Hi all,
I never see any reference to the fact that Hegel, Marx, Leont'ev were
concerned with consciousness, and therefore that activity and its
representations are concerned with articulating aspects of
consciousness, not bodies and materials. Or rather, if we follow
Hegel, every entity in the triangle appears twice, as material or
objective relation, and in consciousness. It is the consciousness
that we are concerned with. . . When we look at a sequence of
actions, our analysis has to follow what is salient in the
consciousness of the acting subject, which may change from moment to
moment. This means, no analysis can be done that takes actions as
existing in a timeless frame such as a text exists as a whole in
journal pages.
I also would suggest that in thinking about what an activity is,
we go back to Marx and think in terms of whether and how something is
part of the division of labor that contributes to society as a whole,
in which exchange relation it stands to guarantee the satisfaction of
basic needs--through exchange of food, clothing, etc.--So I would
consider a football or soccer game as a realization of a form of
activity, which exists at the collective level, whereby players can
make a living by providing a service for which they receive a
salary. . .
To analyze the soccer/football game, we need to go to the action
and operation level (winning, shooting goals, passing, making a touch
down, running, catching, shooting) all of which occur at a level
below the object/motive, providing a show that people attend to pass
time.
I am not sure this helps this discussion, but my sense is that we
need to focus better on the different levels of the analysis, and to
be careful not to confuse action with activity, and to properly
distinguish action from operation, and to realize that at the
operational level, consciousness is not involved, as things done are
conditioned. . .
Cheers,
Michael
On 18-Oct-05, at 4:51 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
> My guess is that from YE's point of view, no point and no point-point
> relation exists without all of the others, although some can be
> highlighted
> and others backgrounded for specific purposes, so we seem to be in
> agreement
> here (?). Also, I think that when speaking of time we are speaking
> of a
> variety of
> phenomena (not sure that is the right word). So, a particular
> instance of an
> activity, say, playing a soccer game on saturday, has duration and
> "takes
> time" it is
> also true that soccer (football everywhere but the US) has a
> history, has
> changed and diverged and come to together over years and years. And
> yes,
> heterochrony
> is as essential as heterogeneity in constituting any living
> phenomenon. See
> you after dinner, bb.
> mike
>
> On 10/18/05, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ana, I totally agree about the many triangular (mediational)
>> relations. It
>> is quite possible, looking at the topology of the diragram,
>> examining what
>> connects to what, and what connects to what via what else, that
>> any one
>> element can be mediational of any other two. I do not see this point
>> described in LBE, but I cannot think of a theoretical basis for
>> saying this
>> cannot be the case. If anyone else can, I would greatly appreciate
>> your
>> sharing.
>>
>> Don, time is important in a number of ways. The elements in the
>> triangle
>> themselves often change along different timescales, as does
>> activity as a
>> whole, and also two or more systems of activity that may be of mutual
>> influence. Timescales are a way of parsing the progress of time so
>> that
>> slower processes can be theorized along with faster ones, considering
>> downward and upward causation. Lemke is the one to read here, of
>> course.
>>
>> Mike, I have to respon din the next message. Dinner is upon me.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It seems to me that there are slightly different interpretations
>>> of the
>>> triangular schema that Mike and Bill are talking about. In fact I
>>> think
>>> we all actually understand this model a bit different. For
>>> instance, I
>>> do not see it as a "triangle" -- if any figure should be
>>> mentioned, it
>>> would be a pyramid -- a three dimensional one at least, although
>>> I see
>>> many dimensions there, time being not just the fourth one but an
>>> n-th
>>>
>> one.
>>
>>> As much as it is very useful to create something visually
>>> representative, it is also possibly a limiting part of the model.
>>> Human
>>> relations are more than two dimensional and have more inter-
>>> relations
>>> that the "triangle" sort of tries to portray. I think that all
>>> the lines
>>> in this model have to be taken to represent possible relations
>>> and there
>>> are more "triangles" in there than just one or two. Maybe the
>>> best way
>>> to think about it would be that the distance between each two points
>>> must always be "mediated" by a third point! In other words, no line
>>> there is about connecting two points directly, they themselves (the
>>> lines) are an artifact of trying to represent mediation and mediated
>>> relationships.
>>> If you think like that, it stops to be a frozen system, a
>>> "snapshot" of
>>> a slice in time. It is NOT. This is not a representation, nor an
>>> image
>>> of a state of the affairs. It is just a representation of some of
>>> the
>>> possible relations that may be relevant at any point in time. But
>>> I also
>>> see many more dimensions there.
>>> Ana
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bill--
>>>>
>>>> I'll try to help, but may just cause problems.
>>>> You wrote:
>>>> 1b) The existence of these categories is timeless - the diagram
>>>> does
>>>>
>> not
>>
>>>> change over time.
>>>>
>>>> No: The existence of these categories (see learning by expanding
>>>> or the
>>>> Developmental Work Research web page) emerge in the course of human
>>>> phylogeny from the basic subject-object-
>>>> community triangle to the expanded triangle that includes
>>>> mediation by
>>>> artifacts, social rules, and division of labor. But maybe you
>>>> mean the
>>>> expanded triangel after the caves ot Lascaux era, e.g. anatomically
>>>>
>> modern
>>
>>>> homo sapiens sapiens.
>>>>
>>>> 2a) There ARE relations among these categories, dialectially.
>>>> seems so to me. They are mutually consitution of the overal
>>>> system in
>>>>
>> their
>>
>>>> dynamic tensions.
>>>> 2b) These relations are timeless.
>>>> not clear to me. The relation between artifacts and division of
>>>> labor
>>>>
>> etc in
>>
>>>> the caves of Lascaux does not seem plaubible to me. Where is the
>>>>
>> synamism
>>
>>>> that any dialectic implies, (to my very limited understanding!).
>>>> But in
>>>> saying this I am moving from the abstract to a
>>>> specific (pair?, multiplicity?) of concrete embodiments, or
>>>> rising to
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> concretes of two historical eras. .
>>>>
>>>> In 1987-87 I had many discussions wtih Yrjo about how best to
>>>> represent
>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>> fact that he is
>>>> using a universal/timeless abstraction to represent a living
>>>> system. In
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> MCA logo online we sought ways to pub the triangle into motion,
>>>> if only
>>>> around its axis, which at least represent multiplicity. Yrjo uses
>>>>
>> various
>>
>>>> time-representing abstractions, such as spiriling triangles, to
>>>> get at the time dimension. I have tried puttting an arrow
>>>> "diagonally"
>>>> through the middle of
>>>> the triangle as a third spatial dimension indicating time. None
>>>> of this
>>>>
>> is
>>
>>>> very satisfactory to
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> The individual/social relationship is another, linked, matter about
>>>>
>> which I
>>
>>>> am unclear but hope upcoming discussions will clarify.
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry, Bill, that I am neither capable, nor desirous, of
>>>> refuting
>>>>
>> you
>>
>>>> make or sustaining statements I am recalled to have made during any
>>>> convention at any year past Writing in response to your message
>>>> I can
>>>>
>> say
>>
>>>> that the triangles are abstractions in Devydov's sense and in this
>>>>
>> sense
>>
>>>> empty, awaiting embodiment in concretes to which they are
>>>> adequate. As
>>>> abstractions, they do not have time built into them. Hence they
>>>> need
>>>> supplementary forms of representation to make this essential
>>>> element
>>>> graspable and usable as a psychological tool.
>>>>
>>>> I greatly admire your tenaciousness in seeking to help us all
>>>>
>> understand
>>
>>>> what we are talking about better. I welcome the opportunity to keep
>>>>
>> returing
>>
>>>> to these issues in search of great understanding, and hopefully,
>>>>
>> greater
>>
>>>> co-understanding. Might you post the url to your dynamic
>>>> representation
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>> that those puzzled by this discussion could check it out. And
>>>> checking
>>>>
>> out
>>
>>>> the Helsinki Web site is also helpful, at least to me.
>>>> mike
>>>> On 10/17/05, bb <xmca-whoever@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Carol, for the chance to take these animations further than
>>>>>
>> just
>>
>>>>> some fleeting post to xmca.
>>>>>
>>>>> In San Diego, at aera , Mike described the extended triangle
>>>>> diagram
>>>>>
>> to me
>>
>>>>> as something intended to be timeless -- this is Mike's and Yrjo's
>>>>>
>> chance to
>>
>>>>> refute my quite possibly faulty recollection... although... I
>>>>> do agree
>>>>>
>> with
>>
>>>>> this assertion at a fundamental level. Coincidentally, I once
>>>>>
>> expressed to
>>
>>>>> Mike (aera n'orleans) that i took the extended triangle to be
>>>>>
>> content-free,
>>
>>>>> that is, one pours in the content of any particular situation,
>>>>> i.e.
>>>>> instantiates it, and the relations expressed in the diagram are
>>>>> then
>>>>>
>> are
>>
>>>>> mapped to relations among the particular instantiations.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I totally agree that what i animated is content free, unless
>>>>> you
>>>>>
>> read
>>
>>>>> some paper that instantiated it. Somewhere in MCA could be one, by
>>>>>
>> some
>>
>>>>> author, who, if stated, could be accused of self-promotion, and
>>>>> while
>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>>>> despise self promotion, I'm stuck figuring out how one can
>>>>> communicate
>>>>>
>> with
>>
>>>>> others without sharing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Onward and upward. Just what does the diagram provide, or even
>>>>> better,
>>>>>
>> add
>>
>>>>> to insight?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, by way of semantics, I'll venture the following, and
>>>>> again, MC
>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>> YE can comment, refute, add, edit, fix, extend, etc. IMHO the
>>>>> extended
>>>>> triangle, as a diagram makes the following assertions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1a) There IS a well defined subject, object, artifact, division of
>>>>>
>> labor,
>>
>>>>> etc., (because the diagram parses activity into these categories).
>>>>>
>>>>> 1b) The existence of these categories is timeless - the diagram
>>>>> does
>>>>>
>> not
>>
>>>>> change over time.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2a) There ARE relations among these categories, dialectially.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2b) These relations are timeless.
>>>>>
>>>>> All this timelessness is why I have not pursued the animated
>>>>> extended
>>>>> triangle approach, because I realized it was not a functional
>>>>>
>> approach, save
>>
>>>>> the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does the animated diagram add? I modeled the individual
>>>>> moving
>>>>>
>> from
>>
>>>>> one system to another and back *as a system*. This makes the
>>>>> assertion
>>>>>
>> that
>>
>>>>> the fundamental categories of an activity system (which Yrjo, I
>>>>>
>> understand,
>>
>>>>> takes as a collective) , and their relations, can be applied to an
>>>>> individual, at least in one case. That's the claim to be
>>>>> investigated.
>>>>>
>> I
>>
>>>>> only have partial support for it in one case. What I think the
>>>>> thing
>>>>>
>> to do
>>
>>>>> is, to proceed with this assertion as a tentative one, so to
>>>>> gather
>>>>>
>> another
>>
>>>>> case or so which will refute it, and arise with a new and more
>>>>>
>> functional
>>
>>>>> assertion.
>>>>>
>>>>> bb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike -I would disagree. As enchanting as those moving Activity
>>>>>>
>> Systems
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> were
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (bb, they really are, I loved them, and stared at them for
>>>>>> several
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> minutes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> quite mesmerized), they were still content-empty in relation
>>>>>> to any
>>>>>> particular system, and that's what I understood you, Mike, to
>>>>>> mean as
>>>>>>
>> an
>>
>>>>>> abstraction. I think at Seville people were thinking that it's
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> easy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> to draw up a simple system, as if that's an explanation. The
>>>>>>
>> explanation
>>
>>>>>> comes discursively. I am thinking particularly of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Sevillepresentation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of graffiti in East Berlin, which started off as a simple
>>>>>>
>> description,
>>
>>>>>> listing the elements and then went into sense, meaning and power.
>>>>>> So, how does moving and changing size mimic time?
>>>>>> Carol
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 5:20 PM
>>>>>> To: macdonaldc@educ.wits.ac.za; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Activity Systems and Time
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe that modern graphics program afford representation
>>>>>> both of
>>>>>> variability and time and the two
>>>>>> combined, Carol. I beieve that is what bb has been playing with.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> On 10/15/05, Carol Macdonald < macdonaldc@educ.wits.ac.za
>>>>>> <mailto:macdonaldc@educ.wits.ac.za> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike pointed out that the Activity System is an abstraction: I
>>>>>> see it
>>>>>>
>> as
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> external tool, and as it is currently drawn, it only
>>>>>> represents two
>>>>>> dimensions. Time--which can't be represented, is the fourth
>>>>>> dimension
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> as such, we could only represent it by having a continuously
>>>>>> moving
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> system,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> but this is best done discursively as the relationships are
>>>>>>
>> continuously
>>
>>>>>> changing. As Mike (1996:141) said:
>>>>>> The various components of an activity system do not exist in
>>>>>>
>> isolation
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> from
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> one another; rather, they are constantly being constructed,
>>>>>> renewed,
>>>>>>
>> and
>>
>>>>>> transformed as outcome and cause of human life.
>>>>>> It is our job to describe the construction, renewal and
>>>>>>
>> transformation
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> changed relationships: the schema per se cannot do that for us.
>>>>>> Carol Macdonald
>>>>>> Wits School of Education
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ----
>>> Ana Marjanovic-Shane
>>>
>>> 151 W. Tulpehocken St.
>>>
>>> Philadelphia, PA 19144
>>>
>>> Home office: (215) 843-2909
>>>
>>> Mobile: (267) 334-2905
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 01:00:21 PST