[Xmca-l] Re: Отв: Re: Vygotsky and Feurebach by Peter Keiler

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Annalisa,
I think all your questions about the whole part relation have been
addressed by Jean-Luc Nancy in
*Being Singular Plural*.

I wonder why Jean-Luc Nancy is not more widely read or referred to on this
list. He has written interesting things about culture, for example the
piece on "Eulogy of the Mélée", which deals with questions of individual
and culture, self and other

Michael


Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> In reply to Ivan, I enjoyed the observation you bring up that "fundamental
> particle" is a contradiction in terms (to Spinoza, anyway).
>
>
> I would ask, at the same time, how is it that we observe a contradiction
> in terms.
>
>
> That's why I wonder if it is right to say that it has to do with whole vs
> parts, and perhaps it has to do with relationship instead.
>
>
> Can we have society void any kind of relationship? How do we define parts
> without the concept of "whole," or better "unity"? Can we conceive of a
> part with an absence of a whole to which it belongs?
>
>
> (Here's a question: What is a "whole part"? is it the mirror of a
> "fundamental particle"?)
>
>
> Doesn't a part even if next to another part, have a requirement to be a
> part of *something*?
>
>
> Or is this just a game of semantics?
>
>
> I do agree that we Anglo-Americans whenever we are, have been hobbled
> occasionally by behaviorism. But what of Pavlov? How does he *relate* to
> Watson, et al.?
>
>
> I dream what it would be like to have a mind never tainted by Watson or by
> Descartes. But would we then have a Vygotsky or a Spinoza, if not for
> Watson or Descartes?
>
>
> I cannot say...except perhaps to pose the question, "What came before all
> of them?"
>
>
> Oh there goes that ellipse again. I let it slip by.
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Annalisa
>