These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Thanks for the latte and the clarifying comments, David. Reading ch5 yet again alongside Paula and Carol's article on cross-dressing wolves. Will add this. mike On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 4:40 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote: > What EXACTLY is the relationship between these three terms? Attached is an > essay-lette by Paula which tries to address this question on the basis of > Chapter Five which she has kindly allowed me to distribute. > > Paula argues, suitably, that there are really THREE different processes > here. > > a) The child's ability to GENERALIZE, to impose SIMILARITIES on top of > differences. Vygotsky calls this the ability to create generalized > representations and notes that the result may look like a concept, act like > a concept, but it is structurally not a concept (because it lacks > voluntary abstraction) > > b) The child's ability to ISOLATE and ABSTRACT AWAY traits such as color, > weight, size from other traits. Vygotsky sees this as as the very opposite > tendency from generalization, because it involves focussing on how one trait > is different from another (and consequently allows the child to > differentiate traits within the object itself and not simply between them. > > c) The child's ability to FREE him/herself from the visual field. Vygotsky > sees this as one of the key byproducts of play, and it seems to me that this > more than anything else is what divides him from Piaget, for whom all play > is a form of assimilation rather than a liberation from the perceptual > field. > > Do these three different processes correspond to three different > terminologies? That is, does the pseudoconcept correspond to the product of > generalization, the preconcept to the process of abstraction, and the > potential concept to that of liberatoin from the visual field? > > Paula doesn't think so. Paula says that the pseudoconcept, the preconcept, > and the potential concept are three alternative terms for the same thing: a > elusive rope bridge connecting the complexive formations and the true > concept that must necessarily include three strands. > > David Kellogg > Seoul National University of Education > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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