These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Mike, I am wondering if you could expand on your question that is referring to perspective taking and its possible meanings. I believe this question of perspective taking is also converging with your other question on *kinds* or *types* of persons. [personhood like childhood] I am asking for more clarity on your *bad question* which seems to be central to the multiple discourses on *sociocultural* theory and practice This *space* or *zone* of questioning which opens up a clearing for the multiple notions of the concept *intersubjectivity* and its convergence with the concept of *perspective-taking* and how this topic is explored in Russian translation is a topic I want to explore further. I wanted to offer a quote which I found interesting exploring notions of *identity* AS KINDS [categories] Oakeshott argues that “This distinction, then, between ‘goings-on’ identified as themselves exhibitions of intelligence and ‘goings-on’ which may be made intelligible but are not themselves intelligent, is not a distinction between mental and physical or between minds and bodies regarded as entities. It is a distinction within the engagement of understanding, a distinction between ‘sciences’ (that is, ideal characters) and the identities with which they are concerned. And in calling it a categorial distinction what is being asserted is that the understanding of identities recognized as themselves exhibitions of intelligence cannot be ‘reduced’ to the understanding of identities no so recognized”, *On Human Conduct*, pp. 14-15. I was intrigued by Oakeshott's understanding of *sciences* [multiple] AS RESPRESENTING IDEAL KINDS [categorical distinctions]. This realm of KINDS AS perspective taking moves the question of intersubjectivity to converge with *culture* and *history*. I will pause, but this topic is endlessly fascinating. Larry Purss On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Russian experts on XMCA > > I have been reading about the development of intersubjectivity and > perspective taking, including an article by scholars who say they are > working in the "sociocultural perspective." It got me to wondering how > Russian scholars discuss these topics. No Russians are cited in the work I > am reading, but Mead and > Piaget. > > When looking at suggested translations into Russian from English for these > terms, the cognate > perspectiv seems to appear almost everywhere. The phrase for "point of > view" is literally that, > tochka-point zreniya-seeing, genetive case. > > I figure I am blind to something obvious here, but darned if I know what it > is. Any help out there?? > mike > > P > S-- Eugene wrote an interesting article in MCA a while back on > intersubjectivity and there are Vygotsky > refs but they do not seem to go to the question I am asking. Perhaps its > just my bad question! >