Schroedinger's mind: bridge between practice and activity theory?

Edouard Lagache (elagache who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Wed, 16 Jul 97 10:28:22 -0700

Hello everyone,

Thank you Jay for noting the different trajectories that we can take =
at the problem of "mind." However, after writing my message, I =
became unhappy with out different it seemed from the thread of =
conversation. For many years now I have noticed a radically =
different "mindset"/habitus of those who cast the world in social =
practice terms than those nurtured in the activity theory camp. My =
hopes for reconciliation have been dashed by my own failure to "get =
it" - to cast the social practice view in a suitable activity theory =
description.

This morning I came up with an analogy that perhaps will help =
understanding in the other direction: illustrating what social =
practice theory captures that goes beyond activity theory. Most of =
us are familiar the Schroedinger's cat: a cat is placed in a box with =
a poison mechanism attached to a quantum mechanical phenomenon - like =
the decay of a radioactive isotope. The question is who killed the =
cat? There is no easy answer, since the culprit (the isotope decay) =
is a random event that has no other causality.

I would like to borrow Schoedinger's box and add to it Sartre's tree =
in the distance forest. Suppose we take a mind, place it in a box =
with all provisions for life support, and allow the input of the full =
spectrum of all communication technologies - but cut it off from =
*ALL* output of any kind. My question isn't who killed the cat - it =
is when does the mind die? Suppose the person in the capsule dies 20 =
years after it was sealed - how would be know it?

My point is this, inside the capsule the mind would have access to =
all the affordances, all the knowledge known to humans. The person =
inside the capsule could continue to create meanings, solve problems, =
have emotions, and so on. All the phenomenon that activity theory =
describes could occur inside the capsule. One could go as far as to =
reconstruct human interactions. We could place a group of minds =
inside the capsule - allowing that activity system the full range of =
social interactions. Yet all that activity would be like the tree in =
the distant forest - it would not make a sound outside the capsule. =