Re: [xmca] activity (was concepts)

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

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