[Xmca-l] Re: Bill's query

[Bill Kerr]

Thanks for the public reply Michael.

I'm back at work this week at a new school so am flat out but will study in
more detail when I have time.

Bill

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ok. It's still not clear to me why this is significant for yourself or
> Bill.  But this is your conversation...
>
> Huw
>
> On 16 April 2018 at 17:59, Wolff-Michael Roth <wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Huw,
> > I checked on some of the French texts I have, and he does write about the
> > child's current state in negative terms, as where the child is not yet.
> > >From "La psychologie de l'enfant":
> >
> > 1. où NE s'observe PAS encore une intelligence proprement dite (p.12)
> > 2. au sein duquel il N'existe PAS ENCORE, dn point de vue du sujet, de
> > différenciation (p.11)
> > 3. mais NE parvient simplement PAS à résoudre le problème (p.15)
> >
> > And so on...
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 16 April 2018 at 16:06, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here again with WMR in front of what I am saying.
> > > >
> > > > Bill asked me to respond to some questions, but I could not find in
> my
> > > > trash can the earlier strand. Here the issues he had raised:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------
> > > > Since I have bothered to read your book and quote directly from it I
> > > think
> > > > my comments deserve a public response. I'll repeat it again here:
> > > >
> > > > Specifically you say that constructivists argue that: (I've *bolded*
> > the
> > > > bits where your understanding of Piaget is different to mine)
> > > > "the individual mind is ... *informationally closed* to the
> surrounding
> > > > world" (51)
> > > > WMR: (von Glasersfeld said this iin the text where he also discusses
> > > > Piaget, if I remember well)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally, the account is "organisationally closed and informationally
> > > open" which pertains to a process which produces itself. It is
> necessary
> > to
> > > recognise that "information" means to in-form, which means to change
> the
> > > structure of. That is, the organ-as-process changes its own
> organisation.
> > > Note that this reference to *self*-reproduction need not pertain to the
> > > "self" of the individual. It pertains to the organ that is
> > > self-reproducing. The organ can be many things, including a joint
> > > perspective!
> > >
> > >
> > > > "In a constructivist account, she (Melissa) might be said to
> > *incorrectly
> > > > 'interpret'* the object ..." (51)
> > > > WMR: (this is what you typically find in constructivist research, for
> > > only
> > > > something in your mind exists for the person)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > I think the attempt to treat things "outside" the observer as objective
> > is
> > > an historical trend across numerous (all?) disciplines. In the
> > cybernetics
> > > of the 60s it was recognised that the observer was part of the
> observed.
> > > This is expressed in terms of eigneforms and other modes of expression.
> > >
> > > For example, this is a extract from a paper by Gordon Pask (1984), who
> > > references Piaget and others: "An observer or experimenter is on a par
> > with
> > > the participants who are not, as suggested by the denial of assumption
> a
> > of
> > > Section 1.2, regarded as it-referenced or, strictly, objective
> entities.
> > It
> > > follows, inci- dentally, that an observer cannot be com- pletely
> > impartial
> > > and that information about a conversation, since it is not strictly
> > objec-
> > > tive information, is not generally maximized, as it may be in a
> classical
> > > exper- iment, by minimizing an experimenter's in- terference, by
> > > controlling and replicating the conditions of the experiment."
> > >
> > >
> > > > "As Piaget, modern day constructivists often characterize children's
> > > > knowing
> > > >  *negatively: as lack, deficit ... or deviance* ..." (52)
> > > > WMR: (I have pointed in the past to many places where Piaget writes
> > what
> > > a
> > > > child cannot yet do, he always uses adult reasoning as (generally
> > > implicit)
> > > > reference for characterizing the child. There was  a nice chapter in
> > the
> > > > 1980s: Meyer-Drawe, K. (1986). Zähmung eines wilden Denkens? [Taming
> of
> > > > undomesticated thought?] In A. Métraux & B. Waldenfels (Eds.),
> > > Leibhaftige
> > > > Vernunft: Spuren von Merleau-Pontys Denken (pp. 258–275). Munich,
> > > Germany:
> > > > Wilhelm Fink. And in Merleau-Ponty's writing you can see the critique
> > of
> > > a
> > > > Piaget, from whom children are lesser (adults)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Classifying according to what cannot (yet) be undertaken seems to me to
> > be
> > > reasonable when one is interested in achieving specialised skills
> > > pertaining to competencies, such as learning how to solve a problem
> (and
> > > not merely solving it on the basis of being shown in detail). This is
> the
> > > same condition as explored through the vehicle of ability to imitate
> > > (Vygotsky). Note that this does not enforce any conditions about the
> > > individuality of the individual.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "In the constructivist literature , we can frequently read that
> > > > *misconceptions
> > > > ... have to be eradicated* (53)
> > > > WMR: (Yes, this you can find in the literature on misconceptions,
> with
> > > the
> > > > very verb "eradicate")
> > > >
> > >
> > > So there is some bias concerning which skills are valued... The teacher
> > > notes his students have certain habits that need to be "eradicated" in
> > > order for them to provide "correct" answers...
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Piaget's best known observation were about conservation, the tall and
> > > wide
> > > > glasses, and I've never heard children's responses described as
> > > incorrect,
> > > > deficit or misconception but always as a stage that children have to
> > pass
> > > > through. It always seemed me that Piaget respected and understood the
> > > > child's different view of the world.
> > > > WMR: (Well, I just did a quick check, and in *The Growth of Logical
> > > > Thinking, *the verb/noun fail/failure appears at least 50+ times,
> > though
> > > > one would have to check the sense; the verb *cannot* appears over 60
> > > times,
> > > > and so on...)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally, I have found Piaget's translations problematic.  The use of
> > > accommodation and assimilation in different contexts combined with
> > > circumambulation can make for a protracted exercise in which I think
> one
> > > would inevitably end up going back to the French (and the historical
> > > settings) in order to gain further clarity.
> > >
> > > Here the point seems to be about the use of certain expressions
> > indicating
> > > an archaic mentality(?) I would say the point may be much simpler.
> > Failure
> > > and success can pertain to the a process, just as saying "in" or "out"
> > can
> > > pertain to circumstances pertaining to a container metaphor.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I gather you haven't read Papert or Minsky. I feel their version,
> > > > constructionism, contains many useful insights.
> > > > WMR: (I have, in my constructivist days, and I have read many of the
> > > books
> > > > coming from his lab [Papert], and I know many of his students
> > personally.
> > > > And I referenced their work amply, until I saw no more benefit in
> that
> > > > work.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > So there is some premise at play concerning individuality (or not) and
> > > constructivism?
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >
> > > > ------------------
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Huw Lloyd <
> huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No, only certain kinds of markups will be sent on through the
> > > listserve.
> > > > > The lowest common denominator is ASCII. Indentation using ">" is
> one
> > > > > preferred style on technical forums. However, here, it may be
> better
> > to
> > > > > prefix by initials.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Huw
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16 April 2018 at 15:49, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Huw, in the original, I am using the color red to add. I don't
> see
> > > the
> > > > > > color in the quoted text that comes after your message. Michael
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Huw Lloyd <
> > > huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's not immediately clear to me who is saying what, in this
> > email,
> > > > > > > Michael, and whether you both have agreed upon a distinction of
> > > some
> > > > > > > kind...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Huw
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 16 April 2018 at 15:05, Wolff-Michael Roth <
> > > > > > wolffmichael.roth@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bill asked me to respond to some questions, but I could not
> > find
> > > in
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > > trash can the earlier strand. Here the issues he had raised:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------
> > > > > > > > Since I have bothered to read your book and quote directly
> from
> > > it
> > > > I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > my comments deserve a public response. I'll repeat it again
> > here:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Specifically you say that constructivists argue that: (I've
> > > > *bolded*
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > bits where your understanding of Piaget is different to mine)
> > > > > > > > "the individual mind is ... *informationally closed* to the
> > > > > surrounding
> > > > > > > > world" (51) (von Glasersfeld said this iin the text where he
> > also
> > > > > > > discusses
> > > > > > > > Piaget, if I remember well)
> > > > > > > > "In a constructivist account, she (Melissa) might be said to
> > > > > > *incorrectly
> > > > > > > > 'interpret'* the object ..." (51) (this is what you typically
> > > find
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > constructivist research, for only something in your mind
> exists
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > person)
> > > > > > > > "As Piaget, modern day constructivists often characterize
> > > > children's
> > > > > > > > knowing
> > > > > > > >  *negatively: as lack, deficit ... or deviance* ..." (52) (I
> > have
> > > > > > pointed
> > > > > > > > in the past to many places where Piaget writes what a child
> > > cannot
> > > > > yet
> > > > > > > do,
> > > > > > > > he always uses adult reasoning as (generally implicit)
> > reference
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > characterizing the child. There was  a nice chapter in the
> > 1980s:
> > > > > > > > Meyer-Drawe,
> > > > > > > > K. (1986). Zähmung eines wilden Denkens? [Taming of
> > > undomesticated
> > > > > > > > thought?] In A. Métraux & B. Waldenfels (Eds.), Leibhaftige
> > > > Vernunft:
> > > > > > > > Spuren von Merleau-Pontys Denken (pp. 258–275). Munich,
> > Germany:
> > > > > > Wilhelm
> > > > > > > > Fink. And in Merleau-Ponty's writing you can see the critique
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > > > Piaget,
> > > > > > > > from whom children are lesser (adults)
> > > > > > > > "In the constructivist literature , we can frequently read
> that
> > > > > > > > *misconceptions
> > > > > > > > ... have to be eradicated* (53) (Yes, this you can find in
> the
> > > > > > literature
> > > > > > > > on misconceptions, with the very verb "eradicate")
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Piaget's best known observation were about conservation, the
> > tall
> > > > and
> > > > > > > wide
> > > > > > > > glasses, and I've never heard children's responses described
> as
> > > > > > > incorrect,
> > > > > > > > deficit or misconception but always as a stage that children
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > through. It always seemed me that Piaget respected and
> > understood
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > child's different view of the world. (Well, I just did a
> quick
> > > > check,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > in *The Growth of Logical Thinking, *the verb/noun
> fail/failure
> > > > > appears
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > least 50+ times, though one would have to check the sense;
> the
> > > verb
> > > > > > > > *cannot* appears
> > > > > > > > over 60 times, and so on...)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I gather you haven't read Papert or Minsky. I feel their
> > version,
> > > > > > > > constructionism, contains many useful insights. (I have, in
> my
> > > > > > > > constructivist days, and I have read many of the books coming
> > > from
> > > > > his
> > > > > > > lab
> > > > > > > > [Papert], and I know many of his students personally. And I
> > > > > referenced
> > > > > > > > their work amply, until I saw no more benefit in that work.)
> > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>