[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception



Many thanks for this Michael but I would (humbly) want to take issue with Gibson's apparent assumption here, that children attribute meaning or information to words, images etc. as context-independent 'objects'. I was particularly interested in Shotter's emphasis on 'withness thinking' because I had come to the conclusion that babies' first awareness is of their interactions (with people and with whatever they can get hold of in their environment) rather than of people or things as objects. This also fitted well with Vasu Reddy's distinction between the 'third person perspective' adopted in many developmental psychology studies and the 'second person perspective' which is characteristic of social interactions (especially the more playful, 'full-on' kind). Gibson wants to use 'mediated perception' to refer only to representations but I think we also need to acknowledge the role of mediation in giving meaning to attention itself (the sharing of meaning that is afforded by shared attention). I am not convinced that babies simply or directly relate pictures of things (or 'names' of things) with context-free, ideal concepts of those things. I think it is much more likely that the association is with past (inter) actions WITH similar things, interactions which are heavily mediated by the values and meanings which others attach to the infant's actions. We 'soak up' intuitive or not consciously noticed information about other people's responses to our actions and this social information becomes part of the meaning of these actions.

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
Sent: 13 September 2014 18:20
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] mediate perception and direct perception


Mike, David, whoever

Tried to find the original message to respond to but this mail program has become too mediated.

Here is a short essay by (speaking of) Gibson, I guess related to what I was saying,

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/ecopsyc/perils/folder3/mediated.html

I wonder if it challenges Shotters idea.

Michael

________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/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.