Hmm. Mike my position is that it is the function not the thing that
defines the tool or sign. I think Vygotsky argued for their functional
seperation as when he critiqued Dewey for referring to language as the
"mother of all tools".
I think you tried to merge them with your use of artifact. This makes
sense sometimes, but not at others. I would say the seperation is more
needed when internalization is the object, and not so when it merely a
byproduct.
N
Mike Cole wrote:
>Sorry about that lousy typing!
>
>To repeat. So Vygotsky and I are wrong, Dale and Nate. Tools are tools and signs and
>are signs. NOT different moments/movements in a single process. There is
>no signness to tools, no toolness (except internally) to signs?
>By this
>interpretation, Alfred is correct. Dualism wins.
>mike
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST