Re: [xmca] Dynamics of Learning and Development-vulgar marxists?

Lets hear another cheer for etymology, Paul.
Now, see what comes up for individual/individuum and when the meanings
changed. As I recall (e.g., as I am currently imagining), there was a time
when individual was rendered
as individuum and individuum as "member of a species." e.g., the individual
was not, in the modern sense, an individual but a constituent of society.
If that fantasy is close to something
we can take as real, when did the meanings start to shift where?

And while you are at it, what do the Quechua have to say about these
matters? Do they talk about persons, identities, peronalities?
mike

On Nov 25, 2007 6:35 PM, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:

> mike,
>
> from the online etymological dictionary for "vulgar":
>
> "1391, "common, ordinary," from L. *vulgaris* "of or pertaining to the
> common people, common, vulgar," from *vulgus* "the common people,
> multitude, crowd, throng," from PIE base **wel-* "to crowd, throng" (cf.
> Skt. *vargah* "division, group," Gk. *eilein* "to press, throng," M.Bret.
> *gwal'ch* "abundance," Welsh *gwala* "sufficiency, enough"). Meaning
> "coarse, low, ill-bred" is first recorded 1643, probably from earlier use
> (with reference to people) with meaning "belonging to the ordinary class"
> (1530). *Vulgarian* "rich person of vulgar manners" is recorded from
> 1804."
>
> one might say that marxists who aren't vulgar aren't worth their salt.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> I'll let others more familiar with the personages involved comment on who
> is
> a vulgar marxist (and who the non-vulgar one's are!)... and to explain the
> deeper meaning of the dominant/reflexological polemics.
> I'll email you when the tapes arrive and will set about getting them
> digitized and posted.
> mike
> On Nov 25, 2007 4:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> > Dear Mike:
> >
> > Sorry--I meant Zalkind, not Blonsky!
> >
> > Apparently, both were pedologists of a distinct vulgar materialist bent,
> > but it's Zalkind who LSV takes to task in the passage a few pages before
> the
> > one on the internal origins of the crisis and the defense of the
> bourgeois
> > point of view in child psychology. (Funny, though, the notes to the
> Russian
> > edition take LSV to task for being insufficiently critical of Zalkind,
> at
> > least in associating "interest" with a reflexological "dominant"!)
> >
> > I also think differently about learning/development depending on which
> > trouser leg I put on first or which side of the bed I get up on. Today
> I'm
> > not so sure that forgotten knowledge is developmentally inert. After
> all,
> > LSV says ALL neoformations (e.g. negativism, autonomous speech)
> disappear
> > entirely and their role is completely catalytic. Forgotten knowledge
> might
> > play a similar role? (Hope so...I have a terrible memory!)
> >
> > I MAILED you the tapes today. I couldn't figure out how to digitalize
> > them!
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> > it now.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See
> how. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51732/*http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Nov 25 19:51 PST 2007