re: Actants (&CP)
Francoise Herrmann (fherrmann who-is-at igc.apc.org)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 12:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Jay and everyone, I wanted to say that I understand what you
are saying about the various kinds of actants both human and
non-human in an eco-system view. But I also think that it is
misleading to collapse the differences between human and non-human
agency. I think so on several counts. First, one could consider
how AI (the field of artificial intelligence) mislead itself for a
long time pursuing the possibility of collapsing the difference.
Secondly, I think when you obliterate human agency, you can no
longer account for difference between individuals. That is,
whether one calls it the stuff behind the eyes (between
the ears) or the "I" or subjectivity, or the Self, or in Erikson's
terms the "Ego" one has to have that in order to account for the
fact that I am not Jay, not Chuck, not X,Y or Z (I may want to be
for ethical reasons of empathy, but that is another issue). In
other words, I think that even when one takes the really strong
position of mind culturally defined (e.g.; Does mind have a mind
of its own), one still needs to account for the plurality of
"minds". And without "I", subjectivity,"Self" or "Ego" mediated by
the body, in one historically unique life cycle (Erikson), one
cannot have the plural of "mind". A postiori and restrospectively
I think that one can question the forces of agency (e.g.; could I
have felled the tree or was it because there was no lightening?),
but for a sanity of sorts perhaps, I need to knwo that I can act
in the world and most importantly that I am acting in harmony with
my "Self", "I", "subjectivity" or "ego". I am somewhere in
chapter 5 of CP after a really clear picture of CHAT and its
position as a second psychology. But I am reshuffling my ideas
about tools to collapse language with all tools. Perhaps because I
am accustomed to viewing tools in a language perspective with
language as the top node. But I suppose that the artefact view
yields a theory of signs founded on MArx and Hegel notions of
ideality/materiality and that in the end we agree. Not sure though
that I have grasped it all. Between here and there this is all
really interesting. Thank you for the nurturing food for thought.
Francoise Francoise Herrmann fherrmann who-is-at igc.org
http://www.wenet.net/~herrmann