In a message dated 10/17/2001 7:04:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
rjapias@uol.com.br writes:
> But I, personally, as a teacher or a "reflexive practictioner", have nothing
> against a "bricolage" :)
> What is ironical in this is the fact that he, LSV, was indexed by "soviet
> vaticano" as ecletic... Of course, he was right on the way to construct a
> coherent conceptual framework according to a historical materialist
> approach to psyche although I do believe, like him, that "(...) Psychology
> will be the comon name of a hole family of sciences. Because our task do
> not consist absolutelly in differeciate our work of all psychological work
> of the past, but unify it in an ensemble over a new basis aside everything
> that had been scientifically studied by psychology. We do not want to
> differentiate our school of science, but it of what is not scientific, the
> psychology of non-psychology." (number 13, § before the last one)
>
>
Ricardo,
You have indeed sythesized my EXACT opinion regarding the importance of
Vygotsky's writings to me as a practitioner. Your use of Levi-Strauss' term
is perfect. When I read studies by Scribner & Cole and use terms such as
'scientific brain construct' I am doing so in Vygotsky's eclectic general
scientific paradigm. Unfortunately my haphazard mix and match of terms does
not communicate my ideas in a very efficient manner to on of the authors. He
can either think I am idiot for misunderstanding the study or he can inquire
further into my thoughts. Fortunately Michael is kind enough to do the
latter.
the crisis does appear to continue to be the chasm that exists between those
who practice "industrial psychology" (Vygotsky's term (pg 1 of Crisis), I
used active service delivery in the past and was met with resistance by XMCA
members) and those who construct psychological theories.
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:55 PST