These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Andy Blunden wrote:
Yes, that's exactly it, Monica. I didn't realise you weren't a native speaker.Just a warning/qualification on what I have said. I am not claiming that the concepts of Activity and Discourse ought to be identified; clearly they indicate different traditions of scientific analysis which pick out different objects from the flow of human life. I think I am suggesting though that both sciences ought to expand their self-concept so as to assimilate the gains of the other, creating a single, nuanced concept of Discursive Activity. This of course has nothing to do with assimilating practical actions with word meaning. But the distinction between practical intelligence and verbal thinking/action is developmentally overcome, ontologically, but also historically, I think.Andy
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca