These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Sounds right to me, Martin. Trying to go through the thread one thread-lette
at a time.
mike
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
> I think that 'backgrounding' is exactly what one does, in the sense that
> although in ones analysis one focuses on some aspect, one should always
> remain aware that although this aspect is the foreground, it always exists
> against a background which should not be discarded or ignored.
>
> Consciousness, then, is not a kind of phenomenon of which we should say
> that other phenomena are either 'in' it ('inside') or 'out' of it
> ('outside'). Consciousness is an intentional awareness: consciousness is
> always *of* something, and that something is itself always one aspect of a
> larger unity. At the same time consciousness ('mine' let me say) is itself
> always a moment in something larger; the activities and projects that on
> reflection I could also say are 'mine,' and in which my labor is divided
> with that of others, and so that define who (I say) I am.
>
> Martin
>
> On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:28 AM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andy, and Michael for the section ref to Leontiev.
> >
> > Could I repeat a second part of my question which appears to have gotten
> > lost in the multiple threads?
> >
> > Michael wrote: "you have been breaking out individual (constitutive)
> moments
> > of activity and treated them as elements, much like others take the YE
> > triangle and then break out the object, the subject, the division of
> labor,
> > the tools..."
> >
> > I asked about how one talks about how one breaks out "moments of
> activity"
> > (that is how I phrase the matter when I am thoughtful enough to do so),
> and,
> > having highlighted them, given the impression that they are
> > elements in a static sense. What sort of language does one use to be
> able,
> > for example, to talk about a particular division of labor, without at
> least
> > deep backgrounding, say, the tools being used or the web of social rules
> > that are recruited in this instance?
> >
> > Even to say that "everything is connected to everything else" implies
> some
> > notion of "things/processes" that are connected. How to avoid
> > misunderstanding and distinguish it from disagreement?
> > mike
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >
> >> If anyone is interested in exploring the German Idealists, and the roots
> of
> >> Activity Theory and Cultural Psychology in their writings, I have put
> >> together a page :
> >> http://www.marxists.org/subject/philosophy/german.htm
> >> where you can browse as you wish ...
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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