At 05:41 PM 16/04/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Nothing controversial, but a lot that is problematic, as is the entire issue
>of what constitutes evidence for past events. My own fondness for a
>methodology is because it provides a way to see history from several
>e.h. carr:" we can view the past, and achieve our understandin of the past,
>only through the eyes of the present" -- with children's development, of
>course, we have a different relationship to the past depending upon our age,
>the kid's age, whether it is our kid, etc. But we start where we are,
>relationally speaking, and it always is relational, even if we forget that.
Mike, Google implies that you are the coiner of the term "mesogenetic
methodology" and I gather that it was your work in 5thD described in
"Cultural Psychology" (which as you know I have just read) which
illustrates what "mesogenetic methodology" means.
Am I right in thinking that it is your learning-about-development that
takes place in the process of promoting the learning-development of others
which is what is meant by "mesogenetic", i.e., practice-oriented knowledge?
I suppose that for a cultural psychologist this necessarily situates itself
"between" cultural development and the learning of the individual.
Have I got that right? I loved the chapter, but I'm not sure now whether I
grasped the methodological essence of the matter.
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 01 2006 - 01:00:12 PDT