[Xmca-l] Re: New book on Ilyenkov
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Mon May 20 19:51:29 PDT 2019
... just to play my usual role of throwing in the Hegelian
perspective. ...
This distinction is built into the structure of Hegel's
Logic as follows: The first phase of the Logic, Being,
represents the Idea from the standpoint of an observer
(qualities, quantities and measures). The third phase of the
Logic, Concept, represents the idea as Self-conscious (i.e.,
participant). In between these two, the second phase, is
Reflection, in which the living objective movement is
reflected in old concepts, and generates theories,
appearances, forms, etc., up to the point of a leap to
self-consciousness.
As I understand it, Ilyenkov fought against the positivist
program of modelling the mind as a computer, processing
information from the senses and generating outputs. I think
he was completely correct in this. Long Live Evald Ilyenkov.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 21/05/2019 9:12 am, mike cole wrote:
> Hi Huw-
>
> I was not at all focused on the originality of the 2
> cybernetics idea. I was focused on how
> it (presumably) provides formalisms for distinctions that
> have existed in philosophy for a long
> time (about this i am still a beginning learner) and which
> I think may also mark the way that
> followers of Rubenshtein used to criticize Leontievians,
> the way that ethnographers distinguish
> between different realtions of observer to observed,
>
> The observant participant "vs" participant observer mark
> two poles of our relationship with the
> people we were working with.
>
> A classical scholar colleague not in this conversation
> offered a relevant distinction from Aristotle in
> the context of discussions about the kind of work we do.
> There seems to be close matching here too.
> Perhaps relevant?
> /Theoria/ is generally translated as "viewing" or "looking
> at" and by extension, "contemplation." It actually derives
> from the word /theoros/, which is said to come from
> /thea/ (sight, or view, as in a vista -- something viewed)
> plus /orao/ (to see). In other words /theoros/ combines
> the seeing with the seen. So a /theoros/ is a spectator or
> a witness to what is there to be seen. A /theoros/ can
> also be someone who goes to consult an oracle -- the
> oracle being someone through whom a god (/theos/) speaks.
> What the oracle speaks is often in the form a riddle or
> puzzle which the /theoros/ must figure out for himself or
> herself. Even the epic poets were participants in this
> spiritual "praxis," acting as the voices for the gods to
> speak their sometimes obscure narratives in which the work
> of gods and men were mutually implicated. So the epics,
> like the oracular statements, were viewed as /theorytis/,
> (spoken by a god).
>
> The idea of the /theoros/ is interesting in that it
> involves the spectator's presence as a witness to an
> action (as Aristotle noted, drama is the imitation of
> action). This implies an interpretive approach to viewing
> and telling about an event, whether an oracle or a
> dramatic production, that has in some way been spoken by a
> god (literally, through inspiration, the breathing of the
> god into the /phrenoi /(the lungs -- for Homer, synonymous
> with the mind -- the center of human consciousness) of
> someone who is open to receiving that breath and in turn
> speaking it for others. The danger then becomes for the
> /theoros/ to report his or her /theoria/ to others -- the
> tendency of the theorist to lay claim to ultimate truth --
> /theorytis/, given by a god. Politically in early Greek
> society, this translated into the use of the plural
> /theoroi/ to mean ambassadors or envoys who interpreted
> the intent of the state to "those who speak strange
> tongues" (Homer's expression for non-Greeks) and vice-versa.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM Huw Lloyd
> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm not sure anyone in cybernetics claimed it to be a
> novel idea, but rather it seemed to be a necessary
> distinction, one that recognised a change in the
> landscape of the topic of inquiry when the observer
> was included within it.
>
> I think one could extrapolate "established form or
> structure" from "hard system" and then consider
> reflections about that establishing of that system as
> orthogonal yet related, but according to my
> interpretation of your descriptions I would attribute
> reflexive considerations to both roles. They both can
> refer to the structure of "observing" rather than the
> structure of the "observed".
>
> The attached paper by Ranulph Glanville seems appropriate!
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 19:12, mike cole
> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>
> Huw-
>
> I found that the Wikipedia characterization of the
> two generations of cybernetics, which is new to
> me, interesting and potentially a variant of an
> idea that has been batted around for some time:
>
> Von Foerster referred to it as the cybernetics of
> "observing systems" whereas first order
> cybernetics is that of "observed systems". ...
> Peter Checkland and co. made this distinction in
> their study of organisational projects,
> distinguishing, for example, between the process
> by which requirements are discerned (amidst
> complex interactions of stakeholders) , and the
> "hard" system that may be produced as a result.
>
> In our research in community settings we have been
> distinguishing between a participant observer and
> an observant participant. In our practice we have
> played both roles. I think of the "hard" system
> in our work
> as "psychotechnics" and the other, perhaps, as a
> part of psychosocioanthropological inquiry.
>
> Is this extrapolation reasonable?
>
> mike
>
> PS-- Andy
> There was a big and organized opposition to
> cybernetics in the USSR. It affected people like
> Bernshtein and Anokhin who were central to Luria's
> thinking. It was still in force when I arrived
> in Moscow in 1962 after a well advertised thaw.
> Hard to feel the thaw in October, 1962!
> The distinction Huw makes suggests that the
> objections were more than Stalinist ideology. But
> they were also Stalinist ideology.
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 AM Huw Lloyd
> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> This is an extract from the start of the text
> from the wikipedia entry, which I don't have
> any significant quibbles with:
>
> "*Second-order cybernetics*, also known as the
> cybernetics of cybernetics
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics>,
> is the recursive application of cybernetics to
> itself. It was developed between approximately
> 1968 and 1975 by Margaret Mead
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead>,
> Heinz von Foerster
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_von_Foerster> and
> others.^[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-RG_01-1>
> Von Foerster referred to it as the
> cybernetics of "observing systems" whereas
> first order cybernetics is that of "observed
> systems".^[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-2>
> It is sometimes referred to as the "new
> cybernetics", the term preferred by Gordon
> Pask
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask>,
> and is closely allied to radical
> constructivism
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism>,
> which was developed around the same time by
> Ernst von Glasersfeld
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Glasersfeld>.^[3]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-3>"
>
> ^
> Another way to describe this distinction on
> the dimension of observer is between "hard
> systems" and "soft systems". The "hard system"
> most easily maps on to a model of some
> apparatus. The "soft system" however applies
> to the system by which the hard system is
> discerned. Peter Checkland and co. made this
> distinction in their study of organisational
> projects, distinguishing, for example, between
> the process by which requirements are
> discerned (amidst complex interactions of
> stakeholders) , and the "hard" system that may
> be produced as a result.
>
> One can equally apply this distinction in
> psychology -- being concerned with the dynamic
> processes of action and construal in
> distinction to a concern to map things out in
> terms of brain architecture etc.
>
> One might say that 1st order cybernetics is
> typically ontologically and epistemologically
> naive (or atleast static), whilst 2nd order
> cybernetics recognises its potential fluidity
> and importance.
>
> Regarding objects, objects still exist in
> cybernetic thinking but are typically defined
> by communicational boundaries. Once one
> understands the application of black boxes or
> systems, then one can more readily apprehend
> cybernetics. Ranulph Glanville's writings on
> black boxes are a good place to start. Ranulph
> was also deeply interested in objects (and
> their cybernetic construal) related to his
> life-long engagement with architecture and design.
>
> One needs to take some care in interpreting
> Bateson's learning levels, but they can be
> mapped on to other initiatives. The steps
> between his levels are quite large and one
> could easily interpose additional levels. Bear
> in mind that Bateson's levels do not
> necessarily imply positive changes either.
>
> I can't say I recall coming across material in
> which Bateson is upset by Russell or Godel.
> Rather he applies typological distinctions
> throughout much of his work and can be
> considered a champion of drawing attention to
> "typological errors".
>
> From the description, it seems the finding
> Ilyenkov book is more of a booklet (64 pages),
> the impression I had is that is either a
> collection of papers or a summary of
> llyenkov's influence upon a group of academics.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 02:06, David Kellogg
> <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Huw...
>
> So actually this is the bit of Bateson
> that I'm having trouble understanding, and
> it's quite different from what I am
> failing to understand in Ilyenkov. I can't
> really do what Andy suggests, becuse this
> person has written a whole book about it,
> and as an author I always find it rather
> rude when anybody writes to me to say that
> they don't have the time and don't want to
> spend the money to get my book and they
> want me to just clear up a few points for
> them and save them the trouble. Maybe I am
> just over-sensitive.
>
> So this Bateson is working with a world
> that is almost the opposite of the one
> physicists work with. That is, it's a
> world where objects are essentially
> unimportant ("feedback" is a structure
> that is quite independent of whether we
> are talking about a microphone, a
> thermostadt, a child, or a civilization).
> It's a world where only communication
> matters. (There are some forms of physics
> which handle a world like this, but they
> are precisely the realms of physics I
> don't really get.)
>
> In this world, there is something
> called Learning Zero, or the Zero Degree
> of Learning, which is essentially making
> responses that are stimulus-specific. Then
> there is something called Learning One,
> which is generalizing responses to a
> well-defined, closed set of stimuli. And
> then there is Learning Two, which I think
> is what you mean by second order
> cybernetics. That is what people like to
> call "learning to learn", but when we say
> this, we are ignoring that the two uses of
> "learn" mean things that are as
> different as Learning Zerio and Learning
> One, as different as instinct and habit,
> as different as unconditioned and
> conditioned responses to stimuli. This is
> being able to generalize the ability to
> generalize responses to well defined
> stimuli, so that they operate not only
> within a well-defined context but in a
> context of context.
>
> Children do a lot of this. They learn
> language, first as Learning Zero and then
> as Learning One. Then they have to learn
> how to learn THROUGH language, treating
> language itself as context and not simply
> text. This inevitably leads to a Learning
> Three, where language is itself the object
> of learning--Halliday calls it learning
> ABOUT language.
>
> Bateson is very disturbed by this, because
> he feels that Russell's paradox is lurking
> behind all of these sets which both are
> and are not members of themselves. I don't
> have any problem with it, because I think
> that Russell's world is math and not
> language (I think of math as a kind of
> very artificial form of language that only
> operates in very artificial worlds, like
> those of physics and cybernetics).
>
> Is this what you mean by the discontinuity
> of second order cybernetics? Isn't it an
> artifact of imposing Russell's theory of
> logical types and an artifact of the
> artificiality of the cybernetic world?
>
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article:
> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A
> story without SELF: Vygotsky’s
> pedology, Bruner’s constructivism and
> Halliday’s construalism in understanding
> narratives by
> Korean children, Language and Education,
> DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
> To link to this article:
> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
> Some e-prints available at:
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:32 PM Huw Lloyd
> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Quite possibly it was from a lack of
> recognising the continuity into second
> order cybernetics, which many of the
> founding members of cybernetics
> recognised.
>
> Huw
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 11:05, David
> Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Andy, Alfredo--
>
> The most intriguing thing about
> this book was the statement that
> Ilyenkov fought against the
> introduction of ideas from
> cybernetics into psychology. On
> the other side of the world,
> Gregory Bateson was fighting hard
> for their inclusion.
>
> I read through "The Ideal in Human
> Activity" a couple of times (true,
> without understanding much of it).
> But I didn't see anything against
> cybernetics. Am I missing something?
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article:
> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg
> (2019): A story without SELF:
> Vygotsky’s
> pedology, Bruner’s constructivism
> and Halliday’s construalism in
> understanding narratives by
> Korean children, Language and
> Education, DOI:
> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
> To link to this article:
> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
> Some e-prints available at:
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:22 PM
> Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> https://realdemocracymovement.org/finding-evald-ilyenkov/
>
> In the era of alt-truth,
> disinformation and scepticism
> about the very possibility of
> knowledge, the work of a
> defiant Soviet thinker is
> attracting growing interest.
>
> Evald Ilyenkov’s dialectical
> approach to philosophy from
> Spinoza to Hegel and Marx made
> him a target for persecution
> by the bureaucratic Stalinist
> authorities of his day.
>
> The re-discovery of his
> original texts, suppressed or
> harshly redacted during his
> lifetime, is giving rise to an
> enhanced view of his contribution.
>
> */Finding Evald
> Ilyenkov/*draws on the
> personal experiences of
> researchers in the UK, Denmark
> and Finland. It traces
> Ilyenkov’s impact on
> philosophy, psychology,
> politics and pedagogy and how
> it continues to be relevant in
> the light of today’s crises.
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>
>
>
>
> --
> At the moment we need consensus points to anchor
> our diversity. One tree, many branches, deep
> roots. Like a cypress tree living in brackish
> water. Anon
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> “All truly wise thoughts have been thought already
> thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must
> think them over again honestly, until they take root in
> our personal experience.” -Goethe
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190521/5432978e/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list