These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,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.
It might be interesting to remember that in his Problems book, Leontiev has two systems, really. One is a truncated system (activity and operations but no action level) and a full blown system (in which actions and goals emerge -- and mind!). Maybe the truncated system motives are substantially centrally different types? Not so specifically human/societal/cultural, etc...? ________________________________ From: Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> To: ablunden@mira.net; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 10:24 AM Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities On 10 August 2013 15:12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Well Huw, I didn't mean to introduce a diversion by taking computers as an > example. I could have taken a stone tool just as well. > Yes. > It seems, Huw, that in responding to my challenge you have made a start at > developing a theory of human needs. 'fraid not. Simply asking the question. > Viz., that there are certain "vital" needs, and all other "needs" are > merely means to meet these vital needs. I don't imagine that I am going to > be able to refute the claims for a theory of human needs in a single > message, it is after simply the claim for the existence of human nature - a > concept with a very long history! (Aristotle built his theory of biology on > the basis of a theory of needs.) But "vital" human needs are very elastic > and other than in very general terms are quite indefinable. But as we > change our world, what you need to live in that world are very real and > very specific, and those needs arise directly out of participation in that > life-world. Which of the thousand different ways that there are to meet the > "vital" need of, say, nutrition, becomes a real need for a person, is > determined by the cultural context of a person's life and their activity. > > But these "real needs" are known needs. Which Leontyev calls motives, does he not? > So I prefer Activity Theory, in which needs are the product of activity, > while, as conceived in any given activity, they provide the motive for that > activity. So it seems that we do not know whether needs are produced, or whether they are exposed. Did Leontyev make such a distinction? Best, Huw > > Andy > > > Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> On 9 August 2013 14:57, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I don't have any doubt that needs are produced. 25 years ago no-one >>> needed >>> a computer. Now it seems that everyone needs them. I don't see you r >>> objection to this, Huw? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Well, if you consider needs as primal (vital) such things as computers and >> the languages people speak are simply ways to meet such needs. >> >> From a Marxian social perspective computing is interesting in this respect >> in that the needs met by the first generation workers is qualitatively >> different to the management saturated situation we have now. i.e. on the >> cusp of technological practice workers are more free from the tyranny of >> alienation. >> >> > > >