Michael et al.,
Just a quick point. I'm worried about the following point you make:
Quoting Michael Glassman <MGlassman@hec.ohio-state.edu>:
> I think the Pragmatists avoided discussions of development such as
> those discussed at the end of the article very much on purpose. They wanted
> to escape dualism and once you start talking about development you can't help
> but fall into a dualist trap.
I don't see why this is necessarily true. Could you maybe explain this a bit
more? Is a notion of vertical development or a telos necessarily a part of the
notion of development as you're using it? What about a notion of development as
expansion, growth, or shifting? Or am I missing your point?
-- Matt Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org) web: http://thm.askee.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST