Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Neat discussion of ideal and material. Thanks all who contributed. Something
to
"re-admire" as Friere would have put it.
mike

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> No, when we use a protractor to construct a right angle, thus realizing the
> ideal property of the property to control our activity, the ideal property
> (of being a protractor) is realized. If someone else looks at the resulting
> drawing and says (EG): "What a nice equilateral triangle," thus proving that
> we also realized the required ideal in our drawing, the circle of
> objectification - perception - objectification is complete.
>
> Ideal and material are in a sense opposites, but they are not mutually
> exclusive existences.
>
>
> Andy
>
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>
>> Hello Steve:
>>
>> You have summed it up within the context of Marx's "Thesis on Feurebach"
>> and indeed I cannot refute what has been displayed within the sensuousness
>> of human activity.
>>
>> Dualism aside however, there still remains the sensuousness of this
>> activity.  If I am to believe Marx's thesis than a 90 degree angle is never
>> truely 90 degrees because of it's finite aspect and therefore the concept of
>> the Ideal is unobtainable.
>>
>> The logic of the Ideal is factual, yet the activity of the Ideal falls
>> short.
>> eric
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>> 03/04/2010 09:24 AM
>> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>
>>         To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>        cc:         Subject:        Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
>>
>>
>> Eric, since I was re-reading some Ilyenkov on this very question just last
>> night, I will venture an answer.
>>
>> I think that Ilyenkov would probably say "yes, the ideal is factual." Or
>> more precisely, I think he would say the ideal is an objective fact, an
>> objective factor, of human life.
>>
>> Ilyenkov said the ideal was something that each individual is objectively
>> confronted with in the form of culture, language, artifacts, writing,
>> stories, works of art, institutions, beliefs, rules, laws, conventions, etc.
>>  Humans are confronted by the ideal in the multitude of forms in which
>> ideality expresses itself in the course of human labor and activity.
>>  Roughly speaking, the ideal, in this view, is the collection of socialized
>> meanings and representations that accompany material human activity and
>> labor.
>>
>> This is the basis of the common CHAT metaphor that artifacts "contain"
>> both materiality and ideality, although Ilyenkov would emphasize that the
>> ideal aspect emerges only in the actual human activity process itself, and
>> not at all "in" any material artifact (as Mike also explains in Cultural
>> Psychology).
>>
>> The simplest 'rough and dirty' description I know of for ideality is to
>> equate it with meaning and contrast it with materiality.  Looking at it this
>> way, we can say that meaning and meaning-making are objective facts of human
>> life.  Hence, the ideal is an objective fact of human life, just as is the
>> material.
>>
>> As for the importance of the concept of the ideal, Ilyenkov emphasizes
>> that one of the great challenges for philosophy, and many aspects of social
>> science, is learning how to distinguish between the ideal and the material,
>> which are often conflated in everyday life and in many academic approaches.
>>
>> Ilyenkov further explained that the basis of idealism (ideal-'ism' as a
>> philosophy) is actually a *correct* recognition of the ideal as being
>> something objective, as being a fact of human life.  For example, Ilyenkov
>> explains how the ideal, as an objective fact or condition of human
>> existence, was understood by Plato, Hegel, and other great idealist
>> thinkers.
>>
>> But on such questions, dualism soon intervenes, and we come to a well-
>> trodden fork in the ideological road.  Dualism holds that the ideal
>> originates from and is probably composed in some way of some kind of
>> non-material, non-natural substance such as God or Spirit.  Dualists tend to
>> believe that the universe is fundamentally composed of two kinds of
>> unrelated, non-mediating substances (although this paradigm causes them
>> constant problems when they try to explain how humans can act on the world
>> and themselves as they do).  Idealist-dualists thus tend to argue that the
>> ideal is in some way connected to something non- human or extra-human, even
>> though they can only assert its existence on "faith".  (And they will also
>> try to cleverly argue that any non- dualist point of view must ultimately,
>> in the same way, be *equally* based on faith!  Sound familiar?)
>>
>> The cultural-historical activity research tradition, in contrast to
>> dualism, at least in the thread Ilyenkov reflects, tends to take a
>> monist-activity approach to the ideal, viewing the origin and composition of
>> the ideal in terms of it being an objective product of, and playing a
>> necessary part in, human activity.  Hence, the ideal is not only "factual,"
>> but is a completely (and uniquely) human creation.
>>
>> I am curious on what you make of this "concept of the ideal," Eric. What
>> are your thoughts?
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:34 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Andy:
>>>
>>> I geuss now I am even more confused than before.
>>>
>>> FOrget the faith part.  Could you please provide a good starting point
>>> for
>>> Ilyenkov's Ideal, I know that this has been addressed in the past but I
>>> still don't have a firm grasp of it.
>>>
>>> thank you
>>> eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> 03/04/2010 06:48 AM
>>> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>> Activity"
>>>
>>>
>>>       To:
>>>       cc:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>       Subject:        Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't express myself clearly then, Eric. I simply meant
>>> to list a number of concepts which (1) Are taught in a
>>> formal setting, (2) Are true concepts, and (3) Are not
>>> scientific. That's all. For my point, the question of Faith
>>> doesn't come into it. Relgious concepts, for example, must
>>> be understood in order to understand the literature, law,
>>> etc, of religious activity, for which there is no need to
>>> "believe" it.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Andy:
>>>> I was referring to your comment that the holy trinity is taught as being
>>>> factual.  IHave always viewed the holy trinity as a faith-based system
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> not "factual".  Part of Spinoza'a difficulty with church members was his
>>>> logicical use of spiritual matters.  Although not a christian and
>>>>
>>> therefore
>>>
>>>> not involved in the matters of the holy trinity it is still a sticky
>>>>
>>> wicket
>>>
>>>> when faith and fact cross paths.
>>>>
>>>> So within this context I was looking for insight into the factual
>>>>
>>> contents
>>>
>>>> of Ilyenkov's Ideal.
>>>>
>>>> thank you,
>>>> eric
>>>>
>>>>     To:              "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>
>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>
>>>>     cc:
>>>>     bcc:
>>>>     Subject:    [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
>>>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> 03/03/2010 10:10 AM ZE11
>>>> Please respond to ablunden          <font size=-1></font>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric,
>>>> I am happy to respond, but could you contextualise your
>>>> question a little? Do you mean Ideals in general, or some
>>>> particular Ideal? I am curious, too.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am curious Andy, do you believe the Ideal to be factual or is it
>>>>>
>>>> based
>>>
>>>> on faith?
>>>>>
>>>>> eric
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>*
>>>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> 03/02/2010 06:17 AM
>>>>> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>>    Activity"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       To:        Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>>>>       cc:        "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>>>>>
>>>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>
>>>>>       Subject:        Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't know the answer to this, Rod. I am just
>>>>> exploring,  but in that spirit ...
>>>>>
>>>>> All teachers and probably all children like it best when the
>>>>> kids are just doing what they like doing, and of course they
>>>>> acquire competency and confidence if they learn like this.
>>>>> That's all nice and cosy. Ever since some time in the 1960s
>>>>> it has been near impossible to teach any other way (in many
>>>>> countries) in any case, because teachers can no longer
>>>>> exercise fearful authority or even respect ...
>>>>>
>>>>> But how does one grasp the Holy Trinity, or Saggitarian
>>>>> personalities, Iconic representation or Nonalgebraic
>>>>> equations, ... or any of these concepts which belong to
>>>>> systems of activity and concepts which are foreign to the
>>>>> day to day life of children?
>>>>>
>>>>> And if children just quietly accept the Holy Trinity without
>>>>> noticing that it is a concept based on Original Sin and the
>>>>> sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is not really
>>>>> factual ... is this a good thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there anything to learn at school? Or can we all just
>>>>> absorb everything we need to know without really trying? Are
>>>>> we all natural born masters?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have in mind the material Chapter 5 of "Thinking and
>>>>> Speech." Vygotsky seems to think that learning concepts
>>>>> which are foreign to a child's day-to-day life is a
>>>>> completely different process from what happens when a child
>>>>> generalising from their own experience. It is only when the
>>>>> two processes meet that genuine understanding is possible.
>>>>> But if we shy away from teaching concepts, what is the result?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be opposed to JUST teaching the rules of mathematics or art
>>>>>>
>>>>> (using the 'right' colours) AS rules before children have had a chance
>>>>> to do some groundwork on building up spontaneous concepts through
>>>>> immersion in a cultural environment in which people do the things that
>>>>> people do with maths and art.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think John Holt once argued that if we taught children to talk in
>>>>>>
>>>>> the same way that we teach them to read we would have many more
>>>>>
>>>> elective
>>>
>>>> mutes and children with speech delays. I am not thinking so much about
>>>>> the later stages of education but I think it is pretty clear that in
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>
>>>> early years children benefit more from adults who follow and expand on
>>>>> their attention than from those who try to switch their attention to
>>>>> desirable, high value learning (like teachers who have to turn every
>>>>> form of play towards counting, naming shapes and colours etc.).
>>>>>
>>>> Children
>>>
>>>> are taught from very early on to associate learning with WORK - with
>>>>>
>>>> all
>>>
>>>> the affective baggage that goes with that. I often hear students saying
>>>>> how wonderful it is when children are learning 'without even knowing
>>>>> that they are learning', partly because sneaking stuff in under the
>>>>> radar is seen as a way of bypassing the 'work = boring and difficult'
>>>>> associations which children are assumed to have developed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do think there is a time and a place for teaching but I am not
>>>>>>
>>>>> convinced that children always experience their teaching at appropriate
>>>>> times or in appropriate places!
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>>>>>
>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: 02 March 2010 09:42
>>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So on that basis, Rod, you would also be opposed to the
>>>>>> teaching of mathematics, and for that matter, art, unless
>>>>>> the child was planning a career in a genuinely relevant
>>>>>> profession, such as maths teacher or art teacher. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think there is a big affective difference between the way we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> learn
>>>
>>>> first languages (or multiple mother, father and grandmother tongues)
>>>>>
>>>> and
>>>
>>>> the way we learn studied languages. I was taught French all through
>>>>> school but learned Italian by spending the best part of a year in Italy
>>>>> and i am conscious of differences in HOW I know each of these languages
>>>>> (and English). I have more of a feel for whether or not something
>>>>>
>>>> sounds
>>>
>>>> right in Italian but I know I know a lot more about the workings of
>>>>> French grammar.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder how useful it is to teach grammar, as a formal system of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> rules, to children who are still picking up on the 'feel' of their
>>>>> language. I still think that reading well written prose is probably the
>>>>> best way to develop this feel (picking up a set of 'intuitive' patterns
>>>>> about 'the done thing' or 'what people do, as a rule') but of course
>>>>> this helps to develop a 'gut feeling' about the grammar of WRITTEN
>>>>> language - we also need plenty of exposure to different styles of
>>>>>
>>>> spoken
>>>
>>>> language so that we can develop sensitivities to what works when and
>>>>> with whom (I never had much time for those primary schools which
>>>>> insisted that children must only be exposed to one, 'correct' way of
>>>>> forming letters - one font - for fear of confusing them!).
>>>>>
>>>>>> The time for learning about conventional rules AS rules may be when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> we start to ask questions about why some people say it this way and
>>>>>
>>>> some
>>>
>>>> say it that way. We know from studies of language acquisition that a
>>>>> huge amount of time can be wasted on trying to condition children to
>>>>> follow a rule which they have not yet noticed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:21
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our immensely incompetent Labor Government yesterday
>>>>>>> announced their new national curriculum for schools
>>>>>>> (formerly this was a state responsibility).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It features the teaching of history from the very beginning,
>>>>>>> including indigenous history (this is an unambiguous good)
>>>>>>> and emphasises the 3 Rs, including grammar. No curriculum
>>>>>>> has been set yet in Geography and other subjects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>> http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/a-sound-beginning-20100301-pdlv.html
>>>>
>>>>> Helen raised with me off-line this problem of reintroducing
>>>>>>> the teaching of grammar: who is going to educate the
>>>>>>> educators? Anyone under 55 today did not learn grammar at
>>>>>>> school or until they did a foreign language, when they
>>>>>>> learnt the grammar of the other language. (Grammar means
>>>>>>> "Which icon do I click now?")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do xmca-ers think about teaching grammar? (I am in favour.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, many progressive educators here are opposed to
>>>>>>> curricula in toto: education should be about learning not
>>>>>>> content. Do xmca-ers agree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the disastrous implementation of policies by this
>>>>>>> government over the past 2 years, I fear for our education
>>>>>>> system. What do people think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov $20
> ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca