Alfred,
In the chapter on pscyhic reflection I think that Leont'ev addressed your
concerns that:
"It may in fact be a much more symmetrical relationship
than our subject-object and active-passive language and world view
suggests."
There he specifically indicated that one of the major limitations of all
cybernetically inspired approaches lies precisely in the fact that they do
portray the relationship as a symmetrical one. I pointed this out in my
summary of Ch. 2:
""The following passage summarizes this position, "A connection of the image
with what is reflected is not a connection of two objects (systems,
multitudes) in mutual similar relations one to another -- their relationship
reproduces a polarization of any living process at one pole of which stand
the active ("partial") subject, and at the other, the object "indifferent"
to the subject. It is this feature of the relation of the subjective image
to reflected reality that is not included in the relationship
'model-modeled'". Further, he claims that the "partiality" of the
subjective, active pole "allows an active penetration into reality." As
such cybernetic models are inadequate to the task of providing a basis for
human psychology"".
I think this entire aspect revolves around the central issue, that he
emphasizes in section 3.1 of the present chapter, of the inadequacy of 'the
postulate of directness'--i.e., that an unmediated stimulus impacts a
receptor either with or without intervening factors.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:23 PST