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

[Huw Lloyd]

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]
>