[Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Wed Jun 5 02:18:44 PDT 2019
That's fine, David. MIA would never want to do anything that
undermined print publishing of new Marxist works.
However, if there any Korean language or Russian language
Vygotsky texts which are not destined for printing, we are
interested in making them available on MIA as well.
Keep up the good work,
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 5/06/2019 6:19 pm, David Kellogg wrote:
> Sorry, Martin. I was out of town (London again, for a
> memorial service for my mother).
>
> I'm sending you the chapter off list. I'm afraid, Andy,
> that if I post it on-line, Springer will not want to bring
> it out ini paper and ink, and I am counting on getting
> contracts for the whole of the pedology.
>
> This has a couple of advantages. I think the first one for
> me is that I get to work with Nikolai Veresov, who is
> extremely picky. I am a pretty messy translator and I need
> Nikolai to keep me honest.
>
> But something in me also says that the internet as we knew
> it is crumbling, and that if we want to keep Vygotsky for
> posterity we still need to stock the libraries. I notice
> that even IMA puts out books now and then!
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article:
> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story without
> SELF: Vygotsky’s
> pedology, Bruner’s constructivism and Halliday’s
> construalism in understanding narratives by
> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI:
> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
> To link to this article:
> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
> Some e-prints available at:
> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 11:16 AM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> David, /any/ of your "rough" translations of Vygotsky
> which you would be willing to share with the world
> would be most welcome on marxists.org
> <http://marxists.org>, perhaps with an introductory
> note explaining the context of the translation?
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 31/05/2019 8:11 am, Martin Packer wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Yes, please send me your English translation. Thanks!
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 30, 2019, at 1:27 AM, David Kellogg
>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin:
>>>
>>> There is an article by that name in the list of
>>> Volume Six of the Collected Works, but there's
>>> nothing in the Russian Electronic Library, and no
>>> trace of the journal either.
>>>
>>> It's published exactly the same year as the chapter
>>> on the structure of interests in Volume Five of the
>>> English Collected Works (Chapter 1 of the ECW and
>>> the RCW, though it is actually Chapter 9 of
>>> Vygotsky's Pedologiya Podrostka)
>>>
>>> There is a lot on how the interests of the working
>>> adolescent and that of the bourgeois adolescent
>>> differ in the fourth section of Chapter 8 (Conflicts
>>> and Complications). This hasn't been translated into
>>> English yet, but we published the Korean translation
>>> in February and I have a very rough English
>>> translation I did if you want it.
>>>
>>> David Kellogg
>>> Sangmyung University
>>>
>>> New Article:
>>> Han Hee Jeung & David Kellogg (2019): A story
>>> without SELF: Vygotsky’s
>>> pedology, Bruner’s constructivism and Halliday’s
>>> construalism in understanding narratives by
>>> Korean children, Language and Education, DOI:
>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>> To link to this article:
>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>
>>> Some e-prints available at:
>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:27 AM Martin Packer
>>> <mpacker@cantab.net <mailto:mpacker@cantab.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Anyone know anything about this text by LSV?
>>>
>>> A pdf would be magical! :)
>>>
>>> The structure of interests in the transitional
>>> age and the interests of working youth. In
>>> /Problems of the ideology of working youth/.
>>> Moscow, 1929, No, 4, pp. 25-68.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 28, 2019, at 12:19 AM, Andy Blunden
>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My copy of the Ilyenkov book arrived today. It
>>>> is a kind of intellectual biography of Ilyenkov
>>>> and the reception of ideas in the West. As
>>>> David noted, it is very small, only 48 pages of
>>>> text.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>> On 24/05/2019 10:20 am, Edward Wall wrote:
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> Most contemporary mathematicians do not
>>>>> end a proof with a QED although Eric
>>>>> Livingston (whose name has come up on this
>>>>> list) might tend to side with my
>>>>> interpretation of Euclid.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is mathematics as application - a
>>>>> quite respectable use - and mathematics as,
>>>>> one might say, exploration. In the first
>>>>> case, mathematics provides a means of doing
>>>>> something; it is, in a sense, secondary as
>>>>> one’s primary focus is elsewhere. Memorization
>>>>> of the relevant mathematics seems, to me, a
>>>>> reasonable response. In the second case,
>>>>> mathematics is - I think this way anyway -
>>>>> like writing a poem, painting a picture,
>>>>> composing a melody, etc.. You are trying
>>>>> somehow to capture structure or a pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read your work as trying to capture
>>>>> structure/patterns of behavior. I don’t read
>>>>> you as one who just memorizes the reasonable
>>>>> notions of other scholars and doesn’t look
>>>>> further (and I may have been once a bit like
>>>>> that - smile). However, one could perhaps
>>>>> argue that is what it takes to be an effective
>>>>> social worker or teacher. That is, certain
>>>>> things are so obvious, we are no longer puzzled.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed
>>>>>
>>>>> “Between stimulus and response there is a
>>>>> space. In that space is our power to choose
>>>>> our response. In our response lies our growth
>>>>> and our freedom.” ~ Viktor Frankl
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 22, 2019, at 5:53 PM, mike cole
>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's really interesting, Ed. Thanks. I
>>>>>> never stopped to inquire what QED mean't. I was
>>>>>> taught mathematics as a series of routines.
>>>>>> Note that I might not have picked that up from
>>>>>> Wikipedia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "*Q.E.D.*" (sometimes written "*QED*")
>>>>>> *is* an abbreviation for the Latin phrase
>>>>>> "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to
>>>>>> be demonstrated"), a notation which
>>>>>> *is* often placed at the *end* of a
>>>>>> *mathematical proof* to *indicate* its
>>>>>> completion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your translation makes clear the mixing of
>>>>>> participant observer/observant participant in
>>>>>> QED. Unfortunately,
>>>>>> I was the kind who often didn't "get" the
>>>>>> demonstration and found tricks of memory to
>>>>>> keep things straight enough to pass tests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 3:27 PM Edward Wall
>>>>>> <ewall@umich.edu <mailto:ewall@umich.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps relevant, traditionally the
>>>>>> proof of a mathematical theorem (pace
>>>>>> Euclid) was ended with a QED (Quod Erat
>>>>>> Demostrandum). I have always thought,
>>>>>> perhaps erroneously, that Euclid was
>>>>>> calling attention to the
>>>>>> participating/viewing (in/of the proof)
>>>>>> as well the final assessment that the
>>>>>> whole was, in some sense, ’satisfactory’
>>>>>> to the prover/viewer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 20, 2019, at 6:12 PM, mike cole
>>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Huw-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was not at all focused on the
>>>>>>> originality of the 2 cybernetics idea.
>>>>>>> I was focused on how
>>>>>>> it (presumably) provides formalisms for
>>>>>>> distinctions that have existed in
>>>>>>> philosophy for a long
>>>>>>> time (about this i am still a beginning
>>>>>>> learner) and which I think may also mark
>>>>>>> the way that
>>>>>>> followers of Rubenshtein used to
>>>>>>> criticize Leontievians, the way that
>>>>>>> ethnographers distinguish
>>>>>>> between different realtions of observer
>>>>>>> to observed,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The observant participant "vs"
>>>>>>> participant observer mark two poles of
>>>>>>> our relationship with the
>>>>>>> people we were working with.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A classical scholar colleague not in
>>>>>>> this conversation offered a relevant
>>>>>>> distinction from Aristotle in
>>>>>>> the context of discussions about the
>>>>>>> kind of work we do. There seems to be
>>>>>>> close matching here too.
>>>>>>> Perhaps relevant?
>>>>>>> /Theoria/ is generally translated as
>>>>>>> "viewing" or "looking at" and by
>>>>>>> extension, "contemplation." It actually
>>>>>>> derives from the word /theoros/, which
>>>>>>> is said to come from /thea/ (sight, or
>>>>>>> view, as in a vista -- something viewed)
>>>>>>> plus /orao/ (to see). In other words
>>>>>>> /theoros/ combines the seeing with the
>>>>>>> seen. So a /theoros/ is a spectator or a
>>>>>>> witness to what is there to be seen. A
>>>>>>> /theoros/ can also be someone who goes
>>>>>>> to consult an oracle -- the oracle being
>>>>>>> someone through whom a god (/theos/)
>>>>>>> speaks. What the oracle speaks is often
>>>>>>> in the form a riddle or puzzle which the
>>>>>>> /theoros/ must figure out for himself or
>>>>>>> herself. Even the epic poets were
>>>>>>> participants in this spiritual "praxis,"
>>>>>>> acting as the voices for the gods to
>>>>>>> speak their sometimes obscure narratives
>>>>>>> in which the work of gods and men were
>>>>>>> mutually implicated. So the epics, like
>>>>>>> the oracular statements, were viewed as
>>>>>>> /theorytis/, (spoken by a god).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea of the /theoros/ is interesting
>>>>>>> in that it involves the spectator's
>>>>>>> presence as a witness to an action (as
>>>>>>> Aristotle noted, drama is the imitation
>>>>>>> of action). This implies an interpretive
>>>>>>> approach to viewing and telling about an
>>>>>>> event, whether an oracle or a dramatic
>>>>>>> production, that has in some way been
>>>>>>> spoken by a god (literally, through
>>>>>>> inspiration, the breathing of the god
>>>>>>> into the /phrenoi /(the lungs -- for
>>>>>>> Homer, synonymous with the mind -- the
>>>>>>> center of human consciousness) of
>>>>>>> someone who is open to receiving that
>>>>>>> breath and in turn speaking it for
>>>>>>> others. The danger then becomes for the
>>>>>>> /theoros/ to report his or her
>>>>>>> /theoria/ to others -- the tendency of
>>>>>>> the theorist to lay claim to ultimate
>>>>>>> truth -- /theorytis/, given by a god.
>>>>>>> Politically in early Greek society, this
>>>>>>> translated into the use of the plural
>>>>>>> /theoroi/ to mean ambassadors or envoys
>>>>>>> who interpreted the intent of the state
>>>>>>> to "those who speak strange tongues"
>>>>>>> (Homer's expression for non-Greeks) and
>>>>>>> vice-versa.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 6:29 AM Huw
>>>>>>> Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure anyone in cybernetics
>>>>>>> claimed it to be a novel idea, but
>>>>>>> rather it seemed to be a necessary
>>>>>>> distinction, one that recognised a
>>>>>>> change in the landscape of the topic
>>>>>>> of inquiry when the observer was
>>>>>>> included within it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think one could extrapolate
>>>>>>> "established form or structure" from
>>>>>>> "hard system" and then consider
>>>>>>> reflections about that establishing
>>>>>>> of that system as orthogonal yet
>>>>>>> related, but according to my
>>>>>>> interpretation of your descriptions
>>>>>>> I would attribute reflexive
>>>>>>> considerations to both roles. They
>>>>>>> both can refer to the structure of
>>>>>>> "observing" rather than the
>>>>>>> structure of the "observed".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The attached paper by Ranulph
>>>>>>> Glanville seems appropriate!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 19:12, mike
>>>>>>> cole <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found that the Wikipedia
>>>>>>> characterization of the two
>>>>>>> generations of cybernetics,
>>>>>>> which is new to me, interesting
>>>>>>> and potentially a variant of an
>>>>>>> idea that has been batted around
>>>>>>> for some time:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Von Foerster referred to it as
>>>>>>> the cybernetics of "observing
>>>>>>> systems" whereas first order
>>>>>>> cybernetics is that of "observed
>>>>>>> systems". ... Peter Checkland
>>>>>>> and co. made this distinction in
>>>>>>> their study of organisational
>>>>>>> projects, distinguishing, for
>>>>>>> example, between the process by
>>>>>>> which requirements are discerned
>>>>>>> (amidst complex interactions of
>>>>>>> stakeholders) , and the "hard"
>>>>>>> system that may be produced as a
>>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In our research in community
>>>>>>> settings we have been
>>>>>>> distinguishing between a
>>>>>>> participant observer and an
>>>>>>> observant participant. In our
>>>>>>> practice we have played both
>>>>>>> roles. I think of the "hard"
>>>>>>> system in our work
>>>>>>> as "psychotechnics" and the
>>>>>>> other, perhaps, as a part of
>>>>>>> psychosocioanthropological inquiry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this extrapolation reasonable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS-- Andy
>>>>>>> There was a big and organized
>>>>>>> opposition to cybernetics in the
>>>>>>> USSR. It affected people like
>>>>>>> Bernshtein and Anokhin who were
>>>>>>> central to Luria's thinking. It
>>>>>>> was still in force when I arrived
>>>>>>> in Moscow in 1962 after a well
>>>>>>> advertised thaw. Hard to feel
>>>>>>> the thaw in October, 1962!
>>>>>>> The distinction Huw makes
>>>>>>> suggests that the objections
>>>>>>> were more than Stalinist
>>>>>>> ideology. But
>>>>>>> they were also Stalinist ideology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:02 AM
>>>>>>> Huw Lloyd
>>>>>>> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is an extract from the
>>>>>>> start of the text from the
>>>>>>> wikipedia entry, which I
>>>>>>> don't have any significant
>>>>>>> quibbles with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "*Second-order cybernetics*,
>>>>>>> also known as the
>>>>>>> cybernetics of cybernetics
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics>,
>>>>>>> is the recursive application
>>>>>>> of cybernetics to itself. It
>>>>>>> was developed between
>>>>>>> approximately 1968 and 1975
>>>>>>> by Margaret Mead
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead>,
>>>>>>> Heinz von Foerster
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_von_Foerster> and
>>>>>>> others.^[1]
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-RG_01-1>
>>>>>>> Von Foerster referred to it
>>>>>>> as the cybernetics of
>>>>>>> "observing systems" whereas
>>>>>>> first order cybernetics is
>>>>>>> that of "observed
>>>>>>> systems".^[2]
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-2>
>>>>>>> It is sometimes referred to
>>>>>>> as the "new cybernetics",
>>>>>>> the term preferred by Gordon
>>>>>>> Pask
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask>,
>>>>>>> and is closely allied to
>>>>>>> radical constructivism
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism>,
>>>>>>> which was developed around
>>>>>>> the same time by Ernst von
>>>>>>> Glasersfeld
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Glasersfeld>.^[3]
>>>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-3>"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>> Another way to describe this
>>>>>>> distinction on the dimension
>>>>>>> of observer is between "hard
>>>>>>> systems" and "soft systems".
>>>>>>> The "hard system" most
>>>>>>> easily maps on to a model of
>>>>>>> some apparatus. The "soft
>>>>>>> system" however applies to
>>>>>>> the system by which the hard
>>>>>>> system is discerned. Peter
>>>>>>> Checkland and co. made this
>>>>>>> distinction in their study
>>>>>>> of organisational projects,
>>>>>>> distinguishing, for example,
>>>>>>> between the process by which
>>>>>>> requirements are discerned
>>>>>>> (amidst complex interactions
>>>>>>> of stakeholders) , and the
>>>>>>> "hard" system that may be
>>>>>>> produced as a result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One can equally apply this
>>>>>>> distinction in psychology --
>>>>>>> being concerned with the
>>>>>>> dynamic processes of action
>>>>>>> and construal in distinction
>>>>>>> to a concern to map things
>>>>>>> out in terms of brain
>>>>>>> architecture etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One might say that 1st order
>>>>>>> cybernetics is typically
>>>>>>> ontologically and
>>>>>>> epistemologically naive (or
>>>>>>> atleast static), whilst 2nd
>>>>>>> order cybernetics recognises
>>>>>>> its potential fluidity and
>>>>>>> importance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding objects, objects
>>>>>>> still exist in cybernetic
>>>>>>> thinking but are typically
>>>>>>> defined by communicational
>>>>>>> boundaries. Once one
>>>>>>> understands the application
>>>>>>> of black boxes or systems,
>>>>>>> then one can more readily
>>>>>>> apprehend cybernetics.
>>>>>>> Ranulph Glanville's writings
>>>>>>> on black boxes are a good
>>>>>>> place to start. Ranulph was
>>>>>>> also deeply interested in
>>>>>>> objects (and their
>>>>>>> cybernetic construal)
>>>>>>> related to his life-long
>>>>>>> engagement with architecture
>>>>>>> and design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One needs to take some care
>>>>>>> in interpreting Bateson's
>>>>>>> learning levels, but they
>>>>>>> can be mapped on to other
>>>>>>> initiatives. The steps
>>>>>>> between his levels are quite
>>>>>>> large and one could easily
>>>>>>> interpose additional levels.
>>>>>>> Bear in mind that Bateson's
>>>>>>> levels do not necessarily
>>>>>>> imply positive changes either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't say I recall coming
>>>>>>> across material in which
>>>>>>> Bateson is upset by Russell
>>>>>>> or Godel. Rather he applies
>>>>>>> typological distinctions
>>>>>>> throughout much of his work
>>>>>>> and can be considered a
>>>>>>> champion of drawing
>>>>>>> attention to "typological
>>>>>>> errors".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the description, it
>>>>>>> seems the finding Ilyenkov
>>>>>>> book is more of a booklet
>>>>>>> (64 pages), the impression I
>>>>>>> had is that is either a
>>>>>>> collection of papers or a
>>>>>>> summary of llyenkov's
>>>>>>> influence upon a group of
>>>>>>> academics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2019 at
>>>>>>> 02:06, David Kellogg
>>>>>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So actually this is the
>>>>>>> bit of Bateson that I'm
>>>>>>> having trouble
>>>>>>> understanding, and it's
>>>>>>> quite different from
>>>>>>> what I am failing to
>>>>>>> understand in Ilyenkov.
>>>>>>> I can't really do what
>>>>>>> Andy suggests, becuse
>>>>>>> this person has written
>>>>>>> a whole book about it,
>>>>>>> and as an author I
>>>>>>> always find it rather
>>>>>>> rude when anybody writes
>>>>>>> to me to say that they
>>>>>>> don't have the time and
>>>>>>> don't want to spend the
>>>>>>> money to get my book and
>>>>>>> they want me to just
>>>>>>> clear up a few points
>>>>>>> for them and save them
>>>>>>> the trouble. Maybe I am
>>>>>>> just over-sensitive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So this Bateson is
>>>>>>> working with a world
>>>>>>> that is almost the
>>>>>>> opposite of the one
>>>>>>> physicists work with.
>>>>>>> That is, it's a world
>>>>>>> where objects are
>>>>>>> essentially unimportant
>>>>>>> ("feedback" is a
>>>>>>> structure that is quite
>>>>>>> independent of whether
>>>>>>> we are talking about a
>>>>>>> microphone, a
>>>>>>> thermostadt, a child, or
>>>>>>> a civilization). It's a
>>>>>>> world where only
>>>>>>> communication matters.
>>>>>>> (There are some forms of
>>>>>>> physics which handle a
>>>>>>> world like this, but
>>>>>>> they are precisely the
>>>>>>> realms of physics I
>>>>>>> don't really get.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this world, there is
>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>> called Learning Zero, or
>>>>>>> the Zero Degree of
>>>>>>> Learning, which is
>>>>>>> essentially making
>>>>>>> responses that are
>>>>>>> stimulus-specific. Then
>>>>>>> there is something
>>>>>>> called Learning One,
>>>>>>> which is generalizing
>>>>>>> responses to a
>>>>>>> well-defined, closed set
>>>>>>> of stimuli. And then
>>>>>>> there is Learning Two,
>>>>>>> which I think is what
>>>>>>> you mean by second order
>>>>>>> cybernetics. That is
>>>>>>> what people like to call
>>>>>>> "learning to learn", but
>>>>>>> when we say this, we are
>>>>>>> ignoring that the two
>>>>>>> uses of "learn"
>>>>>>> mean things that are as
>>>>>>> different as Learning
>>>>>>> Zerio and Learning One,
>>>>>>> as different as instinct
>>>>>>> and habit, as different
>>>>>>> as unconditioned and
>>>>>>> conditioned responses to
>>>>>>> stimuli. This is being
>>>>>>> able to generalize the
>>>>>>> ability to generalize
>>>>>>> responses to well
>>>>>>> defined stimuli, so that
>>>>>>> they operate not only
>>>>>>> within a well-defined
>>>>>>> context but in a context
>>>>>>> of context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Children do a lot of
>>>>>>> this. They learn
>>>>>>> language, first as
>>>>>>> Learning Zero and then
>>>>>>> as Learning One. Then
>>>>>>> they have to learn how
>>>>>>> to learn THROUGH
>>>>>>> language, treating
>>>>>>> language itself as
>>>>>>> context and not simply
>>>>>>> text. This inevitably
>>>>>>> leads to a Learning
>>>>>>> Three, where language is
>>>>>>> itself the object of
>>>>>>> learning--Halliday calls
>>>>>>> it learning ABOUT language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bateson is very
>>>>>>> disturbed by this,
>>>>>>> because he feels that
>>>>>>> Russell's paradox is
>>>>>>> lurking behind all of
>>>>>>> these sets which both
>>>>>>> are and are not members
>>>>>>> of themselves. I don't
>>>>>>> have any problem with
>>>>>>> it, because I think that
>>>>>>> Russell's world is math
>>>>>>> and not language (I
>>>>>>> think of math as a kind
>>>>>>> of very artificial form
>>>>>>> of language that only
>>>>>>> operates in very
>>>>>>> artificial worlds, like
>>>>>>> those of physics and
>>>>>>> cybernetics).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this what you mean by
>>>>>>> the discontinuity of
>>>>>>> second order
>>>>>>> cybernetics? Isn't it an
>>>>>>> artifact of imposing
>>>>>>> Russell's theory of
>>>>>>> logical types and an
>>>>>>> artifact of the
>>>>>>> artificiality of the
>>>>>>> cybernetic world?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Sangmyung University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New Article:
>>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung & David
>>>>>>> Kellogg (2019): A story
>>>>>>> without SELF: Vygotsky’s
>>>>>>> pedology, Bruner’s
>>>>>>> constructivism and
>>>>>>> Halliday’s construalism
>>>>>>> in understanding
>>>>>>> narratives by
>>>>>>> Korean children,
>>>>>>> Language and Education,
>>>>>>> DOI:
>>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>> To link to this article:
>>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some e-prints available at:
>>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at
>>>>>>> 11:32 PM Huw Lloyd
>>>>>>> <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite possibly it
>>>>>>> was from a lack of
>>>>>>> recognising the
>>>>>>> continuity into
>>>>>>> second order
>>>>>>> cybernetics, which
>>>>>>> many of the founding
>>>>>>> members of
>>>>>>> cybernetics recognised.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2019
>>>>>>> at 11:05, David
>>>>>>> Kellogg
>>>>>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy, Alfredo--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The most
>>>>>>> intriguing thing
>>>>>>> about this book
>>>>>>> was the
>>>>>>> statement that
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov fought
>>>>>>> against the
>>>>>>> introduction of
>>>>>>> ideas from
>>>>>>> cybernetics into
>>>>>>> psychology. On
>>>>>>> the other side
>>>>>>> of the world,
>>>>>>> Gregory Bateson
>>>>>>> was fighting
>>>>>>> hard for their
>>>>>>> inclusion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read through
>>>>>>> "The Ideal in
>>>>>>> Human Activity"
>>>>>>> a couple of
>>>>>>> times (true,
>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>> understanding much
>>>>>>> of it). But I
>>>>>>> didn't see
>>>>>>> anything against
>>>>>>> cybernetics. Am
>>>>>>> I missing
>>>>>>> something?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Sangmyung University
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New Article:
>>>>>>> Han Hee Jeung &
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> (2019): A story
>>>>>>> without SELF:
>>>>>>> Vygotsky’s
>>>>>>> pedology,
>>>>>>> Bruner’s
>>>>>>> constructivism
>>>>>>> and Halliday’s
>>>>>>> construalism in
>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>> narratives by
>>>>>>> Korean children,
>>>>>>> Language and
>>>>>>> Education, DOI:
>>>>>>> 10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>> To link to this
>>>>>>> article:
>>>>>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some e-prints
>>>>>>> available at:
>>>>>>> https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KHRxrQ4n45t9N2ZHZhQK/full?target=10.1080/09500782.2019.1582663
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, May 17,
>>>>>>> 2019 at 6:22 PM
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://realdemocracymovement.org/finding-evald-ilyenkov/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the era
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> alt-truth,
>>>>>>> disinformation
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> scepticism
>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> knowledge,
>>>>>>> the work of
>>>>>>> a defiant
>>>>>>> Soviet
>>>>>>> thinker is
>>>>>>> attracting
>>>>>>> growing
>>>>>>> interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evald
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov’s
>>>>>>> dialectical
>>>>>>> approach to
>>>>>>> philosophy
>>>>>>> from Spinoza
>>>>>>> to Hegel and
>>>>>>> Marx made
>>>>>>> him a target
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> persecution
>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>> bureaucratic
>>>>>>> Stalinist
>>>>>>> authorities
>>>>>>> of his day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> re-discovery
>>>>>>> of his
>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>> texts,
>>>>>>> suppressed
>>>>>>> or harshly
>>>>>>> redacted
>>>>>>> during his
>>>>>>> lifetime, is
>>>>>>> giving rise
>>>>>>> to an
>>>>>>> enhanced
>>>>>>> view of his
>>>>>>> contribution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> */Finding
>>>>>>> Evald
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov/*draws
>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>> experiences
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> researchers
>>>>>>> in the UK,
>>>>>>> Denmark and
>>>>>>> Finland. It
>>>>>>> traces
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov’s
>>>>>>> impact on
>>>>>>> philosophy,
>>>>>>> psychology,
>>>>>>> politics and
>>>>>>> pedagogy and
>>>>>>> how it
>>>>>>> continues to
>>>>>>> be relevant
>>>>>>> in the light
>>>>>>> of today’s
>>>>>>> crises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> At the moment we need consensus
>>>>>>> points to anchor our diversity.
>>>>>>> One tree, many branches, deep
>>>>>>> roots. Like a cypress tree
>>>>>>> living in brackish water. Anon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “All truly wise thoughts have been
>>>>>>> thought already thousands of times;
>>>>>>> but to make them truly ours, we must
>>>>>>> think them over again honestly, until
>>>>>>> they take root in our personal
>>>>>>> experience.” -Goethe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “All truly wise thoughts have been thought
>>>>>> already thousands of times; but to make
>>>>>> them truly ours, we must think them over
>>>>>> again honestly, until they take root in our
>>>>>> personal experience.” -Goethe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190605/d58b76c1/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list