particular general
Mike Cole (mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:26:12 -0800 (PST)
You are right, Donna. In some ways polysemy and other highfalutin theoretical
terms are often easier to talk about about in general, with no content. What
Davydov would call abstractions, e.g., empty. But to be useful tools, they
have to be useful in particular. I am always really excited when I have the
experience of "rising to the concrete" so that, for example, the idea of
a zone of proximal development (which folks appear to find easy to talk about
in general!) occurs before my eyes and there are students around who "see it?"
too, and the empty concept becomes full of life.
Happened just a little while ago while at our afterschool site.
mike