Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>]

Actually Andy
I thought I was giving an historically interesting example.  Maybe it's
because we have 350 000+ people a year dying from AIDS that health is so
high in our national consciousness. So excuse the example: you are lucky you
didn't get an historical account of HIV/AIDS!!

Raising children is also interesting across the cultures in our country. But
I have work to do so must stop here.

Carol

On 16 October 2010 02:44, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> We shouldn't take this "the body is an artefact" down an entirely negative
> line of course, Carol.
> Every parent will tell you the efforts that went into raising their own
> darling children.
>
> Andy
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
>> TB is very interesting historically in the way we have responded to it.
>> Firstly, you got ill from it and died from it, like the poet Keats.  Then
>> people were isolated in sanatoria and given drugs and then they recovered.
>> And now, you are infectious until you start taking your medication, and
>> then
>> if you faithfully take it, then you get better. And most recently, you are
>> likely to get TB as an opportunistic infection when you are HIV+, and it's
>> harder to shake off because your immune system is compromised.
>>
>> Recently my niece had a group of friends round for supper and then was
>> diagnosed with TB the following day.  She had to inform everybody, and
>> they
>> had to be checked, but within 48 hours, when she was on medicine, she
>> didn't
>> have to tell/warn anybody. Astonishing for someone who regularly swims 5km
>> before breakfast!! If she had been Keats, her symptoms would have been
>> more
>> than a slight cough at night.
>>
>> carol
>>
>> On 15 October 2010 14:42, Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> and TB
>>>
>>> Is Karin Johanisson (Prof in Medical History, Univ of Uppsala, Sweden)
>>> translated...
>>>
>>> her books are really interesting
>>>
>>> Leif
>>> 15 okt 2010 kl. 14.26 skrev Martin Packer:
>>>
>>>  Lactose intolerance - just one example of cultural continuation of
>>>
>>>
>>>> biological evolution...
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> <Wade 2010 Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I am intrigued Rod. You conclude from this interesting story that the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> body is not ("may not be") an artefact, but "virtual maps" within the
>>>>> brain
>>>>> are? I presume because these neural structures are "constructed,"
>>>>> whereas
>>>>> other parts of the body are not?
>>>>> What do you mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In 'The body has a mind of its own' by Sandra Blakeslee and Matthew
>>>>>> Blakeslee (2007 Random House), there is a chapter which begins with an
>>>>>> account of research by Dr Atsushi Iriki and colleagues in Japan. This
>>>>>> research involved training monkeys to use rakes as tools to retrieve
>>>>>> food
>>>>>> and then using arrays of microelectrodes implanted in their skulls to
>>>>>> study
>>>>>> the visual receptive fields of visual-tactile cells in the posterior
>>>>>> parietal cortex of the monkeys. What Iriki found was that these
>>>>>> visual-tactile cells, which usually responded to information only in a
>>>>>> region within the monkeys' arms length, began to respond to more
>>>>>> distant
>>>>>> information (within arm+rake's length) but ONLY when the monky was
>>>>>> using the
>>>>>> rake as a tool - when the mankey was passively holding the tool the
>>>>>> response
>>>>>> drew back to its normal range. The chapter goes on to describe studies
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> virtual reality in which participants learn to control avatars which
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> strikingly different physiology - e.g. a lobster - controlled by a
>>>>>> complex
>>>>>> code of combined body movements which is never shared with
>>>>>> participants,
>>>>>> they learn to control the movement of their avatar just by trial and
>>>>>> error
>>>>>> but they soon become able to 'automate' the process - focusing on what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> want to do rather on what they have to do to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our bodies may not be artefacts but our cerebellar virtual maps of how
>>>>>> our bodies work and what we can do with them surely are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have just started wearing varifocal glasses and am in the process of
>>>>>> retraining my body's ways of seeing (learning to move my head and neck
>>>>>> rather than just move my eyes) already I am finding that things 'stay
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> focus' more as my head and neck get my eyes into position without me
>>>>>> having
>>>>>> to tell them where to go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me this links with the discussion about bodies and tools and
>>>>>> possibly extends (rake-like) beyond it - how much of the tool is
>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>> its form and how much by the cultural history of how, by whom, when,
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> and for what it has been and could be used?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 06:02
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My claim is, David, not just that (for example) my fingers are
>>>>>> functionally artefacts because I use them to play the piano, but also
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> are genetically artefacts because they are the products of art.
>>>>>> "Labour
>>>>>> created man himself" as old Fred said. If we are going to claim that
>>>>>> thinking is artefact-mediated activity, then we must accept our bodies
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> artefacts, or abandon other important definitions of artefact, as
>>>>>> mediator
>>>>>> of activity, material product of human labour and the substance of
>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>> We fashion our bodies for the purpose of constructing a culture just
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> surely as we fashion our buildings, our domestic animals, our food and
>>>>>> clothing and everything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can define a word how you like, but the importance of realising
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> our bodies are products of human labour which we use as both
>>>>>> instruments and
>>>>>> symbols, just like our white canes and spectacles,  is demonstrated by
>>>>>> intersubjectivists who simply overlook the role of artefacts as
>>>>>> mediators
>>>>>> altogether. In part this is possible because they subsume the human
>>>>>> body
>>>>>> into the notion of 'subject', something which also allows them to
>>>>>> scoot over
>>>>>> all sorts of tricky philosophical problems entailed in recognizing the
>>>>>> active participation of subjectivity in what would otherwise be simply
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> complex series of material interactions. The result, contradictorily
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> far worse Cartesian dualism than the one they tried to avoid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I thought long and hard about this, and the conclusion is
>>>>>> inescapable: the human body is an artefact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> / //// /
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Sometimes I would really like to be a mosquito in the room when
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is giving his course on developmental psychology. But I would
>>>>>>> probably want
>>>>>>> to bite the student who asked if the replacement of social relations
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> language (e.g. discourse) by psychological ones (e.g. grammar) is a
>>>>>>> "fact"
>>>>>>> or just one of Martin's ideas; the question strikes me as rather more
>>>>>>> bumbling and humbling.
>>>>>>> Fortunately, I have my own Thursday night session, which this
>>>>>>> semester
>>>>>>> is all about systemic functional linguistics and conversation
>>>>>>> analysis. Last
>>>>>>> night we were discussing the difference between them, and I pointed
>>>>>>> out that
>>>>>>> the systemic view is quite consistent with the idea of language as an
>>>>>>> artefact and the conversation analysis view is much less so.
>>>>>>> Take, for example, the problem of repair. A teacher walks into a
>>>>>>> classroom.
>>>>>>> T: Good morning, everybody.
>>>>>>> Ss: Good morning, everybody!
>>>>>>> T: !!!!
>>>>>>> The conversation is broken. But in order to repair it, the teacher
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not pull over and stop. The teacher has to keep going. The teacher
>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>> find out what exactly the kids mean, if anything (are they simply
>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>> what they heard, as seems likely, or are they including their
>>>>>>> classmates in
>>>>>>> their reply to the teacher?)
>>>>>>> This means that even quite simple conversations (the sort we have
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> third graders) are quite gnarly and knobbled; they have convolutions
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> introvolutions, knots and whorls and burls of negotiation.
>>>>>>>  Conversations
>>>>>>> exhibit very few of the genetic or structural of mechanical tools,
>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>> fact only resemble "tools" only if we take a quite narrowly
>>>>>>> functionalist
>>>>>>> squint and presuppose a coinciding will that wields them. It even
>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>> me that they are misconstrued when we say that they are artefacts.
>>>>>>> I think the Romantics, especially Herder, would agree with this view:
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> think they would have been rather horrified at Andy's idea that a
>>>>>>> body is an
>>>>>>> artefact in the same sense as a tool is an artefact.  They would
>>>>>>> point out
>>>>>>> that it is not genetically so; the body is a natural product and not
>>>>>>> man
>>>>>>> made. It is also not structurally so: unlike other artefacts, much of
>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> structure reflects self-replication and not other-fabrication.  Of
>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>> we may say that a body is FUNCTIONALLY like an artefact, because we
>>>>>>> use it
>>>>>>> as a tool in various ways. But if we privilege this particular
>>>>>>> interpretation of the body over the genetic, or the structural,
>>>>>>> account, it
>>>>>>> seems to me we get a pretty functionalist view of things. A body
>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>> a conversation is not an artefact; it's more like a work of art, and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> gratuitous and organic complexity of conversation is an indelible
>>>>>>> sign of
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 5:40 AM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Andy-of-the-5-o'clock-shadow
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet it's a different kind of gnashing of teeth (and wailing and
>>>>>>> weeping)
>>>>>>> when the baboons at Third Bridge get stuck into the tinned
>>>>>>> supplies...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paula
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>> Sent: 14 October 2010 13:19
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My answer, Paula: yes.
>>>>>>> My body, with its various parts, is an artefact; according to
>>>>>>> context,
>>>>>>> symbol or tool.
>>>>>>> My face and my 5 o'clock shadow is a symbol just as much as the shirt
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> wear. My teeth a tool just as much as a can opener.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  For some inexplicable reason while watching Mike's blind man with a
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> stick video, I remembered smsing Carol with a quirky question: if a
>>>>>>>> researcher without a knife is trying to open an airline packet of
>>>>>>>> peanuts,
>>>>>>>> and she resorts to using her teeth, what tool is she using?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps the better question would be - is she using a tool.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>
>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>



-- 
WORK as:
Visiting Lecturer
Wits School of Education
HOME (please use these details)
6 Andover Road
Westdene
Johannesburg 2092
+27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca