[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti

Just a modest addenda from my philosophy teacher, there are only two, this or that, 
for example,  or there are two and a ground, therefore three.
Since it is abstract and arbitrary there can be only two types:
Those who think there are only two types and those who think there are not.
But the principle of Uncertainty which declares light is particle or waves, well who says so?
The third. Then again, there are the two types and the anthropologist or other observer or archivist role.
Vandy with a flash comment.

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:30
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Shpet & principium cognescenti

That is a wonderful overview of Spet's life and sequence of ideas, Larry.
It clearly draws a line from Husserl to Shpet and, we know from the writing of Zinchenko and Wertsch, from Spet to Vygotsky. Mysl i slovo is "thought and word" in reference to the journal.

Vygotsky was not taken out and shot and he did not make public his indebtedness to Shpet, or so it seems. Instead he died of tuberculosis, as the terror began to make itself public.

Great to have a skeleton of the story

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 5:21 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> I can try an answer, Huw. These idea of a triadic system, spirals of 
> development, etc are core metaphors for expressing some sort of 
> thirdness about human life.
> Father/son and holy ghost, id/ego/superego, subject/object/medium etc. 
> It is a part of the Judeo-Christian system and aligns with 
> non-religiously affiliated intuitions that dualism does not cut it as a mode of thought.
> The trouble is, there are only two kinds of people in the world....
> !
> mike
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> There seems to be a clear parallel between Vygotsky's use of the 
>> formulation "in itself, for others, for itself" and Shpet's 
>> referencing theological principium cognescenti which according to my 
>> brief browsing are three principles:
>> principium essendi, principium cognoscendi externum, principium 
>> cognoscendi internum.
>> Is anyone here familiar with the etymology of these principles and 
>> their bearing on Vygotsky's work?  Is there more than a superficial resemblance?
>> Huw
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an 
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.

It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science as an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.