Life Discovery: The Life-as-Project Approach
Being by Doing
This week I designed a toolkit for Life Discovery with nine questions. Yesterday I reflected on the toolkit and used the diagram of “Life as Activity” (v2.0) to make a new diagram.
I also gave a subtitle to the toolkit: the Life-as-Project Approach.
What’s the difference between “the Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0)” and “the Life-as-Project Approach”?
The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) aims to develop a framework for discussing life development with the framework of Activity Theory. So, I can’t adopt Howard E. Gruber’s evolving systems approach to the study of creative work (1974,1989) for the framework.
The Life-as-Project Approach is a “Project-centered” approach. I don’t have to remain within the framework of Activity Theory. Now, I can adopt Howard E. Gruber’s the evolving systems approach to the study of creative work (1974,1989) for the approach.
Gruber’s approach uses “Task — Project — Enterprise — Network of Enterprise” as a structure. This is different from Activity Theory’s “Operation — Action — Activity” hierarchy.
I also adopt Project-oriented Activity Theory which emphasizes “Idea — Project — Concept” for the new approach.
The “Aspiration — Project — Reflection” is inspired by the toolkit’s “Orientation — Awareness — Reflection” structure which can be considered an application of my work, the Ecological Practice Approach.
Finally, the “Self — Other — Future — Present” set refers to “Anticipatory Activity System” which is my newest version of Activity Theory.
So, the new approach indicates my two major contributions to the field of Activity Theory:
1. Project-oriented Activity Theory
2. Anticipatory Activity System
These two ideas are outcomes of two theoretical dialogues. Project-oriented Activity Theory is born from the dialogue between Activity Theory and Ecological Psychology. Anticipatory Activity System is born from the dialogue between Anticipatory Systems Theory and Activity Theory.
Since my target users are creators, I’d like to adopt Howard E. Gruber’s approach for the new approach. Also, I have been working on the Life Curation project which is an application of my work Curativity Theory for many years. It’s time to adopt the concept of Curativity for the Life Discovery Toolkit too.
Several days ago, I shared the canvas below on Linkedin. The canvas shows a rough idea about “Life Strategy (Life as Anticipatory Activity System)”.
If we put the Life-as-Project approach and the Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0) on the canvas, then one is an Integrated Framework and the other one is an Operational Heuristics.
- Integrated Framework: The Life-as-Project approach
- Operational Heuristics: The Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0)
While the Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0) wants to curate many frameworks together, the Life-as-Project approach aims to establish a Project-centered approach.
A Project-centered Approach
On Jan 18, 2022, I created the new version of the Project Engagement Toolkit (2022) which is a project-oriented toolkit for theory-based reflection and study. It is a major outcome of the Activity U project because it connected the following two theoretical approaches of Activity Theory together and offers a series tools for practitioners.
- The Activity System Model (Yrjö Engeström, 1987)
- Activity as Formation of Concept (Andy Blunden, 2010, 2012, 2014)
Originally, I used “Project Engagement” as the name of Part 3 of the book Project-oriented Activity Theory and it refers to a set of my own ideas for expanding Andy Blunden’s original approach about Project as unit of analysis of Activity and Activity as Formation of Concept. The most important difference between Blunden’s original approach and my interpretation is that his vision is developing a general interdisciplinary theory of Activity as a meta-theory. However, my vision is adopting his meta-theory and developing some frameworks and models for practical studies. You can find more details here.
In 2021, I moved in the direction of supporting knowledge workers and creators. I realized that the Project Engagement Toolkit has its own significance for practitioners. It is not a pure application of Activity Theory.
In Thematic Space: The Project Engagement Toolkit for Creators, I discussed my “Project” thematic space and highlighted the following three points:
- First, the Developmental Project Model is an independent framework.
- Second, there is a concept called Projectivity behind the module 4 Zone of Project and the module 5 Developmental Project Model.
- Third, I also adopted Howard E. Gruber’s Evolving Systems Approach to the study of Creative Work (1974,1989) for module 6.
Originally, the Project Engagement toolkit was born from the work of Project-oriented Activity Theory. Now, it is an instrument for practitioners.
The Life-as-Project approach continuously expands my “Project” thematic space. It seems that I am building a Project-centered approach.
Project as A Multiple Dimension Concept
What does a Project-centered approach look like?
A simple strategy is considering Project as A Multiple Dimension Concept.
As discussed above, the Life-as-Project approach adopts several theoretical approaches for discussing “Life as Project”. Even though I didn’t intend to develop a solution of multiple dimension concept, the outcome is a real multiple dimension concept.
The above diagram places several pairs of concepts around “Project”. Each pair of concepts defines a dimension.
- Aspiration — (Project) — Reflection
- Present/Performance — (Project) — Future/Anticipation
- Self — (Project) — Other
- Idea — (Project) — Concept
- Task — (Project) — Enterprise
If we consider Project as A Multiple Dimension Concept, then a new focus is established: Building A Project-centered Approach.
This focus creates a new “Center” in my mind. The “Project” thematic space becomes an independent creative space. Last month, I had a similar experience. I detached from the idea of “Conceptual Space” and attached to my own idea of “Thematic Space” which led to a new creative journey.
Now, we can adopt more dimensions to build the approach with A Diagram Network.
Zoom Out and Zoom In
The first strategy for expanding the above original diagram is adopting the following view:
- Outer: Zoom Out
- Inner: Zoom In
The pair of concepts of “Aspiration — (Project) — Reflection” is adopted from the Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0)’s first group of modules:
- The first group of modules offers a landscape of life. It starts from a common sense: Life is a meaningful journey.
- This view is inspired by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s ideas on the Cognitive Science of the Embodied Mind from their 1999 book Philosophy in The Flesh and other books.
- In a 2000 book Where Mathematics Comes From, George Lakoff and Rafael E. Nunez use the Source-Path-Goal schema as an example of the cognitive science of the embodied mind.
- For the Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0), the “Landscape” group of modules aims to offer a landscape view of life development from the perspective of Spatial Difference. I use the Source-Path-Goal schema to design a three-status structure:
- Source: Life Aspiration Orientation
- Path: Life Process Awareness
- Goal: Life Achievement Reflection
- This three-status structure is an abstract container. I also select three frameworks or models as concrete containers for each status.
- Life Aspiration Orientation: the “Epistemic — Market — Social” impact model.
- Life Process Awareness: the Defining Zone model
- Life Achievement Reflection: the Themes of Practice framework
This “Landscape” view is a Zoom Out view. So, I place “Aspiration — Reflection” at the outer loop.
For the inner loop, I adopt the pair of concepts of “Opportunity — Outcome” from the Life-as-Activity framework (v2.0). This is a Zoom In view.
The above diagram applies the same method to adopt the pair of concepts of “Objective — Object” from the Life-as-Activity framework (v2.0) for the Zoom In view.
Adding More Dimensions
Now we can consider adding more dimensions to build a diagram network. However, I want to keep it simple.
So, I only add one.
And, I use the same visual layout of the original one.
The only change I made is making the potential direction actual. See the diagram below.
In the previous article Mapping Thematic Space #4: The “Center” Thematic Spaces, I quoted the picture below from d Pattern Theory: Introduction and Perspectives on the Tracks of Christopher Alexander.
According to the author, “A single point on a sheet is connected to quite a number of structure elements, for example the sheet; the point; the halo surrounding the point; the rectangles that come into existence by perceiving the point as separating the sheet into an upper, lower, right and left half; the four diagonals; the four quarters of the sheet and the white zones that separate them, starting from the halo of the point…” (2015, p.33)
The inner loop of the original diagram is a “Center”. There are many latent structured elements existing around the “Center”. By discovering a new direction of structure, we can create new space for adding more concepts for the diagram.
I add three pairs of concepts to the diagram.
- Theme — (Project) — Identity
- Explore — (Project) — Exploit
- Creativity — (Project) — Curativity
The pair of concepts of “Theme — Identity” is the core of the Developmental Project Model and its method: Cultural Projection Analysis.
The pair of concepts of “Explore — Exploit” is adopted from the Path of Creative Life diagram. In fact, this is a classic pair of concepts for discussing strategy.
The pair of concepts of “Creative — Curativity” echos the pair of concepts of “Explore — Exploit”. It also refers to my vision behind the Ecological Practice approach: Possible Practice.
By expanding the original diagram into a simple diagram network, we adopt many dimensions for the Project-centered approach.
Diagrams, Questions, Modules
As discussed in old articles, I used knowledge diagrams for building knowledge frameworks.
In the past several weeks, I moved from knowledge frameworks to toolkits.
A knowledge framework is an application of theoretical approaches and it considers Theoretical Concepts and Significant Dimensions.
A toolkit is an Operational Heuristic and the best practice of building a toolkit is using Heuristic Questions and Structured Modules.
- Integrated Framework: The Life-as-Project approach
- Operational Heuristics: The Life Discovery Toolkit (v1.0)
What a creative week! I started from the Life Discovery Toolkit and moved to the Life-as-Project approach.
Frame, Unframe, Reframe
I want to point out that there is an important switch between two diagrams:
- The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram
- The Life-as-Project Approach Diagram
The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram is based on the Dialectic Room meta-Diagram.
Originally, I developed the Dialectic Room meta-diagram in order to design a series of diagrams for Project-oriented Activity Theory. The diagram below is one of these diagrams.
There is a spatial logic behind the above diagram. I repeat the spatial logic of the Dialectic Room meta-Diagram at two levels. The zoom-in level and the zoom-out level. The above “Activity as Formation of Concept” diagram represents three phases of a process at the zoom-in level.
The Life-as-Activity Framework (v2.0) Diagram is inspired by the above “Activity as Formation of Concept” diagram and roughly keeps the original spatial logic.
However, the Life-as-Project Approach Diagram changes the spatial logic. It adopts the “CENTER-PERIPHERY” spatial logic. I just placed several pairs of concepts around the center “Project” in order to develop the “Project-centered” approach.
Frame, Unframe, Reframe! Welcome to the world of Attachance!!!
You are most welcome to connect via the following social platforms:
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oliverding
Twitter: https://twitter.com/oliverding
Polywork: https://www.polywork.com/oliverding
Boardle: https://www.boardle.io/users/oliver-ding
