Without neglecting the importance of individuals or relationships, for the moment I want to make context or landscape central, and examine the ways in which it constrains or supports different types of (inter-)actions.

I think I'm doing a reasonable job connecting the idea of context to the idea of empiricism, which seems a good first step. See http://gathatoulie.blogspot.com/2010/03/concerning-direction-of-arrows.html.

Empirical Epistemics or Epistemic Empiricism?

I wonder how and when "knowledge" applies: Maybe actions in world are mostly a matter of expediency. This would not say that knowledge is unimportant, it just means that it isn't always the only relevant goal. Putting bread on the table, for example, isn't primarily a matter of knowledge.

So, how do we know when a given activity has to do with "knowledge"?

"The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word ἐμπειρία, which translates to the Latin experientia, from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory." --Wikipedia