Re: [xmca] Incompatability between phenomenology and CHAT

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

And I should add to your warning about the difference between Gadamer's 
Phenomenology and Husserl's that Heidegger's was also not Phenomenology 
in the same sense as Husserl's, but the only phenomenology which 
Vygotsky knew was that of Husserl and his Russian followers, not 
Heidegger or Gadamer, SFAIK. This was pointed out to me after I wrote 
that note, and it was only later that I read Heidegger and came to 
appreciate those differences. So I can see that there are reasons for a 
Vygotskyist to be interested in Heidegger. But the points made in the 
article remain true, in my view.

But I must stop one confusion in what you said Larry, before it goes any 
further, and that is the meaning of "being" in connection with 
introspection.

Larry Purss wrote:
> ... Scientific psychology posits social *being* as the root model that determines a persons consciousness. In contrast Phenomenology posits being as dasein [being-there] or Hegel's determinate being.
No. Vyvgotsky was a far more sophisticated Marxist than that. He knew 
the difference between "determining" and "being." See 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm#p1363 
and see how Vygotsky cites Fuerbach approvingly. The idea of "mental 
being" is very challenging for a lot of people. I have tried to explain 
it in my video talk: https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/21966323 
Also dasein in Husserl and Heidegger is not the same as Dasein in Hegel, 
which is closer to what Vygotsky would discuss in connection with 
Syncretic concepts.

Andy

__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca