Paul (and all):
Almost all of the books of Piaget's middle period (the one that Vygotsky
missed because he was dying or had died by the time of their
publication)deal with these issues. In particular the introduction to "The
Origins of Intelligence" (I think initially published around 1936) is called
"The Biological Problem of Intelligence" - and is organized around Piaget's
attempt to link changing structures to the biologically invariant functions
- "adaptation" (ultimately made of assimilation and acccomodation in
balance) and Organization (which organizes these adaptations with respect to
one another). It is from the latter that Piaget tries to derive the Kantian
a priori categories (as a product of and not a precursor to development).
That 20 page chapter is dense but worth it. It is part of the first book
written where Piaget observes his own children, as opposed to those he found
in various Montessori schools to study - and in particular The Origins of
Intelligence deals with the development through what people call the
Sensori-motor stage.
A number of his books return to the biology of development - e.g. Biology
and Knowledge, The twin themes that development derives from the biological
functions (and not biological structures) guided by such organizational
principles as "equilibration" and "adaptation" are fairly characteristic of
the Piagetian problematic. The introduction to The Origins of Intelligence
is both the most important and most unreadable part of Piaget's work. Part
of the problem is that there are rich intertextual connections to Kant and
philosophical idealism.
In fact, Piaget was engaged in a debate with Kant - about what the a priori
really means. In that sense he occupied a position structurally parallel to
the position that Aristotle took with respect to Plato/Socrates - where
there is an attempt to reconcile the structural insights of idealism with
the functional role of experience. Aristotle did it by multiply causes from
one (the Idea) to four, and inventing the first theory of development.
Piaget was dealing, to be sure, with the Kantian problematic but attempted
through his theory to make the Kantian a priori the product of developmental
process rather than its cause or better yet - its alternative. So Piaget is
neo Kantian in exactly the same way that we can say the Aristotle was
neo-Platonic/Socratic.
All of this is relevant to anything only if we want to get in to Piagetian
theory from the inside. It may suffice just to treat him as a curious object
in the antique shop of theory and allow ourselves to feel free to dust,
polish and transform this object in any way we choose.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul H.Dillon
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 2/11/2002 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: Quasi-historical discourse
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