RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus

["Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>]

Dear Mike and everybody--

Mike wrote,
> What one I think is literally deadening, Eugene, is binaries with
> uniformities on both sides. Under such conditions, change is
> impossible.

Hmmm... I think tools and environment can make certain things easier or
difficult to happen but, probably, never impossible. As Heidegger once said
(did he?), any tool can be a weapon if you know how to use it. Knife can
kill in hands of a criminal but can cure in hands of a surgeon. However, it
is true that criminals prefer knives over feathers (although, as Heidegger
correctly pointed out (if it were Heidegger), feathers can be also deadly). 

Sometimes I'm binary and sometimes I am not. I just try to not allow
binaries control me. When binaries control me, I become deadly. When I
control them, I'm, probably, OK. What is important for me is not to be
consistent but rather humane ;-)

What do you think?

Eugene



> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of Mike Cole
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
> 
> 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/>
> >>
> >> ---------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> __________ 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/>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________ 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/>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> __________ 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/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________ 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/>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> 
> 
> __________ 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