You wrote:
As I've argued here and elsewhere, Lave and Wenger made a drastic step
away from any conception of activity theory. They do this by not simply
burring the line between knowledge and environment, the burr the line
between subject/object. Knowledge stops being a phenomenologial
primitive. Instead it is purely the creation of a particular sort of
practice (intellectual practice.) Without knowledge, transfer becomes a
mute point.
-------
These comments perplex me.
Are there people pushing activity theory on this list who
do not blur the line between knowledge and environnment? Between
subject and object? Knowledge is created in practices (which
you divide into intellectual and non-intellectual) you say. But
then you say, Without knowledge, transfer becomes a moot point.
Redefining what counts as knowledge and the processes of its
embodiment/origins/etc is now the same as saying that there
is no such thing as knowledge so transfer becomes a moot point,
is it?
Confused in southern california
mike
--------