Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Whew-- Amazing thread to read all at once!! Gotta get the brain-tool
chapter.

>From my understanding of cultural historical theory, human beings are
hybrids of phylogenetic, cultural-historical, ontogenetic, and micrognetic
processes, all always part of every living person. It is the subsequent
heterochrony/hereogenety that enables change. So what is the purpose of
having to purify us through reduction?

mike

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> 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/%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/><
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> *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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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/>
> >> 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
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca