[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery

I don't think I do want to eradicate any distinctions, Andy, but I am interested in the shifting boundaries around what different people, at different times refer to as 'mind'. I am increasingly unconvinced of the primacy of conscious thought processes - the idea of the 'conscious mind' being the manager and governor of all mental processing. I am more and more persuaded of the view that consciousness is more like a dashboard, a relatively trivial summary of important processes currently under way, one function of which may be (like language in Mithen's account) to make 'findings' available to a wide range of mental functions. On this account, mind is to a person a bit like what mythology is to a society, a shared account of what has been found worth focusing attention on, which is a product of experience but which also influences future activity.

I also agree with those who argue that 'reification' of mental processes is fraught with dangers - to make 'mind' into a noun leads to all sorts of slipperinesses which might be avoided if we could think in terms of a constantly shifting process of managing, processing and analysing information.

I think it is also interesting that one of the hallmarks of skilled action is that it becomes increasingly automatic and invisible to conscious introspection - thinking about what you are doing may be helpful in the early stages of acquiring a skill but it can be counter-productive later, when you are dealing with much more complex combinations of processes.

Going back to the earlier posts in this thread, I am still intrigued by the question of where 'I' stop and where 'they' begin - how much of what I like to think of as 'me' is 'all my own work' and how much is an artefact of the work of others.

I appreciate your point, though, Andy, that the question of who/what is the actor if I am an artefact is more interesting than the question of whether or not we are artefacts. I think there will be different answers at different scales. In some aspects of my work I could be seen as an artefact which is used by a university for the purposes of its activities. In other aspects what I do might form part of other big purposes and in yet others it may have little or no bearing on anyone other than me.

I think I am inclined to seek more distinctions rather than to eradicate any which are still hanging in.

All the best,

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
Sent: 17 October 2010 13:22
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

Carol, when I first responded to Paula's puzzle by saying that the body
itself was an artefact, after being challenged by David, I said that I
had thought long and hard about it and was now convinced that the body
itself had to be taken as an artefact.

I am pleased that this claim now seems to have gained wide support on
xmca. But I had said I had "thought long and hard" about it, because
this claim itself poses some pretty profound philosophical problems
which I think you, Carol, picked up on, when you referred to the need to
steer clear of dualism. Nowadays people are very shy of dualism, and
rightly so. But avoiding dualism by saying "Everything is ..." is no
solution either. I suspect Rod is moving in that direction. He seems to
want to remove the  danger of dualism by eradicating the distinction
between mind and matter, in some way that I can't quite get a handle on
yet.

Although "Activity" is generally taken as characteristic of all living
things (e.g. in JG Herder and in AN Leontyev) the "artefact mediated
actions" which are probably the central concept of CHAT, the action is
purposive and conscious, and differs essential from natural activity. I
am concerned that this idea is retained.

Andy

Carol Macdonald wrote:
> Andy
> For somebody as dim as me, I  think I got it a bit.  As our minds developed
> a range of communicative functions, they started to take on tool-like
> functions, like embedded (2nd order) problem solving, and minding other
> people's business in a constructive sense.
>
> If I know you Andy, this is not what you are worried about, but something
> much more esoteric :-)
> Carol
>
> On 17 October 2010 11:40, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>
>> "so our *minds* are artefacts"? I don't get that, Rod.
>> andy
>>
>>
>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There may be a connection between this thread and the 'LSV on the
>>> preschool stage' thread where Martin Packer referred to the arcuate
>>> fasciculus, the dense bundle of axon connections between Broca's area
>>> (speech production) and Wernicke's area (processing of speech).
>>>
>>> I believe Steven Mithen has argued that speech may have acted as a
>>> mediating link between other areas of mental activity which had previously
>>> developed and functioned much more independently. Once we were able to hear
>>> ourselves talking about aspects of our lives we were better able to
>>> distribute information around our brains (Mithen gives examples such as
>>> combining ideas about tool use and ideas about relationships with people to
>>> allow us to conceive of using people as tools, or combining knowledge about
>>> natural history with knowledge about people to develop shamanic beliefs and
>>> practices).
>>>
>>> If we go along with this then we could argue that social interaction
>>> (first mimetic and later mediated by speech) has shaped the development of
>>> our minds both phylogenetically and ontogenetically so our minds are
>>> artefacts, shaped by our participation in social/cultural practices.
>>>
>>> If, as I think evidence suggests (sorry to be so vague) the arcuate
>>> fasciculus is a relatively late development, this would suggest that
>>> externalised (interpersonal) communication predated internal consciousness
>>> and that language provided us with the means to become aware not only of
>>> what others say to us (and we to them) but also of what we 'say' to
>>> ourselves - so the Great-We proceeds the individual consciousness. Julian
>>> Jaynes argued that it is only relatively recently that we have fully
>>> accepted 'our' thoughts as being 'ours' rather than the voices of spirits or
>>> other 'outside' beings. Perhaps we are now beginning to return to a
>>> recognition that 'our' thoughts may not be as much 'our own' as we once
>>> believed, using the lovely image which was offered earlier, the words,
>>> values, beliefs and principles which help to define who we are come to us
>>> pre-owned or pre-occupied, like footprints in the sand.
>>>
>>> The history of attitudes to childhood also charts the swings from
>>> celebration of the 'artificiality' of a civilised adult (when children are
>>> seen as primal, savage and rather unpleasant) to celebration of all that is
>>> natural and unspoiled (when children are all innocence and loveliness). I
>>> think many people today would prefer to believe that they 'just happened'
>>> rather than accept that they have been fabricated (the mantra of all reality
>>> TV participants is 'I just want to be myself').
>>>
>>> There is another thread to be followed in charting the unfortunate shift
>>> in the meaning of 'tool' to the point where it can now be used as a term of
>>> abuse!
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>> Sent: 16 October 2010 20:03
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>
>>> Andy, Lucas, Carol...
>>>
>>> It seems to me we're using the term 'artifact' in two related but
>>> distinguishable ways. First, to say that something is a product of human
>>> activity, rathe than solely natural processes. Second, to say that something
>>> mediates human activity.
>>>
>>> I think a plausible case can be made that the human body is an artifact in
>>> both senses. The NYTimes article I sent recently illustrates that past
>>> cultural activity has shaped the form and functioning of the human body
>>> today. Lactose tolerance, which sadly I lack, was a mutation that conveyed
>>> advantage to those carrying it once farming and milking of cattle became
>>> widespread, and so it became increasingly common. Those of you who today
>>> drink milk and eat cheese have bodies are the products of our ancestors'
>>> activities in the milk shed.
>>>
>>> But, second, the human body can surely mediate human activity, as Marx
>>> described clearly. When I sell my labor power I am contributing my body as a
>>> mediator between capital and commodity. A less sobering example would be the
>>> developmental stage of the Great-We, when the infant needs and uses the
>>> bodies of adults to get anything accomplished. The first gestures and
>>> holophrastic utterances are calls for others to act on the infant's behalf,
>>> doing what his or her own body is not yet capable of.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Lucas Bietti wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the remark and my apologies if I was not clear enough. I
>>>> understand
>>>> your point about the historicity and cultural and social trajectories of
>>>> artifacts and I agree on that. What I was suggesting was that gesturing
>>>> could be
>>>> an activity in which the body would act as an artifact without counting
>>>> on
>>>> external devices -if we claim that *the body is an artifact*. I was
>>>> wondering
>>>> how the mind-body unity and necessary interanimations would be operating
>>>> in
>>>> dreaming?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lucas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On October 16, 2010 at 4:51 AM Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lucas,
>>>>> I think the distributed mind idea emphasises certain aspects of human
>>>>> life, namely the involvement of *other people* in the production of
>>>>> artefacts and participation in institutions and other forms of social
>>>>> practice. But it should be remembered that an artefact is typically the
>>>>> product of *other people* working in institutions; as Hegel said: "the
>>>>> tool is the norm of labour." So both ideas are making the same claim but
>>>>> with slightly different emphasis.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you say "if we believe that the body is crucial for perception
>>>>> and cognition, ..." surely this is not up for debate? And yet you seem
>>>>> to be suggesting that the body might not be needed for cognition and
>>>>> consequently, the body might not be an artefact. I'm really lost here.
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> Lucas Bietti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol and Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I know, the point of the extended mind/distributed cognition
>>>>>> approach
>>>>>> is the idea that in many cases cognitive processes are
>>>>>> extended/distributed
>>>>>> across social and material environments. So in writing both the pencil
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> paper
>>>>>> are acting as mediating interfaces enabling us to perform certain
>>>>>> cognitive
>>>>>> tasks (e.g. basic math operations) that, otherwise, we would not be
>>>>>> able to
>>>>>> perform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Extended and distributed approaches to the mind don't consider the body
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> artifact. The basis for the these approaches is that cognitive
>>>>>> processes are
>>>>>> embodied and situated in concrete activities. That's why cognitive and
>>>>>> sensory-motor interanimations are part of the same mind-body unity.
>>>>>> Gesturing
>>>>>> can be thought as a cognitive-embodied activity in which the body acts
>>>>>> as an
>>>>>> artifact to represent and convey meaning. In gesturing the mediating
>>>>>> interface
>>>>>> is the space. However, if we believe that the body is crucial for
>>>>>> perception
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> cognition, in my view, there would be no reason to claim that the body
>>>>>> is an
>>>>>> artifact -or I missed something of the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On October 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> In a small and trembling voice, 'cos we don't want to get into
>>>>>>> dualisms
>>>>>>> here--surely artefacts mediate with other artefacts--the pencil
>>>>>>> mediates
>>>>>>> writing? I don't feel I am in the right league to answer this
>>>>>>> questions,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> I think we are pushed back to this position.
>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16 October 2010 08:33, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Understood, and an interesting example it was too. I was just trying
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> back to Paula's interesting question which started the thread.
>>>>>>>> Jenna got a thread going on the blind person's cane, where that part
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> mind which is in artefacts become completely subsumed into the body,
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> psychological point of view. Paula then pointed out that from a
>>>>>>>> psychological point of view we can take parts of our body to be
>>>>>>>> tools.
>>>>>>>> So the question is raised: psychologically speaking, where is the
>>>>>>>> border
>>>>>>>> line between body and things?
>>>>>>>> Lucas added the idea of "distributed cognition" so that the activity
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> other people is seen also to be a part of mind.
>>>>>>>> But, and I think this is an challenging one: if the human body is an
>>>>>>>> artefact, what is it mediating between?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually Andy
>>>>>>>>> I thought I was giving an historically interesting example.  Maybe
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> because we have 350 000+ people a year dying from AIDS that health
>>>>>>>>> is so
>>>>>>>>> high in our national consciousness. So excuse the example: you are
>>>>>>>>> lucky
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> didn't get an historical account of HIV/AIDS!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Raising children is also interesting across the cultures in our
>>>>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> I have work to do so must stop here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2010 02:44, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't take this "the body is an artefact" down an entirely
>>>>>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>> line of course, Carol.
>>>>>>>>>> Every parent will tell you the efforts that went into raising their
>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>> darling children.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TB is very interesting historically in the way we have responded
>>>>>>>>>>> to it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly, you got ill from it and died from it, like the poet
>>>>>>>>>>> Keats.
>>>>>>>>>>>   Then
>>>>>>>>>>> people were isolated in sanatoria and given drugs and then they
>>>>>>>>>>> recovered.
>>>>>>>>>>> And now, you are infectious until you start taking your
>>>>>>>>>>> medication, and
>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>> if you faithfully take it, then you get better. And most recently,
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> likely to get TB as an opportunistic infection when you are HIV+,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>> harder to shake off because your immune system is compromised.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Recently my niece had a group of friends round for supper and then
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> diagnosed with TB the following day.  She had to inform everybody,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> had to be checked, but within 48 hours, when she was on medicine,
>>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> have to tell/warn anybody. Astonishing for someone who regularly
>>>>>>>>>>> swims
>>>>>>>>>>> 5km
>>>>>>>>>>> before breakfast!! If she had been Keats, her symptoms would have
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>> than a slight cough at night.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> carol
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 October 2010 14:42, Leif Strandberg <
>>>>>>>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and TB
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Karin Johanisson (Prof in Medical History, Univ of Uppsala,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sweden)
>>>>>>>>>>>> translated...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> her books are really interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leif
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 okt 2010 kl. 14.26 skrev Martin Packer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>   Lactose intolerance - just one example of cultural continuation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological evolution...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wade 2010 Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   I am intrigued Rod. You conclude from this interesting story
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body is not ("may not be") an artefact, but "virtual maps"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are? I presume because these neural structures are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "constructed,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other parts of the body are not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 'The body has a mind of its own' by Sandra Blakeslee and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blakeslee (2007 Random House), there is a chapter which begins
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account of research by Dr Atsushi Iriki and colleagues in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Japan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research involved training monkeys to use rakes as tools to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retrieve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then using arrays of microelectrodes implanted in their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skulls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> study
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the visual receptive fields of visual-tactile cells in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posterior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parietal cortex of the monkeys. What Iriki found was that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual-tactile cells, which usually responded to information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> region within the monkeys' arms length, began to respond to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (within arm+rake's length) but ONLY when the monky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rake as a tool - when the mankey was passively holding the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drew back to its normal range. The chapter goes on to describe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> studies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual reality in which participants learn to control avatars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strikingly different physiology - e.g. a lobster - controlled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code of combined body movements which is never shared with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participants,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they learn to control the movement of their avatar just by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but they soon become able to 'automate' the process - focusing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to do rather on what they have to do to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our bodies may not be artefacts but our cerebellar virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our bodies work and what we can do with them surely are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just started wearing varifocal glasses and am in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retraining my body's ways of seeing (learning to move my head
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neck
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than just move my eyes) already I am finding that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'stay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus' more as my head and neck get my eyes into position
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to tell them where to go!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me this links with the discussion about bodies and tools
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly extends (rake-like) beyond it - how much of the tool
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its form and how much by the cultural history of how, by whom,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for what it has been and could be used?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 06:02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My claim is, David, not just that (for example) my fingers are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionally artefacts because I use them to play the piano,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are genetically artefacts because they are the products of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Labour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created man himself" as old Fred said. If we are going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking is artefact-mediated activity, then we must accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bodies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefacts, or abandon other important definitions of artefact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mediator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of activity, material product of human labour and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We fashion our bodies for the purpose of constructing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surely as we fashion our buildings, our domestic animals, our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clothing and everything else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can define a word how you like, but the importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realising
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our bodies are products of human labour which we use as both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruments and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbols, just like our white canes and spectacles,  is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivists who simply overlook the role of artefacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mediators
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. In part this is possible because they subsume the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the notion of 'subject', something which also allows them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scoot over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all sorts of tricky philosophical problems entailed in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active participation of subjectivity in what would otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex series of material interactions. The result,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictorily
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> far worse Cartesian dualism than the one they tried to avoid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I thought long and hard about this, and the conclusion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inescapable: the human body is an artefact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / //// /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Sometimes I would really like to be a mosquito in the room
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is giving his course on developmental psychology. But I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to bite the student who asked if the replacement of social
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language (e.g. discourse) by psychological ones (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammar) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fact"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or just one of Martin's ideas; the question strikes me as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bumbling and humbling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I have my own Thursday night session, which this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semester
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is all about systemic functional linguistics and conversation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis. Last
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> night we were discussing the difference between them, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the systemic view is quite consistent with the idea of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefact and the conversation analysis view is much less so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take, for example, the problem of repair. A teacher walks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: Good morning, everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ss: Good morning, everybody!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: !!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conversation is broken. But in order to repair it, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not pull over and stop. The teacher has to keep going. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find out what exactly the kids mean, if anything (are they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they heard, as seems likely, or are they including their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classmates in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their reply to the teacher?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means that even quite simple conversations (the sort we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third graders) are quite gnarly and knobbled; they have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convolutions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introvolutions, knots and whorls and burls of negotiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Conversations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhibit very few of the genetic or structural of mechanical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact only resemble "tools" only if we take a quite narrowly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> squint and presuppose a coinciding will that wields them. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me that they are misconstrued when we say that they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefacts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the Romantics, especially Herder, would agree with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think they would have been rather horrified at Andy's idea
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefact in the same sense as a tool is an artefact.  They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is not genetically so; the body is a natural product
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made. It is also not structurally so: unlike other artefacts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure reflects self-replication and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other-fabrication.  Of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we may say that a body is FUNCTIONALLY like an artefact,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a tool in various ways. But if we privilege this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the body over the genetic, or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems to me we get a pretty functionalist view of things. A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conversation is not an artefact; it's more like a work of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gratuitous and organic complexity of conversation is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indelible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sign of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Paula M Towsey <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 5:40 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Andy-of-the-5-o'clock-shadow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet it's a different kind of gnashing of teeth (and wailing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeping)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the baboons at Third Bridge get stuck into the tinned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplies...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 October 2010 13:19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My answer, Paula: yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My body, with its various parts, is an artefact; according to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol or tool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My face and my 5 o'clock shadow is a symbol just as much as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shirt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wear. My teeth a tool just as much as a can opener.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   For some inexplicable reason while watching Mike's blind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>  a
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick video, I remembered smsing Carol with a quirky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researcher without a knife is trying to open an airline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packet of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peanuts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and she resorts to using her teeth, what tool is she using?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps the better question would be - is she using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tool.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> WORK as:
>>>>>>> Visiting Lecturer
>>>>>>> Wits School of Education
>>>>>>> HOME (please use these details)
>>>>>>> 6 Andover Road
>>>>>>> Westdene
>>>>>>> Johannesburg 2092
>>>>>>> +27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucas M. Bietti
>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>> Universitat Pompeu Fabra
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lucas@bietti.org
>>>>>> www.collectivememory.net
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Lucas M. Bietti
>>>> Macquarie University
>>>> Universitat Pompeu Fabra
>>>>
>>>> lucas@bietti.org
>>>> www.collectivememory.net
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca