These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.

Re: [xmca] Did the Butterfly Leave the Cocoon, and then what?

From: Martin Packer <packer who-is-at duq.edu>
Date: Fri Feb 22 2008 - 18:31:28 PST

Mike,

It's a good question. My presumption would be that V was *trying*, with all
of his work, to put this program into practice.

But first I need to figure out some of the details a bit better. Some time
ago I posted a passage about ontology from the Crisis that doesn't yet make
sense to me. I need to get clearer on where V was looking, and how.

On nomothetic: there's the example of Pavlov's work on reflexes that V
himself discusses... By studying salivation in dogs, he was studying
reflexes in animals.... It's late: more tomorrow

Martin

On 2/22/08 5:28 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martine-- Sorry to be obtuse. Trying for the opposite.
> If LSV created a new psychology that did away with the two psychologies of
> his predecessors, and did that not by superceding them, but by extinguishing
> one of them entirely,
> what is the evidence that he did so? everything he wrote?
> Can't be. He disagreed with himself over time.
>
> I was looking for a program of empirical research that met his criteria.
> One. Not saying there are none. Just end up being lost as to which one(s)
> fit the needed characteristics. For example ................................
>
> It is the process of getting to nomothetic laws from individual cases that
> I was worrying out, which is why I mentioned Luria romantic science
> examples.
>
> I get the part about nonothetic "of or relating to the study or discovery of
> general scientific laws. Often contrasted with idiographic ." But generally
> such laws are derived from regularities across many individual examples. My
> understanding is that LSV methodology allowed him to derive or arrive at
> general laws from study of individual cases. Again, how? What example?
>
> Maybe I am simply stuck in a time warp.,
> mike
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>
>> It's not clicking, Mike. Can't we consider V's own work a realization?
>>
>>
>> On 2/22/08 2:26 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where is the program realized, Martin?
>>> As David Kel pointed out in an earlier message, in LSV you thoughts and
>>> words, in ANL you have actions and activities.
>>
>> V gas plenty of action too. Not sure about activities.
>>
>> Thoughts are to be understood
>>> inside a materialist psychology, presumably using some form of
>> philosophny
>>> as Ilyenkov's .
>>>
>>> How could nomothetic science be relevant?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like V to me.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Feb 22 18:33 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:37:02 PST