Very helpful comments, Dale. At least to me.
First, I agree that Could we say that ANY activity
system will always develop an object with both aspects?
I think this is almost an axiom of the theory, a sort of translation
of means and relations of production, a necessary double articulation/
mediation.
Adding the individual, i am intuiting, is to adopt a different analytic
perspective. Maybe its akin to Don Norman's "system" and "individual"
perspective which Yrjo discusses in his article, "When is a tool."
The double articulation version is sort of a psychological, or ego
perspective by this way of thinking.
An aspect of the article that is difficult for me to judge, because I
was a member of one of the organizations that participated (the international
part of the Vega international lab was LCHC) is how clearly the
international and inter-ethnic aspects of the project come through to the
reader. After all, you have an American organization, Carngegie, giving
money to a Soviet-then-Russian organization headed by a Russian who controls
the computer network through which many Rossian ethnic minorities are
interacting.
Which raises the interesting question also raised by Yrjo in his When is a
Tool article: the way in which tools shape and are shaped by objects. A
central enabling tool, which, according to the quotation from a Carnegie
representative was one of their objects. But does that come through
clearly?
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT