[Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Mon Sep 15 17:22:50 PDT 2014
What I was saying about sensation comes form Hegel, Greg, continuing
Paul's comment about Kant.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
Greg Thompson wrote:
> Andy,
> Were you able to read Larry's rather long email on Merleau-Ponty? esp.
> his criticism of the "sensation fallacy"?
> I ask b.c. it seems to resonate well with your ideas about sensation
> having no meaning if it isn't mediated. Do you see connections?
> I'm partly wondering b.c. I have heard others mention connections
> between M-P and Vygotsky before but have never been able to see those
> connections before...
> -greg
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> That's the whole point, Carol! a given material artefact has a
> certain *material* form which is universal, but it is subject to
> interpretation, that is, meaning is ascribed to it by a person,
> and different people at different times will ascribe different
> meanings to it. But the meaning of the word "material" is what is
> outside of consciousness and independent of activity. The
> independent existence of the material world is what makes science
> possible.
>
> 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.
>
> By "unmediated sensation" I presume you mean that aspect of a
> sensation which is unmediated. All sensations are both immediate
> and mediated. This is what I take to be the core meaning of
> "dual-stimulation." Were you to be subject to an unmediated
> sensation (maybe soon after you were born) then it would have no
> meaning for you and would therefore be no sensation at all. But if
> it has a meaning, that is because of the mediation of the
> sensation by aspects of your consciousness.
>
> Here of course the mediation being talked of is not
> artefact-mediation. :)
>
> Andy
>
>
> Carol
>
>
> On 15 September 2014 14:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto: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/
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
>
> 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>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto: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/>
> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>
> <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>>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>
> <mailto: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/>
>
> <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>>
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>>
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>
> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>>
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list