"O" is for Obfuscation

Bill Barowy (wbarowy who-is-at lesley.edu)
Wed, 20 May 1998 23:25:15 -0400

At 10:15 PM +0200 5/20/98, Eva Ekeblad wrote:
>At 01.15 +0900 98-05-21, Naoki Ueno wrote:
>>According to my understanding, in activity theory,
>>subject, object, and tool are not the fixted lavels or categories for
>>something that has some specific attributes.
>>Depending on situation, depending on perspective or a way of
>>participation, what is subject, object, or tool is different and
>>changing, and reorganizing.
>>
>>Further, the meaning of motive in AT is quite different from motivation,
>>intention and something like in traditional psychology.
>
>These are my understandings, too -- although as understandings they are in
>all likelihood of a much more recent date than Naoki Ueno's.
>

It is still confusing. Perhaps playing a little cartesian game we can
elicit a little better what Object is, by determining what it is not. To
one who has been enculturated as an experimental physicist, I find the
shifts in meaning quite confusing. In atomic physics, we cannot get away
with calling an 'electron' a 'proton'. We can at times describe the
electron as propagating like a wave and interacting like a particle, but we
recognize that this is a fundamental weakness in physical theory, in our
understanding.

Currently as an educational theory bricoleur, interested in application of
whatever theory, whereever applicable, it looks like CHAT will have to wait
to enter my tool collection. Perhaps it is just too soon. In any case,
any offerings of clarity will have to wait to be received until after a
long weekend of meditation!

Thanks!

Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Technology in Education
Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]