Robert,
Regarding your comment:
...(an aside to Victor, I am having difficulty reconciling your
characterization of thought as, "social and therefore external to the
subject" with Marx's dictum on the nature of human labor that, "what
distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the
architect raises his structure in reality.")
So do I. But, the characterization of thought as "social and therefore
external to the subject" is as characteristic of Marxs's theory as is "what
distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the
architect raises his structure in reality." Hopefully, I'll finish writing
up my commentary on the contradictions implied here by the end of the month.
Until then.
Regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bracewell" <robert.bracewell@mcgill.ca>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 6:16 PM
Subject: RE: Learning Paradox
> A final kick at the can from me on the learning paradox:
>
> I agree with much of what Michael and others have said about the learning
> paradox (hence the quotation marks around the phrase in a previous
> posting). Obviously it is not a problem for those of us who are getting on
> with living and learning in our daily lives. Its status as a paradox does
> seem to be based on questionable assumptions; and the analysis of these
> assumptions and their implications is an important scholarly enterprise.
> And I can appreciate the negative linkage between these assumptions and
> fostering pluralism in society. Here in Montreal (at least as much as any
> other place on the continent), most of us live and try to nurture a
> pluralistic society--an activity that depends on openness toward, and
> appreciation and uptake of the different and the unfamiliar. More
> generally, the phenomenological novelty of interaction with the world,
> referred to by both Michael and Victor, contradicts the learning paradox
> (an aside to Victor, I am having difficulty reconciling your
> characterization of thought as, "social and therefore external to the
> subject" with Marx's dictum on the nature of human labor that, "Swhat
> distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the
> architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in
> reality.")
>
> But I see the issue as somewhat broader (albeit with the analysis of
> questionable assumptions as a significant part)--namely, as being one of
> how to use the learning paradox as a heuristic to achieve a more
> comprehensive and integrated view of development. The reference example
> would be one of the classical paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox of Achilles
> and the tortoise. The resolution of this paradox was achieved by the
> development of the calculus with its algebraic treatment of successively
> smaller differences. That is, generally, the paradox highlighted the
> absence of a theoretical framework for dealing with a phenomenon of
> everyday activity. In an analogous manner, I see the learning paradox as
> highlighting our lack of a framework which, to echo Mike's comment, can
> supercede it.
>
> Although we do not have a framework, we do have some candidate pieces and
> procedures for realizing such a framework. One of these is deductive
logic.
> As John pointed out, by itself deductive logic is not creative; it is
> however implicated in the verification of new conjectures. A second is, of
> course, the analysis of assumptions that underlie the learning paradox. A
> third is Peirce's construct of abduction and related constructs by other
> scholars, which are implicated in the discovery or creation of
conjectures.
> A fourth are the various formalisms and mechanisms for deriving
> patterns/representations. These would include recursive grammars and the
> connectionist approaches mentioned by John (a dynamic models approach
seems
> particularly relevant here, see work by Tom Schultz and Yoshio Takane). A
> fifth would be some of Piaget's constructs such as accommodation. \A
sixth
> would be the construct of expertise (and supporting data). Together with
> the theory and constructs of activity theory, all of these potentially can
> contribute to how our internal plane becomes constituted through
experience
> and development and, as Arievitch proposed, to a more integrated
> psychological view of human development.
>
> --Robert
>
>
> >Robert,
> >
> >I think the issue is not whether there are resources to resolve the
> >learning paradox, but based on my original questions, and answers from
> >Victor and John, whether the whole idea of the learning paradox, and the
> >need to resolve it, is based on a set of underlying assumptions that may
> >or may not be true. The discussion should be about the assumptions and
> >whether they should be accepted in the first place, and the enormous
> >social and political implications of accepting these assumptions (I for
> >one believe it is impossible to face problems of pluralisms if we accept
> >the assumptions the learning paradox is based upon).
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Bracewell
> Associate Professor
> McGill University
> 3700 McTavish Street
> Montreal, Canada H3A 1Y2
> email: Robert Bracewell <robert.bracewell@mcgill.ca>
> voice: 514-398-3443
> fax: 514-398-6968
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:01 PST