[Xmca-l] Re: New book on Ilyenkov
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Mon May 27 22:19:38 PDT 2019
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/20190528/17381de8/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list