Mike Cole wrote:
> To continue the threa on disability.
>
> I have read Wells recently because I have been teaching it yearly for a long time. Its a thought experiment, but a powerful one. I have not read the paper on
> culture as disability since it was in draft form some time ago. So until I catch
> up, I can't contribute directly.
>
> But the following thought may be relevant. Within the cultural-historical tradition there is a bias toward seeing culture as prosthetic, as tool, as agent of the
> agent. Doesn't it simply follow that to the degree that it is successfully used
> as a prosthetic, it simultaneously creates a "disability." Its the thing you can't do without the prosthetic. Of course, we are not used to thinking of the words we speak and respond to, the everyday talk of life, as prosthetic. But it seems a reasonable way to think. At the same time, we can neve say what "we mean" since the words are only borrowed from someone else, who crafted them for a different task. And so it goes.
> mike