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

[Xmca-l] Re: 3rd generation activity theory



Mark,
I may be going way off course in my stream of thought creating an ox-bow formation that is irrelevant in this stream of your reflections and questions. If so just ignore my think-aloud.

In recent posts if you were listening in to Rien Raud’s exploration of *ity* your theme can be seen to circulate between specific/ity and general/ity in the dynamics of creating objective/ity.

To construct the (object) of activity are you creating objectives?  Are these objectives developing THROUGH the process of objective/ity?
You want to show or demonstrate that there are a number (count *them*) of activity systems at work. 
 
Content pushes dialogue & dialogue pushes content?

  Is there also *pulling* dynamics *drawing* us to become absorbed or enter into a number of *systems*.

My question hinges on the 
* permeability* of each of these (systems) that are demarcating the topography or structure of each (specific) system. What we (place) inside a particular system that occurs with systematic/ity *in order to* make sense of  the many activity systems that are creating (producing, constructing) the *object* as our objective. The objects particular *objective/ity* that develops within this dynamic process.
I will pause here and leave my stream of thought as an ox-bow phenomena cut off from the source of this flow of dialogue and joint participation.
The exploration of the relation of (objects) and objectives  and (objective/ity) 
THROUGH a number of permeable demarcations.







Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Mark de Boer