[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder

[Andy Blunden]

Huw, I simply cannot respond to your challenge within the medium of  a 
listserv. Your scepticism is justified but all I can do is pique your 
interest.
But let me make this one point. It is a maxim widely agreed in CHAT, 
that in order to understand something you must understand its 
coming-into-being, or in Goethe's words: "Science is the history of 
science." A social theory which tells you how things work until they 
don't work any more, is as useful as Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. Some 
descriptive use, but does not give you the kind of insight which the 
Theory of Evolution gives.
Expounding the "project regularities" asks for a protracted exposition. Try
https://www.academia.edu/2365533/Collaborative_Project_as_a_Concept_for_Interdisciplinary_Human_Science_Research

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Huw Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> On 23 September 2014 01:31, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net 
> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     Exactly, Huw. But I am interested in the change!
>     You expressed that change on the passive voice. But it was an
>     active struggle to change that concept. It's object was a concept
>     which was *contrary* to conventional wisdom. ANL's AT is ok before
>     and after a revolution but fails to understand the overthrow of
>     the former and its replacement by another.
>
>
> Ok, good, so there's no contradiction.  With respect to change, AT is 
> not imputing any generalisation of the specific local object.  For the 
> actor, the object ceases to be the object when it is recognised as 
> being inadequate or harmful.
>
> From the AT perspective we have numerous activities coming together 
> around various collective enterprises, many of which may have 
> "asbestos" as their object or concern, but have rather different 
> objects of activity.  Even for those with an ostensibly comparable 
> object, the object comes into existence and is rejected at different 
> times.  Hence overthrow or other forms of change are manifest in the 
> changing localised needs.
>
> So this still doesn't address why this a "grave defect in Leontyev's 
> version of AT, which prevents it from ever being taken seriously as a 
> social theory".
>
> I suspect what you need to address are these "project" level 
> regularities and how they extend or disagree with AT and provide 
> better explanatory power.  In what I read, you don't do that... the 
> only clue I have presently is that you may be imputing "project" level 
> object to localised activities.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>