Re: Re(2): sociogensis continued

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:10:35 +0200

At 22.23 -0500 99-07-15, nate wrote:
>Why is talk of internalization unnecessary?

I was wondering, too. Not from reading Gordon's excerpt very carefully,
more from observation of a general unease with the terminology. I have real
difficulty separating the conceptual distinctions of invariances in
corporeal-individual and collective-individual dynamics from this
guilt-by-association that seems to smudge any inside-outside vocabulary
with the dirt of Dualism.

Does the abolishment of internality mean an abolishment of any invariance?
Or of any boundary, regardless of how interdependently an individual system
and its environment are defined?

I guess I'm as puzzled as Bill over the implications of theory selection...

cryptically yours
Eva