still turning this over -
re-reading Vyg's notions of "tool" and "sign" and their distinctions
(language and artifacts?)
have brought me to this question of ownership; beccause if ownership is a
performance of identification,
then "owning" a tool suggests that the tool has taken on
significatory qualitities yes? that a tool becomes a sign
in the process of identification?
this again indicates that the activity which is between the
tool/sign/artifact and the process of assuming or claiming
"ownership" is important -
say, children who claim a toy in a daycare, because they have played with
it for the past three days. It is the routine, the predictive
relationship with the toy and the child that indicates a possessive
relation,
perhaps?
It would be easy to situate this in Marixisms and say it's all
about capitalism,
but it is also about a transfer of some meaning in the relation
between oursevles & the things we interact with...
i used currency in my first question, the idea of money being property
as an example of how an artifcat is transformed within a
activity, from objective thing to subjective marker,
money as a tool which is internalized as a sign.
in a sense, of course, yes. all tool/artifact-based activity can be
"internalized" -
is it the internalization which renders or transforms the tool
into a sign?
Because if the use or predictive relation of a
tool with an activity *is* the process which transforms
artifacts into subjective markers - then "artifacts" themselves
don't especially have meaning outside the relation.
still, if the possession is about identification, then ownership,
as a social activity, _is_ what describes the mediative activity, isn't it?
I mean, we don't own everything we use,
so what is the difference between using something and owning it?
diane
After reading your last two messages I thought of the quote you put at the
end of each message. "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." . Tools
are something I use to act upon nature or something eternal. Signs are
something external that I use to act upon myself. I don't look at the
relationship between sign and tool as a sign is a tool internalized. I see
it more circular in that a sign can become a tool and vice versa. For me
it's where the action is directed,. If my use of an object is directed
externally I would call it a tool, if its directed internally to regulate
behavior I would call it a sign. I think in the real world the division
between sign and tool is not so clear cut as in your example about money.
Money is interesting because in reality it is only a piece of paper . There
was a time when it was a sign for gold or something concrete, but now it is
only guaranteed by more paper.
My initial definition of ownership is control. If I use something I don't
necessarily need to control it. In the example of the child playing with a
toy it would depend on his/her reaction when another child wanted to play
with the same toy. I think to a certain extent ownership changes the
relationship between tool and sign. It puts personal ownership into
concepts I have interpreted as primarily cultural.
Nate
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8