At 08:32 PM 14/05/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Andy, can you give the full citation to LSV's use of the mirrror metaphor?
>This goes to the question of the use of the term, reflection, in this
Mike, this is copied from an article Dot Robbins showed me. The source is
Let the object A be reflected in the mirror as a. Naturally, it would be
false to say that a in itself is as real as A. It is real in another way. A
table and its reflection in the mirror are not equally real, but real in a
different way. The reflection as reflection, as an image of the table, as a
second table in the mirror is not real, it is a phantom. But the reflection
of the table as the refraction of light beams on the mirror surface - isn't
that a thing which is equally material and real as the table? Everything
else would be a miracle. Then we might say: there exist things (a table)
and their phantoms (the reflection). But only things exist(the table) and
the reflection of light upon the surface. The phantoms are just apparent
relations between the things. That is why no science of mirror phantoms is
possible. But this does not mean that we will never be able to explain the
reflection, the phantom. When we know the thing and the laws of reflection
of light, we can always explain, predict, elicit, and change the phantom.
And this is what persons with mirrors do. They study not mirror reflections
but the movement of light beams, and explain the reflection. A science
about mirror phantoms is impossible, but the theory of light and the things
which cast and reflect it fully explain these "phantoms." (Vygotsky, 1997,
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3.
Problems of the theory and history of psychology. In R. W. Rieber and J.
Wollock (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:48 PST