First I confess my limits in discussion.
David , Excuse me for intrusion. I really have questions to ask Andy to be understood.
Andy--to your saying "but precisely because it is a whole despite being not made up of anything other than the parts."
What is the difference between 'moment' and 'part' 'component'. And what is the realm of each?
You have not discriminated between wholes generally ; I'd like to ask if 'finites' are parts of the 'infinite' .
Does 'determinate being' enter the realm of 'actuality' ? If yes , who affirms who rejects? In what way? If yes , is the 'actuality' a whole? Do we have hierarchies of actual wholes ? In what way do they interact? How do we determine thought from action , actuality from corpus?
Which of the two does Lenin affirm , determinate being as empty or Being as empty? Nothing is actual? Is Spinoza for Being as empty or Hegel?
Please don't think I'm muddying anything , No! I was dragged to this point. I do want to get cleared.
Is this a good definition for matter ? General Monistic substance which gives birth to the whole Universe. Does such Universe accept partioning? If yes , is Hegel for it or against it? What about Marx? 'Notion' comes everywhere in Hegel . Is it a neglect of translation for 'concept' or what Hegel really means is just Notion? Is Notion 'matter' for Hegel?
I sincerely hope I will not receive the type of response one of our dearest friends received .
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Andy Blunden <email@example.com>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2017, 8:53:44
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Vygotsky,Marx, & summer reading
I think it's more a case that the Kellogg Test#c fails the
Activity Theory test, just as the Kellogg Test#a fails
The whole is greater than the part (if it is a genuine
whole) not because there are some additional parts you
forgot to add up but precisely because it is a whole despite
being not made up of anything other than the parts.
I am reminded of A N Leontyev's "accusation" that taking
/perezhivniya /a units of personality set up a logical
circle: "... / perezhivanie/, as the specific form through
which the whole personality manifests itself, now occupies
the place that formerly belonged to the whole personality of
the child,” that is, determining the child’s
/ perezhivanie/“... a logical vicious circle." Leontyev
seems to think that teh only genuine form of science is
On 22/08/2017 11:48 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
What other than commodities are the units of capital
composed of? That's easy. Commodities are human relations
in a congealed form. Ergo, units of capital are made of
human relations in an uncongealed form. You are not a
fetishist, are you?
My point about actions and activities was precisely that
activities are NOT made up of anything more than actions;
that's why activity fails the third test.
I think that Engestrom tries to show some of the abstract
rules, the community relations and the division of labor
that subtends all this activity, but the distinctions
between (e.g.) rules and division of labor, or division of
labor and community, are not too clear. As you say,
blurring is a problem, if our goal is analysis, and an
analysis that shows the heterogeneity (the
distinctiveness) of parts.
Recent Article: Vygotsky, Halliday, and Hasan: Towards
Free E-print Downloadable at:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:37 AM, Andy Blunden
<email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
Wow! That's a radical claim, David! What other things
(or events) are activities composed of??
And while you're at it, what other than commodities
are units of capital composed of?
On 22/08/2017 6:21 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
Yes, the idea that activity is made up of actions,
and that if we take away
actions from activity nothing remains (Leontiev).
To me, this is an
admission that the whole is merely a sum of parts.
thought experiment of structuring a game in such a
way that we take away
all the roles and we see that abstract rules
remain (Chapter Seven in* "Mind