[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
Rod, Andy,
What about having the best of both worlds, so to speak - an account of development as a process in which largely automatic, unconscious responses to an environment become, over time (in interaction with other people, etc etc), actions over which the person-who-is-becoming-an-individual is able to develop a degree of conscious awareness and control, and for which as a consequence they can and should be held responsible?
Oh, but isn't that what Vygotsky was proposing?! ;)
Martin
On Oct 17, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> I don't think I do want to eradicate any distinctions, Andy, but I am interested in the shifting boundaries around what different people, at different times refer to as 'mind'. I am increasingly unconvinced of the primacy of conscious thought processes - the idea of the 'conscious mind' being the manager and governor of all mental processing. I am more and more persuaded of the view that consciousness is more like a dashboard, a relatively trivial summary of important processes currently under way, one function of which may be (like language in Mithen's account) to make 'findings' available to a wide range of mental functions. On this account, mind is to a person a bit like what mythology is to a society, a shared account of what has been found worth focusing attention on, which is a product of experience but which also influences future activity.
>
> I also agree with those who argue that 'reification' of mental processes is fraught with dangers - to make 'mind' into a noun leads to all sorts of slipperinesses which might be avoided if we could think in terms of a constantly shifting process of managing, processing and analysing information.
>
> I think it is also interesting that one of the hallmarks of skilled action is that it becomes increasingly automatic and invisible to conscious introspection - thinking about what you are doing may be helpful in the early stages of acquiring a skill but it can be counter-productive later, when you are dealing with much more complex combinations of processes.
>
> Going back to the earlier posts in this thread, I am still intrigued by the question of where 'I' stop and where 'they' begin - how much of what I like to think of as 'me' is 'all my own work' and how much is an artefact of the work of others.
>
> I appreciate your point, though, Andy, that the question of who/what is the actor if I am an artefact is more interesting than the question of whether or not we are artefacts. I think there will be different answers at different scales. In some aspects of my work I could be seen as an artefact which is used by a university for the purposes of its activities. In other aspects what I do might form part of other big purposes and in yet others it may have little or no bearing on anyone other than me.
>
> I think I am inclined to seek more distinctions rather than to eradicate any which are still hanging in.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: 17 October 2010 13:22
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>
> Carol, when I first responded to Paula's puzzle by saying that the body
> itself was an artefact, after being challenged by David, I said that I
> had thought long and hard about it and was now convinced that the body
> itself had to be taken as an artefact.
>
> I am pleased that this claim now seems to have gained wide support on
> xmca. But I had said I had "thought long and hard" about it, because
> this claim itself poses some pretty profound philosophical problems
> which I think you, Carol, picked up on, when you referred to the need to
> steer clear of dualism. Nowadays people are very shy of dualism, and
> rightly so. But avoiding dualism by saying "Everything is ..." is no
> solution either. I suspect Rod is moving in that direction. He seems to
> want to remove the danger of dualism by eradicating the distinction
> between mind and matter, in some way that I can't quite get a handle on
> yet.
>
> Although "Activity" is generally taken as characteristic of all living
> things (e.g. in JG Herder and in AN Leontyev) the "artefact mediated
> actions" which are probably the central concept of CHAT, the action is
> purposive and conscious, and differs essential from natural activity. I
> am concerned that this idea is retained.
>
> Andy
>
> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>> Andy
>> For somebody as dim as me, I think I got it a bit. As our minds developed
>> a range of communicative functions, they started to take on tool-like
>> functions, like embedded (2nd order) problem solving, and minding other
>> people's business in a constructive sense.
>>
>> If I know you Andy, this is not what you are worried about, but something
>> much more esoteric :-)
>> Carol
>>
>> On 17 October 2010 11:40, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "so our *minds* are artefacts"? I don't get that, Rod.
>>> andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Rod Parker-Rees 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/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> 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