|
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: |