Shaped by the Places We Reason? Contrasting the Rectilinearity of Western Educational Thought with Other Possibilities

  • Brent DavisEmail author


Historically, the logico-rational mode of argumentation co-evolved with particular mathematical systems and particular geometrically informed manners of interpreting experience and perception. Davis examines some of the ways these geometries continue to shape the sensibilities, practices, and structures of much of educational discourse, in spite of the well-developed critiques of their associated logics. He then compares manufactured living environments with those of other cultures, drawing on fractal geometry to highlight a complementary mode of organizing cultural spaces. Davis develops the suggestions that (1) the available logics are associated with the available geometries of one’s living spaces and (2) fractal geometry is a mathematical analogue to such discourse fields as postmodernism, poststructuralism, and ecological theory.


Complexity Fractal Rectilinear Mathematics Ecologies 


  1. Aoki, D. S. (2000). The thing never speaks for itself: Lacan and the pedagogical politics of clarity. Harvard Educational Review, 70, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastien, B. (2004). Blackfoot ways of knowing: The worldview of the Siksikaitsitapi. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
  3. Borgmann, A. (1993). Crossing the postmodern divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Calvin, W. (1996). How brains think: Evolving intelligence, then and now. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  6. Chapman, R. L. (Ed.). (1977). Roget’s international thesaurus (4th ed.). Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, C., & Paul, R. J. (2001). Visualizing a knowledge domain’s intellectual structure. IEEE, 34, 65–71.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J., & Stewart, I. (1994). The collapse of chaos: Discovering simplicity in a complex world. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2015). Engaging minds: Cultures of education and practices of teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Derrida, J. (1980). Writing and difference (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dewdney, S. (1975). The sacred scrolls of the Southern Ojibway. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eglash, R. (1999). African fractals: Modern computing and Indigenous design. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eglash, R. (2003). Computation, complexity and coding in Native American knowledge systems. In J. Hankes & G. Fast (Eds.), Changing the faces of mathematics: Perspectives on indigenous people of North America (pp. 251–262). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  14. Ehrlich, P. R. (2000). Human natures: Genes, cultures, and the human prospect. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner, M. (1976). In which ‘monster’ curves force redefinition of the word ‘curve’. Scientific American, 235(December), 124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, D. D. (1998). Visual intelligence: How we create what we see. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Irigaray, L. (1991). The Irigaray reader (M. Whitford, Ed.). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  21. Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Laplace, P. (1795/1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  24. Lather, P. (1996). Troubling clarity: The politics of accessible language. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mandelbrot, B. (1977). Fractal geometry of nature. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  28. Maturana, H. (1987). Everything said is said by an observer. In W. I. Thompson (Ed.), Gaia: A way of knowing (pp. 65–82). Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  31. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. Toronto: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Stewart, I. (1989). Does God play dice? Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Stewart, I. (1998). Life’s other secret: The new mathematics of the living world. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Stewart, I., & Cohen, J. (1997). Figments of reality: The evolution of the curious mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Von Foerster, H. (1995). Metaphysics of an experimental epistemologist. In R. Moreno-Diaz & J. Mira-Mina (Eds.), Brain processes: Theories and models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weaver, W. (1948). Science and complexity. American Scientist, 32, 536–544.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations