[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: book of possible interest



Plekhanov distinguishes between "agitators" and "propagandists". Agitators
are essentially popularizers; they have the job of ripping away a subset of
smaller and simpler ideas from a fabric of much larger and more complex
theory and then disseminating them amongst the largest possible number of
people. In other words, their focus is exoteric. Propagandists are
essentially conspiratorial: they have the job of initiating a small number
of the elect and educating them in the whole theoretical system--as Larry
would say, the full Bildung. In other words, their focus is esoteric. As
you can see, Plekhanov was good at making distinctions, and not so good at
showing how things are linked. For Helena, who is a  labor educator, you
can't really be an effective agitator unless you are also a propagandist.
You need to present your exoteric extracts in such a way that they are, to
borrow Larry's phrase, both necessary and sufficient to lead people on to
the esoterica. I'm with Helena--and with Bruner--with children it's always
possible to tell the truth, part of the truth, but nothing but the truth,
and if we can do it with kids, why not do it with adults?

(I am less sure about what it means to say that the objectively human is
the "subjectively historical"--it sounds like history is being reified as a
subject, that is, as a living, breathing, acting "World Spirit" that can
have a mind and reflect upon itself. My understanding of history is
that just as we cannot have the advanced form of historical consciousness
in dialogue with the more primitive forms, the opportunity to reflect upon
the whole process when it is all over is simply never going to be available
to anyone. The Merleau-Ponty quotation is beautiful and intensely
poetic, Larry--but when I look at a bubble or a wave, I do not simply see
chaos; I see past bubbles and past waves, and potential bubbles and
potential waves. Isn't that a part of the experience of "loving history" as
well?)

My wife wrote a wonderful Ph.D. thesis about how any work of literature can
be looked at on four time frames: phylogenetic (the history of a genre),
ontogenetic (the biography of a career), logogenetic (the development of a
plot or a character), and microgenetic (the unfolding of a dialogue, or a
paragraph). Her supervisor complained about the terminology in somewhat
more elegant terms than Mike does in Helen's data:and suggested that she
should replace the terms with "history", "biography", "development" and
"unfolding", to make it more exoteric.

I think that if she had done that, it would have made the thesis into
agitation rather than education. Yes, the terms would have been more
familiar, and they might even, given other context, be taken to mean the
same thing. But what we would have gotten is good, clear distinctions
("history" on the one hand and "biography" on the other) and what we would
have lost is the linkedness of one time frame to another--the way in which
the phylogenesis of genre produces the mature genre which is used in an
author's ontegenesis, and the way in which the author's ontogenesis
produces the starting point and the raw materials for the logogenetic
development of a work, not to mention the way in which logogenesis is
reflected in the microgenetic unfolding of dialogue.

So I think that when Helena writes that anything can be explained to anyone
in language that is everyday and simple and in a way that is understandable
and at least part of the whole truth, I agree somewhat enviously (you see,
Helena is a labor educator, but I teach TESOL, which is really the process
of taking a few very simple and exoteric ideas that good teachers already
have and disseminating the select to the elect for vast sums of money). But
I have to add a rider--when we popularize richly woven fabrics of ideas
like cultural historical theory we are not simply juggling vocabulary. I
think that Helena recognizes this perfectly when she says that it takes
TIME to be simple and clear. If it were simply a matter of replacing
"cultural historical" with "community of learners" it would actually take
less time, but it isn't and it doesn't.

It is very hot in Seoul today, and somewhere out there a toddler is arguing
with a parent because he wants watermelon with breakfast. The parent
resists, because if you eat cold watermelon on an empty stomach you get a
tummy-ache. The argument grows heated and long--and complex, but the
complexity is of a particular kind, with very short, repeated, insistancies
from the child and somewhat longer more complex remonstrations from the
parent. We can call this complex discourse but simple grammar. A few years
will go by and we will find that the school child has mastered the trick of
long and complex remonstrations and can use them pre-emptively to win
arguments. We can call this complex grammar, but simple vocabulary. Only
when a decade or two has elapsed will we find that child, now adult, can
use the language of science, which is for the most part grammatically
simple (at least compared to the pre-emptive remonstrations of the school
child), but full of very complex vocabulary (e.g. "phylogeny anticipates
ontogeny", or "cultural-historical activity theory enables communities of
learners").

It's Saturday today, and in a few minutes I have to leave for the weekly
meeting of our translation group, which produces mighty tomes which we
produce to popularize the works of Vygotsky amongst militant teachers here
in Korea (our version of "Thinking and Speech" is seven hundred pages long
because of all the explanatory notes and boxes with helpful pictures). On
the other hand, there is the attached comic book version of the first
chapter of "Thinking and Speech" which I wrote a couple of years ago for
some graduate students who were having trouble talking about the real
"Thinking and Speech" in class.

I think you can see that Huw's complaint is justified--the comic
book dialogue is "about" Thinking and Speech, but it is not "Thinking and
Speech" at all, in the same way that "community of learners" or "biography"
is ABOUT cultural historical theory or ontogenesis. And I think that part
of the problem (but only part of it) is that the comic book is just too
short.

David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies






2014-07-11 17:09 GMT+09:00 Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com>:

>
> 11 jul 2014 kl. 06:41 skrev Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>:
>
> > David,
> > I have been following your reflections through this thread.
> > You commented:
> >
> > So it's almost always more useful for me to
> > think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least
> not
> > in their unit of analysis
> >
> > I have been reflecting on the notion of *bildung* as learning.
> > The notion of *cultivation* and *disposition* and *comportment* as the
> > potential of learning.
> > I came across this quote from Gramsci who was questioning the notion of
> > *laws* as the basis for making social predictions. Such *laws* excluded
> the
> > subjective factor from history.
> > Gramsci wrote on social process: "Objective always means 'humanly
> > objective' which can be held to correspond exactly to 'historically
> > subjective' "
> >
> > Merleau-Ponty also explored what I refer to as *disposition* with this
> > quote on the reality of history:
> > History "awakens us to the importance of daily events and action. For it
> is
> > a philosophy [of history -LP] which arouses in us a love for our times
> > which are not the simple repetition of human eternity nor merely the
> > conclusion of premises already postulated. It is a view that like the
> most
> > fragile object of perception - a soap bubble, or a wave - or like the
> most
> > simple dialogue, embraces indivisibly all the order and all the disorder
> of
> > the world."
> >
> > I read these passages from Gramsci and M-P  as a way of exploring
> > *comportment* or *disposition* that is *learned*.  [bildung??] There is
> no
> > necessary or sufficient standpoint for interpreting this inherently
> > heterogeneous process. However we may potentially learn various
> > *approaches* or *ways* of being-in-the-world through learning processes.
> > The notion of *bildung* is a way to reflect on this learning process
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 July 2014 22:33, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Huw:
> >>>
> >>> Is learning material? In what sense? At what point?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Historically, with Marx.  :)
> >>
> >> The rest of your formations are subsumed by Baldwin's 1st and 2nd
> axioms of
> >> genetic logic.  :)
> >>
> >> As someone experienced with computation and computational processes, I
> do
> >> find it quite straightfoward to think of memories as material
> impressions.
> >> Cached values or lazy evaluation -- it's quite straightforward...  Not
> >> rubbish, not garbage, but Babbage!
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Huw
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I guess I think of it this way. All phenomena in the universe are
> >> physical,
> >>> but only in the final analysis. When my father (who is a retired but
> >>> unrepentant solar physicist) studies these phenomena he uses various
> >> units
> >>> of analysis (my father likes to think big, so his usual unit of
> analysis
> >> is
> >>> a solar emission many times larger than the earth, but sometimes,
> >> depending
> >>> on the problem, he will condescend to think about smaller particles
> like
> >>> atomic nuclei). Some of these physical phenomena, when they cool down a
> >>> little, are chemical as well, and because these phenomena are chemical
> as
> >>> well as physical, the unit of analysis that is proper to them is the
> >>> molecule and its motions, and not simply the particle (Dad doesn't care
> >>> about these phenomena; he likes his physics hot).
> >>>
> >>> Some of these chemical phenomena are biological as well, and here once
> >>> again the unit of analysis has to change (e.g. to the cell) in order to
> >>> take into account the new properties which come into being at this
> scale.
> >>> Some biological phenomena are cultural-historical in turn, and here too
> >> we
> >>> must change the unit of analysis in order not to lose essential
> >> information
> >>> that is created with higher levels of organization and complexity.Of
> >>> course, these cultural historical phenomena are all reducible to
> >> biological
> >>> phenomena, and therefore reducible to chemical and physical phenomena,
> >> but
> >>> only in the final analysis. Hey, in the final analysis, as Carolyn
> Porco
> >>> says, we all get reduced to physical phenomena when the sun explodes
> and
> >>> blows the particles that were once our bodies out into space, to enjoy
> >>> eternal life...but only as physical phenomena.
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime, if we want to understand cultural-historical phenomena
> >> as
> >>> such, we have to confront their higher levels of organization and
> >>> complexity.The cultural historical phenomena that I am most interested
> in
> >>> turn out to have another subset of phenomena which Halliday calls
> >>> semiotic--that is, they are sociologically cultural-historical
> phenomena
> >>> that stand, even if only for a fleeting instant,
> >>> for psychologically cultural-historical phenomena. These phenomena are
> >>> material too (that is, they are biological, chemical, and even
> >>> physical), for the way things stand for other things is ultimately
> >>> reducible to a thing: words are, in the final analysis, "made of living
> >>> breath", as Shakespeare says, or "layers of moving air" if you prefer
> >>> Engels.
> >>>
> >>> But only in the final analysis. In the interim, too much information is
> >>> lost when we reduce these semiotic phenomena to physical, material,
> >>> things (for example, when my students try to model learner
> comprehension
> >>> problems as pure phonetic discrimination without taking into account
> the
> >>> layer of wording or meaning). So it's almost always more useful for me
> to
> >>> think of learning phenomena as NOT reducible to the physical, at least
> >> not
> >>> in their unit of analysis. Actually, it seems to me that the
> >>> general "cultural-historical" level of analysis is if anything a step
> >>> closer to biology or chemistry or physics than the subset of cultural
> >>> historical phenomena that I mean when I refer to learning, because to
> me
> >>> learning is microgenetic, that is, POTENTIALLY ontogenetic, which is in
> >>> turn POTENTIALLY sociogenetic, which (to me) is the general level of
> >>> analysis we mean when we talk about cultural historical phenomena. So
> the
> >>> real answer to Mike's colorful complaint about handles is not
> "Community
> >> of
> >>> Learners" but actually "physico-chemico-bio-socio-semiotic learning
> >>> activities".
> >>>
> >>> Time for that quantum physical cup of coffee you were talking about....
> >>>
> >>> David Kellogg
> >>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10 July 2014 08:53, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Just to be clear, the error I was referring to was the attribution of
> a
> >>>> theory (as an adjective) to the material thing (learning).  It would
> be
> >>>> like saying, I am going to make a Newtonian cup of coffee in the
> >> morning
> >>>> and a quantum mechanical cup of coffee in the afternoon.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose colourful language serves the purpose of deliberate
> >> vagueness.
> >>>> It's hard to be trendy and have a precise point.
> >>>>
> >>>> I fear we are soon approaching the "teach yourself activity theory for
> >>>> dummies" book someday soon.  From my understanding, the theory itself
> >>>> repudiates such a thing -- one cannot spoon feed theory -- but I don't
> >>>> think that will stop folk trying.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see no problem (or contradiction) in top down approaches.  Solving a
> >>>> problem in general is a powerful approach to many problems.  For many
> >>>> problems the concrete details are amenable to design and
> configuration,
> >>> one
> >>>> can often choose tools to suit the proposed solution rather than
> >>>> vice-versa.   But from an educational perspective, I see no
> alternative
> >>>> than starting with the individual, ofcourse one can have general
> >>> strategies
> >>>> in doing so -- waiting to be asked before giving an explanation etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice chatting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>> On 9 July 2014 22:46, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Huw:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Helen has written a remarkable, important book. I gather it's part of
> >>> her
> >>>>> Ph.D. thesis, but it doesn't really read like a Ph.D. thesis. It
> >> reads
> >>>> like
> >>>>> a teacher-trainer (or "professional development consultant", or
> >>> whatever
> >>>> we
> >>>>> are supposed to call them) with a problem who eventually, with a
> >> little
> >>>>> help from the classics of cultural historical psychology and a lot of
> >>>> help
> >>>>> from a co-teacher (who has a somewhat bookish, inert but nevertheless
> >>>>> respectful and open acquaintance with those classics) achieves a very
> >>>> open
> >>>>> but nevertheless very workable solution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So the bit I quoted represents the problem, or rather, two problems.
> >> On
> >>>> the
> >>>>> one hand, Helen is trying to do something new: she wants to bring new
> >>>> CHAT
> >>>>> concepts to bear on extant classroom activities and modify them in
> >> ways
> >>>>> that she is confident will work. On the other, Helen is working with
> >>> some
> >>>>> pretty experienced (and even somewhat brutalized) teachers: they have
> >>>> seen
> >>>>> "Professional Development" fads come and go, collected their free
> >>> lunches
> >>>>> and go on doing things the old way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Helen achieves her solution from the bottom up. Eventually, she does
> >>>> find a
> >>>>> teacher who can teacher her a lot and who, even though Helen herself
> >>>>> is uniquely gifted, with not only the theoretical background we all
> >>>> share,
> >>>>> but also considerable first hand experience as a teacher and a
> >> parent,
> >>>> can
> >>>>> nevertheless be taught in turn. But as you can see from the extract,
> >>>> she's
> >>>>> extremely open, even to savage, unfair, and somewhat obtuse
> >> criticisms.
> >>>>> Mike's critique of "cultural historical" is not that it is an
> >>>>> epistemological error or a typological one, or that it puts the
> >> product
> >>>>> "culture" before the process "history". It's not even that it
> >> suggests
> >>>> that
> >>>>> on the odd day Piagetian activities might be taking place, which, by
> >>> the
> >>>>> way, is probably true, since these teachers were mostly trained
> >> during
> >>>> the
> >>>>> "reign" of Piaget in the sixties and seventies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, Mike's complaint is really, if you will pardon the expression, a
> >>> wank
> >>>>> of a complaint. He is just complaining that the name is uncool; it
> >>>> doesn't
> >>>>> sound like the popular teachers would like it; the name won't go with
> >>> an
> >>>>> embossed moose like "Abercrombie and Fitch" or "community of
> >>>>> learners" does. I think we have to accept that responsive, sensitive
> >>>>> teachers inevitably end up internalizing some of the worst aspects of
> >>>>> adolescent thinking, and this is an example. I might even say it's a
> >>>>> bullshit complaint. It's crap, etc. (But this is one of those
> >>>>> language situations where redundancy does not suggest development.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I guess if I encountered a bullshit complaint like that I would
> >>> complain
> >>>> a
> >>>>> little about "community of learners". I think that "community of
> >>>>> learners" is essentially a way of saying "socio-psychological": it's
> >>>>> relevant to everyday teaching, but it doesn't tell us much about how
> >>> the
> >>>>> "socio" got there, whereas "cultural-historical" does. I might even
> >> ask
> >>>> if
> >>>>> Mike is going to try to teach physics, chemistry, biology, or history
> >>> to
> >>>>> kids without some way of saying "physico-chemical" or
> >>>> "chemico-biological",
> >>>>> or "biologico-social". If not, then I don't see anything wrong with
> >>>>> teaching language, including the language of teaching, as something
> >>>>> "socio-semiotic" or "historico-cultural". But then, I never was one
> >> of
> >>>> the
> >>>>> cool kids.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My problem is this. I too would like to write a book now. I have two
> >> in
> >>>>> mind, and they are both practical books about teacher training,
> >>>>> similar in their targets to Helen's book, which is why I am studying
> >> it
> >>>>> carefully. But I find that the books that I have in mind are really
> >>>> "about
> >>>>> something" in a way that Helen's book is not. I don't mean that
> >> Helen's
> >>>>> book has no object of study: like the title says, the object of study
> >>> is
> >>>>> teacher development. What I mean is that the teaching has no clear
> >>> object
> >>>>> of teaching: it's not specifically about teaching math or literacy or
> >>>>> anything else but about teaching in general. The books I have in mind
> >>> are
> >>>>> really about teaching literacy (I think I want to try to teach
> >> WRITING
> >>>>> before READING) and teaching science (I think I want to try a "hands
> >>> off"
> >>>>> approach that emphasizes word meanings instead of laboratory
> >>>> experiments).
> >>>>> And I am finding that I when I do this the result is not at all the
> >>> kind
> >>>> of
> >>>>> "bottom up" thing that Helen does; it's very top down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9 July 2014 07:33, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Colourful.  The complaint seems perfectly valid though:  a
> >>> typological
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>> epistemological error all in one conflated term.  It suggests that
> >> on
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> odd hours of the day there are Piagetian activities taking place.
> >>> Was
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>> part of the point of the chapter?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm actually in the middle of Chapter Three right now. What I can
> >>>> tell
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> is that Helen's first two chapters are a kind of "Who's Who" at
> >>> xmca,
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>>> Helen reading the great classics (in the wrong order) and talking
> >>> to
> >>>>>> Andy,
> >>>>>>> Greg, and others on this list. But beyond the litte shout-outs to
> >>>> xmca,
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> Chapter Three, you find interesting problems like this. Helen is
> >>>>> setting
> >>>>>> up
> >>>>>>> a "Professional Learning ZPD". This an acronymy within an acronym
> >>> (an
> >>>>>>> "acro-acronym-nym", like the group I used to belong to in New
> >> York
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> Paris, called "ACT-UP"), and in general Helen seems to have some
> >>>>> trouble
> >>>>>>> with names. On pp. 58-59, she writes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "In PLZ 4 I wrote the title 'Features of cultural Historical
> >>> Learning
> >>>>>>> Activities' across a piece of butcher's paper and asked the grou
> >> to
> >>>>>>> brainstorm features of activities that would be consistent with
> >>>>> cultural
> >>>>>>> historical theory. After a few suggestions, Mike suddenly
> >>> interrupted
> >>>>>> with:
> >>>>>>> MIKE: Can I ask, Helen, why such a wank of a name?
> >>>>>>> HELEN: Cultural-historical?
> >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, what a bullshit name.
> >>>>>>> DEB: What should it be Mike?
> >>>>>>> MIKE: What does it mean to anyone? Is that relevant to anyone
> >> that
> >>>>>>> name? Cultural-historical learning. What does that mean?
> >>>>>>> HELEN: Well....
> >>>>>>> MIKE: It's crap.
> >>>>>>> HELEN: Well, I don't think that you, that's the name of teh
> >> theoyr,
> >>>>>>> Cultural historical theory, but I think in terms of schools using
> >>> teh
> >>>>>>> theory they talk about Communities of Learners.
> >>>>>>> MIKE: Yeah, but why don't they call it that?
> >>>>>>> HELEN: OK, so (I start crossing out "cultural historical" and
> >>>> changing
> >>>>> it
> >>>>>>> to "Communities of Learners")
> >>>>>>> MIKE: That name is like calliing the ultra net site for teachers
> >>>>> 'design
> >>>>>>> space'. It has no relevance to the name whatsoever, and to use
> >>>>>> it--features
> >>>>>>> of cultural historical learning--sounds like a load of crap. It
> >>>>>>> doesn't have any relevance ot what it means. If you said to me
> >>>> cultural
> >>>>>>> historical learning, I go ....
> >>>>>>> BETH: I actually thought it meant talking about he past (general
> >>>>>>> agreement).
> >>>>>>> MIKE: That's what it implies, the past and how you used to teach.
> >>>>>>> HELEN: I suppose I'm just trying to familiarize you with the term
> >>>>>> (general
> >>>>>>> agreement)
> >>>>>>> MIKE: If you call it community of learners then it's something
> >>> that's
> >>>>>>> relevant."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Helen then makes the (cultural-historical) point that words have
> >> a
> >>>>>> history,
> >>>>>>> but they are not necessarily YOUR history--for Helen, "cultural
> >>>>>> historical"
> >>>>>>> calls up a whole series of quite precise concepts, while
> >> "Community
> >>>> of
> >>>>>>> Learners" is kind of vague and undefined. But for the teachers
> >> (who
> >>>>> are,
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> must say, not exactly reticent about sharing, and do not limit
> >>>>> themselves
> >>>>>>> to sharing their expertise) what you get is old times.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's funny that they ignore the word culture. I always thought
> >> that
> >>>>>>> "cultural historical" is a little bit of the cart before the
> >>>> horse....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 8 July 2014 21:40, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A Cultural-Historical Approach
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Helen Grimmett (Monash University, Australia)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This book uses Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory to
> >> provide a
> >>>>>> unique
> >>>>>>>> theorisation of teachers' professional development as a
> >>> practice. A
> >>>>>>>> practice can be described as the socially structured actions
> >> set
> >>> up
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>>>> produce a product or service aimed at meeting a collective
> >> human
> >>>>> need.
> >>>>>> In
> >>>>>>>> this case, collaborative, interventionist work with teachers in
> >>> ...
> >>>>>> Click
> >>>>>>>> here for a free preview and full description<
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ZduyW2xyB1USw9R1YjQno7GI-mDLfJ6m-729UFbNgCKe6Z_p9GP7xjN9IHr0mfZ1yni-XmxHyPfAaNcVjlENvx4l8ySiyRYKHRvvg2E6WbMlf3hNShpk2qTuRRu0ZenYc1mrXxe68_BX4FXljTnHjOx91vJalGeivvaQfmQF57rpGgcDrJe9bprlVyXQwjSo0U6yk-QJ1S5miZfuS7ohswmNs3UZWGMucMgWJyU6E_J3d8QHyWjpGuBM8i2twLXGBPHkZb6hFN4pF6PT3r3M7HYvwFdzAzSfRvpCd90DvQMVDuqkf5VY3ccoD6FppEGF&c=0Y23gLfSZ1jN_yGPyItMZic7SWiIoOcRfcrQWB0JYs9lkVW149lxUQ==&ch=ioZBoxRIwDxdvg-uu6NEwI-E45lgW01U_INO86ZNyJpwbp9zcKnCIA==
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Attachment: Chapter One as Comic Book.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document