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

[Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics



There are two types of "validity" I think we can talk about here, Andy, the
external - one that manifests itself in the fact that mathematics works for
us in other things we do; and internal - the one that stems from strict
adherence to the rules of the game (discourse). Re the latter, mathematical
discourses are like the sorcerer's apprentice's broom: once put in motion,
they get life of their own and nothing can stop them.

Can somebody stop ME please? :-)
anna

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net] 
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 3:02 PM
To: anna sfard
Cc: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics

I think your quote expresses a truth, and an important truth.
It is more precise, but it is what I meant when I said earlier that the unit
of analysis "rotates.", with the mediator becoming the object.
The statement is still kind of agnostic on the question, isn't it though,
Anna? Mathematical relations are often only an approximation to things
happening in the material world, and the validity of the mathematics is not
thereby any the less for that.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


anna sfard wrote:
> No, Andy, I don’t think this was, or should be, said. I apologize in 
> advance for quoting myself, but it would be too much to try to say 
> things anew in the middle of work on an all different text:
>
> "mathematical communication apparently reverses the developmental 
> order known from ‎colloquial discourses: whereas these latter 
> discourses are created for the sake of ‎communication about physical 
> reality, in mathematical discourse objects are created for ‎the sake of
communication.
> True, also mathematical communication is supposed, ‎eventually, to 
> mediate practical activities, and thus to pertain, in one way or 
> another to the ‎world of primary objects that predate the discourse. 
> However, this fact may easily escape ‎one’s attention. The realization 
> trees of mathematical signifiers [for the sake of the present 
> conversation, you may replace the "realization trees" with "chains of 
> signification"], although likely to have ‎primary objects or processes 
> on such objects at their basis, may be too rich and complex ‎to be 
> embraced at a glance. Leaving the concrete foundations of such trees 
> temporarily out of sight ‎may thus be the condition for the proficiency of
mathematical communication.‎"
>
> Xmca-ing is addictive!
>
> anna
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 2:41 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Objectivity of mathematics
>
> "Nothing outside the text" is a way of saying that "the text alone 
> forms the object."
> Would you agree, in the context of mathematics, that the text alone 
> forms the object?
> Andy
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Martin John Packer wrote:
>   
>> Who has said that there is nothing outside the text, Andy? Not 
>> Foucault,
>>     
> not Anna, not Huw, not me, not Ed, and not Luis so far as I can see. 
> If this is the question that is at issue for you here, I think you're 
> the only person for whom it is an issue.
>   
>> Martin
>>
>> On Nov 9, 2014, at 3:52 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> Is there really *nothing* outside the text?
>>>     
>>>       
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>
>