The Danger of Derivative

I read this line in Learning by Expanding: "(according to Leont'ev and Tran Duc Thao), signs and symbols are seen as derivative instruments of productive activity......" This interpretation reminds how unstable the value of words can be, since they are merely the derivative without material content. The most unstable word may be the word "love", which can unreasonably please a person or relentlessly frustrate him or her. Involving so much cultural-historical details, the "love" from one's mouth is of complicated or even inexplicable quality, somewhat like the notorious CDO (collateralized debt obligation). The problematic "love" word could fail the other's trusting heart, and the devilish CDO could fail millions of innocent investors. Paradoxically, without words, I would not even be able to utter this small disturbance in my minds.

Paradox. Period.

Reading Cultural-Historical Activity Theory

I don't remember how I came across the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). Probably from reading Vygotsky's Mind In Society, and then discursively reached the more recent works by Engestrom et al.

So far, CHAT is the most appealing theoretical framework to me because it is bold enough to encompass all the elements in life: subject, community, division of labor, rule, instrument, object, and outcome. The nature of this theory requires that researchers have sharp insights to identify the components of an activity system and detect its multi-directional dynamics.

This is hard!!! I tried to look at the case of Pair Programming through its lens, and I constantly got stuck while I sometimes felt illuminated somehow......

Perhaps I simply need to read more, read all the original works, and then see how confused I can be.

Hi to myself

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii