Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>]

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/>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/>
>>> 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/>
> 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