[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities

[Huw Lloyd]

On 12 August 2013 16:09, <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Huw,
> Pardon my ignorance on this issue (I can assure you this is more than just
> pretense!), but if conversation is activity, what is the object of this
> activity?
>

It is your purpose(s) in conversing.

Simple, eh?

Best,
Huw


> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 11, 2013, at 7:28 AM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > FYI, Greg.
> >
> > Activity is defined by its object.  See p. 363 in The Development of Mind
> > (Problems of Dev.)
> >
> > Huw
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 August 2013 04:24, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Greg Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andy, I think I need still more help.
> >>>
> >>> I got lost at, well, "an activity (generally) exists". Wondering what
> >>> this could mean.
> >>
> >>   xmca didn't exist when Mike Cole launched it. But for the many
> >>   thousands who have joined it since, it *existed*. Thus is
> >>   "generally" exists. On the whole, we *join* rather than create
> >>   activities (projects).
> >>
> >>
> >> Then the middle part seems to make some sense for me: activities don't
> >>> simply and reasonably follow the intentions of their participants, but
> then
> >>> lost you again at the end, with "the outcome in '*immanent* in the
> project
> >>> itself". Not sure what exactly that means either.
> >>
> >>   As Vygotsky says somewhere, the problem which stimulates the
> >>   activity (the development of the concept) cannot in itself account
> >>   for the project (or concept). The *means* utilised, which
> >>   corresponds to how the problem or task is conceived by the agents,
> >>   is what is crucial. I.e., not the problem or task as such, but the
> >>   conception of the task, constitutes the ideal. But what this ideal
> >>   is, is *only realised by the work of the project itself*.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> And as a bigger question, I am trying to figure out "where" the
> activity
> >>> exists? And "who" is a part of it?
> >>
> >>   OK, but just don't expect to find an abstract empirical (logical
> >>   positivist) answer to that. An activity (or project) is an aggregate
> >>   of *actions* not *people*. These actions are the fundamental (micro)
> >>   unit of an activity, which is a molar unit of human life as a whole.
> >>   So an activity exists in its artefact-mediated actions, not a group
> >>   of people.
> >>
> >>
> >>  For example, with XMCA, is each thread or discussion an activity? What
> >>> about all the intersections and overlaps with previous and soon-to-be
> >>> discussions? Or is the whole history of XMCA an activity?
> >>> And as to "who", is it just the people talking (i.e. writing!), or are
> >>> the "lurkers" part of the activity? And are non-XMCA folks with whom
> the
> >>> writers and lurkers speak, and who have significantly influenced the
> >>> writers' ideas - are they a part of the activity?
> >>
> >>   (1) Like all the concepts which are part of a science, projects are
> >>   *nested*. An aggregate of actions may have ideal or object which
> >>   makes sense only as part of one or more larger projects. All the
> >>   concepts of a science obviously have complex interactions and
> >>   interdependncies. No clear boundaries or lines of demarcation. Their
> >>   truth is part of the *whole*. (2) The question of "who" is part of
> >>   it  is the wrong question. An activity is an aggregate of actions,
> >>   not individual persons. Also, a project is the particular of a
> >>   concept. As a particular, the project has a relatively definite
> >>   location in time and space. But it is an instance realising a
> >>   concept which is a unit of an entire social formation. So the scope
> >>   of a project, being part of a family of such projects, may be larger
> >>   than the immediate participating actions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> In short, what are the bounds of an activity?
> >>> (oh, and where does a "project" fit into all of this?)
> >>
> >>   Boundary questions are the royal road to confusion. The question is
> >>   what is the concept (or in common parlance the "essence") of a
> project.
> >>   "A project" is just another word for "an activity." But it has its
> >>   own history and connotations in our culture. (BTW "project" and
> >>   "design" are the same word in Russian: "proyekt" and the etymology
> >>   of "de-sign" is interesting too) and also, by using a different word
> >>   I can get away from the orthodoxy of what ANL or someone else says
> >>   is the case for "an activity." So if I say that the object of a
> >>   project is immanent within the project, I am not directly
> >>   contradicting an Activity Theorist for whom the Object or motive is
> >>   given for the Activity. I want to re-discuss all the concepts of
> >>   Activity Theory without being stumped by orthodoxy, so a new word
> helps.
> >>
> >>   Andy
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>