Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery - tool and result

[Robert Lake <boblake@georgiasouthern.edu>]

Dear Everyone,
Here is a beautiful  (213 seconds long) panorama of humans, tools and
development.


http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large

Simply enjoy,
Robert Lake

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>wrote:

> Dear Steve
>
> I have picked up on your posting only now, today, for the first time, and
> my
> answer for starters to your first enchanting paragraph is yes yes yes!  I
> love the idea of the seatmates you suggest, because their activity makes
> the
> comparison with mine a little closer to home - even more so than the one I
> tried to get at when I posed my (second) question to Andy about the
> different kind of gnashing of teeth that takes place in the activity of the
> baboons at Third Bridge (Moremi, Botswana) getting stuck into the tinned
> supplies...
>
> This thread has turned out to be infinitely more varied and interesting
> than
> I ever imagined would be possible when I used the tool of language and my
> pink brain (pink laptop) to pry open the question in the first place.
> Mike's cathedral-in-the-rocks quotation draws in so clearly the act of
> "voobrazhenie", which Suvorov held to be the core act of cognition, which
> transforms the pile of rocks into the possibility of a cathedral; which can
> take the activity of "teeth tearing" (as Mike calls it) towards an "utvar"
> or a work of art.
>
> Thanks for this posting, Steve, as always, and to the enormous wealth of
> the
> contributions everyone's made in this thread.
>
> 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 Steve Gabosch
> Sent: 17 October 2010 17:31
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery - tool and result
>
> This has been a fun thread.  I agree with Andy's first conclusion, but it
> was just a little too limited, which started the fun.  I agree that when
> Paula was opening that bag of peanuts on that airplane with her teeth - to
> put an image to her question - that her teeth and indeed entire body was a
> tool, an artefact.  I think Andy is perfectly correct about that.  But we
> need to dig deeper to really answer Paula's question. Wouldn't we respond
> with the same answer if Paula had a chimp and a crow for seatmates, opening
> identical packets with tooth and hand, or beak and foot?  Couldn't we
> rightfully call the chimp's teeth and the crow's beak tools, and therefore,
> artefacts?  If that isn't quite satisfying, then how about if Paula had
> trained the crow to open the peanut packet for her?
>
> My point here is that the concept of "artefact" isn't quite enough to
> explain how we open that package in a **human** way.  This is part of what
> I
> think David was pointing out when he suggested that mere toolwise
> **functionality** is not a sufficient answer to Paula's question.
>
> Andy refines the question nicely - what is mediating what?  The
> "distributed
> cognition" Lucas proposes is on the right track, I think, but is still
> incomplete.  While on one hand the concept of distributed cognition merely
> shifts the question of tool use to the plane of cognition, on the other
> hand
> it correctly points toward the essential collective dimension.  Martin gets
> to the central concept in terms of Vygotsky's approach to will.  And Mike
> gets there in terms of rock piles and cathedrals.
>
> But the question Andy raises about "what is mediating what" still hangs.
>
> The answer I think lies in Mike's explanation of the artefact, which the
> picture of the cover of his 1996 book is a nice reminder of.  The solution
> to the kind of question Paula is asking is not to determine what is an
> artefact, and what isn't.  That kind of questioning, as Martin and/or Andy
> point out, only create formal-dualistic, or dichotomous puzzles, where we
> will get stuck.
>
> The solution I think is to pick up on Mike's Ilyenkovist strategy and ask
> in
> each situation - or more precisely, at each moment in the movement of any
> process  - how ideality and materiality intertwine, interpenetrate, and
> transform each other.  Ideality is cultural history, the collective
> activities of historical humanity up to the present moment as expressed in
> culture, and materiality is all of nature, including hay fever-ridden,
> lactose intolerant, tooth-using, and all other kinds of human bodies.  Both
> ideality and materiality are always present in any given "tool," "sign,"
> "artifact," "object,"
> "subject," etc. etc.  And as Andy argues, I think quite correctly, human
> bodies themselves.
>
> But we must dig deeper than the question of artifactuality.  In the general
> sense, everything that humans produce or culturally consider, such as
> Andy's
> example of the North Star, is an artifact.  And even crow's beaks can be
> considered tools or artifacts.  We only begin to get to the heart of the
> essential questions of **human** activity when we remember that the two
> kinds of reality, ideality and materiality, interact at blinding speeds,
> move very rapidly from form to form, transform one another again and again,
> and can be extremely difficult to analytically distinguish.  When we
> remember that ideality (human
> meaning-making) and materiality are constantly mediating one another in
> human activity.  When we remember that they rarely if ever exist in
> isolation from one another within the sphere of human activities.  And when
> we remember that their elusiveness and frequent conflation is historically
> the source of much philosophical and psychological discussion and debate -
> this one included.
>
> Everyone in this discussion has said some very true and correct things
> about
> these relationships and processes.  Part of the reason I enjoy xmca so much
> is that everyone here, each in their own way, has deep insights into these
> questions - but by no means always the same insights!  LOL  Which is what
> makes discussions like this fun.  In this case, I think in part we got
> caught up in the stimulating question "is it an artefact, yes or no?"
> instead of the possibly more productive line of inquiry, which Andy I think
> was reflecting in his points from Lois's work on tool and result, "how, in
> this particular moment, are ideality and materiality interpenetrating?"
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2010, at 5:25 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
> > contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
> >
> > Antoine de
> > Saint-Exupery<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/antoinedes161
> > 736.html
> > >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Martin, it is true that "artefact" is being used "in two different
> >> ways"  - as Lois Holzman says, as both tool and result.
> >> But this is not just a question of ambiguous words or double
> >> meanings.
> >> Tool and result, product and mediator, is a *dialectical pair*. It is
> >> what is involved in being drawn into human society. It is essentially
> >> two sides of the same coin.
> >>
> >> Consider the North Star. In what sense is it a product of labour?
> >> It is a
> >> material thing; us people in the Southern hemisphere don't have a
> >> South Star and we have to make do with poor substitutes. We can't
> >> invent a South Star.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> Martin Packer wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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/~andy/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/~andy/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/~andy/>
> >>>>>>>>>> ><
> >>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>> <
> >>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> ---------
> >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>> Home Page:
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >>>>>>>> ><
> >>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> 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/ <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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >> *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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>


-- 
*Robert Lake  Ed.D.
*Assistant Professor
Social Foundations of Education
Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading
Georgia Southern University
P. O. Box 8144
Phone: (912) 478-5125
Fax: (912) 478-5382
Statesboro, GA  30460

 *Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its
midwife.*
*-*John Dewey.
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca