[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Peter Smagorinsky on concepts

On 17 January 2012 14:48, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>> The path of acquiring a concept is not the concept.   The flight of a
>> moth and is not light.
>> Huw
> 1. Concepts are processes not entities or structures. Not only
> ontigenetically, but also microgenetically and culturally.

A structure is that which is unchanging relative to a process.  One (slowly
changing) process can be a structure for other processes.  The recognition
of the systemic material relations that comprise these structures and
processes is my understanding of the term "rising to the concrete".  From
what I can gather from your contributions, Andy, this dynamic aspect of
materiality is absent.  In place of these dynamic material relations you
have some flavour of idealism, which leads you to frame everything as a
process or activity.  Which suggests, to me, that you're not able to
leverage any insights from the other side of the coin.  This seems to be
the main divergence.


> 2. The "anatomy" of a real concept, as Vygotsky sees it, is the several
> paths of development contained in it. Vygotsky studied these paths of
> development in order to understand real concepts. A limb is not a person,
> but to understand the human body one must grasp its parts, its anatomy.
> Andy
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
xmca mailing list