Kevin,
I'd guess more "rule based" than "ethical" if I only have two choices,
but I'm thinking of "principle" more in the sense of a guiding set of
values....more like a "vision" in the business jargon.
It reminded me of the concept of a "self-organizing" system, and some
of the explanations Jay Lemke gave a few years back. That sort of
emergent "sense" of being that both arises when activities move
toward ...shall we say an object?....and (re)creates its own sense of
self as a result of that process. The developmental, constructive
nature of the object is an important characteristic, as is the multi-
faceted, even contradictory, range of perspectives that might be held
by members of the activity system.
dale
> Dear Mike, Dale et al,
>
> First I likely need to purge myself of other connotations and
> denotations of "objects" that have gained ascendance with regard to
> computer programming, e.g., object-oriented programming, which,
> nonetheless may have some instructive insights. Here is a site with
> some basics:
>
> http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/concepts/
>
> Just quickly, in this view "objects" have states (variables) and
> behaviors (methods) and a class is the general form of an object
(e.g.,
> "bicycle" as a general category) while an "instance" is a specific
> instance of the object (e.g., my bicycle which is red, 10 gear, etc).
>
> So, what comes to mind is Vygotsky's view of words as general
categories
> and the mediation of meaning (or "instances" if you will) in
situated
> contexts (or some linguists might say in "speech acts"). I'm
muddling
> around a bit with this view of objects vis a vis activity theory.
>
> But, back to the text. While I was also attracted to the phrase
Dale
> highlighted: "a complex, multifaceted, ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE OF AN
> ACTIVITY that evolves over time." I'm not sure it does the trick for
me.
> In particular, is it really an organizing "principle"? And is it
really
> "unitary"? This attractive phrasing seems to try to resolve the
tension
> by allowing for complexity and multifactedness but then taming these
as
> adjectives to a unitary "organizing principle" What I do
appreciate, of
> course, is the notion of it changing over time, the acknowledgement
of a
> developmental stance.
>
> I tend to think of messiness and of multiple participants having and
> negotiating multiple "objects" within an activity system (in the
sense
> that they objectify the activity itself from their own vantage
point,
> the sense they make of it, and they have their own objectives and
> purposes for participation, which in turn shape the activity and
affect
> their own and everyone else's objectification).
>
> So in what sense is it a "principle" which I think of more as an
ethical
> choice or rule-based?
>
> In Peace,
> K.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT