Hey Erin,
Thanks for writing but I think I reject Piaget as
logocentric. He's important for listening to children
and what they say but he is wrong in then laying on
them "principles" and "organization" of logic on them.
Those principles may help scientists be more logical
in terms of behaving towards them BUT it doesn't mean
anything truthful about the children. It's like
Pirsig's trip to the mental institute. The science of
Piaget has NO value for the children in terms of the
quality of experience of their life.
I think "logic" is important BUT not the king of the
hill.
> An important difference is that an adult is able to
> notice this ability of the
> three year-old and the three-year old can not notice
> it in themselves.
I agree it's a difference BUT it's not that important.
Just because an adult can NOTICE it does not give it
any "betterness" or superiority.
> This
> fourth level ability allows you to see the lower
> level ability just as a fifth
> level would allow you to be more aware of the fourth
> level because you are no
> longer "stuck" in it.
That's why I argue against VISION LOGIC as the 5th
level. To be "stuck" as a child is bad.
> According to Piaget the child is
> thinking concretely and the
> adult is thinking abstractly.
What does that mean? Adults think "formally" is what I
think Piaget gets at. They have a formal system, sets
of rules, etc. that you can't violate otherwise you
are Pirsig. "Concrete?" I think what Piaget means is
the Wittgenstein notion of "certainty." Children can
react to the "certainty" of experience that adults can
as well IF they give up their formal system for a
while. When a child and I hunt for "hermeneutic" there
is NO CONCRETE "HERMENEUTIC", only an IMMEDIATE
experience of the sensations for what it would be for
such a creature to exist. That's all a kid needs, and
it's not anything concrete and it certainly is
abstract. Mozart and Saint-Saens at 3 making
symphonies is not abstract? Or are they Platypi?
> Concrete and abtract are both logical to a
> degree.
Of course if your world is logocentric.
> As for the three year old saying "daddy" doesn't
> mean that it is not object
> oriented.
>From my observation it is not object oriented. He only
makes the error when he is excited and having fun and
"in the moment." To him, NAMES and FORMAL SYSTEMS
don't matter. He's just reacting. And I am positive
that that is what Pirsig is getting at.
> As when Wittgenstein challenged people to
> come up with a definition
> of game that would encompass all games. In trying to
> do this you do a
> comparison process that doesn't have to be value
> based. It can be physical
> similarity. When the three year old first sees a
> zebra and calls it a horse
> it is not a value comparison it just looks like a
> horse.
> Perhaps this three year old called you daddy because
> of your physically
> similarity to that adult male.
Late Wittgenstein is NOT a logical positivist as you
seem to imply by this. Kids don't compare because they
don't have a formal system in their mind. Kids just
react. I see where you are going. You are saying it
seems that the kid is developing a formal system and
he makes mistakes with the formal system as he tries
it out. As if the formal system has a beginning middle
and end. It's so logocentric. BUT what I'm saying is
the kid has a system ALREADY, a dynamic quality
system, and that as he adopts the formal system, some
of the dynamic quality system features show through. I
think my view is Late Wittgensteing and your view is
early Wittgenstein. You can look at the situation in
BOTH ways I think. They're both legit to some extent.
They both have quality.
> As when many humans anthromorphize animal behavior I
> think you are granting
> way too much "logic" to your three year old
> thinking.
Au contraire. I'm trying to remove it from him because
there is no logic there. Hunting for hermeneutic is
the basis of a system far far away from logic. "When I
was young I used to think that life was so magical...
and then they sent me away and taught how to be
logical..."
>The child is thinking
> logically but not abstractly.
I couldn't disagree more.
> So I do not think
> this is any kind of
> regression just each level is a "fine tuning of
> logic"
It's a regression in my opinion, but I don't think a
REGRESSION is bad. It's just contradictory with
Pirsig's notion of evolution. My larger point is I
think Pirsig's use of EVOLUTION is a mistake. The
regression to childhood I don't think is bad. It's his
use of evolution.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST