[Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

Fri Aug 14 12:47:37 PDT 2020

Hi Annalisa,

I am reading Vygotsky seriously right now for the second time, maybe twenty years later (by reading I mean I keep going back to his writing and mulling over it and discussing it with students and colleagues – I don’t know how many times I’ve screamed, “No, no don’t say scaffolding to me” over the last year.

I am reading Vygotsky in a very different way this time. One of the things that is helping me is that I have a student who was a Russian linguist who likes the way Vygotsky writes but does not have any agenda (her interests run to game design). I would ask her what words really mean and every time she would smile and tell me but with some variation of, “You don’t really read Russian that way.” Here is what I get from this teacher/student – if German is the language you use to train your horse and French is the language you use to make love and English is the language you use to do business – Russian is the language you use to write poetry. No accident Tolstoy and Dusteovsky and Chekhov and Gogol (she would kill me if I forgot Gogol) were Russian. I am not good enough at language I think it truly understand this (I learned two words living six months in Mexico) but it has a pretty big effect on me. I see Vygotsky much more as an artist and much less as an artist, that he was pushing back against psychologists rather than attempting to become part of the club.

This for instance is why I am interested in his relationship with Gurivich. It is not about the experiments, it is about the literature. When he talks about tool and symbol it is because it is symbols which make us human. I think he may be closer to the humanities than most psychologist, because indeed it is the humanities that makes us human. As psychologists who have given ourselves over to positivist models I wonder if we have a hard time accepting this.

All this to say, I don’t think he took affect from Spinoza (I never did, Spinoza strikes me as very cryptic) and I think he was more immersed in affect than we recognized. I think he took it from the theater and the realist revolution that was going on around him and which for a very short time he was a very small part of.  I think it is deep in his later writings, chapter six and seven of Thinking and Speech for instance. Your ideas on the Vedic tradition and Upadhi. I studied a year in India when young and my yoga teacher tried so hard to get me to understand it and I never could, and eventually got thrown out of class (ah dear Pushpatti you knew me too well).  Of course Vygotsky almost certainly had no background in Vedic thinking.  What I do think is that like the writer he wanted to be he used phrases and ideas less as truths and more to move his narrative forward. They played a role for him. He was a good writer it seems but not a great writer. I think he uses conscious awareness in this manner. He is using the idea to push his narrative forward (I definitely don’t want to go into what I think his narrative was as it would too long and convoluted to be of use). But I think it is important to see conscious awareness in that way, not as a stand alone concept but as a way to push his narrative of human thinking and development forward.

Michael

From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 2:30 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

Hi Michael, David, Andy, and others,

Thank you Michael for your helpful reply. I appreciate the humility expressed which is always the sign of a good thinker, if that is OK for me to express without sounding arrogant myself.

I am beginning to consider whether Vygotsky's model is flawed. I'm sensing this more than I have ever considered it before. I'm likely not the first to criticize it.

But I also know that I'm looking at his writing with a lens of distortion of history, translations, and what Andy might call contextual ignorance. That's why I think I am trying to be very generous by asking questions such as "what are the actual Russian words he used?"

Would it be eye-rollingly overbearing if I were to say that there is a model about thinking that already existed not of the 21st century?

If you can bear with me I can relate this to Vygotsky farther down, but first I must relate a few concepts about mind that I believe are quite useful and even illuminating.

In Vedic understanding of mind, there is the vritti. This translates to "thought modification." Kind of like molding-clay may be shaped into one form and then another, we can only have one thought at a time, just as we can only form one object of clay at a time with the same lump, even though there are transitional states, like we might witness on the potters wheel of a vase being formed into a wider mouthed bowl, and then perhaps into a plate. Thoughts transform similarly.

The mind has four aspects. This is cit, manas, buddhi, and ahankara. These aspects work upon the vritti in specific ways which will become clear below.

Cit is awareness or consciousness, and considered similar to light, in the way light will light up a room so that we can see what is in it.

Manas is the ruminating mind, the one that free-associates, and this includes manifest emotions as well. Like when we might have "monkey mind." Or that asks the question, "Did I forget my keys on the counter?"

Buddhi is the decisive mind. It is the one that reasons and picks out what is important, like the editor of a newspaper. It recognizes, it weighs this with that, and takes a decision to task.

Ahankara is the notion of self, what I take myself to be. It is notional in the same way a person can consider self-worth based upon possessions, birth into a particular family, level of education, other ways of identification. But also when I take myself to be the condition of my mind at a given moment. (as in: My mind is sad, therefore I am sad). It is also the part of mind that believes that this mind-body-sense complex is me. The mind-body-sense complex is a limiting adjunct, and is referred to as an upadhi.

Upadhi can be a difficult concept to grasp fully, but it is similar to the way a crystal is clear but if I hold a flower next to it, I will see a pink crystal not a transparent one, and I say "the crystal is pink." The crystal in reality is not pink, but is borrowing the color from the rose set next to it; nothing has changed in the structure of the crystal at all. It is by appearance only. Ahankara is functional, but some might mistake it as structural. Sometimes ahankara is translated as ego, but it's not exactly that, because it is not necessary to get rid of it, but more to understand its functional role in my life.

Mind in this model is interactional between these four aspects, which are in their own way casting various forms upon the thought-modifications, or vrittis.

If you are still with me, I would guess that the vritti might map to Vygotsky's concept of a concept. Manas is the affective mind, which I don't know if he discusses that much, and manas might map to a role of forming "everyday concepts." Perhaps this is what is impacted by perezhivanie, which seems to be something that comes from the outside alone.

(Can there be inner perezhivanie??)

Buddhi might have the role of forming the scientific concepts, because it is decisive and reasons, and that would be certainly be required to form a scientific concept.

However as I'm writing this, manas can also be involved, because it would be the more intuitive part of thinking, say when a scientist as a hunch. Likewise, the buddhi can be involved in the spontaneous concept formation as well, because that would be the moment of identifying my brother from everyone else's brother.

Cit is an aspect of awareness that is present in the person that when absent means the person is no longer alive. Because there is no separation between mind and body in this model, cit would also be seen as penetrating the body, not just the mind, and is why I can be aware of my hand as equally as my thoughts. It's a life force on the subtlest plane, it is simply awareness that permeates all, like light permeates space. Or like the way the pink of the flower penetrates the crystal making it seem that the crystal is pink, which is why it is so easy to believe that thought is happening in the brain, behind the eyes. It is illusory, or "mithya" which is a dependent reality that reveals itself and emerges like a wave on the surface of the sea.

Because I maintain the Vedic model conceptually frames reality more faithfully, I'm having a hard time with the phrase "conscious awareness," because it would be mingling the pink into the crystal, when the pink is only apparent to the crystal.

Now if what he was actually describing is analogous to buddhi, I could abide in the naming being wrong but the meaning being the same.

One reason that Vygotsky is compelling to me is that he breaks from a model of mind that is internal to the individual and from the environment having no part to play in the mind's evolution in the individual.

That is basically crossing the Rubicon in terms of making the self an air-tight ready-made with a mind-body split that is determined by genetics or by happenstance. Because it is both nature and nurture. Vygotsky seeks the order by which the person develops, and the "quantum-physics" of self manifesting as a mind-person in the world with others in time and space. It's really cool, right?

The tricky part of all this is the work was done in the midst of an evolution, it is incomplete, he suffered illness, political isolation and so on. It's a wonder that we can even be here to know that he existed at all.

What is particularly compelling for me is his occupation with emotions, specifically how he was drawn to how Spinoza wrote about emotion. It was his Rosetta Stone  he attempted to crack.

Here's another question: Did Vygotsky read Latin?

It's a nice perezhivanie moment that Michael, that you can share your shining moment of using the Bishop's gambit in your chess game by the pool, and how that must have brought more light to your relationship with your brother. Thanks for sharing it.

In any case I can accept that "conscious awareness" is an attempt to name a phenomenon that Vygotsky recognized in the development of mind. It is perhaps a phrase too crude to serve with the precision required for the task at hand.

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________
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 Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu<mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 6:02 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

  [EXTERNAL]

Hi Andy, Henry, Anna Lisa,

Let me start by saying that this is completely restricted to the way conscious awareness is used in Thinking and Speech. If it is use differently in other places this perspective may be wrong. To my mind (with the proviso that my mind if often wrong) Vygotsky is using the idea of conscious awareness for a specific purpose. To differentiate the role of spontaneous concepts with non-spontaneous concepts. Spontaneous concepts are based initially in affective memory and they give energy and motivation to many of our activities. However we are not consciously aware of them. To go back to chess, I am at the pool and my friend comes up to me and says “Chess?” I say yes. I have no conscious awareness of the concept of chess in my life, why I say yes so easily why it may be a way to make a social connection between me and my friend. It is residue of my affective memory (I don’t know how much Vygotsky was using Ribot when making this argument). We are playing chess and I remember that my brother showed me the non-spontaneous/scientific concept of the bishop’s gambit. As this point in my life I have to think about it and whether I want to use it. I must summon the intellectual functions of memory and attention as I think about the use of the bishop’s gambit. This then is conscious awareness of the scientific concept. I used the bishop’s gambit and win the game and I applaud myself. I got home and tell my brother, the bishop’s gambit was great, thanks. I am mediating the scientific concept of the bishop’s gambit with my everyday concept of playing chess. Voila, development!!!!

I don’t know if Vygotsky uses conscious awareness differently elsewhere.

Michael

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 Andy Blunden
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:51 PM
To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu<mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

Henry, my aim was just to introduce Annalisa and whoever to the scientific way that the terms "conscious awareness" and "consciousness" are used in CHAT. I say "scientific" in the sense that in CHAT we have a system of concepts and associated word meanings which have, if you like, conventional meanings. There is nothing wrong with "automatic and controlled processing" and "ballistic processing" but so far as I am aware these terms were not in Vygotsky's vocabulary. I could be wrong of course and I am sure I will be rapidly corrected if this is the case.

Andy

________________________________

Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRn4Ixz7_Q$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Smhly0SjdcgGREcg-6xH-8n9H3YEj1J9lzNgh3sh3V04jFUm38R6Cc-p_IYblRlV1SuySw$>

On 14/08/2020 1:36 pm, HENRY SHONERD wrote:

Andy,

I think of what you described as automatic and controlled processing. Automatic processing (also called ballistic) requires little or no attentional resources. Controlled processes, on the other hand, take up a lot of attention. When you’re learning something, it can easily overload attentional capacity. One aspect of learning or scaffolding the learning of another is to know the right combination of controlled and automatic processing. I think this relates to Vygotsky’s Zoped. You quoted Hegel a while back about mathematical thinking that captures this distinction very well.

Henry

On Aug 13, 2020, at 7:37 PM, Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org<mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:

Annalisa, for Marxists, "consciousness" is a very broad term covering what mediates between physiology and behaviour, the totality of mental processes in an individual organism, whether sleeping or awake.

"Conscious awareness" on the other hand refers to knowing and attending to what you are doing at the time. A couple of classic examples will illustrate. When you're walking down the street you do not have conscious awareness of how yor foot is laying itself flat on the footpath, how your body is overbalancing slightly forwards and your other leg swinging slightly outward and bending as you bring it forward, etc. ... but if for example you step over a kerb and having underestimated the depth of the step and momentarily losing you balance, your walking suddenly springs back into conscious awareness and you look down at the ground, and take conscious control of your balance, etc.
On the other hand, consider when a child is first learning to tie their own shoelaces; let's suppose they have been taught the rabbit ears method. The child says to herself "make the rabbit ears ... this one ...  that one ... cross over ... put through the hole ...  grab it .,. and PULL IT TIGHT! Yeh!" That is, she tied her laces with conscious awareness, according to how she was instructed, paying attention to every operation, using internal speech (more or less). But a couple of months later she now thinks about getting out the door in time to meet her friends while she is tying her laces and isn't even looking at what she's doing. She has achieved mastery.

OK?

Andy

________________________________

Andy Blunden
Hegel for Social Movements<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQcZ_PAJg$>
Home Page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!XZQXs1xzTdD7gK6xsdMBk-Ga55iwz6RrA67DSGtQSP4CCGUWy0fBCOAYvjslviQmlKG-rg$>

On 14/08/2020 4:13 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:

Hello conscious and venerable others,

Mike points out a very important point that conscious awareness cannot be a product of scientific concepts. "Conscious awareness" is a gummy term.

I am confused about the citation about chess. Is that Spinoza or Vygotsky?

It's V not S, right? What was the Spinoza text that caught Vygotsky's attention? David would you mind to cite it?

I am also curious what the Russian words used to create the English translation of "conscious awareness"? Can someone illuminate that for my awareness?

"Conscious awareness"  is sort of like saying "wet water,"

No, actually? it is like saying "watery water."

If we can say "conscious awareness" does that mean we say "unconscious awareness"?

What does that look like?

Can we say "conscious unawareness"?

I don't think so.

Awareness is awareness.

I can take a drop out of the sea, but I can't call it the sea, though if I put it back it's not the sea + drop.

It's just the sea, see?

However, you can't parse a drop of awareness.

If it were possible to take one awareness with another awareness, it's still awareness. If I take part of awareness from another awareness it's still awareness.

Awareness is not really something that can be divided into parts or added to into something "larger."

The trouble with the word "consiousness," is that it gets tangled with states of brain activity, being awake vs. asleep vs. deep sleep vs. catatonic vs. comatose, unconscious, etc.

"Consciousness" is a word like "space." We can divide space, but it is really an illusion. Everything is in space, so the small room vs the big room is just an illusion in terms of conceptual size. It's more of a perceptual relationship than something quantitative (say, if looking from the standpoint of space, space is just space). The walls of the rooms are in space too.

This is why awareness/consciousness cannot be mixed up with thinking processes.

Awareness is always present, but I sense the content of what is discussed here pertains to knowledge not awareness.

That's why I'm suspicious about the translation. Is this mistake in the translation? or did Vygotsky make this mistake?

Of course it seems a silly semantic argument, but the meaning of the words do substantially alter how we think about the concepts they convey, especially if we do not precisely understand the intention the the words were used by the speaker/writer.

There is a distinct (and special) relationship between perception and knowledge. We can't perceive anything without awareness. We also can't know anything without awareness. I maintain that this is what Spinoza references as "substance." He is right about that. It's that necessary white elephant.

To master something is to know it. To know it isn't always to master it. We could say Vygotsky attempts to isolate what is different about mastery compared to when mastery isn't evident.

If we could as-if parse awareness from cognition and set awareness aside, we could then look at the relationship between knowledge and cognition, in that knowledge can be measured in the individual based upon how well the individual's knowledge effectively maps to the world (or reality), while cognition on the other hand is the manifest biological interaction to build those maps. We know cognition is distributed, and that it includes society, tools, etc. It's not just happening in the chamber of the brain, that crafty and mysterious black, I mean grey box.

Like many philosophers and psychologists, I take it Vygotsky is discussing the ways in which perceptions and awareness of perceptions are organized subjectively.

If that "structure" is organized in such a way that it maps accurately to the environment, then one can assert there is objective knowledge of the environment, and the better this map "functions," the more mastery is evident.

When it is not mapping that effectively, I think we might call that in a positive sense "imagination" or in a negative sense, "delusion."

Humans do have a tendency for delusion as can be witnessed today. It's a very interesting experiment to see the battle of "everyday concepts" and "scientific concepts" in the news about the pandemic.

In this sense, on the matter of subjective organization of thinking, "primitive" people can have "higher" conceptual developments, as Levi-Strauss has shown us long ago. We might not recognize the value of that mastery because we might not share those thought-organizations of the natural environment that that culture possesses. Why would we share them?

It's a little like witnessing two foreigners speaking to one another and basing their intelligence on the way the phonetic profile of the language appeals or repels our aesthetic sensibilities for sound.

Vygotsky was a little guilty of this kind of "modern" chauvanism. (who isn't?)

I might ask, how much of this might have been self-censorship (or circumspection) within a Soviet society? To possibly barter his ideas better? Is there any evidence of Vygotsky doing that? (I'm inclined to say no, but would like to hear from others mor familier with his texts and relationships with others) Might you help me understand that part. I suppose it depends on how aware he was of this chauvanism?

Was there for example anything political about Vygotsky's relationship with Krupskaya? Was there anything political about the anthropology study with Luria?

Is it fair to say that Soviet thinking at the time was to ask "How to create a better human?" But for Vygotsky (and other learning scientists) it was "How to *scientifically* create a better human?" using what we know about mind and how it develops?

Is it me or can there be something Frankenstein-ish about the question, frankly (pun ha ha), if not arrogant. Who decides what is "better"?

If "scientific" is referencing an empirical method of analysis, based upon trial and error, OK, but does the individual have to know that it is scientific in order for it to be scientific?

I guess this is where the functional/structural argument loops about.

Why couldn't the reality of learning be both functional and structural.

My take is that what is in common about functions and structures are their patterns.

A pattern is the differential between the function and the structure.

Consider the music score (structure) and the musician playing the music (function).

The pattern is what is present in both. An added benefit is that its translation can evolve in time into other patterns (think Jazz).

I remember Vera saying that the phrase "scientific concept" is a little problematic. I know she didn't like "everyday concepts" either. My memory is not recalling what she thought was more appropriate at the moment.

I hope it isn't heretical to suggest that the pattern might a better unit for analysis than activity. (Gee is that my hair that has been singed??)

When considering conceptual development the pattern is effective because the it can translate between subjective experience and objective experience (biological, social, cultural, etc).

On another note: Has anyone considered Vygotsky through a feminist lens?

Also: Is it possible that there were so many women who he cited because women were more likely to be school teachers, as is the case today?

I am quite enjoying this thread. Thank you.

Kind regards,

Annalisa

________________________________

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 mike cole<mcole@ucsd.edu><mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:23 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu><mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: "conscious awareness enters through the gate" (a Participation Question)

  [EXTERNAL]

Hi Anthony

I understand that to mean that humans who have not achieved scientific/real concepts do not have conscious awareness.

What am I missing?

Mike

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 1:06 PM Anthony Barra <anthonymbarra@gmail.com<mailto:anthonymbarra@gmail.com>> wrote:

Good afternoon,

This is a question -- and an invitation:

First the question: What do you understand the passage below (at the bottom of this email) to mean?

Second, the invitation: How about sharing your thoughts in short video form? It's quite enjoyable (ask Andy; ask David; etc) -- and it's also helpful, not only to me but to anyone watching or listening. (Here is the question again, in video form:https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!WDdpPe9Gvx5J-t2WyuB3zfQwLHIxG-tcyE8Pd393I5LrzUlI_M6QLnmgE9ySKQMklskDVQ$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tiny.cc/l41nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnYKHKx2jw$>)

I believe that many people -- including many teachers -- would benefit from answers to this question, preferably multiple answers. With permission, I will nicely edit and add your response to this growing list of asked-and-answered questions: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!WDdpPe9Gvx5J-t2WyuB3zfQwLHIxG-tcyE8Pd393I5LrzUlI_M6QLnmgE9ySKQOkaIIw1Q$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/tiny.cc/451nsz__;!!Mih3wA!RbTsEBrr1M-JQ2E0Cza-8aoA440vsBAtR7DQicuejOZvYN1AOyytgVid7plmKnayu3KfOQ$>  Thanks for considering it, and note that we don't care about perfectionism here; it's mostly for fun.

Here is the passage in question, from Thinking and Speech, Ch. 6, pp. 190-1:

"To perceive something in a different way means to acquire new potentials for acting with respect to it. At the chess board, to see differently is to play differently. By generalizing the process of activity itself, I acquire the potential for new relationships with it. To speak crudely, it is as if this process has been isolated from the general activity of consciousness. I am conscious of the fact that I remember. I make my own remembering the object of consciousness. An isolation arises here. In a certain sense, any generalization or abstraction isolates its object. This is why conscious awareness – understood as generalization – leads directly to mastery.

Thus, the foundation of conscious awareness is the generalization or abstraction of the mental processes, which leads to their mastery. Instruction has a decisive role in this process. Scientific concepts have a unique relationship to the object. This relationship is mediated through other concepts that themselves have an internal hierarchical system of interrelationships. It is apparently in this domain of the scientific concept that conscious awareness of concepts or the generalization and mastery of concepts emerges for the first time. And once a new structure of generalization has arisen in one sphere of thought, it can – like any structure – be transferred without training to all remaining domains of concepts and thought. Thus, conscious awareness enters through the gate opened up by the scientific concept."

What do you understand this passage to mean?

Thanks 😎

Anthony Barra

P.S. My first encounter with Thinking and Speech was very difficult, even with the help of talented classmates and a smart professor. Thankfully, three online videos from Nikolai Veresov, presented not as a definitive reading but as a general map of the book's terrain, were really so helpful and encouraging for me. If any videos I'm posting turn out to be similarly useful (as a number of people have told me), that's great. So thank you again to anyone interested in participating.

--

I[Image removed by sender. Angelus  Novus]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelus_Novus__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlVawtVtw$>The Angel's View of History
It is only in a social context that subjectivism and objectivism, spiritualism and materialism, activity and passivity cease to be antinomies, and thus cease to exist as such antinomies. The resolution of the theoretical contradictions is possible only through practical means, only through the practical energy of humans. (Marx, 1844).

Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!WDdpPe9Gvx5J-t2WyuB3zfQwLHIxG-tcyE8Pd393I5LrzUlI_M6QLnmgE9ySKQNdVQYUAg$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANlZapN6Hg$>

Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!TggWICG1J2w02_x0SWKzYW-4ftmVOZbkZFfs4G9fjlQAO_5Rcb22DdO_08zpANnwRjh-9A$>

Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchc.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!mfefVhx1dCFAyGtgu1Cikifds7GDsRyD04iD8MeQEj4zaGS8Hd_9zHLWYpcuG-RKwI8IdzrY$>.

Narrative history of LCHC:  lchcautobio.ucsd.edu<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/lchcautobio.ucsd.edu/__;!!KGKeukY!mfefVhx1dCFAyGtgu1Cikifds7GDsRyD04iD8MeQEj4zaGS8Hd_9zHLWYpcuG-RKwDPvbHDX$>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200814/15621350/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
Url : http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200814/15621350/attachment.jpg 