[Xmca-l] Re: How basic are images?

Tue Dec 2 13:19:57 PST 2014

Yes, my preference is to respect the etymological roots of these words
whenever my ignorance doesn't get in the way...

>From what I can discern, the most confusion that folk have with artefact
(artifact) is its association with tool.  This is further compounded by
notions of "mental tools" etc.  Whereas tools, proper, come into material
interaction and their affordances are discovered through their technical
use, so called "mental tools" serve merely to organise the use of tools.
They do not interact in the manner of proper tools.

Software, for example, offers a clear distinction here.  A program is an
artefact, yet "it" is only a tool when it is executed (run) on a computer.
Strictly speaking, it is the computer that is the tool (or the virtual
computer as modelled by single running thread).

Marx, also, noted the distinction between (mere) tools and machines.  That
remains a useful distinction when one is considering the application of
signs to organise machines, as exemplified by the Jacquard loom.

Huw

On 2 December 2014 at 20:10, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> How interesting:
> techno
>
> word-forming element meaning "art, craft, skill," later "technical,
> technology," from Latinized form of Greek tekhno-, combining form of
> tekhne "art,
> skill, craft in work; method, system, an art, a system or method of making
> or doing," from PIE *teks-na- "craft" (of weaving or fabricating), from
> suffixed form of root *teks- "to weave, fabricate, make" (cognates:
> Sanskrit taksan "carpenter," Greek tekton "carpenter," Latin texere "to
> weave;" see texture
> <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=texture&allowed_in_frame=0
> >(n.)).
>
> *And contextere traces its roots back to the same morpheme. *
> *Context as weaving together*
> *mike*
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2 December 2014 at 17:43, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Huw,
> > >
> > > Perceived in Norman's description, not sure I'd be comfortable changing
> > it
> > > at this point.  Could you explain what you mean by technical?
> > >
> >
> > Yes.  In this sense pertaining to the etymological origins:
> >
> > http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=techno-&allowed_in_frame=0
> >
> > techno-
> > <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=techno-&allowed_in_frame=0>
> > [image:
> > Look up techno- at Dictionary.com]
> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=techno->word-forming element
> > meaning "art, craft, skill," later "technical, technology," from
> Latinized
> > form of Greek tekhno-, combining form of tekhne "art, skill, craft in
> work;
> > method, system, an art, a system or method of making or doing," from PIE
> > *teks-na- "craft" (of weaving or fabricating), from suffixed form of root
> > *teks- "to weave, fabricate, make" (cognates: Sanskrit taksan
> "carpenter,"
> > Greek tekton "carpenter," Latin texere "to weave;" see texture
> > <http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=texture&allowed_in_frame=0>
> > (n.)).
> >
> > Huw
> >
> >
> > > Michael
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> ]
> > > on behalf of Huw Lloyd [huw.softdesigns@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 12:35 PM
> > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How *basic* are images?
> > >
> > > I'd take a look.
> > >
> > > Michael, utility or technical affordance might fit.  My equivalent of
> > your
> > > perceived/discovered distinction is one of planned and technically
> > > manifest.
> > >
> > > Huw
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2 December 2014 at 16:44, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd be interested in anybody else is.
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > ]
> > > > on behalf of mike cole [mcole@ucsd.edu]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:39 AM
> > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How *basic* are images?
> > > >
> > > > Interloper, Michael?
> > > >
> > > > The discussions at UCSD preceeding Don's use of affordances and
> > cognitive
> > > > artifacts were accompanied by other, related papers. One by Engestrom
> > on
> > > > "when is an artifact" and one or more by Ed Hutchins. If people are
> > > > interested in pursuing this thread/topic the materials could be
> > gathered
> > > > up.
> > > >
> > > > mike
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Glassman, Michael <
> glassman.13@osu.edu
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > But it seems that Norman made two mistakes (and I like his idea).
> He
> > > > > actually cops to both of them.  The first was not to distinguish
> > > between
> > > > > affordances which are discovered and perceived affordances which
> are
> > > > > designed.  I think this is related to the issue of artifacts.
> > Meaning
> > > > are
> > > > > artifacts designed for perceived affordances or are they there to
> be
> > > > > discovered through movement as (and this is probably the wrong
> word,
> > if
> > > > > anybody knows the right one, help!!) organic affordances.  It is a
> > > > complex
> > > > > question about artifacts I think because their meaning changes
> based
> > on
> > > > > context, so something designed for perceived affordances in one
> > context
> > > > may
> > > > > result in organic affordances in another context.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second mistake he made, which turned out to be bigger - is that
> > he
> > > > was
> > > > > not careful enough in differentiating between affordances and
> > > > constraints.
> > > > > Again artifacts, are they designed to create perceived affordances
> or
> > > are
> > > > > they designed to create constraints.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, just something I have been thinking about lately, but the
> > > mention
> > > > > just spurred me to throw this up.  Hope I'm not being too much of
> an
> > > > > interloper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [
> > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > ]
> > > > > on behalf of mike cole [mcole@ucsd.edu]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 10:58 AM
> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How *basic* are images?
> > > > >
> > > > > Annalisa-
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the Wikipedia phraseology better than my own, appropriation
> > not
> > > > > discovery. For several years before he appropriated the notion of
> > > > > affordances, Don Norman and colleagues at UCSD were dead set
> against
> > > > > Gibson's ideas.  The change of views coincided with the advent of
> the
> > > > d-cog
> > > > > idea which also has deep roots in chat.
> > > > >
> > > > > No hidden  history i know of, but interesting connections among the
> > > > notion
> > > > > of affordance and artifact seem worth considering. A discussion  of
> > > these
> > > > > connections can be found, among other places, in
> > > > >
> > > > >  Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (1993). *A cultural-historical approach
> to
> > > > > distributed*
> > > > > *cognition*. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition:
> > Psychological
> > > > and
> > > > > educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
> > > > >
> > > > > mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was my hope to not post more today, but I I have been denied
> > that
> > > > > wish!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I am aware that "dcog" and "chat" have important
> connections.
> > I
> > > > was
> > > > > > not aware however that Don Norman discovered affordances. I
> learned
> > > > about
> > > > > > Gibson's affordances in Gardner's book The Minds New Science
> > (1985).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there some history that is not part of the common story?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I looked here for clarity:
> > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordance
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it possible that you mean affordances and how they relate to
> > > > cognitive
> > > > > > artifacts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no rocks here, maybe only Nerf footballs, as done in
> > play,
> > > > and
> > > > > > even joy!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I am done with Paul's paper I do intend to speak, however
> > until
> > > > then
> > > > > > I will remain with the ineffable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Annalisa
> > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <
> > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > >
> > > > > > on behalf of mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 10:39 PM
> > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How *basic* are images?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The histories of dcog and chat are intertwined, Annalisa. And,
> > > > > > co-incidently, Don Norman discovered affordances and cognitive
> > > > artifacts
> > > > > > right about that time at UCSD.  If it were possible to find a
> > source
> > > > that
> > > > > > makes these connections visible and available to read about it
> > might
> > > > be a
> > > > > > step in the direction of your earlier suggestion of some sort of
> > > intro
> > > > > for
> > > > > > newcomers to the discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been reading The paper that Paul sent. I fear I need a
> > > > newcomer's
> > > > > > introduction to many of the dense cluster of thinkers he is
> seeking
> > > to
> > > > > sort
> > > > > > out! The centrality of class comes through clearly, but I am
> > > > > insuficiently
> > > > > > read in too many places to feel I understand well. Help wanted!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A sculptor friend has a t shirt that nails our dilemma "so many
> > > rocks,
> > > > so
> > > > > > little time"!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, December 1, 2014, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Perhaps the day we stop employing the phrase "mental
> > > representation"
> > > > is
> > > > > > > coming closer!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For me, this brings us closer to truly understanding Gibson's
> > > theory
> > > > of
> > > > > > > affordances.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is what it's like for me to read David's contributed
> > article.
> > > > But
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > wonder if it is possible for you, Martin, to explain why it is
> > > > > important
> > > > > > > not to use the phrase,"mental representation" in the article.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect there is a history here, and I do not mean to pull a
> > > > grenade
> > > > > > > pin, I just want to understand because I am a newcomer to the
> > list.
> > > > If
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > can trust that that is my intention by asking, I will look
> > forward
> > > to
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > reply, Martin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me just add that I am putting two and two together that
> being
> > > at
> > > > > UCSD
> > > > > > > and it being the home to Distributed Cognition, that that
> > > influences
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > position, not that it necessarily shapes it, but that you find
> > > > > community
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > it (which I suppose can still shape, but it seems more
> voluntary
> > > > > phrased
> > > > > > > that way).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kind regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Annalisa
> > > > > > > ________________________________________
> > > > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
> > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of
> > > Martin
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 4:28 AM
> > > > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: How *basic* are images?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An interesting article, David. One way in which it is
> > interesting,
> > > to
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > at least, is that the phrase "mental representation" is not
> used,
> > > > even
> > > > > > > once. Instead the author writes of the way that we "read"
> images
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > world around us - material representations - and he tries to
> > define
> > > > the
> > > > > > > "interpretational space" within which this reading takes place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:53 AM, David Kellogg <
> dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Larry, Annalisa:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > People sometimes ask my wife if it was "love at first sight"
> > when
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > met. She answers--quite truthfully--that she has no memory of
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > except the price of the shoes that I wore (a kind of shoe
> > > available
> > > > > > > > for a standard price all over China) She does not even
> remember
> > > > > > > > whether they were new or old (they were pretty new; it was
> the
> > > > > > > > beginning of the semester). I think I would describe this as
> a
> > > > > > > > non-image based mental representation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As Larry says, the issue of whether all mental
> representations
> > > are
> > > > > > > > images was a very hot one--back in the late nineteenth
> century.
> > > In
> > > > > > > > fact, it was the key issue for the Gestaltist revolt against
> > > > > Titchener
> > > > > > > > and against Wundtian psychology: for Wundt and his disciples,
> > > > > > > > everything was image based, and the Gestaltists demonstrated
> > that
> > > > > > > > many, if not most, of our mental operations are genetically
> > > > anterior
> > > > > > > > to images, and have more to do with processes, else we would
> > not
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > time or ability to process complex problems in real time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it is even more true that of forms of thinking that
> are
> > > > > > > > genetically posterior to images. I hesitate to recommend more
> > > > reading
> > > > > > > > to anybody, because of course Larry is far more well read
> than
> > I
> > > am
> > > > > > > > (particularly on phenomenology) and Annalisa sometimes feels
> > like
> > > > > > > > she's being sent to sit facing the corner with a book. So do
> > NOT
> > > > read
> > > > > > > > this article--instead, look at Figure 11.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157022/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The artist, Robert Pepperell, uses the general color
> structure
> > of
> > > > > > > > Michelangelo’s painting to suggest images without using any
> > > actual
> > > > > > > > images: by color and shape, which some part of our cultural
> > > > > experience
> > > > > > > > associates with Renaissance paintings.  Pepperell then
> > > deliberately
> > > > > > > > frustrates these guiding images by refusing to give them any
> > > > > > > > recognizable figures upon which to focus.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, the child staring up at Michelangelo’s Sistine
> Chapel
> > > > fresco
> > > > > > > > for the first time finds himself in the opposite situation.
> He
> > or
> > > > she
> > > > > > > > can discern quite clearly the fighting figures in the
> painting
> > > and
> > > > > > > > wonders who they are and why they are fighting, but does not
> > > notice
> > > > > > > > the color structure or see anything particularly meaningful
> in
> > > it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David Kellogg
> > > > > > > > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 1 December 2014 at 10:39, Annalisa Aguilar <
> > annalisa@unm.edu
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and David,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Am I butting in? I hope if I am, it is a welcome butting in!
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I don't know that we can say that "basic guiding images" are
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > > > root of all thinking.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Perhaps it is safer to say that people think differently,
> > based
> > > > upon
> > > > > > > previous conditioning and interactions with their caretakers,
> in
> > > > > > > combination with their biological makeup? Vera has a coined a
> > > phrase
> > > > I
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > a lot called "Cognitive pluralism." She has written a paper on
> it
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > same title and you may find interesting it if you don't know
> it.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> With this in mind, it is possible that _some_ people think
> as
> > > > > Hackett
> > > > > > > describes, but I don't know if it is how all people think. Have
> > you
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > given an example of Hackett's work that you recommend? I'd be
> > > willing
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > take a look.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As I understand, the topic of mental representations is
> > > > > controversial.
> > > > > > > It is likely controversial because no one likes it when someone
> > > says
> > > > > > "this
> > > > > > > is how all humans think." Of course, that is just my humble
> > > > > observation.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> It may just be that thinking is a dynamic process and
> whatever
> > > > that
> > > > > > > process is, is particular to the necessity to the situation at
> > > hand?
> > > > > > Just a
> > > > > > > thought.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> What is it that appeals to you about this model,
> > metaphoricity?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> (BTW, a metaphor need not be image based!)
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Annalisa
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> ________________________________________
> > > > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;> <
> > > > > > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <javascript:;>> on behalf of
> > Larry
> > > > > > Purss <
> > > > > > > lpscholar2@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:33 AM
> > > > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture Activity
> > > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l]  How *basic* are images?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> David K
> > > > > > > >> I mentioned Chris Hackett, and I recently referenced Peirce.
> > My
> > > > > reason
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > >> exploring these authors is I have been following a path
> > > pursuing a
> > > > > > basic
> > > > > > > >> question.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Are basic guiding images at the root of all thinking?
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Chris Hackett's answer is: "thinking never EXCEEDS the basic
> > > > guiding
> > > > > > > images
> > > > > > > >> upon which thinking rests"
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> The recent dialogue between Andy and Martin exploring
> > > appearances
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> illusions was also exploring this theme.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hackett is outlining what he understands as a new
> > > phenomenological
> > > > > > path
> > > > > > > >> that places guiding images at the root of thinking. He names
> > > this
> > > > > > > process
> > > > > > > >> *metaphoricity*.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Hackett believes metaphoricity names the irreducible
> > > > image-character
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> *spontaneous event* of meaning.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> He goes on to suggest that the "intending subject" - which
> he
> > > > > > brackets -
> > > > > > > >> finds itself implicated in this guiding image.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> AND
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> it is *in* this guiding image that the *intending subject*
> > finds
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> meaning of its very self.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Exploring the notion of "first things* Hackett proposes this
> > > > > > > >> image-character IS a new *objectivity* that only the notion
> of
> > > > > > metaphor
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >> invoke. In other words the notion of *seeing as* is
> implicated
> > > in
> > > > > > > >> *objectivity*
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This new objectivity for Hackett is the root of thinking.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Reason at the point of becoming conscious and in command of
> > > itself
> > > > > > *in*
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> mode [path] of the concept
> > > > > > > >> occurs AFTER the *constitution* of meaning through guiding
> > > images
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > >> established.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In other words meaning through guiding images mediates the
> > path
> > > of
> > > > > > > >> conscious verbal thought in command of itself which is
> derived
> > > > from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >> image-character of the guiding image.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I hesitate to open this thread because of how controversial
> > this
> > > > > topic
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > >> become [again]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> However I will take the risk as I continue to be held by
> this
> > > > basic
> > > > > > > >> question. I want to repeat that Hackett is exploring these
> > > images
> > > > as
> > > > > > > >> occurring as *events* and in his speculations the images
> > emerge
> > > > > > > >> spontaneously prior to intentional consciousness.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This is not the phenomenology of Husserl [which is
> > > transcendental]
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >> not the phenomenology of Heidegger [which is hermeneutical].
> > It
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > >> have an affinity with Peirce and speculative musings.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I also realize this question may already be answered in
> > > Vygotsky's
> > > > > > > writings
> > > > > > > >> and may be pulling us away from the historical concerns of
> > > XMCA. I
> > > > > > > >> personally am following this path for now.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Larry
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science
> with
> > > an
> > > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
> > an
> > > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with
> an
> > > > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>