Re: Unidentified subject!
Marie Nelson (jkonopak who-is-at ou.edu)
Fri, 22 May 1998 10:09:42 -0500
Naoki Ueno wrote:
>
> At 8:55 AM 5/20/98 -0400, Bill Barowy wrote:
> >My question is, if we do not begin distinguishing artifact and subject via
> >such constructs as 'volition' and 'interaction' and 'cognition' then does
> >our basic CHAT triangle become a line simply linking 'subject-artifact' and
> >'object'?
>
> What I wrote in previous mail is adressing to cognitive pyschology,
> not to AT.
>
> 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.
>
> According to your formulation, "subject" is something that has intention,
> motivtion, memory, etc just as human. "Tool" is something tool like that
> does not have intention, motivation, intelligence.. etc.
> That is cognitive pyschology rather than activity theory.
>
> In this case, we need to make the clear boundary between cognitive
> pyschology and activity theory in order to avoid confusion.
>
> At least I have never seen your way of the term 'volition' use in AT.
>
> Naoki Ueno
> NIER, Tokyo
Hi...My question is basically in parenthesis/brackets
{Subject/object/tool... interpretant/representamen/sign?
Has somebody or other previously mentioned that the view/theory about
which Naoki has been discoursing seems to map pretty well--the concept
of "fit" has been mentioned?--onto Peircean semiotics?
Or doesn't it? Are both cognitivist and activitist psychologies modeled
on triadic/dialectical/logic? Does THAT matter? Does thinking so assist
or impede understanding of the issues?
I'm just trying to find another handle.
Is an understanding informed by Peircean semiotics useful as a
contributory or complementary avenue into understanding--as Wittgenstein
(_Phil. Inv._?) says, 'the task of philosophy is to assemble an account
of things before action is undertaken' (paraphrase)--the distinctions
trying to get constructed here?
(if that's what is going on, and I'm not sure about that)}
if the issue is trivial, I'll take the news off-list at jkonopak who-is-at ou.edu
Enjoy Memorial Day--but DO remember, please!
konopak