mike,
I'm very sorry that that message found it's way to xmca. as you can see it
was intended for a private exchange.
I must admit that I spoke in frustration at the postponing of the Leont'ev
reading. Back in June there was a lot of interest, and it was decided that
it should be postponed until September and the latest is that it will be
postponed until it's "well structured", possibly October.
If the CHAT-SIG voting board is any indication of the interests of xmca then
it is very clear that Leont'ev is at the top of the scale followed very
closely by Vygotsky. But little is this discussed. I've been reading the
work on my own and perhaps am champing at the bit to see the discussion
begin . . .
obviously the response to the proposed reading continues very strong as does
the interest in reading Ilyenkov, which you asked about originally and which
has brought forth comments from people whose contributions we haven't seen
much before.
Please don't take it personally. I think you have done a wonderful work of
bringing knowledge of the activity theoretic tradition to a broader public
and I think you have also provided spaces in which many voices can be heard.
My respect for you should go without question. My comments to Andy (who
shouldn't be taken as endorsing them just because I intended to direct them
his way) were meant to be personal, an expression of my frustration.
My comments about post-modern, cybernetic, neo-Kantianism remain however.
I think there is a lot more tendency to see discussion on those fronts while
the writers who rank at the top of the list of influences on the CHAT-SIG
voting page, seem to have problems getting discussed, if not outright
criticism when they are.
Please accept my apologies for any grief/frustration/anger and associated
bad feeling that my misdirected post might have caused you. In no way did I
mean to slight you personally -- perhaps you can see it as a comment on how
the object of xmca as an activity system gets determined, often not in accor
dance with the individual purposes informing the actions of the
participants..
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Cole <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 10:15 AM
Subject: damned either way
>
> Paul writes:
> It is so interesting to me that Cole takes the
> o-Kantians and other
> bourgeois ideologues who dominate xmca (pessimistic). The latter of
course
> akin to Freud's conscious/unconscious censor!!!
> ity theory -- and the derivative CHAT -- is so
> totally apparent in the Leont'ev work that he wants to ensure the
> participation of enough "big names" as to dominate the interpretative
> process, pull the teeth out of the work, and thereby maintain room for
> continuing the dalliance with the post-modernist neo-Kantians and other
> bourgeois ideologues who dominate xmca (pessimistic). The latter of
course
> akin to Freud's conscious/unconscious censor!!!
> -----
>
> How full is the glass, paul?
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:50 PDT