Victor,
Just as reading your message Ricardo's arrived and I think he is making the
basic point that I would make. The distinction being one of the level about
which we are talking. For example, you continue to talk about "human
activities" which surreptitiously slips the notion of individual back into
the idea of activity. This confusion is continuous, I think, until one
begins to see that (in this theoretical framework) activity is a property of
a social group. Actions are the behavior of individuals within the group.
If you look at the exchange between Arne Raithel and David Ackerman that
Nate pulled out of the XACT archive, you'll see that the notion "action" is
very problematic precisely because it is so varied. Arne Raithel's
conclusion is that "action" does not constitute an appropriate unit of
analysis for psychology. It is derivative to activity and in this sense the
action of an animal in a herd is not really similar at all to the actions of
a human individual. So in this sense you are right: action is individual
and social at the same time. The key being that action is not a stable
framework for analysis in itself.
I think that this can be visualized in terms of the clouds of electrons
around an atom's nucleus (at least as I've come to understand it not being a
physicist myself). Physicist's can very well and easily identify different
shells of orbits for the electrons but cannot identify the precise velocity
and location of an individual electron within the orbit. This means that
they could not construct a description of the shells out of a description of
the movement (position/velocity) of the individual electrons. That movement
(action) is in fact an abstraction that can only be inferred because of the
existence of the shells.
Not to extend the metaphor too far, but one can also use this visualization
to describe development, given that each shell will also only accomodate a
only a fixed number of electrons. The relationship between encompassing
shells is one of quanta; discontinuous energy levels; no gradual addition of
additional electrons. When one level is full, the additional electron(s)
must find their place in an entire new level of orbits, the "space" between
the levels understood in terms of "quantum leaps."
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Victor Kaptelinin <vklinin@informatik.umu.se>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Individual activity?
> Paul,
>
> I am a bit puzzled with your answers to Charles. Could you please help me
> clarify one thing?
>
> >Given that the subject is transitional, it still begins as an
individual,
> >so at the time of the first individual changing his/her object, isn't
> >there then an individual activity?
> >
> > Answer 1. No because all activity is social which is what
> >distinguishes it >from the actions of the individual antelope or zebra
> >or other such animal that, being a member of a herd/community (origin
> >of Gattungwesen??), does not act through the mediation of tools. All
> >tool use is learned hence all activity, involving tools, is
essentially
> >social
>
> It apears you (and Yrjo) claim that human activities are not individual
> because they are always social. However, human actions and operations are
> social, too. It surely means they are not individual, either, right?
>
> Then where does the distinction between collective activities and
> individual actions come from? ("We may well speak of the activity of the
> individual, but never of individual activity; only actions are
> individual.")
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best wishes,
> Victor
>
> PS I have just joined the discussion and have not traced it to the
> beginning yet, so if this issue has already been resolved, well, I am
> sorry...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:47 PDT