So René Descrates was the great, great, great, great grandfather of Terry
Winograd? That explains the nose!
On 12/3/06 9:10 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the late Arne Raeithel, a genaeology.
mike
On 12/3/06, Martin Packer
> <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>
> Thanks Andy. This is rather nice: Vygotsky > Lenin
> > Hegel > Kant
>
>
> On 12/3/06 5:56 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Here's Lenin's famous comment on Hegel and abstract/concrete
> (Volume 38
> in
> > my edition):
> >
> http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/ch03.htm
> > I'll respond
> to your post when I've a bit more time to think, ... this
> evening
> > Andy
>
> > At 05:30 PM 3/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> I would very
> much like to get clearer on Vygotsky's use of both Hegel
> and
> >> Lenin.
> Perhaps you can help me?
> >>
> >> For example, in Pedology of the Adolescent
> (around 1931) V wrote on
> concept
> >> development, and in particular on
> counting and the number concept. It
> seems
> >> to me he oscillates between a
> simple view in which the concrete is
> primitive
> >> and the abstract is
> advanced, and a very different view in which
> seemingly
> >> abstract
> concepts are actually a reorganization of the relationship
> between
> >>
> concrete and abstract: "a completely new form of relation between
> abstract
>
> >> and concrete factors in thinking arises, a new form of their merging
>
> and
> >> synthesis" (p. 39). The latter strikes me as distinctly Hegelian.
> The
> former
> >> seems to come up when Vygotsky refers to Hegel. But my
> reading must be
> too
> >> naive, because on page 79 we find V citing Lenin
> citing Hegel!
> >>
> >> First on concepts: The young childâ's perception of
> number "is based on
> >> number images, on concrete perception of form and
> size of a given
> number of
> >> objects. With [the] transition to thinking in
> concepts, the child is
> >> liberated from purely concrete numerical thinking.
> In place of a number
> >> image, a number concept appears. If we compare the
> concept of number
> with a
> >> number image, at first glance it may seem to
> justify [the] premises of
> >> formal logic relative to the extreme poverty in
> content of the concept
> in
> >> comparison with the riches of the concrete
> content contained in the
> image"
> >> (vol 5, 78)
> >>
> >> But Vygotsky
> immediately continues: "Actually, this is not so. The
> concept
> >> not only
> excludes from its content a number of points proper to the
> concrete
> >>
> perception, but for the first time, it also discloses in the concrete
> >>
> perception a number of such points that are completely inaccessible to
> >>
> direct perception or contemplation, points that are introduced by
> thinking
>
> >> and are identified through processing the data of experience and
>
> synthesized
> >> into a single whole with elements of direct perception.
>
> >>
> >> "Thus all number concepts, for example, the concept "7," are
> included
> in a
> >> complex number system, occupy a certain place in it, and
> when this
> concept
> >> is found and processed, then all the complex
> connections and relations
> that
> >> exist between this concept and the rest
> of the system of concepts in
> which
> >> it is included are given. The
> concept not only reflects reality, but
> also
> >> systematizes it, includes
> data of concrete perception into a complex
> system
> >> of connections and
> relations, and discloses the connections and
> relations
> >> that are
> inaccessible to simple comprehension. For this reason many
> >> properties of
> size become clear and perceptible only when we begin to
> think
> >> of them
> in concepts" (78-79)
> >>
> >> This is all rather nice. But then,
> surprisingly, comes a footnote
> quoting
> >> Lenin on Hegel!
> >>
> >> Lenin:
> "In opposition to Kant, Hegel was essentially completely
> correct.
> >>
> Thinking going from the concrete to the abstract does not deviate if
> it
> is
> >> correct… from truth, but approaches it. The abstraction of material,
> a
> laaw
> >> of nature, abstraction of value, etc., in a word, all
> scientific
> (correct,
> >> serious, not foolish) abstractions reflect nature
> more deeply, more
> >> reliably, more fully. From a living contemplation to
> abstract thinking
> and
> >> from it to practice such is the dialectical
> path of recognizing
> truth,
> >> recognizing objective reality" (Complete
> Works, Vol. 29, pp. 152-153).
> [Vol.
> >> 29 is March Aug 1919]
> >> So
> here, apparently, are Vygotsky, Hegel and Lenin all agreeing that
> >>
> reflection is an active way of thinking which gets beyond appearances
> to
>
> >> essences, systematizes concrete detail, grasps complex
>
> interconnections,
> >> recognizes objective reality, achieves truth, and
> guides practice!
> >>
> >> I've tried to find this excerpt from Lenin on
> marxists.org, but without
> >> success.
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> >> On 12/3/06 4:58 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I
> don't know, Paul. I guess I would ask you to give me page references
> to
>
> >>> justify this observation.
> >>>
> >>> The Lenin of the 1914/15 Notebooks
> certainly reads as a very different
> >>> character from the Lenin of the 1908
> ME&C, but I am sure that if Lenin
> had
> >>> anywhere in those Notebooks made
> any kind of self-criticism of his
> 1908
> >>> position I would have noticed
> it. The same Trotskyist group which
> spent
> >>> countless hours bashing M&EC
> into my head spent even more hours
> bashing
> >>> "Volume 38" into my head,
> and it was this experience which prompted me
> to
> >>> make my own study of
> Hegel.
> >>>
> >>> As to Ilyenkov, yes, Ilyenkov has been my guiding light to
> get out of
> the
> >>> dogmatism of M&EC. The problem is that while A&C and
> the Essays are at
> odds
> >>> with M&EC, Ilyenkov chooses to back Lenin to
> the hilt when he writes a
> book
> >>> about M&EC. As I said, there is nothing
> actually incorrect in M&EC; it
> >>> just, IMO, makes the wrong call in terms
> of emphasis and what is
> said/not
> >>> said. I am not aware that anywhere
> Ilyenkov said something like "M&EC
> was a
> >>> bad book".
> >>>
> >>> Andy
>
> >>>
> >>> At 06:07 AM 3/12/2006 -0800, you wrote:
> >>>> Andy,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> Isn't it the case that Lenin rejected his early position of M&EC in
> the
>
> >>>> Philosophic Notebooks and his study of Hegel's logic? Also, isn't
>
> >>>> Ilyenkov's position in 'From the Abstract to the Concrete' also at
>
> odds
> >>>> with the position in M&EC?
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>> Can I see if I can say what I
> think Mike means by the "Russian"
> >> meaning of
> >>>> "reflection"?
>
> >>>>
> >>>> I was introduced both to Lenin and Vygotsky through a British
>
> Trotskyist
> >>>> group in the early 1980s, and this involved intensive study
> of
> Lenin's
> >>>> "Materialism and Empirio-criticism". This book was
> regarded in that
> >> quarter
> >>>> as more or less the last word in
> philosophy. Ilyenkov's book on
> >> Positivism,
> >>>> was published in
> English by the same group, and is a full-on defence
> of
> >>>> this book of
> Lenin's. In M&EC, Lenin uses "reflection" to mean a
> universal
> >>>>
> property of matter, more or less the propensity of any material thing
> to
>
> >>>> retain impressions of another material thing with which it has
>
> interacted.
> >>>> So this view of cognition as something utterly divorced
> from
> >>>> self-consciousness or even living organisms, let alone human
> beings,
> but
> >>>> rather as a universal property of matter, was encoded in
> the meaning
> >>>> attached by Lenin to the word "reflection."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> Now, my experiences in British Trotskyism may have been paralleled by
> the
>
> >>>> experience of others in Russian Stalinism, I don't know. But much as>
> I
> >> love
> >>>> Ilyenkov, it has always been hard for me to understand his
> enthusiasm
> for
> >>>> M&EC. The political effect of ME&C as I received it
> was very
> >>>> retrograde. In the same book, Lenin blasts all forms of
> semiotics, by
> the
> >>>> way. There was a definite and valid purpose for
> Lenin's book when it
> was
> >>>> written in 1908, and he doesn't say anything
> in the whole several
> hundred
> >>>> pages which is actually wrong, but the
> drift of the polemic is
> >> crushing. In
> >>>> arguing against subjectivist
> epistemology, it encourages an
> absolutely
> >>>> devastatingly objectivist
> view of the human condition in general and
> >>>> cognition in particular.
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Personally, I find the notion of "reflection" an extremely
> *passive*
> >>>> rendering of the process of knowledge and life. The idea
> emphasises
> the
> >>>> dominant place of the object in a true subjective
> image, and the
> >>>> indifference of the image to the internal structure of
> the subject,
> but I
> >>>> have never found that it convinced anyone that
> didn't already
> understand
> >>>> these issues. The likening of human society
> to inorganic natural
> processes
> >>>> is not a point which needs to be made
> today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that what you meant Mike?
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At 10:59 PM 2/12/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>>> Agreed!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> The version of 'The Historical Meaning of the Crisis in Psychology'
> >> that
> I
> >>>>> have to hand is in 'The Esssential Vygostky' (2004, R. W. Rieber &
>
> D. K.
> >>>>> Robinson, eds. Kluger). It's a compilation of the 'best' of the
> 6
> vol
> >>>>> Collected Works. The mirror example is on page 327.
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Regarding reflection, which is another concept I'm puzzled by (what> >>
> is the
> >>>>> Russian manner, Mike?), I'd forgotten that this paragraph
> begins:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Let us compare consciousness, as is often done, with
> a mirror
> >> image..." At
> >>>>> the end of the paragraph I still can't tell
> whether V is suggesting
> >> it's a
> >>>>> good comparison or not.
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> ...and 3 pages earlier (p. 324) when he cites Lenin (1975, p. 260)
> >>
> along the
> >>>>> lines that I've mentioned, here again the work reflection is
> used:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "the only 'property' of matter connected with
> philosophical
> >> materialism is
> >>>>> the property of being an objective
> reality, of existing outside of
> our
> >>>>> consciousness....
> Epistemologically the concept of matter means
> NOTHING
> >>>>> other than
> objective reality, existing independently from human
> >>>>> consciousness and
> reflected by it" (original emphasis).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I can't find the
> references from the Crisis anywhere in this book,
> but I
> >>>>> have the
> Spanish translation now too, and the citation there is to
> >> Lenin's
> >>>>>
> Collected Works, vol 19, p. 275. In Spanish the word 'reflected' is
> >>>>>
> translated as 'reflejada' and 'mirror image' as 'reflejo.'
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/2/06 10:40 PM, "Mike Cole" wrote:
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Nothing sceptical, Martin. There are many imponderables here
> from
> >>>>>> many
> >>>>> sources. Trying to think with you.
> >>>>> I would
> be greatly assisted, and I
> >>>>>> assume I am not alone in this, if
> >>>>>
> discussants would provide page numbers
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>> references so that
> those not "in the know" could pin down sources
> and
> >>>>>> thus
> >>>>>
> better triangulate on what the focus
> >>>>> of discussion is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> I am not versed
> >>>>>> in Spinoza. I am barely versed in parts of Vygotsky.
> So when
> >>>>> arcaine
> >>>>>> references and partial information
> >>>>>
> are floated out on xmca as if everyone were
> >>>>>> an insider, when we are
> all
> >>>>> border liners, it confuses me.
> >>>>> mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On
> 12/2/06,
> >>>>>> Martin Packer
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike, this
> sounds to me like a
> >>>>>> skeptical Hmmmm. What strikes you as
> >>>>>>
> dubious?
> >>>>>> I'm happy to be
> >>>>>> mediated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> Martin
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/2/06 6:03 PM, "Mike
> Cole"
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmmmm indeed.
> >>>>>> mike
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/2/06,
> >>>>>> Martin Packer
> >>>>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Natalia, thanks very much.
> >>>>>> The
> cyrillic didn't come through, but I can
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> piece
> >>>>>>>
> together the
> >>>>>> English:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "after all a cornerstone of
> materialism is a
> >>>>>>> proposition
> >>>>>> about (that)
> >>>>>>>
> consciousness and the brain are, both, a product
> >>>>>>> (of
> >>>>>>
> nature), (and) a part
> >>>>>>> of nature, (the one) that reflects the rest
> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> nature"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Might you be able to take a
> look at the other two excerpts in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> original
> >>>>>>>
> Russian?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me think about this 'out loud' a
> >>>>>>
> little. This is
> >>>>>>> the point in Crisis
> >>>>>>> where Vygotsky is
> specifying what
> >>>>>> a truly Marxist
> >>>>>>> psychology, a 'general'
>
> >>>>>>> psychology, must study. A
> >>>>>> science, he insists,
> >>>>>>>
> studies not appearances but
> >>>>>>> what really exists.
> >>>>>> Optics, for
> example, studies
> >>>>>>> mirror surfaces and light
> >>>>>>> rays, not the
>
> >>>>>> images we see in the mirror, for the
> >>>>>>> latter are phantoms. A
>
> >>>>>>> scientific
> >>>>>> psychology must study the real processes
> >>>>>>>
> that can give rise to
> >>>>>>> such
> >>>>>> appearances, not (just) the
> appearances. [It's
> >>>>>>> not clear to me how
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> far
>
> >>>>>>> to go with this seeming analogy between the way a
> >>>>>>> mirror
> reflects
> >>>>>> and the
> >>>>>>> way the brain/Cs 'reflects the rest of
> nature'.] So
> >>>>>>> any
> >>>>>> descriptive,
> >>>>>>> intuitionist
> phenomenology must be rejected. What really
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> exists? A
>
> >>>>>>> materialist maintains that the brain exists, and consciousness
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> too. V
> >>>>>>> cites
> >>>>>>> Lenin to the effect that
> what is matter, what is
> >>>>>> objective,
> >>>>>>> is what exists
> >>>>>>>
> independently of human consciousness. And,
> >>>>>> seemingly
> >>>>>>>
> paradoxically,
> >>>>>>> consciousness can exist outside our
> >>>>>>
> consciousness: for we can
> >>>>>>> be conscious
> >>>>>>> without being
> self-conscious. I
> >>>>>> can see without knowing that I
> >>>>>>> see. So
> a
> >>>>>>> general psychology must study
> >>>>>> consciousness, but to know
> the mind
> >>>>>>> we can't
> >>>>>>> rely on introspection, in
> >>>>>> part
> because in introspection mind splits
> >>>>>>> into
> >>>>>>> subject and
> object: a
> >>>>>> dualism arises in the act of self-reflection.
> >>>>>>>
> We
> >>>>>>> can't
> >>>>>>> establish a
> >>>>>> psychological science only
> on the basis of what we
> >>>>>>> experience
> >>>>>>> directly
> >>>>>> (as
> Husserl tried to do); it must be based on knowledge,
> >>>>>>> which is
>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>> result of analysis, not merely of experience. And what
> is
> >>>>>>> analysis?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Complicated answer put briefly:
> analysis lies at the intersection
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> methodology
> and practice: it is the exhaustive study of a single
> case
> >>>>>>> in
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>> its connections, taken as a social microcosm.
> It involves what
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Marx
> >>>>>>> (following Hegel) called
> abstraction.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll confess I'm still
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>
> clear what V is proposing as the solutions to
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> epistemological and
> >>>>>>> ontological problems that he has distinguished.
> It
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> looks
> >>>>>>> to me as though
> >>>>>>> he is saying
> that the epistemological problem -
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> concerning the
> relation
> >>>>>>> between subject and object - arises only
> >>>>>> when
> one
> >>>>>>> accepts uncritically the
> >>>>>>> dualism that arises in
> introspection
> >>>>>> (or 'blind
> >>>>>>> empiricism'?). So once one
>
> >>>>>>> rejects introspection this
> >>>>>> problem dissolves.
> >>>>>>> The
>
> >>>>>>> implication is that if
> >>>>>>> one begins not with
> >>>>>>
> introspection but with
> >>>>>>> practice,
> >>>>>>> one avoids any
> >>>>>>>
> subject-object
> >>>>>> dualism. The ontological problem -
> >>>>>>>
> concerning
> >>>>>>> the relation
> >>>>>>> between
> >>>>>> mind and matter -
> is what he's trying to study, no?
> >>>>>>> How
> >>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> brain-in-a-body-in-a-social-world the basis for consciousness, then
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> self-consciousness, then self-mastery and
> knowledge?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmmm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Martin
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>>>>> I found it --- in
> Russian, vol.1 of
> >>>>>> "Sobranie Sochinenii", on
> >>>>>>> page 416.
>
> >>>>>>>> It reads in Russian as very
> >>>>>> similar to the English quote
> your
> >>>>>>> posted
> >>>>>>> above:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Ã≠åÀÃπ
> --
> >>>>>> after all-- êâ•ÂºÃƒ
> åÓãÃÂ(r)ëÃπíûì
> >> êà ìíåì
> ìÃ
> >>>> Ãâ€ÃƒÂ¥Ã¢•ÂºÃƒÂ¨Ãƒ
> >>>>> ëèçìÃ
> >>>>>>> -- a
> corneestone
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> materialism --
> ÿâëÿåÃâ€ÃƒÂ±ÃƒÂ¿
> >>
> ïÃÂ(r)ëÃÂ(r)Üåíèå ÃÂ(r) Ãâ€ÃƒÂ(r)ì, -- is a
>
> >>>>>>> proposition about, ---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ÷Ãâ€ÃƒÂ(r)
> >>>>>>>>
> ñÃÂ(r)çíà íèå è ìÃÂ(r)çã
> >>
> åñÃâ€ÃƒÏ€ ïâ•ÂºÃƒÂ(r)À---
> >> -
> >>>> (that)
>
> >>>>>>> consciousness and the
> >>>>>> brain are,
> >>>>>>>> both, a product
> (of nature),--- ÷à ñÃâ€ÃƒÏ€
> >>>>>>>
> ïâ•ÂºÃƒÂ¨Ã¢•ÂºÃƒÂ(r)Àû, ---(and) a
> >> ) a
> >>>>>> part of
>
> >>>>>>> nature, --
> >>>>>>>> ÃÂ(r)Ãâ€Ã¢•ÂºÃƒ Üà ï¬≠Ã’Ã ï¬â‰
> öà ÿ
> >> ÃÂ(r)ñ±Ãâ€Ãƒ ëÃπíÓï¬â‰
> >>>>
> ïâ•ÂºÃƒÂ¨Ã¢•ÂºÃƒÂ(r)ÀÓ
> >> “
> >>>>>>> -- (the one)
> >>>>>> that
> reflects the rest of
> >>>>>>>> nature"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Or something
> like
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hope this is helpful, and
> not making things more
> >>>>>> confusing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> Natalia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/30/06 2:47
>
> >>>>>> PM, "Natalia Gajdamaschko"
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:55:29 -0500
> >>>>>>>
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A few pages
> later:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ""After all,
> >>>>>>> a cornerstone of
>
> >>>>>> materialism is the proposition that
> >>>>>>>>> consciousness and
>
> >>>>>>> the brain are
> >>>>>> a product, a part of nature, which
> >>>>>>>
> reflect
> >>>>>>>>> the rest of
> >>>>>>> nature"
> >>>>>> (327).
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The last sentence is not grammatical English, so
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> something has clearly
> >>>>>>>> gone
> >>>>>>>>> wrong with
> the translation.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>> anyone has
> access to the original Russian and could comment,that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> would
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>> great. (Page numbers are from the version in
> The
> >>>>>> Essential
> >>>>>>> Vygotsky.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Martin
>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> xmca mailing
> >>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>
> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
> 9435,
> AIM
> >>>> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >>>>
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------
> >>>> Want to
> start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
> >>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
>
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> >>>
> >>> Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380
> 9435,
> AIM
> >>> identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >>>
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>>
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>
>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing
> list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> >
> > Andy Blunden : http://home.mira.net/~andy/ tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
>
> AIM
> > identity: AndyMarxists mobile 0409 358 651
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> >
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
>
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:17 PST