[Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

Attempting to keep the (later Vygotsky) thread on course.  
Taking up Pablo and Amelia on page 72 and their exploration of 2 brains: The intracortical brain & the extracortical brain.

The two brains ‘inter/act’ via the cultural-historical environment. 

This way of presenting the case leads to this question: Is this a mediational relational triangle or ONE unit/relation?
A) intracortical  brain
B) cultural historical environment 
C) Extracortical brain

With B mediating the 2 brains
Or is the alternative trajectory (without mediation) a more valid response

Both Michael andAlfredo’s paper and Pablo and Amelia’s paper are accenting the (later) Vygotsky, but trying to keep the focus upon
A) With
B) Without

Mediation. 

PS I want to thank Helena for her thoughtful and thought provoking engagement with Alfredo and Michael’s paper that left us all with the question:
Do these alternative lines make any practical difference?



Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: lpscholar2@gmail.com
Sent: April 12, 2017 9:55 AM
To: Wolff-Michael Roth; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky

Michael,
The key here IS THE RELATION that is constituted and this relation  creates commonality. No need for mediation. Only ONE relation which is constituted and various aspects. 
A category mistake to label some aspects (dependent) variables and other aspects (independent) variables.

Helena’s two cases involving texts when introduced into the one relation transform this  one relation -UNIT – but these texts do not mediate elements that have an existence (I.e. Subject & object; subject 1 & subject 2;) that have independent qualia that then are bridges to form a new relation.

I hope I have been faithful to this direction or line of inquiry.

I will now add a quote from page 69 (from the Pablo and Amelia article) by Vygotsky in 1930 after the turn.

It is not the functions that change, as we had believed (AND THAT WAS OUR MISTAKE) but their structure (...).  We ‘call’ psychological SYSTEM to the emergency of these ‘flexible’ relations (linking) the functions together.

I hope this furthers lines of entanglement which may be ONE relation??

As Alfredo says this line honours ‘we’ consciousness

Sent from my Windows 10 phone

From: Wolff-Michael Roth
Sent: April 11, 2017 3:22 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky

Hi,
I think mediationists need to show how mediation arises from non-mediation.
To do so, you cannot take recourse to mediation. In my view, the
Spinozist-Marxian take that does not require mediation is in a better
position. Just as commodity and the word IS the relation between two
people, so the third term in the S—sign/tool—mind or S1—sign/tool—S2 . . .
or which ever Vygotskian form you want to use IS the relation between the
other two terms. No mediation but the constitution of a relation. And it is
common to both terms, therefore, which also are part of the relation. There
is ONE relation, and it is the unit. That is why Helena is not on the right
track if she says *practically * it doesn't matter to do elemental analysis
or unit analysis. :-)
Michael

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolff-Michael Roth, Lansdowne Professor
Applied Cognitive Science
MacLaurin Building A567
University of Victoria
Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2
http://web.uvic.ca/~mroth <http://education2.uvic.ca/faculty/mroth/>

New book: *The Mathematics of Mathematics
<https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/new-directions-in-mathematics-and-science-education/the-mathematics-of-mathematics/>*

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> I'd like to address Haydi's question  'does mediation leads to dualism'.
> Of course, the answer depends of what we mean when we say mediation.
>
> A source that we did not include in our article, but which seems to be
> relevant, was advanced by A. N. Leontyev. In his 1979 work, he is
> discussing the problem of 'the postulate of immediacy (or directness)', of
> which the S - R (stimulus-response) formula is a direct expression. We all
> are familiar to the critiques and problematics around this formula, which
> Vygotsky masterly described.
>
> Interestingly, Leontyev critiques approaches of the following form:
>
> 'the rise of man and human society leads to the following: connections
> between the organism and the environment that were formerly direct and
> natural become mediated by culture developing on the base of material
> productivity. Thus culture appears, for individuals, in the form of meaning
> imparted by speech signs-symbols'
>
> That view, which Leontyev attributes to L. White (1949), seems to me very
> very close to the way in which the notion of 'mediation' is mobilised in
> much of the current literature from a CHAT perspectve. But this view,
> Leontyev argues, is also problematic, for, he argues, 'no complicating of
> the original formula coming from this postulate ... can eliminate those
> methodological difficulties that it produces in psychology'. Leontyev then
> proposes to overcome the postulate through 'the introduction ... of the
> category of object activity'.
>
> Whether he succeeds or not is another story. But what seems important to
> me is the way he poses the contrast between the basic (problematic)
> postulate of immediacy and its alternative (let's call it mediation):
> First, he speaks of substituting the binomial formulas with a trinomial
> one, which involves including 'a mediating link'. This sounds very much as
> the canonical approach to mediation as S- tool/sign - R. It is unclear to
> me, however, how White's model, which he critiques, was not already of this
> type (perhaps others in the list can help here). But nevertheless, what
> seems most interesting is the analogy he makes next:
>
> 'From the point of view of the problem of determining the psyche, this
> alternative may be formulated thus: We will take either the position that
> consciousness is determined by the surrounding objects and phenomena, or
> the position that consciousness is determined by the social existence of
> people, which, in the determination of Marx and Engels, is nothing more
> than the real process of their life'.
>
> But if the latter is true, if, as Marx and Engels argue, 'as individuals
> express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with
> their production', then 'mediation', as approached by Leont'ev, is not very
> far from Spinoza's quotation that we brought to bear in our article and
> which Helena was picking up on.
>
> So, as the non-dualist alternative to the 'postulate of immediacy',
> mediation is not problematic to me. But then, we have to agree that
> mediation runs all the way, from the most simple to the most complex living
> form (as Leontiev also seems to argue in his 1981 work when he describes
> the genesis of sensation). And for each form, we will still have to specify
> its genesis, dynamics, and development; and this, I am assuming, without
> recourse to the form 'this thing mediates this other thing or process'.
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of ‪Haydi Zulfei ‪ <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
> Sent: 11 April 2017 20:24
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
>
> Dear Helena,It's so nice to hear you.My reference to your name was because
> you are so frank in your remarks of wanting to be convinced , to receive
> examples of ideas , of preferring to figure out ideas and examples which
> have practical use and applications.At times one gets confused with so many
> interpretations in abstraction. I might be accused of this charge myself in
> which case I'll submit to corrections.
> Some notes :
> I now prefer to talk about tools and reserve sign for other occasions.
> Tools are objects , yes , but they 'act' as continuation and stretching of
> our limbs , hands in particular . Tools are fashioned by man and then are ,
> figuratively speaking , located between him and the object of need but , in
> actuality , it so seems that while they are put in the hands and hit
> something , quite simultaneously the stroke shakes the brain/intellect of
> the hominid as we see in chimpanzees with their way of solving problems .
> The gap between the instrumental activities of the hominids and the
> instrumental activities of primitive man is apparently filled with the
> repeated use of the tool.A thousand times we've heard that labour with tool
> changed the world and man himself therefrom.That's not really the case that
> we naively hang ourselves from the rope of Engels' doctrine but because we
> hear no other useful and convincing argument. Why should , then , activity
> theory be awkward?
> >From this beginning phase , we jump to ZPD and affordances. This is
> repetitious but I have to cling to it. I wonder if Wolff-Michael agrees .
> In his recent short note , he inclined to shy away from 'reference and
> meaning' . In a room , I'm sitting at the table sweating of warmth . My
> colleague enters and keeps the door open . Is any speech needed? There are
> daily too many acts that are carried out without speech/articulation. A
> need has been satisfied even without an obvious gesture. Does my
> colleague's volition to act emanate from imitating some grammar-based
> command which first was issued to others and now is issued from myself to
> myself? You say these are the beginnings and we have distanced ourselves
> from those days. Now we are articulate 'mammals' . Again repetitious :
> Vygotsky said word crowns the deed . Did he say word stops acting or is it
> the case that we , even now , either obviate speech and choose a direct
> arrival to act or ripen and enrich our thoughts with the word/s so that we
> reach the threshold of act and performance more rapidly and with more
> self-confidence . However , ultimately a decision should have been made .
> Then , it's again the turn for action. To see the day workers having been
> converted to scientists and scientists having been converted to workers is
> apparently very far off. Now our colleagues say Vygotsky by word meant much
> wider strands of talk and discourse . It demands delving into .
>
> But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet
> suggest?
>
> Ilyenko has worked out the 'ideal'. He says ideal is nothing but the
> reflection of the material activity onto mind. And says we don't have two
> kinds of activities , then ; one material , the other spiritual. One is the
> copy of the other. Before that , he says for 'man' the whole world is
> humanized . Man must have the 'ideal' of everything so that he can work and
> satisfy his needs through the use of these 'ideals' within the process of
> activity. Ideal is objectified so things get 'forms' and come into being
> (reification) ; again the reified , the product , at some critical crucial
> point , is deobjectified and idealized so that it pierces into another
> process of activity to deliver and satisfy the novel need . Some scholars
> say the problem of the 'internalization' or so-called 'involution' is
> dualistic because on one side we have the external and on the other we have
> the internal . That works for itself and this works for itself , too . Then
> what medium is available , other than thought transfer impossible though,
> to let one unite with the other ? They say with the ideal the dualism is
> removed because in the labour process (activity) the ideal and the material
> are just moments (inseparable,undissociable) within the one process. As we
> had the discussion of the 'molars' when we relied on Davydov who's
> unanimous both with Vygotsky as epistemology and formation of concepts are
> concerned and with Ilyenko as ontology of the ideal and the material is
> concerned.
>
> I need time to continue ...
> Best wishesHaydi
>       From: Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>  To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Cc: Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>  Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017, 4:17:47
>  Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
>
> Sorry, message got pasted in twice. Please ignore previous message.
>
> Helena Worthen
> helenaworthen@gmail.com <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> Berkeley, CA 94707
> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>
>
>
> > On Apr 10, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > hi -
> >
> > In an effort to get back in the conversation, I have read the
> Roth-Jornet paper, Theorizing Without Mediators, and have some comments. As
> usual, I like to see ideas tested agains concrete examples. I like it even
> better when the ideas seem to have some useful, practical applications.
> >
> > Roth and Jornet argue that the well-worn familiar term, “mediation,”
> leaves sociocultural theory open to charges of dualism, and that Vygotsky
> himself was abandoning the term (and perhaps the concept) in his late years
> >
> > I agree that the English word "mediation" has some problems. Tools and
> signs are said to “mediate” but they are not themselves active; they are
> objects, they don’t initiate anything. They have a function, however.
> While a text does not actively do anything, someone does something with it.
> So “mediating” looks like a verb (a gerund) but really isn’t.  Nor does
> mediate simply locate something in the middle, or between two things. To
> extend Roth and Jornet’s metaphor, a river does not mediate its shores; it
> may lie between them, but a bridge, if there is one, would mediate.
> >
> >  This vocabulary problem affects other words that are terms of art in
> sociocultural theory. “Affordances” is one. The phrase “activity theory” is
> a little awkward. When introducing someone to sociocultural theory, I
> always have to warn them that there is a kind of private language involved.
> I don’t know where it came from – translations?
> >
> > But does the concept of mediation lead to dualism, as Roth and Jornet
> suggest?        `
> >
> > I have tried to collect the pairs that are referenced when we talk about
> “mediation” or “artifact mediation”?  Some that are mentioned in the first
> couple of pages of this article are:
> >
> > Nature/culture
> > Intrasubjective/intersubjective
> > Individual/(collective or group) – this is my addition
> > Inner mind/outer world
> > Developing individual/social practice
> >
> >  So are these dualisms or dialectical partners?
> >
> >  The idea that a tool or a sign “mediates” between all of these does not
> seem problematical to me. I can think of concrete examplesThe idea that a
> tool or a sign “mediates” between all of these does not seem problematical
> to me. I can think of concrete examples for all of them. Schools mediate
> between nature and culture. Writing a poem mediates between one’s inner
> mind and the outer world; same for intrasubjective/intersubjective. A
> teacher mediates between a developing individual and a social practice. An
> agenda mediates between an individual and a group.  The document drafted by
> Jimmy Carter and amended sequentially by Rabin and Sadat mediated that
> phase of the negotiations, etc.
> >
> >  This does not seem to lead to the quote from Mikhailov in line 46 on
> page 1, about ‘from the perspective of the soul, there are no mediators.” I
> am also not convinced that if tools, technology and signs mediate every
> activity, “mediation would explain nothing.”  I can see that in numbers,
> this is true – 4ab x 6a = 24ab is really 4b x 6 = 24b, right?- but not in
> communication.  Nor do I really understand the quote from Spinoza on line
> 25 of page 2, “being is transparent in its determination . . . in that it
> excludes every mediation that would produce the determination.” Being as
> existence?  And the thalidomide baby example is striking but it does not
> earn its place by being clear.  What is the sign or tool here? What is the
> activity?
> >
> >  Overall, the jump to Spinoza confuses me. Spinoza wrote in Latin, in
> the 1800s; does he mean what Vygotsky means by “mediation”?
> >
> >
> > Spinoza aside, I’m willing to accept that Vygotsky, according to
> Mikhailov, supplanted “mediation” with “the intersubjective speech field.”
> We can still look at what is in the middle of the intersubjective speech
> field and see what’s going on. If “intersubjective speech field” is a new
> way of talking about mediation, so be it.
> >
> >
> >  Now we go to the concrete case provided by Roth and Jornet, one that
> might seem to be an example of mediation, to see what is different if we
> look at it as an example of a speech field. The authors indicate that this
> concept will be different because it “includes time and social relations as
> irreducible aspects of the unit of analysis.” I am not convinced that this
> is different: the famous Engestrom triangle places a tool or sign as the
> mediator between categories that are embodied in people (history, customs,
> rules etc. on the one side and an object/outcome on the other), all in
> dynamic whole that changes over time.  So time and social relations are
> irreducible aspects of that unit of analysis, too.
> >
> >
> >  But on to the case: page 5, with images of a Quick Reference Handbook
> (QRH), script of an interaction between an examiner and an airline pilot.
> The pilot has made a mistake and the examiner is quizzing him about how it
> happened. The QRH shows a checklist of what was supposed to happen; it is
> the authority to which both refer. I think that the discussion illustrated
> with variations of the famous triangle is summarized in the paragraph in
> the middle of page 7: ‘To identify the QRH as a mediator, the
> subjectivities of pilot and examiner must be assumed to pre-exist the
> relation, and the tool be placed in between. It also functions to “mediate”
> between the different (subjective) “meanings” and as a tool in the
> “construction of” intersubjectivity. Alternatively, however, and in line
> with a unit analysis, it is possible to consider the QRH to be an aspect
> integral to the field in which the two participants are also constitutive
> parts. The QRH then is integral part of the common ground in and to the
> sequentially organized turn taking of examiner and pilot. Such is the
> approach we work towards in the sections below.’
> >
> >  So we are looking for a unit analysis (analysis of a whole unit, not
> unit of analysis) rather than an analysis into elements. I am not yet
> convinced that in practice there is really any difference.
> >
> >
> >  On the other hand, the expanded script on page 10 does certainly show
> how the words of the conversation exist for both the pilot and the
> examiner, and thereby creates a shared social space. In other words,
> “intersubjective speech field” makes sense – a moment in time when the
> words of each person (subject) are alive in the hearing and consciousness
> of the other – “I hear you and you hear me.” And it does not leave a crack
> by which it could be opened to the charge of dualism. Instead it is a
> whole, a coherent unit of analysis. But “intersubjective speech field?” -
> another term of art!!
> >
> >
> > Finally, while I have had trouble with the term ‘mediate’ and can see
> that it is open to misunderstandings, I have always found that these
> misunderstandings melted away quickly when I was working with something
> very concrete.  When a union steward, for example, is defending a worker
> who has been disciplined, the text of the contract definitely mediates the
> relationship between the worker and the employer. No doubt about it; take
> that text away, and the relationship changes abruptly.
> >
> >
> > What would the “intersubjective speech field” have been like if the QRH
> had not been available?  Would the pilot have offered a different defense?
> That would be a way to have tested what mediating role it played.
> >
> > Helena
> >> On Apr 9, 2017, at 4:53 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:
> lpscholar2@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Alfredo, Amelia, and Pablo,
> >>
> >> Alfredo,
> >> Your hope that we will cover this ground by reference to a wider
> literature by ‘expanding ’ the field, may have the unintended consequence
> of also ‘abbreviating’ the focus on ‘with/out mediation,  at the core of
> your paper.
> >>
> >> This notion of abbreviation and expansion and when each direction is
> appropriate.
> >> This speaks to your article’s notion of “accented”. When contents are
> accented by some reference [I.e. deictic, body orientation, verbal
> indication] then, the semantic, sense-giving *field* changes.  The contents
> no longer have to be said because the presence of the contents in the
> *field* goes ‘without’ saying, being an aspect of the integral co-inhabited
> space.
> >>
> >> Following this line, I notice Amelia and Pablo’s article explores five
> usually overlooked aspects of Vygotsky’s work. The first overlooked aspect
> is:
> >>
> >> “the understanding of the mediational system as a trans-organic,
> EXTENDED branch of the psychological system.
> >>
> >> This first aspect explored by Amelia and Pablo  may or may not share a
> family resemblance to your and Michael’s exploration of theorizing with/out
> mediation?
> >>
> >> I hope Amelia and Pablo read through your article so that we can read
> each article through the perspective of the other article thus expanding
> our notion of ‘mediation’? I am referring to the title of Amelia and
> Pablo’s article [Vygotsky and beyond: Horizons for the Future of
> Psychology]. This is a theme of ‘extending’ with/out premature
> abbreviation. May require a middle path?
> >>
> >> I will re-send your and Michael’s article in the hope of engaging both
> articles with the potential to  open possible new horizons  through
> engaging with the ‘later’ Vygotsky [1932-1934] and his re/thinking his
> life’s work and this new direction’s relevance for our current moment in
> time. I am referring to the title of Amelia and Pablo’s article
> >> Also recognizing this is contested ground.
> >>
> >> Searching for a new con/sensus
> >>
> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> >>
> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> >> Sent: April 9, 2017 10:50 AM
> >> To: lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>; eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Thank you Larry for sharing your reading of our article, which I think
> is a very sensible read. I hope that by posting Amelia and Pablo's article,
> we can cover the ground by reference to a wider literature as well.
> Obviously, ours is only one among other takes in current literature that
> point in the similar direction; and there are yet others quiet critical to
> these 'revisionist' takes. As you anticipate, getting these into dialogue
> would be a great xmca accomplishment.
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >>
> >> From: lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com> <
> lpscholar2@gmail.com <mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: 09 April 2017 14:21
> >> To: Alfredo Jornet Gil; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Alfredo,
> >> I have been slowly reading (and digesting) your and Wolff-Michael’s
> article (Theorizing – with/out mediators) that joins the current ‘takes’ on
> the later Vygotsky.
> >>
> >> My impression (and appreciation) of this emerging tradition is
> significant as  an enlarging of the scope and ‘re-working’ of the Vygotsky
> who was known in the process of moving into the West European  and North
> Atlantic form of theorizing.
> >>
> >> I am reading your article in relation to the notion of ‘playworlds’ and
> ‘spielraum’ (translated playrooms).
> >>
> >> A key re-working of (mediation) has to do with re/thinking triangle
> diagrams as static (with mediation at the apex).
> >> This generates a PREsumption of two variables at the base of the
> triangle assumed as (elements, essences, things) that inter/act through an
> ‘intermediary’ third (element, essence, thing).
> >> Your article indicates this is the classical or canonical version of
> (mediation) as the third thing/element through which the other two
> things/elements become changed or develop.
> >>
> >> Your re-working of (mediation) adds the temporal, duration, and (unit
> of analysis) and implies it is not the elements or parts that each
> individually change or develop (classic intermediary model of elements
> transformed by going through a third element IN a triangle with an apex
> mediator)
> >> But rather
> >> There are only relation of (within UNITS).
> >> When a tool, technique, sign, word, artifact) develops then the ENTIRE
> UNIT (not elements) develops.
> >>
> >> Alfredo, I personally believe your approach (currently re-working
> classical and Western canonical versions) deserves to have its own (place)
> as a subsection on the XMCA site. To become more clear on this ‘later’
> Vygotsky.
> >> Then a conversation may generate that puts in question this re-working
> >> BUT
> >> In a spirit of ‘play’ in rooms.
> >> A movement back and forth, oscillating, spiralling, developing, and
> never reaching a determinate conclusion, once and forever.
> >>
> >> Putting in play triangles with mediators at the apex as static diagrams.
> >> More open, fluid, theorizing with ANDA WITHOUT ‘mediators’ as we play
> with these notions.
> >>
> >> I recommend others read the article ‘Theorizing with/out mediators’.
> >> Reading the (/) to mean interval where we tarry awhile in a spirit of
> re-working theorizing with/out mediators.
> >>
> >> I believe we need to create a subsection on XMCA to let these notions
> percolate and permeate the more classical boundary markers.
> >>
> >> My way of saying your article is a pro-found re-working of the notions
> of (within) and (without) and (mediation) at the core of this re-working
> PRE-assumptions.
> >>
> >> My morning muse
> >>
> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone
> >>
> >> From: Alfredo Jornet Gil
> >> Sent: April 8, 2017 10:20 PM
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Current takes on the 'later' Vygotsky
> >>
> >> Hi Esteban,
> >>
> >> yes, things have been a little quiet lately, but there have been few
> threads going on, perhaps most importantly the one discussing Jang's (this
> issue's) paper on multi-ethnic issues on Second Language.
> >>
> >> Other threads have seemed to resonate on recent articles/works
> attempting to re-work (or work further) some of Vygotsky's key concepts, in
> particular ZPD and Mediation (with a couple of articles having been
> circulated).
> >>
> >> Connecting to the latter, it seems that several of those efforts are
> making emphasis on Vygotsky's later period, suggesting that much of the
> prior and current uptakes have focused almost exclusively on the
> instrumental aspects that were more salient in his middle period, and not
> so much on the lines of inquiry that the psychologist was opening never had
> the chance to pursue.
> >>
> >> I attach yet another such work, this time by del Río and Álvarez. Much
> is being written about how and to what extent Vygotsky was revising his own
> prior work. This one tells as more about that, and does so both in English
> and in Spanish.
> >>
> >> I wonder how do xmca'ers (who likely are busy reading world news as
> things are getting more and more perplexing) feel and think about this
> tendency/prospect in cultural-historical theory literature.
> >>
> >> Alfredo
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu> <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@
> mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf of Helena Worthen <helenaworthen@gmail.com
> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
> >> Sent: 09 April 2017 03:11
> >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie,
> Apophasis ... and TRUMP'S speech!
> >>
> >> Hi, Esteban -
> >>
> >> Things have been a little quiet recently. I suspect my co-xmca-ers in
> the US are either mid-semester or digging in on big projects that will have
> some significance, hopefully, given what we’re dealing with here.
> >>
> >> You may or may not be aware that our new Secretary of Education is the
> sister of Erik Prince, http://www.ibtimes.com/who-
> betsy-devos-brother-erik-princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-
> laundering- <http://www.ibtimes.com/who-betsy-devos-brother-erik-
> princes-involvement-blackwater-chinese-money-laundering->2493834
> >>
> >> Just a hint of what is happening to education, top to bottom, in the US.
> >>
> >>
> >> Helena
> >>
> >>
> >> Helena Worthen
> >> helenaworthen@gmail.com
> >> Berkeley, CA 94707
> >> Blog about US and Viet Nam: helenaworthen.wordpress.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 8, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Stephen Diaz <EDiaz@csusb.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Bruce,
> >>>
> >>> Don't know if you are still the one for xmcc but I am not getting any
> emails from that list serve.  Can you please check on that.  I still want
> to continue on it if possible.  Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Esteban Diaz
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Bruce Jones <bjones@ucsd.edu>
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2017 3:23 PM
> >>> To: mike cole; Andy Blunden; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Playworlds, Performance, Perezhivanie, Apophasis
> ... and TRUMP'S speech!
> >>>
> >>> On 2/5/17 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote:
> >>>> Bruce's email is not bouncing from san diego.
> >>>> Perhaps there is only one c in unsubscribe?
> >>>
> >>> Spelling mistakes will not cause bounces.  I do the unsubscribes by
> hand
> >>> in order to make sure they are removed from the database.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Bruce Jones
> >>> Sys Admin, LCHC
> >>> bjones@ucsd.edu
> >>> 619-823-8281
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>