[Xmca-l] Re: New book on Ilyenkov

[mike cole]

That's really interesting, Ed. Thanks.  I never stopped to inquire what QED
mean't. I was
taught mathematics as a series of routines. Note that I might not have
picked that up from
Wikipedia.

"*Q.E.D.*" (sometimes written "*QED*") *is* an abbreviation for the Latin
phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a
notation which *is* often placed at the *end* of a *mathematical proof* to
*indicate* its completion.

Your translation makes clear the mixing of participant observer/observant
participant in QED. Unfortunately,
I was the kind who often didn't "get" the demonstration and found tricks of
memory to keep things straight enough to pass tests.

mike

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Edward Wall <ewall@umich.edu> wrote:

> Mike
>
>     Perhaps relevant, traditionally the proof of a mathematical theorem
> (pace Euclid) was ended with a QED (Quod Erat Demostrandum). I have always
> thought, perhaps erroneously,  that Euclid was calling attention to the
> participating/viewing (in/of the proof) as well the final assessment that
> the whole was, in some sense, ’satisfactory’ to the prover/viewer.
>
> Ed
>
> On May 20, 2019, at  6:12 PM, 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/20190522/c8c38413/attachment.html