"Modes of Existence" (MOE) and Activity Theory (AT)

I am used to the following distinction. In a situation I can consider a 1st person viewpoint (and dive deep into my intuition and feelings) or I can consider a 3rd person point of view, where I distance myself and perhaps see myself in the dealings of others.

I think that the way of dealing with reality (both inner and external in everyday parlance - a distinction that is not that solid either for the "Modes of Existence" (http://modesofexistence.org/) or for "Activity theory"(http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/chat/, http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/) proposed in MOE is a more refined way to deal with the 1st person viewpoint while the way of dealing with reality that is proposed by Activity Theory is a more refined way to deal with the 3rd person point of view. Or perhaps I should say, using an analogy from Physics, that the "1st person- 3rd person" viewpoints is a coordinate system that is now "rotated" or could be exchanged by the coordinate system "MOE- AT"

Why do I say that MOE seems a much more evolved way to deal with the 1st order viewpoint? Because it speaks about values, continually it asks us to "turn inwardly", as I feel it,  to assess what would corespond to common sense, MOE feels like a call for a "perceptual education" (Une education perceptionale - like "L'education sentimentale"), for a different sensibility in how we "take in" reality and actually "are formed by" this reality (which passes through us). When I am called to understand the elements of the Pivot Table (pg 488 in the book), I do not think that I am asked to model reality by sitting outside of a frame, outside a window panel,  and looking to the trajectories (really a necklace made by hiatuses that have been jumped over) that will be whirling like spaggeti in front of my eyes. I feel that I am asked to retake the whole flow of experience, as somebody who is participant, who cannot lift himself outside and this "personal enlightenement" will help me identify with the actors of the situation in a very different way and allow me to describe the whole situation in a different way. So  as far as I understand the empiricism of Latour's anthropology is the lever through which "inner and outer experience" (in everyday parlance ) are put in a better fit. But the heavy lifting seems to me to be going first in what used to be "inner experience".

How can we deal in MOE with learning and development?  There is [MET], but [MET] feels more like a power source. There is [REF] but can a mictrogenetic account of learning and development be put under [REF]? I doubt it. 

Activity theory (as I understand it) is a way to argue, to communicate about how we come to be, It is an effort to come in terms with how consciousness comes forth: real culturally mediated consciousness. It is a way to introduce TIME (real change), without time being the servant of [REF]'s conception of time. 

Activity theory is constantly reminding us that we are thinking and acting in the presence of others and with the help of others, in a community (something that is so absent in the image of the solitary anthropologist in the MOE book, though somehow corrected in the workings of the AIME community)

MOE gives a sense of freedom, the freedom that comes together with the feelings of understanding and been possibly understood in a world that is not "alien". AT is an alternative to a mechanistic point of view when it come to accounting for change, a different way to come in terms with dynamics.

There is another reason that makes me think the AT is a needed balance to MOE. I have the sense that in AIME, in Reset Modernity! (http://modesofexistence.org/field-book/) , even in the recent article (http://mil.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/19/0305829816640608.abstract) , learning does not have its proper recognition. As if the activity system nature of the situations themselves (reading and beeing influeced by the MOE book and the AIME community, participating and beeing "politicized" through participation in Reset Modernity!, rethinking Sovereignity) is not recognized, at the expense of the effectiveness of these projects.

One can also try to find some places in the AT triangle where certain modes would fit preferentially. So I made a try. [LAW] is used as a stabilizer. In activity theory the "object" is in a process of transformation through the workings of the activity system. (something similar perhaps to passing a hiatus in MOE) . Moreover the changing object costitutes the motive of the activity. So I've put in the pseudo-oject side modes like [MET] but also modes that express (in my view) motives (feeling a secure ground, listening to a "calling")

Bibliography:

I found useful

For MOE/ AIME, apart from the above mentioned site, I found very helpful in understanding the tone of the whole book this: 

Hämäläinen, N., & Lehtonen, T. K. (2016). Latour's empirical metaphysics.Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 1-18.

A criticsim from an anthropologists point of view:

Berliner, D., Legrain, L., & Port, M. (2013). Bruno Latour and the anthropology of the moderns. Social Anthropology, 21(4), 435-447.

For AT, I found very helpful apart from the above mentioned site the article:

Engeström, Y. (2014). Activity theory and learning at work (pp. 67-96). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

and the following criticism:

Bakhurst, D. (2009). Reflections on activity theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 197-210.