Bill writes:
Nevertheless, the point about activity theory accounting for *surprises*,
not necessarily how they are taken up, or ignored and buried as
contradictions, but how the surprises and accidents emerge in the first
place, is a good question. Where in a tension are the seeds for innovation?
It seems to me that issues of coordination/discoordination are relevant here.
There is an inevitable minimal level of discoordination among people engaged
in joint, mediated, activity. That discoordination is constiutive of
consciousness, which (see leslie white in this regard too!) provides us the
illusion of continuity of past/present/future. When that illusion is
disrupted, we feel it and take note. Perhaps we experience a transition between
behaving at the operational level to the level of actions. This disturbance
seems to be the opening for creativity and the re-mediation of our actions
in activity.
(tis said, verily, and is as understandable to me as if the Bard herself
had written it, forsooth!)
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:14 PDT