Hi Andy:
I geuss now I am even more confused than before.
FOrget the faith part. Could you please provide a good starting point
for Ilyenkov's Ideal, I know that this has been addressed in the past
but I still don't have a firm grasp of it.
thank you
eric
*Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>*
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
03/04/2010 06:48 AM
Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
Activity"
To:
cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
I didn't express myself clearly then, Eric. I simply meant
to list a number of concepts which (1) Are taught in a
formal setting, (2) Are true concepts, and (3) Are not
scientific. That's all. For my point, the question of Faith
doesn't come into it. Relgious concepts, for example, must
be understood in order to understand the literature, law,
etc, of religious activity, for which there is no need to
"believe" it.
Andy
ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Hello Andy:
> I was referring to your comment that the holy trinity is taught as being
> factual. IHave always viewed the holy trinity as a faith-based
system and
> not "factual". Part of Spinoza'a difficulty with church members was his
> logicical use of spiritual matters. Although not a christian and
therefore
> not involved in the matters of the holy trinity it is still a sticky
wicket
> when faith and fact cross paths.
>
> So within this context I was looking for insight into the factual
contents
> of Ilyenkov's Ideal.
>
> thank you,
> eric
>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> bcc:
> Subject: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 03/03/2010 10:10 AM ZE11
> Please respond to ablunden <font size=-1></font>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric,
> I am happy to respond, but could you contextualise your
> question a little? Do you mean Ideals in general, or some
> particular Ideal? I am curious, too.
>
> Andy
>
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>> I am curious Andy, do you believe the Ideal to be factual or is it based
>> on faith?
>>
>> eric
>>
>>
>> *Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>*
>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>
>> 03/02/2010 06:17 AM
>> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"
>>
>>
>> To: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I really don't know the answer to this, Rod. I am just
>> exploring, but in that spirit ...
>>
>> All teachers and probably all children like it best when the
>> kids are just doing what they like doing, and of course they
>> acquire competency and confidence if they learn like this.
>> That's all nice and cosy. Ever since some time in the 1960s
>> it has been near impossible to teach any other way (in many
>> countries) in any case, because teachers can no longer
>> exercise fearful authority or even respect ...
>>
>> But how does one grasp the Holy Trinity, or Saggitarian
>> personalities, Iconic representation or Nonalgebraic
>> equations, ... or any of these concepts which belong to
>> systems of activity and concepts which are foreign to the
>> day to day life of children?
>>
>> And if children just quietly accept the Holy Trinity without
>> noticing that it is a concept based on Original Sin and the
>> sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is not really
>> factual ... is this a good thing?
>>
>> Is there anything to learn at school? Or can we all just
>> absorb everything we need to know without really trying? Are
>> we all natural born masters?
>>
>> I have in mind the material Chapter 5 of "Thinking and
>> Speech." Vygotsky seems to think that learning concepts
>> which are foreign to a child's day-to-day life is a
>> completely different process from what happens when a child
>> generalising from their own experience. It is only when the
>> two processes meet that genuine understanding is possible.
>> But if we shy away from teaching concepts, what is the result?
>>
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>> > I would be opposed to JUST teaching the rules of mathematics or art
>> (using the 'right' colours) AS rules before children have had a chance
>> to do some groundwork on building up spontaneous concepts through
>> immersion in a cultural environment in which people do the things that
>> people do with maths and art.
>> >
>> > I think John Holt once argued that if we taught children to talk in
>> the same way that we teach them to read we would have many more elective
>> mutes and children with speech delays. I am not thinking so much about
>> the later stages of education but I think it is pretty clear that in the
>> early years children benefit more from adults who follow and expand on
>> their attention than from those who try to switch their attention to
>> desirable, high value learning (like teachers who have to turn every
>> form of play towards counting, naming shapes and colours etc.). Children
>> are taught from very early on to associate learning with WORK - with all
>> the affective baggage that goes with that. I often hear students saying
>> how wonderful it is when children are learning 'without even knowing
>> that they are learning', partly because sneaking stuff in under the
>> radar is seen as a way of bypassing the 'work = boring and difficult'
>> associations which children are assumed to have developed.
>> >
>> > I do think there is a time and a place for teaching but I am not
>> convinced that children always experience their teaching at appropriate
>> times or in appropriate places!
>> >
>> > All the best,
>> >
>> > Rod
>> >
>> > ________________________________________
>> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>> > Sent: 02 March 2010 09:42
>> > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> > Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>> >
>> > So on that basis, Rod, you would also be opposed to the
>> > teaching of mathematics, and for that matter, art, unless
>> > the child was planning a career in a genuinely relevant
>> > profession, such as maths teacher or art teacher. :)
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
>> > Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>> >> I think there is a big affective difference between the way we learn
>> first languages (or multiple mother, father and grandmother tongues) and
>> the way we learn studied languages. I was taught French all through
>> school but learned Italian by spending the best part of a year in Italy
>> and i am conscious of differences in HOW I know each of these languages
>> (and English). I have more of a feel for whether or not something sounds
>> right in Italian but I know I know a lot more about the workings of
>> French grammar.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder how useful it is to teach grammar, as a formal system of
>> rules, to children who are still picking up on the 'feel' of their
>> language. I still think that reading well written prose is probably the
>> best way to develop this feel (picking up a set of 'intuitive' patterns
>> about 'the done thing' or 'what people do, as a rule') but of course
>> this helps to develop a 'gut feeling' about the grammar of WRITTEN
>> language - we also need plenty of exposure to different styles of spoken
>> language so that we can develop sensitivities to what works when and
>> with whom (I never had much time for those primary schools which
>> insisted that children must only be exposed to one, 'correct' way of
>> forming letters - one font - for fear of confusing them!).
>> >>
>> >> The time for learning about conventional rules AS rules may be when
>> we start to ask questions about why some people say it this way and some
>> say it that way. We know from studies of language acquisition that a
>> huge amount of time can be wasted on trying to condition children to
>> follow a rule which they have not yet noticed.
>> >>
>> >> All the best,
>> >>
>> >> Rod
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________________
>> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>> >> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:21
>> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> >> Subject: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
>> >>
>> >> Our immensely incompetent Labor Government yesterday
>> >> announced their new national curriculum for schools
>> >> (formerly this was a state responsibility).
>> >>
>> >> It features the teaching of history from the very beginning,
>> >> including indigenous history (this is an unambiguous good)
>> >> and emphasises the 3 Rs, including grammar. No curriculum
>> >> has been set yet in Geography and other subjects.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/a-sound-beginning-20100301-pdlv.html
>> >>
>> >> Helen raised with me off-line this problem of reintroducing
>> >> the teaching of grammar: who is going to educate the
>> >> educators? Anyone under 55 today did not learn grammar at
>> >> school or until they did a foreign language, when they
>> >> learnt the grammar of the other language. (Grammar means
>> >> "Which icon do I click now?")
>> >>
>> >> What do xmca-ers think about teaching grammar? (I am in favour.)
>> >>
>> >> Also, many progressive educators here are opposed to
>> >> curricula in toto: education should be about learning not
>> >> content. Do xmca-ers agree?
>> >>
>> >> Given the disastrous implementation of policies by this
>> >> government over the past 2 years, I fear for our education
>> >> system. What do people think?
>> >>
>> >> Andy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> >> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>> >> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> xmca mailing list
>> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> > --
>> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>> > Ilyenkov $20 ea
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca