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

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Hi Mike,
he wrote on many topics, including his *Corpus*, which should be a must
read for embodiment and enactivist theorists---knowing and the body.

For those interested in culture, above all language, community, and for
understanding the idea of the singular plural, the plural singular, his
essay "In Praise of the Melee" is a good read. The English version is in
the book *Being Singular Plural (chap. 3) *(another place is in the book *A
Finite Thinking* (chap. 13)*---*I got my French original from a European
library, because it was printed in a European journal. I have both as
printed versions. But I see that *Scribd* has a copy of the second book.

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 Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 9:51 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Is there perhaps an essay of Nancy's that you would recommend, Michael? I
> found the description of his book on singular-plural interesting, but the
> specific topics to which his ideas are applied are pretty far out of my
> professional competence.
>
> http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=643
>
> An essay on human development would be nice.  :-)
>
> mike
>
> On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> >
>