These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
sounds like paraphrase of Sfard to me. But still reading and thinking. mike On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Mike Cole wrote: > >> One of these is her suggestion that a concept is " a word or other >> signifier >> WITH ITS DISCURSIVE USE (my emphasis). That complicates identifying words >> and concepts and moves us toward a Wittgensteinian notion of word meaning. >> > > My take is that a concept is a word (or phrase or other symbol) + the > actions in which it is realized, so it is constantly re-instantiated every > time a word is used. The artifact is just the universal. A concept is not > real or alive until the universal is identified with particular actions by > individuals. Think of the Rossetta stone. Under what circumstances were > those hieroglyphs concepts? > > Peirce had things to say about this. > > Andy > > > >> I also think that reading the Davydov materials posted by Andy is >> important >> because VVD was quite critical of Vygotsky's notion of concept. >> > > Indeed, this discussion is extremely important. Give me another 24 hours. > ... > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca