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

Wed Apr 11 19:40:00 PDT 2018

Bill, the book that I really found good (I have read all of his) is
"Ethnographies of Reason". Lots of good materials for helping readers
understand. Michael

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Bill Kerr <billkerr@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>