Victor-- Your long message on LSV and ANL is in xmca limbo so I cannot get
to it today. I have read it over a couple of times in order to formulate
some questions because it evoked many in me. I am amazed you could read through
such dense material so quickly. I find both Ilyenkov and ANL very difficult
to read and understand so I fall prey to appropriating parts that I think I
do understand, such as, for example, what Bakhurst refers to as Ilyenkov's
insight about artifacts.
>From my prior reading I can make one link to Davydov and have one clear
The link to Davydov is a shared insistence on understanding concepts through
understanding their history and identifying what in english is called their
"genetically primary foundation." I have encountered this notion, along with
"rising to the concrete" in his early arithmetic curriculum which eschews
giving young children examples such as 1+1 because they afford too many
genetic blind alleys.
The question is your assertion that LSV did not create a psychology. Since
he claims that was what he was doing and Luria, from whom I learned about LSV
certainly claimed that what they were doing, I wonder if you could explain
why you say this and what is import is for people who consider themselves
psychologists. My path has led me into the view that the perspective put forward
by LSV and his followers cannot be contained by psychology and is an
interdiscipline, but I do not know what you had in mind.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:47 PST