[Xmca-l] Re: thoughts on Mathematics of Mathematics by Wolff-Michael Roth

[Wolff-Michael Roth]

No, I am not saying that there were human beings. Anthropogenesis and
generalized (societal) action *come* together. But we have to explain
culture and cognition as emergent phenomena not as *constructions* of the
mind. m

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:15 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:

> So, Michael, you are saying that there were human beings
> before there was culture. And I gather you do not count
> tools as units of culture.
> Do we have to await a Psychologist to invent the word
> "meaning" before we can poke a stick into an ant-hill?
> Creationism makes more sense, Michael, at least it offers
> /some/ explanation for the existence of human life.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 11/04/2018 9:57 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> > it is not so much "socially constructed." My key point in the book is
> that
> > it is social BEFORE there can be any construction. It is social, and this
> > is where I refer to a Vygotsky that has not been taken up, because "every
> > higher psychological function ... was a social relation between two
> > people." That is, in this specific case, mathematics is social, was the
> > relation between two people before you see it in individuals...
> >
> > I think the construction metaphor breaks down when you look at our
> species
> > becoming human. So before there was culture, before we used tools, where
> > were those tools for constructing anything of the likes that
> > constructivists say that we use to construct? How can a hominid construct
> > "meaning" of the branch as tool to start digging for roots or fishing for
> > termites? And how do they construct meaning of the first sound-words when
> > they do not have a system that would serve as material and tool for
> > building anything like "meaning?"
> >
> > So yes, a learning theory has to be able to explain learning from before
> > culture (phylogenesis), before language and meaning (ontogenesis).
> >
> > And about eclecticism---I think we would be a step further if we listened
> > to and pondered A.N. Leont'ev's complaint about the "eclectic soup
> > [eklekticheskoj pokhlebke] ... each to his own recipe" that psychologists
> > are trying to cook (in his foreword to *Activity. Consciousness.
> > Personality*).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> One interpretation of Vygotsky (Wolff-Michael Roth) argues that all
> >> knowledge is socially constructed and that ethnomethodology, paying
> >> detailed attention in the now, is the best or only way of detecting and
> >> evaluating what is going on . Human activity can’t be reduced to
> individual
> >> actions. Anything individual originates in the social, be it words,
> >> mathematics or by implication computer science (mentioned not in the
> >> original but because it is a current interest of mine). Moreover
> internal
> >> representations or schemas seem to be denied because that would be a
> >> capitulation to dualism, emphasising brain / mind activity whereas the
> real
> >> deal is an integrated thinking body.
> >>
> >> This world view is critical of other learning theories be they
> >> behaviourist, cognitivist, enactivist or constructivist.
> >>
> >> The question that I want to explore here is the pragmatic one of whether
> >> and how learning theory (an abstraction) makes a difference in practice,
> >> for busy, hard working (usually overworked) teachers. An alternative
> >> epistemology/ies which might appeal more in practice to real teachers
> under
> >> pressure is an eclectic one centred around the issue of “what works”.
> >>
> >> I believe I am better read on learning theory than most teachers. See
> >> http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/learning%20theories
> >>
> >> Up until now I've developed an eclectic / pragmatic approach to putting
> >> learning theory into practice. Take something from Seymour Papert's
> >> constructionism, something from Dan Willingham's cognitivism, something
> >> from Dan Dennett's behaviourism, something from Andy Clarke’s enactivism
> >> and roll them altogether in an eclectic mix. The authors in this list
> could
> >> be multiplied. My underlying belief was that it was not possible to
> develop
> >> a unified learning theory, that human learning was too complex for
> that. As
> >> Marvin Minsky once said in 'Society of Mind', "the trick is there is no
> >> trick", I think meaning no overarching way in which human's learn.
> >>
> >> One big surprise in reading Wolff-Michael Roth is his serious attempt to
> >> put an end to such eclectism and develop what appears to be a unfied
> >> learning theory.
> >>
>
>