Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Rod-- Picking up on just "where the mind ends" question using the
blindperson-stick example. (The other remarks are really interesting, but
overloading messages doesn't seem an effective communicative move).

*You wrote: 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.*

Isn't at the point where, phenomenologically and probably physiologically,
there is a discoordination (difference) in action that is of sufficient
magnitude to disrupt the ongoing actions of ego to require
a re-mediation of functional systems of the brain (which are themselves
completed through the environment)? So long as there is perfect
coordination, there is transparency, "lack of consciousness" of a self/other
gap which recruits energy to "minding the gap".

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> 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/><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>> *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
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> 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/><
> 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/><
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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