Charles,
Can you make your ideas clear, either in abstract form or in concrete form.
I have a hard time to grasp what is your challenge to Carl's ideas.
Mohamed Elhammoumi
----------
> From: Charles Nelson <c.nelson@mail.utexas.edu>
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Leontiev
> Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 12:25 AM
>
> Carl,
>
> That makes a lot of sense. Still, I wonder, Is one conceptual system
> always primary? Can context/environment/time influence the
> primariness of a conceptual system?
>
> Charles Nelson
>
> >IN response to Charles Nelson's question about how we tie diverse
viewpoints
> >together:
> > I think that one has to decide on the essential concepts/elements of
a
> >viable cultural psychological approach. These need to be logically
coherent
> >among themselves. All the related facets of the approach should be
logically
> >coherent as well. I think this is the essence of scientific thinking.
> >Einstein explained this in great detail. He firmly believed in
identifying a
> >small core of essential principles that underlie all phenomena. In
> >developing a cultural psychology, IF we agree w. Marx & Leontiev that
the
> >social organization of activities is basic to psychological phenomena,
and
> >that the social relations of production are the most impt. activity
within a
> >social system, then all of our concepts about self, agency, personality,
> >emotions, cognition, mental illness, etc. would have to construe these
as
> >originating in, bearing the characteristics of, and functioning to
> >recapitulate the social organization of activities, and especially of
> >economic activity. Any concepts about psychological change would also
have
> >to be related to concepts of social change.
> > These, of course, are all daunting questions. But I believe that this
is
> >the general approach that cultural psychs. need to explore. It would
> >comprise a logically coherent conceptual system. I don't think that
progress
> >will be made by trying to combine antithetical conceptual viewpoints
such as
> >marxism + individualism + Freudianism. That's why I believe it is impt.
to
> >distinguish conceptual systems, decide which is primary, and then
extract
> >elements of other systems that can be logically integrated with the
basic
> >one.
> > Does this make sense?
> > Carl
> >--
> >Carl Ratner, Ph.D.
> >cr2@humboldt1.com
> >http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2
> >
> >P.O.B. 1294
> >Trinidad, CA 95570
> >USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:08 PST