These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)



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

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