[Xmca-l] Re: thoughts on Mathematics of Mathematics by Wolff-Michael Roth

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

Hi Andy, one more thing, where I think the line that people such as F.T.
Mikhailov and E.V. Il'enkov are pursuing more productive lines of inquiry.
To the question you earlier raised, about becoming human, Mikhailov writes:

we should perhaps endeavor to offer some
concrete content to the postulate of a relation that is generative of
man: Perhaps we ought, once and for all, define it as follows: *a*
*relation generative of man is nothing other than the affective,
sense-giving*
*relation of our animal forebears, in the first instance, toward*
*one another*. (Mikhailov, 2001, p. 26, original emphasis)

and

His is a special niche, for it is not only biologically
self-sufficient: created via the orientation by each of his
behavior toward the subjective response of others, this niche transforms
the natural conditions of man’s life and all material means
of joint activity in communication into an objectively real support
and into material limits on a special psychological space, the tense
field of joint experience of a future action externalized for one
another with all the means of cooperation. This creates the borderline
situation in which the alien is identical with one’s own and
one’s own exists as an experienced reality of Other. (Mikhailov, 2001, p.
26, original emphasis)

I see nothing of construction. Voloshinov would say that the construction
metaphor is an *ideology*; it is one gone wild, so ingrained that when
somebody dares questioning it, s/he might be mobbed.

m



On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:02 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not think mind is a construction,
>
> Vygotsky (1989) writes: "Any higher psychological function ... was the
> social relation between two people" (p.56)
>
> And Mikhailov (2001) suggests: "the very existence of the
> mind is possible only at the borderline where there is a continual
> coming and going of one into the other, at their dynamic interface,
> as it were—an interface that is defined ... by the single process of their
> [self and other] mutual generation and mutual determination" (pp.20-21)
>
> Bateson (1979): Mind is an effect of relations, an aggregate effect, like
> stereo (spatial) vision
> is the emergent effect of two eyes with planar images.
>
> Mead (1932): "the appearance of mind is only the culmination of that
> sociality which is found throughout the universe" (p.86).
>
> Nobody says anything about construction. The to eyes don't construct
> stereovision and space. It is an emergent phenomenon,
> an ensemble effect deriving from relations.
>
> m
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> I always thought that the mind was a construction of human
>> culture. But of course, that was not what Spinoza thought.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 11/04/2018 11:44 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>> > No, I am not saying that there were human beings. Anthropogenesis and
>> > generalized (societal) action *come* together. But we have to explain
>> > culture and cognition as emergent phenomena not as *constructions* of
>> the
>> > mind. m
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, Michael, you are saying that there were human beings
>> >> before there was culture. And I gather you do not count
>> >> tools as units of culture.
>> >> Do we have to await a Psychologist to invent the word
>> >> "meaning" before we can poke a stick into an ant-hill?
>> >> Creationism makes more sense, Michael, at least it offers
>> >> /some/ explanation for the existence of human life.
>> >>
>> >> Andy
>> >>
>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Andy Blunden
>> >> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> >> On 11/04/2018 9:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
>> >>> Hi Bill,
>> >>> it is not so much "socially constructed." My key point in the book is
>> >> that
>> >>> it is social BEFORE there can be any construction. It is social, and
>> this
>> >>> is where I refer to a Vygotsky that has not been taken up, because
>> "every
>> >>> higher psychological function ... was a social relation between two
>> >>> people." That is, in this specific case, mathematics is social, was
>> the
>> >>> relation between two people before you see it in individuals...
>> >>>
>> >>> I think the construction metaphor breaks down when you look at our
>> >> species
>> >>> becoming human. So before there was culture, before we used tools,
>> where
>> >>> were those tools for constructing anything of the likes that
>> >>> constructivists say that we use to construct? How can a hominid
>> construct
>> >>> "meaning" of the branch as tool to start digging for roots or fishing
>> for
>> >>> termites? And how do they construct meaning of the first sound-words
>> when
>> >>> they do not have a system that would serve as material and tool for
>> >>> building anything like "meaning?"
>> >>>
>> >>> So yes, a learning theory has to be able to explain learning from
>> before
>> >>> culture (phylogenesis), before language and meaning (ontogenesis).
>> >>>
>> >>> And about eclecticism---I think we would be a step further if we
>> listened
>> >>> to and pondered A.N. Leont'ev's complaint about the "eclectic soup
>> >>> [eklekticheskoj pokhlebke] ... each to his own recipe" that
>> psychologists
>> >>> are trying to cook (in his foreword to *Activity. Consciousness.
>> >>> Personality*).
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Michael
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> One interpretation of Vygotsky (Wolff-Michael Roth) argues that all
>> >>>> knowledge is socially constructed and that ethnomethodology, paying
>> >>>> detailed attention in the now, is the best or only way of detecting
>> and
>> >>>> evaluating what is going on . Human activity can’t be reduced to
>> >> individual
>> >>>> actions. Anything individual originates in the social, be it words,
>> >>>> mathematics or by implication computer science (mentioned not in the
>> >>>> original but because it is a current interest of mine). Moreover
>> >> internal
>> >>>> representations or schemas seem to be denied because that would be a
>> >>>> capitulation to dualism, emphasising brain / mind activity whereas
>> the
>> >> real
>> >>>> deal is an integrated thinking body.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This world view is critical of other learning theories be they
>> >>>> behaviourist, cognitivist, enactivist or constructivist.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The question that I want to explore here is the pragmatic one of
>> whether
>> >>>> and how learning theory (an abstraction) makes a difference in
>> practice,
>> >>>> for busy, hard working (usually overworked) teachers. An alternative
>> >>>> epistemology/ies which might appeal more in practice to real teachers
>> >> under
>> >>>> pressure is an eclectic one centred around the issue of “what works”.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I believe I am better read on learning theory than most teachers. See
>> >>>> http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/learning%20theories
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Up until now I've developed an eclectic / pragmatic approach to
>> putting
>> >>>> learning theory into practice. Take something from Seymour Papert's
>> >>>> constructionism, something from Dan Willingham's cognitivism,
>> something
>> >>>> from Dan Dennett's behaviourism, something from Andy Clarke’s
>> enactivism
>> >>>> and roll them altogether in an eclectic mix. The authors in this list
>> >> could
>> >>>> be multiplied. My underlying belief was that it was not possible to
>> >> develop
>> >>>> a unified learning theory, that human learning was too complex for
>> >> that. As
>> >>>> Marvin Minsky once said in 'Society of Mind', "the trick is there is
>> no
>> >>>> trick", I think meaning no overarching way in which human's learn.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One big surprise in reading Wolff-Michael Roth is his serious
>> attempt to
>> >>>> put an end to such eclectism and develop what appears to be a unfied
>> >>>> learning theory.
>> >>>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>