[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
Hello Steve:
You have summed it up within the context of Marx's "Thesis on Feurebach"
and indeed I cannot refute what has been displayed within the sensuousness
of human activity.
Dualism aside however, there still remains the sensuousness of this
activity. If I am to believe Marx's thesis than a 90 degree angle is
never truely 90 degrees because of it's finite aspect and therefore the
concept of the Ideal is unobtainable.
The logic of the Ideal is factual, yet the activity of the Ideal falls
short.
eric
Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
03/04/2010 09:24 AM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
cc:
Subject: Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
Eric, since I was re-reading some Ilyenkov on this very question just
last night, I will venture an answer.
I think that Ilyenkov would probably say "yes, the ideal is factual."
Or more precisely, I think he would say the ideal is an objective
fact, an objective factor, of human life.
Ilyenkov said the ideal was something that each individual is
objectively confronted with in the form of culture, language,
artifacts, writing, stories, works of art, institutions, beliefs,
rules, laws, conventions, etc. Humans are confronted by the ideal in
the multitude of forms in which ideality expresses itself in the
course of human labor and activity. Roughly speaking, the ideal, in
this view, is the collection of socialized meanings and
representations that accompany material human activity and labor.
This is the basis of the common CHAT metaphor that artifacts "contain"
both materiality and ideality, although Ilyenkov would emphasize that
the ideal aspect emerges only in the actual human activity process
itself, and not at all "in" any material artifact (as Mike also
explains in Cultural Psychology).
The simplest 'rough and dirty' description I know of for ideality is
to equate it with meaning and contrast it with materiality. Looking
at it this way, we can say that meaning and meaning-making are
objective facts of human life. Hence, the ideal is an objective fact
of human life, just as is the material.
As for the importance of the concept of the ideal, Ilyenkov emphasizes
that one of the great challenges for philosophy, and many aspects of
social science, is learning how to distinguish between the ideal and
the material, which are often conflated in everyday life and in many
academic approaches.
Ilyenkov further explained that the basis of idealism (ideal-'ism' as
a philosophy) is actually a *correct* recognition of the ideal as
being something objective, as being a fact of human life. For
example, Ilyenkov explains how the ideal, as an objective fact or
condition of human existence, was understood by Plato, Hegel, and
other great idealist thinkers.
But on such questions, dualism soon intervenes, and we come to a well-
trodden fork in the ideological road. Dualism holds that the ideal
originates from and is probably composed in some way of some kind of
non-material, non-natural substance such as God or Spirit. Dualists
tend to believe that the universe is fundamentally composed of two
kinds of unrelated, non-mediating substances (although this paradigm
causes them constant problems when they try to explain how humans can
act on the world and themselves as they do). Idealist-dualists thus
tend to argue that the ideal is in some way connected to something non-
human or extra-human, even though they can only assert its existence
on "faith". (And they will also try to cleverly argue that any non-
dualist point of view must ultimately, in the same way, be *equally*
based on faith! Sound familiar?)
The cultural-historical activity research tradition, in contrast to
dualism, at least in the thread Ilyenkov reflects, tends to take a
monist-activity approach to the ideal, viewing the origin and
composition of the ideal in terms of it being an objective product of,
and playing a necessary part in, human activity. Hence, the ideal is
not only "factual," but is a completely (and uniquely) human creation.
I am curious on what you make of this "concept of the ideal," Eric.
What are your thoughts?
- Steve
On Mar 4, 2010, at 6:34 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Hi Andy:
>
> I geuss now I am even more confused than before.
>
> FOrget the faith part. Could you please provide a good starting
> point for
> Ilyenkov's Ideal, I know that this has been addressed in the past
> but I
> still don't have a firm grasp of it.
>
> thank you
> eric
>
>
>
>
> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 03/04/2010 06:48 AM
> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture,
> Activity"
>
>
> To:
> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
>
>
> I didn't express myself clearly then, Eric. I simply meant
> to list a number of concepts which (1) Are taught in a
> formal setting, (2) Are true concepts, and (3) Are not
> scientific. That's all. For my point, the question of Faith
> doesn't come into it. Relgious concepts, for example, must
> be understood in order to understand the literature, law,
> etc, of religious activity, for which there is no need to
> "believe" it.
>
> Andy
>
> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>> Hello Andy:
>> 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.
>>
>> thank you,
>> eric
>>
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> cc:
>> bcc:
>> Subject: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual
>> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>> 03/03/2010 10:10 AM ZE11
>> Please respond to ablunden <font size=-1></font>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric,
>> 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.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>> I am curious Andy, do you believe the Ideal to be factual or is it
> based
>>> on faith?
>>>
>>> eric
>>>
>>>
>>> *Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>*
>>> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>
>>> 03/02/2010 06:17 AM
>>> Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind,
>>> Culture,
>>> Activity"
>>>
>>>
>>> To: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
>>> cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> 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: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>>>> 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: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden [ablunden@mira.net]
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/a-sound-beginning-20100301-pdlv.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> 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
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> 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
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> 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
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> 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
> 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