[Xmca-l] Re: Laws of evolution and laws of history

[HENRY SHONERD]

Miguel,
I have been thinking for a while that to the ethical we might add aesthetic, and that this makes pedagogy creative, not just propagative.
Henry

> On Jan 17, 2015, at 9:30 AM, Zavala, Miguel <mizavala@exchange.fullerton.edu> wrote:
> 
> The distinction between propaganda and education is an analytic one that
> is useful for me as a teacher. But I also think that it's a distinction
> resolved not so much at the level of philosophy (theories, such as those
> being proposed here) but ethically.
> 
> Anyone who has taught and been reflexive of her/his pedagogy will sense
> this distinction between the two, 'propaganda' and 'education'.  There is
> perhaps a particular instrumentalism (as an 'ethic', such as that
> promulgated in 'revolutionary' struggles and in neoliberalism) that sees
> people as objects not as Freire would term 'historical subjects' in
> propaganda.
> 
> I fully recognize the solipsism in all distinctions, such that some may
> argue that even in Freirean, participatory pedagogy the issue remains
> unresolved.  That there is a dimension of propaganda in education (and
> education in propaganda).  But what some have pointed out (as I read their
> posts) is that we also should look at these processes in larger
> spatial-scales.  What are the collectives that give birth or make possible
> education and propaganda projects?  Do these strive for rehumanization?
> How does the struggle for rehumanization remain a struggle at theoretical
> and practical and historical and spatial levels?
> 
> How do folks draw this distinction in their own pedagogical praxis? How is
> the ethical conceptualized, lived, and embodied in your pedagogy?  I
> suggest looking at it less from a theory of communication and more from an
> ethical one (ethics as primary, epistemology as secondary) that we might
> begin to re-conceptualize the very distinction between 'propaganda' and
> 'education'.
> 
> Miguel Zavala 
> 
> 
> On 1/17/15 5:37 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> 
>> And I found the Engels he was quoting, in the Russian translation:
>> 
>>   /Вечные законы природы /также превращаются все более и более в
>>   исторические законы.
>> 
>> The English translation says:
>> 
>>   The eternal laws of nature also become transformed more and more
>>   into historical ones.
>> 
>> but then it goes on to say:
>> 
>>   That water is fluid from 0°-100° C. is an eternal law of nature, but
>>   for it to be valid, there must be (1) water, (2) the given
>>   temperature, (3) normal pressure.
>> 
>> So this does NOT mean what it appeared to mean. Engels simply means
>> "nothing remains constant" It is not saying anything about "laws of
>> history"!!
>> 
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> 
>> 
>> mike cole wrote:
>>> Thanks David -- That is certainly where I must have encountered the
>>> phrase
>>> often enough for it to stick in my mind. And thanks to Jessica and Andy
>>> we
>>> see versions of the idea in many places.
>>> 
>>> Double the pleasure.
>>> mike
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:36 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Mike--
>>>> 
>>>> See Vol. Four of the Collected Works in English: the quote you refer
>>>> to is
>>>> the epigraph to HDHMF. It's from Dialectics of Nature, and Vygotsky
>>>> keeps
>>>> coming back to it again and again, throughout the whole text of HDHMF,
>>>> which is one reason why I am assuming (against what Anton Yasnitsky has
>>>> written) that HDHMF is a whole book, one of the very few that Vygotsky
>>>> completedly completed (and also his longest work).
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
>