[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
- To: email@example.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
- From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:42:26 -0600
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
I was referring to your comment that the holy trinity is taught as being
factual. IHave always viewed the holy trinity as a faith-based system and
not "factual". Part of Spinoza'a difficulty with church members was his
logicical use of spiritual matters. Although not a christian and therefore
not involved in the matters of the holy trinity it is still a sticky wicket
when faith and fact cross paths.
So within this context I was looking for insight into the factual contents
of Ilyenkov's Ideal.
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
03/03/2010 10:10 AM ZE11
Please respond to ablunden <font size=-1></font>
I am happy to respond, but could you contextualise your
question a little? Do you mean Ideals in general, or some
particular Ideal? I am curious, too.
> I am curious Andy, do you believe the Ideal to be factual or is it based
> on faith?
> *Andy Blunden <email@example.com>*
> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 03/02/2010 06:17 AM
> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> To: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
> I really don't know the answer to this, Rod. I am just
> exploring, but in that spirit ...
> All teachers and probably all children like it best when the
> kids are just doing what they like doing, and of course they
> acquire competency and confidence if they learn like this.
> That's all nice and cosy. Ever since some time in the 1960s
> it has been near impossible to teach any other way (in many
> countries) in any case, because teachers can no longer
> exercise fearful authority or even respect ...
> But how does one grasp the Holy Trinity, or Saggitarian
> personalities, Iconic representation or Nonalgebraic
> equations, ... or any of these concepts which belong to
> systems of activity and concepts which are foreign to the
> day to day life of children?
> And if children just quietly accept the Holy Trinity without
> noticing that it is a concept based on Original Sin and the
> sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is not really
> factual ... is this a good thing?
> Is there anything to learn at school? Or can we all just
> absorb everything we need to know without really trying? Are
> we all natural born masters?
> I have in mind the material Chapter 5 of "Thinking and
> Speech." Vygotsky seems to think that learning concepts
> which are foreign to a child's day-to-day life is a
> completely different process from what happens when a child
> generalising from their own experience. It is only when the
> two processes meet that genuine understanding is possible.
> But if we shy away from teaching concepts, what is the result?
> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> > I would be opposed to JUST teaching the rules of mathematics or art
> (using the 'right' colours) AS rules before children have had a chance
> to do some groundwork on building up spontaneous concepts through
> immersion in a cultural environment in which people do the things that
> people do with maths and art.
> > I think John Holt once argued that if we taught children to talk in
> the same way that we teach them to read we would have many more elective
> mutes and children with speech delays. I am not thinking so much about
> the later stages of education but I think it is pretty clear that in the
> early years children benefit more from adults who follow and expand on
> their attention than from those who try to switch their attention to
> desirable, high value learning (like teachers who have to turn every
> form of play towards counting, naming shapes and colours etc.). Children
> are taught from very early on to associate learning with WORK - with all
> the affective baggage that goes with that. I often hear students saying
> how wonderful it is when children are learning 'without even knowing
> that they are learning', partly because sneaking stuff in under the
> radar is seen as a way of bypassing the 'work = boring and difficult'
> associations which children are assumed to have developed.
> > I do think there is a time and a place for teaching but I am not
> convinced that children always experience their teaching at appropriate
> times or in appropriate places!
> > All the best,
> > Rod
> > ________________________________________
> > From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org] On
> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [email@example.com]
> > Sent: 02 March 2010 09:42
> > Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
> > So on that basis, Rod, you would also be opposed to the
> > teaching of mathematics, and for that matter, art, unless
> > the child was planning a career in a genuinely relevant
> > profession, such as maths teacher or art teacher. :)
> > Andy
> > Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> >> I think there is a big affective difference between the way we learn
> first languages (or multiple mother, father and grandmother tongues) and
> the way we learn studied languages. I was taught French all through
> school but learned Italian by spending the best part of a year in Italy
> and i am conscious of differences in HOW I know each of these languages
> (and English). I have more of a feel for whether or not something sounds
> right in Italian but I know I know a lot more about the workings of
> French grammar.
> >> I wonder how useful it is to teach grammar, as a formal system of
> rules, to children who are still picking up on the 'feel' of their
> language. I still think that reading well written prose is probably the
> best way to develop this feel (picking up a set of 'intuitive' patterns
> about 'the done thing' or 'what people do, as a rule') but of course
> this helps to develop a 'gut feeling' about the grammar of WRITTEN
> language - we also need plenty of exposure to different styles of spoken
> language so that we can develop sensitivities to what works when and
> with whom (I never had much time for those primary schools which
> insisted that children must only be exposed to one, 'correct' way of
> forming letters - one font - for fear of confusing them!).
> >> The time for learning about conventional rules AS rules may be when
> we start to ask questions about why some people say it this way and some
> say it that way. We know from studies of language acquisition that a
> huge amount of time can be wasted on trying to condition children to
> follow a rule which they have not yet noticed.
> >> All the best,
> >> Rod
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >> Sent: 02 March 2010 02:21
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [xmca] new national curriculum in Australia
> >> Our immensely incompetent Labor Government yesterday
> >> announced their new national curriculum for schools
> >> (formerly this was a state responsibility).
> >> It features the teaching of history from the very beginning,
> >> including indigenous history (this is an unambiguous good)
> >> and emphasises the 3 Rs, including grammar. No curriculum
> >> has been set yet in Geography and other subjects.
> >> Helen raised with me off-line this problem of reintroducing
> >> the teaching of grammar: who is going to educate the
> >> educators? Anyone under 55 today did not learn grammar at
> >> school or until they did a foreign language, when they
> >> learnt the grammar of the other language. (Grammar means
> >> "Which icon do I click now?")
> >> What do xmca-ers think about teaching grammar? (I am in favour.)
> >> Also, many progressive educators here are opposed to
> >> curricula in toto: education should be about learning not
> >> content. Do xmca-ers agree?
> >> Given the disastrous implementation of policies by this
> >> government over the past 2 years, I fear for our education
> >> system. What do people think?
> >> Andy
> >> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> >> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> >> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> email@example.com
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > --
> > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> > Ilyenkov $20 ea
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
> xmca mailing list
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list