Re: [xmca] Dynamics of Learning and Development

I'll let others more familiar with the personages involved comment on who is
a vulgar marxist (and who the non-vulgar one's are!)... and to explain the
deeper meaning of the dominant/reflexological polemics.
I'll email you when the tapes arrive and will set about getting them
digitized and posted.
mike
On Nov 25, 2007 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Mike:
>
> Sorry--I meant Zalkind, not Blonsky!
>
> Apparently, both were pedologists of a distinct vulgar materialist bent,
> but it's Zalkind who LSV takes to task in the passage a few pages before the
> one on the internal origins of the crisis and the defense of the bourgeois
> point of view in child psychology. (Funny, though, the notes to the Russian
> edition take LSV to task for being insufficiently critical of Zalkind, at
> least in associating "interest" with a reflexological "dominant"!)
>
> I also think differently about learning/development depending on which
> trouser leg I put on first or which side of the bed I get up on. Today I'm
> not so sure that forgotten knowledge is developmentally inert. After all,
> LSV says ALL neoformations (e.g. negativism, autonomous speech) disappear
> entirely and their role is completely catalytic. Forgotten knowledge might
> play a similar role? (Hope so...I have a terrible memory!)
>
> I MAILED you the tapes today. I couldn't figure out how to digitalize
> them!
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> it now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51731/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ%0A>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Nov 25 16:33 PST 2007