Re: Why bother with "being" ? (Re: missing??)
Mike Cole (mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu)
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 15:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
Edouard-- That was all very interesting. But would you characterize for
me what you take to be the "activity theory position" and relate it to
your argument in the notes? Are you saying that for activity theory,
knowledge is an ontological primitive in a cartesian paradigm? I am just
not getting what it is you are saying activity theory is saying. I have
in mind her writers like Leontiev, Rubenshtein, Engestrom, Davydov, and
the American interpreters.
mike