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

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



Hi Mike,

"Keywords" was the original printing, not the re-printing of those pages.
 I'm assuming citations would be rather extensive making some work to
figure out where this passage was reprinted (i.e a book devoted to
mediaiton?).

Huw

On 15 September 2014 02:33, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> 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]
>