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

[Andy Blunden]

All of those quotes make my point, Michael, in ever so
slightly different words.

a

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 12/04/2018 12:02 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> I do not think mind is a construction,
>
> Vygotsky (1989) writes: "Any higher psychological function ... was the
> social relation between two people" (p.56)
>
> And Mikhailov (2001) suggests: "the very existence of the
> mind is possible only at the borderline where there is a continual
> coming and going of one into the other, at their dynamic interface,
> as it were—an interface that is defined ... by the single process of their
> [self and other] mutual generation and mutual determination" (pp.20-21)
>
> Bateson (1979): Mind is an effect of relations, an aggregate effect, like
> stereo (spatial) vision
> is the emergent effect of two eyes with planar images.
>
> Mead (1932): "the appearance of mind is only the culmination of that
> sociality which is found throughout the universe" (p.86).
>
> Nobody says anything about construction. The to eyes don't construct
> stereovision and space. It is an emergent phenomenon,
> an ensemble effect deriving from relations.
>
> m
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>