015}, p. 138).

From this perspective, we can understand the importance of conversations with the arts that research into everyday life has had, and that a recent publication of the group coordinated by Janete Magalhães brought to light (^{Carvalho, Silva, & Delboni, 2022}). This group and several others have raised awareness of the importance of also incorporating conversations with the arts as a necessity in everyday curricula in schools and universities. The idea of creation, central to the arts, is present in the way Deleuze and Guattari understand the need for the emergence of intercessors for thought when they wrote:

The essential thing is the intercessors. The creation is the intercessors. Without them there is no work. They can be people - for a philosopher, for artists or scientists; for a scientist, philosophers or artists - but also things, plants, even animals, as in Castañeda. Fictitious or real, animate, or inanimate, one must create one's own intercessors. It is a series. If we don't form a series, even if completely imaginary, we are lost. I need my intercessors to express myself, and they would never express themselves without me: one always works in several of them, even when this is not always clear. And even more so when it is clear: Félix Guattari and I are each other's intercessors (^{Deleuze & Guattari, 1992}, p. 156).

^{Deleuze and Guattari (1992}), on realizing the extent to which philosophy, in modern times, clings to concepts that enclose a thought, began to view it as an environment of perception of ideas that are created around philosophical questions, not by an individual thinker but rather by a collective network. The formation of these thoughts and knowledge goes through processes of virtualization and updating throughout the course of our humanity, as a transitory existence of signs, sensations, and movements. Hence, when studying certain notions through certain authors and artifacts, creating conversations with these or those intercessors, they arrive at the idea of 'conceptual characters', for it is in conversations that these ideas are understood, undergo changes, appropriations, relations, and updates as an event, both in science and in the arts.

^{Deleuze and Guattari (1992}) in provoking us with the creation of notions that can become concepts, in philosophy, propose the idea of the Other, resorting to Leibniz, another philosopher with whom Deleuze conversed as a conceptual character. To go beyond the idea of the Other in the creation of knowledge, they indicate the one with whom one is in relationship. From the encounter between two thoughts, a third emerges, the Other, which occurs within the intricacies of this relationship, in an environment perceptible as an expression of a possible other. They write:

The Other, no longer being either a subject in the field or an object in the field, will be the condition under which not only the object and the subject are redistributed, but the figure and the background, the margins, and the center, the mobile and the point of reference, the transitive and the substantial, the length and the depth... The Other is always perceived as another, but, in its concept, it is the condition of all perception, for others as for us. It is the condition under which we pass from one world to another (^{Deleuze & Guattari, 1992}, p. 30).

The Other that ^{Deleuze and Guattari (2012}) use to provoke us lies in the idea of the creation of notions-ideas, in constant movement, and more in a permanent process of co-creation, in continuous processes of virtualizations and updates. This idea is of key importance to groups working on the subject of everyday life, as they understand that it is in the existence of conversations between them, in them and with external groups, in the understanding of 'scientific circulation' as a necessity (^{Andrade et al., 2019}) and using countless cultural artifacts, that ‘knowledgemeanings’ emerge from such research.

Thus, in our particular research group, as in so many others working on this current of thought, we try to amplify meanings and understand that our 'conceptual characters' are the images and sounds of movies, as well as the narratives that appear in the 'conversations' that take place within our research group meetings or even in the relationships we maintain with other groups and in the classrooms where we work. In our activities, we tend to weave ‘knowledgemeanings’ after ‘seehearfeelthink’ movies, producing conversations about the possibilities we have experienced. Thus:

We have gradually realized that ‘conceptual characters’ may be figures, arguments or artifacts, which in the research we carry out appear as that/he with whom one ‘talks’, remaining with us for a long time so that we can think and formulate ideas, thereby creating the possible ‘knowledgemeanings’ we can use in the research processes we carry out. Thus, we have gradually understood that, in the research on/of/with everyday life, the narratives (and sounds of different kinds) and the images of the ‘thinkingpractitioners’ and the ‘spacetimes’ that we have researched are effectively ‘conceptual characters’. With them in hand, then, we can talk for ages, and we can formulate ways of doing and thinking in the research we carry out. (^{Alves, Arantes, Caldas, Rosa, & Machado, 2016}, p. 28, author's emphasis)

Based on this idea, we have realized that narratives, images, sounds and all the elements of everyday life, such as smells, tastes, textures, sensations, and touches are essential in identifying how events are established in ‘spacetime’, especially in the case of schools. Conversations are our main locus of creating our conceptual characters, as at each meeting we are able to weave different signs, sensations, perceptions, and senses, in accordance with the different educational networks in which we find ourselves.

Possibilities woven together with conversations are very powerful, for it is through their processes that we can educate, and we are educated, we affect and are affected, in an incessant movement of speaking, listening, feeling, and creating. What for many is considered relevant, for others goes unnoticed, however, it is in the strength and in the exercise of collectivity that we learn from each other. This creates new and other possible meanings and ‘knowledgemeanings’ beyond those we already know.

Cineconversations, schools and movies - locus of collective creation

In order to proceed, and in line with the processes developed over these past thirty years of scientific production in Brazil, we feel we should cover in more detail some ‘practicaltheoretical’ aspects of the research of some groups in this ‘practicestheories’ current of thought on everyday life.

To this end, we chose what we call cineconversations. In these conversations we make use - an important term from Certeau that let us know that ‘thinkingpractitioners’, besides consuming different cultural artifacts, make use of them, creating ‘knowledgemeanings’ and technologies with them - of movies. In order for the conversations to develop, the previously indicated movies are ‘watchedlistenedtofeltthoughtabout’ and are supported by texts that are ‘readfeltthoughtabout’ by each participant of the several groups in which the ‘cineconversations’ are developed. These movies and texts serve as inspiration for conversations that help us recall memories, gestures, sensations, perceptions, and feelings about our experiences in the different ‘insideoutside’ of schools. Our intention is not to analyze the movie in an attempt to understand what the author, director, and screenwriter want to say or express in the movie, but rather, how its cinematographic language, with its ambience of sounds, light, cuts, rhythms, framings, ideas, and clichés give us ideas about ‘deedsknowledge’ in our daily school curricula.

We should remember that clichés appear in Deleuze's work with cinema when he says that we are not a civilization of the image, but that we are:

in fact, a civilization of the cliché, in which all powers have an interest in covering up images for us, not necessarily covering up the same thing, but covering up something in the image. On the other hand, and at the same time, the image is always trying to go through the cliché, to get out of the cliché. One does not know how far a true image can lead: the importance of becoming a visionary or a seer. An awareness or a change in hearts is not enough (although this exists, as in the heart of the heroine of Europe 51, but if there were nothing else, everything would quickly fall into the condition of a cliché, one would have simply added the condition of a cliché). Sometimes it is necessary to restore the lost parts, to find all that is not seen in the image, all that has been subtracted from it to make it ‘interesting’. However, sometimes, on the contrary, you have to make holes, introduce voids, and blank spaces, rarefy the image, remove from it many things that were added to make us believe that we saw everything. It is necessary to divide or empty to find the whole (^{Deleuze, 2005}, p. 32, author's emphasis).

In ‘cineconversations’ - especially when we deal with movies that describe teaching actions - the appearance of clichés related to schools and to the actions of teachers and students occurs in different ways. Already present in movies or in teacher training, these clichés appear with considerable frequency in ‘cineconversations’. We can see this described in an article published a few years ago in which we read:

[In many] movies (...) ['seenheardfeltthoughtabout'] and about which we had 'conversations', there is a significant emphasis - decided, of course, by scriptwriters, directors and producers - on the practices of teachers who 'believe' in their actions and manage to change the attitudes of the students with whom they work, even challenging school principals, different authorities, and their colleagues and, even more so, the ‘disorganized/unstructured/wanting’ environment in which these students live. Thus, these teacher characters - their ‘practicetheories’ - easily fall into the category of clichés insofar as the sensory-motor arrangements mobilized by the movies make their spectators assume hegemonic ideas about ‘what is in the teachers remit, in any circumstances and even against them’. They reaffirm, therefore, current ideas in various disciplines in training courses, in official documents, and even in the daily speech of teachers who are also trained in these disciplines and by these documents. Thus, they induce us to create expectations in the unfolding of the stories presented, even knowing how they ‘will end’ (^{Brandão, Alves & Caldas, 2017}, p. 605, author's emphasis).

This is why ^{Deleuze (2005}, p. 33) considers it important to warn us that

[…] it is certainly not enough, in order to win, to parody the cliché, not even to poke holes in it or empty it. It is not enough to disturb sensory-motor connections. It is necessary to combine with the optical-sound image, immense forces that are not simply intellectual consciousness, nor even social, but of a profound vital intuition (Deleuze, 2002, p. 33).

And that is also why we understand the importance of the ‘cineconversations’ held with these movies, bringing to them, along with it, the understanding of ways of existence that often remain submerged, invisible, and silenced by a dominant and hegemonic expression, that demobilizes unique experiences, in the fabric of collective actions.

When a movie is proposed, as a cultural artifact within the concept of cineconversations, it, as a conceptual character, also becomes a curricular artifact, as the movie or the action of the cineconversations can lead to appropriations, displacements, and relations with events involved in our pedagogical ‘practicetheories’ framework, in our conditions to create ‘knowledgemeanings’.

We thus make use of movies as artifacts that allow us to access our experiences dwelling in memories, in emotions and sensations, which lie in the dimension of what ^{Deleuze (1996}) refers to as 'virtual', amplifying all our senses, by demystifying the idea of visual dominance. This movement brings us closer to attentive listening, to olfactory, palatable, and tactile perceptions, still in the virtual realm. When we engage in conversations, actualization takes place in the action itself, as a new experience lived in the present in which it happens. This leads us to other possible movements of attention to our daily ‘deedsknowledge’ as ‘studentsteachersresearchers’, reflecting on our practices, and continuously creating other ‘practicestheories’, in the fluidity of these constant movements of virtualizations and updates in our ways of acting, based on Deleuze's own idea. While studying Deleuze’s idea, ^{Alliez (1996}, p. 53) suggested that

[…] memory is not the present image that is formed after an object has been perceived, but rather the virtual image that coexists with the present perception of the object. The memory is the virtual image contemporary to the present object, its double, its ‘mirror image’.

In this way, the movie, as a unit of a narrative, offers fragments, singularities that articulate a collective narrative, through its own way of unfolding, involving the plot, the scenes, the fabrications, promoting this expression of virtuality. We feel, we are moved, we are affected, only in this action of ‘seehearfeelthink’ the movies. Cinema, art, and fabrications, in conversations, are intimate expressions of this coexistence of the virtual and the actual. However, actualization requires action to emerge.

With the appropriations of our experiences, which leave their mark on us in the form of sensations, emotions, and thoughts, that are in the virtuality in ‘spacetimes’, sometimes located in the past, sometimes in the future, go through displacements, entangle themselves in relationships with events involved in our pedagogical ‘practicestheories’ frameworks, turning the experience into this environment of virtuality, which is on the verge of being updated. Each thought, each fabrication about an instant action, establishes the virtuality or a virtualization of the next action that is yet to come, that exists in the present moment of actualization, in the very action of experiencing. Thus, still with ^{Alliez (1996}), we can understand how sensibility is connected to the creation of ‘knowledgemeanings’ that we create in our relationships with others, as well as with the cultural artifacts we use in these contacts. We read in ^{Alliez (1996)}:

It is therefore in a world of exteriority - ‘a world where thought itself has a fundamental relationship with the Outside,’ as Deleuze pointed out in his article ‘Hume,’ written some twenty years later - which does not ignore a certain ‘transcendental’ nature of sensibility, where being equals appearing to a subjectivity of practical essence.... Neither theoretical (in a position of foundation or that of representative) nor psychological (in a situation of represented interiority), the latter is defined by and in a movement of subjectivation whose agency of beliefs and passions, outside of any transcendence (of the subject or the object), is of adjustment of immanence in relation to becoming in a continuum of intensities that makes up the intensive flow of the stream of consciousness and refers to the intensity of the idea in the stream of thought (^{Alliez, 1996}, p. 18, author's emphasis).

In the context of the ‘cineconversations’, we perceive that the fabric interwoven by the images, sounds, feelings, and the conversations produced by the movies mix with the individual experiences of each person, the many ‘insideoutsides’ in which we live. Through the possibility of sharing memories and stories, new ‘knowledgedeeds’, ‘learningteaching’ are formed that, in a complex and diverse way, help shape new meanings, signs, and ‘knowledgemeanings’, suggesting other actions to be developed. The individual gains connectivity and strength when it (survives)lives in the existing ways of the legitimate Other (^{Maturana, 2009}). These shared stories gradually become common stories which, according to Sousa ^{Dias (1995}), happens even in the texts we write. In his words:

a work is not created through the individual subjectivity of the creator, through the private self of the author. It is made up of the events of a lifetime, the things, people, books, ideas, and experiences that are embodied in us, even imperceptibly, with our becomings, and shape our authentic individuality. And it does all of this not as subjective experiences, perceptions, affections, and opinions of an I, but as pre-individual singularities, supra-personal infinities, that can be shared, ‘communicated’ and transmitted as streams of life. One writes, one paints, one always composes with the multiplicity that exists within us, that each one of us is, the creative subject is always collective, the author's name always the signature of an anonymous society (^{Dias, 1995}, p. 104-105, author's emphasis).

This search for shared ideas always demands that we consider the experiences of others as legitimate, woven into the cineconversations, and showing the educational networks in which, we were and continue to be educated and trained as sources of inspiration to understand the many modes of existence. ^{Larrosa (2002}, p. 21) believes that “[…] experience is what passes us by, what happens to us, what touches us, and not what passes by, not what happens nor what touches”. According to this author, experience:

it is the possibility that something might happen to us or touch us, that requires a gesture of interruption, a gesture that is almost impossible nowadays: it requires us to stop to think, stop to look, stop to listen [... ...]; to stop to feel, to feel more slowly, to linger on details, to suspend opinion, to withhold judgment, to suspend the will, to suspend the automatism of action, to cultivate attention and delicacy [...], to talk about what happens to us [...], to listen to others, to cultivate the art of encounter, to be very quiet, to be patient and to give ourselves time and space (^{Larrosa, 2002}, p. 24).

The ‘cineconversations’ began in meetings with the research group, in a room with a big screen, during which everyone was able to share the experience of accessing a movie in the heat of collective emotions, and hold conversations as soon as it ended, in this idea of ‘virtualizationupdating’. The period of pandemic brought with it other experiences, and the challenge of carrying out the ‘cineconversations’ in a virtual and asynchronous environment, forcing us leave the welcoming environment of our emotions, sensations, thoughts, and knowledge. However, it also gave us the opportunity to update this practice in other research groups in different cities, to include colleagues from all over Brazil, which was no small feat.

We were able to amplify the experience and gain insights into how these events unfold in each one of these regions, taking into consideration the unique and collective processes of each one of these groups. Thus, such ‘cineconversations’ on the same movie helped articulate through ‘seenheardfeltthoughtabout’, the diversities of perceptions, sensations, memories, and ‘knowledgemeanings’about the experiences of these groups in the daily life of schools, in other Brazilian regions and at different levels of education.

What we are interested in, then is how these different ‘thinkingpractitioners’ use this artifact, to produce culture, to create ‘knowledgemeanings’ and curricular input, thus promoting ethical, aesthetic, political and poetic experiences. Like ^{Larrosa (2002}), we understand that the experience of the ‘cineconversations’ seeks to cultivate attention and tenderness, to expand time, to create other engagements, and to ensure new ‘knowledgemeanings’ emerge in daily curricular processes.

By way of conclusion

We therefore understand that such ‘cineconversations’ are not merely limited to the environment of these research groups, with each member of each group acting as a thread of so many existing networks, extending these experiences into other environments - in schools at different levels; in undergraduate and graduate programs; in other environments, such as those of their own homes with their families; in congresses and seminars…

We believe in ^{Serpa (2018}, p. 216) when he suggests that “[…] the secret of conversation is in its delivery”. In this scenario, we feel that when you have the effective participation of members, whether virtual or in person, then it is possible to weave many relevant threads into our experiences.

In schools - ‘spacetime’ of education, with so many agents and surveillance - multiple possibilities of ‘theorypractices’ emerge, as recounted by teachers participating in ‘cineconversations’, that foster the development of students in many different ways. ‘Cineconversations’, as a curricular artifact, help us both to access issues involving the daily lives of ‘thinkingpractitioners’ in schools, and to understand the school 'spacetime' in personal and social formations and in the ‘practicethoughts’ of ‘studentsteachers’.

Schools, like ‘cineconversations’, are ‘spacestimes’ that go far beyond the absorption of content. In collective and singular actions, in the daily exercise of citizenship, we can ‘seehearfeelthink’ their ‘spacestimes’ as multiple and diverse contacts, which interconnect the intimate and the communal, promoting affection and welcoming, perceiving smells, creating memories, experiencing multiple feelings that stimulate our thoughts and empower us in the many aspects of what life is. They also have the possibility of fostering collective dialogues, respect, recognition of the existence of the Other in the expression of love for equality as an ethic and aesthetic in political action, in constant ‘virtualizationsupdating’ in ‘deedsknowlege’, creating common agendas that enable resistance against any authoritarian agendas that may arise.

The brief story told by this current of thought in the field of Brazilian Education is now at a stage where it is particularly interested in broadening the understanding of how the many senses we possess interfere in our research processes and in our curricular processes, in the many schools with which we collaborate.

In this sense, ^{Pallasmaa (2011}, ^2013a, ^2013b), the Finnish architect, has occupied our conversations and ‘cineconversations’, offering us many ideas like this one with which he begins one of his books and with which we conclude this article:

Western consumerist culture continues to project a dualistic approach towards the human body. On the one hand, we have an excessively aestheticized and eroticized cult of the body. On the other hand, however, intelligence and creativity are also celebrated as if they were totally separate, or even exclusive, individual qualities. In both cases, body and mind are understood as disconnected entities, that is, as not being an integrated unit. This separation is reflected in the rigid division of human activities and work into physical and intellectual categories. The body is regarded as the means of identity and self-preservation, as well as an instrument of social and sexual appeal. Its importance is understood merely in terms of its physical and physiological essence, while its role as the very field of embodied existence and knowledge, as well as the full understanding of the human condition are underestimated and neglected (^{Pallasmaa, 2013b}, p. 11-12).

May we, through new encounters with the brief story we have told here, go beyond this hegemonic ‘dualistic attitude’, and move beyond these through the movements that multiple arts are offering us and managing to engage, strongly, with the groups that created the ‘GE Cotidianos - dimensões éticas, estéticas e políticas’ (Daily Life Study Group - ethical, aesthetic and political dimensions), at ANPEd (Brazilian Association of Graduate Studies in Education), actions these that may lead us to new school and educational worlds.