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

[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities

I think I need still more help.

I got lost at, well, "an activity (generally) exists".
Wondering what this could mean.

Then the middle part seems to make some sense for me: activities don't
simply and reasonably follow the intentions of their participants, but then
lost you again at the end, with "the outcome in '*immanent* in the project
itself". Not sure what exactly that means either.

And as a bigger question, I am trying to figure out "where" the activity
exists? And "who" is a part of it?

For example, with XMCA, is each thread or discussion an activity? What
about all the intersections and overlaps with previous and soon-to-be
discussions? Or is the whole history of XMCA an activity?
And as to "who", is it just the people talking (i.e. writing!), or are the
"lurkers" part of the activity? And are non-XMCA folks with whom the
writers and lurkers speak, and who have significantly influenced the
writers' ideas - are they a part of the activity?

In short, what are the bounds of an activity?
(oh, and where does a "project" fit into all of this?)

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Greg, as Marx said: "Communism is the riddle of history solved," (1844).
> http://www.marxists.org/**archive/marx/works/1844/**
> manuscripts/comm.htm#44CC4<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm#44CC4>
> This discussion is an example. We each enter this discussion for different
> reasons (maybe not the same reason Mike created it for), maybe to find the
> answer to some question, but as we participate, the object of our activity
> broadens and deepens, and we find ourselves pursuing different questions.
> And xcma develops "according to its own logic" as they say.
> An activity (generally) exists. Individuals join it (with their own
> motives). The object of the activity develops as people join it,
> participate in it, and find disappointment or enlightenment, etc., in so
> doing and modify the activity accordingly. A number of people joined the
> Bolshevik Party in 1903 with the aim of Socialism, but it didn't turn out
> like that despite their intentions and personal motives, but maybe the
> outcome (Stalin, USSR, Comintern, etc.) was there in the way they set about
> fighting for "socialism"? City planners see certain problems in the city's
> operations and instead of building public transport, they build freeways
> for cars. 100 years later (as Jane Jacobs showed) the problems are even
> worse, and they haver a different kind of city. Things don't always work
> out, but the outcome is *immanent* in the project itself, and is only
> realised in the outcome. A group of workers get the union in to solve
> oppressive problems at work. After years of fighting, they are all worn
> out, disillusioned and most of them fired. But the workplace is unionised
> and the next generation of workers enjoy the benefits.
> Andy
> http://www.academia.edu/**2947516/The_Fine_Granules_of_**Historys_Sediment<http://www.academia.edu/2947516/The_Fine_Granules_of_Historys_Sediment>
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com wrote:
>> Andy, could you give an example of what you mean when you say that the
>> object is immanent in activity?
>> -Greg

Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602