These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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.
Seems like you should review it for MCA, Tony! mike On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote: > For whatever it might be worth to anybody by way of a testimonial: > > After reading (& marking up) the first two chapters, I bought a second copy > that I can keep clean for sharing pages, passages, etc. > > On Sat, 28 May 2011, mike cole wrote: > > Tony-- I have written to David to see if he has any texts, short of >> everyone >> running out and buying his book (which I am sure he would not object to!), >> that could guide our >> discussion. His article in the Vygotsky companion ends with "in place of a >> conclusion" and a warning not to cleanse Vygotsky of "rationalistic >> tendencies." >> >> Part of my unease in this discussion has been the binary nature of the >> terms >> used, even as those using them believe in a basically trinary organization >> of humaness. >> >> mike >> >> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Martin >>> >>> From a Peircean perspective, there seems to be a falsely exhaustive >>> >>>> >>>> dichotomy here between the ["laws of reason"]-logical and the >>> psycho-logical. The semio-logical is not reducible to either of those. >>> >>> Again, I think that Bakhurst's _The Formation of Reason_ is very much on >>> point here. While he's not using Peirce, he is using Vygotsky et al. >>> along >>> with the Bildung tradition, which is all about forming within culture, >>> but >>> not [I would argue] as a matter of something merely psycho-logical. >>> >>> __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca