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

[Bill Kerr]

Michael wrote:
the critique that E. Livingston articulates concerning
social constructionism, which takes the social in a WEAK sense; and the
social in the strong sense is not a construction.

I looked up Eric Livingston, The Ethnomethodological Foundations of
Mathematics, referenced on p. 56 of your book. The price was $202, ouch!
Publishers put marxist ideas from academics out of the reach of the poor.
Can this problem be solved or mitigated under capitalism?

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <
wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy, to construct is a transitive verb, we construct something. It is not
> well suited to describe the emergence (morphogenesis) of something new.
> This is why Richard Rorty (1989) rejects it, using the craftsperson as a
> counter example to the poet in the larger sense, the maker of new things.
> He writes that poets know what they have done only afterward, when,
> together with the new thing they have found themselves speaking a new
> language that also provides a reason for this language.
>
> I also direct you to the critique that E. Livingston articulates concerning
> social constructionism, which takes the social in a WEAK sense; and the
> social in the strong sense is not a construction.
>
> Also interesting in this is the question of origins, and there the French
> philosophers (Derrida and others) have had a lot of discussion. Mead's
> fundamental point is that "before the emergent has occurred, and at the
> moment of its occurrence, it does not follow from the past" (1932, xvii).
>
> And concerning relations, Marx/Engels write (German Ideology) that the
> animal does not relate at all, for it, the relationship does not exist as
> relationship
>
> m
>
> Rorty, R 1989, *Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity*, CUP
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org> wrote:
>
> > Well, I can see that as an argument, Michael. My response:
> >
> > The thing is, to interpret "construction" in an intellectual
> > way, leads to the conclusion that to give construction a
> > fundamental place in human evolution is "intellectualism,"
> > and actually, interpreted that way, would be utterly absurd.
> > But the fact is that all human actions are teleological,
> > that is, oriented to a goal. Of course!! no hominid ever
> > said to herself: "I think I will now take another step to
> > evolving homo sapiens." AN Leontyev does exactly the same
> > move in his criticism of Vygotsky.
> >
> > Actually, I don't know just how the formation of social
> > customs, speech and tool-making interacted in the earliest
> > stages of phylogenesis, ... and nor do you. We do know that
> > all three are intimately interconnected from the earliest
> > times we have any real knowledge of, though.
> >
> > As to "emergence," in my opinion "emergence" is the modern
> > word for God. I don't know how this happens, so it must be
> > Emergence.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Andy Blunden
> > ttp://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> > On 12/04/2018 12:18 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
> > > Andy, there is nothing of construction. Construction may be an effect
> of
> > > mind, but mind did not emerge as a construction. It is a manifestation
> > of a
> > > relationship.
> > >
> > > Emergence means that what comes after cannot be predicted on the basis
> of
> > > what comes before. The construction metaphor implies that (e.g., the
> > > craftsman in the Marx/Engels case who is superior to the bee, an
> example
> > > that Vygotsky takes up).
> > >
> > > Construction smacks of intellectualism, precisely the intellectualism
> > that
> > > Vygotsky made some moves to overcome at the end of his life
> > >
> > > m
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>