Life Discovery: The “Means — End” Spectrum and Becoming

Published in

CALL4

15 min readFeb 24, 2022

The Dynamics of Objects and The Life Discovery Activity

In 2019, I developed a metaphor called Life Container which is part of the Life Curation framework. The metaphor refers three meanings:

We have to deal with various Material Containers in our life. In fact, this meaning is not a metaphor.
We have to deal with various Social Containers in our life. As a metaphor, it refers to various social structures or systems such as “discourse, activity, genre, language game, frame, tradition, figured world, activity system, idioculture, social formation, network, ideology, ideological apparatus, field, habitus and so on.” (Collaborative Projects, Andy Blunden, 2014, p.13)
We have to deal with various Mental Containers in our life. As a metaphor, it refers to various cognitive and cultural artifacts such as beliefs, values, theories, concepts, perspectives, frameworks, methods, tastes, memes, etc.

These containers create many boundaries for our life and cut our life into pieces. The Life Curation Framework aims to turn these pieces into a meaningful whole.

Do we need to hate these containers? How do you deal with these containers?

Today I’d like to discuss the Means — End Spectrum for the Life Discovery Activity.

Detach and Attach

There are two types of acts for dealing with containers. We either detach from a container or attach to a container.

The above picture is about detaching from a container. We see it, we watch it, we observe it, we describe it, we keep a distance from it.

The above picture is about attaching to a container. We touch it, we hold it, we sense it. We and the container belong to a meaningful whole.

The Life Discovery Activity is about both detaching from a container and attaching to a container. When we detach from a container, we can think about it from the perspective of explanation. When we attach to a container, we can act with it from the perspective of intervention.

Two Containers

I am recently working with two containers:

An Adult development program (a social container)
Anticipatory Activity System (a mental container)

If you read my articles about iART Framework, you probably know that The Anticipatory Activity System is an expanded version of iART Framework which was born from an empirical research project about an adult development program.

I’d like to call the program SSL which stands for Shaper & Supporter Lab. Anyway, it is just a codename.

The program was designed with three components: 1) Life Purpose Awareness, 2) Personal OKR Practice, 3) Peer Review and Feedback. My friend also adopted the Building In Public approach to share her goals, challenges, progresses, and discussions with others on social media platforms.

I use the Project Engagement approach to guide my research about the program. The approach uses a method called “Multiple-level Project Engagement”. I reflect on the following levels:

- The “My friend — Members” Engagement
- The “Member — Member” Engagement
- The “I — My friend” Engagement

This method is what I called “Cultural Projection Analysis” of Project-oriented Activity Theory. You can find more details here: Activity U (X): Projecting, Projectivity, and Cultural Projection.

As mentioned above, the program has three components: 1) Life Purpose Awareness, 2) Personal OKR Practice, 3) Peer Review and Feedback. We can roughly understand it as a Life Strategy Doing project. In order to understand the whole program, I made several diagrams and frameworks. One of the by-products of the research project is the Anticipatory Activity System framework.

Why did I use “Self, Other, Present, Future” (this is iART Framework) as the core of the framework?

It matches the program’s two components:

Life Purpose Awareness: the “Present — Future” conversation will lead to a life strategy.
Peer Review and Feedback: the “Self — Other” conversation will change a person’s decision and behavior.

The first-order activity is about a person’s performance which is guided by their OKRs. The second-order activity refers to the planning and reviewing of their OKRs.

OKRs stand for “Objectives and Key Results” which is a concrete framework for goal setting and management.

The Anticipatory Activity System framework is not a concrete framework, but an abstract model. It offers a general framework for understanding Second-order Activity from the perspective of Anticipatory Systems Theory. In order words, the Anticipatory Activity System framework is a hybrid theoretical framework which curates the following two theories together:

Activity Theory
Anticipatory System Theory

This hybrid approach is inspired by Clay Spinuzzi’s book Network: Theorizing Knowledge Work in Telecommunications. In order to understand a telecommunications company’s knowledge work, Clay Spinuzzi focuses on the concept of “Network”, and adopts the following two theories to build an abstract framework for theorizing “Network” of knowledge work:

Activity Theory
Actor-network Theory (ANT)

Can we adopt more than two theories to develop abstract frameworks? I am not sure. It might just lead to a brand new theory.

The Life Strategy Project

In 2021, I applied the Anticipatory Activity System framework to study Strategy. On Sept 15, 2021, I published D as Diagramming: Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System.

Since the article is part of the D as Diagramming project which aims to explore the power of diagrams and diagramming, I used the article as an example for testing the value of diagrams for turning tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.

I claimed that the post is a rough idea, not a formal proposal. I also mentioned the scope of applications of the framework. The new framework is perfect for thinking about the complex of “Self, Other, Present and Future”. For example:

Sustainable Business Development
Organizational Strategy
Startup Studio or Venture Studio
Technology Choices
Educational Strategy
Family Development
Intimate Relationships

Since the iART Framework is inspired by the Anticipatory System Theory, I name this new diagram Anticipatory Activity System.

I mentioned Intimate Relationships. Yes, the Anticipatory Activity System framework can be applied to study Intimate Relationships.

I didn’t mention Life Strategy on Sep 15, 2021. However, I realized that it is perfect for applying it to discuss Life Strategy in Dec 2021.

On Jan 28, 2022, I introduced the idea “the Life Strategy framework (v1.0)” to a new friend who read the article about D as Diagramming: Strategy as Anticipatory Activity System and wondered if she could use it for her projects.

I curated the Anticipatory Activity System framework and several related frameworks together, and named them “Life Strategy”. I considered it as multiple theory curation:

Anticipatory Systems Theory: Present — Future
Relevance Theory: Self — Other
Activity Theory: Object — Outcome
Project-oriented Activity Theory: Theme — Identity
Curativity Theory: Pieces — Whole

I also found some related models from my works:

iART Framework
The Defining Zone
A Typology of Relevance
The Activity System Model (adopted from Activity Theory)
The Developmental Project Model
The Themes of Practice Framework
The Life-as-Activity Framework
The Creative Work Canvas

As mentioned above, I am expanding the Anticipatory Activity System framework from the original two theories to more theories. It might lead to a new creation.

So, I’d like to keep the Anticipatory Activity System framework as an independent thing, and name the new thing “Life Strategy” or other names.

Become An Insider

Last month, the SSL (Shaper & Supporter Lab) program launched its new version of developmental service. I realized that I can apply Project-oriented Activity Theory and the Project Engagement toolkit to study its development.

The Project Engagement Toolkit is a project-oriented toolkit for theory-based reflection and study. A significant aspect of the toolkit is it connects the following two theoretical approaches of Activity Theory together and offers a series tools for practitioners in the age of projectification.

The Activity System Model (Yrjö Engeström, 1987)
Activity as Formation of Concept (Andy Blunden, 2010, 2012, 2014)

While Engeström’s model is perfect for dealing with traditional work projects, Blunden’s approach considers collaborative projects as the foundation of social movements and cultural innovation.

By curating the above two approaches together, the toolkit offers a cross-boundary solution for achieving balance between individual impact and collective impact. In this way, the toolkit could lead us to an innovative way of connecting personal life themes and cultural themes in order to build a sustainable society together.

This month I joined the SSL program’s digital setting which is based on an enterprise collaboration platform and started researching the whole program. The founder of the program shares videos of their learning workshops with me on a private channel.

I moved from the outer space of the project into the inner space of the project. If we apply the Cultural Projection Analysis method to discuss this moment, then it is about Secondary Projecting.

According to Project-oriented Activity Theory, at the phase of Objectification, an established project starts attracting people as its participants. Once a Project is initiated, it offers Secondary Projectivity for other people to recognize the potential action opportunities of participating in the project. For the Second Projectivity, its sense-maker is the Identity of an established Project.

The above diagram shows an abstract model of secondary projecting with two people and one project. Participant A is the first person who initiates the project while Participant B is the second person who recognizes Secondary Projectivity and participates in the project.

The core of the spatial logic is the synchronization of formulation of actions and move of position. The second person moves from the outside space of the project into the inside space of the project while he actualizes the Secondary Projectivity of the project by taking real actions.

Here we have to pay attention to the spatial boundary of the project. Before becoming Participant B, the second person only can perceive the secondary projectivity of the project through its sense-maker Identity of Project because he is not at the inside space of the project.

A Challenge

Finally, I face a challenge because the SSL program offers me so rich information and cues for research and I also work on several frameworks which are based on different theoretical approaches.

How can I handle this Theory — Practice curation?

Yesterday I had an opportunity to do a self-dialogue in order to respond to this challenge.

This is my work space.

These are my frameworks.

The focus is the Developmental Project Model which is the core of the Project Engagement Toolkit.

However, I want to continuously develop the Anticipatory Activity System framework too.

The above sketch is my solution for cleaning the mess. What I discovered from the research project is the following three things:

Container: An adult developmental program > Developmental Project Model
Content: The Life Discovery Activity > Anticipatory Activity System
Context: The Life Discovery Activity > Life as Project > Project Engagement

The Developmental Project Model is a general model about a project. We can understand the adult developmental program as a Developmental Project in a general sense.

The concrete content of the program is a Life Discovery Activity. This is the difference between the program and other types of projects. However, the Developmental Project Model ignores individual differences and unique patterns of individual projects. Thus, we need the Anticipatory Activity System framework to discuss the content of the program.

Finally, I also realized that both the two frameworks share the same method: the Project Engagement method. However, I am not thinking about the method for research, but the method for life.

Yes, we should consider the Project Engagement method as a method for life.

Is it a strange loop? I am familiar with this kind of loop. See the diagram below.

In 2019, I wrote a book which develops a theory called Curativity Theory. One chapter of the book is called Knowledge Curation which is an application of Curativity Theory.

In 2020, I started the Knowledge Curation project and the project contributed to the further development of Curativity Theory.

The Means — End Spectrum

The above strange loop reminds me to reflect on the Means — End Spectrum which is published on Nov 29, 2021 for discussing diagramming as practice.

The Means — End issue is complicated issue in the literature of Activity Theory and Vygotsky’s Cultural-historical theory of psychology because scholars have different interpretations of Vygotsky’s ideas. As mentioned above, the mediated action v.s. mediating activities debate is an example. A second example might be Newman and Holzman’s ideas v.s. Bruner’s ideas. According to Newman and Holzman, “Vygotsky’s tool-and-result method is purposeful in the Marxian sense, not, contrary to Bruner’s formulation, in the instrumentalist sense. Vygotsky’s rejection of the causal and / or functional methodological notion of tool or instrument for a purpose or result in favor of the dialectical notion of tool-and-result in the study of human psychology is new and revolutionary.” (1993, p.40)

From the perspective of Activity Theory, I consider the Means v.s. End issue within concrete activities. For a particular activity, a diagram might be an end, I call it Thought-to-Diagram. For another one particular activity, the same diagram might be a means, I call it Diagram-to-Thought. If we combine these two situations together, we can develop a Means-End Spectrum and use it to present various instrumental values of diagrams.

The above diagram offers a spectrum with six types of diagrams. The left side refers to Means (Diagram-to-Thought) and it stands for a weak ontological position of diagrams. We don’t have to require a perfect form of diagrams if we use them as means for our thinking since we don’t make diagrams as final products. The right side refers to End (Thought-to-Diagram) and it requires a strong ontological position of diagrams. In order to make diagrams as final products for others to use, we have to work hard to produce ideal diagrams.

Based on the spectrum of ontological position of diagrams, I identify six types of diagrams: Inspiration, Canvas, Map, Skeleton, Notation, and Framework. The most weak position is Inspiration which refers to drafts, sketches, private notes, etc. The most strong position is Framework which refers to formal knowledge models.

The above discussion offers a rough typology of diagrams. However, the value of the Means-End Spectrum is highlighting the dynamics of ontological position of diagrams because it matches the dynamics of thoughts.

Though even the above discussion is about diagrams, we can replace Diagrams with other things and turn the Means-End Spectrum into a general framework.

The Dynamics of Objects

In Life Discovery: The Object — Objective Gap and Attachment, I have discussed the concept of Object in the literature of Activity Theory.

For the Anticipatory Activity System framework, it is clear that we have to use two terms because Objective (what is motive about) is about Future while Object (what is acted on) is about Present. These two terms adopt both Leontiev’s object (predmet) which refers to motivation and Engeström’s object which refers to ‘the raw material’ or ‘problem space’.

However, ‘the raw material’ or ‘problem space’ is adopted from Yrjö Engeström’s Activity System Model which is about organizational innovation and development. The Anticipatory Activity System framework doesn’t only talk about organizational activities, but also about individual life development. In order to apply the framework to life development, I’d like to expand the concept of “Object” to material objects and things we could act on.

I also suggested a metaphorical typology of Objects:

Object for Play: the object of non-work activity.
Object for Produce: the object of work.
Object behind Plain: the source of problem.

This typology services the need of discussing motivation and objectives. Today I’d like to use the Means — End spectrum to adopt the concept of “Mediation” for the Anticipatory Activity System framework.

The above diagram is the basic model of Anticipatory Activity System. Since I pay attention to the relationship between “Object” (Object/Objective) and “Outcome” (Result/Reward), I don’t directly place the term “Mediation” on the diagram. I use the concept of “Object” as a primary concept and consider “row material”, “mediation/instrument/tool”, “resource”, and “environment” as its operational concepts. In other words, there are at least five types of Objects for Anticipatory Activity System:

Raw material
Mediation/Instrument/Tool
Resource
Environment
Target

Here the issue is not developing an ideal typology of Objects, but offering a tool for dealing with the network of Objects. For a particular activity in the real life world, we see a set of objects within an activity.

Let’s use writing this article as an example:

Raw material: the Means-End Spectrum is a raw material. The above pictures are raw materials too.
Mediation/Instrument/Tool: my iMac, my iPhone.
Resource: Pictures from Unsplash.com are outer resources, my skills of thinking and writing are inner resources.
Environment: my digital environment is Medium while the physical environment is my room.
Target: this article is the target. All raw materials are moved to this article.

However, the above analysis is located at the concrete level of Actions.

Why do I write this article? Because this article is part of the project of developing the Anticipatory Activity System framework and the Life Discovery Project.

These two projects are Activities. The Means — End Spectrum is used for analysis at the abstract level of Activity. It is about connecting Objective and Object.

Anticipatory Activity System as Means

If we consider the Anticipatory Activity System framework as Means, then we consider it as a tool for understanding the SSL program which is considered as Target, and the Life Discovery Project is the End of the research work from my perspective.

From the perspective of my friend who is the founder of the SSL program, we see the following configuration:

Means: the Anticipatory Activity System framework
Target: the SSL program
End: design and launch the new version of SSL services

We see two Ends from two perspectives. Since I work on the Theory field and my friend works on the Practice field, these two Ends don’t create a contradiction within the same activity.

However, it is possible to see contradictions between Self and Other within the same activity. The solutions for solving the contradictions depend on the “Self — Other” Relevance.

Anticipatory Activity System as End

If we consider the Anticipatory Activity System framework as End, then the SSL program is a Mean for the project of developing the Anticipatory Activity System framework.

At the concrete level, we see the following configuration:

Target: a thesis about the Anticipatory Activity System framework.
Raw material: videos, texts, pictures and other contents from the SSL program.
Mediation/Instrument/Tool: my iMac, my iPhone, and other tools.
Resource: Support from my friends and her members, my skills of thinking and writing are inner resources.
Environment: the digital platform where the SSL program is hosted, my digital environment is Medium while the physical environment is my room.

Project Engagement as Means

If we consider the Project Engagement method as Means, then Project-oriented Activity Theory is the End, while the SSL program is Target.

The Project Engagement method roughly refers to the Cultural Projection Analysis method and other methods about Project-oriented Activity Theory. For example, the method of design and study Developmental Service projects with the Developmental Project model.

The core issue of the Cultural Projection Analysis is the development of a person’s life themes and identities.

Project Engagement as End

If we consider the Project Engagement method as End, we can consider its development in the Theory field.

However, we can consider its value in the Practice field too. This insight brings a new potential theme to me. It refers to a new creative space where Project Engagement is a method for life.

In fact, I have consider Project I as a component for the ECHO Way (v2.0).

In Life Discovery: The “Present — Future” Fit and The ECHO Way, I applied the ECHO Way (v2.0) to the “Present — Future” fit for the Life Discovery Activity. The process is roughly designed as the following three phases:

Life U: Think with the Theme U diagram.
Project I: Act with the Developmental Project model.
Echo Z: Reach the end of the journey: an expected place.

Now we can consider Project I is the method of Project Engagement for Life.

We can act with the Developmental Project model without adopting the ECHO Way since the model is an independent framework.

The Journey of Becoming

The Life Discovery Activity focuses on 1) Detecting Potential Contradictions and 2) Exploring Potential Themes in order to enhance a person’s life development.

In order to cope with potential contradictions, we need to adopt objects as Means for solving problems. In order to develop potential themes, we need to adopt objects as End as creative spaces.

The Life Discovery Activity is a continuous flow of becoming.

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