RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>]

David, I think the distinction you suggest between tool and utensil is a very valuable one. The concept of activity as developed by Leontiev and Engestrom seems to focus on the purposeful, planned sort of activity which I would associate with tools (apologies if I am bending the distinction here) and risks underplaying or under-representing the more informal forms of activity (hanging out, chatting, gossip etc.) which I suspect might be better represented as utensil-use - the everyday processes of meeting immediate human needs.

We tend to place a higher value on the things we are only able to do once we reach adulthood but the social skills which we begin to use very early in life continue to provide the core of our sense of well being. I'm not sure I can quite put my finger on this distinction between the purposefulness and consciousness of tool use and the more 'automatic' and transparent use of utensils but I have in mind something like the difference between preparing an elaborate meal for a client in a restaurant and having a cup of tea with a friend.

Is this stretching the tool-utensil distinction too far?

All the best,

Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg
Sent: 17 October 2010 22:08
To: lchcmike@gmail.com; Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

It is always worrisome when categories we use for discussion become over-elastic and omni-inclusive. As Vygotsky points out, that is what happened with "personality" in Stern's theory, "libido" in Freud's, "structure" in Gestalt, and "reaction" in Russian behaviorism (one of the hardest parts of reading "The Psychology of Art" is that Vygotsky keeps referring to "The Aesthetic Reaction" and apparently thinks that "The Aesthetic Contradiction" is a good way of explaining aesthetic phenomena).

When categories become all-devouring and universally relevant, they lose their specificity, their concreteness, and eventually their explanatory force; they become the academic equivalent of "dis" or "dat" in the mind and the mouth of a small child. I am worried about the categories "activity" and also the category "tool" for precisely this reason. I think that for Andy it may not be a serious problem, because Andy is concerned with very large issues in which very large categories like this hold sway. But for somebody who has students with data and deadlines, we need to specify what KIND of activity,whether it is verbal, corporeal, or mental. One of the problems of the Engestrom triangle that has NOT been mentioned in the current discussion on the teaching article is that it puts together tools and signs at the apex of the triangle, but differentiates rules at the bottom of the triangle (where the subject apparently mediates between rules and
 communities).

So it seems to me that we can usefully differentiate between tools and utensils. as Vygotsky's artistic friends, the acmeists, did. Acmeism was a split from the futurist movement (circa 1910). The futurists believed that artworks were tools, devices, machines involved in productive activities; that the art of the future would be external, mechanical, and automatic, free of individual consciousness the way that a factory is free of any individual worker consciousness. The acmeists objected that this alienated art from its real function, which was not mass production but individual consumption. They counterposed the "utvar" or utensil: an object of everyday life which serves immediate human needs, like a spoon or a broom or a cooking pot.

David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education

ike@gmail.com> wrote:


From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sunday, October 17, 2010, 11:13 AM


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/><
>



_______________________________________________
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