> Hi all,
> I never see any reference to the fact that Hegel, Marx, Leont'ev were
> concerned with consciousness,
Actually, Michael, I made reference to this in a response to Ana about play, perhaps a week or two ago.
bb
> 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
_______________________________________________
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