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