The conversation is getting especially rich as I am preparing for a
conference, so this posting will be less considered than I would wish,
but I want to get some purchase on the gist of the 'next generation of
AT' as hinted at here.


First, Paul D. clarified, through Lukacs, the notion of "objective value"
vis a vis individuals & their intentions. This, I think, no one would
argue with:



Lukacs:

>"The dialectical reciprocity between the individual, the subject of 
the

>alternative, and the general, the socially lawlike, creates a more
manifold

>and variegated series of phenomena, precisely because the social essence
can

>only reveal its appearance via the medium of ultimately individualized

>man."


But I am myself still resisting this:


The >point is to understand the totality, which is in fact expressed in
every

>moment (particular) but most clearly in some (eg. production) which
therefor

>has ontological primacy for understanding the whole and thereby every

>particular as well.


because I am intrigued by what we can learn from, in Paul P's words:


>>>>

the operations (with, I'll say, affordances

and embedded unconscious subjectivity).

<<<<<<<<


I agree with Paul P. that motives are also embedded in social relations,
and I think we need better terms to think this through. Paul D. -- I
think -- would say, if he admits there to be social motives, that they
derive value from relations of production -- i.e., such relations have
"onontological primacy for understanding social-historical phenomena."
I'm not convinced...


On the other hand, I am vague about Paul P's "Activity 1" -- Paul, would
you say that Jim Gee's "big 'D' Discourse" corresponds to Activity 2? &
if so, what would be the discursive entity corresponding to Activity 1?
Or am I barking up a catless tree?


I'm also wondering, Paul P., in your description of Activity 2, how you
understand the relation between multiple motives and "social relations"
-- I assume you are saying that motives are (also) embedded in social
relations; can labor also be, in your understanding, a site of multiple
motives, as Helena proposed? 


And when you say that learning happens in Activity 1, do you mean that
what we think of as learning at lower levels doesn't count unless some
change happens in Activity 1?


comments off the cuff,

Judy, returning to the business at hand