[Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
John Cummins
deva_research@lineone.net
Tue Sep 16 14:52:12 PDT 2014
Hi Rod,
I'm sure you're right. We know that there are many heuristics the brain uses
to promote economy of effort--see Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking Fast and
Slow'-- and that there has to be a balance between ease of familiarity and
openness to novelty.
My personal interest is in the evolution of the stress system, and whether
it has any part in forming our world view. That could perhaps provide the
sort of emotional glue that seems to underpin the sheer tenacity of our
personal world views, and the aggression with which we defend them--and
indeed seek to inflict them on other people.
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees
Sent: 16 September 2014 22:22
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
Do you think, John, that one aspect of the 'emotional glue' might be the
relative easiness of familiarity? Communication with familiar people is
easier because we are better able (with less effort) to anticipate how they
are likely to react - less need for constant updating and interactional
vigilance. Of course this brings risks as well as benefits - xenophobia and
fear/distrust of anything 'other' but not all people end up equally
difference averse and most of us enjoy a balance between enjoying the easy
comfort of familiarity and also sometimes seeking the excitement of novelty
- it is dangerous ground but it might even be suggested that children tend
to cast parents (and other caregivers) in different roles to support these
different needs or wants. Habituation could be seen as a limitation of the
brain - tuning out what remains the same and focusing on what changes but
this has clear evolutionary advantages too!
Rod
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of John Cummins
Sent: 16 September 2014 22:11
To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
Hi Rod,
I agree with what you say but there may be limitations to this happy state
of learning about ourselves and others, and if so it would be relevant to
educators to explore what these limitations might be.
I agree that one might not expect there to be a class of limitations to
learning over and above the physical limitations of the brain and the
information available to it, especially as the brain is highly plastic
physically, and we have great capacity to learn, but even so I suggest there
may be additional types or classes of limitation.
The most obvious place to begin looking would be in the possible
desirability for a world view to have a degree of stability. It is hard work
having to update, especially at a basic level. But I think the problem may
be even more basic. As I suggested earlier, there may be a sort of emotional
glue that holds things together. It makes it difficult for us to update; it
means that on occasions we defend our world view with some aggression , and
it is responsible for as degree of self deception or self delusion. From an
evolutionary perspective, if this is true ( and of course it is just
speculation at the moment), then because it is an obvious limitation on
intelligent learning it must be part of a larger balance of adaptive costs
and benefits.
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Rod Parker-Rees
Sent: 16 September 2014 21:53
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
But the culture each of us is within is not the same culture, surely, that
anyone else is within. Culture is not an artefact in the sense that Andy
talks about artefact -mediated communication so there is always space for
noticing how others notice differently. Babies can pick up on the difference
between interaction with a familiar and an unfamiliar partner, children form
friendship groups which are defined by those they exclude as well as those
they include and we travel to learn about ourselves and others by noticing
how people do things differently in other places and other times. I would
argue that it is only BY noticing differences in the ways others notice or
pay attention to things that we are able to notice how WE notice things. It
is by realising that we are not quite like other people that we can realise
what we are like.
And I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the point you were
making, Michael!
Rod
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
Sent: 16 September 2014 21:21
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
Okay, here is a thought experiment. You are a character in a novel, let's
say it is War and Peace. You have decided to critique the way in which
Napoleon is presented in the novel. Yet the only information you have to
make the critique is from your experiences in the novel. Everything fits
together based on the way the narrative is set out. It is not that you no
information on Napoleon outside the novel, it is that you do not realize
that there is even the possibility that there might be information outside
of the novel. You critique from within but the ability to critique is
actually controlled by Tolstoy, who has his own reasons for portraying all
the characters in the way he does. But you do not even realize there is a
Tolstoy, this is simply the world that has been set up for you - as Huw
suggests the purpose of the system is the system. Is there really any
chance for a true critique or is the game rigged, are you always going to
wind up in some place that we already dete
rmined by the novel itself.
Now let's say you can as a character you can step outside the novel, realize
it is a novel, understand that this is a system that Tolstoy has created for
his own purposes (writers have been experimenting with this idea for
generations). Isn't that a qualitatively different critique from within,
and isn't this the only critique that allows you to escape your life as a
character in the novel.
If this makes no sense I apologize.
Michael
________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on
behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:30 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
We critique it from within. All the time.
Martin
On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu> wrote:
> But then Martin are you saying we can't critique our culture. Or if
> we
could what would be the process. I guess all this comes from a conversation
I was having this morning - what are the aims of education?
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Martin John Packer
> [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>
> How could we step out of culture, Michael, if it sustains human life?
Surely culture is pervasive: no human being lives outside culture. Created
to a purpose? Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> Martin
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
wrote:
>
>> But in order to do this don't we have to be able to challenge the
>> primacy
of culture as it exists now? And to do this don't we need to acknowledge
that culture is not organic or necessarily pervasive but something that is
created to a purpose. How do we critique something if we don't believe we
can step outside of it?
>>
>> Michael
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> [xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] on
>> behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:49 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>>
>> Agreed, but I would say that the solution, if there is one, is not to
live without culture but to live with a better culture. Follow Foucault
along one of the roads not taken...
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
<pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem I am having Martin is what adorno and horkheimer alluded
>>> to
in the dialectic of enlightenment...where reason and culture becomes the
mechanisms for our demise. It is one thing to have culture, but its another
thing to have a culture associated with thanatos.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>> President
>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>
>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martin John
>>> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014 2:20 PM
(GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate
perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Okay, Paul, but if we
start with the fact that our bodies not only live in the material world but
are components of that material world, I think we end up with a different
conclusion than Kant did. And can we live in a state of nature in which
culture plays no role? No, because human biology has evolved so that we
cannot survive except by living and working together, or without all the
tools and other artifacts that previous generations have designed,
fabricated, and shown us how to use.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
<pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tying to the material world is my language martin...but in essence
>>>> kant
is saying the same thing, as a subject of experience we are tied to the
object of experience vis-a-vis our form of sensibilities, which is different
from the form of our understanding which can transcends the former but never
access the object in itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>> President
>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>
>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Martin John
>>>> Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014 12:25
>>>> PM
(GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate
perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Did Kant say that our
bodies tie us to our material world? I am more familiar with Kant's
statements that a universal, transcendental mind creates mental
representations which enable each of us to bring 'order' to the 'chaos of
sensations,' so that we can never truly know material reality. The value of
Hegel consists in challenging this 'cognitivism' that continues to dominate
the social sciences today.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 16, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
<pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would think it is a problem in how sensations are mediated.
>>>>> That
is, if kant is right and our bodies tie us to the material world... does it
and our form of understanding coupled with the material world also dictate
an unmediating universal way by which we humans should recursively go about
reproducing and reorganizing our species-being? Simply put, is there a
state of nature we should attempt to live-in dictated by our bodies and the
material world that is not mediated by culture?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>> President
>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>
>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Carol
>>>>> Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/16/2014
>>>>> 11:13 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture
>>>>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject: [Xmca-l]
>>>>> Re: mediate perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>On
>>>>> 15 Sep 2014 7:08 AM, "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe"
>>>>> <pmocombe@mocombeian.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would appear, to me at least, that the unmediated sensations
>>>>>> you are referring to parallels kant ' s forms of sensibilities
>>>>>> and understandings, which belong to the body and schopenhauer 's
>>>>>> will. I would agree that culture enframes them in a variety of
>>>>>> ways. However, do they not, as sensations, tie us down to the
>>>>>> material world irrespective of the mediated ways we encounter them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think so,and but I am not sure why that is a problem.
>>>>> Please explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, surely we can also remember these sensations. Today some
>>>>> of our suburbs had their water cut off for about 21 hours. I am
>>>>> sure I wasn't the only who could imagine how lovely it would be to
>>>>> have a shower (or bath or wash, depending on your culture); and we
know what water tastes like.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Paul C. Mocombe
>>>>>> President
>>>>>> The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc.
>>>>>> www.mocombeian.com
>>>>>> www.readingroomcurriculum.com
>>>>>> www.paulcmocombe.info
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Carol
>>>>>> Macdonald < carolmacdon@gmail.com> </div><div>Date:09/15/2014
>>>>>> 8:39 AM (GMT-05:00)
>>>>>> </div><div>To: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>, "eXtended Mind,
>>>>>> Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> </div><div>Subject:
[Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> mediate perception and direct perception </div><div> </div>Hi
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to be an all inclusive scheme which ties us down, but
>>>>>> at the same time purports to account for "everything". But are
>>>>>> there really only universal artefacts? There must be at least the
>>>>>> possibility of
>>>>>> - misunderstanding (all though of course you (Andy) can do this;
>>>>>> - as yet potential understanding
>>>>>> - a total lack of understanding.
>>>>>> And there is still the need to account for unmediated sensation -
>>>>>> so if we are hungry, we need to eat; but the eating is mediated.
>>>>>> We need to take in fluid, but everything apart from water also
>>>>>> seems to be mediated. (And of course we serve water in culturally
>>>>>> mediated ways.) I am sure I have too simplistic a view which
>>>>>> misunderstands your schema Andy, but I am trying to keep open
Shotter's concerns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 September 2014 14:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah! I see!
>>>>>>> As Hegel said: "There is nothing, nothing in heaven, or in
>>>>>>> nature or in mind or anywhere else which does not equally
>>>>>>> contain both immediacy and mediation." I have no great problem
>>>>>>> with anyone saying that anything is mediated by anything else,
>>>>>>> where it is appropriate. My problem is that
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> specific insight of Vygotsky, that artefact-mediation of actions
>>>>>>> provides an especially productive unit of analysis for science
>>>>>>> is lost if
>>>>>> mediation
>>>>>>> in the broad sense is mixed up in CHAT literature with
>>>>>>> artefact-mediation to the point that artefact-mediation is lost.
>>>>>>> Still, I would prefer that
>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> you were to make the point you were referring to you used some
>>>>>>> expression other than "mediation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Artefact mediation of actions is a brilliant insight. I can do
>>>>>>> what I like, but to do anything (other than have dreams or
>>>>>>> thoughts) I have to
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> some material object to transmit my actions, so to speak - a
>>>>>>> tool, a
>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>> a gesture, or whatever - but all these artefacts which I use,
>>>>>>> without exception, are products of the history and culture into
>>>>>>> which I was
>>>>>> born. I
>>>>>>> can choose which artefact to use, but culture and history
>>>>>>> produce
them.
>>>>>> So
>>>>>>> every action I take is essentially cultural-historical as well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>> personal.
>>>>>>> Also, because artefacts are material objects, their physical
>>>>>>> form is the same for everyone, it is universal. So communication
>>>>>>> as much as miscommunication takes place through everyone
>>>>>>> interpreting the same material objects, artefacts, that I am
>>>>>>> using in my actions. How can they
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> that? Because they too mediate their actions with the same set
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> universal
>>>>>>> artefacts! So all human action is opened to cultural and
>>>>>>> historical analysis which is as objective as any branch of
>>>>>>> natural
science.
>>>>>> Wonderful,
>>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> --------
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to study how action changes then you need to study
>>>>>>>> the history and production of the action. Under such
>>>>>>>> circumstances,
>>>>>> assertions
>>>>>>>> that concepts cannot mediate (the production of) actions become
>>>>>>>> more obviously false. If one has simplified, through
>>>>>>>> "clarity", the action
>>>>>> away
>>>>>>>> from its genetic base then it may seem correct to assert that a
>>>>>>>> concept cannot mediate an action.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The conservation tasks (e.g. conservation of volume) are an
>>>>>>>> elegant way to demonstrate this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 15 September 2014 04:26, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:
>>>>>>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> he, he, Huw!
>>>>>>>> For me, reduction, simplification and typology are the very
>>>>>>>> problems that need to be remedied by clarification! and I
>>>>>>>> really don't think obfuscation is ever helpful, generally being
>>>>>>>> used to obscure the genesis of phenomena. Distinction is not
>>>>>>>> equal to separation.
>>>>>>>> I really don't know what you are referring to with product and
>>>>>>>> history. Perhaps you could explain?
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ------------
>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree about precision, but not with a call for "clarity".
>>>>>>>> Reduction to clarity is a projection or reification of the
>>>>>>>> need for simplicity. Simplicity usually entails typologies or
>>>>>>>> other simplistic devices which prevent the conception and
>>>>>>>> perception of genetic relations. Actually in cases such as
>>>>>>>> these we are interested in (clarifying) the entanglements
>>>>>>>> between artefacts and mind. I think It would be equally
>>>>>>>> appropriate and meaning-prompting to state that one needs to
>>>>>>>> obfuscate (see darkly) too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it is this "need for simplification" which leads me to
>>>>>>>> disagree with the 2nd paragraph. For example, why separate
>>>>>>>> the act from its production and history? Of course, if
>>>>>>>> one had the discipline to de-couple clarity from
>>>>>>>> modes of simplicity, then we wouldn't have the problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Huw
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 14 September 2014 07:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My impression, Greg and David Ki, is that in the CHAT
>>>>>>>> tradition
>>>>>>>> specifically, as opposed to the English language in general,
>>>>>>>> mediation refers to *artefact-mediation*. Of course, every
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> is both mediated and immediate, and in many discursive
>>>>>>>> contexts,
>>>>>>>> "mediation" is a concept which may be evoked quite
>>>>>>>> legitimately,
>>>>>>>> but with no special significant for the use of CHAT. In
>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>> theory, for example, mediation of activities by other
>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>> or institutions is as ubiquitous as mediation of actions by
>>>>>>>> artefacts is in the domain of psychology. But if the
>>>>>>>> topic
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> psychology, I think artefact-mediation is so central, that I
>>>>>>>> prefer to spell it out and use the term
>>>>>>>> "artefact-mediated" rather
>>>>>>>> than the vague term "mediated".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have come across usages like "mediated by such-and-such a
>>>>>>>> concept." Like Alice in Wonderland one can use words to
>>>>>>>> mean what
>>>>>>>> you like, but I find a formulation like this in the
>>>>>>>> context
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> CHAT problematic, because it is using the idea of
>>>>>>>> "mediation" in
>>>>>>>> the most general sense in a way which obscures the fact
>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>> concept is not immediately present in any act of
>>>>>>>> communication or
>>>>>>>> any other act, and therefore *cannot mediate actions*.
>>>>>>>> Artefacts,
>>>>>>>> such as spoken words, which may be signs for a concept,
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> course mediate an act of communication. But the point is
>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>> word is not universally and unproblematically a sign for
>>>>>>>> any one
>>>>>>>> concept. It means different things to different people.
>>>>>>>> Concepts
>>>>>>>> are not artefacts. Artefacts are universal in their
>>>>>>>> materiality,
>>>>>>>> but particular in their meaning. So when we have a concept
>>>>>>>> in mind
>>>>>>>> when we use a word in communication, the communication is
>>>>>>>> mediated
>>>>>>>> by the word not the concept, and it is a mistake not to be
>>>>>>>> aware
>>>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I would prefer it if "mediation" were always used in
>>>>>>>> qualified
>>>>>>>> way so that its specific meaning is made clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> PS. And David Ki is completely right in his comment, too.
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does "mediation" only apply to language and culture?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or does it include nerve fibers? (in which case we
>>>>>>>> would need
>>>>>>>> to include
>>>>>>>> reflexes)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And does it include our socio-contextual surround as in
>>>>>>>> Bateson's man with
>>>>>>>> the stick? (in which case, we would need to include
>>>>>>>> newborns).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just wonderin'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, David H Kirshner
>>>>>>>> <dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for replies.
>>>>>>>> I'm recalling several years ago Jim Greeno decided
>>>>>>>> to stop
>>>>>>>> talking about
>>>>>>>> situated cognition because the pragmatics of
>>>>>>>> adjectival
>>>>>>>> use implies there
>>>>>>>> has to be a contrasting non-situated cognition.
>>>>>>>> He
>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>> speaks of
>>>>>>>> situativity theory. It seems, with the exception of
>>>>>>>> physical reflexes (and
>>>>>>>> perhaps pre-conscious infant activity), all human
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> is mediated (and
>>>>>>>> perhaps a lot of non-human action, as well). So,
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> worth noting that
>>>>>>>> "mediated action" doesn't specify a kind of
>>>>>>>> action, but
>>>>>>>> rather a
>>>>>>>> theoretical assumption about all human action;
>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> there seems to be
>>>>>>>> some variation in interpretation of what that
>>>>>>>> assumption
>>>>>>>> entails.
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor Honorary Research Fellow:
>>>>>> Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.u
k/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no
responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and
their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for
any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments
constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official
order form.
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.u
k/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it.
If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no
responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and
their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for
any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments
constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official
order form.
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list