First, I really appreciate what Steve wrote. I am in violent agreement.
Mike wrote:
>
> 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.
Oh, yes, of course, and thank you for clarifying. It's this medium and the nature of the questions we're asking, where volumes need to be written for each point, that so much is understated and misrepresented. LBE describes the historical evolution of activity, and "timeless" really needs to be thought of after the beginnings of specializations and divisions of labor, etc. are established.
Oh, and I'm sorry for mentioning a sentence between us, Mike, during the aera short course -- being relatively isolated from active colleagues, conversations really stick when i can get them.
I know of at least one person who has (mis)presented at aera and stated activity theory does not deal with time, and this is flatly and clearly wrong. I hope this thread of conversation clarifies the semantics around the extended triangle diagram, which being an abstraction, has time implicit in its form, and, nevertheless, time is understood in yrjo's formulation of the theory.
My play with animating the diagram for a person engaging in expansive activity in one system, then moving to another and engaging again, is in the URL below. The shrinking of the two triangles after the "person" leaves is a necessary artifice to make expansion possible in the next cycle without the diagram growing beyond the bounds of the computer screen and it is not intended to map anything.
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Crossing.gif
> 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.
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
