Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

[ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]

Would you agree that logic and mathematical notation is quantitative in 
nature?  I believe CHAT is after what is qualitative in nature to capture 
the essence of the dialectic.  Perhaps?  Development moves forward in 
irreversible time; logic and mathematical notation can move backwards, 
forwards, round and round.  Perchance?

eric



From:   Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date:   04/21/2011 12:19 PM
Subject:        Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu



On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

> Huw:
>
> I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words.  I can appreciate
> the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
> origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
> reality.  6" of snow in april is what it is, right?  So, if one were to
> take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera 
and
> media time is that a tool or a concept?  Methinks a concept is neutral 
and
> only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april.  Thanks to Martin I 
have
> honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
> discussing the merger of thinking and speech;  being that word meaning
> evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
> speaking the word.  However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
> stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept:  Snow
> in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts but
> then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.  Tool use is an
> association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea onto
> another but it is merely a quantity.  No?  Going back to the example of
> poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it that
> qualifies poverty?  I can think of many examples as I am sure others can
> as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is 
not
> wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
> purposes.
>
> does that make sense?
>

I would need to read this several times over in order to try and align
meanings.  Let me try this (hopefully simple) example:

Somewhere out in the world it is feasible that there is a government
institution that has an automated tax calculation system that has, deep in
its rigorous codifications, something like this:

class Poverty : public EconomicStatus
{
        ...
        const Money& calculateTaxToPay( const Money& income ) const
        {
                return Money(0);
        }
        ...
};

I would agree that this is an artifact.  I would also state that this is a
rigorous implementation of (someones) concept (effectively a scientific
concept).

Now.  If you shut this part of the system down and get a qualified person 
to
perform the calculations identically, at a logical level, what are they
using to do this task?

Huw


> eric
>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
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