[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics
- To: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics
- From: Larry Purss <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:42:05 -0800
- In-reply-to: <54586D25.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGVMwbUV9Jdf2XpAshWE0dCNcT1kHRTrpxGy=Ci2M3xR9N3rhQ@mail.gmail.com> <9A0CD8DC-7A92-4561-A550-EF5900B9B1CE@umich.edu> <CAGVMwbUcnDxvMbpfha4QVHKtU6mi+igRvxZhzFFj8hyynkDiwg@mail.gmail.com> <5883D78B-B4BC-4EB7-987E-06C3C2D22EB1@umich.edu> <CAGVMwbVugt4Mqh_jLosUdHNyRmg19dEaULa7weLj8y7jHSXn6g@mail.gmail.com> <5451DB76.email@example.com> <CAGVMwbWSmg+0X=VvUQMojAtX911Hg6jmfYqkx3a2EoTjCq2OxA@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CD06F23C-D0F7-4169-AB99-E025679FDA4A@umich.edu> <5452C9B0.email@example.com> <32EF9A39-CDDA-4258-BBDE-7D7658C85A03@umich.edu> <5455DA75.firstname.lastname@example.org> <8EB7C6A3-BA03-469A-A2A5-94274633BE10@umich.edu> <CAHCnM0CGp_qJU5mVEt0ieiK8r-A7qvg0N=5-Fd5eqjOkaTqWqA@mail.gmail.com> <54585A04.email@example.com> <AE980414-2565-49C5-881F-C1A33995A1D6@umich.edu> <54586D25.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
the symbols are not governed by *natural laws* but by *rules*
I am returning to the themes of activity and meaning.
In the beginning is material substance AS object
the means of *figuring* [out] the symbols [as figures or as interpretations
or meaning or?]
*symbols* which ARE no longer means BUT OBJECT.
Symbols AS object ARE no longer governed by *natural laws* but are now
governed by rules
when a child is playing a rule-governed game.
Where is *meaning* located? Is meaning inherent in ALL these trans
is meaning an aspect of this unit?
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 10:07 PM, Andy Blunden <email@example.com> wrote:
> On pre-concepts, see p. 16 of https://www.academia.edu/
> 6262583/Vygotsky_on_the_Development_of_Concepts , Ed.
> The interesting thing with the unit, for me, is how the triangle rotates,
> so that the material things which were once the substance of the object,
> become the means of figuring out the symbols, which are no longer means,
> but object. The symbols are not governed by "natural laws", but by rules,
> like when a child is playing a rule-governed game, like chess, which has
> its own rules, different from the rules of war.
> How is learning elementary mathematics related to playing rule-governed
> *Andy Blunden*
> Ed Wall wrote:
>> What you say here fits somewhat with some of the thinking I've been
>> doing, but, in part, it is at the point of symbol manipulation that things
>> seem get complicated for me. Also, I find myself wondering whether teaching
>> mathematics, in effect, as mathematics or even Davydov-style is just the
>> things you list. There seems to be more that is needed (and I could be
>> wrong about this) and I have yet to factor in something like those
>> pre-concepts you mentioned earlier. So I need to do a little
>> reading/rereading on the symbolic question, think a bit more about the
>> space the teacher opens up for studying mathematics, and factor in those
>> 'pre-concepts' before I can reply reasonably to what you are saying here.
>> I admit that I tend to complicate things too much (smile), but that may
>> come from thinking about them too much.
>> On Nov 3, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>> Particularly after reading Peter Moxhays' paper, it is clear to me that
>>> teaching mathematics, Davydov-style, is orchestrating concept-formation in
>>> a particular domain of activity, and that what the children are doing in
>>> forming a concept is a system of artefact-mediated actions: "For Davydov,"
>>> he says, "a theoretical concept is itself a /general method of acting/ - a
>>> method for solving an entire class of problems - and is related to a whole
>>> system of object-oriented actions." Pure Vygotsky, and also equally pure
>>> Activity Theory except that here the object becomes a "theoretical
>>> concept," which is characteristically Vygotsky, the point of difference
>>> between ANL and LSV! Just as in all those dual stimulation experiments of
>>> Vygotsky, the teacher introduces a symbol which the student can use to
>>> solve the task they are working on.
>>> So the unit of learning mathematics is *an artefact-mediated action*.
>>> The artefact is introduced by the teacher who also sets up the task. At
>>> first the symbols is a means of solving the material task, but later, the
>>> symbol is manipulated for its own sake, and the material task remains in
>>> the background. This is what is special about mathematics I think, that the
>>> symbolic operation begins as means and becomes the object. C.f. Capital:
>>> the unit is initially C-C' becomes C-M-C' and then from this arises M-C-M'
>>> - the unit of capital.
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>> That is really a great addition to Andy's example, Ed. Being a total
>>>> duffer here i am assuming that the invert v is a sign for "power of" ?
>>>> You, collectively, are making thinking about "simple" mathematical
>>>> questions unusually interesting. The word problem problem is really
>>>> interesting too.
>>>> PS - I assume that when you type: There is, one might say, a necessity
>>>> within the integers is that 5 x -1 = -5. you mean a SUCH not is?