[Xmca-l] Re: New book on Ilyenkov

Tue May 21 06:48:02 PDT 2019

Frame, window, latch is also interesting to think with, Huw.
Thnx for the thought
Mike

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:11 AM Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, relevant to the wider perspective. :)
>
> One could add phenomenology to the disciplines interested in the
> distinction.
>
> Interesting to think about frame, window and latch in that regard.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 00:18, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> 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>
>> 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> 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>
>>>> 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>
>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> --
“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/20190521/96a5cb1e/attachment.html 