Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 21 April 2011 20:23, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:

> Huw:
>
> I think at this point we are talking past each other as mike likes to say.
>  It is very difficult to agree on vocabulary when coming from different
> perspectives.  I cannot view quality as being the sum of quantity.


Not the sum, the relation.


>  When 2
> hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom they form water and are no
> longer hydrogen and oxygen.


Yes.  Temperature change, a quantitative measurement of the system.


> A knot in a rope has quality only if there
> is a meaning attached to the knot, otherwise it is only there to weaken
> the threads.
>

Quality as type.  There are, or can be, a specification of relating
quantities that define what a knot is and what a knot isn't (a twist of the
rope, or a loop, or a 'loose knot' may not count).  Here you seem to have an
extra qualification of 'Purposeful Knot' which entails more relations.
These needn't be made explicit, it's more economical to be unconscious of
them.

Huw


>
> eric
>
>
> From:   Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date:   04/21/2011 01:53 PM
> Subject:        Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>
>
>
> On 21 April 2011 19:08, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
> > Would you agree that logic and mathematical notation is quantitative in
> > nature?  I believe CHAT is after what is qualitative in nature to
> capture
> > the essence of the dialectic.  Perhaps?  Development moves forward in
> > irreversible time; logic and mathematical notation can move backwards,
> > forwards, round and round.  Perchance?
> >
> >
> I tend to think of quality as made of quantitative relations.  Hence the
> dialectic of incrementally changing a quantitative aspect of a system
> until,
> at some threshold point, there is a qualitative change.
>
> Huw
>
>
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> > From:   Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date:   04/21/2011 12:19 PM
> > Subject:        Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)
> > Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21 April 2011 16:49, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Huw:
> > >
> > > I can appreciate lurking behind the meanings of words.  I can
> appreciate
> > > the serpentine action of weaving inside and outside the interplay of
> > > origins; however, I cannot support that which strips what is within A
> > > reality.  6" of snow in april is what it is, right?  So, if one were
> to
> > > take a word such as 'poverty' and wield it for the purposes of camera
> > and
> > > media time is that a tool or a concept?  Methinks a concept is neutral
> > and
> > > only is what it is, such as 6" of snow in april.  Thanks to Martin I
> > have
> > > honed in a bit better on what LSV was musing about in chapter 7 when
> > > discussing the merger of thinking and speech;  being that word meaning
> > > evolves and develops due to thinking not due to the physical act of
> > > speaking the word.  However, the quality of the word meaning in a dual
> > > stimulation exercise provides a person with the seed of a concept:
> Snow
> > > in April can arouse one to thinking things strange and out of sorts
> but
> > > then when told it is in Minnesota, qualifies the answer.  Tool use is
> an
> > > association that can provide a person with the chaining of one idea
> onto
> > > another but it is merely a quantity.  No?  Going back to the example
> of
> > > poverty we can associate that with many other words but what is it
> that
> > > qualifies poverty?  I can think of many examples as I am sure others
> can
> > > as well, however, if one is to wield the word of 'poverty' then one is
> > not
> > > wielding a concept they are merely using it as a tool for there own
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > does that make sense?
> > >
> >
> > I would need to read this several times over in order to try and align
> > meanings.  Let me try this (hopefully simple) example:
> >
> > Somewhere out in the world it is feasible that there is a government
> > institution that has an automated tax calculation system that has, deep
> in
> > its rigorous codifications, something like this:
> >
> > class Poverty : public EconomicStatus
> > {
> >        ...
> >        const Money& calculateTaxToPay( const Money& income ) const
> >        {
> >                return Money(0);
> >        }
> >        ...
> > };
> >
> > I would agree that this is an artifact.  I would also state that this is
> a
> > rigorous implementation of (someones) concept (effectively a scientific
> > concept).
> >
> > Now.  If you shut this part of the system down and get a qualified
> person
> > to
> > perform the calculations identically, at a logical level, what are they
> > using to do this task?
> >
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > > eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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