[Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth

Thu May 30 00:01:11 PDT 2019

David, could you please send me also your translation of LV  (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); and 
I will appreciate any help/materials from you and others on perspectives 
regarding how youth may negotiate their interests from within their 
marginalised locations in today’s society.

Thank you

Annalie

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On 
Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: Thursday, 30 May 2019 8:27 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: test on Working youth

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 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics> cybernetics, is the recursive 
application of cybernetics to itself. It was developed between approximately 
1968 and 1975 by  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead> Margaret 
Mead,  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_von_Foerster> Heinz von Foerster 
and others. 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-RG_01-1> 
[1] Von Foerster referred to it as the cybernetics of "observing systems" 
whereas first order cybernetics is that of "observed systems". 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-2> [2] It 
is sometimes referred to as the "new cybernetics", the term preferred by 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Pask> Gordon Pask, and is closely 
allied to  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_constructivism> radical 
constructivism, which was developed around the same time by 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Glasersfeld> Ernst von Glasersfeld. 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-order_cybernetics#cite_note-3> [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/20190530/7ec22841/attachment.html 