Wouldn't it be the other way around.
The individual seperates itself from culture - humanity. I
think Wallon's chapter on the "other" is great in his regard.
http://marxists.org/archive/wallon/
I definately would take issue with the second statement about
culture not having a structural element in human development.
Eric, my thoughts are your two comments would be a viewpoint
that marxist and other "ecological" views attempt to move
beyond. I would reccomend looking at Carl Ratner's work you
may find it interesting.
I also find Yryo's work up on this issue very interesting and
dialectical in that a discussion of development does not set
up the individuals/ against culture, society, humanity. For
me, this is very much a step forward - one where it is not so
much this entity - individual - interacts or develops along
side another entity - culture, society, humanity - but rather
the process itself can only be understood as a unity.
Nate
5/4/01 3:45:49 PM, MnFamilyMan@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, this is certainly epistemology's influence on the
social sciences. I
>
> do
>
> suspect that this is different then culture. My thinking
is that culture
> separates itself from individuals in that it is present
in the collective
>
> and
>
> is not a structural aspect of human development. It is a
layer on top of
>
> or
>
> a strand running in congruency with a person's existence:
that sometimes
>
> connects and sometimes intrudes and sometimes is
invisible. I think the
> importance of making this distinction is it allows for
culture to be a
>
> viable, measurable variable; as a I have alluded to
before I believe the
>
> most
>
> suitable term for the measurable quantity of culture
would be Syllogism.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eric
Quick, what's another word for Thesaurus?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:05 PDT