[Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Thu May 30 19:14:56 PDT 2019
David, /any/ of your "rough" translations of Vygotsky which
you would be willing to share with the world would be most
welcome on marxists.org, perhaps with an introductory note
explaining the context of the translation?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 31/05/2019 8:11 am, Martin Packer wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Yes, please send me your English translation. Thanks!
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>> On May 30, 2019, at 1:27 AM, David Kellogg
>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Martin:
>>
>> There is an article by that name in the list of Volume
>> Six of the Collected Works, but there's nothing in the
>> Russian Electronic Library, and no trace of the journal
>> either.
>>
>> It's published exactly the same year as the chapter on
>> the structure of interests in Volume Five of the English
>> Collected Works (Chapter 1 of the ECW and the RCW, though
>> it is actually Chapter 9 of Vygotsky's Pedologiya Podrostka)
>>
>> There is a lot on how the interests of the working
>> adolescent and that of the bourgeois adolescent differ in
>> the fourth section of Chapter 8 (Conflicts and
>> Complications). This hasn't been translated into English
>> yet, but we published the Korean translation in February
>> and I have a very rough English translation I did if you
>> want it.
>>
>> 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 Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:27 AM Martin Packer
>> <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know anything about this text by LSV?
>>
>> A pdf would be magical! :)
>>
>> The structure of interests in the transitional age
>> and the interests of working youth. In /Problems of
>> the ideology of working youth/. Moscow, 1929, No, 4,
>> pp. 25-68.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>> On May 28, 2019, at 12:19 AM, Andy Blunden
>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> My copy of the Ilyenkov book arrived today. It is a
>>> kind of intellectual biography of Ilyenkov and the
>>> reception of ideas in the West. As David noted, it
>>> is very small, only 48 pages of text.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden
>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>> On 24/05/2019 10:20 am, Edward Wall wrote:
>>>> 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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “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/20190531/47fca1d4/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list