[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]



Andy

I realise that, but it much more robust than orthodox science; i.e. we are
still doing the same maths as 300 years ago, where normal science is very
different indeed.

If Johnny said that 4+7=10, the teacher is not going to accept that, is she?

Carol

On 23 October 2014 10:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Carol, mathematics is a natural science like any other.
> It is neither the absolute truth nor merely social convention.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Julian, Andy
>>
>> I think arithmetic is something of a test case. Just as word meaning
>> changes over time in a dynamic way, as recognised by linguists, maths
>> truths don't. It would be difficult to argue that maths truths of basic
>> arithmetic have changed over the centuries. I don't know about maths
>> truths
>> of a higher order.
>>
>> Sorry if I use the terms arithmetic and maths interchangeably; it's a
>> South
>> African usage here in basic education.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>> On 23 October 2014 08:33, Julian Williams <julian.williams@manchester.
>> ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Yes, just so,  this is why I go to social theory eg Marx and Bourdieu to
>>> find political-economic contradictions within and between activities.
>>>
>>> But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the notion in
>>> Vygotsky's Perezhivanie paper that the situation or environment is given
>>> and the same for all, and the final form of development is given in a
>>> final, given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being then
>>> associated
>>> with an already given social plane).
>>>
>>> I'm happy enough to accept that this is a false  and undialectical
>>> reading
>>> of Vygotsky (after all who knows how the concept of perezhivanie might
>>> have
>>> matured in his hands)...
>>>
>>> To return to my case - arithmetic. Many will say this exists in ideal
>>> form
>>> in the culture and all that needs to be done by development is to bring
>>> the
>>> child into the culture... Then the child is 'schooled'... Passive,
>>> lacking
>>> in agency, often failed, and at best made obedient to the cultural
>>> legacy.
>>> AsBourdieu says, through processes in school the class system is
>>> reproduced, and this is enculturation into the cultural arbitrary.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23 Oct 2014, at 07:08, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the one true meaning
>>>>
>>>>
>>> of something. He does not allow that the meaning of something may be
>>> contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of heterogeneity
>>> in
>>> society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups, social
>>> movements
>>> and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of something which
>>> "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which are therefore
>>> taken to be subjective.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. There are about 8 points total... [copypasta
>>> is a
>>> starch of art] --------------------------------------------------- 6.
>>> [The
>>> fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
>>> --------------------------------------------------- You say: "ANL
>>> believes
>>> that motivation determines perception. The norm of  perception, the
>>> "true"
>>> meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning  it has for the community
>>> as
>>> a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of "community as a
>>> whole" in this context." So is it the case that word-meaning is denied by
>>> ANL because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across the culture and
>>> cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the reason
>>> politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned as the sole
>>> arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post below Wed, 22 Oct 2014
>>> 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning ---------- ANL believes that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> the mental representation in a child's awareness must _correspond_
>>> directly
>>> to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but also how the
>>> object may relate and associate to other objects and their meanings. The
>>> example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I will call here
>>> for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness", ANL takes
>>> exception
>>> with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a generalization to
>>> reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
>>> (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the existence of these
>>> word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they are what
>>> construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this because he considers
>>> consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy's reply to #6 above: ANL believes that motivation determines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> perception. The norm of perception, the "true" meaning of an object,
>>> is
>>> therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole. I am
>>> questioning
>>> the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in this context.
>>>
>>>
>>>> --end
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa