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

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



Martin,
What about ethnocentrism? Isn't that a critique of a culture "from
without"? (by that I don't mean a critique from nowhere, but rather I mean
a critique from somewhere else).
-greg


On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> wrote:

> Surely culture is the way we live *together*, Rod.
>
> Martin
>
> On Sep 16, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > But the culture each of us is within is not the same culture, surely,
> that anyone else is within. Culture is not an artefact in the sense that
> Andy talks about artefact -mediated communication so there is always space
> for noticing how others notice differently. Babies can pick up on the
> difference between interaction with a familiar and an unfamiliar partner,
> children form friendship groups which are defined by those they exclude as
> well as those they include and we travel to learn about ourselves and
> others by noticing how people do things differently in other places and
> other times. I would argue that it is only BY noticing differences in the
> ways others notice or pay attention to things that we are able to notice
> how WE notice things. It is by realising that we are not quite like other
> people that we can realise what we are like.
> >
> > And I apologise if I have completely misunderstood the point you were
> making, Michael!
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael
> > Sent: 16 September 2014 21:21
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
> >
> > Okay, here is a thought experiment.  You are a character in a novel,
> let's say it is War and Peace.  You have decided to critique the way in
> which Napoleon is presented in the novel.  Yet the only information you
> have to make the critique is from your experiences in the novel.
> Everything fits together based on the way the narrative is set out.  It is
> not that you no information on Napoleon outside the novel, it is that you
> do not realize that there is even the possibility that there might be
> information outside of the novel.  You critique from within but the ability
> to critique is actually controlled by Tolstoy, who has his own reasons for
> portraying all the characters in the way he does.  But you do not even
> realize there is a Tolstoy, this is simply the world that has been set up
> for you - as Huw suggests the purpose of the system is the system.  Is
> there really any chance for a true critique or is the game rigged, are you
> always going to wind up in some place that we already determined by the
> novel itself.
> >
> > Now let's say you can as a character you can step outside the novel,
> realize it is a novel, understand that this is a system that Tolstoy has
> created for his own purposes (writers have been experimenting with this
> idea for generations).  Isn't that a qualitatively different critique from
> within, and isn't this the only critique that allows you to escape your
> life as a character in the novel.
> >
> > If this makes no sense I apologize.
> >
> > Michael
> > ________________________________________
> > 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 3:30 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
> >
> > We critique it from within. All the time.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On Sep 16, 2014, at 2:20 PM, 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?
> >> ________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > [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.
> >
>
>
>


-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
882 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson