Peter-- I wonder if you would lay out what you take to be the key
differences between your's and David's interpretations of Ilyenkov's
conception of the ideal. How might these differences reveal themselves
in research practices/interests in some domain of social practices,
such as education or assembly line work?
I am not well trained in philosophy so have difficulty following
parts of this discussion. I did get and read David's article in
Language and Communication and he has an article in MCA in a different
context (helping Bruner make a more effective cultural psychology).
At least when I went through grad school in psychology, there was
little discussion of Kant, Wittgenstein, or for that matter, anything
much but positivist philosophy. It may be that others on the list,
even if they were educated somewhat later, share my ignorance.
Geoffrey-- thanks for the heads up on the hot/radical vygotsky article.
Our library does not take the journal, so I am hunting it down. Since
I must be culpable of a multitude of sins, might was well learn what
they are so I can get on the road to grace!
mike
PS- Speaking of grace. The way in which religion has been brought into
the discussion interests me a lot. Zinchenko has been using Pavel
Florenskii, Losev, and Shpet as sources of "going beyond the zoped."
The first two were orthodox christian russians, I am not sure of Shpet.
And Bakhtin, that elusive person-ality(ies) was also engaged in a
giant metaphysical/religious project.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:54 PDT