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

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



On 16 September 2014 20:20, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu> wrote:

> But then Martin are you saying we can't critique our culture.  Or if we
> could what would be the process.  I guess all this comes from a
> conversation I was having this morning - what are the aims of education?
>

The purpose of a system is what it does.  :)

Huw


> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu]
> on behalf of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:14 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
>
> How could we step out of culture, Michael, if it sustains human life?
> Surely culture is pervasive: no human being lives outside culture. Created
> to a purpose? Not sure what you mean by that.
>
> Martin
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > But in order to do this don't we have to be able to challenge the
> primacy of culture as it exists now?  And to do this don't we need to
> acknowledge that culture is not organic or necessarily pervasive but
> something that is created to a purpose.  How do we critique something if we
> don't believe we can step outside of it?
> >
> > Michael
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf
> of Martin John Packer [mpacker@uniandes.edu.co]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 2:49 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
> >
> > Agreed, but I would say that the solution, if there is one, is not to
> live without culture but to live with a better culture.  Follow Foucault
> along one of the roads not taken...
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On Sep 16, 2014, at 1:42 PM, 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>