Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus BINARIES plus Kindergarten and Ba

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Hi Valerie--- Your message was the first I encountered this morning,
Hopefully I will be able to provide some relevant answers to your question.
Preamble. This discussion group is associated with the journal Mind,
Culture, and Activity and grows out of a newsletter devoted to issues of
culture and development that began in the 1970's, published by the
Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. So, to some extent, answers to
your
questions can be found in that rather extensive context. That the journal
for which xmca is named deals with the nexus of mind, culture, and activity
(every one an always contested term, never mind their intersection!), is
thus a reasonable place to look to try to figure out what we do and do not
discuss. An issue of the journal with the article putatively under
discussion at present (and not irrelevant to some of your questions and
remarks) is
available free at Taylor and Francis with a handy button on the xmca web
page.

The background organizing work for all of this (thankfully, people like
Michael Roth do most of the work!) is LCHC. lchc.ucsd.edu is the home of
xmca and the support system for the production of the journal. You can visit
the site and get a better idea of all that, but for openers, here is what it
currently says at the home page:

*The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition* was established at UCSD in
1978. As its name implies, members of LCHC pursue research which takes
differences among human beings as a starting point for understanding human
mental processes. We adopt an ecological approach to our subject matter,
looking at systems that include mediating tools, people, representations,
institutions and activities.  Populations varying in age, culture,
biological characteristics, social class, schooling, ethnicity, etc. are
studied in a wide range of activity settings in various social institutions
(schools, hospitals, workplaces) and countries.  Correspondingly, we use a
wide range of methods (such as participant observation, ethnography,
experimentation, discourse-analysis) to bring into clear relief the role of
culturally inflected collective social practices, change over time, and the
cultural-historical context of the people among whom we work in the
phenomena we study.
            In keeping with the ethos of our orientation, we create
interventions (sometimes referred to as “design experiments”) both as a
means of initiating changes thought to be beneficial in the settings where
we do our research and as a means of assessing the generalizability of
findings from more restricted laboratory settings.  We find comparisons
across the different realms in which we conduct research and the continual
confrontation of theory with practice to be powerful sources of insight and
theoretical development.
            International collaboration in research is fundamental to
understanding human cognition. Hence, in addition to using computers and
computer networking as a research tool, we use these same means to promote
discussion and collaboration among geographically distant people. We invite
anyone interested in our efforts to contact us through any of the people
whose information is contained in these pages.

Now to answer those of your questions about which I might have something
reasonable to contribute. You and others will judge, of course.

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Valerie Wilkinson <vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp
> wrote:

> Referring to some of the threads:
> "Why don't people talk about wisdom anymore?" is definitely a rhetorical
> question that makes the tacit assumption that they/we don't.  But wisdom,
> like love, is abstract until informed by examples.


I had exactly the same thought when I read this comment about its being a
misleading rhetorical question. People do study wisdon. The late Paul
Baltes, who was in his way a cultural historical psychologist, spent many
years writing on the topic, and Robert Sternberg who writes on almost
every topic in psychology on can think of has written not only on wisdom but
love (whether wisely or not in either case is beyond my purview at the
moment). So they do and some of they may be us.


Could you offer some examples of wisdom and love that you think we might
profit from engaging with?

>
>
> I could ask the question, "Why do we shun the Platonic ideal?"  I fear it
> wouldn't kick off much of a conversation.  But is the idea of "organic"
> learning any more informative?  It is strictly environmental, but the
> environment may include religious education and symbolic organizational
> practices which support the dominant paradigm or the people who make the
> rules or the people who watch out for everyone's safety.
>

A lot of questions/issues packed in here. Was the question about Platonism
rhetorical? If not, then perhaps a way to ground a discussion would be in
Norm Friessen's article on discursive psychology that we are supposed to be,
but appear not to be, discussing. Seems like his characterization of the
bad guy old fashiong hijackers of the cognitive revolution were
platonists.... cartesians for sure...

I either do not understand what you mean by "organic learning." Were you
quoting a prior message (I have been very locally pre-occupied and as a
result have missed a bunch of xmca notes recently.... still in my in box)?
The position ordinarily defended in this group is derived from Vygotsky (and
Dewey, and others') explicity rejection of the of environment as external
conditions. See passim notes and discussions here on xmca which you can
google at the lchc home page. And yes, the environment for sure includes
religious education and a huge variety of symbolically mediated
organizational practices ( you might have something more/different in mind
in your reference to "symbolic organizational practices" but I have
difficulty in thinking about human practices that are devoid of
symbolicness).

>
> David Kellogg said: "Here are some countervailing facts to consider, before
> we leap to conclusions about the malign effects of Confucianism (which, like
> most truly ancient cultural traditions, has an irrepressibly creative and
> humanist core) on dysfunctional American education." YES! and well, uh - it
> works if you can play the game - and there is always a dialectic going with
> Taoism somewhere.
>
> It is so hard to get outside of a system you are in. And if you are in
> international academia, you are  committed to a system in some guise that
> employs you or publishes your papers or creates the forum where you may
> share your ideas.  To get talking points in that system you have to be able
> to talk to the talk.   To talk the talk, it is best, but not requisite, to
> have grown up in the system.
>
> Much of what we are talking about has been talked over in various fora -
> from IQ and differentiated intelligence to language and manners and then the
> whole cultural marginalizing process that forces some to accept a role which
> "native intelligence" could easily overcome  - since experiential learning
> toward mastery is ascendant - except for the weights and burdens of various
> kinds laden upon the underprivileged by various social mechanisms, some of
> which are designed to do just that, weigh them down, keep them oppressed.
>
> If "we" locate and export the gifted (alpha) to another level and focus the
> lowered tiered learning towards acceptance, satisfaction with a guarantee of
> "enough" - many gifted people (of the other intelligences besides
> articulated declarative knowledge) will spend the rest of their lives
> struggling to make ends meet, to pay their mortgages, take care of their
> kids ---


I take this to be an explicit reference to xmca thread started by David,
know little about Confucianism or Taoism, so will read and try to learn from
those who do know the issues well enough to both explicate them and relate
them to American (and, I assume, not only American) formal education.

>
>
> Interestingly, Bucky Fuller described the purpose of the elaborate written
> testing system, the complex poetry and memorization of classical texts to
> "manage" the more gifted in Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.  Since the
> "pirate captains" vanished (but did they?) there isn't any proof of his
> wonderfully provocative claims, but I'm pretty sure that the demand for
> "specialization" is one of the great causes of failure to communicate from
> group to group. It's crippling to have jargon barriers.


We have never discussed Fuller here, but as a triangle guy, I am quite
sympathetic. The issue of specialization is a problem ok, maybe a conundrum
that generates contradictions or vice versa. I sure like having an expert
electrician around at times, jargon or no. The specializations that include
numeracy and literacy have a lot of faux features to them and always have.
Not at all sure how to deal with that. Maybe we should declare Dewey' idea
of inquiry as an ideal (of the non--platonic variety!).

>
>
> This note may seem to have gotten off the track of learning in kindergarten
> and the whole thing - but I believe that radical return to experiential
> learning from breast to bicycle to doing stuff with your friends will ground
> much learning experience. Of course we have to keep up with the books and
> specialize - but we have to do the other as well or more, or more in the
> beginning and always some - because experiential learning is integrative and
> inclusive.


Nicely put but raises isssues of its own. I think I know what you mean by
experiential learning and by inference its opposite (we are in the
kindergarten
discussion I touched off by sending around that article, I can see that
clearly enough now, although I missed a lot of intermediate steps).

>
> (was this a rant?)


I doubt it. Rants don't ordinarily happen on xmca and when they do some
people get real mad and leave, diminishing the diversity, and, even,
perhaps, the wisdom (collective intelligence?) of this discourse community.
Seems like it was a lengthy answer to a lot of diverse ideas and materials
around
a core set of important themes that need a lot more explication --
preferably proffered wtih wisdom and love.

Personally speaking, thanks.
mike





> Valerie Wilkinson
>
> On 2009.May.7, at 12:41  AM, Jay Lemke wrote:
>
>  I think that we mostly agree, Eugene, given different emphasis because of
>> our different backgrounds.
>>
>> I did think it was interesting that you noted that in totalitarian
>> discourses the leakage across a binary division can be made to undermine
>> basic moral principles. I suppose that there are times when one needs a way
>> to undermine other people's, and maybe also one's own, moral certainties.
>> But clearly doing so can also be very destructive, depending on the
>> circumstances and the consequences.
>>
>> So we have to tack between stronger binaries and weaker ones, and that
>> takes a measure of wisdom. Why don't people talk about wisdom any > more?
>>
>> As to the defense of science, of course it depends on what we want to mean
>> by science or scientific. If it is just systematically gathered empirical
>> information, then I think we always have to take it into account, but not
>> necessarily be ruled by it. Realities exist, but they can also change and be
>> changed. If it means some particular way of doing research, then I am less
>> favorable, and more Feyerabendian. If it means honestly trying to examine
>> alternative interpretations and proposals, then count me in! If it is
>> defending a particular current scientific theory, say neo-Darwinian
>> evolutionary theory, then I have to look carefully at a wide range of
>> circumstances to make my choice.
>>
>> "Complex process of mutually informing" sounds just right to me!
>>
>> JAY.
>>
>>
>> Jay Lemke
>> Professor
>> Educational Studies
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 4, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Jay and everybody--
>>>
>>> Thanks, Jay, for most helpful reply. Let me offer two comments:
>>>
>>> 1) Although I agree with you that contextualists are against any
>>> unversalism
>>> either pro- or against binary, we should be aware that Western
>>> contextualists have much stronger anti-binary bias than pro-binary. This
>>> is
>>> justified by the Western experience where up to recently scientism and
>>> positivism have been very strong. However, this has not been true for
>>> historical experiences of other people -- those who have experienced
>>> communist totalitarianism and religious fundamentalism. The recent
>>> historic
>>> experience in the USA with the Bush administration challenges the idea
>>> that
>>> the West is immune to totalitarianism and fundamentalism. Both
>>> totalitarianism and fundamentalism are against scientism and positivistic
>>> binary and against science enterprise per se (e.g., just remember
>>> Lysenko),
>>> but, for course, not completely any more. Although, totalitarianism and
>>> fundamentalism apply their own ideological binaries, they like to use
>>> leakages of meaning to confuse the reality. I'd even dare to say that
>>> their
>>> leakages aiming at destroying any moral compasses in people might be more
>>> dangerous than their oppressive binaries. I just want to remind that it
>>> were
>>> scientific binaries that fought successfully religious fundamentalism in
>>> past.
>>>
>>> I respectfully but strongly disagree with the President Obama who wants
>>> to
>>> put the past of the Bush administration behind us. Those who do not learn
>>> history will force to repeat it. And I think we should take the recent
>>> past
>>> 8-year historic experience seriously.
>>>
>>> 2) We should integrate defense with critique of modern science. The
>>> comfortable assumption that in modern Western societies defense of
>>> science
>>> is not needed has been proven wrong. I like Jay's point,
>>>
>>>> On
>>>> our side, I think we have a measure of confidence that, left to its
>>>> own devices, science's findings will at least not contradict our
>>>> values and political prescriptions (or maybe we'd even reconsider our
>>>> positions if they did).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It sounds like instead of the positive method ensuring the truth, Jay
>>> proposes a certain political and discourse regime of freedom that ensures
>>> that science practice would be healthy. Although, I think that science
>>> should not just be compatible with our values and political prescriptions
>>> but also inform them through a complex process of mutual informing.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Eugene
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:38 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus AND BINARIES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Really, I am the last person to state, too seriously, unconditional
>>>> propositions, whether pro-binary or anti-binary! I am all for
>>>> complexity and the need for Both/And vs. Either/Or logics. (There is a
>>>> lot of very interesting discussion of the Both/And approach in  the
>>>> work of Anthony Wilden, who sought a synthesis of Bateson and Lacan.)
>>>>
>>>> I did write, re synthesizing approaches to the integers, and
>>>> synthesizing into coherent master narratives generally, that they can
>>>> do good for us and also can mislead us.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really identify binary logic with scientism, because binarism
>>>> is far more widespread. Of course there is a lot of breath expended
>>>> over one binary, True/False, but I believe that the focus on this one
>>>> evaluative dimensions, and depriving it of the key feature of having
>>>> degrees (say, of freshness), common to all evaluations in English
>>>> semantics, is quite ideological and intellectually counter-productive.
>>>> It's also really quite abstract because it implies that all
>>>> propositions that are called True are true in the same sense, which I
>>>> do not believe. Many different classes of proposition are demonstrated
>>>> to be true or not by very different procedures, and so, concretely, I
>>>> take them to be true in different senses. This is turn means one has
>>>> to be rather cautious about metaphors comparing different sorts of
>>>> truths, as for example freshness vs honesty or whatever Bulgakov was
>>>> on about. (I have not read the novel, and maybe I will now.)
>>>>
>>>> So I liked Mike's strong version of what is not so much, I think, anti-
>>>> binarism as anti- Black-or-White-ism, meaning not only that we are
>>>> presented with only two mutually exclusive choices,  but that
>>>> everything on one side is reduced to an equivalence class,
>>>> homogenized, stereotyped, and so also on the other. Which gives rise
>>>> to such very unhappy binaries as White vs Black, or non-White
>>>> (racially), or Gay vs Straight, or American vs un-American, or Us vs
>>>> Them. Less abstraction and more attention to local, specific, concrete
>>>> realities (life, in Mike's terms) restores the messiness, requiring at
>>>> least a fuzzy logic (i.e. the technical one, not merely sloppy
>>>> classical logic), with degrees of membership in classes, and more
>>>> desirably, explicit clustering of diverse elements on both sides.
>>>> Which in turn tends to subvert the radical mutual exclusivity of the
>>>> two sides (Mike's leakage), because now we begin to see that some of
>>>> the concrete elements on one side actually do have important (values!)
>>>> qualities in common with some of the elements that have been put on
>>>> the other side. From the inevitability of binarist war, we find some
>>>> potential grounds for a modus vivendi.
>>>>
>>>> I saw online the other day Obama speaking to the National Academy of
>>>> Sciences. He got the biggest round of applause, not for his
>>>> announcement of lots of new funding for research, but for a statement
>>>> that in his administration the practice of subjugating science to
>>>> ideology would end. While there was not a lot of media attention to
>>>> this issue during the Bush presidency, it was widely known in the
>>>> scientific community, and in the education research community, that
>>>> there was an unprecedented amount of serious political interference in
>>>> the conduct of research based on right-wing political ideology. While
>>>> I am against Science making quasi-religious claims to universal Truth,
>>>> as much because it is bad in the long run for the goals of science as
>>>> because it is intellectually distasteful to me, I do agree, Eugene,
>>>> that sometimes we do also need to support, conditionally and on a case
>>>> by case basis, some of the normative canons of scientific
>>>> investigation, even when those include what I might call "provisional
>>>> binaries". Sometimes it is just heuristically useful to investigate
>>>> something as if there were an absolute binary involved. It occasions a
>>>> risk to the research that it will miss something else important by
>>>> doing so. And the culture of science believes that sooner or later, if
>>>> there is a problem with the binarist assumption, someone else will
>>>> point it out and we can come back and re-do things as needed.
>>>>
>>>> We also have a serious practical political issue here. Scientism, or
>>>> just the credibility of scientifically-derived statements of "fact",
>>>> can be a wonderful weapon to use against ideologies we passionately
>>>> disagree with. It is nice to have it in reserve, just in case our
>>>> moral-political arguments are not enough, or the balance of material
>>>> and media power is against us. The reason that the Bush conservatives
>>>> were interfering in scientific research was as much to try and insure
>>>> that no such weapons fell into their opponents' hands as to try and
>>>> generate "facts" that fit with their own ideological prejudgments. On
>>>> our side, I think we have a measure of confidence that, left to its
>>>> own devices, science's findings will at least not contradict our
>>>> values and political prescriptions (or maybe we'd even reconsider our
>>>> positions if they did). Personally, I think most scientific findings
>>>> or conclusions are already so larded with interpretations that there
>>>> is always a lot of leeway between anything I'd call a "fact" (say, a
>>>> reading on a measuring instrument) and anything that can be construed
>>>> as bearing very directly on a political or moral issue. So I am not
>>>> too worried about the inevitability of a certain "realpolitik" when it
>>>> comes to the credibility of Science.
>>>>
>>>> JAY.
>>>>
>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>> Professor
>>>> Educational Studies
>>>> University of Michigan
>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Dear Mike and everybody—
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, I am not interested in playing intellectual games either
>>>>> (e.g., I do
>>>>> not like playing a chess game). But I liked your challenge or my own
>>>>> challenge: to find out if there are any unconditional statements
>>>>> that I
>>>>> would agree. I almost believed that you offered one… but, at the
>>>>> end, it did
>>>>> not pass my final test. Since, I’m trying to be consistently
>>>>> inconsistent,
>>>>> consideration of truth, whatever it leads me, does not bother me.
>>>>> I’m happy
>>>>> that you did not play the game either (although, you would not
>>>>> offend me if
>>>>> you did).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I respectfully disagree with you and maybe with Jay that the
>>>>> binary
>>>>> logic is inherently (and unconditionally) bad while contextual
>>>>> statements
>>>>> involving leakage of sides are inherently (and unconditionally)
>>>>> good. I
>>>>> think (=expect) that you agree with the latter but might still
>>>>> disagree with
>>>>> the former. I admit that at times, I have conversations with my
>>>>> computer
>>>>> despite the fact that I agree with you that it is an oxymoron ;-) It
>>>>> is also
>>>>> oxymoron to speak to myself – what new I can say to myself that
>>>>> myself/I do
>>>>> not already know? Despite this apparent paradox (and my
>>>>> inconsistency), I
>>>>> have conversations with myself and with my computer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that our suspicion of the binary logic comes from our
>>>>> criticism of
>>>>> positivism and scientism. There is nothing wrong in this suspicion,
>>>>> especially, when the binary logic is treated as the universal one
>>>>> but I
>>>>> think we should be careful in not overdoing our criticism. There is
>>>>> a danger
>>>>> that our post-modernist criticism of modernist, positivistic
>>>>> science, aligns
>>>>> with pre-modernist criticism of modernism. However, as we all know,
>>>>> enemy of
>>>>> my enemy is not necessary my friend but it can be an even bigger
>>>>> enemy.
>>>>> Bush’s premodernist critique of science should be also criticized
>>>>> from a
>>>>> post-modern position rather we should join him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As your question about freshness and Jesus, I think that there is
>>>>> only one
>>>>> freshness: the first and the last one (very binary! J). I do not
>>>>> know about
>>>>> Jesus, but I believe that Kot Begemot would agree with me (for non-
>>>>> Russian
>>>>> audience, Kot Begemot was a part of the Devil’s court from
>>>>> Bulgakov’s novel
>>>>> “Master and Margarita”, literally “Tom-cat Hippo”, a very cunning,
>>>>> ironic,
>>>>> and smart character). I wonder what Dewey or Vygotsky would say
>>>>> about it…
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:23 PM
>>>>> To: Eugene Matusov
>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
>>>>> backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
>>>>> Philippakos
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a Cretan, that anyone can tell you, Eugene. As to Sandra
>>>>> "having a
>>>>> conversation with Ella(Z):
>>>>>
>>>>> I have long taken it as axiomatic that the phrase, "Conversation
>>>>> with a
>>>>> computer"
>>>>> is an oxymoron. Sort like an oxy-Cretan (poor people from Crete-
>>>>> judging
>>>>> from the
>>>>> size of their houses when Zeus was roaming around, they were very
>>>>> small and
>>>>> led difficult lives).
>>>>>
>>>>> Computers, and chatbots, are artifacts created by other humans (or
>>>>> other
>>>>> computer programs created by humans) and are, eventually, in the
>>>>> sequences
>>>>> of
>>>>> mediations, connect to other humans. I agree with the conclusion,
>>>>> but am
>>>>> saddened by the lack of orientation to the discourse that generated
>>>>> this
>>>>> journal.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not playing Gotcha. I was trying to explore the way in which
>>>>> categories
>>>>> create insides and outsides and generalize and in so doing, err. But
>>>>> if I
>>>>> lost a game
>>>>> of gotcha and it brings you pleasure, go for it. Thanks for the new
>>>>> insight
>>>>> into that
>>>>> issue of two kinds of people. Diversity uber alles, up to the point
>>>>> where it
>>>>> causes blood to flow. Then it start to worry me a lot, but I am a
>>>>> worrier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that Jesus believed there were only two degrees of
>>>>> freshness of
>>>>> fish?
>>>>> What would Kot Begamot think about this issue?
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody—
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike, you almost got me! Very good challenge – thanks!, “And, as you
>>>>> know,
>>>>> there are only two kinds of people in the world --- those who
>>>>> believe there
>>>>> are only two kinds of people and those who think there are more.” I
>>>>> almost
>>>>> unconditionally agreed with your statement and then I noticed its
>>>>> meta-statement, “there are only two kinds of people in the world….”
>>>>> that is
>>>>> congruent with “those who believe there are only two kinds of
>>>>> people…” thus
>>>>> the person who stated this claim that I had initially liked belongs
>>>>> to the
>>>>> first category him or herself… It is like, “One Cretan said that all
>>>>> Cretans
>>>>> are liars.” Very smart, indeed! ;-) Thanks for this Sabbath’s puzzle
>>>>> (I did
>>>>> not know it)…
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have an unconditionally tasty fish,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>> PS I like to hear more about your reading of discursive psychology
>>>>> and their
>>>>> use of the terms “activity” and “culture” and about reasons for your
>>>>> wonderment. Can you share more, please?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:37 PM
>>>>> To: Eugene Matusov
>>>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
>>>>> backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
>>>>> Philippakos
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> da net! Eugene. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there are several degrees of freshness. This is a trout
>>>>> fisherman
>>>>> writing.
>>>>> And a resident of the coastline of California. Caught and cooked on
>>>>> the
>>>>> spot/ caught and
>>>>> frozen and taken home safely through the desert/bought at my local
>>>>> fish
>>>>> store on thursday,
>>>>> bought at my local fish store on monday..........
>>>>>
>>>>> But I love your example and the novel is one of my very favorites.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, as you know, there are only two kinds of people in the world
>>>>> --- those
>>>>> who believe there are only
>>>>> two kinds of people and those who think there are more.
>>>>>
>>>>> conditionally speaking
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> PS-- Reading about discursive psychology in the interims and
>>>>> wondering why
>>>>> the word activity is
>>>>> used as it is and where the word culture is, and what Lois thinks of
>>>>> it, and
>>>>> mostly wishing I had more
>>>>> time to read it!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jay and Mike and everybody--
>>>>>
>>>>> Conditionally, Jay, I like Mike's statement as well,
>>>>>
>>>>>  It
>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>> heterogeneity within the "two parts" and leakage between them and
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> relations to "their context" that IS life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> but only conditionally. There are situations when this statement is
>>>>> deadly
>>>>> but binary logic is on the side of life. I remember a famous
>>>>>
>>>> allegoric
>>>>
>>>>> statement from Russian novel "Master and Margarita" by Michael
>>>>> Bulgakov. In
>>>>> short, in the novel's plot, the Devil visited Stalinist Russia
>>>>> (Moscow to be
>>>>> exact) in the 1930s during the Stalinist worst purges. Among other
>>>>> things
>>>>> the Devil visited a theater to make familiar with New Soviet people.
>>>>> In
>>>>> theater buffet, the Devil noticed rotten fish with the label, "Fish
>>>>> of the
>>>>> third [degree] freshness." The Devil told the buffet salesperson,
>>>>> "Dear
>>>>> salesperson, somebody has lied to you. There is no such thing as
>>>>> 'fish of
>>>>> the third-degree freshness. Fish can be only one degree of
>>>>> freshness: either
>>>>> it is fresh or not. Respectful, your fish is not fresh, it stinks."
>>>>> This
>>>>> short exchange revealed the deception of Stalinist "leakage" of two
>>>>> parts
>>>>> (namely, life and death). The binary logic presented by the Devil
>>>>> here was
>>>>> on the side of life, while non-binary Stalinist discourse of making
>>>>> 'white'
>>>>> black and 'black' white (that at that time often referred as
>>>>> 'dialectics')
>>>>> was on the side of death.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we might be careful in indorsing any universal statements
>>>>> even when
>>>>> they can be true, on average (in our sociocultural conditions). We
>>>>> should be
>>>>> also careful with our fight against scientific positivism that has
>>>>> historically emerged in response to (religious) totalitarian
>>>>> ideology of
>>>>> manipulative "leakages". After the Bush administration reign, I have
>>>>> become
>>>>> even more careful about dissing positivistic science.... (By the
>>>>> way, the
>>>>> Bush administration used discourses that were convincingly based on
>>>>> both the
>>>>> binary logic and at the same time on the manipulative "leakages",
>>>>> like, for
>>>>> example, torture becomes not torture but rather a permissible grey
>>>>> area of
>>>>> an "intense interrogation technique"). Binary logic can bring life
>>>>> sometimes, indeed....
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>>>>>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:46 PM
>>>>>> To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right on, Mike!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>>>> Professor
>>>>>> Educational Studies
>>>>>> University of Michigan
>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
>>>>>> http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>  On May 2, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________ 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 4050 (20090503) __________
>>>>
>>>> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
>>> signature
>>> database 4050 (20090503) __________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>  Valerie A. Wilkinson, Ph.D.
> Professor of Communication
> Faculty of Information, Shizuoka University
> 3-5-1 Johoku, Hamamatsu, Japan   432-8011
> http://www.ia.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/~vwilk/<http://www.ia.inf.shizuoka.ac.jp/%7Evwilk/>
> vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp
> phone  81 (53) 478-1529
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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