[Xmca-l] Re: New book on Ilyenkov

Thu May 23 17:20:53 PDT 2019

Mike

     Most contemporary mathematicians do not end a proof with a QED although Eric Livingston (whose name has come up on this list) might tend to side with my interpretation of Euclid. 

     There is mathematics as application - a quite respectable use - and mathematics as, one might say,  exploration. In the first case, mathematics provides a means of doing something; it is, in a sense, secondary as one’s primary focus is elsewhere. Memorization of the relevant mathematics seems, to me, a reasonable response. In the second case, mathematics is - I think this way anyway - like writing a poem, painting a picture, composing a melody, etc.. You are trying somehow to capture structure or a pattern.

      I read your work as trying to capture structure/patterns of behavior. I don’t read you as one who just memorizes the reasonable notions of other scholars and doesn’t look further (and I may have been once a bit like that - smile). However, one could perhaps argue that is what it takes to be an effective social worker or teacher. That is, certain things are so obvious, we are no longer puzzled.

Ed

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” ~ Viktor Frankl

> On May 22, 2019, at  5:53 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/ <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 <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/20190523/c76c332d/attachment.html 