Paul-- I think its great to have Bergson brought back into the discussion,
it has been some time since I last visited him, while thinking about
prolepsis.
You write; Bergson definitely saw being as process, as time; not as
stasis and space which seems to be the orthodox view -- doesn't relativity
simply convert time into a kind of space? Heterochrony just an elaborate
topology.
What is the "just" in the sentence above? and the "just an elaborate"? Arent the two aspects of human experience precisely complementary? As a person
interested in human development, the temporal aspect is highlight (privileged
in Wertsch's term), but by treating the process as located, the spatial
and synchronic is never absent.
These are not known answer questions! I am an amateur at this literature
and need some guidance.
I suspect I might not be along among interested readers.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:05 PST