These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
Hi Andy - and here I was wondering why operation/action/activity were
not prominent in Manfred's article. Where does he lay out the views in
this note? Am I reading too superficially as usual? Seems important
for me to get clear about!
Mike
On Thursday, March 21, 2013, Andy Blunden wrote:
Think of your illustration,Martin, about whether, in opening the
window, you were acting as a technician or moral leader. I.e., the
meaning of the action lies in the activity of which it is a part,
which is not immediately given. Manfred does not refer this to
"intention" or "belief". Manfred is quite specific that the
signalising and self-perception of an action in relation to an
activity - i.e., an action's being of this and not that activity -
is a function played by emotion. Concepts like internal state and
intention are derivative from operation/action/activity, not
fundamental.
Andy