[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xmca] Concept of Activity
The other post on summarizing the ZPD is fascinating as it contrasts
different notions of "essence". Your article in Outlines states that no
writer in the CHAT tradition has broached the issue of substance [p. 5] as
foundational or fundamental entities of reality. You also cite Leontyev to
point out the expression 'objectless activity' is devoid of any meaning and
therefore activity is ALWAYS a cultural and historical process of
mediation. You also mention that activity is a SPECIAL CASE of the more
general category of natural OBJECT -ORIENTED processes of
organisms. "human" activity expresses "human" cultural needs, not
biological wants. I hope I've read your points accurately.
Andy, what is your thoughts on "embodied" notions of enactment. This
tradition talks about DIRECT "on-line" pre-conceptual pre-linquistic
expressions of INTENTIONALITY without understanding [as interpretive].
Where do the concepts of "embodied mind" as PERCEPTUALLY based sensory-motor
directedness, fit within activity theory notions of wants and needs? This
seems to be a question which points to alternative notions of substance or
essence? Is it just a cultural language game or is there a biological
component of wants involved. Or is it another special case of
object-oriented activity that is perceptual but not activity as you define
I hope this question is clear ?
xmca mailing list