It matters a lot in rhetorical theory, too.
When the argument is over the possibility of communication
without "symbol". When every tool that influences behavior as an
artifact with affordances is "redefined" as a sign, it becomes
virtually impossible to understand the notion that meaning can be
shared as a consequence of common use of tools.
Yes, both are cultural, but they work in very different ways.
dale
> I think one place it makes a difference is in education.
>
> It matters, when using unifix cubes for example, if one internalizes
> the model represented (sign), or the model stays on the tool side of
> the equation.
>
> Personally, I like the differentiation. It matters deeply if the
clock
> in a school is used as a sign or a tool.
>
> N
> Mike Cole wrote:
>
> >Eric--
> >There is probably straight out disagreement or else conceptual
misunderstanding
> >regarding these terms. I am not sure which.
> >
> >I believe that cultural artifacts function as psychological tools
> >depending upon the specifics of the case in question. My concern
> >is to claim the primal unity in human life of the material and
> >ideal in human culture/mind. Vygotsky divided mediators into two
> >kinds depending upon their orientation. Kozulin has his
interpretation.
> >
> >You might ask yourself when and whether and how making or not making
> >such distinctions makes a difference.
> >mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:08 PST