| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z30wiw1jw1","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ15Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ15Ӻ","endOffset":1413°Ӻ,"quote":"In this context it is important to realize that \"constraints of our experience\" do not necessarily refer to constraints that have to be thought of as inherent in an ontological reality. It was Piaget who has finally made clear that many, if not all, the constraints that govern our actual and potential experience stem from our own construction. Any construction, be it physical or mental, is subject to certain constraints that spring from the material that the constructor employs. It is easy to see that a bricklayer is to some extent constrained in his building by certain basic characteristics that are inherent in the bricks he uses. In much the same way, I believe, the representation we construct of our adult experiential world is constrained by certain basic characteristics of the building blocks we are using, which is to say, the building blocks which we created during the sensorimotor period. We call these building blocks “space,” “time,” “identity,” and “change,” and some of their early combinations give us, among others, “objects,” “motion,” and “causation”. All of them are crucial elements in our later picture of the world and determine the kinds of world we can represent to ourselves. As Mischel (1971) formulated it, “What he (the subject) responds to is his construal of the external intrusion, and he is also the one who interprets the outcome of his compensatory activities Ӷp. 324Ӻ.”","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210398585167170416032":^°°,^"jQuery3210398585167170416032":^°°,^"jQuery3210398585167170416032":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1562089071058°
|
