Joseph,
What theory does the notion of "the organizational invariant function that
organizes the adaptations" come from?? is that how Piaget himself
characterized what he was doing? I was just basically paraphrasing what
Vygotsky said about his own work, well before Stalinism had set in; i.e., it
wasn't simply an ideological covering. I thought Piaget developed a
neo-Kantian theory of egocentric developmental stages (cognitive and moral)
in human children. I once studied with an anthropologist who was strongly
influenced by Piaget. But I guess the point is well taken: people on xmca
don't seem to study the same "problems" that either Piaget or Vygotsky did.
I think what one finds here is something of a Piaget-Vygotsky smorgasboard;
i.e., make your own meal, have it your way, "all desserts?? that's cool",
etc :)
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Glick, Joseph <JGlick@gc.cuny.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 8:47 PM
Subject: RE: Quasi-historical discourse
> And Piaget was trying to develop a theory that would explain the
development
> of "necessary" knowledge - which he found in the organizational invariant
> function that organizes the adaptations (that come from assimilation and
> accommodation) with respect to one another.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul H.Dillon
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Sent: 2/10/2002 9:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Quasi-historical discourse
>
> Joseph,
>
> You are so right about the difference between the problems that we are
> trying to solve and those that Piaget and Vygotsky were braining.
> Vygtosky,
> for example, was trying to create the psychological component of a
> unified
> dialectical materialist social theory.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Glick, Joseph <JGlick@gc.cuny.edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:40 PM
> Subject: Quasi-historical discourse
>
>
> >
> > Piaget died more than 20 years ago. Vygotsky died 40 + years before
> > Piaget's death and we are now in a new millenium.
> >
> > These folks have entered into our common cultural heritage. They
> belong
> > there, as tools for the bricoleurs that we are, to mobilize and use
> > given a problem at hand. I think that the time is long past for
> likening
> > or distinguishing them. They have become part of our cultural tool kit
> > and they sit side by side as resources - not lively theoretical
> > positions to be attacked or defended. They are resources for current
> > discourses and shouldn't be mistaken for being current discourses.
> >
> > If we want to find out what these guys were really about we should
> look
> > to the kinds of theoretical problems that they were trying to solve -
> > which were quite different and which are, I think, quite different
> from
> > the kinds of problems that we are trying to solve.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST