Out of deference to people's finite disk space I have snipped Bill's
scanning from the Soviet Dictionary, ...
Bill, sure all this is fine and I have this kind of material on my site
too. I was "brought up" on it, and everyone should become familiar with it,
and I like particularly the stuff about dialectics as something which
itself has a long history, ... but it still doesn't really answer the
question, does it?
This is a constructivist listserv (at least I think it is!?), so what do we
make of "the science of the more general laws governing the development of
nature, society, and thought" and "the laws and forms of development of
thought in the course of development of cognition and the historical social
practice"?
Can we put this together with the sort of stuff Peter Jones was talking
about (with my qaulification that the trans-social "we" which figures in
these kinds of exposition is a bit platonic) and find from this definition
what can be meant by such "general laws", which seem to apply eqaully well
to anything you can think of.
Andy
**************************************************
* Andy Blunden, Teaching Space Consultant,
* and Manager of Videoconferencing Operations
* http://home.mira.net/~andy/
* University of Melbourne 9344 0312 (W) 9380 9435 (H)
**************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 01:00:39 PDT