[Xmca-l] Re: mediate perception and direct perception

[Andy Blunden]

My impression, Greg and David Ki, is that in the CHAT tradition 
specifically, as opposed to the English language in general, mediation 
refers to *artefact-mediation*. Of course, every action is both mediated 
and immediate, and in many discursive contexts, "mediation" is a concept 
which may be evoked quite legitimately, but with no special significant 
for the use of CHAT. In social theory, for example, mediation of 
activities by other activities or institutions is as ubiquitous as 
mediation of actions by artefacts is in the domain of psychology. But if 
the topic is psychology, I think artefact-mediation is so central, that 
I prefer to spell it out and use the term "artefact-mediated" rather 
than the vague term "mediated".

I have come across usages like "mediated by such-and-such a concept." 
Like Alice in Wonderland one can use words to mean what you like, but I 
find a formulation like this in the context of CHAT problematic, because 
it is using the idea of "mediation" in the most general sense in a way 
which obscures the fact that a concept is not immediately present in any 
act of communication or any other act, and therefore *cannot mediate 
actions*. Artefacts, such as spoken words, which may be signs for a 
concept, can of course mediate an act of communication. But the point is 
that a word is not universally and unproblematically a sign for any one 
concept. It means different things to different people. Concepts are not 
artefacts. Artefacts are universal in their materiality, but particular 
in their meaning. So when we have a concept in mind when we use a word 
in communication, the communication is mediated by the word not the 
concept, and it is a mistake not to be aware of that.

So I would prefer it if "mediation" were always used in qualified way so 
that its specific meaning is made clear.

Andy
PS. And David Ki is completely right in his comment, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Greg Thompson wrote:
> Does "mediation" only apply to language and culture?
>
> Or does it include nerve fibers? (in which case we would need to include
> reflexes)
>
> And does it include our socio-contextual surround as in Bateson's man with
> the stick? (in which case, we would need to include newborns).
>
> Just wonderin'.
>
> -greg
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 2:48 PM, David H Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu> wrote:
>
>   
>> Thanks for replies.
>> I'm recalling several years ago Jim Greeno decided to stop talking about
>> situated cognition because the pragmatics of adjectival use implies there
>> has to be a contrasting non-situated cognition. He now speaks of
>> situativity theory. It seems, with the exception of physical reflexes (and
>> perhaps pre-conscious infant activity), all human action is mediated (and
>> perhaps a lot of non-human action, as well). So, it's worth noting that
>> "mediated action" doesn't specify a kind of action, but rather a
>> theoretical assumption about all human action; though there seems to be
>> some variation in interpretation of what that assumption entails.
>> David
>>
>>     
>