[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
David Kellogg
dkellogg60@gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 17:20:09 PDT 2015
I think it's the eternal problem, Mike: how do we relate the instance to
the type? The usual solution is something like a division of labor:
clinical versus theoretical. If you are doing clinical work, you start with
the instance and if it doesn't relate to the type then we have to turn our
backs on the type and treat the instance (e.g. when Sacks' cancer doesn't
relate to the generalization that eye cancers do not normally metastasize
to the liver). If you are a theoretician, like the gentleman urging us all
to "fuck nuance", then you turn your back on the instance and consider an
ideal type, or better yet, the system as a whole (e.g. when Durkheim said
that the particular reasons for killing yourself that we find in suicide
notes are utterly irrelevant and he approved when the British government
started to just bag and bin them).
I don't think that either Luria or Vygotsky fits into either category.They
were both both theorizing clinicians and clinical theorists. Even in his
case studies, Luria's interest was always in the "extreme type". And
Vygotsky, who certainly believed in the "experimentum crucis", had a
penchant for making the gendankenexperiment into a real experiment. Here
too, though, there is a limit. I think the study of language development
simply cannot use either the extreme type or the gedankexperiment, Language
is just too sensitive to human self consciousness. In no other science is
it permissible to fabricate data--do linguists get an exception just
because its so much easier and therefore more of a tradition? I think
not--and so I think that linguists like Langacker who don't use real data
will inevitably get left out of a truly structural-functional-genetic
approach.
David Kellogg
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 8:14 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> I am having a lot of difficulty of relating the recent discussion to the
> work of either ARL or Oliver.
> mike
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I wasn't really critiquing the two-by-two matrix: actually, I think that
> > such matrices are in fact composed of clines, although we tend not to use
> > them that way. After thirty years of teaching, I find that I have myself
> > have become an example person, and it's almost impossible for me to grasp
> > "Romantic Science" as a concept or even as a diagramme without examples;
> > being a linguist, the examples that come naturally to me are languages.
> >
> > There is a problem with my example that won't fit in the matrix, though.
> > Let us consider a language as a bounded historical entity (Neanderthal,
> or
> > we can use English, but it will help if we take a point of view very far
> in
> > the future, when English has become a dead language, preferably through
> the
> > wholesale extinction of our species, because otherwise we can say, as
> some
> > linguists do say, that no language ever really dies--it just changes into
> > another language). The language system as a whole is essentially the same
> > as the set of all utterances ever made or written in that language.
> Because
> > the language is dead, no other utterances are possible--nobody will say
> > them, and nobody can relate them to any context. In this situation, the
> > cline of instantiation and the cline of abstraction (which is really the
> > cline of potential versus real) must join, and that means that lines that
> > were supposedly perpendicular turn out to be parallel.
> >
> > I found the paper on nuance extremely puzzling, precisely because of the
> > lack of examples, so I read it as an attack on conversation analysis.
> Then
> > it made perfect sense. But I found the references to "making love" in the
> > description of peasant marriages rather curious, given the title of the
> > paper. So now the word "fuck" is used in academic discourse, to talk
> about
> > French peasants making love....it kind of leaves skidmarks on brain,
> > somehow.
> >
> > I once met a doctor in Sudan studying diarrhea. In the course of the
> > evening,he managed to make his study, and even its subject matter, truly
> > fascinating; we could hardly wait till morning to see if we could find
> > samples of some of the things he was talking about. Similarly, one of the
> > first linguistics papers I ever read, by my old professor James McCawley
> at
> > University of Chicago, was all about why you can say "fan-fucking-tastic"
> > and but you cannot say "fantas-fucking-tic"; I remember the paper well,
> and
> > later I used it to analyze a song from "My Fair Lady"
> > ("Abso-blooming-lutely still" in "Wouldn't it lov-er-ly?").
> >
> > I'm not arguing that we can or even should abolish the euphemism
> > treadmills; we can't. Paul recently sent around a call for papers for
> > something called "The Journal of Negro Education", and I did a double
> take
> > until I realized it was the journal of W.E.B. Dubois. This summer, I
> > learned that in South Africa "black" is perjorative, and "colored" is
> used
> > self-descriptively; in America (I think) it's the other way around. But a
> > sociologist should probably be aware that the word "fuck" has actually
> NOT
> > lost all semantic content: if it had it would not be the staple of
> > rape-friendly discourses like pop music and hip-hop. Or is that just
> > nuance?
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Rafi Santo <rsanto@indiana.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Pardon the tangent, but I couldn't help but posting this recent paper
> > that
> > > was presented last month at the ASA:
> > > http://kieranhealy.org/files/papers/fuck-nuance.pdf
> > >
> > > Aside from having a catchy title, it's pretty relevant to this
> > discussion.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I hope I am not going off on a tangent. The concept "morphic" and
> the
> > > > notion that the four approach's are equally valid but express
> > different
> > > > aspects of THE RELATION.
> > > > The notion of difference/relation as a unity and each difference is
> > > > equally valid but expressing a different "character" within the
> > relation
> > > > (as a unity)
> > > > Not abstracted or reduced aspects but "morphic" aspects?.
> > > > If this is too idio just ignore my question. It is coming from left
> > > field.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> > > > Sent: 2015-09-02 8:10 AM
> > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > >
> > > > So this is a diagnostic tool, Peg?
> > > > Could you spell this out a little more for someone who still
> > > > doesn't grasp what you are talking about? :)
> > > > andy
> > > > intrigued.
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > On 3/09/2015 12:52 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
> > > > > What I did not make clear is that the JoHari window is not really
> the
> > > > same as a matrix. It is a different kind of tool than I think David
> > and
> > > > Peter are thinking about.
> > > > > Here's the trick: You change the pane sizes to emphasize the one of
> > the
> > > > four panes you are currently acting on -- but all four panes are
> always
> > > > there.
> > > > > So you can make the "concrete specific" pane HUGE by moving the top
> > > > bottom inner divider far to the right and moving the left right inner
> > > > divider far to the bottom. Or you can move only one of the
> dividers.
> > > > And you can move the dividers without such extremes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if a diagnosis/treatment only does the first move I described,
> > > > there's little abstract involved. I don't mind that so much if the
> > > actors
> > > > are involved in an emergency triage activity, but without the
> abstract
> > > you
> > > > are going on observables very influenced by perceptual and cultural
> > > access
> > > > of the actors and you might not even have the most useful template
> from
> > > the
> > > > general to guide/evaluate your trials and errors. So you'd better
> > shift
> > > > the panes pretty soon before things get way off base.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can also fool around with the arrangement of the terms that
> name
> > > the
> > > > panes: Do you get more out of concrete vs. specific or more out of
> > > > specific vs. concrete (in David's terms the anchors for the cline).
> > Same
> > > > for abstract vs. concrete or concrete vs. abstract.
> > > > > PG
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
> Peg
> > > > Griffin
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:55 PM
> > > > > To: 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as I understand those terms (nomothetic and idiographic),
> the
> > > > combined motor method does unite them and so arrives at dual
> > stimulation,
> > > > given the non-accidental mosaic.
> > > > > But I don't know that my understanding goes far enough or too far!
> > > > > Peg
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> > > > xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
> mike
> > > > cole
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 2:08 PM
> > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that simultaneously uniting the nomothetic and idiographic, Peg?
> > > That
> > > > is the way Luria talked about it.
> > > > > mike
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Peg Griffin <Peg.Griffin@att.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Just in a short-hand:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Concrete Specific: Zasetsky (The man with the shattered world)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Concrete General: People with traumatic brain injury during WWII
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Abstract General: Brain is a mosaic of specific domains with
> actions
> > > > >> that interact in dual stimulations (not pure will)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Abstract Specific: A man acts to recall using images; it fails
> on a
> > > > >> certain target. The man starts appears to abandon the recall by
> > > > >> acting an intimately related system – e.g., reciting the alphabet.
> > > > >> But the recital is “interrupted” when it bumps into the original
> > > > >> recall target and the recall is successful.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For diagnosis and/or treatment, we must rise to the concrete
> > specific.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry I don’t have time to develop this further but I am sure many
> > on
> > > > >> this list do, and I know that Luria and Sacks did so in wondrous
> and
> > > > >> glorious instances.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Peg
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:ablunden@mira.net]
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:21 AM
> > > > >> To: Peg Griffin; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Could you give an example, Peg?
> > > > >> andy
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _____
> > > > >>
> > > > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On 2/09/2015 1:14 AM, Peg Griffin wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What has always helped me – and helps me appreciate Luria and
> Sachs
> > –
> > > > >> with rising to the concrete is this funny little square I made
> > (based
> > > > >> on the even funnier JoHari window after Joseph Luft and Harrington
> > > > >> Ingham, I heard). I can think better by working to fill in each of
> > the
> > > > four cells in
> > > > >> the square about an issue of interest. It helps me think about
> > > > >> genetically primary examples in mathematics curricula, too.
> > > > >> Concrete Abstract
> > > > >> Specific
> > > > >> General
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A romantic square,
> > > > >> Peg
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu
> [mailto:
> > > > >> xmca-l-bounces+peg.griffin=att.net@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Rod
> > > > >> Parker-Rees
> > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:55 AM
> > > > >> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks for posting this, Andy.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I found Luria's account fascinating, particularly because of his
> > > > >> reference to 'the beauty of the art of science' and his
> observation
> > > > >> that 'The eye of science does not probe “a thing,” an event
> isolated
> > > > >> from other things or events. Its real object is to see and
> > understand
> > > > >> the way a thing or event relates to other things or events'.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We are able to communicate because we are able to agree (more or
> > less)
> > > > >> on ways of organising experience into shareable categories but our
> > > > >> communication ranges across a whole spectrum of ways of using
> these
> > > > >> categories. Luria refers to classical and romantic branches of
> > science
> > > > >> but he also acknowledges the differences between 'poetic' use of
> > > > >> language and more routine, formulaic forms of communication. The
> > > > >> romantic focus on an 'individual' can only ever be conducted in
> the
> > > > >> medium of a very un-individual language and no person's life could
> > > > >> possibly be understood without reference to relationships with
> other
> > > > >> persons which then spread roots and branches out to a forest of
> > > > connections, causes and consequences.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> David wrote of the impossibility of 'rising' to the level of
> theory
> > if
> > > > >> one were to immerse oneself in the study of an individual case and
> > > > >> Luria cites Marx's description of science as 'ascending to the
> > > > >> concrete'. As Luria goes on to conclude 'People come and go, but
> the
> > > > >> creative sources of great historical events and the important
> ideas
> > > > >> and deeds remain' so, in this sense, what matters is the
> > contribution
> > > > >> individuals make to something bigger and more enduring than
> > themselves
> > > > >> but Luria also writes that 'Romantics in science want neither to
> > split
> > > > >> living reality into its elementary components nor to represent the
> > > > >> wealth of life's concrete events in abstract models that lose the
> > > > properties of the phenomena themselves'.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think Luria's account of Sherashevsky's mental experience is
> > > > >> particularly interesting because it may reveal something about how
> > all
> > > > >> minds work, albeit that Sherashevsky's 'limen' may have been 'set'
> > > > >> lower than most people's, allowing him to notice the sensory
> > > > >> associations which words bring with them in a way which, for most
> of
> > > > >> us, may occur only at a pre-conscious level. This provides a
> > > > >> particularly powerful reminder of the inescapable fact that every
> > > > >> person's use of a shared language (whether of words, gestures,
> > > > >> behaviours or any other units of meaning) is just the surface of a
> > > > >> pool of connections and associations which can never be shared
> with
> > or
> > > > >> known by anyone else. However romantic our focus may be, we can
> only
> > > > >> go so far in understanding another person's understanding and much
> > > > >> less far in communicating that to other people (knowing someone
> is a
> > > > >> very different thing from being able to share that knowledge in a
> > > > >> rich and meaningful way). And of course, on the other side of the
> > > > >> spectrum, classical scientists who pretend that their knowledge is
> > > > >> entirely pure and untainted by the personal associations that
> swirl
> > > > beneath the limens of their knowing are just inventing stories!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I apologise for rambling but I am particularly interested in what
> > lies
> > > > >> beneath the concrete because of my focus on how very young
> children
> > > > >> are able to make sense of a world which, for adults, is so
> > powerfully
> > > > >> dominated by abstractions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> All the best,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Rod
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
> > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+rod.parker-rees=
> > > plymouth.ac.uk@mailman.ucsd.edu
> > > > >> ]
> > > > >> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> > > > >> Sent: 01 September 2015 05:17
> > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Try this, in Word this time.
> > > > >> Andy
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> *Andy Blunden*
> > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > >> On 1/09/2015 1:32 PM, mike cole wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It might be helpful to this discussion if someone would post the
> > > > >> chapter on Romantic Science from Luria's autobiography which MUST
> be
> > > > >> somewhere public in pdf. It appears that I do not have one.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> After reading what the person said, then discussion of the ideas
> > seems
> > > > >> appropriate. Ditto Sacks, who has written a couple of extended
> > essay's
> > > > >> on his view of Romantic Science.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is true that the Russian psychologists, erudite as they were,
> > were
> > > > >> not sociologists. Nor were they anthropologists. The nature of
> their
> > > > >> enterprise encompassed those fields and more.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Doing Romantic Science and immersing oneself in the individual
> case
> > in
> > > > >> no way excludes inclusion of sociology, anthropology, in their
> work.
> > > > >> Nor does Luria argue so.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> mike
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 7:29 PM, David Kellogg <
> > dkellogg60@gmail.com
> > > > >> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think the problem with this view of romantic science
> > > > >> is that it
> > > > >> completely precludes building a psychology on a
> > > > >> sociology. In that sense
> > > > >> (and in others), Vygotsky wasn't a romantic scientist
> > > > >> at all. Vygotsky
> > > > >> certainly did not believe in "total immersion in the
> > > > >> individual case"; such
> > > > >> an immersion is a refusal to rise to the level of
> > > > >> theory. I'm not sure
> > > > >> Luria was romantic that way either: "the Man with a
> > > > >> Shattered Mind" and
> > > > >> "The Memory of Mnemonist" are really exceptions.
> > > > >> Remember the main
> > > > >> criticism of Luria's book "The Nature of Human
> > > > >> Conflicts" was always that
> > > > >> it was too quantitative.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> There are, of course, some areas of psychology that
> > > > >> are well studied as
> > > > >> case histories. Recently, I've been looking into
> > > > >> suicidology, and in
> > > > >> particular the work of Edwin Shneidman, who pioneered
> > > > >> the linguistic
> > > > >> analysis of suicide notes (and who appears to have
> > > > >> been influenced, as
> > > > >> early as the 1970s, by Kasanin and by Vygotsky's work
> > > > >> on schizophrinia).
> > > > >> Now you would think that if ever there was a field
> > > > >> that would benefit from
> > > > >> total immersion in the individual case, this is one.
> > > > >> But Shneidman says
> > > > >> that suicide notes are mostly full of trite, banal
> > > > >> phrases, and as a
> > > > >> consequence very easy to code--and treat quantiatively
> > > > >> (one of his first
> > > > >> studies was simply to sort a pile of real and
> > > > >> imitation suicide notes and
> > > > >> carefully note the criteria he had when he made
> > > > >> correct judgements). And of
> > > > >> course the whole point of Durkheim's work on suicide
> > > > >> is that the individual
> > > > >> case can be utterly disregarded, since the great
> > > > >> variations are
> > > > >> sociological and the psychological variables all seem
> > > > >> trivial, transient,
> > > > >> or mutually cancelling when we look at suicide at a
> > > > >> large scale (as we must
> > > > >> these days). Shneidman says he has never read a
> > > > >> suicide note he would want
> > > > >> to have written.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> David Kellogg
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Andy Blunden
> > > > >> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
> > > > >> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > As little as I understand it, Larry, Oliver Sacks'
> > > > >> style of Romantic
> > > > >> > Science was his complete immersion in the individual
> > > > >> case before him, and
> > > > >> > development of a science of complete persons. The
> > > > >> paradigm of this type of
> > > > >> > science was Luria. A limit case of "Qualitative
> > > > >> Science" I suppose. The
> > > > >> > opposite is the study of just one aspect of each
> > > > >> case, e.g. facial
> > > > >> > recognition, and the attempt to formulate a
> > > > >> "covering law" for just this
> > > > >> > aspect.
> > > > >> > Andy
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >> > *Andy Blunden*
> > > > >> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> > > > >> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/> <
> > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
> > > > >> > On 1/09/2015 8:40 AM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Mike,
> > > > >> >> I recall in an obituary in the NYTimes that
> > > > >> naysayers were cited in
> > > > >> >> reviewing Oliver Sacks’ life work. I am wondering
> > > > >> if some of that push back
> > > > >> >> was related to his practice of romantic science,
> > > > >> which, if I understand
> > > > >> >> from things Andy has written, involves immersion in
> > > > >> the phenomena of
> > > > >> >> interest in search of a unit of analysis. Goethe,
> > > > >> for example, immersed
> > > > >> >> himself in the phenomena of living things. His
> > > > >> writing prefigures the cell
> > > > >> >> as a unit of analysis, but the technology of
> > > > >> microscopes could not confirm
> > > > >> >> such a unit until later on. Your contrasting Bruner
> > > > >> and Sacks makes me
> > > > >> >> wonder if the subject, not just the object, is at
> > > > >> issue. Different styles
> > > > >> >> of research bring different construals. This may be
> > > > >> the bane of
> > > > >> >> objectivist, empiricist science but does it really
> > > > >> make Sacks less of a
> > > > >> >> researcher and just a lowly clinician?
> > > > >> >> Henry
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 7:02 PM, mike cole
> > > > >> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:
> > mcole@ucsd.edu
> > > >>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Hi Laura-- I knew Oliver primarily through our
> > > > >> connections with Luria and
> > > > >> >>> the fact that we
> > > > >> >>> independently came to embrace the idea of a
> > > > >> romantic science. He was a
> > > > >> >>> shy
> > > > >> >>> and diffident person. You can get that feeling,
> > > > >> and the difference
> > > > >> >>> between
> > > > >> >>> him and Jerry Bruner in this regard in the
> > > > >> interview with them that
> > > > >> >>> someone
> > > > >> >>> pirated on
> > > > >> >>> to youtube.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Jerry is very old but last heard from by me,
> > > > >> engaging intellectually all
> > > > >> >>> the while.
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> mike
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Laura Martin
> > > > >> <martinl@azscience.org <mailto:martinl@azscience.org>
> > <mailto:
> > > > >> martinl@azscience.org>>
> > > > >> >>> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Thanks, Mike. A number of years ago I had the
> > > > >> privilege of spending an
> > > > >> >>>> evening with Sacks when Lena Luria was visiting
> > > > >> Jerry Bruner and Carol
> > > > >> >>>> Feldman in NY. I stood in for Sylvia who
> > > > >> couldn't make the dinner - it
> > > > >> >>>> was
> > > > >> >>>> an extraordinary evening in many ways. Do you
> > > > >> ever hear from Bruner? I
> > > > >> >>>> wonder if he's still active.
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Laura
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Sent from my iPad
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 3:29 PM, mike cole
> > > > >> <mcole@ucsd.edu <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu> <mailto:
> > mcole@ucsd.edu
> > > >>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Dear Colleagues ---
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> I am forwarding, with personal sadness, the news
> > > > >> that Oliver Sacks has
> > > > >> >>>> succumbed to cancer.
> > > > >> >>>> Its not a surprise, but a sad passing indeed.
> > > > >> >>>> mike
> > > > >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Date: Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:07 PM
> > > > >> >>>> Subject: NYTimes.com: Oliver Sacks Dies at 82;
> > > > >> Neurologist and Author
> > > > >> >>>> Explored the Brain’s Quirks
> > > > >> >>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:
> > > > >> lchcmike@gmail.com>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Sent by sashacole510@gmail.com
> > > > >> <mailto:sashacole510@gmail.com> <mailto:
> > sashacole510@gmail.com
> > > >:
> > > > >> Oliver Sacks Dies at
> > > > >> 82; Neurologist
> > > > >> >>>> and Author Explored the Brain’s Quirks
> > > > >> >>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > >> a <
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > >>
> > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440
> > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >> >>>> By
> > > > >> >>>> GREGORY COWLES
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> Dr. Sacks explored some of the brain’s strangest
> > > > >> pathways in
> > > > >> >>>> best-selling
> > > > >> >>>> case histories like “The Man Who Mistook His Wife
> > > > >> for a Hat,” achieving
> > > > >> >>>> a
> > > > >> >>>> level of renown rare among scientists.
> > > > >> >>>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser:
> > > > >> http://nyti.ms/1LL040D
> > > > >> >>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > >> a <
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=InCMR7g4BCKC2wiZPkcVUieQKbejxL4
> > > > >>
> > a&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440
> > > > >> 972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >> >>>> To
> > > > >> >>>> get unlimited access to all New York Times
> > > > >> articles, subscribe today.
> > > > >> >>>> See
> > > > >> >>>> Subscription Options.
> > > > >> >>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC
> > > > >>
> > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP
> > > > >> AvEGfk=
> > > > >> <
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACDuqzkg7rwC
> > > > >>
> > IjbQiYyNWYJIW5drsCg04xD2q1X6bqVB/vYPHy+JP5GfoOOml3K0i6GaUY7fZ7jcK869mP
> > > > >>
> > AvEGfk=&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_i
> > > > >> d=1440972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668®i_id=0>
> > > > >> >>>> To
> > > > >> >>>> ensure delivery to your inbox, please add
> > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com <mailto:nytdirect@nytimes.com>
> <mailto:
> > > > >> nytdirect@nytimes.com>
> > > > >> to your
> > > > >> >>>> address book. Advertisement
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto <
> > > > >>
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=secu
> > > > >>
> > > re.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn
> > > > >>
> > 1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=Mis
> > > > >>
> > tressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistr
> > > > >> essamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview>
> > > > >> &opzn&page=
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> secure.nytimes.com/mem/emailthis.html&pos=Frame6A&sn2=6da5bd5a/78e3a264&sn1=1071d68d/49278277&camp=FoxSearchlight_AT2015-1977432-August-C&ad=MistressAmerica_336x90-NOW&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efandango%2Ecom%2Fmistressamerica%5F182432%2Fmovieoverview
> > > > >> >>>> >
> > > > >> >>>> Copyright 2015
> > > > >> >>>> <
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP
> > > > >> IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==
> > > > >> <
> > > > >>
> > > http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACMlEhIhWVuP
> > > > >>
> > IxganfKahJGpDcKtdpfztygRnz23j1z6nDpx4eAAqQbYRMMl5L56EeQ==&user_id=bd31
> > > > >>
> > 502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&r
> > > > >> egi_id=0>
> > > > >> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcd
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [The entire original message is not included.]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Rafi Santo
> > > Project Lead
> > > Hive Research Lab
> > > hiveresearchlab.org
> > > A project of Indiana University and New York University
> > >
> > > Indiana University - Learning Sciences
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list