Re: [xmca] Unbelievable - & Spanish

From: Wolff-Michael Roth (
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 07:03:55 PDT

There is no a priori hierarchy, just difference and heterogeneity
within and across individuals that constitute the collective. Why
should Luria's peasants be primitive, with respect to who or what?
Why should they be inferior, with respect to whom and what? There are
many aspects in which the psychologists who said these peasants were
inferior---e.g., on Piagetian tasks---do less well and even perish
had they been on their own out there. wmr

On 21-Oct-06, at 6:58 AM, bb wrote:


I can't quite parse your response. How does this work for Luria's
studies of peasants in Uzbekistan?

  -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Wolff-Michael Roth <>
> Hi bb,
> the question about primitive and inferior arises whenever reasoning
> presupposes self-identity---a position French philosophers have to
> denote as the ontology of the same; it defines difference in terms of
> deviation from the same. Difference then does not exist in and for
> itself. If you begin with difference---e.g., Deleuze in "Difference &
> Repetition", Nancy in "Being Singular Plural"---then, to express it a
> bit simplistically, everything is different. Sameness (even that
> expressed in "A = A") is the result of a construction, as is
> primitiveness and inferiority. The ontology that begins with
> difference leads us to a very different way of thinking, to a very
> different ethics (see Levinas), to a very different politics (see
> Derrida).
> have a nice weekend
> Michael
> On 21-Oct-06, at 6:35 AM, bb wrote:
> Agradezca le, Nacho, por el texto excelente en espa�ol e ingl�s
> que
> ayude a un principiante como entiende espa�ol en contexto. En el
> momento que puedo contribuir solamente con el uso de las traducciones
> en l�nea, que entiendo para ser particularmente malo.
> Thank you, Nacho, for the excellent text in both spanish and english
> that helps a novice like me understand Spanish in context. At the
> moment I can only contribute through the use of online translations,
> which I understand to be particularly bad.
> Picking up on the dialectical thread at Anna's comment, "Instead,
> dialectical thinking presupposes that there is always a next step,
> and a new height, however 'full' one's thinking is", I wonder if this
> train of thought leads to some kinds of thinking as more advanced
> than others, and (lessons from Luria) if some cultures (or
> individuals) never reach these more advanced forms of thinking, they
> will be considered to be primitive or inferior?
> �Escogiendo para arriba en el hilo de rosca dial�ctico en el
> comentario de Ana, "en lugar de otro, el pensamiento dial�ctico
> presupone que hay siempre un paso siguiente, y una nueva altura, no
> obstante ' lleno ' es su pensamiento", me pregunto si este tren del
> pensamiento conduce a algunas clases de pensamiento como m�s
> avanzado
> que otros, y (las lecciones de Luria) si algunas culturas (o los
> individuos) nunca alcanzan estas formas m�s avanzadas de
> pensamiento,
> los considerar�n ser primitivos o inferiores?
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST