Dear Mike-
You wrote,
> But in order to make such discussion of value, I strongly suggest that we
> go to original sources and not to second hand accounts which pose as
> neutral, fact-driven descriptions when they are not.
Since the original sources are all dead, I wonder what you mean by that. I
know that you disagree with VV and probably with me but I think we all draw
from the same "secondary sources".... It is a part of the story, whether you
agree with it or not...
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 1:36 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: tools and rumours
>
>
> Well, Eugene and Ana, this is as good a place as any to return to XMCA
after
> three weeks away.
>
> You asked,
> > > I think a discussion between psychological tools mediating higher
> psychological functions
> > and material tools meditating subject-object relations can
interesting...
>
> This characterization of tools strikes me as odd for its separation of the
> psychological and the material on the one hand, and the "higher
psychological
> functions verswus subject-object relations on the other. Apropos of the
> discussion of dualisms in the parallel discussion around Michael G's work,
> these distinctions are difficult for me to understand. Could you supply
> some examples to clarify them?
>
> As for the wierdness of Luria's work on lie detectors and having a
friend's
> brain in his study:
>
> There is a lot to admire in the van der Veer and Valsiner archeology of
the
> work of Vyotosky and his colleagues, but neither of these examples strikes
> me as admirable.
>
> #1. As should be clear from a reading of the Nature of Human Conflicts,
the
> major scientific motivation for the combined motor method was not to
create
> a lie detector and its use preceeded Stalin's rise to power by many years.
> That it was used in ways I find ethically unacceptable is perhaps worth
> discussing, along with a lot of other research about which I feel the same
> way. But ripped out of context, it is not helpful.
>
> #2. The brain in question was that of Sergei Eisenshtein. Luria was an
> executor of SME's will and a speicalist in the study of the brain. He also
> had many Eiesenshtein original drawings in the same study. They conducted
> joint research. I do not know why it was Eisenshtein's will that Luria
should
> preseve his brain, but again, taken out of context, the story is simply
> mischief.
>
> The issues around the central asian research are far more interesting to
me.
> To this day, Russian students of Luria, Peter Tulviste, Toomela,
Zinchenko,
> and others, criticize my "soft, liberal" views concerning the nature of
> cultural-historical change as it relates to psychological change. Even in
> my preface to Luria's cross cultural work I was personally critical of his
> mode of research in Central Asia which is, nonethheless, of great
interest,
> on methodological grounds.
>
> It is also still very widely cited as evidence of historical changes in
psycholoical processes
> and the methods he used were at least as sophhisticated as those
> in use by contemporary heroes of American cross-cultural research. Again,
plenty to discuss
> here.
>
> But in order to make such discussion of value, I strongly suggest that we
> go to original sources and not to second hand accounts which pose as
> neutral, fact-driven descriptions when they are not.
>
> What part of this would people like to follow up on?
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PDT