this may be a stupid or obvious point, but what the heck. do you think
that we have been lured as a culture of inquiry (we being western thought
in general) into our love affair with dualisms because we misunderstood
aristotle? what i mean is this -- aristotle in his logic makes a big deal
of seeking out those sorts of things that are either-or so that he can use
the law of the excluded middle to make some deductive claims about these
sorts of things. i'm certainly no aristotle scholar, but i dont remember
him saying that everything in the empirical world has to be either or, only
those things that can be rationally so identified. but we jump to
overextend this point by dualifying everything in sight....
now that we have so many other tools that aristotlean deduction, can we
start sorting out issues based first on logical approach, instead of
concepts per se? jay got me thinking in this direction with his very
helpful correction on everyday thinking vs everyday concepts....
gary
shank@duq.edu
>I find these two alternatives artificial and rather useless for
>understanding Vygotsky, or expansive learning for that matter. Dualisms
>seldom work.
>
>Yrjo Engestrom
>
>> From: Tina Sharpe <tinasharpe@ozemail.com.au>
>> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:24:31 +1100
>> To: xmca <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: enculturation/instruction
>>
>> I'm finding the discussion really interesting and helpful and I would
>> like to pose another question to the group.
>>
>> With Vygotsky's notion of ZPD, do you think it is an enculturationist or
>> constructivist approach to learning?
>>
>> Regards
>> Tina Sharpe
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:21 PST