Jay,
In my own work on K-12 standardized testing in the U.S. ("Unequal By Design: High-Stakes Testing and the Standardization of Inequality" is the title of my book), I've mainly looked at testing in terms of control of K-12 teaching practices/curriculum - and in some very real ways, the proletarianization of public school teachers here. But, concomitant with the control of teacher labor and student learning (and subsequently, relative amounts of control within the field of teaching), I also see the testing in terms of upward mobility of class fractions/factions - particularly the professional managerial new middle class who not only populate the bureaucratic/institutional centers of test construction, administration, analysis, and dissemination of results, they also reside within educational institutions as well as business and other professions.
So the tests, to me at least, serve a very real function of determining "distinction" in the sense of Bourdieu, and making sure certain kids can move on up and be "successful" (and thereby reproducing certain class relations). But of course, as we in the U.S. have had hammered into our collective heads lately, our schools and tests are not developing and assessing the correct "21st Century Skills" - which I think poses a real problem for professionals and their kids: They are so good at excelling on the current, factory model tests that in some ways it is in their interests to maintain the current system. But, the current system doesn't quite fit what their kids need to excel in the "21st knowledge economy" (given that this is a middle class discussion at best, as the masses of the poor, underemployed, unemployed, and generally exploited around the world are still working in the "old" economy - a point that seems to get lost in some of these discussions). The attached paper outlines my argument around the contradictions posed for the new middle class in this area.
Suffice to say, your suggestion about testing controlling, dividing and conquering bright peoples strikes me as quite interesting, and I think you are likely correct - since creating distinction also exists between and within professions/professionals. Otherwise we wouldn't be forced to work within such damaging systems that rank all of our universities, our publications, our teaching, etc., etc., and status and upward mobility in our own professions wouldn't be given such importance.
Wayne
On 5/10/09 1:21 PM, "Jay Lemke" <jaylemke@umich.edu> wrote:
As long ago I used to do quite regularly, I'm updating the subject
line of this thread again. Maybe it will continue and maybe not.
But I was fascinated by Valerie's reference to Bucky Fuller and the
thesis that elaborate testing, and by extension (or inclusion) the
emphasis on being able to write the "right sort" of essays and other
genres in academia and so many specialized fields can also serve the
function of managing and controlling, dividing and conquering, really
bright people.
There are after all two sorts of principal threats to the ruling
class. One is the great mass of working people who can stop, strike,
rebel, etc. And we know of course a lot about the mechanisms of
control, from hegemony to mystification, ideology, policing, etc. used
in this case. But the other are the specialist elites, who are often
given enough to make us feel we're doing "ok" under their system,
though nowhere near what the ruling class appropriate for themselves.
We are co-opted, bought out rather cheaply (by their standards), and
very occasionally even promoted to positions of real power. But there
must also be much less visible strategies at work, and I think that
the system of academic (and later, professional, career) rewards is
one of them. An illusion of local-scale meritocracy under the much
bigger system of social injustice and maintenance of status quo power.
And in some ways, I think, testing, even the best testing we can
imagine (like my Gold Standard proposal yesterday) is a key means of
this system of control. Those of us who do well on tests are even more
likely to believe that this reflects our merit, our talent, our hard
work -- even when maybe we doubt that those who do poorly do so
because of a lack of these qualities. If the children of the oppressed
do poorly for reasons having little to do with their innate talents or
potential efforts, then should we not also reason that we do well for
reasons equally unobvious, equally not to be attributed solely to us
as individuals?
We do well insofar as we are pre-tuned, pre-adapted to the needs that
determine what is tested for and what is valued. Not our needs
generally, nor those of the mass of people. We are selected because we
are potentially useful to people who pay us, who fund us, who fund our
institutions, who pay our policymakers. In some cases we fit with new
needs, in some cases the traditions that define our usefulness are
very old and represent long-unchanged aspects of the larger political
economy and social system. I think an interesting history of testing
could be written from such a point of view. Has it been?
Valerie also noted the ways in which testing implements the divide-and-
conquer strategy with respect to useful specialists. As a relatively
small group numerically, with much less social diversity overall than
the whole mass of the population, we ought to be able to more easily
organize and unite, but we don't. We do well on very different
measures of our usefulness, most obviously, say, between humanist
scholars and scientists, and while one could point to much larger
patterns of activity and discourse that split us apart, our modes of
testing or of judging the value of work and productivity are still
quite good guides to the history of how we have been "managed". No?
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
On May 10, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Valerie Wilkinson wrote:
> Referring to some of the threads:
> "Why don't people talk about wisdom anymore?" is definitely a
> rhetorical question that makes the tacit assumption that they/we
> don't. But wisdom, like love, is abstract until informed by examples.
>
> I could ask the question, "Why do we shun the Platonic ideal?" I
> fear it wouldn't kick off much of a conversation. But is the idea
> of "organic" learning any more informative? It is strictly
> environmental, but the environment may include religious education
> and symbolic organizational practices which support the dominant
> paradigm or the people who make the rules or the people who watch
> out for everyone's safety.
>
> David Kellogg said: "Here are some countervailing facts to consider,
> before we leap to conclusions about the malign effects of
> Confucianism (which, like most truly ancient cultural traditions,
> has an irrepressibly creative and humanist core) on dysfunctional
> American education." YES! and well, uh - it works if you can play
> the game - and there is always a dialectic going with Taoism
> somewhere.
>
> It is so hard to get outside of a system you are in. And if you are
> in international academia, you are committed to a system in some
> guise that employs you or publishes your papers or creates the forum
> where you may share your ideas. To get talking points in that
> system you have to be able to talk to the talk. To talk the talk,
> it is best, but not requisite, to have grown up in the system.
>
> Much of what we are talking about has been talked over in various
> fora - from IQ and differentiated intelligence to language and
> manners and then the whole cultural marginalizing process that
> forces some to accept a role which "native intelligence" could
> easily overcome - since experiential learning toward mastery is
> ascendant - except for the weights and burdens of various kinds
> laden upon the underprivileged by various social mechanisms, some of
> which are designed to do just that, weigh them down, keep them
> oppressed.
>
> If "we" locate and export the gifted (alpha) to another level and
> focus the lowered tiered learning towards acceptance, satisfaction
> with a guarantee of "enough" - many gifted people (of the other
> intelligences besides articulated declarative knowledge) will spend
> the rest of their lives struggling to make ends meet, to pay their
> mortgages, take care of their kids ---
>
> Interestingly, Bucky Fuller described the purpose of the elaborate
> written testing system, the complex poetry and memorization of
> classical texts to "manage" the more gifted in Operating Manual for
> Spaceship Earth. Since the "pirate captains" vanished (but did
> they?) there isn't any proof of his wonderfully provocative claims,
> but I'm pretty sure that the demand for "specialization" is one of
> the great causes of failure to communicate from group to group. It's
> crippling to have jargon barriers.
>
> This note may seem to have gotten off the track of learning in
> kindergarten and the whole thing - but I believe that radical return
> to experiential learning from breast to bicycle to doing stuff with
> your friends will ground much learning experience. Of course we have
> to keep up with the books and specialize - but we have to do the
> other as well or more, or more in the beginning and always some -
> because experiential learning is integrative and inclusive.
> (was this a rant?)
> Valerie Wilkinson
>
> On 2009.May.7, at 12:41 AM, Jay Lemke wrote:
>
>> I think that we mostly agree, Eugene, given different emphasis
>> because of our different backgrounds.
>>
>> I did think it was interesting that you noted that in totalitarian
>> discourses the leakage across a binary division can be made to
>> undermine basic moral principles. I suppose that there are times
>> when one needs a way to undermine other people's, and maybe also
>> one's own, moral certainties. But clearly doing so can also be very
>> destructive, depending on the circumstances and the consequences.
>>
>> So we have to tack between stronger binaries and weaker ones, and
>> that takes a measure of wisdom. Why don't people talk about wisdom
>> any > more?
>>
>> As to the defense of science, of course it depends on what we want
>> to mean by science or scientific. If it is just systematically
>> gathered empirical information, then I think we always have to take
>> it into account, but not necessarily be ruled by it. Realities
>> exist, but they can also change and be changed. If it means some
>> particular way of doing research, then I am less favorable, and
>> more Feyerabendian. If it means honestly trying to examine
>> alternative interpretations and proposals, then count me in! If it
>> is defending a particular current scientific theory, say neo-
>> Darwinian evolutionary theory, then I have to look carefully at a
>> wide range of circumstances to make my choice.
>>
>> "Complex process of mutually informing" sounds just right to me!
>>
>> JAY.
>>
>>
>> Jay Lemke
>> Professor
>> Educational Studies
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jay and everybody--
>>>
>>> Thanks, Jay, for most helpful reply. Let me offer two comments:
>>>
>>> 1) Although I agree with you that contextualists are against any
>>> unversalism
>>> either pro- or against binary, we should be aware that Western
>>> contextualists have much stronger anti-binary bias than pro-
>>> binary. This is
>>> justified by the Western experience where up to recently scientism
>>> and
>>> positivism have been very strong. However, this has not been true
>>> for
>>> historical experiences of other people -- those who have experienced
>>> communist totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism. The recent
>>> historic
>>> experience in the USA with the Bush administration challenges the
>>> idea that
>>> the West is immune to totalitarianism and fundamentalism. Both
>>> totalitarianism and fundamentalism are against scientism and
>>> positivistic
>>> binary and against science enterprise per se (e.g., just remember
>>> Lysenko),
>>> but, for course, not completely any more. Although,
>>> totalitarianism and
>>> fundamentalism apply their own ideological binaries, they like to
>>> use
>>> leakages of meaning to confuse the reality. I'd even dare to say
>>> that their
>>> leakages aiming at destroying any moral compasses in people might
>>> be more
>>> dangerous than their oppressive binaries. I just want to remind
>>> that it were
>>> scientific binaries that fought successfully religious
>>> fundamentalism in
>>> past.
>>>
>>> I respectfully but strongly disagree with the President Obama who
>>> wants to
>>> put the past of the Bush administration behind us. Those who do
>>> not learn
>>> history will force to repeat it. And I think we should take the
>>> recent past
>>> 8-year historic experience seriously.
>>>
>>> 2) We should integrate defense with critique of modern science. The
>>> comfortable assumption that in modern Western societies defense of
>>> science
>>> is not needed has been proven wrong. I like Jay's point,
>>>> On
>>>> our side, I think we have a measure of confidence that, left to its
>>>> own devices, science's findings will at least not contradict our
>>>> values and political prescriptions (or maybe we'd even reconsider
>>>> our
>>>> positions if they did).
>>>
>>> It sounds like instead of the positive method ensuring the truth,
>>> Jay
>>> proposes a certain political and discourse regime of freedom that
>>> ensures
>>> that science practice would be healthy. Although, I think that
>>> science
>>> should not just be compatible with our values and political
>>> prescriptions
>>> but also inform them through a complex process of mutual informing.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Eugene
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> ]
>>>> On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:38 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus AND BINARIES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really, I am the last person to state, too seriously, unconditional
>>>> propositions, whether pro-binary or anti-binary! I am all for
>>>> complexity and the need for Both/And vs. Either/Or logics. (There
>>>> is a
>>>> lot of very interesting discussion of the Both/And approach in the
>>>> work of Anthony Wilden, who sought a synthesis of Bateson and
>>>> Lacan.)
>>>>
>>>> I did write, re synthesizing approaches to the integers, and
>>>> synthesizing into coherent master narratives generally, that they
>>>> can
>>>> do good for us and also can mislead us.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really identify binary logic with scientism, because
>>>> binarism
>>>> is far more widespread. Of course there is a lot of breath expended
>>>> over one binary, True/False, but I believe that the focus on this
>>>> one
>>>> evaluative dimensions, and depriving it of the key feature of
>>>> having
>>>> degrees (say, of freshness), common to all evaluations in English
>>>> semantics, is quite ideological and intellectually counter-
>>>> productive.
>>>> It's also really quite abstract because it implies that all
>>>> propositions that are called True are true in the same sense,
>>>> which I
>>>> do not believe. Many different classes of proposition are
>>>> demonstrated
>>>> to be true or not by very different procedures, and so,
>>>> concretely, I
>>>> take them to be true in different senses. This is turn means one
>>>> has
>>>> to be rather cautious about metaphors comparing different sorts of
>>>> truths, as for example freshness vs honesty or whatever Bulgakov
>>>> was
>>>> on about. (I have not read the novel, and maybe I will now.)
>>>>
>>>> So I liked Mike's strong version of what is not so much, I think,
>>>> anti-
>>>> binarism as anti- Black-or-White-ism, meaning not only that we are
>>>> presented with only two mutually exclusive choices, but that
>>>> everything on one side is reduced to an equivalence class,
>>>> homogenized, stereotyped, and so also on the other. Which gives
>>>> rise
>>>> to such very unhappy binaries as White vs Black, or non-White
>>>> (racially), or Gay vs Straight, or American vs un-American, or Us
>>>> vs
>>>> Them. Less abstraction and more attention to local, specific,
>>>> concrete
>>>> realities (life, in Mike's terms) restores the messiness,
>>>> requiring at
>>>> least a fuzzy logic (i.e. the technical one, not merely sloppy
>>>> classical logic), with degrees of membership in classes, and more
>>>> desirably, explicit clustering of diverse elements on both sides.
>>>> Which in turn tends to subvert the radical mutual exclusivity of
>>>> the
>>>> two sides (Mike's leakage), because now we begin to see that some
>>>> of
>>>> the concrete elements on one side actually do have important
>>>> (values!)
>>>> qualities in common with some of the elements that have been put on
>>>> the other side. From the inevitability of binarist war, we find
>>>> some
>>>> potential grounds for a modus vivendi.
>>>>
>>>> I saw online the other day Obama speaking to the National Academy
>>>> of
>>>> Sciences. He got the biggest round of applause, not for his
>>>> announcement of lots of new funding for research, but for a
>>>> statement
>>>> that in his administration the practice of subjugating science to
>>>> ideology would end. While there was not a lot of media attention to
>>>> this issue during the Bush presidency, it was widely known in the
>>>> scientific community, and in the education research community, that
>>>> there was an unprecedented amount of serious political
>>>> interference in
>>>> the conduct of research based on right-wing political ideology.
>>>> While
>>>> I am against Science making quasi-religious claims to universal
>>>> Truth,
>>>> as much because it is bad in the long run for the goals of
>>>> science as
>>>> because it is intellectually distasteful to me, I do agree, Eugene,
>>>> that sometimes we do also need to support, conditionally and on a
>>>> case
>>>> by case basis, some of the normative canons of scientific
>>>> investigation, even when those include what I might call
>>>> "provisional
>>>> binaries". Sometimes it is just heuristically useful to investigate
>>>> something as if there were an absolute binary involved. It
>>>> occasions a
>>>> risk to the research that it will miss something else important by
>>>> doing so. And the culture of science believes that sooner or
>>>> later, if
>>>> there is a problem with the binarist assumption, someone else will
>>>> point it out and we can come back and re-do things as needed.
>>>>
>>>> We also have a serious practical political issue here. Scientism,
>>>> or
>>>> just the credibility of scientifically-derived statements of
>>>> "fact",
>>>> can be a wonderful weapon to use against ideologies we passionately
>>>> disagree with. It is nice to have it in reserve, just in case our
>>>> moral-political arguments are not enough, or the balance of
>>>> material
>>>> and media power is against us. The reason that the Bush
>>>> conservatives
>>>> were interfering in scientific research was as much to try and
>>>> insure
>>>> that no such weapons fell into their opponents' hands as to try and
>>>> generate "facts" that fit with their own ideological
>>>> prejudgments. On
>>>> our side, I think we have a measure of confidence that, left to its
>>>> own devices, science's findings will at least not contradict our
>>>> values and political prescriptions (or maybe we'd even reconsider
>>>> our
>>>> positions if they did). Personally, I think most scientific
>>>> findings
>>>> or conclusions are already so larded with interpretations that
>>>> there
>>>> is always a lot of leeway between anything I'd call a
>>>> "fact" (say, a
>>>> reading on a measuring instrument) and anything that can be
>>>> construed
>>>> as bearing very directly on a political or moral issue. So I am not
>>>> too worried about the inevitability of a certain "realpolitik"
>>>> when it
>>>> comes to the credibility of Science.
>>>>
>>>> JAY.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>> Professor
>>>> Educational Studies
>>>> University of Michigan
>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, I am not interested in playing intellectual games either
>>>>> (e.g., I do
>>>>> not like playing a chess game). But I liked your challenge or my
>>>>> own
>>>>> challenge: to find out if there are any unconditional statements
>>>>> that I
>>>>> would agree. I almost believed that you offered one... but, at the
>>>>> end, it did
>>>>> not pass my final test. Since, I'm trying to be consistently
>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>> consideration of truth, whatever it leads me, does not bother me.
>>>>> I'm happy
>>>>> that you did not play the game either (although, you would not
>>>>> offend me if
>>>>> you did).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I respectfully disagree with you and maybe with Jay that
>>>>> the
>>>>> binary
>>>>> logic is inherently (and unconditionally) bad while contextual
>>>>> statements
>>>>> involving leakage of sides are inherently (and unconditionally)
>>>>> good. I
>>>>> think (=expect) that you agree with the latter but might still
>>>>> disagree with
>>>>> the former. I admit that at times, I have conversations with my
>>>>> computer
>>>>> despite the fact that I agree with you that it is an
>>>>> oxymoron ;-) It
>>>>> is also
>>>>> oxymoron to speak to myself - what new I can say to myself that
>>>>> myself/I do
>>>>> not already know? Despite this apparent paradox (and my
>>>>> inconsistency), I
>>>>> have conversations with myself and with my computer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that our suspicion of the binary logic comes from our
>>>>> criticism of
>>>>> positivism and scientism. There is nothing wrong in this
>>>>> suspicion,
>>>>> especially, when the binary logic is treated as the universal one
>>>>> but I
>>>>> think we should be careful in not overdoing our criticism. There
>>>>> is
>>>>> a danger
>>>>> that our post-modernist criticism of modernist, positivistic
>>>>> science, aligns
>>>>> with pre-modernist criticism of modernism. However, as we all
>>>>> know,
>>>>> enemy of
>>>>> my enemy is not necessary my friend but it can be an even bigger
>>>>> enemy.
>>>>> Bush's premodernist critique of science should be also criticized
>>>>> from a
>>>>> post-modern position rather we should join him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As your question about freshness and Jesus, I think that there is
>>>>> only one
>>>>> freshness: the first and the last one (very binary! J). I do not
>>>>> know about
>>>>> Jesus, but I believe that Kot Begemot would agree with me (for
>>>>> non-
>>>>> Russian
>>>>> audience, Kot Begemot was a part of the Devil's court from
>>>>> Bulgakov's novel
>>>>> "Master and Margarita", literally "Tom-cat Hippo", a very cunning,
>>>>> ironic,
>>>>> and smart character). I wonder what Dewey or Vygotsky would say
>>>>> about it...
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:23 PM
>>>>> To: Eugene Matusov
>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
>>>>> backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
>>>>> Philippakos
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a Cretan, that anyone can tell you, Eugene. As to Sandra
>>>>> "having a
>>>>> conversation with Ella(Z):
>>>>>
>>>>> I have long taken it as axiomatic that the phrase, "Conversation
>>>>> with a
>>>>> computer"
>>>>> is an oxymoron. Sort like an oxy-Cretan (poor people from Crete-
>>>>> judging
>>>>> from the
>>>>> size of their houses when Zeus was roaming around, they were very
>>>>> small and
>>>>> led difficult lives).
>>>>>
>>>>> Computers, and chatbots, are artifacts created by other humans (or
>>>>> other
>>>>> computer programs created by humans) and are, eventually, in the
>>>>> sequences
>>>>> of
>>>>> mediations, connect to other humans. I agree with the conclusion,
>>>>> but am
>>>>> saddened by the lack of orientation to the discourse that
>>>>> generated
>>>>> this
>>>>> journal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not playing Gotcha. I was trying to explore the way in which
>>>>> categories
>>>>> create insides and outsides and generalize and in so doing, err.
>>>>> But
>>>>> if I
>>>>> lost a game
>>>>> of gotcha and it brings you pleasure, go for it. Thanks for the
>>>>> new
>>>>> insight
>>>>> into that
>>>>> issue of two kinds of people. Diversity uber alles, up to the
>>>>> point
>>>>> where it
>>>>> causes blood to flow. Then it start to worry me a lot, but I am a
>>>>> worrier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that Jesus believed there were only two degrees of
>>>>> freshness of
>>>>> fish?
>>>>> What would Kot Begamot think about this issue?
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, you almost got me! Very good challenge - thanks!, "And, as
>>>>> you
>>>>> know,
>>>>> there are only two kinds of people in the world --- those who
>>>>> believe there
>>>>> are only two kinds of people and those who think there are
>>>>> more." I
>>>>> almost
>>>>> unconditionally agreed with your statement and then I noticed its
>>>>> meta-statement, "there are only two kinds of people in the
>>>>> world...."
>>>>> that is
>>>>> congruent with "those who believe there are only two kinds of
>>>>> people..." thus
>>>>> the person who stated this claim that I had initially liked
>>>>> belongs
>>>>> to the
>>>>> first category him or herself... It is like, "One Cretan said that
>>>>> all
>>>>> Cretans
>>>>> are liars." Very smart, indeed! ;-) Thanks for this Sabbath's
>>>>> puzzle
>>>>> (I did
>>>>> not know it)...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have an unconditionally tasty fish,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>> PS I like to hear more about your reading of discursive psychology
>>>>> and their
>>>>> use of the terms "activity" and "culture" and about reasons for
>>>>> your
>>>>> wonderment. Can you share more, please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:37 PM
>>>>> To: Eugene Matusov
>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
>>>>> backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
>>>>> Philippakos
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> da net! Eugene. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there are several degrees of freshness. This is a trout
>>>>> fisherman
>>>>> writing.
>>>>> And a resident of the coastline of California. Caught and cooked
>>>>> on
>>>>> the
>>>>> spot/ caught and
>>>>> frozen and taken home safely through the desert/bought at my local
>>>>> fish
>>>>> store on thursday,
>>>>> bought at my local fish store on monday..........
>>>>>
>>>>> But I love your example and the novel is one of my very favorites.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, as you know, there are only two kinds of people in the world
>>>>> --- those
>>>>> who believe there are only
>>>>> two kinds of people and those who think there are more.
>>>>>
>>>>> conditionally speaking
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> PS-- Reading about discursive psychology in the interims and
>>>>> wondering why
>>>>> the word activity is
>>>>> used as it is and where the word culture is, and what Lois
>>>>> thinks of
>>>>> it, and
>>>>> mostly wishing I had more
>>>>> time to read it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jay and Mike and everybody--
>>>>>
>>>>> Conditionally, Jay, I like Mike's statement as well,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>> heterogeneity within the "two parts" and leakage between them
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> relations to "their context" that IS life.
>>>>>
>>>>> but only conditionally. There are situations when this statement
>>>>> is
>>>>> deadly
>>>>> but binary logic is on the side of life. I remember a famous
>>>> allegoric
>>>>> statement from Russian novel "Master and Margarita" by Michael
>>>>> Bulgakov. In
>>>>> short, in the novel's plot, the Devil visited Stalinist Russia
>>>>> (Moscow to be
>>>>> exact) in the 1930s during the Stalinist worst purges. Among other
>>>>> things
>>>>> the Devil visited a theater to make familiar with New Soviet
>>>>> people.
>>>>> In
>>>>> theater buffet, the Devil noticed rotten fish with the label,
>>>>> "Fish
>>>>> of the
>>>>> third [degree] freshness." The Devil told the buffet salesperson,
>>>>> "Dear
>>>>> salesperson, somebody has lied to you. There is no such thing as
>>>>> 'fish of
>>>>> the third-degree freshness. Fish can be only one degree of
>>>>> freshness: either
>>>>> it is fresh or not. Respectful, your fish is not fresh, it
>>>>> stinks."
>>>>> This
>>>>> short exchange revealed the deception of Stalinist "leakage" of
>>>>> two
>>>>> parts
>>>>> (namely, life and death). The binary logic presented by the Devil
>>>>> here was
>>>>> on the side of life, while non-binary Stalinist discourse of
>>>>> making
>>>>> 'white'
>>>>> black and 'black' white (that at that time often referred as
>>>>> 'dialectics')
>>>>> was on the side of death.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we might be careful in indorsing any universal statements
>>>>> even when
>>>>> they can be true, on average (in our sociocultural conditions). We
>>>>> should be
>>>>> also careful with our fight against scientific positivism that has
>>>>> historically emerged in response to (religious) totalitarian
>>>>> ideology of
>>>>> manipulative "leakages". After the Bush administration reign, I
>>>>> have
>>>>> become
>>>>> even more careful about dissing positivistic science.... (By the
>>>>> way, the
>>>>> Bush administration used discourses that were convincingly based
>>>>> on
>>>>> both the
>>>>> binary logic and at the same time on the manipulative "leakages",
>>>>> like, for
>>>>> example, torture becomes not torture but rather a permissible grey
>>>>> area of
>>>>> an "intense interrogation technique"). Binary logic can bring life
>>>>> sometimes, indeed....
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>>>>>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:46 PM
>>>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right on, Mike!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>>>> Professor
>>>>>> Educational Studies
>>>>>> University of Michigan
>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke><http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 2, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What one I think is literally deadening, Eugene, is binaries
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> uniformities on both sides. Under such conditions, change is
>>>>>>> impossible. It
>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>> heterogeneity within the "two parts" and leakage between them
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> relations to "their context" that IS life.
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Tony Whitson
>>>>>>> <twhitson@udel.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Wikipedia, "Jackie Mason" was born Yacov Moshe
>>>>>>>> Maza
>>>>>>>> (for what
>>>>>>>> it's worth).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 May 2009, Michael Glassman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eugene,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would argue that the intonation is not so much related to
>>>>>>>>> language as it
>>>>>>>>> is to culture - in essence a part of cultural capital that
>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> found in
>>>>>>>>> Russia, but in a number of other places around the world
>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>> different languages. You use the example,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish
>>>>>> English,
>>>>>>>>> "Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
>>>>>>>>> opposite meaning
>>>>>>>>> with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my
>>>>>>>>> taken
>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> book?" "I
>>>>>>>>> need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
>>>>>>>>> «????? ??? ????? ????
>>>>>>>>> ?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange
>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>> because the response has the intonation indicating the
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> meaning that
>>>>>>>>> its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet
>>>> commented
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
>>>>>>>>> secret police).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But anybody who has listened to Jackie Mason, not such a good
>>>>>>>>> human being
>>>>>>>>> but a pretty good comedian, has heard him using the type of
>>>>>>>>> intonation you
>>>>>>>>> are discussing brilliantly in English - so brilliantly you
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> wonder how
>>>>>>>>> it could work in any other language - but of course it could.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> sure the
>>>>>>>>> same intonation, or maybe different types of intonations
>>>>>>>>> expressing meaning
>>>>>>>>> but especially sense, could be used in almost any language as
>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>> speaker was comfortable with it. What is interesting about
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> use of this
>>>>>>>>> type of intonation is when somebody uses it - at least in
>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>> - I can
>>>>>>>>> make a pretty good guess about where they grew up in the
>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>> Some people who are really good at this can even limit it to
>>>>>> general
>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods - and you immediately recognize certain cultural
>>>>>>>>> qualities
>>>>>>>>> about that individual and it cuts through a lot of other
>>>>>>>>> information. On
>>>>>>>>> the other end of the spectrum somebody could use the
>>>>>>>>> intonation
>>>>>>>>> perfectly in
>>>>>>>>> Columbus Ohio and individuals would just understand the remark
>>>>>>>>> based on the
>>>>>>>>> more straight forward understanding (and might consider you a
>>>>>>>>> little alien
>>>>>>>>> for using the intonation). What also might suggest the
>>>> intonation
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> part of cultural capital rather than the language itself is
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> fact the I
>>>>>>>>> think it is often time used as a form of intimacy, kidding, or
>>>>>>>>> making fun in
>>>>>>>>> a non-maliscious way.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Eugene Matusov
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sat 5/2/2009 1:31 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; 'Zoi Philippakos'; 'eXtended
>>>> Mind,
>>>>>>>>> Culture, Activity'; 'PIG'
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You wrote, "another example of binary logic which is anti-
>>>>>>>>> human".
>>>>>>>>> I wonder
>>>>>>>>> what makes this logic anti-human is not necessary that it is
>>>>>>>>> binary, but
>>>>>>>>> maybe the fact that it strives to be the universal,
>>>> unconditional,
>>>>>>>>> disembodied, and decontextualized. I think that limited and
>>>>>>>>> situated binary
>>>>>>>>> relations can be humane. As you nicely put it before, the
>>>>>>>>> universal answer
>>>>>>>>> to any problem is, "it depends" ;-) The big problem, of
>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>> what it
>>>>>>>>> depends on... (I always say to my grad students that the
>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>> latter question will be addressed in a future Advanced Grad
>>>>>>>>> Sociocultural
>>>>>>>>> Seminar that I never teach J)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish
>>>>>> English,
>>>>>>>>> "Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
>>>>>>>>> opposite meaning
>>>>>>>>> with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my
>>>>>>>>> taken
>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> book?" "I
>>>>>>>>> need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
>>>>>>>>> «????? ??? ????? ????
>>>>>>>>> ?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange
>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> English
>>>>>>>>> because the response has the intonation indicating the
>>>>>>>>> opposite
>>>>>>>>> meaning that
>>>>>>>>> its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet
>>>> commented
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
>>>>>>>>> secret police).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed made an interesting and thought-provoking point, "Social
>>>>>>>>> relations
>>>>>>>>> don't give rise to mathematics, but mathematics seems to give,
>>>>>>>>> perspectivally, a rise to social relations." I think that in
>>>>>>>>> general, it is
>>>>>>>>> a chicken-egg problem but I suspect that social relations have
>>>>>>>>> priority over
>>>>>>>>> math. So, Ed, we have a respectful disagreement, indeed. The
>>>>>>>>> reason for my
>>>>>>>>> suspicion is that usually, although not always, social
>>>>>>>>> relations
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> priority over everything else. For example, it seems that
>>>>>> historical
>>>>>>>>> emergency of geometry was a result of a certain development of
>>>>>>>>> private
>>>>>>>>> property on land and conflicts associated with it. Certain
>>>>>>>>> (but
>>>>>>>>> not all!)
>>>>>>>>> mathematical questions could emerge only within certain social
>>>>>>>>> relations..
>>>>>>>>> One of these vivid examples can be mathematical division. I'm
>>>>>>>>> always amazed
>>>>>>>>> how difficult for Western kids to understand fractional
>>>>>>>>> division
>>>>>>>>> leading to
>>>>>>>>> a number bigger that divided. For example, 2 divided by ½
>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>> 4. Western
>>>>>>>>> understanding of fair sharing almost exclusively as
>>>>>>>>> splitting the
>>>>>>>>> whole on
>>>>>>>>> equal but smaller parts (private property) makes very
>>>>>>>>> difficult
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> consider
>>>>>>>>> a possibility for collective sharing in which the more people
>>>>>>>>> share the more
>>>>>>>>> value the whole has. We have a PIG Lab of Internationally
>>>>>>>>> Recognize
>>>>>>>>> Excellence - the more people use it, the more valuable it
>>>>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>>>>> (to a
>>>>>>>>> point of course, ;-). By collective sharing, ten PIGgies
>>>> virtually
>>>>>>>>> have 10
>>>>>>>>> labs! Or 1 divided on 1/10 is 10. I think this fractional
>>>> division
>>>>>>>>> reflects
>>>>>>>>> collective sharing (and collective fairness) in contrast to
>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>> division based on private property sharing (and private
>>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>>> fairness).
>>>>>>>>> It is interesting to study this question empirically....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PS I know that everyone in this XMCA discussion who replies
>>>>>>>>> to my
>>>>>>>>> messages
>>>>>>>>> gets bounced message from the PIG email list (no connection to
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> swine
>>>>>>>>> flu!). I try to resend your messages to the my PIGgy
>>>>>>>>> colleagues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Professor of Education
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> School of Education
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> University of Delaware
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Newark, DE 19716, USA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> email: ematusov@udel.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu <http://
>>>>>>>>> ematusov.soe.udel.edu/> <
>>>>>>>>> http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu <
>>>>>>>>> http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/> <http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/><http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:01 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Eugene Matusov
>>>>>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; backontrack@wwscholars.org
>>>>>>>>> ;
>>>>>>>>> Zoi
>>>>>>>>> Philippakos; PIG
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That it works to think that the enemy of your enemy is your
>>>> friend
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> another example
>>>>>>>>> of binary logic which is anti-human. Shit happens a lot,
>>>>>>>>> Eugene.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your yeah yeah example is in the increasingly long and equally
>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>> trail of emails on
>>>>>>>>> this thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> da da
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>> zhanchit?
>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Eugene Matusov
>>>> <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Mike--
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You wrote,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> enemy
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
>>>>>>>>>> not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, it worked rather well during the WWII for the Allies
>>>>>>>>> (US-
>>>>>>>>> UK) and
>>>>>>>>> the USSR. Their cooperation in opposition to the Nazi
>>>>>>>>> Germany was
>>>>>>>>> governed
>>>>>>>>> by the Arabic wisdom "an enemy of your enemy is your
>>>>>>>>> friend." It
>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> powerful indeed but as you said it is not universal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As to the natural language and the formal logic (math), in
>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> (+1)*(+1)=-1, according to famous anecdote, "The most
>>>>>>>>> celebrated
>>>>>>>>> [Sidney]
>>>>>>>>> Morgenbesser anecdote involved visiting Oxford philosopher
>>>>>>>>> J. L.
>>>>>>>>> Austin,
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>> noted that it was peculiar that although there are many
>>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>>>>>> in which
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> double negative makes a positive, no example existed where two
>>>>>>>>> positives
>>>>>>>>> expressed a negative. In a dismissive voice, Morgenbesser
>>>>>>>>> replied
>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>> audience, 'Yeah, yeah.'"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>>>>>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:38 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi Philippakos; PIG
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Eugene, the mixture of plus and minus was the focus of my
>>>> inquiry.
>>>>>>>>>> Natural
>>>>>>>>>> language understanding
>>>>>>>>>> of double negatives solves that problem for 2 numbers, beyond
>>>>>>>>>> which I
>>>>>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>>>>> natural language needs
>>>>>>>>>> a notation system to keep track.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So far Jerry Balzano's mirror explanation seems like it has
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>>>> chance
>>>>>>>>>> with my grand daughter (in
>>>>>>>>>> part because i can actually imagine creating the
>>>>>>>>>> demonstration
>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> lines up
>>>>>>>>>> intuition and notation). I
>>>>>>>>>> have not had time to read all of the notes in this thread
>>>>>>>>>> owing
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> heavy
>>>>>>>>>> teaching and extra lecture schedule
>>>>>>>>>> and a rash of recommendation letters out of season (which I
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>>>> sub for swine flu). But
>>>>>>>>>> simply in scanning could I make a plea for socio-CULTURAL
>>>>>>>>>> constructivism? If
>>>>>>>>>> we do not keep what is
>>>>>>>>>> essential to human forms of human sociality in the
>>>>>>>>>> discussion,
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> well be talking about bonobos
>>>>>>>>>> who, at least, know enough to make love not war.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> enemy
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
>>>>>>>>>> not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Eugene Matusov
>>>>>> <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear everybody--
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In response to Mike's profound inquiry of why a minus
>>>>>>>>>>> times a
>>>>>>>>>>> minus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> plus, I was thinking that it is a mathematical model of the
>>>>>> Arabic
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wisdom
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." Of course, the
>>>>>>>>>>> latter
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> always true -- we have plenty of examples when enemy of our
>>>>>>>>>>> enemy is
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> our enemy (or just indifferent) and, thus, for these types
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>>> relations, the mathematical model of (-1) x (-1) =1 does not
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> consider, for an example, the relations among the US, Al-
>>>>>>>>>>> Qaida,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Saddam
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hussein.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The issue for me is why the Western civilization prioritizes
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematizes) social relations described in the Arabic
>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom.
>>>>>> One
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> answer
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> because "the real world" works according to these social
>>>>>> relations
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the social relations is just an example of the truth out
>>>> there).
>>>>>>>>>>> An
>>>>>>>>>>> alternative explanation is that the Western civilization can
>>>>>>>>>>> afford
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> might be even benefit from imposing these social relations
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>> "the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> world" that by itself is indifferent to any social relations
>>>>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> thus
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical models). Any other explanations?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Ng Foo Keong
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:23 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is Mathematics _merely_ socially constructed, or is there
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> deeper and inevitable?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this deserves a new thread, but I couldn't manage
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let me try to draw out and assemble the line of discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> spun
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> off from the "a minus times a plus" thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In her inaugural post to xcma, Anna Sfard about talked
>>>>>>>>>>>> "rules
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the mathematical game" among other things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then Jay Lemke said:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's important, however, to see, as Anna
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasizes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there is a certain "arbitrariness" involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you like it better: a freedom of choice. Yes, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure-and-agency all over again! Structure determines
>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things fit into bigger pictures and some don't, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agency is always at work deciding which pictures, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fit, which structures, etc. And behind that values, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture, and how we feel about things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I (Ng Foo Keong) said:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding structure and agency, arbitrariness:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i think now it's time for me to pop this question that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bugging me for some time. i am convinced that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> socially constructured, but i am not so convinced that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> is _merely_ socially constructured. if we vary across
>>>>>>>>>>> cultures
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and different human activities, we might find different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in which patterns and structure can be expressed and yet
>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find commonalities / analogies. the question i am
>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is maths just a ball game determined by some group of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nerds
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happen to be in power and dominate the discourse, or is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> invariant, something deeper in maths that can transcend and
>>>>>>>>>>> unite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language, culture, activity .... ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Foo Keong,
>>>>>>>>>>>> NIE, Singapore
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then Ed Wall said:-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ng Foo Keong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As regards your question about mathematics being socially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constructed, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematics or what kind of evidence would convince you it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose I said that there was evidence for innate subtizing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>>>>> signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>>>> signature
>>>>>>>>>>> database 4043 (20090429) __________
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>>> signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>>>>>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>>> signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>> signature
>>>>>>>>> database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>> virus
>>>>>>>>> signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/><http://www.eset.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Whitson
>>>>>>>> UD School of Education
>>>>>>>> NEWARK DE 19716
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> twhitson@udel.edu
>>>>>>>> _______________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "those who fail to reread
>>>>>>>> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>>>>>>> -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
>>>>>> virus
>>>>>> signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>>> signature
>>>>> database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>
>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>>> signature
>>>>> database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>>> signature
>>>>> database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>
>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>>> signature
>>>>> database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>> signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>>> signature database 4050 (20090503) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature
>>> database 4050 (20090503) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
> Valerie A. Wilkinson, Ph.D.
> Professor of Communication
> Faculty of Information, Shizuoka University
> 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan 432-8011
> http://www.ia.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/~vwilk/
> vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp
> phone 81 (53) 478-1529
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Wayne Au
Assistant Professor
Department of Secondary Education
CSU Fullerton
P.O. Box 6868
Fullerton, CA 92834
Office: 714.278.5481
Editorial Board Member: Rethinking Schools (www.rethinkingschools.org)
http://ed.fullerton.edu/SecEd/Faculty/Full_Time_Faculty/Au.html
"Education must keep broad ideals before it, and never forget that it is dealing with Souls and not with Dollars." - W.E.B. DuBois
Attachment:
Au-BetweenEducationAndEconomy.pdf
Description: Au-BetweenEducationAndEconomy.pdf
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca