Re: [xmca] Is the Ideal factual

[Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca>]

Hi Mike, this particular quote comes from chapter 5.2 in Activity, Consciousness, Personality, translated from the German that I am referring to, because it is much less ridden with problems than the English version---I checked on the problems with Georg Rückriem, who is of the same opinion: the German translation, done in the former DDR, renders Leont'ev better than the English version, though, according to Georg, not without its own (little) problems. 
	Leont'ev says similar things in the section on the historical nature of consciousness in "The Problems . . . .", a book I had scanned and Andy somehow gets it published now so that it is available for 20 or 30 bucks.
Cheers,
Michael
 

 
On 2010-03-06, at 12:24 PM, mike cole wrote:

Michael--- Could you send chapter of Leontiev (which book), where he
discusses this issue? I think it would help others in addition to myself to
follow the conversation.

There are clearly matters of differential interpretation involved here. I am
uncertain how one writes about a complex system without talking about its
parts and their inter-relationships such that they can constitute a complex
system. From you comment about "breaking out elements" it seems that you
believe Yrjo and Andy are both guilty of this mistake. What is the
alternative model that you are gesturing toward?
mike

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Wolff-Michael Roth <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been following this for a while and cannot but have the impression
> that you are part of the group of idealist philosophers Marx/Engels wrote
> about. You are talking about the ideal abstractly rather than looking at it
> in concrete sensuous activity. Here, you cannot split the double character
> of work, of the product, of man [Marx]: in activity (deyatel'nost',
> Tätigkeit) "The inner (the subject) affects the outer and changes itself in
> the process" (Leont'ev), and, Marx/Engels write "The person objectifies
> himself in production, the thing subjectifies itself in the person"
> (Grundrisse, p.89).
> 
> Leont'ev gives a very good account of the relation between individual and
> collective consciousness, the former as concrete realization of the latter,
> the latter only existing in and through the former. Klaus Holzkamp further
> elaborates this relation.
> 
> In your discussion, you have been breaking out individual (constitutive)
> moments of activity and treated them as elements, much like others take the
> YE triangle and then break out the object, the subject, the division of
> labor, the tools...
> 
> This leads you into the merry-go-round of "intended meanings" (I wish we
> would abolish this word) and reiterations. . . .
> :-)
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> On 2010-03-05, at 7:47 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:
> 
> Very interesting response, Andy, thank you.  These are important
> methodological questions for activity theory, I think.  Let me focus on just
> one section of your message and ask for clarification.
> 
> You say:
> 
> 1. "Matter" is the category of everything which exists outside of and
> independently of Consciousness.
> 2. Therefore what is "Matter" is relative to my individual consciousness,
> 3. and includes your consciousness and social entities.
> 4. "Ideal" refers to the *socially* determined properties of things.
> 5. They are also outside of *my* consciousness,
> 6. just as you are.
> 
> I basically agree with 1, but I am having trouble with 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
> At this point, I am trying to clearly understand what you are saying.
> 
> On 2, are you defining "Matter" as that which is not apprehended by your
> individual consciousness?
> On 3, are you saying that "Matter" includes consciousness possessed by
> others besides yourself?
> On 4, I agree that the ideal is socially determined, but how does the
> precise phrase "socially determined" distinguish the ideal aspects of things
> from their material properties - for example, aren't the material properties
> of a collectively built thing such an airplane *socially* determined, just
> as are its ideal aspects?
> On 5, are you saying that the "Ideal" lies outside your consciousness?
> On 6, are you saying that I and all other people lie outside your
> consciousness?
> 
> Sorry for such a literal interpretation of your words - just trying to
> follow.  I am not saying that my interpretations are what you really mean,
> just that these are the literal meanings they appear to have to me.  Since I
> am not grasping your words clearly, I may be mangling your intended
> meanings.  Could you clarify?
> 
> - Steve
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:57 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> 
>> No. It is necessary to know the distinction between the two categories of
> course, but they do not make a mutually constituting pair like subject and
> object, terms which simply express the reification of the two sides of one
> and the same relationship or process.
>> 
>> "Material" is an adjective referring to "matter." "Matter" is the
> category of everything which exists outside of and independently of
> Consciousness. Therefore what is "Matter" is relative to my individual
> consciousness, and includes your consciousness and social entities.
>> 
>> "Ideal" refers to the *socially* determined properties of things. They
> are also outside of *my* consciousness, just as you are.
>> 
>> When I suffer a heart attack or get caught in flood waters, I know that
> even though there may be social causes (eg bad food, soil erosion), these
> are natural processes; there is nothing ideal about them.
>> 
>> I just think these are two distinct concepts. We have to generate some
> heat distinguishing between them because humans, like all animals, are born
> realists. We think *all* the properties of things exist independently of us
> both individually and socially. Until we learn otherwise, we mistake the
> ideal for material.
>> 
>> The point is that matter exists independently of ideals, but not the
> other way around. But subject-object is a relation which is not limited even
> to humans, but can be found in computers, human groups and amoeba as well,
> and like North/South, you can't have one without the other. The
> matter/consciousness distinction is a different one altogether, as is
> individual/social. Each relation has to be understood in its own right, I
> think.
>> 
>> Yes?
>> Andy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>> Andy - what are your thoughts on the proposition, pertaining to the
> realm of human activity, that the ideal and material are dialectical
> oppositions - on par, for example, with the subject and object relationship?
> Kind of a huge question to squeeze into a little sentence, but I am curious
> about your thoughts.
>>> - Steve
>>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>> I'm sure we're on the same page, Steve.
>>>> 
>>>> Firstly, you can't really counterpose material and ideal as if they
> were mutually exclusive substances. You would find my message equally useful
> whether I wrote it on paper and posted it to you, told you over Skype or put
> it in electronic bits in an email. ... but I have to put the ideal in *some*
> material form. What you are saying is that certain material properties of
> the protractors (e.g. the "60" mark for an equilateral triangle, or if it
> was a set square, just the edge for a right angle) carry the necessary
> effect to someone who knows how to use it.
>>>> 
>>>> Secondly, the useful thing that C S Peirce added to Hegel was the
> different ways a thing may be a sign. If we want 90deg from a set square, it
> can be an index; but for 60deg from a protractor, we need a symbol. So the
> way material properties participate in the ideal properties varies from case
> to case.
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> Steve Gabosch wrote:
>>>>> Andy, I have a question about what you say here about the ideal, using
> the example of a protractor.  I think you are saying that when we use a
> protractor to construct a right angle, we are realizing the *ideal* property
> of the *protractor* to control our activity.  That is what you mean, yes?
> But isn't it just the opposite - aren't we using the *material* properties
> of the protractor to represent the *ideal* of a right angle?  When I come by
> your desk and ask if I can borrow your protractor, I am at that point
> appealing to its ideal aspects, which are expressed in conventional terms
> and words.  We both know what a "protractor" is.  If you ask "what are you
> going to use it for, Steve?" and I say "I need to draw a right angle," we
> are now discussing the *right angle* as an ideal object.  But when I go sit
> down at my desk to draw that right angle, the protractor now becomes a
> material tool with special material properties, which if I use skillfully
> enough, will help me transform that ideal right angle into a new material
> object - a material sketch on paper that physically approximates the ideal
> of a right angle.  And so goes the intricate and dialectical relationship
> between ideality and materiality in human activity.  Are we on the same page
> on this - or am I looking at this from the wrong angle?
>>>>> - Steve
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:29 PM, mike cole wrote:
>>>>>> Neat discussion of ideal and material. Thanks all who contributed.
> Something
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> "re-admire" as Friere would have put it.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No, when we use a protractor to construct a right angle, thus
> realizing the
>>>>>>> ideal property of the property to control our activity, the ideal
> property
>>>>>>> (of being a protractor) is realized. If someone else looks at the
> resulting
>>>>>>> drawing and says (EG): "What a nice equilateral triangle," thus
> proving that
>>>>>>> we also realized the required ideal in our drawing, the circle of
>>>>>>> objectification - perception - objectification is complete.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Ideal and material are in a sense opposites, but they are not
> mutually
>>>>>>> exclusive existences.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>> 
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca