I am halfway home and up to my armpits in reading. I wanted to inquire about
the following statement Phil quotes from Gordon's paper.
One thing seems to be clear,
however, and that is that to represent each phase of action as either
object oriented, mediated by tools, or subject-oriented, mediated by
signs, does not do justice to the nature of collaborative joint
I thought that the entire purpose of the triangular representation of
whether from the original LSV or the Engestrom expanded triangle was to
insist on the dynamic, wholistic nature of the unit of analysis such that
would be very loath, and perhaps deny the possibility of, disentangling
(say), mediating tool and object orientation) because they are conceived
as part of a single process. What would the tool be for if not for
of object oriented action? How could the object be acted upon in the absence
a mediating tool?
What am I missing?
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:00:50 PDT