[xmca] Re: prolepsis

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at gmail.com>
Date: Thu May 03 2007 - 21:12:38 PDT

Hi Reijo!
I am pretty sure you are correct, but could you help us with citations of ANL?
Yolu know the work a whole lot better than I do and while I can recall
such discussions
I have been unable to find them.

Very interesting "co-incidences."
On 5/3/07, Reijo Miettinen <reijo.miettinen@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Hi Armando and Mike
> I find Dewey's point of prolepis well compatible with Leontjev's
> idea of the double nature of object of activity as given (objective)
> and projected (ideal, ladden with meaning). Since the quotation is
> from Dewey's book on logic (and chapter on pattern of inquiry) it
> might be that Dewey here underlines specifically that the object is
> an object of inquiry ( or epistemic object). But dewey attributes
> the property of being oriented to future to all concept and even to
> tools. Meanings express human purposes - what to do with (or
> transform) an object. What is interesting in the citation is what
> might be called object-means transition or dialectics: in a new
> situation the results of prior inquiry are used as a means of
> getting new knowledge (of the new object of inquiry). This might be
> interpreted in terms of mediation.
> To Armando's question, i understand that an object of activity is a
> contradictory unity of real (given, objective) and ideal (having
> meaning, projected). Of course an object of activity can only exist
> in relationship to subject, that is, it is as a part or element of
> mediated human activity. But it owes its nature as an object not
> only to the subject but also to cultural means by which a subject
> relates itself to an object.
> Best
> Reijo
> Mike Cole kirjoitti Apr 30, 2007 kello 8:35 PM:
> > Hi Armando. I will cc to xmca because the issue is important. I am
> > pretty sure that
> > Leontiev adopts a view similar to that stated by Dewey, but cannot
> > put my hand on the quote. That is, there is a double movement/
> > moment with respect to the object/objective of activity, but cannot
> > put my hands on the place in Leontiev. I am hoping that Reijo
> > will help, or Yrjo, but everyone seems pretty busy.
> > mike
> >
> > On 4/30/07, Armando Perez Yera <armandop@sociales.uclv.edu.cu > wrote:
> > Mike:
> > I always establish a difrference between real object and ideal
> > object. It is very interesting the idea of Dewey but not only in
> > the sense of anticipation. The past and the present of the research
> > is always include in the ideal object of research. And also the
> > theoretical and epistemological context. The object of activity for
> > Leontiev is a real object? In my appreciation it is. That's why I
> > dont agree absolutely with Leontiev. The object of activity it is
> > defined from the subject of actibivy. What do you thing?
> > Armando
> > Excuse me for write from another e mail
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > Servicio de Correos del Grupo de Redes. UCLV
> > Participe en Universidad 2008 del 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> > Palacio de Convenciones. La Habana. Cuba. http: //
> > www.universidad2008.cu
> >
xmca mailing list
Received on Thu May 3 22:14 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 21 2008 - 16:43:26 PDT