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

[Andy Blunden]

I always thought that the mind was a construction of human
culture. But of course, that was not what Spinoza thought.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 11/04/2018 11:44 PM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> 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.
>>>>
>>