[Xmca-l] Re: Oliver Sacks/Romantic Science

Peter Feigenbaum [Staff] pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
Mon Sep 7 10:13:54 PDT 2015 

Colleagues,

I just want to wrap up this thread--and to thank those who responded--by
addressing in turn some of the issues you've raised.

1) First of all, regarding the 2 x 2 *Quadrant Thingy* (as Steve Gabosh is
fond of calling it):  Like Peg Griffin, I consider it a helpful heuristic
tool. It is useful when comparing one set of binary categories or
dialectical oppositions with another set--an exercise that Steve and I
engaged in with respect to the many dialectical oppositions raised by
Vygotsky's theory. This tool can be applied to any conceptual content, and
therefore has wide utility. But as some of you have pointed out, there are
limits to its usefulness, and sometimes the value lies in amplifying the
contents of a single quadrant. Beyond its use as an analytical lever,
however, I don't think it has much philosophical import.

2) Peter S.: Many thanks for your article. I only wish it had been
available when Steve and I were hammering out the characteristics of a
*practical* concept! I appreciate the clarity of your insights into this
phenomenon, which puts more flesh on the bones of this somewhat elusive
concept. In addition, I had not considered the special difficulties posed
by *social* concepts; I've been entirely focused on children's step-by-step
acquisition of the hierarchical structure of language (from words to
phrases to sentences to narratives) and the corresponding step-by-step
development of their conceptual understanding of this hierarchy, and what
this whole process implies about the development from experiential to
logical reasoning. With *social* concepts, you do indeed complicate the
problem of the development of verbal thinking by raising issues that go
beyond achieving mastery at solving well-defined logical problems. Thanks
for bringing all that complication out into the light.

3) In the context of the 2 x 2 matrix, Haydi and some others raised the
issue of Ilyenkov's notion of ascending to the level of the concrete. Steve
and I debated this idea and did not come to an agreement about how it maps
out. Personally, I believe the development of verbal thinking in children
begins with the first words in the Concrete-Particular quadrant during the
period of Syncretic conceptual thinking and achieves its most advanced
state (in this current historical period) with the acquisition of narrative
structures in the Abstract-General quadrant corresponding to the period of
*true* concepts. Precisely which quadrant(s) the complexive and
pre-conceptual forms of understanding pass through during development is
still beyond my grasp--although I suspect that the concrete-abstract
qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the speech system, whereas
the particular-general qualities of verbal thinking may originate in the
thinking system, and that each is following a different path while pulling
the other into its orbit.

In addition to the developmental path of verbal thinking, however, is the
*application* of verbal thinking to practical problems--and that is where I
believe Ilyenkov's notion comes into play. In solving practical problems,
one must *cycle* from the concrete-particular to the abstract-general and
then RETURN to the concrete-particular--where the abstract-general
knowledge thus acquired can be usefully applied. Higher mental functions
are of little value if they are not applied in practice. The activity of
bringing theory back to the realm of practice is how I understand the
notion of *ascending to the concrete*.

4) Which brings me full circle: back to Mike's interest in Romantic Science
and the blending of the nomothetic and the idiographic. Luria and Sacks
were both remarkable for their ability to take a concrete, particular case,
consider it from a highly theoretical perspective, and then apply their
theoretical understanding to that case either to perform a diagnosis or
propose a remedial measure. It seems to me that the *integration* of theory
and practice requires a greater understanding than either activity alone.
And I believe that integration is what made both of them such outstanding
scientist/clinicians.

My two cents!

Thanks to all.

Peter F.




On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 11:45 AM, peter jones <h2cmng@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Sorry I struggle to keep up...There are clearly contexts in which Hodges'
> model would reduce to emphasize one domain. Can we say the model collapses
> catastrophically? The obvious example - and a diagnostic one - is an
> individual suffering a sudden collapse and apparent loss of consciousness.
> The priorities are physical - basic life support - we also need to screen
> the situation, environment lest we become the next casualty. As Peg points
> out the other panes are still there, but they are relevant, salient,
> in-play at this emergency point in time. As process is followed however it
> won't be long until questions are asked about next of kin, assuring dignity
> due to clothing being cut/removed, what does policy say about the equipment
> used....?
> Thanks to Rafi  for the paper by Kieran Healy on 'nuance' which notes:
> It is the act of making—or the call to make—some bit of theory “richer” or
> “moresophisticated” by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some
> additional dimension,level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong
> means of disciplining or specifyingthe relationship between the new
> elements and the existing ones (p.2).
>
> I'm not sure if the purposes of the model in my studies is assisted (in
> some way?) by seeking to conjoin all academic disciplines (make it richer)
> and not just sociology, the intersubjective (humanistic)?
> In health (especially) it is essential for tools to be evidence based (and
> yet this too is another debate). Hodges' model isn't a theory and I think
> some people dismiss it as simplistic based on the 2x2 structure.
> Hodges' is concerned with what kind of domain knowledge is needed to solve
> a problem, pose a question, well formed argument... at a certain point in
> time (context). The structure of the model arises from questions of 'who'
> (individual OR group); and the types of things (humanistic-mechanistic)
> that healthcare workers then do for said individual's - groups.
> In the Romantic Science sense is Hodges' model a series of (potential)
> conceptual spaces that as a whole is pantological?
> Of these nuance traps, Sociology has historically been most prone to the
> nuanceof the conceptual framework (Rule 1997, Chapter 4) (p.3).
>
> Must look up Rule. This is interesting too as 'holism' (and with it
> Romantic Science?) as in (w)holistic - integrated care is often dismissed
> as a crystal-faced light-reflecting-refracting fad.
> Peter Jones
> @h2cm
>
>
>      From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>  To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>  Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2015, 16:08
>  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&regi_id=0>
> >>
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_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&regi_id=0>
> >>
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_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&regi_id=0>
> >>
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_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=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0
> >>      >>>> >
> >>      >>>> | The New York Times Company
> >>      >>>> <
> >>      >>>>
> >>
> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS
> >> h <
> >> http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUv6vqdu/zT/DtUzLlQEcS
> >> h&user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440
> >> 972441657668&regi_id=0>
> >>
> &user_id=bd31502e6eb851a9261827fdfbbcdf6d&email_type=eta&task_id=1440972441657668&regi_id=0
> >>      >>>> >
> >>      >>>> | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>> --
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a
> >>      natural science with an
> >>      >>>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>>>
> >>      >>> --
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a
> >>      natural science with an
> >>      >>> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >>      >>>
> >>      >>
> >>      >>
> >>      >>
> >>      >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] <
> >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass> <
> >> http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
> >>
> >> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely
> >> for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not
> >> the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the
> >> information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on
> it.
> >> If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> >> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> >> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> >> accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to
> >> scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> >> responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this
> >> email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services
> >> unless accompanied by an official order form.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
Director,
Office of Institutional Research
<http://www.fordham.edu/academics/office_of_the_provos/office_of_institutio/index.asp>
Fordham University
Thebaud Hall-202
Bronx, NY 10458

Phone: (718) 817-2243
Fax: (718) 817-3817
email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu

More information about the xmca-l mailing list