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

[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Vygotsky and Feurebach by Peter Keiler



Is there perhaps an essay of Nancy's that you would recommend, Michael? I
found the description of his book on singular-plural interesting, but the
specific topics to which his ideas are applied are pretty far out of my
professional competence.

http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=643

An essay on human development would be nice.  :-)

mike

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Annalisa,
> I think all your questions about the whole part relation have been
> addressed by Jean-Luc Nancy in
> *Being Singular Plural*.
>
> I wonder why Jean-Luc Nancy is not more widely read or referred to on this
> list. He has written interesting things about culture, for example the
> piece on "Eulogy of the Mélée", which deals with questions of individual
> and culture, self and other
>
> Michael
>
>
> Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------
> Applied Cognitive Science
> MacLaurin Building A567
> University of Victoria
> Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
> http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>
>
> New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-
> directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-
> mathematics-of-mathematics/>*
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > In reply to Ivan, I enjoyed the observation you bring up that
> "fundamental
> > particle" is a contradiction in terms (to Spinoza, anyway).
> >
> >
> > I would ask, at the same time, how is it that we observe a contradiction
> > in terms.
> >
> >
> > That's why I wonder if it is right to say that it has to do with whole vs
> > parts, and perhaps it has to do with relationship instead.
> >
> >
> > Can we have society void any kind of relationship? How do we define parts
> > without the concept of "whole," or better "unity"? Can we conceive of a
> > part with an absence of a whole to which it belongs?
> >
> >
> > (Here's a question: What is a "whole part"? is it the mirror of a
> > "fundamental particle"?)
> >
> >
> > Doesn't a part even if next to another part, have a requirement to be a
> > part of *something*?
> >
> >
> > Or is this just a game of semantics?
> >
> >
> > I do agree that we Anglo-Americans whenever we are, have been hobbled
> > occasionally by behaviorism. But what of Pavlov? How does he *relate* to
> > Watson, et al.?
> >
> >
> > I dream what it would be like to have a mind never tainted by Watson or
> by
> > Descartes. But would we then have a Vygotsky or a Spinoza, if not for
> > Watson or Descartes?
> >
> >
> > I cannot say...except perhaps to pose the question, "What came before all
> > of them?"
> >
> >
> > Oh there goes that ellipse again. I let it slip by.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> > Annalisa
> >
>