Bill-- A bookmark on top of your bookmark of Aug30.
I had not read Vygotsky's "Crisis" in 1995 when my book went into
production and I am finding it quite dense and difficult (It was
this kind of reference to European turn-of-the-century writers with
whom I am unfamiliar that so discouraged me in first reading LSV).
So, I am glad the discussion is not starting for a month; maybe I will
do better second time around with help.
One thing seems pretty certain. Vygotsky is unsympathetic to the "two
psychologies" argument which he says lies at the heart of the crisis. My
problem is figuring out how he resolves it and whether I buy the resolution.
One point you make seems unquestionable to me and may change the terms of
the discussion. The natural sciences no longer take Newton as the touchstone
of theory and method, so the "natural science" part of the disctinction has
changed meaning pretty radically. We see this in the work of that increasing
number of psychologists who are drawn to non-lineary dynammic systems as
an underlying world view.
Other points are still pretty obscure to me.
1) I don't think the issue of "interpretion" versus (what, logical deduction)
is a key differentium.
2) The issue of explaining individual cases versus reliance on "nomoethic"
laws may still be relevant.
3) The issue of continuity/discontinuity between humans and other species
has become more and more complicated, but a strong continuity view still
fails to convince me. If it were true, it would melt the natural/cultural-
historical distinction and make it a non-issue.
More to come when we get to the text collectively.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:07 PDT