[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery - tool and result
Dear Steve
I have picked up on your posting only now, today, for the first time, and my
answer for starters to your first enchanting paragraph is yes yes yes! I
love the idea of the seatmates you suggest, because their activity makes the
comparison with mine a little closer to home - even more so than the one I
tried to get at when I posed my (second) question to Andy about the
different kind of gnashing of teeth that takes place in the activity of the
baboons at Third Bridge (Moremi, Botswana) getting stuck into the tinned
supplies...
This thread has turned out to be infinitely more varied and interesting than
I ever imagined would be possible when I used the tool of language and my
pink brain (pink laptop) to pry open the question in the first place.
Mike's cathedral-in-the-rocks quotation draws in so clearly the act of
"voobrazhenie", which Suvorov held to be the core act of cognition, which
transforms the pile of rocks into the possibility of a cathedral; which can
take the activity of "teeth tearing" (as Mike calls it) towards an "utvar"
or a work of art.
Thanks for this posting, Steve, as always, and to the enormous wealth of the
contributions everyone's made in this thread.
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 Steve Gabosch
Sent: 17 October 2010 17:31
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery - tool and result
This has been a fun thread. I agree with Andy's first conclusion, but it
was just a little too limited, which started the fun. I agree that when
Paula was opening that bag of peanuts on that airplane with her teeth - to
put an image to her question - that her teeth and indeed entire body was a
tool, an artefact. I think Andy is perfectly correct about that. But we
need to dig deeper to really answer Paula's question. Wouldn't we respond
with the same answer if Paula had a chimp and a crow for seatmates, opening
identical packets with tooth and hand, or beak and foot? Couldn't we
rightfully call the chimp's teeth and the crow's beak tools, and therefore,
artefacts? If that isn't quite satisfying, then how about if Paula had
trained the crow to open the peanut packet for her?
My point here is that the concept of "artefact" isn't quite enough to
explain how we open that package in a **human** way. This is part of what I
think David was pointing out when he suggested that mere toolwise
**functionality** is not a sufficient answer to Paula's question.
Andy refines the question nicely - what is mediating what? The "distributed
cognition" Lucas proposes is on the right track, I think, but is still
incomplete. While on one hand the concept of distributed cognition merely
shifts the question of tool use to the plane of cognition, on the other hand
it correctly points toward the essential collective dimension. Martin gets
to the central concept in terms of Vygotsky's approach to will. And Mike
gets there in terms of rock piles and cathedrals.
But the question Andy raises about "what is mediating what" still hangs.
The answer I think lies in Mike's explanation of the artefact, which the
picture of the cover of his 1996 book is a nice reminder of. The solution
to the kind of question Paula is asking is not to determine what is an
artefact, and what isn't. That kind of questioning, as Martin and/or Andy
point out, only create formal-dualistic, or dichotomous puzzles, where we
will get stuck.
The solution I think is to pick up on Mike's Ilyenkovist strategy and ask in
each situation - or more precisely, at each moment in the movement of any
process - how ideality and materiality intertwine, interpenetrate, and
transform each other. Ideality is cultural history, the collective
activities of historical humanity up to the present moment as expressed in
culture, and materiality is all of nature, including hay fever-ridden,
lactose intolerant, tooth-using, and all other kinds of human bodies. Both
ideality and materiality are always present in any given "tool," "sign,"
"artifact," "object,"
"subject," etc. etc. And as Andy argues, I think quite correctly, human
bodies themselves.
But we must dig deeper than the question of artifactuality. In the general
sense, everything that humans produce or culturally consider, such as Andy's
example of the North Star, is an artifact. And even crow's beaks can be
considered tools or artifacts. We only begin to get to the heart of the
essential questions of **human** activity when we remember that the two
kinds of reality, ideality and materiality, interact at blinding speeds,
move very rapidly from form to form, transform one another again and again,
and can be extremely difficult to analytically distinguish. When we
remember that ideality (human
meaning-making) and materiality are constantly mediating one another in
human activity. When we remember that they rarely if ever exist in
isolation from one another within the sphere of human activities. And when
we remember that their elusiveness and frequent conflation is historically
the source of much philosophical and psychological discussion and debate -
this one included.
Everyone in this discussion has said some very true and correct things about
these relationships and processes. Part of the reason I enjoy xmca so much
is that everyone here, each in their own way, has deep insights into these
questions - but by no means always the same insights! LOL Which is what
makes discussions like this fun. In this case, I think in part we got
caught up in the stimulating question "is it an artefact, yes or no?"
instead of the possibly more productive line of inquiry, which Andy I think
was reflecting in his points from Lois's work on tool and result, "how, in
this particular moment, are ideality and materiality interpenetrating?"
- Steve
On Oct 16, 2010, at 5:25 PM, mike cole wrote:
> A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man
> contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
>
> Antoine de
> Saint-Exupery<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/antoinedes161
> 736.html
> >
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Martin, it is true that "artefact" is being used "in two different
>> ways" - as Lois Holzman says, as both tool and result.
>> But this is not just a question of ambiguous words or double
>> meanings.
>> Tool and result, product and mediator, is a *dialectical pair*. It is
>> what is involved in being drawn into human society. It is essentially
>> two sides of the same coin.
>>
>> Consider the North Star. In what sense is it a product of labour?
>> It is a
>> material thing; us people in the Southern hemisphere don't have a
>> South Star and we have to make do with poor substitutes. We can't
>> invent a South Star.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>
>>> Andy, Lucas, Carol...
>>>
>>> It seems to me we're using the term 'artifact' in two related but
>>> distinguishable ways. First, to say that something is a product of
>>> human activity, rathe than solely natural processes. Second, to say
>>> that something mediates human activity.
>>> I think a plausible case can be made that the human body is an
>>> artifact in both senses. The NYTimes article I sent recently
>>> illustrates that past cultural activity has shaped the form and
>>> functioning of the human body today. Lactose tolerance, which sadly
>>> I lack, was a mutation that conveyed advantage to those carrying it
>>> once farming and milking of cattle became widespread, and so it
>>> became increasingly common. Those of you who today drink milk and
>>> eat cheese have bodies are the products of our ancestors'
>>> activities in the milk shed.
>>> But, second, the human body can surely mediate human activity, as
>>> Marx described clearly. When I sell my labor power I am contributing
>>> my body as a mediator between capital and commodity. A less sobering
>>> example would be the developmental stage of the Great-We, when the
>>> infant needs and uses the bodies of adults to get anything
>>> accomplished. The first gestures and holophrastic utterances are
>>> calls for others to act on the infant's behalf, doing what his or
>>> her own body is not yet capable of.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Lucas Bietti wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Andy,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the remark and my apologies if I was not clear enough. I
>>>> understand your point about the historicity and cultural and social
>>>> trajectories of artifacts and I agree on that. What I was
>>>> suggesting was that gesturing could be an activity in which the
>>>> body would act as an artifact without counting on external devices
>>>> -if we claim that *the body is an artifact*. I was wondering how
>>>> the mind-body unity and necessary interanimations would be
>>>> operating in dreaming?
>>>>
>>>> Lucas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On October 16, 2010 at 4:51 AM Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Lucas,
>>>>> I think the distributed mind idea emphasises certain aspects of
>>>>> human life, namely the involvement of *other people* in the
>>>>> production of artefacts and participation in institutions and
>>>>> other forms of social practice. But it should be remembered that
>>>>> an artefact is typically the product of *other people* working in
>>>>> institutions; as Hegel
>>>>> said: "the
>>>>> tool is the norm of labour." So both ideas are making the same
>>>>> claim but with slightly different emphasis.
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you say "if we believe that the body is crucial for
>>>>> perception and cognition, ..." surely this is not up for debate?
>>>>> And yet you seem to be suggesting that the body might not be
>>>>> needed for cognition and consequently, the body might not be an
>>>>> artefact. I'm really lost here.
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> Lucas Bietti wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol and Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I know, the point of the extended mind/distributed
>>>>>> cognition approach is the idea that in many cases cognitive
>>>>>> processes are extended/distributed across social and material
>>>>>> environments. So in writing both the pencil and paper are acting
>>>>>> as mediating interfaces enabling us to perform certain cognitive
>>>>>> tasks (e.g. basic math operations) that, otherwise, we would not
>>>>>> be able to perform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Extended and distributed approaches to the mind don't consider
>>>>>> the body as an artifact. The basis for the these approaches is
>>>>>> that cognitive processes are embodied and situated in concrete
>>>>>> activities. That's why cognitive and sensory-motor
>>>>>> interanimations are part of the same mind-body unity.
>>>>>> Gesturing
>>>>>> can be thought as a cognitive-embodied activity in which the body
>>>>>> acts as an artifact to represent and convey meaning. In gesturing
>>>>>> the mediating interface is the space. However, if we believe that
>>>>>> the body is crucial for perception and cognition, in my view,
>>>>>> there would be no reason to claim that the body is an artifact
>>>>>> -or I missed something of the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On October 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM Carol Macdonald
>>>>>> <carolmacdon@gmail.com
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>> In a small and trembling voice, 'cos we don't want to get into
>>>>>>> dualisms here--surely artefacts mediate with other
>>>>>>> artefacts--the pencil mediates writing? I don't feel I am in the
>>>>>>> right league to answer this questions, but I think we are pushed
>>>>>>> back to this position.
>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16 October 2010 08:33, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Understood, and an interesting example it was too. I was just
>>>>>>>> trying to get back to Paula's interesting question which
>>>>>>>> started the thread.
>>>>>>>> Jenna got a thread going on the blind person's cane, where that
>>>>>>>> part of the mind which is in artefacts become completely
>>>>>>>> subsumed into the body, from a psychological point of view.
>>>>>>>> Paula then pointed out that from a psychological point of view
>>>>>>>> we can take parts of our body to be tools.
>>>>>>>> So the question is raised: psychologically speaking, where is
>>>>>>>> the border line between body and things?
>>>>>>>> Lucas added the idea of "distributed cognition" so that the
>>>>>>>> activity of other people is seen also to be a part of mind.
>>>>>>>> But, and I think this is an challenging one: if the human body
>>>>>>>> is an artefact, what is it mediating between?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually Andy
>>>>>>>>> I thought I was giving an historically interesting example.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> because we have 350 000+ people a year dying from AIDS that
>>>>>>>>> health is so high in our national consciousness. So excuse the
>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>> lucky
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> didn't get an historical account of HIV/AIDS!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Raising children is also interesting across the cultures in
>>>>>>>>> our country.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> I have work to do so must stop here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 16 October 2010 02:44, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't take this "the body is an artefact" down an
>>>>>>>>>> entirely negative line of course, Carol.
>>>>>>>>>> Every parent will tell you the efforts that went into raising
>>>>>>>>>> their own darling children.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> TB is very interesting historically in the way we have
>>>>>>>>>>> responded to it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly, you got ill from it and died from it, like the poet
>>>>>>>>>>> Keats.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>>>> people were isolated in sanatoria and given drugs and then
>>>>>>>>>>> they recovered.
>>>>>>>>>>> And now, you are infectious until you start taking your
>>>>>>>>>>> medication, and then if you faithfully take it, then you get
>>>>>>>>>>> better. And most recently, you are likely to get TB as an
>>>>>>>>>>> opportunistic infection when you are HIV+, and it's harder
>>>>>>>>>>> to shake off because your immune system is compromised.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Recently my niece had a group of friends round for supper
>>>>>>>>>>> and then was diagnosed with TB the following day. She had
>>>>>>>>>>> to inform everybody, and they had to be checked, but within
>>>>>>>>>>> 48 hours, when she was on medicine, she didn't have to
>>>>>>>>>>> tell/warn anybody. Astonishing for someone who regularly
>>>>>>>>>>> swims 5km before breakfast!! If she had been Keats, her
>>>>>>>>>>> symptoms would have been more than a slight cough at night.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> carol
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 October 2010 14:42, Leif Strandberg <
>>>>>>>>>>> leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and TB
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Karin Johanisson (Prof in Medical History, Univ of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Uppsala,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sweden)
>>>>>>>>>>>> translated...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> her books are really interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Leif
>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 okt 2010 kl. 14.26 skrev Martin Packer:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lactose intolerance - just one example of cultural
>>>>>>>>>>>> continuation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological evolution...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Wade 2010 Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am intrigued Rod. You conclude from this interesting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> story that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> body is not ("may not be") an artefact, but "virtual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maps"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are? I presume because these neural structures are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "constructed,"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other parts of the body are not?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 'The body has a mind of its own' by Sandra Blakeslee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Matthew Blakeslee (2007 Random House), there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chapter which begins with an account of research by Dr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Atsushi Iriki and colleagues in Japan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research involved training monkeys to use rakes as tools
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to retrieve food and then using arrays of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> microelectrodes implanted in their skulls to study the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual receptive fields of visual-tactile cells in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posterior parietal cortex of the monkeys. What Iriki
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found was that these visual-tactile cells, which usually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responded to information only in a region within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monkeys' arms length, began to respond to more distant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information (within arm+rake's length) but ONLY when the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monky was using the rake as a tool - when the mankey was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passively holding the tool the response drew back to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal range. The chapter goes on to describe studies in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual reality in which participants learn to control
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avatars which have strikingly different physiology -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e.g. a lobster - controlled by a complex code of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combined body movements which is never shared with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> participants, they learn to control the movement of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their avatar just by trial and error but they soon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become able to 'automate' the process - focusing on what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they want to do rather on what they have to do to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our bodies may not be artefacts but our cerebellar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual maps of how our bodies work and what we can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with them surely are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just started wearing varifocal glasses and am in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the process of retraining my body's ways of seeing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (learning to move my head and neck rather than just move
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my eyes) already I am finding that things 'stay in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focus' more as my head and neck get my eyes into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> position without me having to tell them where to go!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me this links with the discussion about bodies and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tools and possibly extends (rake-like) beyond it - how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much of the tool is defined by its form and how much by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cultural history of how, by whom, when, where and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what it has been and could be used?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 06:02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My claim is, David, not just that (for example) my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fingers are functionally artefacts because I use them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play the piano, but also they are genetically artefacts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are the products of art.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Labour
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created man himself" as old Fred said. If we are going
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to claim that thinking is artefact-mediated activity,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we must accept our bodies as artefacts, or abandon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other important definitions of artefact, as mediator of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activity, material product of human labour and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance of culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We fashion our bodies for the purpose of constructing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture just as surely as we fashion our buildings, our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domestic animals, our food and clothing and everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can define a word how you like, but the importance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of realising that our bodies are products of human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labour which we use as both instruments and symbols,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just like our white canes and spectacles, is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrated by intersubjectivists who simply overlook
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the role of artefacts as mediators altogether. In part
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is possible because they subsume the human body
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the notion of 'subject', something which also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allows them to scoot over all sorts of tricky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> philosophical problems entailed in recognizing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> active participation of subjectivity in what would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise be simply a complex series of material
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interactions. The result, contradictorily is a far worse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cartesian dualism than the one they tried to avoid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I thought long and hard about this, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inescapable: the human body is an artefact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> / //// /
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes I would really like to be a mosquito in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room when Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is giving his course on developmental psychology. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would probably want to bite the student who asked if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the replacement of social relations in language (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discourse) by psychological ones (e.g.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grammar) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fact"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or just one of Martin's ideas; the question strikes me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as rather more bumbling and humbling.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I have my own Thursday night session,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which this semester is all about systemic functional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> linguistics and conversation analysis. Last night we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were discussing the difference between them, and I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed out that the systemic view is quite consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the idea of language as an artefact and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation analysis view is much less so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Take, for example, the problem of repair. A teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> walks into a classroom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: Good morning, everybody.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ss: Good morning, everybody!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: !!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The conversation is broken. But in order to repair it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the teacher does not pull over and stop. The teacher
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has to keep going. The teacher has to find out what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the kids mean, if anything (are they simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeating what they heard, as seems likely, or are they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including their classmates in their reply to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher?) This means that even quite simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversations (the sort we have with third graders) are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite gnarly and knobbled; they have convolutions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introvolutions, knots and whorls and burls of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negotiation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conversations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhibit very few of the genetic or structural of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical tools, and in fact only resemble "tools"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only if we take a quite narrowly functionalist squint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and presuppose a coinciding will that wields them. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even seems to me that they are misconstrued when we say
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they are artefacts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think the Romantics, especially Herder, would agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> view:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think they would have been rather horrified at Andy's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea that a body is an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artefact in the same sense as a tool is an artefact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it is not genetically so; the body is a natural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> product and not man made. It is also not structurally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so: unlike other artefacts, much of its structure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflects self-replication and not other-fabrication.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, we may say that a body is FUNCTIONALLY like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an artefact, because we use it as a tool in various
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways. But if we privilege this particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the body over the genetic, or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural, account, it seems to me we get a pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> functionalist view of things. A body involved in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation is not an artefact; it's more like a work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of art, and the gratuitous and organic complexity of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation is an indelible sign of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Paula M Towsey <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "'eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Activity'"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 5:40 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Andy-of-the-5-o'clock-shadow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet it's a different kind of gnashing of teeth (and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wailing and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weeping)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when the baboons at Third Bridge get stuck into the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tinned supplies...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________ Paula M Towsey PhD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Candidate: Universiteit Leiden Faculty of Social
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 October 2010 13:19
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My answer, Paula: yes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My body, with its various parts, is an artefact;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to context, symbol or tool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My face and my 5 o'clock shadow is a symbol just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much as the shirt I wear. My teeth a tool just as much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a can opener.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some inexplicable reason while watching Mike's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blind man with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stick video, I remembered smsing Carol with a quirky
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question: if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> researcher without a knife is trying to open an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> airline packet of peanuts, and she resorts to using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> her teeth, what tool is she using?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps the better question would be - is she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using a tool.?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/
>>>>>>>>>> ><
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>>>> Home Page:
>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/
>>>>>>>> ><
>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> WORK as:
>>>>>>> Visiting Lecturer
>>>>>>> Wits School of Education
>>>>>>> HOME (please use these details)
>>>>>>> 6 Andover Road
>>>>>>> Westdene
>>>>>>> Johannesburg 2092
>>>>>>> +27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucas M. Bietti
>>>>>> Macquarie University
>>>>>> Universitat Pompeu Fabra
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lucas@bietti.org
>>>>>> www.collectivememory.net
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/
>>>>> >
>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Lucas M. Bietti
>>>> Macquarie University
>>>> Universitat Pompeu Fabra
>>>>
>>>> lucas@bietti.org
>>>> www.collectivememory.net
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/
>> %7Eandy/>
>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca