These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 19 July 2011 17:18, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > I am not sure how other's will reflect on Rey's article but I certainly > felt > at home while reading his expansion of Vygotsky's forgotten legacy. The > entire article I read as an example of chiasm or ECART > [separation-differentiation which is NOT opposition] Also the historical > movement [motivation] BETWEEN the subjective and objective moments, > reflective and generative moments, of his creativity/reflections is an > EXAMPLE of chiasm. The reversibility of these different [but intertwining] > moments in Vygotsky's project that Rey so clearly articulates points to a > much vaster and overflowing perspective on "psyche" as both subjective and > objective. Rey suggests Vygotsky's second moment, has become a reductive > reification of his much larger project of locating the psyche and world in > the realm of "sense" > Hi Larry. Do you have a succinct definition for your use of chiasm here please? Are you referring, additionally, to the ability to compound various separate images/functions? E.g. Halliday's (Lang of Early Childhood) reference to mathetic and pragmatic functions that, starting off static, become dynamic and may be applied to each other? In my reading of the article, I thought there was a few fundamental points, or interpretations, made, but that this was over-baked somewhat by notions of "abandoning ideas" and the treatment of subject and object seemed a bit heavy handed too (perhaps a 2nd language for the author?). Huw __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca