|
Hi,
Probably we both think that part of the value
of language (as of much else) is in variability!
Don't worry, my views are informed by Leontiev,
Luria, Vygotsky, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov, Davidov, Markova,
Roubtsov and so on, not limited to classical western philosophy
(although I have along carried a curiosity to think better about aleuthic
modality).
Do you think that your view would deal
differently with the issues about =, WalMart (or about the
shelves) and genetically primary examples in each instance?
Peg
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:51
AM
Subject: Re: math for reproduction and
domination
Peg,
the trouble with language is that it can be
used differently. So the abstract in classical western philosophy and the
abstract in dialectical materialism are different things, the first one
corresponding to the ideal in idealism, the second one always being a concrete
abstract, which Il'enkov nicely explains in terms of genetic linkages from
parent to filial generations, the parent corresponding to the abstract,
concretizing itself in different widely differing forms in the filial
generations. Generalization in the western sense might not find similarities
within the filial generation, because it looks for common features, whereas
materialist dialectic looks for the history of the filial generation, which
leads to the same common origin.
Cheers,
Michael
On
12-Nov-04, at 7:46 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
Hi,
I
wonder about the difference between "rising from the abstract to the
concrete" and "staying in the concrete."
I
think the former means to have a model, an analysis, an interpretive
frame that enlightens/transforms the "concrete."
The
latter could mean having all that continuing to work with it OR being
bound by physical and socio-historical forces, being an objective
subject without a subjective
object.
I
think the former notion of concrete would ward off Kevin's concerns
about "reified
artifacts [that] reflect the cultural-historical-political status quo"
except as they were exactly what one wanted to challenge.
For
many US kids, "=" in "2+3=" concretely means something like "having
counted to 2 and then counting on 3, write the final count
number to the right." It is sort of a synonym for "2+3?"
The mathematician's concrete = (and concrete 2 and 3) is something else
altogether, and a good mathematics education allows student to rise to
it.
(A
four cell representation --abstract/concrete one dimension, general/specific
the other -- is important here, not conflating the two
dimensions.)
Has
anyone heard of mathematics activities for middle school that take on
Wal Mart as provisioner, employer, and taxed entity?
I think it could rise to the concrete to
address Michael's point about a mathematics curriculum that fails
to educate students about how "every time
you buy something at a bargain, or cheap, you actually take from someone
else."
I
remember being in a huge apartment complex in the southwest corner of
Moscow. It had a huge food store. As was normal, then, people
complained everyday about the empty shelves. One day we walked in and
found the manager had taken down all the shelves -- pitiful little piles of
the few available and unwanted commodities set out here and there over
the floor like a strange droppings from some consumer beast. But the
shelves were no longer empty.
It
was a good joke and brightened many a person's conversation that day.
The
manager purposefully stayed in the concrete and doing so made sly evaluation
of the abstract perestroika.
Peg
-----
Original Message -----
From:
Kevin Rocap
To:
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent:
Thursday, November 11, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject:
Re: math for reproduction and
domination
Dear Bill, et al,
I
think I appreciate your point Bill, and have also appreciated Michael
raising the issues he has raised.
I just have to quickly comment on
the concrete versus "philosophical path". I think that anyone
advocating for disrupting hegemony is in part marginalized automatically by
the fact that the "concrete" is more likely to include reified artifacts of
the dominant ideology. So staying in the "concrete" arguably means
valuing the reified dominant ideology over any alternatives and considering
alternatives can always be seen as "abstract" or "philosophical" or
"non-concrete" precisely because reified artifacts reflect the
cultural-historical-political status quo one may seek to
challenge.
My, no doubt inflation-ridden, two cents. Not
meaning/intending to push the analysis of the notes and the rich discussion
of what was observed and noted into a more ideological discussion at this
juncture, however. ;-) I just wanted to weigh in one quick perspective
from the sidelines.
In Peace,
K.
Bill Barowy
wrote:
What I meant was, I'm simply trying to cook some notes,
and while that does
not preclude a cultural historical analysis at some
later time, the analysis
at this moment centers on some kids learning
some math. The analysis will
surely and eventually broaden, as yrjo's
expansive methodolgy demands. Peg's
questions concerning NCTM content
has already been moving things toward
cultural historical
analysis.
And then, I have the impression of some history of xmca
conversations going
down the dialectical philosophical path and then,
paradoxically, failing to
rise back up again to the concrete. I'd like
to stay concrete as long as
possible.
bb
On Thursday 11
November 2004 12:19 pm, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
Hi
Bill,
I am not one of those editors who imposes his/her view of the world
on
others. I recognize the work in itself, even though I might
disagree
with the content. You notice that my own paper dealt with
the
production and reproduction of identity in the context of
urban
science, and the fragility of "success" to be and become a student
or
teacher.
You may not be interested in this kind of trouble making,
but in this
you make a choice as to the nature of the society you live
in. I think
a dose of social analysis of the kind Dorothy Smith, who
argues for a
feminist sociology, is required to interrogate our
ideologies so that
we can bring about a rupture. Bourdieu, too, asks us,
as social
analysts, to break with the gaze through radical analysis of
our own
presuppositions.
Cheers,
Michael
On 11-Nov-04, at
8:52 AM, Bill Barowy wrote:
On Thursday 11 November 2004
11:24 am, Wolff-Michael Roth wrote:
historical situation of
the activity system. You seem to advocate that
we can understand
children's and their teachers' actions just by
looking at a
classroom.
I just can't believe YOU edited MY paper in MCA
and can still make
that claim!
I'm going to step back and look at our
own conversation. This is not
the
kind of troublemaking i'm interested
in.
bb
|