[xmca] Re: prolepsis

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at gmail.com>
Date: Mon Apr 30 2007 - 10:35:31 PDT

Hi Armando. I will cc to xmca because the issue is important. I am pretty
sure that
Leontiev adopts a view similar to that stated by Dewey, but cannot put my
hand on the quote. That is, there is a double movement/moment with respect
to the object/objective of activity, but cannot put my hands on the place in
Leontiev. I am hoping that Reijo
will help, or Yrjo, but everyone seems pretty busy.

On 4/30/07, Armando Perez Yera <armandop@sociales.uclv.edu.cu> wrote:
> Mike:
> I always establish a difrference between real object and ideal object. It
> is very interesting the idea of Dewey but not only in the sense of
> anticipation. The past and the present of the research is always include in
> the ideal object of research. And also the theoretical and epistemological
> context. The object of activity for Leontiev is a real object? In my
> appreciation it is. That's why I dont agree absolutely with Leontiev. The
> object of activity it is defined from the subject of actibivy. What do you
> thing?
> Armando
> Excuse me for write from another e mail
> __________________________________________________________________
> Servicio de Correos del Grupo de Redes. UCLV
> Participe en Universidad 2008 del 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
> Palacio de Convenciones. La Habana. Cuba. http: //www.universidad2008.cu
xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Apr 30 11:37 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 21 2008 - 16:41:48 PDT