[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
I just came across a new article which might be of interest to some of you:
Castiell, U., Becchio, C., Zoia, S., Nelini, C., Sartori, L., Blason, L.,
D'Ottavio, G., Bulgheroni, M. & Gallese, V. (2010). Wired to be social: the
ontogeny of human interaction. PLoSONE 5 (10): e13199.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013199
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013199
Cheers,
Lucas
On October 17, 2010 at 5:26 AM Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
wrote:
> There may be a connection between this thread and the 'LSV on the preschool
> stage' thread where Martin Packer referred to the arcuate fasciculus, the
> dense bundle of axon connections between Broca's area (speech production) and
> Wernicke's area (processing of speech).
>
> I believe Steven Mithen has argued that speech may have acted as a mediating
> link between other areas of mental activity which had previously developed and
> functioned much more independently. Once we were able to hear ourselves
> talking about aspects of our lives we were better able to distribute
> information around our brains (Mithen gives examples such as combining ideas
> about tool use and ideas about relationships with people to allow us to
> conceive of using people as tools, or combining knowledge about natural
> history with knowledge about people to develop shamanic beliefs and
> practices).
>
> If we go along with this then we could argue that social interaction (first
> mimetic and later mediated by speech) has shaped the development of our minds
> both phylogenetically and ontogenetically so our minds are artefacts, shaped
> by our participation in social/cultural practices.
>
> If, as I think evidence suggests (sorry to be so vague) the arcuate fasciculus
> is a relatively late development, this would suggest that externalised
> (interpersonal) communication predated internal consciousness and that
> language provided us with the means to become aware not only of what others
> say to us (and we to them) but also of what we 'say' to ourselves - so the
> Great-We proceeds the individual consciousness. Julian Jaynes argued that it
> is only relatively recently that we have fully accepted 'our' thoughts as
> being 'ours' rather than the voices of spirits or other 'outside' beings.
> Perhaps we are now beginning to return to a recognition that 'our' thoughts
> may not be as much 'our own' as we once believed, using the lovely image which
> was offered earlier, the words, values, beliefs and principles which help to
> define who we are come to us pre-owned or pre-occupied, like footprints in the
> sand.
>
> The history of attitudes to childhood also charts the swings from celebration
> of the 'artificiality' of a civilised adult (when children are seen as primal,
> savage and rather unpleasant) to celebration of all that is natural and
> unspoiled (when children are all innocence and loveliness). I think many
> people today would prefer to believe that they 'just happened' rather than
> accept that they have been fabricated (the mantra of all reality TV
> participants is 'I just want to be myself').
>
> There is another thread to be followed in charting the unfortunate shift in
> the meaning of 'tool' to the point where it can now be used as a term of
> abuse!
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: 16 October 2010 20:03
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>
> 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/>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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/
> >> 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
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