The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
LogoForum. The original author of this message is
pavel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Theil wrote:
> This has become a bit of a rant, and for that, I
> apologize.
Not at all. I enjoyed every word of it.
Pavel
__._,_.___
LogoForum messages are archived at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
> The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
> reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
> LogoForum. The original author of this message is
> genetheil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Dear Phil, Dale, Gene Juan,
> Phil, you talked about the problem of getting back
> to a 2D mode after running an example that put you
> into perspective mode. I had exactly the same
> difficulty the first time I tried to run a 3D
> procedure. It was pure nostalgia to see someone have
> the same problem. and the same experience of the
> struggle to find it's solution.
>
> However, you solved it differently than I did. You
> accessed a fundamental resource that is almost always
> present when a student learns, that is, a teacher, ie,
> someone who might know more about the subject than you
> do, and is willing to share that knowledge
>
> I chose to do it differently. I went through the
> documentation thoroughly, nay, exhaustively, trying to
> find the answer to my question, as you did. After
> that, came a long period of increasing frustration, as
> I tried one thing after another, with no success. The
> only way to get back to the original state was to
> close Logo down and restart it. Of course, I did that
> without saving my work more than once, which made me
> crazy. At some point, working on a completely
> different set of procedures, I wanted to go out of
> "wrap" mode and into "window". Finally, light dawned:
> "window", "wrap", "fence, & "perspective", of course!
> The outcome was the same, but I think the process has
> some vital differences, none of which relate to the
> emotional states which we experienced, which seem to
> be the same for each of us, as they are most likely
> the same for anyone who struggles with a question
> which he or she knows to be a simple one, whose answer
> eludes him or her.
>
> The reasons why I chose to do it the way I did
> relate to my history and psychology and are not
> important except as illustrations of a general
> distinction which we need to make in the whole
> discussion of standards for Logo.
>
> That distinction is the answer to this question:
> "What is Logo for?". This teleological notion of a
> final cause comes into play here because of Logo's
> history as the result of a struggle by its creators to
> make something which could help people learn to do
> things for themselves, in ways which seem good to
> them. Truly, Logo is a philosophy of learning as well
> as a language. Because it is a language in several
> dialects (perhaps more dialects than any other
> artificial language), one can run into the same
> problems of translation as with natural languages and
> dialects, Juan. Sometimes, on this forum, you have
> asked questions about problems which you are trying to
> solve in Logo, which, quite probably, could be solved
> more easily in another language entirely. But you stay
> with Logo, for many reasons, I'm sure, among which
> must be that you believe that this language, and not
> another, helps your students learn things about math,
> and problem-solving, which can help them think. And
> you do this because it is also a philosophy of
> learning. I happen to agree with you, strongly.
>
> Constructivist thinking seems to be about, among
> other things, the power relations between those who
> know something and want to impart that knowledge, and
> those who wish to learn it. This world is filled with
> people who wish to control, guard, or deny knowledge.
> One has only to read the paper to encounter evidence
> of this. I mention no examples, for each will have his
> or her own favorites, and because I have no wish to
> turn this into a forum on politics. I am,
> fundamentally, a philosopher. I believe it is vitally
> important to empower people by facilitating their
> acquisition of the tools that will enable them to
> learn to think critically and well.
>
> I, personally, happen to believe that the best path
> to empowerment leads through the thicket of many
> dialects. I could make the argument that, in the world
> of ideas as in the world of living creatures,the
> combination of variation and selection is our best
> path to optimization. If a few people who use a number
> of different dialects of the language happen to find
> it inconvenient that there is no exact translation for
> this or that construct, and that they have to
> manipulate their programs a little to get them to
> work, I think it is a small price to pay for the
> strength and beauty that come from variation. The
> evolution of Logo is a (somewhat) living process, and
> like other such, is quirky and unpredictable. It can
> lead into barren cul-de-sacs and through inefficient
> by-ways. It is the dream of reason to make a thing so
> perfect it will never need to be changed again. Alas,
> that outcome can happen only for a work of art. Things
> which are in daily use, and for multiple purposes,
> change as their users change and as the uses to which
> they are put change. Perhaps we will will see major
> types evolve, such as one which optimizes use for
> list-processing and one for the graphics side, but I
> doubt it.
>
> This has become a bit of a rant, and for that, I
> apologize. I don't apologize for my opinions.
>
> (the other) Gene
>
>
> __._,_.___
> LogoForum messages are archived at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
|
