What I wrote in previous mail is adressing to cognitive pyschology,
not to AT.
According to my understanding, in activity theory,
subject, object, and tool are not the fixted lavels or categories for
something that has some specific attributes.
Depending on situation, depending on perspective or a way of
participation, what is subject, object, or tool is different and
changing, and reorganizing.
Further, the meaning of motive in AT is quite different from motivation,
intention and something like in traditional psychology.
According to your formulation, "subject" is something that has intention,
motivtion, memory, etc just as human. "Tool" is something tool like that
does not have intention, motivation, intelligence.. etc.
That is cognitive pyschology rather than activity theory.
In this case, we need to make the clear boundary between cognitive
pyschology and activity theory in order to avoid confusion.
At least I have never seen your way of the term 'volition' use in AT.
Naoki Ueno
NIER, Tokyo