Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the reading tips and discussion, Rod and everyone.
Rod, I was NOT criticizing long notes, although rambling ones can be
difficult. I was, rather, picking
out only one point that I thought I might be able to speak to in a useful
way. I guess its multi-topic notes that can be a problem and that might be
seen as a characteristic of rambling.

I think the issue of flow is certainly important. See Zinchenko on "free
motion" which seems relevant.
topic for another note!
mike

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:

> Thanks for these Martin,
>
> I haven't come across his books but will look out for them. I have,
> however, read a wonderful book on a wide range of aspects of the hand, how
> it came to be, how we use it (for making music, gesturing, puppetry,
> prestidigitation and more) and how it sometimes trips us up:
>
> The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture, by
> Frank Wilson (1998)
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hand-Frank-R-Wilson/dp/0679740473/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
>
> Beautifully written and packed with insights into the intimate connection
> between doing and thinking.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Martin Packer
> Sent: 17 October 2010 18:21
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>
> Rod,
>
> Are you familiar with David Sudnow's book "Ways of the Hand"? He describes
> learning to play improvisatory jazz piano. It's a wonderful account of
> coming to be familiar with the spaces of the keyboard, which are also the
> spaces of the jazz repertoire.
>
> Then he wrote another called "Talk's Body," where sitting in front of his
> typewriter he described his experience from moment to moment.
>
> (Googling, I find the first book was republished in 2001 as "A Revised
> Account.")
>
> Martin
> On Oct 17, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > An updated version of the blind person and stick might be 'person and
> internet connection' - as I sit tapping away at my keyboard now, how far
> does my mind reach out into the world wide web?
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Rod
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of mike cole
> > Sent: 17 October 2010 17:05
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
> >
> > 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/><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/><
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>> *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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> 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/><
> >> 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/><
> >> 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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