Search

1000 results for “Muller”

Sportnachrichten | Alle Fußball & Sport News | Live-Ticker & Ergebnisse [Unofficial] @[email protected] · 2026-02-28 · 08:57 UTC

Müller freut sich auf die WM in Vancouver: "Es wird 'buzzing'"

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.kicker.de/mueller-freut-sich-auf-die-wm-in-vancouver-es-wird-buzzing-1196172/video#omrss

#fußball #majorleaguesoccer #sorensen #tmuller #vancouverwhitecaps
Sozialwelten @[email protected] · 2023-06-23 · 06:56 UTC

Neben dem #Gebrauchswert von #Büchern in einer #Kultur des #Buchdrucks als #Anhäufungen von #Referenzierungen von #Quellen zur #Erläuterung von #komplizierten #Argumentationen, können #Bücher in einer #Kultur der #Sprache #unmittelbar zur #Störung der #unhinterfragten #Ordnung #gebraucht werden.
#Provokation #Theater
Carlo #Ginzburg - Der Käse und die Würmer. Die #Welt eines #Müllers um 1600, S.61

#muller #welt #ginzburg #theater #provokation #gebrauch
David Boles @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 14:12 UTC

Hands as the Language of Thought: Correcting a Kant Attribution

There is a line about hands that travels well. It reads cleanly, carries an air of philosophical dignity, and arrives in print wearing the name of Immanuel Kant. “The hand is the visible part of the brain,” runs the most common English form, or, in an older rendering, “the hand is the outer brain of man.” The phrase appears in publishing copy, in teaching materials, on Goodreads quotation pages, in popular psychology, in surgical textbooks, in neurology lectures, and in essays on sign language and gesture. It has the shape of something Kant should have said. The difficulty is that no reliable evidence supports treating it as a verified Kant statement.
This is a small instance in the larger pathology of quotation culture, where an author’s prestige is borrowed to underwrite a sentence he never wrote. The case of the hand, though, carries particular weight, because the sentence is invoked precisely where philosophical authority is wanted, in discussions of embodiment, cognition, touch, manual skill, and the expressive life of the hand. Writers reach for Kant when they want to seal the argument. If the seal is counterfeit, the argument has to stand on its own, and the discipline has to notice the forgery.
What Kant Actually Wrote About Hands
Kant wrote about hands more than once, and he wrote about them carefully. In 1768, in his short essay Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume, he uses the human hand as his signature example of incongruent counterparts, two objects that share all internal geometric properties and still cannot be superimposed on one another. A right hand and a left hand have identical measurements, identical topology, identical internal relations, and still they will not coincide. The example exposes something about absolute space that relational accounts cannot accommodate. The hand, in this essay, functions as a philosophical instrument, a test case for the metaphysics of orientation.
Thirty years later, in the Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht of 1798, Kant returns to the hand through a different doorway. There he treats the sense of touch, seated in the fingertips and their nerve endings, as the sense that allows the human being to work out the three-dimensional shape of a solid body through direct contact. Kant goes so far as to say that without this organ-sense no concept of corporeal shape could be formed at all. Touch, in the Anthropology, carries a cognitive load that vision alone cannot sustain.
These are recognizable Kant passages, and they are philosophically rich. They give the hand a significant role in his thinking about space, orientation, embodiment, and the conditions under which objects become objects for us. What they do not give us is the famous sentence now repeated in his name.
The Authority Behind the Attribution
The trail of the attribution leads to a specific book published in 1925 by David Katz. A biographical note earns its place here, because Katz’s authority is what carried the Kant line forward for a century, and the weight of that authority bears directly on how the legend survived.
Katz was born in Kassel on 1 October 1884 into a Jewish family, and he studied at Göttingen from 1902 under Georg Elias Müller, whose institute was among the leading centers of experimental psychology in Europe. He took his doctorate at Göttingen in 1906 with a dissertation on the psychology of temporal comparison, and he served as Müller’s assistant from 1907 to 1919, with his volunteer service in the First World War interrupting that work from 1914 to 1918. His 1911 habilitation on color perception, later published as Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben, was examined by Müller and by Edmund Husserl. That second reviewer matters here, because it places Katz directly inside the phenomenological tradition at its source, with Husserl himself certifying the 1911 work. After the First World War, Katz spent a short stretch at the Technical University of Hannover on the psychology of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans, a subject that bears on the concerns of the 1925 book more than has generally been noticed.
From 1919 until 1933, Katz held the chair of psychology and education at Rostock, and in 1933 the Nazi regime stripped him of that position. He moved first to Manchester, where he worked in T. H. Pear’s laboratory on tactile and gustatory perception, then briefly in London, and in 1937 he took the first Swedish chair of psychology at Stockholm University, the Eneroth chair, becoming a Swedish citizen the same year. He presided over the Thirteenth International Congress of Psychology in Stockholm in 1951 and died there on 2 February 1953. The figure whose 1925 sentence about Kant and the hand has been circulating, unchecked, for a century was a serious psychologist with phenomenological credentials certified by Husserl and a research record that runs from color to touch to prosthetics to Gestalt. That is the weight the undocumented attribution has been carrying.
Where the Quotation Actually Comes From
In Der Aufbau der Tastwelt, or The World of Touch, Katz writes that Kant once called the hand das äußere Gehirn des Menschen, the outer brain of man. That passage is where most modern quotation chains terminate when traced backward with any rigor. The English variant “the visible part of the brain” appears to be a loose later translation of the Katz-transmitted German phrase, carrying the same undocumented attribution into new languages without retrieving a new source.
Two features of the Katz passage matter. First, Katz supplies no citation to any Kant text. He provides no volume, no essay, no letter, no lecture transcript. He states the attribution as received wisdom and moves on. Second, the footnote that sits at precisely that point in the Katz text does not lead the reader to Kant at all. It leads to Gerhart Hauptmann, the Nobel-laureate playwright, whose prose passage on the hand Katz quotes in an exalted, almost liturgical register. The Kant attribution and the Hauptmann citation share a footnote, and the Kant portion of that pairing goes undocumented.
That is the entire basis, so far as the scholarship can currently establish, for the modern circulation of the line as a Kant quotation. A single undocumented attribution in a 1925 monograph on touch, carrying all the authority of a Husserl-certified Göttingen psychologist with a major research record, absorbed into the secondary literature, and repeated without verification for a century.
Why the Quotation Travels So Well
The sentence survives because it sounds like Kant. The compression is Kantian in style. Sensation, cognition, and anatomy bind together in a single gesture. The cadence matches the tone of the Anthropology passage on touch closely enough that a reader who encounters both in the same afternoon will remember them as a single thought. The line also carries the epigrammatic finish that quotation culture demands.
The phrase travels because it pays an intellectual tax that many writers want paid. When someone argues that the hand is a thinking organ, or that manual skill shapes cognition, or that touch is constitutive of our grasp of the world, Kant’s name closes the argument faster than a paragraph of evidence. The quotation does the work of a citation without requiring a citation to exist.
There is a further, less obvious reason for the sentence’s stubborn life. It has a ready home in at least four disciplines that want it to be Kantian. Philosophers of embodied cognition cite it against Cartesian disembodiment. Hand surgeons and occupational therapists lean on the line to dignify their practice. Neurology textbooks reach for it in their introductions to motor cortex maps. Teachers of signed languages sometimes mobilize a version of it in arguments that signed languages are languages of the hand as the mind’s direct instrument. Each of these fields has a stake in keeping the line in circulation, and none of them has a native incentive to audit its provenance.
The Scholarly Correction
A careful study of the hand in Kant, published in a Hungarian philosophical journal at Eszterházy Károly University, observes that the hand never becomes an explicit, thematic center of Kant’s philosophy in the way that later phenomenology would make it. Merleau-Ponty takes up the hand as a chiasmic site of touching and being touched. Heidegger develops handedness, Zuhandenheit, as a defining feature of the being of equipment. Husserl analyzes the double sensation of one hand touching the other. These are explicit philosophical theses about the hand. The hand, in Kant, plays a different role from the thematic centrality later phenomenology will give it. It appears as an example, a test case, and a sense-organ of decisive cognitive importance, which is already a great deal, though it falls short of the hand-centered metaphysics the misattributed quotation implies.
The quotation legend, though small, distorts philosophy. It suggests that Kant produced a compressed aphorism on the hand as the extension of the mind. What the actual texts show is something else: a careful argument about incongruent counterparts in 1768, and a careful account of touch as shape-sense in 1798. The misattributed sentence flattens both arguments into a Hallmark version of themselves, and then hangs the name Kant on the flattened version.
The Responsible Formula
Writers who want Kantian authority without philological error have a narrow path open to them. The 1768 essay on incongruent counterparts grounds the claim that Kant treated the hand as a philosophically significant object. The Anthropology of 1798 grounds the claim that Kant treated touch, seated in the fingertips, as cognitively constitutive of our concept of bodily shape. Writers who wish to credit Kant with the aphorism about the outer brain can honestly describe it as a twentieth-century attribution traceable at least to David Katz in 1925, for which no secure primary Kant passage has yet been established. The formula runs longer than the elegant false quotation, and it will not fit on a poster, though it has the advantage of being accurate.
The broader point reaches past Kant. Quotation legends grow because the citation economy rewards speed and punishes verification. A writer who takes the time to trace a line to its actual source pays a cost in word count, in footnotes, and in the appearance of pedantry. A writer who accepts the received attribution on trust pays no such cost, and the received attribution grows stronger with every unverified repetition. Over a century, a footnote in a book on touch becomes a Kant quotation in a surgical textbook, and the discipline stops noticing.
Hands, Thought, and Signed Languages
One further reason to care about this correction comes from the linguistics of American Sign Language and the other signed languages of the world. The proposition that the hand is the mind’s instrument is no idle metaphor in Deaf communities or among sign linguists. The hand is the articulatory site of natural human languages with their own phonology, morphology, and syntax, documented since William Stokoe’s 1960 Sign Language Structure opened the field of sign linguistics. Signed languages are languages of the hand in a literal, structural sense, and the evidence for that structural status is empirical and extensive.
When the falsely attributed Kant line is imported into defenses of signed language, or into gestural theories of cognition, it smuggles in a spurious authority and obscures the actual argument. The work has what it needs already, which is the record of the languages themselves and the descriptive and theoretical work of the linguists who study them. Kant’s signature adds nothing to that record. A fake Kant quotation weakens the record by mortgaging the argument to a line that will not survive a footnote check. Signed languages deserve better citation hygiene than quotation culture has given them.
Conclusion
The hand has a real place in Kant’s philosophy. It is the example that cracks open absolute space in 1768. It becomes the organ of touch that makes three-dimensional shape thinkable in 1798. Those two passages are worth reading and worth quoting in Kant’s name. The third sentence, the famous one about the hand as the visible or outer part of the brain, is a twentieth-century attribution that has outrun its evidence. Responsible writing can name it for what it is, a Katz-transmitted attribution from 1925 with no verified Kant source behind it. The legend will keep moving, because legends do, though it does not have to move through our pages unchallenged. A sentence about hands deserves to be held in the hand and checked.
#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant #knowing #meaning #philosophy #research #thought

#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant
David Boles @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 14:12 UTC

Hands as the Language of Thought: Correcting a Kant Attribution

There is a line about hands that travels well. It reads cleanly, carries an air of philosophical dignity, and arrives in print wearing the name of Immanuel Kant. “The hand is the visible part of the brain,” runs the most common English form, or, in an older rendering, “the hand is the outer brain of man.” The phrase appears in publishing copy, in teaching materials, on Goodreads quotation pages, in popular psychology, in surgical textbooks, in neurology lectures, and in essays on sign language and gesture. It has the shape of something Kant should have said. The difficulty is that no reliable evidence supports treating it as a verified Kant statement.
This is a small instance in the larger pathology of quotation culture, where an author’s prestige is borrowed to underwrite a sentence he never wrote. The case of the hand, though, carries particular weight, because the sentence is invoked precisely where philosophical authority is wanted, in discussions of embodiment, cognition, touch, manual skill, and the expressive life of the hand. Writers reach for Kant when they want to seal the argument. If the seal is counterfeit, the argument has to stand on its own, and the discipline has to notice the forgery.
What Kant Actually Wrote About Hands
Kant wrote about hands more than once, and he wrote about them carefully. In 1768, in his short essay Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume, he uses the human hand as his signature example of incongruent counterparts, two objects that share all internal geometric properties and still cannot be superimposed on one another. A right hand and a left hand have identical measurements, identical topology, identical internal relations, and still they will not coincide. The example exposes something about absolute space that relational accounts cannot accommodate. The hand, in this essay, functions as a philosophical instrument, a test case for the metaphysics of orientation.
Thirty years later, in the Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht of 1798, Kant returns to the hand through a different doorway. There he treats the sense of touch, seated in the fingertips and their nerve endings, as the sense that allows the human being to work out the three-dimensional shape of a solid body through direct contact. Kant goes so far as to say that without this organ-sense no concept of corporeal shape could be formed at all. Touch, in the Anthropology, carries a cognitive load that vision alone cannot sustain.
These are recognizable Kant passages, and they are philosophically rich. They give the hand a significant role in his thinking about space, orientation, embodiment, and the conditions under which objects become objects for us. What they do not give us is the famous sentence now repeated in his name.
The Authority Behind the Attribution
The trail of the attribution leads to a specific book published in 1925 by David Katz. A biographical note earns its place here, because Katz’s authority is what carried the Kant line forward for a century, and the weight of that authority bears directly on how the legend survived.
Katz was born in Kassel on 1 October 1884 into a Jewish family, and he studied at Göttingen from 1902 under Georg Elias Müller, whose institute was among the leading centers of experimental psychology in Europe. He took his doctorate at Göttingen in 1906 with a dissertation on the psychology of temporal comparison, and he served as Müller’s assistant from 1907 to 1919, with his volunteer service in the First World War interrupting that work from 1914 to 1918. His 1911 habilitation on color perception, later published as Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben, was examined by Müller and by Edmund Husserl. That second reviewer matters here, because it places Katz directly inside the phenomenological tradition at its source, with Husserl himself certifying the 1911 work. After the First World War, Katz spent a short stretch at the Technical University of Hannover on the psychology of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans, a subject that bears on the concerns of the 1925 book more than has generally been noticed.
From 1919 until 1933, Katz held the chair of psychology and education at Rostock, and in 1933 the Nazi regime stripped him of that position. He moved first to Manchester, where he worked in T. H. Pear’s laboratory on tactile and gustatory perception, then briefly in London, and in 1937 he took the first Swedish chair of psychology at Stockholm University, the Eneroth chair, becoming a Swedish citizen the same year. He presided over the Thirteenth International Congress of Psychology in Stockholm in 1951 and died there on 2 February 1953. The figure whose 1925 sentence about Kant and the hand has been circulating, unchecked, for a century was a serious psychologist with phenomenological credentials certified by Husserl and a research record that runs from color to touch to prosthetics to Gestalt. That is the weight the undocumented attribution has been carrying.
Where the Quotation Actually Comes From
In Der Aufbau der Tastwelt, or The World of Touch, Katz writes that Kant once called the hand das äußere Gehirn des Menschen, the outer brain of man. That passage is where most modern quotation chains terminate when traced backward with any rigor. The English variant “the visible part of the brain” appears to be a loose later translation of the Katz-transmitted German phrase, carrying the same undocumented attribution into new languages without retrieving a new source.
Two features of the Katz passage matter. First, Katz supplies no citation to any Kant text. He provides no volume, no essay, no letter, no lecture transcript. He states the attribution as received wisdom and moves on. Second, the footnote that sits at precisely that point in the Katz text does not lead the reader to Kant at all. It leads to Gerhart Hauptmann, the Nobel-laureate playwright, whose prose passage on the hand Katz quotes in an exalted, almost liturgical register. The Kant attribution and the Hauptmann citation share a footnote, and the Kant portion of that pairing goes undocumented.
That is the entire basis, so far as the scholarship can currently establish, for the modern circulation of the line as a Kant quotation. A single undocumented attribution in a 1925 monograph on touch, carrying all the authority of a Husserl-certified Göttingen psychologist with a major research record, absorbed into the secondary literature, and repeated without verification for a century.
Why the Quotation Travels So Well
The sentence survives because it sounds like Kant. The compression is Kantian in style. Sensation, cognition, and anatomy bind together in a single gesture. The cadence matches the tone of the Anthropology passage on touch closely enough that a reader who encounters both in the same afternoon will remember them as a single thought. The line also carries the epigrammatic finish that quotation culture demands.
The phrase travels because it pays an intellectual tax that many writers want paid. When someone argues that the hand is a thinking organ, or that manual skill shapes cognition, or that touch is constitutive of our grasp of the world, Kant’s name closes the argument faster than a paragraph of evidence. The quotation does the work of a citation without requiring a citation to exist.
There is a further, less obvious reason for the sentence’s stubborn life. It has a ready home in at least four disciplines that want it to be Kantian. Philosophers of embodied cognition cite it against Cartesian disembodiment. Hand surgeons and occupational therapists lean on the line to dignify their practice. Neurology textbooks reach for it in their introductions to motor cortex maps. Teachers of signed languages sometimes mobilize a version of it in arguments that signed languages are languages of the hand as the mind’s direct instrument. Each of these fields has a stake in keeping the line in circulation, and none of them has a native incentive to audit its provenance.
The Scholarly Correction
A careful study of the hand in Kant, published in a Hungarian philosophical journal at Eszterházy Károly University, observes that the hand never becomes an explicit, thematic center of Kant’s philosophy in the way that later phenomenology would make it. Merleau-Ponty takes up the hand as a chiasmic site of touching and being touched. Heidegger develops handedness, Zuhandenheit, as a defining feature of the being of equipment. Husserl analyzes the double sensation of one hand touching the other. These are explicit philosophical theses about the hand. The hand, in Kant, plays a different role from the thematic centrality later phenomenology will give it. It appears as an example, a test case, and a sense-organ of decisive cognitive importance, which is already a great deal, though it falls short of the hand-centered metaphysics the misattributed quotation implies.
The quotation legend, though small, distorts philosophy. It suggests that Kant produced a compressed aphorism on the hand as the extension of the mind. What the actual texts show is something else: a careful argument about incongruent counterparts in 1768, and a careful account of touch as shape-sense in 1798. The misattributed sentence flattens both arguments into a Hallmark version of themselves, and then hangs the name Kant on the flattened version.
The Responsible Formula
Writers who want Kantian authority without philological error have a narrow path open to them. The 1768 essay on incongruent counterparts grounds the claim that Kant treated the hand as a philosophically significant object. The Anthropology of 1798 grounds the claim that Kant treated touch, seated in the fingertips, as cognitively constitutive of our concept of bodily shape. Writers who wish to credit Kant with the aphorism about the outer brain can honestly describe it as a twentieth-century attribution traceable at least to David Katz in 1925, for which no secure primary Kant passage has yet been established. The formula runs longer than the elegant false quotation, and it will not fit on a poster, though it has the advantage of being accurate.
The broader point reaches past Kant. Quotation legends grow because the citation economy rewards speed and punishes verification. A writer who takes the time to trace a line to its actual source pays a cost in word count, in footnotes, and in the appearance of pedantry. A writer who accepts the received attribution on trust pays no such cost, and the received attribution grows stronger with every unverified repetition. Over a century, a footnote in a book on touch becomes a Kant quotation in a surgical textbook, and the discipline stops noticing.
Hands, Thought, and Signed Languages
One further reason to care about this correction comes from the linguistics of American Sign Language and the other signed languages of the world. The proposition that the hand is the mind’s instrument is no idle metaphor in Deaf communities or among sign linguists. The hand is the articulatory site of natural human languages with their own phonology, morphology, and syntax, documented since William Stokoe’s 1960 Sign Language Structure opened the field of sign linguistics. Signed languages are languages of the hand in a literal, structural sense, and the evidence for that structural status is empirical and extensive.
When the falsely attributed Kant line is imported into defenses of signed language, or into gestural theories of cognition, it smuggles in a spurious authority and obscures the actual argument. The work has what it needs already, which is the record of the languages themselves and the descriptive and theoretical work of the linguists who study them. Kant’s signature adds nothing to that record. A fake Kant quotation weakens the record by mortgaging the argument to a line that will not survive a footnote check. Signed languages deserve better citation hygiene than quotation culture has given them.
Conclusion
The hand has a real place in Kant’s philosophy. It is the example that cracks open absolute space in 1768. It becomes the organ of touch that makes three-dimensional shape thinkable in 1798. Those two passages are worth reading and worth quoting in Kant’s name. The third sentence, the famous one about the hand as the visible or outer part of the brain, is a twentieth-century attribution that has outrun its evidence. Responsible writing can name it for what it is, a Katz-transmitted attribution from 1925 with no verified Kant source behind it. The legend will keep moving, because legends do, though it does not have to move through our pages unchallenged. A sentence about hands deserves to be held in the hand and checked.
#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant #knowing #meaning #philosophy #research #thought

#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant
David Boles @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 14:12 UTC

Hands as the Language of Thought: Correcting a Kant Attribution

There is a line about hands that travels well. It reads cleanly, carries an air of philosophical dignity, and arrives in print wearing the name of Immanuel Kant. “The hand is the visible part of the brain,” runs the most common English form, or, in an older rendering, “the hand is the outer brain of man.” The phrase appears in publishing copy, in teaching materials, on Goodreads quotation pages, in popular psychology, in surgical textbooks, in neurology lectures, and in essays on sign language and gesture. It has the shape of something Kant should have said. The difficulty is that no reliable evidence supports treating it as a verified Kant statement.
This is a small instance in the larger pathology of quotation culture, where an author’s prestige is borrowed to underwrite a sentence he never wrote. The case of the hand, though, carries particular weight, because the sentence is invoked precisely where philosophical authority is wanted, in discussions of embodiment, cognition, touch, manual skill, and the expressive life of the hand. Writers reach for Kant when they want to seal the argument. If the seal is counterfeit, the argument has to stand on its own, and the discipline has to notice the forgery.
What Kant Actually Wrote About Hands
Kant wrote about hands more than once, and he wrote about them carefully. In 1768, in his short essay Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume, he uses the human hand as his signature example of incongruent counterparts, two objects that share all internal geometric properties and still cannot be superimposed on one another. A right hand and a left hand have identical measurements, identical topology, identical internal relations, and still they will not coincide. The example exposes something about absolute space that relational accounts cannot accommodate. The hand, in this essay, functions as a philosophical instrument, a test case for the metaphysics of orientation.
Thirty years later, in the Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht of 1798, Kant returns to the hand through a different doorway. There he treats the sense of touch, seated in the fingertips and their nerve endings, as the sense that allows the human being to work out the three-dimensional shape of a solid body through direct contact. Kant goes so far as to say that without this organ-sense no concept of corporeal shape could be formed at all. Touch, in the Anthropology, carries a cognitive load that vision alone cannot sustain.
These are recognizable Kant passages, and they are philosophically rich. They give the hand a significant role in his thinking about space, orientation, embodiment, and the conditions under which objects become objects for us. What they do not give us is the famous sentence now repeated in his name.
The Authority Behind the Attribution
The trail of the attribution leads to a specific book published in 1925 by David Katz. A biographical note earns its place here, because Katz’s authority is what carried the Kant line forward for a century, and the weight of that authority bears directly on how the legend survived.
Katz was born in Kassel on 1 October 1884 into a Jewish family, and he studied at Göttingen from 1902 under Georg Elias Müller, whose institute was among the leading centers of experimental psychology in Europe. He took his doctorate at Göttingen in 1906 with a dissertation on the psychology of temporal comparison, and he served as Müller’s assistant from 1907 to 1919, with his volunteer service in the First World War interrupting that work from 1914 to 1918. His 1911 habilitation on color perception, later published as Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben, was examined by Müller and by Edmund Husserl. That second reviewer matters here, because it places Katz directly inside the phenomenological tradition at its source, with Husserl himself certifying the 1911 work. After the First World War, Katz spent a short stretch at the Technical University of Hannover on the psychology of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans, a subject that bears on the concerns of the 1925 book more than has generally been noticed.
From 1919 until 1933, Katz held the chair of psychology and education at Rostock, and in 1933 the Nazi regime stripped him of that position. He moved first to Manchester, where he worked in T. H. Pear’s laboratory on tactile and gustatory perception, then briefly in London, and in 1937 he took the first Swedish chair of psychology at Stockholm University, the Eneroth chair, becoming a Swedish citizen the same year. He presided over the Thirteenth International Congress of Psychology in Stockholm in 1951 and died there on 2 February 1953. The figure whose 1925 sentence about Kant and the hand has been circulating, unchecked, for a century was a serious psychologist with phenomenological credentials certified by Husserl and a research record that runs from color to touch to prosthetics to Gestalt. That is the weight the undocumented attribution has been carrying.
Where the Quotation Actually Comes From
In Der Aufbau der Tastwelt, or The World of Touch, Katz writes that Kant once called the hand das äußere Gehirn des Menschen, the outer brain of man. That passage is where most modern quotation chains terminate when traced backward with any rigor. The English variant “the visible part of the brain” appears to be a loose later translation of the Katz-transmitted German phrase, carrying the same undocumented attribution into new languages without retrieving a new source.
Two features of the Katz passage matter. First, Katz supplies no citation to any Kant text. He provides no volume, no essay, no letter, no lecture transcript. He states the attribution as received wisdom and moves on. Second, the footnote that sits at precisely that point in the Katz text does not lead the reader to Kant at all. It leads to Gerhart Hauptmann, the Nobel-laureate playwright, whose prose passage on the hand Katz quotes in an exalted, almost liturgical register. The Kant attribution and the Hauptmann citation share a footnote, and the Kant portion of that pairing goes undocumented.
That is the entire basis, so far as the scholarship can currently establish, for the modern circulation of the line as a Kant quotation. A single undocumented attribution in a 1925 monograph on touch, carrying all the authority of a Husserl-certified Göttingen psychologist with a major research record, absorbed into the secondary literature, and repeated without verification for a century.
Why the Quotation Travels So Well
The sentence survives because it sounds like Kant. The compression is Kantian in style. Sensation, cognition, and anatomy bind together in a single gesture. The cadence matches the tone of the Anthropology passage on touch closely enough that a reader who encounters both in the same afternoon will remember them as a single thought. The line also carries the epigrammatic finish that quotation culture demands.
The phrase travels because it pays an intellectual tax that many writers want paid. When someone argues that the hand is a thinking organ, or that manual skill shapes cognition, or that touch is constitutive of our grasp of the world, Kant’s name closes the argument faster than a paragraph of evidence. The quotation does the work of a citation without requiring a citation to exist.
There is a further, less obvious reason for the sentence’s stubborn life. It has a ready home in at least four disciplines that want it to be Kantian. Philosophers of embodied cognition cite it against Cartesian disembodiment. Hand surgeons and occupational therapists lean on the line to dignify their practice. Neurology textbooks reach for it in their introductions to motor cortex maps. Teachers of signed languages sometimes mobilize a version of it in arguments that signed languages are languages of the hand as the mind’s direct instrument. Each of these fields has a stake in keeping the line in circulation, and none of them has a native incentive to audit its provenance.
The Scholarly Correction
A careful study of the hand in Kant, published in a Hungarian philosophical journal at Eszterházy Károly University, observes that the hand never becomes an explicit, thematic center of Kant’s philosophy in the way that later phenomenology would make it. Merleau-Ponty takes up the hand as a chiasmic site of touching and being touched. Heidegger develops handedness, Zuhandenheit, as a defining feature of the being of equipment. Husserl analyzes the double sensation of one hand touching the other. These are explicit philosophical theses about the hand. The hand, in Kant, plays a different role from the thematic centrality later phenomenology will give it. It appears as an example, a test case, and a sense-organ of decisive cognitive importance, which is already a great deal, though it falls short of the hand-centered metaphysics the misattributed quotation implies.
The quotation legend, though small, distorts philosophy. It suggests that Kant produced a compressed aphorism on the hand as the extension of the mind. What the actual texts show is something else: a careful argument about incongruent counterparts in 1768, and a careful account of touch as shape-sense in 1798. The misattributed sentence flattens both arguments into a Hallmark version of themselves, and then hangs the name Kant on the flattened version.
The Responsible Formula
Writers who want Kantian authority without philological error have a narrow path open to them. The 1768 essay on incongruent counterparts grounds the claim that Kant treated the hand as a philosophically significant object. The Anthropology of 1798 grounds the claim that Kant treated touch, seated in the fingertips, as cognitively constitutive of our concept of bodily shape. Writers who wish to credit Kant with the aphorism about the outer brain can honestly describe it as a twentieth-century attribution traceable at least to David Katz in 1925, for which no secure primary Kant passage has yet been established. The formula runs longer than the elegant false quotation, and it will not fit on a poster, though it has the advantage of being accurate.
The broader point reaches past Kant. Quotation legends grow because the citation economy rewards speed and punishes verification. A writer who takes the time to trace a line to its actual source pays a cost in word count, in footnotes, and in the appearance of pedantry. A writer who accepts the received attribution on trust pays no such cost, and the received attribution grows stronger with every unverified repetition. Over a century, a footnote in a book on touch becomes a Kant quotation in a surgical textbook, and the discipline stops noticing.
Hands, Thought, and Signed Languages
One further reason to care about this correction comes from the linguistics of American Sign Language and the other signed languages of the world. The proposition that the hand is the mind’s instrument is no idle metaphor in Deaf communities or among sign linguists. The hand is the articulatory site of natural human languages with their own phonology, morphology, and syntax, documented since William Stokoe’s 1960 Sign Language Structure opened the field of sign linguistics. Signed languages are languages of the hand in a literal, structural sense, and the evidence for that structural status is empirical and extensive.
When the falsely attributed Kant line is imported into defenses of signed language, or into gestural theories of cognition, it smuggles in a spurious authority and obscures the actual argument. The work has what it needs already, which is the record of the languages themselves and the descriptive and theoretical work of the linguists who study them. Kant’s signature adds nothing to that record. A fake Kant quotation weakens the record by mortgaging the argument to a line that will not survive a footnote check. Signed languages deserve better citation hygiene than quotation culture has given them.
Conclusion
The hand has a real place in Kant’s philosophy. It is the example that cracks open absolute space in 1768. It becomes the organ of touch that makes three-dimensional shape thinkable in 1798. Those two passages are worth reading and worth quoting in Kant’s name. The third sentence, the famous one about the hand as the visible or outer part of the brain, is a twentieth-century attribution that has outrun its evidence. Responsible writing can name it for what it is, a Katz-transmitted attribution from 1925 with no verified Kant source behind it. The legend will keep moving, because legends do, though it does not have to move through our pages unchallenged. A sentence about hands deserves to be held in the hand and checked.
#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant #knowing #meaning #philosophy #research #thought

#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant
David Boles @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 14:12 UTC

Hands as the Language of Thought: Correcting a Kant Attribution

There is a line about hands that travels well. It reads cleanly, carries an air of philosophical dignity, and arrives in print wearing the name of Immanuel Kant. “The hand is the visible part of the brain,” runs the most common English form, or, in an older rendering, “the hand is the outer brain of man.” The phrase appears in publishing copy, in teaching materials, on Goodreads quotation pages, in popular psychology, in surgical textbooks, in neurology lectures, and in essays on sign language and gesture. It has the shape of something Kant should have said. The difficulty is that no reliable evidence supports treating it as a verified Kant statement.
This is a small instance in the larger pathology of quotation culture, where an author’s prestige is borrowed to underwrite a sentence he never wrote. The case of the hand, though, carries particular weight, because the sentence is invoked precisely where philosophical authority is wanted, in discussions of embodiment, cognition, touch, manual skill, and the expressive life of the hand. Writers reach for Kant when they want to seal the argument. If the seal is counterfeit, the argument has to stand on its own, and the discipline has to notice the forgery.
What Kant Actually Wrote About Hands
Kant wrote about hands more than once, and he wrote about them carefully. In 1768, in his short essay Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume, he uses the human hand as his signature example of incongruent counterparts, two objects that share all internal geometric properties and still cannot be superimposed on one another. A right hand and a left hand have identical measurements, identical topology, identical internal relations, and still they will not coincide. The example exposes something about absolute space that relational accounts cannot accommodate. The hand, in this essay, functions as a philosophical instrument, a test case for the metaphysics of orientation.
Thirty years later, in the Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht of 1798, Kant returns to the hand through a different doorway. There he treats the sense of touch, seated in the fingertips and their nerve endings, as the sense that allows the human being to work out the three-dimensional shape of a solid body through direct contact. Kant goes so far as to say that without this organ-sense no concept of corporeal shape could be formed at all. Touch, in the Anthropology, carries a cognitive load that vision alone cannot sustain.
These are recognizable Kant passages, and they are philosophically rich. They give the hand a significant role in his thinking about space, orientation, embodiment, and the conditions under which objects become objects for us. What they do not give us is the famous sentence now repeated in his name.
The Authority Behind the Attribution
The trail of the attribution leads to a specific book published in 1925 by David Katz. A biographical note earns its place here, because Katz’s authority is what carried the Kant line forward for a century, and the weight of that authority bears directly on how the legend survived.
Katz was born in Kassel on 1 October 1884 into a Jewish family, and he studied at Göttingen from 1902 under Georg Elias Müller, whose institute was among the leading centers of experimental psychology in Europe. He took his doctorate at Göttingen in 1906 with a dissertation on the psychology of temporal comparison, and he served as Müller’s assistant from 1907 to 1919, with his volunteer service in the First World War interrupting that work from 1914 to 1918. His 1911 habilitation on color perception, later published as Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben, was examined by Müller and by Edmund Husserl. That second reviewer matters here, because it places Katz directly inside the phenomenological tradition at its source, with Husserl himself certifying the 1911 work. After the First World War, Katz spent a short stretch at the Technical University of Hannover on the psychology of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans, a subject that bears on the concerns of the 1925 book more than has generally been noticed.
From 1919 until 1933, Katz held the chair of psychology and education at Rostock, and in 1933 the Nazi regime stripped him of that position. He moved first to Manchester, where he worked in T. H. Pear’s laboratory on tactile and gustatory perception, then briefly in London, and in 1937 he took the first Swedish chair of psychology at Stockholm University, the Eneroth chair, becoming a Swedish citizen the same year. He presided over the Thirteenth International Congress of Psychology in Stockholm in 1951 and died there on 2 February 1953. The figure whose 1925 sentence about Kant and the hand has been circulating, unchecked, for a century was a serious psychologist with phenomenological credentials certified by Husserl and a research record that runs from color to touch to prosthetics to Gestalt. That is the weight the undocumented attribution has been carrying.
Where the Quotation Actually Comes From
In Der Aufbau der Tastwelt, or The World of Touch, Katz writes that Kant once called the hand das äußere Gehirn des Menschen, the outer brain of man. That passage is where most modern quotation chains terminate when traced backward with any rigor. The English variant “the visible part of the brain” appears to be a loose later translation of the Katz-transmitted German phrase, carrying the same undocumented attribution into new languages without retrieving a new source.
Two features of the Katz passage matter. First, Katz supplies no citation to any Kant text. He provides no volume, no essay, no letter, no lecture transcript. He states the attribution as received wisdom and moves on. Second, the footnote that sits at precisely that point in the Katz text does not lead the reader to Kant at all. It leads to Gerhart Hauptmann, the Nobel-laureate playwright, whose prose passage on the hand Katz quotes in an exalted, almost liturgical register. The Kant attribution and the Hauptmann citation share a footnote, and the Kant portion of that pairing goes undocumented.
That is the entire basis, so far as the scholarship can currently establish, for the modern circulation of the line as a Kant quotation. A single undocumented attribution in a 1925 monograph on touch, carrying all the authority of a Husserl-certified Göttingen psychologist with a major research record, absorbed into the secondary literature, and repeated without verification for a century.
Why the Quotation Travels So Well
The sentence survives because it sounds like Kant. The compression is Kantian in style. Sensation, cognition, and anatomy bind together in a single gesture. The cadence matches the tone of the Anthropology passage on touch closely enough that a reader who encounters both in the same afternoon will remember them as a single thought. The line also carries the epigrammatic finish that quotation culture demands.
The phrase travels because it pays an intellectual tax that many writers want paid. When someone argues that the hand is a thinking organ, or that manual skill shapes cognition, or that touch is constitutive of our grasp of the world, Kant’s name closes the argument faster than a paragraph of evidence. The quotation does the work of a citation without requiring a citation to exist.
There is a further, less obvious reason for the sentence’s stubborn life. It has a ready home in at least four disciplines that want it to be Kantian. Philosophers of embodied cognition cite it against Cartesian disembodiment. Hand surgeons and occupational therapists lean on the line to dignify their practice. Neurology textbooks reach for it in their introductions to motor cortex maps. Teachers of signed languages sometimes mobilize a version of it in arguments that signed languages are languages of the hand as the mind’s direct instrument. Each of these fields has a stake in keeping the line in circulation, and none of them has a native incentive to audit its provenance.
The Scholarly Correction
A careful study of the hand in Kant, published in a Hungarian philosophical journal at Eszterházy Károly University, observes that the hand never becomes an explicit, thematic center of Kant’s philosophy in the way that later phenomenology would make it. Merleau-Ponty takes up the hand as a chiasmic site of touching and being touched. Heidegger develops handedness, Zuhandenheit, as a defining feature of the being of equipment. Husserl analyzes the double sensation of one hand touching the other. These are explicit philosophical theses about the hand. The hand, in Kant, plays a different role from the thematic centrality later phenomenology will give it. It appears as an example, a test case, and a sense-organ of decisive cognitive importance, which is already a great deal, though it falls short of the hand-centered metaphysics the misattributed quotation implies.
The quotation legend, though small, distorts philosophy. It suggests that Kant produced a compressed aphorism on the hand as the extension of the mind. What the actual texts show is something else: a careful argument about incongruent counterparts in 1768, and a careful account of touch as shape-sense in 1798. The misattributed sentence flattens both arguments into a Hallmark version of themselves, and then hangs the name Kant on the flattened version.
The Responsible Formula
Writers who want Kantian authority without philological error have a narrow path open to them. The 1768 essay on incongruent counterparts grounds the claim that Kant treated the hand as a philosophically significant object. The Anthropology of 1798 grounds the claim that Kant treated touch, seated in the fingertips, as cognitively constitutive of our concept of bodily shape. Writers who wish to credit Kant with the aphorism about the outer brain can honestly describe it as a twentieth-century attribution traceable at least to David Katz in 1925, for which no secure primary Kant passage has yet been established. The formula runs longer than the elegant false quotation, and it will not fit on a poster, though it has the advantage of being accurate.
The broader point reaches past Kant. Quotation legends grow because the citation economy rewards speed and punishes verification. A writer who takes the time to trace a line to its actual source pays a cost in word count, in footnotes, and in the appearance of pedantry. A writer who accepts the received attribution on trust pays no such cost, and the received attribution grows stronger with every unverified repetition. Over a century, a footnote in a book on touch becomes a Kant quotation in a surgical textbook, and the discipline stops noticing.
Hands, Thought, and Signed Languages
One further reason to care about this correction comes from the linguistics of American Sign Language and the other signed languages of the world. The proposition that the hand is the mind’s instrument is no idle metaphor in Deaf communities or among sign linguists. The hand is the articulatory site of natural human languages with their own phonology, morphology, and syntax, documented since William Stokoe’s 1960 Sign Language Structure opened the field of sign linguistics. Signed languages are languages of the hand in a literal, structural sense, and the evidence for that structural status is empirical and extensive.
When the falsely attributed Kant line is imported into defenses of signed language, or into gestural theories of cognition, it smuggles in a spurious authority and obscures the actual argument. The work has what it needs already, which is the record of the languages themselves and the descriptive and theoretical work of the linguists who study them. Kant’s signature adds nothing to that record. A fake Kant quotation weakens the record by mortgaging the argument to a line that will not survive a footnote check. Signed languages deserve better citation hygiene than quotation culture has given them.
Conclusion
The hand has a real place in Kant’s philosophy. It is the example that cracks open absolute space in 1768. It becomes the organ of touch that makes three-dimensional shape thinkable in 1798. Those two passages are worth reading and worth quoting in Kant’s name. The third sentence, the famous one about the hand as the visible or outer part of the brain, is a twentieth-century attribution that has outrun its evidence. Responsible writing can name it for what it is, a Katz-transmitted attribution from 1925 with no verified Kant source behind it. The legend will keep moving, because legends do, though it does not have to move through our pages unchallenged. A sentence about hands deserves to be held in the hand and checked.
#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant #knowing #meaning #philosophy #research #thought

#thought #research #philosophy #meaning #knowing #kant
David Boles @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 14:12 UTC

Hands as the Language of Thought: Correcting a Kant Attribution

There is a line about hands that travels well. It reads cleanly, carries an air of philosophical dignity, and arrives in print wearing the name of Immanuel Kant. “The hand is the visible part of the brain,” runs the most common English form, or, in an older rendering, “the hand is the outer brain of man.” The phrase appears in publishing copy, in teaching materials, on Goodreads quotation pages, in popular psychology, in surgical textbooks, in neurology lectures, and in essays on sign language and gesture. It has the shape of something Kant should have said. The difficulty is that no reliable evidence supports treating it as a verified Kant statement.
This is a small instance in the larger pathology of quotation culture, where an author’s prestige is borrowed to underwrite a sentence he never wrote. The case of the hand, though, carries particular weight, because the sentence is invoked precisely where philosophical authority is wanted, in discussions of embodiment, cognition, touch, manual skill, and the expressive life of the hand. Writers reach for Kant when they want to seal the argument. If the seal is counterfeit, the argument has to stand on its own, and the discipline has to notice the forgery.
What Kant Actually Wrote About Hands
Kant wrote about hands more than once, and he wrote about them carefully. In 1768, in his short essay Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume, he uses the human hand as his signature example of incongruent counterparts, two objects that share all internal geometric properties and still cannot be superimposed on one another. A right hand and a left hand have identical measurements, identical topology, identical internal relations, and still they will not coincide. The example exposes something about absolute space that relational accounts cannot accommodate. The hand, in this essay, functions as a philosophical instrument, a test case for the metaphysics of orientation.
Thirty years later, in the Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht of 1798, Kant returns to the hand through a different doorway. There he treats the sense of touch, seated in the fingertips and their nerve endings, as the sense that allows the human being to work out the three-dimensional shape of a solid body through direct contact. Kant goes so far as to say that without this organ-sense no concept of corporeal shape could be formed at all. Touch, in the Anthropology, carries a cognitive load that vision alone cannot sustain.
These are recognizable Kant passages, and they are philosophically rich. They give the hand a significant role in his thinking about space, orientation, embodiment, and the conditions under which objects become objects for us. What they do not give us is the famous sentence now repeated in his name.
The Authority Behind the Attribution
The trail of the attribution leads to a specific book published in 1925 by David Katz. A biographical note earns its place here, because Katz’s authority is what carried the Kant line forward for a century, and the weight of that authority bears directly on how the legend survived.
Katz was born in Kassel on 1 October 1884 into a Jewish family, and he studied at Göttingen from 1902 under Georg Elias Müller, whose institute was among the leading centers of experimental psychology in Europe. He took his doctorate at Göttingen in 1906 with a dissertation on the psychology of temporal comparison, and he served as Müller’s assistant from 1907 to 1919, with his volunteer service in the First World War interrupting that work from 1914 to 1918. His 1911 habilitation on color perception, later published as Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben, was examined by Müller and by Edmund Husserl. That second reviewer matters here, because it places Katz directly inside the phenomenological tradition at its source, with Husserl himself certifying the 1911 work. After the First World War, Katz spent a short stretch at the Technical University of Hannover on the psychology of prosthetic limbs for wounded veterans, a subject that bears on the concerns of the 1925 book more than has generally been noticed.
From 1919 until 1933, Katz held the chair of psychology and education at Rostock, and in 1933 the Nazi regime stripped him of that position. He moved first to Manchester, where he worked in T. H. Pear’s laboratory on tactile and gustatory perception, then briefly in London, and in 1937 he took the first Swedish chair of psychology at Stockholm University, the Eneroth chair, becoming a Swedish citizen the same year. He presided over the Thirteenth International Congress of Psychology in Stockholm in 1951 and died there on 2 February 1953. The figure whose 1925 sentence about Kant and the hand has been circulating, unchecked, for a century was a serious psychologist with phenomenological credentials certified by Husserl and a research record that runs from color to touch to prosthetics to Gestalt. That is the weight the undocumented attribution has been carrying.
Where the Quotation Actually Comes From
In Der Aufbau der Tastwelt, or The World of Touch, Katz writes that Kant once called the hand das äußere Gehirn des Menschen, the outer brain of man. That passage is where most modern quotation chains terminate when traced backward with any rigor. The English variant “the visible part of the brain” appears to be a loose later translation of the Katz-transmitted German phrase, carrying the same undocumented attribution into new languages without retrieving a new source.
Two features of the Katz passage matter. First, Katz supplies no citation to any Kant text. He provides no volume, no essay, no letter, no lecture transcript. He states the attribution as received wisdom and moves on. Second, the footnote that sits at precisely that point in the Katz text does not lead the reader to Kant at all. It leads to Gerhart Hauptmann, the Nobel-laureate playwright, whose prose passage on the hand Katz quotes in an exalted, almost liturgical register. The Kant attribution and the Hauptmann citation share a footnote, and the Kant portion of that pairing goes undocumented.
That is the entire basis, so far as the scholarship can currently establish, for the modern circulation of the line as a Kant quotation. A single undocumented attribution in a 1925 monograph on touch, carrying all the authority of a Husserl-certified Göttingen psychologist with a major research record, absorbed into the secondary literature, and repeated without verification for a century.
Why the Quotation Travels So Well
The sentence survives because it sounds like Kant. The compression is Kantian in style. Sensation, cognition, and anatomy bind together in a single gesture. The cadence matches the tone of the Anthropology passage on touch closely enough that a reader who encounters both in the same afternoon will remember them as a single thought. The line also carries the epigrammatic finish that quotation culture demands.
The phrase travels because it pays an intellectual tax that many writers want paid. When someone argues that the hand is a thinking organ, or that manual skill shapes cognition, or that touch is constitutive of our grasp of the world, Kant’s name closes the argument faster than a paragraph of evidence. The quotation does the work of a citation without requiring a citation to exist.
There is a further, less obvious reason for the sentence’s stubborn life. It has a ready home in at least four disciplines that want it to be Kantian. Philosophers of embodied cognition cite it against Cartesian disembodiment. Hand surgeons and occupational therapists lean on the line to dignify their practice. Neurology textbooks reach for it in their introductions to motor cortex maps. Teachers of signed languages sometimes mobilize a version of it in arguments that signed languages are languages of the hand as the mind’s direct instrument. Each of these fields has a stake in keeping the line in circulation, and none of them has a native incentive to audit its provenance.
The Scholarly Correction
A careful study of the hand in Kant, published in a Hungarian philosophical journal at Eszterházy Károly University, observes that the hand never becomes an explicit, thematic center of Kant’s philosophy in the way that later phenomenology would make it. Merleau-Ponty takes up the hand as a chiasmic site of touching and being touched. Heidegger develops handedness, Zuhandenheit, as a defining feature of the being of equipment. Husserl analyzes the double sensation of one hand touching the other. These are explicit philosophical theses about the hand. The hand, in Kant, plays a different role from the thematic centrality later phenomenology will give it. It appears as an example, a test case, and a sense-organ of decisive cognitive importance, which is already a great deal, though it falls short of the hand-centered metaphysics the misattributed quotation implies.
The quotation legend, though small, distorts philosophy. It suggests that Kant produced a compressed aphorism on the hand as the extension of the mind. What the actual texts show is something else: a careful argument about incongruent counterparts in 1768, and a careful account of touch as shape-sense in 1798. The misattributed sentence flattens both arguments into a Hallmark version of themselves, and then hangs the name Kant on the flattened version.
The Responsible Formula
Writers who want Kantian authority without philological error have a narrow path open to them. The 1768 essay on incongruent counterparts grounds the claim that Kant treated the hand as a philosophically significant object. The Anthropology of 1798 grounds the claim that Kant treated touch, seated in the fingertips, as cognitively constitutive of our concept of bodily shape. Writers who wish to credit Kant with the aphorism about the outer brain can honestly describe it as a twentieth-century attribution traceable at least to David Katz in 1925, for which no secure primary Kant passage has yet been established. The formula runs longer than the elegant false quotation, and it will not fit on a poster, though it has the advantage of being accurate.
The broader point reaches past Kant. Quotation legends grow because the citation economy rewards speed and punishes verification. A writer who takes the time to trace a line to its actual source pays a cost in word count, in footnotes, and in the appearance of pedantry. A writer who accepts the received attribution on trust pays no such cost, and the received attribution grows stronger with every unverified repetition. Over a century, a footnote in a book on touch becomes a Kant quotation in a surgical textbook, and the discipline stops noticing.
Hands, Thought, and Signed Languages
One further reason to care about this correction comes from the linguistics of American Sign Language and the other signed languages of the world. The proposition that the hand is the mind’s instrument is no idle metaphor in Deaf communities or among sign linguists. The hand is the articulatory site of natural human languages with their own phonology, morphology, and syntax, documented since William Stokoe’s 1960 Sign Language Structure opened the field of sign linguistics. Signed languages are languages of the hand in a literal, structural sense, and the evidence for that structural status is empirical and extensive.
When the falsely attributed Kant line is imported into defenses of signed language, or into gestural theories of cognition, it smuggles in a spurious authority and obscures the actual argument. The work has what it needs already, which is the record of the languages themselves and the descriptive and theoretical work of the linguists who study them. Kant’s signature adds nothing to that record. A fake Kant quotation weakens the record by mortgaging the argument to a line that will not survive a footnote check. Signed languages deserve better citation hygiene than quotation culture has given them.
Conclusion
The hand has a real place in Kant’s philosophy. It is the example that cracks open absolute space in 1768. It becomes the organ of touch that makes three-dimensional shape thinkable in 1798. Those two passages are worth reading and worth quoting in Kant’s name. The third sentence, the famous one about the hand as the visible or outer part of the brain, is a twentieth-century attribution that has outrun its evidence. Responsible writing can name it for what it is, a Katz-transmitted attribution from 1925 with no verified Kant source behind it. The legend will keep moving, because legends do, though it does not have to move through our pages unchallenged. A sentence about hands deserves to be held in the hand and checked.
#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant #knowing #meaning #philosophy #research #thought

#asl #attribution #concept #hands #history #kant
NikolaTesla @[email protected] · 2026-05-10 · 18:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_JAZhZ6-I
#BissenBlaBla #RapunzelNaturkost #Höffner #Hoeffner #Deichmann #X #Euroimmun #RapunzelBionahrung #BöttcherAG #Müllermilch #Muellermilch #DegussaGoldhandel #Backwerk #RedBull #Palantir #Schalke04 #Tönnies #Toennies #AxelSpringer #Döpfner #Doepfner #Welt #Bild #Tesla #PayPal #Meta #Melitta #Lidl #Kaufland #Aldi #Amazon #Rechtsextreme #RechterTerror #Faschos #NeoNazis #Schwurbel #fairErben #TaxTheRich #EatTheRich #Erbschaftssteuer #Vermögensteuer #Vermoegensteuer

#bissenblabla #rapunzelnaturkost #hoffner #hoeffner #deichmann #x
NikolaTesla @[email protected] · 2026-05-10 · 18:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_JAZhZ6-I
#BissenBlaBla #RapunzelNaturkost #Höffner #Hoeffner #Deichmann #X #Euroimmun #RapunzelBionahrung #BöttcherAG #Müllermilch #Muellermilch #DegussaGoldhandel #Backwerk #RedBull #Palantir #Schalke04 #Tönnies #Toennies #AxelSpringer #Döpfner #Doepfner #Welt #Bild #Tesla #PayPal #Meta #Melitta #Lidl #Kaufland #Aldi #Amazon #Rechtsextreme #RechterTerror #Faschos #NeoNazis #Schwurbel #fairErben #TaxTheRich #EatTheRich #Erbschaftssteuer #Vermögensteuer #Vermoegensteuer

#bissenblabla #rapunzelnaturkost #hoffner #hoeffner #deichmann #x
NikolaTesla @[email protected] · 2026-05-10 · 18:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_JAZhZ6-I
#BissenBlaBla #RapunzelNaturkost #Höffner #Hoeffner #Deichmann #X #Euroimmun #RapunzelBionahrung #BöttcherAG #Müllermilch #Muellermilch #DegussaGoldhandel #Backwerk #RedBull #Palantir #Schalke04 #Tönnies #Toennies #AxelSpringer #Döpfner #Doepfner #Welt #Bild #Tesla #PayPal #Meta #Melitta #Lidl #Kaufland #Aldi #Amazon #Rechtsextreme #RechterTerror #Faschos #NeoNazis #Schwurbel #fairErben #TaxTheRich #EatTheRich #Erbschaftssteuer #Vermögensteuer #Vermoegensteuer

#bissenblabla #rapunzelnaturkost #hoffner #hoeffner #deichmann #x
NikolaTesla @[email protected] · 2026-05-10 · 18:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_JAZhZ6-I
#BissenBlaBla #RapunzelNaturkost #Höffner #Hoeffner #Deichmann #X #Euroimmun #RapunzelBionahrung #BöttcherAG #Müllermilch #Muellermilch #DegussaGoldhandel #Backwerk #RedBull #Palantir #Schalke04 #Tönnies #Toennies #AxelSpringer #Döpfner #Doepfner #Welt #Bild #Tesla #PayPal #Meta #Melitta #Lidl #Kaufland #Aldi #Amazon #Rechtsextreme #RechterTerror #Faschos #NeoNazis #Schwurbel #fairErben #TaxTheRich #EatTheRich #Erbschaftssteuer #Vermögensteuer #Vermoegensteuer

#vermoegensteuer #vermogensteuer #erbschaftssteuer #eattherich #taxtherich #fairerben
NikolaTesla @[email protected] · 2026-05-10 · 18:22 UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j_JAZhZ6-I
#BissenBlaBla #RapunzelNaturkost #Höffner #Hoeffner #Deichmann #X #Euroimmun #RapunzelBionahrung #BöttcherAG #Müllermilch #Muellermilch #DegussaGoldhandel #Backwerk #RedBull #Palantir #Schalke04 #Tönnies #Toennies #AxelSpringer #Döpfner #Doepfner #Welt #Bild #Tesla #PayPal #Meta #Melitta #Lidl #Kaufland #Aldi #Amazon #Rechtsextreme #RechterTerror #Faschos #NeoNazis #Schwurbel #fairErben #TaxTheRich #EatTheRich #Erbschaftssteuer #Vermögensteuer #Vermoegensteuer

#bissenblabla #rapunzelnaturkost #hoffner #hoeffner #deichmann #x
Düsseldorf @[email protected] · 2026-05-14 · 11:48 UTC

Düsseldorfer ist Deep Talk-Coach: „Hier sitzen die Männer, die sich hinterfragen“
Tom Müller sitzt in einem Düsseldorfer Café, bestellt einen Kakao – mit Hafermilch – und sagt einen Satz,…
#Duesseldorf #Deutschland #Deutsch #DE #Schlagzeilen #Headlines #Nachrichten #News #Europe #Europa #EU #Düsseldorf #Germany #Nordrhein-Westfalen
https://www.europesays.com/de/1018338/

#nordrhein #germany #dusseldorf #eu #europa #europe
Leipzig @[email protected] · 2026-05-07 · 06:24 UTC

Haus von Melanie Müller wird zwangsversteigert
Am Donnerstag wird am Leipziger Amtsgericht das Haus der Schlagersängerin Melanie Müller zwangsversteigert. Hintergrund sind übereinstimmenden Medienberichten zufolge…
#Leipzig #Deutschland #Deutsch #DE #Schlagzeilen #Headlines #Nachrichten #News #Europe #Europa #EU #Amtsgericht #Germany #Hitlergruß #leipzig #MDR #MelanieMüller #Sachsen #Wahren #Zwangsversteigerung
https://www.europesays.com/de/1000453/

#zwangsversteigerung #wahren #sachsen #melaniemuller #mdr #hitlergruß
Osna.FM @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 22:18 UTC

Hildegard Müller, head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), predicts a massive additional reduction in jobs within the sector. Speaking t... https://news.osna.fm/?p=45694 | #news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk

#news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk
Osna.FM @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 22:18 UTC

Hildegard Müller, head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), predicts a massive additional reduction in jobs within the sector. Speaking t... https://news.osna.fm/?p=45694 | #news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk

#news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk
Osna.FM @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 22:18 UTC

Hildegard Müller, head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), predicts a massive additional reduction in jobs within the sector. Speaking t... https://news.osna.fm/?p=45694 | #news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk

#risk #jobs #electrification #amid #news
Osna.FM @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 22:18 UTC

Hildegard Müller, head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA), predicts a massive additional reduction in jobs within the sector. Speaking t... https://news.osna.fm/?p=45694 | #news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk

#news #amid #electrification #jobs #risk
France | République française @[email protected] · 2026-04-22 · 21:50 UTC

https://www.europesays.com/fr/886228/ ATP Madrid 2026 – Les résultats et le suivi LIVE : Déjà fini pour Berrettini, Muller et Royer – Sports Infos – Ski #1000 #2026 #avril #cette #FR #France #Madrid #Masters #page #prévu #programme #résultats #Retrouvez #Sports #Tableau #Tennis #videos

#videos #tennis #tableau #sports #retrouvez #resultats
Osna.FM @[email protected] · 2026-05-12 · 23:07 UTC

Amid renewed concerns regarding potential tariffs from the United States, Hildegard Müller, the head of the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA),... https://news.osna.fm/?p=45703 | #news #amid #auto #deal #eu

#news #amid #auto #deal #eu
Klimareporter (Inoffiziell) @[email protected] · 2026-03-22 · 07:45 UTC

Kettensäge der Zukunft, Klimaschutz als Kriseneffekt und die "Kriegstüchtigkeit"
Angesichts von Aufrüstung und geopolitischen Spannungen wird Klimapolitik in Deutschland wie auch international immer schwieriger, sagt SPD-Umweltvordenker Michael Müller. Es brauche ein radikales Umdenken.#Kolumnen #Frieden #Krieg #Militär #Klimapolitik #Klimafinanzierung #Soziales #MüllersWoche #ÜberraschungderWoche
Kettensäge der Zukunft, Klimaschutz als Kriseneffekt und die Kriegstüchtigkeit

#frieden #kolumnen #soziales #krieg #klimapolitik #militar
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-09-02 · 20:39 UTC

For more information on Müller's time in #MLR, his #NARDB Player Profile can be found below! narugbydb.com/player/axel-... #MLRStats #MLR2026 #OGDC #ScrumTogether

Axel Müller - NA Rugby Databas...

#scrumtogether #ogdc #mlr2026 #mlrstats #nardb #mlr
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-09-02 · 20:39 UTC

French #Nationale side #RCNarbonnais have signed Argentinian winger Axel Müller for the 2025/26 season! Müller scored 13 tries in 24 #MLR games for @oldglorydc.bsky.social since 2024 and was an All-MLR 2nd XV selection in #MLR2025, with 8 tries and over 900m gained! #MLRStats #MLR2026 #OGDC

#ogdc #mlr2026 #mlrstats #mlr2025 #mlr #rcnarbonnais
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-02-14 · 22:16 UTC

Quite a strong looking #OldGloryDC side to face Miami and kick off #MLR2025! A strong front row and monster back row, Emery in the centre over Boni, and Muller, Humphreys & Hoyland is a great back three! NARDB Match-Up: narugbydb.com/event/2025-r... #MLRStats #MLR #OGDC

#oldglorydc #mlr2025 #mlrstats #mlr #ogdc
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-02-14 · 22:16 UTC

Quite a strong looking #OldGloryDC side to face Miami and kick off #MLR2025! A strong front row and monster back row, Emery in the centre over Boni, and Muller, Humphreys & Hoyland is a great back three! NARDB Match-Up: narugbydb.com/event/2025-r... #MLRStats #MLR #OGDC

#oldglorydc #mlr2025 #mlrstats #mlr #ogdc
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-02-14 · 22:16 UTC

Quite a strong looking #OldGloryDC side to face Miami and kick off #MLR2025! A strong front row and monster back row, Emery in the centre over Boni, and Muller, Humphreys & Hoyland is a great back three! NARDB Match-Up: narugbydb.com/event/2025-r... #MLRStats #MLR #OGDC

#oldglorydc #mlr2025 #mlrstats #mlr #ogdc
NARDB - The Home of MLRStats @[email protected] · 2025-02-14 · 22:16 UTC

Quite a strong looking #OldGloryDC side to face Miami and kick off #MLR2025! A strong front row and monster back row, Emery in the centre over Boni, and Muller, Humphreys & Hoyland is a great back three! NARDB Match-Up: narugbydb.com/event/2025-r... #MLRStats #MLR #OGDC

#oldglorydc #mlr2025 #mlrstats #mlr #ogdc
(Roughly) Daily @[email protected] · 2026-03-31 · 08:00 UTC

“It is impossible to win gracefully at chess. No man has yet said “Mate!” in a voice which failed to sound to his opponent bitter, boastful and malicious.”*…

… but perhaps the offense is muted if the call is remote.
Electronic gaming is huge– and growing, As Rolling Stone reports…
The gaming industry, fueled by platforms like Twitch and YouTube, has surged into a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse, projected to exceed $207 billion in 2026. These platforms do more than showcase gameplay—they cultivate vibrant, interactive communities where fans engage in real time, from live chats to virtual watch parties. Games like League of Legends, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike and Fortnite have become a cultural phenomenon, drawing in over 2.6 billion gamers globally, a number that continues to climb each year. Mobile gaming, accounting for over 60% of global gaming revenue, plays a significant role in this growth, making gaming accessible to a broader audience than ever before…
But as Danny Robb explains, using tecnology to play games remotely has a long history…
In 1897, the United States House of Representatives held a series of chess matches to find their most skilled players. The five winners were pitted against counterparts in the British House of Commons. But while the Americans sat down to play in Washington, D.C., their opponents sat in London. The players received moves by telegraph, and sent responses back over wires that crossed the Atlantic.
By this point, “cable chess” had been slowly evolving for decades. Historian Simone Müller-Pohl argues that this form of long-distance chess play offers insight into the cultural and political currents of the industrial era.
By the mid-nineteenth century, she explains, there was a growing sports culture in Europe and the US. Industrial technologies enabled more people to attend games and follow along from a distance. A growing middle class fostered this sporting culture, which came to include chess.
“Weekly,” Müller-Pohl explains, “the liberal and intellectual elites of the time assembled around chess boards in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Moscow, Rome, and London.” Interest in the game spread, and chess clubs emerged. As clubs arranged tournaments and standardized chess rules, Müller-Pohl argues that chess “was gradually turned into a sport.”
Correspondence chess grew along with the game, in part thanks to cheap and efficient postal services. When the telegraph emerged on the scene, the application to chess was almost immediate.
“It was telegraphy’s fathers who pulled the strings behind the first schemes for cable chess,” Müller-Pohl explains. In 1844, inventor Samuel Morse arranged chess matches on a new telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. “All of the 686 moves necessary for the seven games played were transmitted without mistake or interruption,” Müller-Pohl writes.
Not long after, in 1845, inventor Charles Wheatstone attended a demonstration in London. Chess legend Howard Staunton played against his rival George Walker over the South Western Railway line between Portsmouth and London. Müller-Pohl describes how witnesses found the match “rather tedious,” but it received a lot of press. This was partly the point—the matches demonstrated and advertised the capabilities and accuracy of the invention.
The Staunton match had another interesting aspect. Müller-Pohl points out that “the lines were still used for ordinary traffic during the games, allowing a group of chess players from Southampton to have every move telegraphed to them.” A bit like modern e-sports, spectators could observe the virtual match…
The early history of e-gaming– when telegraph cables let chess clubs stage matches across continents, linking players and spectators in a new kind of long-distance competition: “The First E-Sports? Chess by Telegraph,” from @inverting-vision.bsky.social in @jstordaily.bsky.social.
* A. A. Milne
###
As we note that what’s old is new again, we might recall that it was on this date in 1958 that Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” was released. It peaked at number two on the Hot R&B Sides chart and number eight on its pre-Billboard Hot 100 chart. Considered “the first rock & roll hit about rock & roll stardom”, it has been covered by many, many other artists and has received many, many honors and accolades, among them being ranked 33rd and 7th, respectively, on Rolling Stone’s 2021 and 2004 lists of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. It was also included as one of the 27 songs on the Voyager Golden Record (a collection of music, images, and sounds designed to serve as an introduction and record of global humanity’s achievements, innovations and culture, to alien/otherworldly inhabitants).
Apropos the piece above, it was released by Chess Records.

source
https://youtu.be/6ROwVrF0Ceg?si=mn0aUbfgzyWtINVy

#chess #ChuckBerry #culture #eGaming #electronicGaming #gaming #history #mobileGaming #music #rock #rockAndRoll #SamuelMorse #Technology #telegraph #VoyagerGoldenRecord

#chess #chuckberry #culture #egaming #electronicgaming #gaming
(Roughly) Daily @[email protected] · 2026-03-31 · 08:00 UTC

“It is impossible to win gracefully at chess. No man has yet said “Mate!” in a voice which failed to sound to his opponent bitter, boastful and malicious.”*…

… but perhaps the offense is muted if the call is remote.
Electronic gaming is huge– and growing, As Rolling Stone reports…
The gaming industry, fueled by platforms like Twitch and YouTube, has surged into a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse, projected to exceed $207 billion in 2026. These platforms do more than showcase gameplay—they cultivate vibrant, interactive communities where fans engage in real time, from live chats to virtual watch parties. Games like League of Legends, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike and Fortnite have become a cultural phenomenon, drawing in over 2.6 billion gamers globally, a number that continues to climb each year. Mobile gaming, accounting for over 60% of global gaming revenue, plays a significant role in this growth, making gaming accessible to a broader audience than ever before…
But as Danny Robb explains, using tecnology to play games remotely has a long history…
In 1897, the United States House of Representatives held a series of chess matches to find their most skilled players. The five winners were pitted against counterparts in the British House of Commons. But while the Americans sat down to play in Washington, D.C., their opponents sat in London. The players received moves by telegraph, and sent responses back over wires that crossed the Atlantic.
By this point, “cable chess” had been slowly evolving for decades. Historian Simone Müller-Pohl argues that this form of long-distance chess play offers insight into the cultural and political currents of the industrial era.
By the mid-nineteenth century, she explains, there was a growing sports culture in Europe and the US. Industrial technologies enabled more people to attend games and follow along from a distance. A growing middle class fostered this sporting culture, which came to include chess.
“Weekly,” Müller-Pohl explains, “the liberal and intellectual elites of the time assembled around chess boards in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Moscow, Rome, and London.” Interest in the game spread, and chess clubs emerged. As clubs arranged tournaments and standardized chess rules, Müller-Pohl argues that chess “was gradually turned into a sport.”
Correspondence chess grew along with the game, in part thanks to cheap and efficient postal services. When the telegraph emerged on the scene, the application to chess was almost immediate.
“It was telegraphy’s fathers who pulled the strings behind the first schemes for cable chess,” Müller-Pohl explains. In 1844, inventor Samuel Morse arranged chess matches on a new telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. “All of the 686 moves necessary for the seven games played were transmitted without mistake or interruption,” Müller-Pohl writes.
Not long after, in 1845, inventor Charles Wheatstone attended a demonstration in London. Chess legend Howard Staunton played against his rival George Walker over the South Western Railway line between Portsmouth and London. Müller-Pohl describes how witnesses found the match “rather tedious,” but it received a lot of press. This was partly the point—the matches demonstrated and advertised the capabilities and accuracy of the invention.
The Staunton match had another interesting aspect. Müller-Pohl points out that “the lines were still used for ordinary traffic during the games, allowing a group of chess players from Southampton to have every move telegraphed to them.” A bit like modern e-sports, spectators could observe the virtual match…
The early history of e-gaming– when telegraph cables let chess clubs stage matches across continents, linking players and spectators in a new kind of long-distance competition: “The First E-Sports? Chess by Telegraph,” from @inverting-vision.bsky.social in @jstordaily.bsky.social.
* A. A. Milne
###
As we note that what’s old is new again, we might recall that it was on this date in 1958 that Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” was released. It peaked at number two on the Hot R&B Sides chart and number eight on its pre-Billboard Hot 100 chart. Considered “the first rock & roll hit about rock & roll stardom”, it has been covered by many, many other artists and has received many, many honors and accolades, among them being ranked 33rd and 7th, respectively, on Rolling Stone’s 2021 and 2004 lists of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. It was also included as one of the 27 songs on the Voyager Golden Record (a collection of music, images, and sounds designed to serve as an introduction and record of global humanity’s achievements, innovations and culture, to alien/otherworldly inhabitants).
Apropos the piece above, it was released by Chess Records.

source
https://youtu.be/6ROwVrF0Ceg?si=mn0aUbfgzyWtINVy

#chess #ChuckBerry #culture #eGaming #electronicGaming #gaming #history #mobileGaming #music #rock #rockAndRoll #SamuelMorse #Technology #telegraph #VoyagerGoldenRecord

#chess #chuckberry #culture #egaming #electronicgaming #gaming
(Roughly) Daily @[email protected] · 2026-03-31 · 08:00 UTC

“It is impossible to win gracefully at chess. No man has yet said “Mate!” in a voice which failed to sound to his opponent bitter, boastful and malicious.”*…

… but perhaps the offense is muted if the call is remote.
Electronic gaming is huge– and growing, As Rolling Stone reports…
The gaming industry, fueled by platforms like Twitch and YouTube, has surged into a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse, projected to exceed $207 billion in 2026. These platforms do more than showcase gameplay—they cultivate vibrant, interactive communities where fans engage in real time, from live chats to virtual watch parties. Games like League of Legends, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike and Fortnite have become a cultural phenomenon, drawing in over 2.6 billion gamers globally, a number that continues to climb each year. Mobile gaming, accounting for over 60% of global gaming revenue, plays a significant role in this growth, making gaming accessible to a broader audience than ever before…
But as Danny Robb explains, using tecnology to play games remotely has a long history…
In 1897, the United States House of Representatives held a series of chess matches to find their most skilled players. The five winners were pitted against counterparts in the British House of Commons. But while the Americans sat down to play in Washington, D.C., their opponents sat in London. The players received moves by telegraph, and sent responses back over wires that crossed the Atlantic.
By this point, “cable chess” had been slowly evolving for decades. Historian Simone Müller-Pohl argues that this form of long-distance chess play offers insight into the cultural and political currents of the industrial era.
By the mid-nineteenth century, she explains, there was a growing sports culture in Europe and the US. Industrial technologies enabled more people to attend games and follow along from a distance. A growing middle class fostered this sporting culture, which came to include chess.
“Weekly,” Müller-Pohl explains, “the liberal and intellectual elites of the time assembled around chess boards in Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Moscow, Rome, and London.” Interest in the game spread, and chess clubs emerged. As clubs arranged tournaments and standardized chess rules, Müller-Pohl argues that chess “was gradually turned into a sport.”
Correspondence chess grew along with the game, in part thanks to cheap and efficient postal services. When the telegraph emerged on the scene, the application to chess was almost immediate.
“It was telegraphy’s fathers who pulled the strings behind the first schemes for cable chess,” Müller-Pohl explains. In 1844, inventor Samuel Morse arranged chess matches on a new telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. “All of the 686 moves necessary for the seven games played were transmitted without mistake or interruption,” Müller-Pohl writes.
Not long after, in 1845, inventor Charles Wheatstone attended a demonstration in London. Chess legend Howard Staunton played against his rival George Walker over the South Western Railway line between Portsmouth and London. Müller-Pohl describes how witnesses found the match “rather tedious,” but it received a lot of press. This was partly the point—the matches demonstrated and advertised the capabilities and accuracy of the invention.
The Staunton match had another interesting aspect. Müller-Pohl points out that “the lines were still used for ordinary traffic during the games, allowing a group of chess players from Southampton to have every move telegraphed to them.” A bit like modern e-sports, spectators could observe the virtual match…
The early history of e-gaming– when telegraph cables let chess clubs stage matches across continents, linking players and spectators in a new kind of long-distance competition: “The First E-Sports? Chess by Telegraph,” from @inverting-vision.bsky.social in @jstordaily.bsky.social.
* A. A. Milne
###
As we note that what’s old is new again, we might recall that it was on this date in 1958 that Chuck Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” was released. It peaked at number two on the Hot R&B Sides chart and number eight on its pre-Billboard Hot 100 chart. Considered “the first rock & roll hit about rock & roll stardom”, it has been covered by many, many other artists and has received many, many honors and accolades, among them being ranked 33rd and 7th, respectively, on Rolling Stone’s 2021 and 2004 lists of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. It was also included as one of the 27 songs on the Voyager Golden Record (a collection of music, images, and sounds designed to serve as an introduction and record of global humanity’s achievements, innovations and culture, to alien/otherworldly inhabitants).
Apropos the piece above, it was released by Chess Records.

source
https://youtu.be/6ROwVrF0Ceg?si=mn0aUbfgzyWtINVy

#chess #ChuckBerry #culture #eGaming #electronicGaming #gaming #history #mobileGaming #music #rock #rockAndRoll #SamuelMorse #Technology #telegraph #VoyagerGoldenRecord

#chess #chuckberry #culture #egaming #electronicgaming #gaming