[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti
- To: Andy Blunden <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti
- From: Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:52:48 +0000
- In-reply-to: <54C84DBF.email@example.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAG1MBOFqHvyvFpULVdaZHXb08TPcx6T990LYKjXfhYzkTL955A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHCnM0D5Xquy+8sRORKNrsZRaeaRLtLwhtPKqVOEZLDifvdyMA@mail.gmail.com> <54C84DBF.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
So people find the three-ness interesting? The thing I thought might be
interesting was the transitions from essential to external to internal.
I can't say I read anything about dualism into the article. The
oscillation (which didn't strike me as being a big deal) was between the
variously given forms of phenomena (if I recall correctly). Zinchenko's
referencing functional organs and his intimate work with ergonomics etc
permit him an alternative form of investigation, that doesn't rely upon a
dialectic description (but that is compatible with it).
On 28 January 2015 at 02:47, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> Apparently these principium triad comes from the Theologian Hermann
> Bavinck: all knowledge begins with God, and via the Scriptures, man can
> make it his own knowledge.
> But in line with Mike's observation, I well remember the perezhivanie I
> had when a friend pointed out the parallels between the Marxist conception
> of primitive communism - civilization - socialist society, and not just the
> Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, but a half a dozen narratives or our own
> time. Paralleled by the perezhivanie I had when I read that for Spinoza,
> "God" meant Nature (including humanity).
> Nonetheless, despite the humbling symmetry between the great world
> theories, we all signal our allegiance to this one or that one by the names
> we give to the One (God, Nature, matter, Allah, Spirit, ...) and the Triad
> and in the case cited, Vygotsky is using a famous Hegelian version of the
> triad, "in itself, for others, for itself":
> "The education and instruction of a child aim at making him actually
> and for himself what he is at first only potentially and therefore
> for others, viz., for his grown up friends. The Reason, which at
> first exists in the child only as an inner possibility, is
> actualised through education: and conversely, the child by these
> means becomes conscious that the goodness, religion, and science
> which he had at first looked upon as an outward authority, are his
> own nature."
> Although the symmetry between the systems of thought we unkowingly
> affiliate to is surprising, we all declare our affiliation by the name we
> give to the One or the Triad, as the case may be. In the article Larry
> cites, however, Zinchenko just seems to be chiding Vygotsky repeatedly for
> failing to adhere to analytical Dualism.
> *Andy Blunden*
> mike cole wrote:
>> I can try an answer, Huw. These idea of a triadic system, spirals of
>> development, etc
>> are core metaphors for expressing some sort of thirdness about human life.
>> Father/son and holy ghost, id/ego/superego, subject/object/medium etc. It
>> is a part of the Judeo-Christian system and aligns with non-religiously
>> affiliated intuitions that dualism does not cut it as a mode of thought.
>> The trouble is, there are only two kinds of people in the world....
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Huw Lloyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> There seems to be a clear parallel between Vygotsky's use of the
>>> formulation "in itself, for others, for itself" and Shpet's referencing
>>> theological principium cognescenti which according to my brief browsing
>>> three principles:
>>> principium essendi, principium cognoscendi externum, principium
>>> Is anyone here familiar with the etymology of these principles and their
>>> bearing on Vygotsky's work? Is there more than a superficial