RE: [xmca] second nature

From: White, Phillip <Phillip.White who-is-at>
Date: Fri Oct 12 2007 - 13:24:36 PDT

Andy - i recently saw "Ten canoes" - a film from your parts of the world - yes? and it looked to me that the folks portrayed in the film - possibly thousands of years ago (?) - while part of the natural world, did not live in the natural world, but rather in their own tool-mediated culturally constructed world - when a dead body was painted, for example, yes, the paint was natural, of the earth and plants, the the reason for the paint wasn't about living in a natural world - the paint was a cultural artifact viewed through a semiotic lens - or, when bodies were painted in preparation for war -
anyway - i wondered if in fact, since language and perhaps even before (witness baboon social relations and inherited dominance), if we folks have ever lived in anything but artifacts - regardless of the degree of sophistication of our technologies - and, as Foucault would assert, language is one of our technologies.
merely meanderings out here in the Rocky Mountain West - (irony here)


From: on behalf of Andy Blunden
Sent: Fri 10/12/2007 6:51 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] second nature

Yes, yes, I understand that, Maria.
My question is not about the person as such but about the world we live in,
the environment, which is no longer a natural world but a world of
artefacts. Obviously (especially for us) a closely related idea, but not
the same.

xmca mailing list

Received on Fri Oct 12 13:26 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST