Thanks to you and Eugene and OWH Junior. That is a very interesting
metaphor. We are as usual entifying dynamic process in order to
communicate about them. Murdering to
dissect.
mike
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 11:17:37 -0500 (EST), Tony Whitson
<twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
> on personality: the "knot" of relationships among ideas of Marx, Peirce,
> and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who hung out with Peirce in Boston) may be
> suggested in this exerpt from an email conversation between me and Eugene:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Whitson [mailto:twhitson@UDel.Edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 2:35 PM
> >
> > Eugene notes: "Marx defined an individual as an assembly (a "knot") of
> > all social relations the individual is involved."
> >
> > >From a radically different philosophical standpoint, Oliver Wendell
> > Holmes, Jr. wrote:
> > "(P)ersonality is an illusion only to be accepted on weekdays for
> > working purposes. We are cosmic ganglia; so I believe as much as I
> > believe anything. And personality is merely the gaslight at the
> > crossroads with an accidentally larger or smaller radius of
> > illumination."
> >
> > (Quoted with secondary source citation at fn. 61 of "JUSTICE SCALIA
> AND
> > YOGI BERRA: A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION,"
> > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/newnino.htm )
> >
> ----------------------------------------
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Mike Cole wrote:
>
> > Odd what sparks discussion here.
> >
> > I have also been reading Valsiner and will go back to it through this lens.
> >
> > I found the following statement odd.
> > The two [Stern-individualism and Vygosk] are brought together in
> > Valsiner's theory, which highlights the sign-constructing and
> > sign-using nature of all distinctively human psychological processes.
> > Arguing that the individualistic and the cultural traditions differ
> > largely in emphasis, Valsiner unites them by focusing on the intricate
> > relations between personality and its social context, and their
> > interplay in personality development.
> >
> > If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
> > analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
> > talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
> > and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside? Really?
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:38:27 +0100, George <researcher@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> >> Dear Phil,
> >>
> >> I do not have Engeström's et al. book. Would you happen to have an
> >> electronic copy of Davydov's article? or know a link - although I
> >> searched an could not find anything?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Phil Chappell wrote:
> >>
> >>> Davydov's essay: Davydov, V.V. (1999) The content and unsolved
> >>> problems of activity theory, in Engestrom, Y, Miettinen, R and
> >>> Punamaki, R-L "Perspectives on Activity Theory" Cambridge University
> >>> Press
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> George
> >> (Hansjoerg von Brevern)
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
> >> didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
> >> Socio-cultural Theory
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> Tony Whitson
> UD School of Education
> NEWARK DE 19716
>
> twhitson@udel.edu
> _______________________________
>
> "those who fail to reread
> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST