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

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



Hi Huw--
The entries on communication (blurry) and mediation (ok and the focus of
the discussion are from Raymond Williams, *Keywords. *I find that book in
general an invaluable resource and particularly apt for the discipline of
communication, in which, in my view, mediation plays a central role.
mike


On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a nice account.  Do you know the source title for which which these
> pages were reprinted, please?
>
> Huw
>
> On 14 September 2014 17:03, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > the attachment re mediation
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Andy Blunden <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/
> > >
> > >
> > > 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>
> > 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
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and re-
> > construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more
> or
> > less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
> > Gray, 2001]
> >
>



-- 

Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction and re-
construction in which heterogeneous resources are contingently but more or
less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama, Griffiths, and
Gray, 2001]