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

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



live by the sword, die by the sword, Paul.
mike

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM, 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 

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]