These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.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 heads up on the book and the need to figure out where in the world your review(s) is/are. Russian reviewer self nominators? mike On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu> wrote: > I would if I had the time now, but I need to get a book written, and it's > hard to find time to work on that. > > Besides, I've done a review of 3 other books that was accepted and has been > "in the cue" now for (I'm guessing) something like four years now (you got > it from me back then, Mike.) I can't afford doing that again. > > Actually, for this book, I think MCA needs someone who knows the Russians > better than I do. > > > On Sat, 28 May 2011, mike cole wrote: > > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> > Tony Whitson > UD School of Education > NEWARK DE 19716 > > twhitson@udel.edu > _______________________________ > > "those who fail to reread > are obliged to read the same story everywhere" > -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970) > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca