These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Andy, I am not arguing for Kenichi's approach as being more coherent or
"true". I merely wanted to point out that we can all refute the ontology of
the isolated individual and agree on the ontology of the "living world" BUT
there is still room to explore notions such as Kimura's notion of
"betweeness" which may contrast with Leontiev's Activity theory. The
question I would propose is, What KIND of personality or disposition or
character is formed within these contrasting perspectives when viewed as a
sequence of activities forming personality and dispositions?
Larry--