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

[Bill Kerr]

Thanks Ed,

A good Samaritan sent me a copy of "The Ethnomethodological Foundations of
Mathematics”. I've ordered a copy of "Ethnographies of Reason.”

I looked up the other two. Once again, they are quite expensive. I am
interested in that change of world view that occurred b/w the Greeks and
the Moderns. I read a short book about Francis Bacon by Benjamin Farrington
that went into that .

Cheers, Bill

On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

> Bill
>
>      The book "The Ethnomethodological Foundations of Mathematics” - an
> ‘interesting' take on Godel’s First Incompleteness Theorem - is just a nice
> typeset copy of his dissertation (he may have a few extra things; I think I
> looked at it once and didn’t see much different but perhaps Michael thinks
> otherwise) which you can get from ProQuest for about $35 or whatever the
> going price is now. There are also a few articles which are reasonably
> available and, as MIchael, mentioned "Ethnographies of Reason.” If you like
> this sort of things, I would recommend The Ethics of Geometry by Lachterman
> and perhaps The Origin of the Logic of Symbolic Mathematics which takes on
> Husserl and Klein. There is, of course, a long list of other people who
> have interesting takes on some of this.
>
> Ed Wall
>
> "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of
> a profound truth may well be another profound truth" - Niels Bohr
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 2018, at  9:40 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bill, the book that I really found good (I have read all of his) is
> > "Ethnographies of Reason". Lots of good materials for helping readers
> > understand. Michael
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael wrote:
> >> the critique that E. Livingston articulates concerning
> >> social constructionism, which takes the social in a WEAK sense; and the
> >> social in the strong sense is not a construction.
> >>
> >> I looked up Eric Livingston, The Ethnomethodological Foundations of
> >> Mathematics, referenced on p. 56 of your book. The price was $202, ouch!
> >> Publishers put marxist ideas from academics out of the reach of the
> poor.
> >> Can this problem be solved or mitigated under capitalism?
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> >> wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andy, to construct is a transitive verb, we construct something. It is
> >> not
> >>> well suited to describe the emergence (morphogenesis) of something new.
> >>> This is why Richard Rorty (1989) rejects it, using the craftsperson as
> a
> >>> counter example to the poet in the larger sense, the maker of new
> things.
> >>> He writes that poets know what they have done only afterward, when,
> >>> together with the new thing they have found themselves speaking a new
> >>> language that also provides a reason for this language.
> >>>
> >>> I also direct you to the critique that E. Livingston articulates
> >> concerning
> >>> social constructionism, which takes the social in a WEAK sense; and the
> >>> social in the strong sense is not a construction.
> >>>
> >>> Also interesting in this is the question of origins, and there the
> French
> >>> philosophers (Derrida and others) have had a lot of discussion. Mead's
> >>> fundamental point is that "before the emergent has occurred, and at the
> >>> moment of its occurrence, it does not follow from the past" (1932,
> xvii).
> >>>
> >>> And concerning relations, Marx/Engels write (German Ideology) that the
> >>> animal does not relate at all, for it, the relationship does not exist
> as
> >>> relationship
> >>>
> >>> m
> >>>
> >>> Rorty, R 1989, *Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity*, CUP
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well, I can see that as an argument, Michael. My response:
> >>>>
> >>>> The thing is, to interpret "construction" in an intellectual
> >>>> way, leads to the conclusion that to give construction a
> >>>> fundamental place in human evolution is "intellectualism,"
> >>>> and actually, interpreted that way, would be utterly absurd.
> >>>> But the fact is that all human actions are teleological,
> >>>> that is, oriented to a goal. Of course!! no hominid ever
> >>>> said to herself: "I think I will now take another step to
> >>>> evolving homo sapiens." AN Leontyev does exactly the same
> >>>> move in his criticism of Vygotsky.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, I don't know just how the formation of social
> >>>> customs, speech and tool-making interacted in the earliest
> >>>> stages of phylogenesis, ... and nor do you. We do know that
> >>>> all three are intimately interconnected from the earliest
> >>>> times we have any real knowledge of, though.
> >>>>
> >>>> As to "emergence," in my opinion "emergence" is the modern
> >>>> word for God. I don't know how this happens, so it must be
> >>>> Emergence.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>> On 12/04/2018 12:18 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> >>>>> Andy, there is nothing of construction. Construction may be an effect
> >>> of
> >>>>> mind, but mind did not emerge as a construction. It is a
> >> manifestation
> >>>> of a
> >>>>> relationship.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Emergence means that what comes after cannot be predicted on the
> >> basis
> >>> of
> >>>>> what comes before. The construction metaphor implies that (e.g., the
> >>>>> craftsman in the Marx/Engels case who is superior to the bee, an
> >>> example
> >>>>> that Vygotsky takes up).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Construction smacks of intellectualism, precisely the intellectualism
> >>>> that
> >>>>> Vygotsky made some moves to overcome at the end of his life
> >>>>>
> >>>>> m
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All of those quotes make my point, Michael, in ever so
> >>>>>> slightly different words.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> Andy Blunden
> >>>>>> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> >>>>>> On 12/04/2018 12:02 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>