When I look at it dialectically, generalizations are objective, because
they are shaped by who states them, they are concrete realizations of
possibilities that exist at the cultural-historical level in this
group, they are inherently objective otherwise they could not be the
object of the activity.
If you look at the general in genetic way, it makes little sense to
ask how general is the general, because the general always contains ALL
the possibilities that are realized concretely. Like all possibilities
realized in the F1 generation are already contained in the P (parent)
generation, ALL concrete appearances in the F2 generation are already
contained potentially in the P generation. This is why P is a true
general.
Michael
On 2-May-05, at 6:15 AM, Ini Haket wrote:
> The article poses an interesting problem for me. Is the result of the
> abstraction
> process one and the same generalizations for all the participants? How
> common, how
> general are certain generalizations? Jurow cites approvingly Latour:
> “….generalizations
> are not objective, but are shaped by who states them, how they are
> connected to other
> claims …” (page 282). How does this relate to the aims of education?
> Math teachers
> wants their students to work with the same general structure, I
> suppose? Teachers
> offer guidance to make sure that everybody generalizes and comes in
> the end to the
> same abstraction. To reach the first aim the object of the activity in
> the lessons is
> generalizing. And inscriptions and the questions teachers provide for
> the process of
> conjecturing form an instrument for guidance in the “right direction”.
>
> But what about the individual(??), situational(??) influences on
> generalizations, that
> Latour mentions?
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PDT