Re: [xmca] functions of testing

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

I think we can see these dynamics being played out in Sumeria, David. And I
am guessing that all three alternatives are true. Academic output is
essential for stabilization and destabilizing at the same time.
mike

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:

> Jay said:
> > while one could point to much larger patterns of activity and discourse
> that split us apart, our modes of testing or of judging the value of work
> and productivity are still quite good guides to the history of how we have
> been "managed". No?
>
>
> Well, maybe yes, maybe no. There's a subtle chicken-and-egg problem lurking
> here that takes us back to the dawn of scholarly community, I guess to
> ecclesiastical communities. Whereas the organization of academic work
> (including the ebb and flow of schools of thought, our forms of disputation,
> and other factors that keep us from organizing and uniting) serves the
> interests of the ruling class, it also is intrinsic to the work we do--this
> isn't something we could choose to do otherwise. So, there are 3
> possibilities: (1) we've been "managed" by ruling elites who have had to
> keep actively refashioning academic life in keeping with evolving forms of
> social control through varied political and economic systems; (2) academic
> life initially was established within parameters of established economic
> power, and has continued within those parameters for the duration; or (3)
> the nature of academic work imposes forms of organization upon us that are
> inconsistent with political organizing.
>
> dhk
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Jay Lemke
> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:22 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [xmca] functions of testing
>
> As long ago I used to do quite regularly, I'm updating the subject
> line of this thread again. Maybe it will continue and maybe not.
>
> But I was fascinated by Valerie's reference to Bucky Fuller and the
> thesis that elaborate testing, and by extension (or inclusion) the
> emphasis on being able to write the "right sort" of essays and other
> genres in academia and so many specialized fields can also serve the
> function of managing and controlling, dividing and conquering, really
> bright people.
>
> There are after all two sorts of principal threats to the ruling
> class. One is the great mass of working people who can stop, strike,
> rebel, etc. And we know of course a lot about the mechanisms of
> control, from hegemony to mystification, ideology, policing, etc. used
> in this case. But the other are the specialist elites, who are often
> given enough to make us feel we're doing "ok" under their system,
> though nowhere near what the ruling class appropriate for themselves.
> We are co-opted, bought out rather cheaply (by their standards), and
> very occasionally even promoted to positions of real power. But there
> must also be much less visible strategies at work, and I think that
> the system of academic (and later, professional, career) rewards is
> one of them. An illusion of local-scale meritocracy under the much
> bigger system of social injustice and maintenance of status quo power.
>
> And in some ways, I think, testing, even the best testing we can
> imagine (like my Gold Standard proposal yesterday) is a key means of
> this system of control. Those of us who do well on tests are even more
> likely to believe that this reflects our merit, our talent, our hard
> work -- even when maybe we doubt that those who do poorly do so
> because of a lack of these qualities. If the children of the oppressed
> do poorly for reasons having little to do with their innate talents or
> potential efforts, then should we not also reason that we do well for
> reasons equally unobvious, equally not to be attributed solely to us
> as individuals?
>
> We do well insofar as we are pre-tuned, pre-adapted to the needs that
> determine what is tested for and what is valued. Not our needs
> generally, nor those of the mass of people. We are selected because we
> are potentially useful to people who pay us, who fund us, who fund our
> institutions, who pay our policymakers. In some cases we fit with new
> needs, in some cases the traditions that define our usefulness are
> very old and represent long-unchanged aspects of the larger political
> economy and social system. I think an interesting history of testing
> could be written from such a point of view. Has it been?
>
> Valerie also noted the ways in which testing implements the divide-and-
> conquer strategy with respect to useful specialists. As a relatively
> small group numerically, with much less social diversity overall than
> the whole mass of the population, we ought to be able to more easily
> organize and unite, but we don't. We do well on very different
> measures of our usefulness, most obviously, say, between humanist
> scholars and scientists, and while one could point to much larger
> patterns of activity and discourse that split us apart, our modes of
> testing or of judging the value of work and productivity are still
> quite good guides to the history of how we have been "managed". No?
>
> JAY.
>
>
> Jay Lemke
> Professor
> Educational Studies
> University of Michigan
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>
>
>
>
> On May 10, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Valerie Wilkinson 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 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.
> >
> > 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 ---
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > (was this a rant?)
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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