> ... Unlike Olav, I don't think that Yrjo and Ritva
>argue that a discrepancy in the visions of the object of the activity by
>different participants (e.g., patent and doctor) of the activity system
>(e.g., health care system) leads or indicates a serious problem in this
>system.
This may be a result of my poor english-ablilities.
I don't think I was writing anything about different visions. What I was
questioning was the idea that all development is rooted in some kind of
mismatch/discrepancy/disturbance. The problem I see is that understanding
development as "the result" of a "problem" i too limited. I mentioned that
understanding art as the answer to a "problem" will not help us understand
what art really is about or what the "origin" af a specific peice of art
is.
Likewise, with respect to design (of new technology, new organisations, new
houses, new ...). Understanding and supporting (e.g. by providing tools)
design or innovation may require a basic understanding of the emergence of
"the new" that goes beyond identification of disturbancies or unsatisfied
needs.
Wartofskys concept of teritary artefacts is the best materialist based
account to this problem I have seen until now.
/olav