[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]

[Andy Blunden]

Carol, mathematics is a natural science like any other.
It is neither the absolute truth nor merely social convention.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Carol Macdonald wrote:
> Julian, Andy
>
> I think arithmetic is something of a test case. Just as word meaning
> changes over time in a dynamic way, as recognised by linguists, maths
> truths don't. It would be difficult to argue that maths truths of basic
> arithmetic have changed over the centuries. I don't know about maths truths
> of a higher order.
>
> Sorry if I use the terms arithmetic and maths interchangeably; it's a South
> African usage here in basic education.
>
> Carol
>
> On 23 October 2014 08:33, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>   
>> Andy
>>
>> Yes, just so,  this is why I go to social theory eg Marx and Bourdieu to
>> find political-economic contradictions within and between activities.
>>
>> But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the notion in
>> Vygotsky's Perezhivanie paper that the situation or environment is given
>> and the same for all, and the final form of development is given in a
>> final, given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being then associated
>> with an already given social plane).
>>
>> I'm happy enough to accept that this is a false  and undialectical reading
>> of Vygotsky (after all who knows how the concept of perezhivanie might have
>> matured in his hands)...
>>
>> To return to my case - arithmetic. Many will say this exists in ideal form
>> in the culture and all that needs to be done by development is to bring the
>> child into the culture... Then the child is 'schooled'... Passive, lacking
>> in agency, often failed, and at best made obedient to the cultural legacy.
>> AsBourdieu says, through processes in school the class system is
>> reproduced, and this is enculturation into the cultural arbitrary.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2014, at 07:08, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the one true meaning
>>>       
>> of something. He does not allow that the meaning of something may be
>> contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of heterogeneity in
>> society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups, social movements
>> and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of something which
>> "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which are therefore
>> taken to be subjective.
>>     
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>
>>>
>>> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>       
>>>> This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's
>>>>         
>> breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. There are about 8 points total... [copypasta is a
>> starch of art] --------------------------------------------------- 6. [The
>> fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
>> --------------------------------------------------- You say: "ANL believes
>> that motivation determines perception. The norm of  perception, the "true"
>> meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for the community as
>> a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of "community as a
>> whole" in this context." So is it the case that word-meaning is denied by
>> ANL because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across the culture and
>> cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the reason
>> politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned as the sole
>> arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post below Wed, 22 Oct 2014
>> 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
>>     
>>>>> _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning ---------- ANL believes that
>>>>>           
>> the mental representation in a child's awareness must _correspond_ directly
>> to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but also how the
>> object may relate and associate to other objects and their meanings. The
>> example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I will call here
>> for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness", ANL takes exception
>> with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a generalization to
>> reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
>> (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the existence of these
>> word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they are what
>> construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this because he considers
>> consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
>>     
>>>>>> Andy's reply to #6 above: ANL believes that motivation determines
>>>>>>             
>> perception. The norm of perception, the "true" meaning of an object, is
>> therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole. I am questioning
>> the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in this context.
>>     
>>> --end
>>>       
>>>>         
>>     
>
>
>