Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

David

I'm responding on an intuitive gut level to your thoughts on Hellenism and
the distinction  with the symbolist/futurist vision of the world.
Our personal utensils [sitting around the hearth warming  the external and
internal self] [the boat taking the soul to the afterlife] as systems of
PERSONAL meaning as distinct from being in bondage to our tools.  This
points to being in "right relation" to our utensils and whether this "right
relation" is determined?? constituted?? [or is it influenced??] by the
SYSTEMS of meaning. This line of abduction brings me back to reflecting on
the concept of "operativity-in-context" and the critique that the
constructitive neo-piagetian view is social-RELATIONAL and not
social-CULTURAL.  However the social-relational as WE [not I] sit around the
hearth, in "right relation" with our utensils [shared with "others"] is a
central level od analysis. Yes, we must also incorporate the SYSTEMS
[cultural-HISTORICAL] that form my horizon of understanding and constitute
my "right relations" with my utensils that are shared with others.

However, what happens if my horizon of understanding [cultural SYSTEMS]
constitute or coordinate my social relations to be in a "wrong relation"
with utensils and others. Then my world becomes impoverished and
DISENCHANTED and  my utensils are transformed into tools.

This, on an intuitive level shares an understanding of utensils as
incarnating "psyche" but that opens up what is "real" and what is
"imaginal".

Just musing

Larry

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:36 PM, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Yes, I want lots and lots of distinctions. I want to distinguish
> artefacts between tool-artefacts and utensil-artefacts. But I want to do
> this on the basis of distinguishing between individual consumption vs. mass
> production, not on the basis of automaticity vs. deliberation).
>
> I also want to distinguish between artefacts (tools & utensils) and signs
> (signals & symbols). But I want to do this on the basis of distinguishing
> between activities that are primarily semiotic and those that are primarily
> material, not on the basis of whether the mediational means itself is mostly
> ideal or mostly material (though this is not irrelevant, of course).
>
> Finally, I want to distinguish between the real and ideal. But I want to do
> this on the basis of whether something exists in the here and now and is
> therefore perceptible or whether it has to be brought into the here and now
> through semiotic processes and is therefore only conceivable (although of
> course POTENTIALLY perceptible and perhaps HISTORICALLY perceived).
>
> It seems to me that if we follow Steve and Ilyenkov, and we see problem
> after problem as a matter of establishing the interaction of "ideal" and
> "material", we will need some kind of super-category for the indivisible
> whole which both ideal and material make up. Otherwise we really do fall
> into the worst kind of Cartesian dualism.
>
> I guess it seems to me that everything, real or ideal, is material in the
> final analysis. So the best way to go about this is to use "material" for
> the supercategory rather than the subcategory, and use "ideal" and "real"
> for the subordinate categories (which is what I was trying to do in the
> "Real Ideal").
>
> The world is material, but that material world is made up of the real,
> which is material in a way that is fairly tangible, and the ideal, which is
> only potentially or historically material) but which can be made immediately
> tangible through semiosis (e.g. artworks, but also scientific experiments).
>
> So is the mind an artefact? One of the (many) things I have learned on this
> thread is that I am not the only secret admirer of the work of the late
> Julian Jaynes, literary critic, crackpot, avowed schizophrenic, and
> professor of psychology and neurosurgery at the University of Princeton.
>
> A literary critic because he had to (and did) demonstrate that the Iliad
> and the Odyssey were written (yes written, or at least written down) several
> centuries apart and incorporate completely different theories of
> consciousness (one God mediated and the other mind-mediated).
>
> A crackpot because he really had no evidence (and COULD have no
> evidence) whatsoever for his idea that there was no consciousness qua
> consciouness at all before the invention of writing and before foreign
> language learning brought about by huge population displacements prompted by
> natural disasters (the highly tenuous chain of causality is endless here).
>
> A schizophrenic because he constantly heard voices, but a professor of
> psychology and neurosurgery who had the good sense to reason that the voice
> he heard inside his own head might just be his own. For all this and more,
> see his only (virtually self-published) book, "The Origin of Consciousness
> in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (1976, Boston: Houghton Mifflin). He
> promised a sequel, "The Consequences of Consciousness", but he could never
> deal with reviewers, so he went and died instead.
>
> I think Bakhurst says somewhere that the mind is a text, and therefore an
> artefact indeed. But Jaynes would say not so, it's a discourse, a producer
> of texts, but for that very reason not a text itself. A voice is not a
> recording of itself.
>
> The Acmeists insisted that not even a word was a recording of itself. I
> think one of the key reasons for their split with the futurists was
> precisely the distinction between "znachenie" (the word as a standardized
> tool) and "smysl" (the word as a personalized utensil).
>
> In criticizing the symbolist/futurist vision of the word, Mandelstam wrote:
>
> “Man was no longer master in his own house; it would turn out he was living
> in a church or in a sacred druidic grove. Man’s domestic eye had no place to
> relax, nothing on which to rest. All utensils were in revolt. The broom
> asked holiday, the cooking pot no longer wanted to cook, but demanded for
> itself an absolute significance (as if cooking were not an absolute
> significance). They had driven the master from his home and he no longer
> dared to enter there. How is it to be then with the attachment of the word
> to its denotative significance? Isn’t this a kind of bondage that resembles
> serfdom. But the word is not a thing. Its significance is not the equivalent
> of a translation of itself.”
>
> And in contrast, there is the "Hellenist" (that is, the "acmeist") vision
> of "beautiful clarity" as the ideal goal of semiosis. Mandelstam puts it
> like this:
>
> “Hellenism means consciously surrounding man with utensils (utvar) instead
> of indifferent objects; the metamorphosis of these objects into the utensil,
> the humanization of the surrounding world; the environment heated with the
> most delicate teleological warmth. Hellenism is any stove near which a man
> sits, prizing its warmth as something related to his own inner warmth.
> Finally, Hellenism is the boat of the dead in which Egyptian corpses set
> sail, in which everything is stored that is needed for continuation of a
> man’s earthly wanderings including even an aromatic jar, a hand mirror and a
> comb. Hellenism is a system, in the Bergsonian sense of the word, which man
> unfolds around himself, like a fan of phenomena liberated from temporal
> dependence, commonly subordinated to an inner bond through the human “I”. p.
> 75.
>
> Mandelshtam, O.E. (1977) Austin: University of Texas Press. Selected
> Essays. (Translated by Sidney Monas.)
>
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
>
> PS: Mike, I really was responding to the "znachenie" of the word
> "hybridity", you know. It means "mixture" and it suggests a model of
> incomplete dominance, along the lines of what happens when white and black
> people marry rather than along the lines of what happens when men and women
> marry. It also suggests entropy and stability: hybrid corn is just another
> kind of corn, not a corn that contains multitudes.
>
> dk
>
>
> --- On Mon, 10/18/10, Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Rod Parker-Rees <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Monday, October 18, 2010, 5:30 AM
>
>
> David pointed out the danger of intension inflation when words expand to
> envelop more and more 'different' referents. So 'mind' sometimes encompasses
> everything from the nervous system through more or less of the brain to what
> goes on in the brain to those processes in the brain (or in the interaction
> between brain, body and world) of which we are aware and sometimes only some
> of these. Similarly 'body' sometimes includes 'flesh,bone and blood',
> nervous system (including brain) and various exo-systems and tools and
> sometimes only some of these.  Contrast pairs such as 'body and mind' tend
> to push the two words apart (as do pairs like 'body and artefact' or 'body
> and tool' or 'mind and culture') further than each word spreads when left to
> itself.
>
> We could cop out by saying that words only mean what speakers intend they
> should mean but this risks overlooking that fact that what speakers intend
> may also be influenced by the words and word contrasts which they have at
> their disposal, not to mention their understanding of how other people can
> be expected to respond to words in different combinations and contexts.
>
> The beauty of a forum like this is that people can try out ways of talking
> about things and see how their understanding is reflected back in other
> people's responses.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Greg Mcverry
> Sent: 18 October 2010 12:54
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
>
> Rod,
>
> I see the advantage of the tool-utensil distinction but at the same time I
> am a little weary of drawing a distinction between mediation that happens
> with a level automacity (utensil) versus mediation that is purposeful
> (activity). This has many parallels with cognitive models of thinking that
> divide processes into skills (automatic) and strategies (deliberate).
>
> Maybe this is a good thing. When using the the body as a tool/utensil maybe
> we should differentiate between those cultural influence (loose stools and
> bowel movements) that are more automatic versus those larger cultural
> activity systems.  It just seems across this thread there seems to be an
> underlying debate on how far too push the mind-body unity versus the
> mind-body duality paradigm.
>
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Rod Parker-Rees <
> R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/<
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> ><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > >> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> <
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > >> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> 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/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > >>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> 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/~andy/>>
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > > >> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>>
> > > >>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > >>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >>>> xmca mailing list
> > > >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > > >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/<
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>><
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> J. Gregory McVerry
> Neag Fellow
> University of Connecticut
> New Literacies Research Lab
> http://newliteracies.uconn.edu
> twitter: jgmac1106
>
>
> " [Champions] have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be
> stronger than the skill." -Ali
> _______________________________________________
> 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