These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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/antoinedes161736.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