I am not against any of this; it may be the only mode that is
successful for many students. But I think that US education has
largely given up on abstract conceptual goals and methods. Many
university curricula seem to be doing so as well. The fact that
most of us are probably uneasy about this (not rejoicing in it),
may mean that whether we follow Descartes in privileging the
conceptual over the physical or not, we may not have full confidence
that 'hands-on' and concrete situated action approaches are either
likely to lead into abstract conceptual reasoning or to be able
to effectively eliminate the need for it.
I don't think education is going to transcend the Cartesian
dichotomy in either direction, as it needs to do, until we have
a non-mentalistic model of the abstract and the conceptual, so
that we can see just how these connect with the concrete and
material-actional. Peirce and Leontiev and Dewey and a lot of
us _want_ such a model and have some ideas in what direction it
may lie -- but I don't think anybody really has one yet. We are
all still Cartesian to the degree we don't actually have a
really specific and useable post-Cartesian alternative in place.
JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU