[Xmca-l] Re: language and music
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 2 20:32:53 PST 2018
Greg, those currents of formal analysis which, like Peirce's
semiotics, take the subject (in the sense of a moral agent)
out of a process have an important place in analysis. The
same could be said of Structuralism and even Marx's Capital
(though it could be argued that for Marx capital is a
subject). One can of course study language from a purely
structural standpoint, or purely semiotic standpoint. But my
point is that language (languaging?) is not just a system of
signs. Language is an essential part of a specific form of
life, namely human life, in which consciousness mediates
between stimulus and response, and that consciousness cannot
in itself be a sign.
I think Peirce says that the self is a concentrated group,
or something of the kind. Peirce is fine. But subjects do
not (generally) create words /de novo/; interactions (with
other and self) is mediated by use of an
already-objectively-existing culture. Semiotics /can/ be
used to analyse that objectively-existing culture, but close
as it comes to a concept of the Subject, I don't think it
can get there.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 3/12/2018 1:44 pm, Greg Thompson wrote:
> Not "behind" Andy - you're playing a different game!
> (And it happens to be one in which I am terribly "behind"!)
>
> And I generally agree with your appraisal, but it makes me
> wonder what you've concluded with regard to Colapietro's
> characterization of Peirce's notion of the self? I believe
> you were the one who shared it with me but from your tone
> here I assume that you feel that it falls short in
> theorizing a "subject"/self. Care to expand on that any?
> Particularly with regard to the shortcomings of the theory?
>
> -greg
> [p.s. And perhaps instead of "playing games" we might turn
> the metaphor back to the original thread by noting(!) that
> we are simply "playing different tunes"?
> Often discordant but occasionally resonant...]
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:16 PM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg. It's good to hear that I am thoroughly
> behind the game! :) Thank you.
>
> I think Peirce's semiotics has the great advantage in
> that it does /not /include the category of Subject in
> its triads (e.g. sign | interpretant | object). This
> means that it can be used for the analysis of
> /objective/ processes. When used in this way it does
> not imply "thinking" at all. That virtue of Peirce's
> semiotics was the basis of my objection to James's
> observation. Speech and gesture has a subject.
>
> The other minor point I would make about your very
> erudite response is that I think we should not be too
> apologetic about using the concept of "mind." True,
> mind is not a sensible entity, but in all human
> interactions we deduce the state of minds from the
> observable behaviour, and in fact (scientific or
> everyday) human behaviour is incomprehensible without
> the presumption that it is mindful to this or that
> extent. Otherwise, we become Behaviourists, and
> Chomsky would murder us! :)
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
> On 3/12/2018 11:53 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>> Andy,
>>
>> My short response would depend on whether you'd
>> prefer to be critical or charitable toward linguistic
>> anthropologists.
>>
>> The critical approach would say that with a few
>> exceptions (e.g., Elinor Ochs, Paul Kockelman,
>> Elizabeth Mertz, John Lucy, among others), you are right.
>>
>> The charitable approach would say that linguistic
>> anthropologists are in fact dealing with precisely
>> the things that you are talking about. Most of the
>> ones that I know are anti-Chomskyian, to say the
>> least. Most of them are grappling with issues of
>> practice, not just studying formal structures that
>> exist in someplace called "the mind" (where is that
>> exactly?). In fact, one of the greatest insults to
>> the linguistic anthropologists that I know is to call
>> them a "butterfly collector" - that is to say, a mere
>> documenter of language variation across the globe.
>> Most of the ones I know are in fact very mindful of
>> understanding the practical consequences of semiotic
>> forms. In his book Talking Heads Benjamin Lee makes
>> precisely the point that you are making through his
>> deployment of Peirce to Critique Saussure. Peirce
>> offers a means of grasping semiosis as a lived
>> practice rather than one that exists only in the
>> "mind" (as Saussure's approach to semiotics would
>> suggest).
>>
>> The critical approach is nice because you can just
>> dispense with linguistic anthropology and all their
>> gobbly-gook jargon as irrelevant. The charitable
>> approach might suggest that we should at least
>> acknowledge their project. That's all I was hoping to
>> do. I figured that there might be a few who are
>> interested, but most on the listserve will find that
>> it wasn't worth investing the time - and I don't
>> blame them! (as someone in this goofy world of
>> academia, I'm very sensitive to the fact that
>> learning the language of an entirely new system is a
>> major time commitment and only worth it in rare cases).
>>
>> I think things get a bit more complicated when we get
>> to the issue of the semiosis of non-human agents that
>> you seemed to be poking at (e.g., Eduardo Kohn's book
>> How Forests Think). I understand that you are very
>> much a humanist and don't like this approach for some
>> very fundamental reasons. I'm not entirely committed
>> to this position (Kohn's) and so I'm not the best
>> person to make the case for this position - unless
>> you are really genuinely interested. And besides, I'm
>> already well beyond your one screen rule!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> So I gather confirmation from your message, Greg:
>> "most of the anthropologists I know, linguistic
>> or otherwise, don't have much interest in talking
>> about such things as psychological functioning"
>> and therefore, it seems to me, little interest in
>> what people do as well as what they think. In
>> other words, the turn to seeing language as a
>> system of Peircean signs is an entirely *formal*
>> project. Yes, the babbling of a brook or the
>> babbling of a band of monkeys can be formally
>> analysed with the same set of concepts as the
>> babbling of a group of humans in conversation.
>> But this is purely formal, superficial and
>> obscures what is expressed and transacted in the
>> human babble.
>>
>> I can understand the fascination in such formal
>> disciplines, I accept that Peircean Semiotics can
>> be a tool of analysis, and often insights come
>> out from such formal disciplines relevant to the
>> real world (mathematics being the supreme
>> example), but ....! One really has to keep in
>> mind that words are not Peircean signs. To answer
>> the question of how it is that humans alone have
>> language by saying that everything has language,
>> even inanimate processes (and this is how I
>> interpret the equation of language with Peircean
>> signs), is somewhat more than missing the point.
>>
>> As an example of how such formal processes lead
>> to grave errors is the Language Acquisition
>> Device "proved" to exist by Chomsky's formal
>> analysis of language. And yet to hold that an
>> actual biological, neuronal formation as a LAD
>> exists in all human beings in quite inconsistent
>> with the foundations of biology, i.e., Darwinian
>> evolution. Either Darwin or Chomsky, but not
>> both. Which tells me that there is a problem with
>> this formal analysis, even though I gasp in
>> wonder every time Google manages to correctly
>> parse an ordinary language question I ask it and
>> deliver very relevant answers.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden
>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>> On 2/12/2018 2:51 am, Greg Thompson wrote:
>>> [I hesitate to send a post like this to this
>>> group for precisely the reasons Helena mentioned
>>> previously (the proliferation of technical
>>> languages in different fields and the
>>> time-intensive labor of translating
>>> terms/meanings of entire systems of thinking
>>> from one of these fields to the next). Add the
>>> fact that there are few who have much interest
>>> in one of the field of linguistic anthropology
>>> (and esp. how ling anthro has taken up Peicean
>>> semiotics - a tangle of words in its own right),
>>> and this means the following post will likely
>>> remain an orphan (not at all because of anyone's
>>> ill intentions but simply because this is an
>>> impossible situation for anyone to commit to
>>> learning an entirely new language for talking
>>> about language!).]
>>>
>>> Yes James, as a Peircean, I assume that you
>>> would point to (!) the indexical and iconic
>>> potentials of SPOKEN language while noting that
>>> this flattens the oft-made distinction between
>>> gesture and the spoken word? Our dominant
>>> ideology of language tends to assume that spoken
>>> language is (only?) symbolic and gesture is only
>>> indexical and iconic. Peirce's notion of
>>> indexical and iconic functions offers us a way
>>> into seeing how spoken language is also
>>> indexical and iconic (as opposed to Saussure who
>>> dismissed them out of hand - e.g., in the Course
>>> he dismisses onomatopoeia (iconic) and
>>> "shifters" (indexical) as irrelevant to his
>>> project).
>>>
>>> Following Peirce's vision, Roman Jakobson was
>>> one of the first to point to the problem of this
>>> dominant ideology of language, and Michael
>>> Silverstein has made a rather substantial career
>>> off of this simple point, first elaborated in
>>> his famous 1976 paper on "shifters" and since
>>> then in numerous other works. Many others
>>> working in linguistic anthropology have spent
>>> the last 40 years expanding on this project by
>>> exploring the indexical and iconic nature of
>>> spoken language in the concepts of
>>> "indexicality" and "iconization". More recently
>>> linguistic anthropologists have considered the
>>> processes by which sign-functions can shift from
>>> one function to another - e.g., rhematization -
>>> from indexical or symbolic to iconic (see Susan
>>> Gal and Judy Irvine's work), and iconization -
>>> from symbolic or iconic to indexical (see Webb
>>> Keane's and Chris Ball's work). And others have
>>> looked at more basic features of
>>> sign-functioning such as the realization of
>>> qualia (see Lily Chumley and Nicholas Harkness'
>>> special issue in Anthro theory).
>>>
>>> The relevance of all this for the present list
>>> serve is that the processes being described by
>>> these linguistic anthropologists are fundamental
>>> to understanding human psychological functioning
>>> and yet most of the anthropologists I know,
>>> linguistic or otherwise, don't have much
>>> interest in talking about such things as
>>> psychological functioning (one exception here is
>>> Paul Kockelman, e.g., in his book Person, Agent,
>>> Subject, Self - although beware that his writing
>>> is just as dense as Peirce's!). Anyway, I
>>> suspect that this could be a particularly
>>> productive intersection for development.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -greg
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 8:40 AM HENRY SHONERD
>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right on, James!
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2018, at 12:16 AM, James Ma
>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Henry, personally I prefer Xmca-I
>>>> discussion to be exploratory and free
>>>> style, allowing for the coexistence of
>>>> subjectness and subjectless. When it comes
>>>> to scholarly writing, we know we will
>>>> switch the code.
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于
>>>> 2018年11月29日周四 18:58写道：
>>>>
>>>> James,
>>>> This conversation has been so
>>>> satisfying I don’t want to let go of
>>>> it, so I hope I am not tiring you or
>>>> others with all the connections I find.
>>>> But, in the spirit of Alfredo’s post,
>>>> I’ll just keep on talking and remark on
>>>> how the duck tail hair cut is a rich
>>>> gesture, an important concept in this
>>>> subject line. Gesture is an aspect of
>>>> communication present in many species.
>>>> Hence, the importance of gesture as a
>>>> rudimentary form of language with
>>>> evolutionary results in human language.
>>>> Maybe this is a reach, but I see the
>>>> business of quotes in the subject line
>>>> now taking place (Anna Stetsenko and
>>>> Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont,
>>>> contributing right now) on the last
>>>> chapter of Vygotsky’s Speech and
>>>> Language as an issue of gesture.
>>>> Language, written language in this
>>>> case, is limited in its ability to
>>>> provide nuance. Writing without quotes
>>>> “gestured”, pointed to to author
>>>> sources familar in the day that
>>>> Vygotsky wrote, such that quotes were
>>>> not necessary. Dan Slobin,
>>>> psycholinguist at Univ of Calf, wrote
>>>> that two charges of language where in
>>>> “tension”: 1) make yourself clear and
>>>> 2) get it said before losing the thread
>>>> of thinking and talking. Gesture, I
>>>> would like to argue, is an aspect of
>>>> discourse that helps to address this
>>>> tension. A turn (in discourse) is a
>>>> gesture, with temporal constraints that
>>>> belie the idea that a single turn can
>>>> ever be totally clear in and of itself.
>>>> Writing, as we are doing now, is always
>>>> dialogic, even a whole book, is a turn
>>>> in discourse. And we keep on posting
>>>> our turns.
>>>> Henry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:56 AM, James Ma
>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry, Elvis Presley is spot on for
>>>>> this subject line!
>>>>>
>>>>> The ducktail hairstyle is fabulous.
>>>>> Funnily enough, it is what my brother
>>>>> would always like his 9-year-old son
>>>>> to have because he has much thicker
>>>>> hair than most boys.
>>>>> Unfortunately last year the boy had
>>>>> a one-day show off in the
>>>>> classroom and was ticked off by the
>>>>> school authority (in
>>>>> China). However, my brother
>>>>> has managed to restore the ducktail
>>>>> twice a year during the boy's long
>>>>> school holiday in winter and summer!
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose the outlines of conversation
>>>>> are predictable due to participants'
>>>>> intersubjective awareness of the
>>>>> subject. Yet, the nuances of
>>>>> conversation (just like each
>>>>> individual's ducktail unique to
>>>>> himself) are unpredictable because of
>>>>> the waywardness of our mind. What's
>>>>> more, such nuances create the fluidity
>>>>> of conversation which makes
>>>>> it difficult (or even unnecessary)
>>>>> to predict what comes next - this is
>>>>> perhaps the whole point that
>>>>> keeps us talking, as Alfredo pointed
>>>>> out earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 22:19, HENRY
>>>>> SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Back at you, James. The images of
>>>>> the mandarin drake reminded me of
>>>>> a hair style popularin the late
>>>>> 50s when I was in high school
>>>>> (grades 9-12): ducktail haircuts
>>>>> images
>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=ducktail+haircuts+images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>.
>>>>> One of the photos in the link is
>>>>> of Elvis Presley, an alpha male
>>>>> high school boys sought to
>>>>> emulate. Note that some of the
>>>>> photos are of women, interesting
>>>>> in light of issues of gender
>>>>> fluidity these days. I don’t
>>>>> remember when women started taking
>>>>> on the hair style. Since I
>>>>> mentioned Elvis Presley, this post
>>>>> counts as relevant to the subject
>>>>> line! Ha!
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 28, 2018, at 7:39 AM,
>>>>>> James Ma <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you Henry.
>>>>>> More on mandarin duck, just
>>>>>> thought you might like to see:
>>>>>> https://www.livingwithbirds.com/tweetapedia/21-facts-on-mandarin-duck
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>> 于
>>>>>> 2018年11月27日周二 19:30写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What a beautiful photo,
>>>>>> James, and providing it is a
>>>>>> move on this subject line
>>>>>> that instantiates nicely
>>>>>> Gee’s conception of
>>>>>> discourse. Thanks for your
>>>>>> thoughtful and helpful response.
>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 11:11
>>>>>>> AM, James Ma
>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Henry, thanks for the info
>>>>>>> on Derek Bickerton. One of
>>>>>>> the interesting things is
>>>>>>> his conception of
>>>>>>> displacement as the hallmark
>>>>>>> of language, whether iconic,
>>>>>>> indexical or symbolic. In
>>>>>>> the case of Chinese
>>>>>>> language, the sounds are
>>>>>>> decontextualised or
>>>>>>> sublimated over time to
>>>>>>> become something more
>>>>>>> integrated into the words
>>>>>>> themselves as ideographs.
>>>>>>> Some of Bickerton's ideas
>>>>>>> are suggestive of the study
>>>>>>> of protolanguage as an /a
>>>>>>> priori /process, involving
>>>>>>> scrupulous deduction. This
>>>>>>> reminds me of methods used
>>>>>>> in diachronic linguistics,
>>>>>>> which I felt are relevant to
>>>>>>> CHAT just as much as those
>>>>>>> used in synchronic linguistics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding "intermental" and
>>>>>>> "intramental", I can see
>>>>>>> your point. In fact I
>>>>>>> don't take Vygotsky's
>>>>>>> "interpsychological" and
>>>>>>> "intrapsychological"
>>>>>>> categories to be dichotomies
>>>>>>> or binary opposites.
>>>>>>> Whenever it comes to their
>>>>>>> relationship, I tend to have
>>>>>>> a post-structuralism imagery
>>>>>>> present in my mind,
>>>>>>> particularly related to a
>>>>>>> Derridean stance for the
>>>>>>> conception of ideas (i.e.any
>>>>>>> idea is not entirely
>>>>>>> distinct from other ideas in
>>>>>>> terms of the "thing itself";
>>>>>>> rather, it entails a
>>>>>>> supplement of the other idea
>>>>>>> which is already embedded in
>>>>>>> the self). Vygotsky's two
>>>>>>> categoriesare relational
>>>>>>> (dialectical); they are
>>>>>>> somehow like a pair of
>>>>>>> mandarin ducks (see attached
>>>>>>> image). I also like to think
>>>>>>> that each of these
>>>>>>> categories is both
>>>>>>> "discourse-in-context" and
>>>>>>> "context-for-discourse"
>>>>>>> (here discourse is in tune
>>>>>>> with James Gee's conception
>>>>>>> of discourse as a patchwork
>>>>>>> of actions, interactions,
>>>>>>> thoughts, feelings etc). I
>>>>>>> recall Barbara Rogoff
>>>>>>> talking about there being no
>>>>>>> boundary between the
>>>>>>> external and the internal or
>>>>>>> the boundary being blurred
>>>>>>> (during her seminar in the
>>>>>>> Graduate School of Education
>>>>>>> at Bristol in 2001 while I
>>>>>>> was doing my PhD).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at
>>>>>>> 23:14, HENRY SHONERD
>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James,
>>>>>>> I think it was Derek
>>>>>>> Bickerton
>>>>>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bickerton)
>>>>>>> who argued that “formal
>>>>>>> syntax” developed from
>>>>>>> stringing together turns
>>>>>>> in verbal interaction.
>>>>>>> The wiki on Bickerton I
>>>>>>> have linked is short and
>>>>>>> raises issues discussed
>>>>>>> in this subject line and
>>>>>>> in the subject line on
>>>>>>> Corballis. Bickerton
>>>>>>> brings me back to the
>>>>>>> circularity of discourse
>>>>>>> and the development of
>>>>>>> discourse competence.
>>>>>>> Usage-based grammar.
>>>>>>> Bickerton’s idea that
>>>>>>> complex grammar
>>>>>>> developed out of the
>>>>>>> pidgins of our ancestors
>>>>>>> is interesting. Do I see
>>>>>>> a chicken/egg problem
>>>>>>> that for Vygotsky, “…the
>>>>>>> intramental forms of
>>>>>>> semiotic mediation is
>>>>>>> better understood by
>>>>>>> examining the types of
>>>>>>> intermental processes”?
>>>>>>> I don’t know. Could one
>>>>>>> say that inner speech is
>>>>>>> the vehicle for turning
>>>>>>> discourse into grammar?
>>>>>>> Bickerton claimed a
>>>>>>> strong biological
>>>>>>> component to human
>>>>>>> language, though I don’t
>>>>>>> remember if he was a
>>>>>>> Chomskian. I hope this
>>>>>>> is coherent thinking in
>>>>>>> the context of our
>>>>>>> conversation. All that jazz.
>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 2018, at
>>>>>>>> 3:22 PM, James Ma
>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alfredo, I'd agree with
>>>>>>>> Greg -
>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity is
>>>>>>>> relevant and pertinent
>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I see it,
>>>>>>>> intersubjectivity
>>>>>>>> transcends
>>>>>>>> "outlines" or perhaps
>>>>>>>> sublimates the
>>>>>>>> "muddledness" and
>>>>>>>> "unpredictability" of a
>>>>>>>> conversation (as in
>>>>>>>> Bateson's metalogue)
>>>>>>>> into what Rommetveit
>>>>>>>> termed the "draft of a
>>>>>>>> contract". This is
>>>>>>>> because shared
>>>>>>>> understanding makes
>>>>>>>> explicit and external
>>>>>>>> what would otherwise
>>>>>>>> remain implicit and
>>>>>>>> internal. Rommetveit
>>>>>>>> argues that private
>>>>>>>> worlds can only be
>>>>>>>> transcended up to a
>>>>>>>> certain level and
>>>>>>>> interlocutors need to
>>>>>>>> agree upon the draft of
>>>>>>>> a contract with which
>>>>>>>> the communication can
>>>>>>>> be initiated. In the
>>>>>>>> spirit of Vygotsky, he
>>>>>>>> uses a "pluralistic"
>>>>>>>> and "social-cognitive"
>>>>>>>> approach to human
>>>>>>>> communication - and
>>>>>>>> especially to the
>>>>>>>> problem of linguistic
>>>>>>>> mediation and
>>>>>>>> regulation in
>>>>>>>> interpsychological
>>>>>>>> functioning, with
>>>>>>>> reference to semantics,
>>>>>>>> syntactics and
>>>>>>>> pragmatics. For him,
>>>>>>>> the intramental forms
>>>>>>>> of semiotic
>>>>>>>> mediation is better
>>>>>>>> understood by examining
>>>>>>>> the types of
>>>>>>>> intermental processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think these
>>>>>>>> intermental processes
>>>>>>>> (just like intramental
>>>>>>>> ones) can be boiled
>>>>>>>> down or distilled to
>>>>>>>> signs and symbols with
>>>>>>>> which interlocutors are
>>>>>>>> in harmony during a
>>>>>>>> conversation or any
>>>>>>>> other joint activities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /*James Ma *Independent
>>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at
>>>>>>>> 08:09, Alfredo Jornet
>>>>>>>> Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>>>>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Henry's remarks
>>>>>>>> about no directors
>>>>>>>> and symphonic
>>>>>>>> potential of
>>>>>>>> conversation reminded
>>>>>>>> me of G. Bateson's
>>>>>>>> metalogue "why do
>>>>>>>> things have
>>>>>>>> outlines"
>>>>>>>> (attached). Implicitly,
>>>>>>>> it raises the
>>>>>>>> question of units
>>>>>>>> and elements, of
>>>>>>>> how a song, a
>>>>>>>> dance, a poem, a
>>>>>>>> conversation, to
>>>>>>>> make sense, they
>>>>>>>> must have a
>>>>>>>> recognizable
>>>>>>>> outline, even in
>>>>>>>> improvisation; they
>>>>>>>> must be wholes, or
>>>>>>>> suggest wholes.
>>>>>>>> That makes them
>>>>>>>> "predictable". And
>>>>>>>> yet, when you are
>>>>>>>> immersed in a
>>>>>>>> conversation, the
>>>>>>>> fact that you can
>>>>>>>> never exactly predict
>>>>>>>> what comes next is
>>>>>>>> the whole point
>>>>>>>> that keep
>>>>>>>> us talking,
>>>>>>>> dancing, drawing, etc!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 HENRY
>>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* 21 November
>>>>>>>> 2018 06:22
>>>>>>>> *To:* eXtended
>>>>>>>> Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l]
>>>>>>>> Re: language and music
>>>>>>>> I’d like to add to
>>>>>>>> the call and
>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>> conversation that
>>>>>>>> discourse, this
>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>> itself, is staged.
>>>>>>>> There are
>>>>>>>> performers and and
>>>>>>>> an audience made up
>>>>>>>> partly of
>>>>>>>> performers
>>>>>>>> themselves. How
>>>>>>>> many are lurkers,
>>>>>>>> as I am usually?
>>>>>>>> This conversation
>>>>>>>> has no director,
>>>>>>>> but there are
>>>>>>>> leaders. There is
>>>>>>>> symphonic
>>>>>>>> potential. And even
>>>>>>>> gestural potential,
>>>>>>>> making the chat a
>>>>>>>> dance. All on line.:)
>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 20, 2018,
>>>>>>>>> at 9:05 PM, mike
>>>>>>>>> cole
>>>>>>>>> <mcole@ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:mcole@ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For many years I
>>>>>>>>> used the work of
>>>>>>>>> Ellen Dissenyake
>>>>>>>>> to teach comm
>>>>>>>>> classes about
>>>>>>>>> language/music/development.
>>>>>>>>> She is quite
>>>>>>>>> unusual in ways
>>>>>>>>> that might find
>>>>>>>>> interest here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://ellendissanayake.com/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 17,
>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 2:16 PM
>>>>>>>>> James Ma
>>>>>>>>> <jamesma320@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Simangele,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In semiotic
>>>>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>>>>> whatever each
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> constructed
>>>>>>>>> internally is
>>>>>>>>> the signified,
>>>>>>>>> i.e. his or
>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>> understanding
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>>> When it is
>>>>>>>>> vocalised
>>>>>>>>> (spoken out),
>>>>>>>>> it becomes the
>>>>>>>>> signifier to
>>>>>>>>> the listener.
>>>>>>>>> What's more,
>>>>>>>>> when the
>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>> work together
>>>>>>>>> to compose a
>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>> impromptu,
>>>>>>>>> each of their
>>>>>>>>> signifiers
>>>>>>>>> turns into a
>>>>>>>>> new signified
>>>>>>>>> – a shared,
>>>>>>>>> newly-established
>>>>>>>>> understanding,
>>>>>>>>> woven into the
>>>>>>>>> fabric of
>>>>>>>>> meaning making.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By the way, in
>>>>>>>>> Chinese
>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>> words for
>>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>>> dancing have
>>>>>>>>> long been used
>>>>>>>>> inseparably.
>>>>>>>>> As I see
>>>>>>>>> it, they are
>>>>>>>>> semiotically
>>>>>>>>> indexed to, or
>>>>>>>>> adjusted to
>>>>>>>>> allow for, the
>>>>>>>>> feelings,
>>>>>>>>> emotions,
>>>>>>>>> actions and
>>>>>>>>> interactions
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>> consciousness
>>>>>>>>> who is
>>>>>>>>> experiencing
>>>>>>>>> the singing
>>>>>>>>> and dancing.
>>>>>>>>> Here are some
>>>>>>>>> idioms:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 酣歌醉舞- singing
>>>>>>>>> and dancing
>>>>>>>>> rapturously
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 村歌社舞-
>>>>>>>>> dancingvillage
>>>>>>>>> and singing club
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 燕歌赵舞- citizens
>>>>>>>>> of ancient Yan
>>>>>>>>> and Zhao good
>>>>>>>>> at singing and
>>>>>>>>> dancing, hence
>>>>>>>>> referring to
>>>>>>>>> wonderful
>>>>>>>>> songs and dances
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 舞榭歌楼- a church
>>>>>>>>> or building
>>>>>>>>> set up for
>>>>>>>>> singing and
>>>>>>>>> dancing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> */________________________________________________/*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /*James Ma
>>>>>>>>> *Independent
>>>>>>>>> Scholar
>>>>>>>>> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa
>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Nov
>>>>>>>>> 2018 at 19:08,
>>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>> Mayisela
>>>>>>>>> <simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:simangele.mayisela@wits.ac.za>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>> is getting
>>>>>>>>> even more
>>>>>>>>> interesting,
>>>>>>>>> not that I
>>>>>>>>> have an
>>>>>>>>> informed
>>>>>>>>> answer for
>>>>>>>>> you Rob, I
>>>>>>>>> can only
>>>>>>>>> think of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> National
>>>>>>>>> Anthems
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> stand
>>>>>>>>> still when
>>>>>>>>> singing,
>>>>>>>>> even then
>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>> observed
>>>>>>>>> only in
>>>>>>>>> international
>>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Other
>>>>>>>>> occasions
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> people are
>>>>>>>>> likely not
>>>>>>>>> to move
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>> when there
>>>>>>>>> is death
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> mood is
>>>>>>>>> sombre.
>>>>>>>>> Otherwise
>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> rhythmic
>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>> movement,
>>>>>>>>> called
>>>>>>>>> dance are
>>>>>>>>> a norm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This then
>>>>>>>>> makes me
>>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>>> what this
>>>>>>>>> means in
>>>>>>>>> terms of
>>>>>>>>> cognitive
>>>>>>>>> functioning,
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> light of
>>>>>>>>> Vygotsky’s
>>>>>>>>> developmental
>>>>>>>>> stages –
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>>> Would the
>>>>>>>>> body
>>>>>>>>> movement
>>>>>>>>> constitute
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> externalisation
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>>>>> contained
>>>>>>>>> in the music?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helena –
>>>>>>>>> the video
>>>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>>>> relating
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> reminds of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> teaching
>>>>>>>>> or group
>>>>>>>>> therapy
>>>>>>>>> technique-
>>>>>>>>> where a
>>>>>>>>> group of
>>>>>>>>> learners
>>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>>> participants
>>>>>>>>> in OD
>>>>>>>>> settings)
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> instructed
>>>>>>>>> to tell a
>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>> coherent
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>> story as a
>>>>>>>>> group.
>>>>>>>>> They all
>>>>>>>>> take turns
>>>>>>>>> to say a
>>>>>>>>> sentence,
>>>>>>>>> a sentence
>>>>>>>>> of not
>>>>>>>>> more than
>>>>>>>>> 6 words
>>>>>>>>> (depending
>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>> instructor
>>>>>>>>> ), each
>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>> linking
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> sentence
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> previous
>>>>>>>>> articulator,
>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>>> person
>>>>>>>>> also doing
>>>>>>>>> the same,
>>>>>>>>> until the
>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>> complete
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>> More
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> is that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> compose
>>>>>>>>> this story
>>>>>>>>> impromptu,
>>>>>>>>> It with
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>> stories
>>>>>>>>> that group
>>>>>>>>> dynamics
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> analysed,
>>>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>>> therapy
>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>> experiences
>>>>>>>>> of trauma
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> shared. I
>>>>>>>>> suppose
>>>>>>>>> this is an
>>>>>>>>> example of
>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>> although
>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>> I would
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> thought of
>>>>>>>>> it as just
>>>>>>>>> an “activity”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Simangele
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>>>>>>>>> *On Behalf
>>>>>>>>> Of
>>>>>>>>> *robsub@ariadne.org.uk
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robsub@ariadne.org.uk>
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*
>>>>>>>>> Friday, 16
>>>>>>>>> November
>>>>>>>>> 2018 21:01
>>>>>>>>> *To:*
>>>>>>>>> eXtended
>>>>>>>>> Mind,
>>>>>>>>> Culture,
>>>>>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>;
>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>> Worthen
>>>>>>>>> <helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*
>>>>>>>>> [Xmca-l]
>>>>>>>>> Re:
>>>>>>>>> Michael C.
>>>>>>>>> Corballis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember
>>>>>>>>> being told
>>>>>>>>> once that
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> languages
>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> separate
>>>>>>>>> words for
>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> dancing,
>>>>>>>>> because if
>>>>>>>>> you sing
>>>>>>>>> you want
>>>>>>>>> to move -
>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>> western
>>>>>>>>> civilisation
>>>>>>>>> beats it
>>>>>>>>> out of you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does
>>>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>> this is
>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>> true, or
>>>>>>>>> is it
>>>>>>>>> complete cod?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it is
>>>>>>>>> true, does
>>>>>>>>> it have
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> to say
>>>>>>>>> about the
>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> physical
>>>>>>>>> body and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>> of speech?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>>> 17:29,
>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>> Worthen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> interested
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> going.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>> Theories
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Literacy
>>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> Glynda
>>>>>>>>> Hull,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> instructor,
>>>>>>>>> showed
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> video
>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>> singing
>>>>>>>>> circle
>>>>>>>>> somewhere
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> Amazon,
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> incredibly
>>>>>>>>> complicated
>>>>>>>>> pattern
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>> phrases
>>>>>>>>> wove
>>>>>>>>> in and
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> among
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> singers
>>>>>>>>> underlaid
>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>> drumming
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> included
>>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> response,
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>> 20
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> involved,
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> pushing
>>>>>>>>> full
>>>>>>>>> steam
>>>>>>>>> ahead
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> create
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>> together
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> seemed
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> wouldn’t
>>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> did it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Certainly
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> studied
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> (improvised
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> otherwise),
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> gesture?
>>>>>>>>> I have
>>>>>>>>> asked
>>>>>>>>> musicians
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> blank
>>>>>>>>> looks.
>>>>>>>>> Yet
>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> listen
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> music,
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>>>>> drum
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> chant
>>>>>>>>> circles,
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> - like
>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>> embedded
>>>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> Sonata
>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>> involves
>>>>>>>>> exposition
>>>>>>>>> (they
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> word).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> soundtrack
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> Coen
>>>>>>>>> Brothers’
>>>>>>>>> film
>>>>>>>>> Fargo
>>>>>>>>> opens
>>>>>>>>> with a
>>>>>>>>> musical
>>>>>>>>> theme
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> says,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> clearly
>>>>>>>>> as if
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>>> reading
>>>>>>>>> aloud
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> children’s
>>>>>>>>> book,
>>>>>>>>> “I am
>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>>>> you a
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> strange
>>>>>>>>> story
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> sounds
>>>>>>>>> impossible
>>>>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>>> promise
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> true…da-de-da-de-da.’
>>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> doesn’t
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (18)
>>>>>>>>> Fargo
>>>>>>>>> (1996)
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> 'Fargo,
>>>>>>>>> North
>>>>>>>>> Dakota'
>>>>>>>>> (Opening)
>>>>>>>>> scene
>>>>>>>>> [1080]
>>>>>>>>> - YouTube
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Helena
>>>>>>>>> Worthen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:helenaworthen@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Berkeley,
>>>>>>>>> CA
>>>>>>>>> 94707
>>>>>>>>> 510-828-2745
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Blog
>>>>>>>>> US/
>>>>>>>>> Viet Nam:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> helenaworthen.wordpress.com
>>>>>>>>> <http://helenaworthen.wordpress.com/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> skype:
>>>>>>>>> helena.worthen1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> 8:56
>>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>>> HENRY
>>>>>>>>> SHONERD
>>>>>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> turn
>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>> principle
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> lot.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> links
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> music
>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>> nicely:
>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>>> By
>>>>>>>>> voice
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> ear.
>>>>>>>>> While
>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> linked
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> face-to-face
>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> rhythmically
>>>>>>>>> entrained
>>>>>>>>> interaction.
>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> cooperative,
>>>>>>>>> it’s
>>>>>>>>> verbal/gestural
>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>> Any
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> potentially
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> art.
>>>>>>>>> Vera
>>>>>>>>> John-Steiner
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> Holbrook
>>>>>>>>> Mahn
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> talked
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> conversation
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> co-construction
>>>>>>>>> “at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> speed
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> thought”.
>>>>>>>>> Heady
>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>> part,
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>>> to,
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> response
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> disheartening
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> destructive
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> dialog.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>> this,
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> realize
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> prosodic
>>>>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> spoken
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> (intonation)
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> gestural
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>> It’s
>>>>>>>>> simplistic
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> restrict
>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> visual
>>>>>>>>> signals.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>> gesture
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> prototypically
>>>>>>>>> visual,
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> accompaniment
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> voice.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> surfing
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> web,
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> paralanguage
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> complicate
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> gesture.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> speaks
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> embodiment
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> senses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Henry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>> 2018,
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> 7:00
>>>>>>>>> AM,
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>>> <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> introducing
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> notion
>>>>>>>>> of delayed
>>>>>>>>> gratification
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> turn-taking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> feature
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> hadn't
>>>>>>>>> considered
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> each
>>>>>>>>> participant
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> exercise
>>>>>>>>> patience
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> order
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> wait
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> else's
>>>>>>>>> turn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much
>>>>>>>>> obliged.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> Fri,
>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>> 16,
>>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> 8:50
>>>>>>>>> AM
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting,
>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Corballis,
>>>>>>>>> oddly
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>> view,
>>>>>>>>> places
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> lot
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> weight
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> so-called
>>>>>>>>> mirror
>>>>>>>>> neurons
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> explain
>>>>>>>>> perception
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> intentionality
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> blindingly
>>>>>>>>> obvious
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>> activity,
>>>>>>>>> specifically
>>>>>>>>> participating
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> projects
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> individuals
>>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>>> not-present
>>>>>>>>> object,
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> form
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> begets
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>> perceptive
>>>>>>>>> abilities.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> delayed
>>>>>>>>> gratification,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> precondition
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> sharing
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> turn-taking,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>>> aspect
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> sociality
>>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> development
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> upright
>>>>>>>>> gait
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> frees
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> hands
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> carrying
>>>>>>>>> food
>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> camp
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> shared
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> important.
>>>>>>>>> None
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> presupposes
>>>>>>>>> tools,
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> cooperation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=itd0qPWlE7uAuyEX0ii8ohEoZegfdMAOOLf-YoaEqqs&s=-uwTjZDhHtJM2EFdBS-rXLTptADQdSGAcibaav-mhJw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> 17/11/2018
>>>>>>>>> 12:36
>>>>>>>>> am,
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum
>>>>>>>>> [Staff]
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>> chime
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> discussion:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> submit
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>> cooperative
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> underlying
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> *turn-taking*.
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>> how
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> being,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> once
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> did,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> *exchanging*
>>>>>>>>> utterances
>>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> exchange
>>>>>>>>> came
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> complementarity
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> speaking
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> listening
>>>>>>>>> roles,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> alternating
>>>>>>>>> conversational
>>>>>>>>> roles
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>> perspectives. Turn-taking
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> key
>>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> Thu,
>>>>>>>>> Nov
>>>>>>>>> 15,
>>>>>>>>> 2018
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> 9:21
>>>>>>>>> PM
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oddly,
>>>>>>>>> Amazon
>>>>>>>>> delivered
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> yesterday
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> p.5.
>>>>>>>>> Fortunately,
>>>>>>>>> Corballis
>>>>>>>>> provides
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> synopsis
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> end,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> sneak-previewed
>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> claim,
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Merlin
>>>>>>>>> Donald,
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>>> discovered
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> unique
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> wonderful
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> decided
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>>>> Clearly_there
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> humanly
>>>>>>>>> possible_.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> development,
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> behaviour
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> always
>>>>>>>>> present
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> physiological
>>>>>>>>> adaptations
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> facilitate
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> come
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> being.
>>>>>>>>> I.e,
>>>>>>>>> proto-humans
>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> develop
>>>>>>>>> interpersonal,
>>>>>>>>> voluntary
>>>>>>>>> communication,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> begin
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> mime
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> gesture,
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> vocalisations
>>>>>>>>> (all
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> BTW
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> reference
>>>>>>>>> non-present
>>>>>>>>> entities
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> situations)
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>> produces
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> development.
>>>>>>>>> Eventually,
>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>> millions
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> vocal
>>>>>>>>> apparatus
>>>>>>>>> evolved
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> strong
>>>>>>>>> selection
>>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> non-speech
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> integral
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>> niche.
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> words,
>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>> wordless
>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>> gradually
>>>>>>>>> became
>>>>>>>>> modern
>>>>>>>>> speech,
>>>>>>>>> along
>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> accompanying
>>>>>>>>> facial
>>>>>>>>> expressions
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hand
>>>>>>>>> movements.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> suggest,
>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>> activity
>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>> conditions
>>>>>>>>> fostering
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> (something
>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> nearest
>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>> cousins
>>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> rudimentary
>>>>>>>>> speech)
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> increasing
>>>>>>>>> tool-using,
>>>>>>>>> tool-making,
>>>>>>>>> tool-giving
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> tool-instructing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>>> Blunden
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ethicalpolitics.org_ablunden_index.htm&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=A3k5oeQ13zGCPUbWibdOb2KNZT4q__fLyCwugyULUDw&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On
>>>>>>>>> 16/11/2018
>>>>>>>>> 12:58
>>>>>>>>> pm,
>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>> Escandon
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear
>>>>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>> Tomasello
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> claims,
>>>>>>>>> grounding
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> surge
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> articulated
>>>>>>>>> language
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> innate
>>>>>>>>> co-operativism
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> collective
>>>>>>>>> activity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-child-language/90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB
>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cambridge.org_core_books_cambridge-2Dhandbook-2Dof-2Dchild-2Dlanguage_90B84B8F3BB2D32E9FA9E2DFAF4D2BEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=aqMfXOEvEJQh2iQMCb7Wy8l0sPnURkcqADc2guUW8IM&r=mXj3yhpYNklTxyN3KioIJ0ECmPHilpf4N2p9PBMATWs&m=VlOXr8x02-mghKHGod2LwGx8_X-LHNRmDI_elI-7rKI&s=vxJZooXRDYwTRrM4dzWBbLfUhF9HhmUvU3ouq6sbwPI&e=>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Arturo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sent
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> Gmail
>>>>>>>>> Mobile
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Peter
>>>>>>>>> Feigenbaum,
>>>>>>>>> Ph.D.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Director,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Office
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Institutional
>>>>>>>>> Research
>>>>>>>>> <https://www.fordham.edu/info/24303/institutional_research>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fordham
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thebaud
>>>>>>>>> Hall-202
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bronx,
>>>>>>>>> NY
>>>>>>>>> 10458
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Phone:
>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>> 817-2243
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fax:
>>>>>>>>> (718)
>>>>>>>>> 817-3817
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> email:
>>>>>>>>> pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> intended
>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>> addressee
>>>>>>>>> only. It
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> confidential.
>>>>>>>>> If you
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> received
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> in error,
>>>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>>>> notify us
>>>>>>>>> immediately
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> destroy
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> original
>>>>>>>>> message.
>>>>>>>>> You may
>>>>>>>>> not copy
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> disseminate
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> communication
>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> permission
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> University.
>>>>>>>>> Only
>>>>>>>>> authorised
>>>>>>>>> signatories
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> competent
>>>>>>>>> to enter
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> agreements
>>>>>>>>> on behalf
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> recipients
>>>>>>>>> are thus
>>>>>>>>> advised
>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>> content of
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>> may not be
>>>>>>>>> legally
>>>>>>>>> binding on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>> and may
>>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> personal
>>>>>>>>> views and
>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> author,
>>>>>>>>> which are
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>> the views
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>>> of The
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> Witwatersrand,
>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg.
>>>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>>>> agreements
>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> outsiders
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> subject to
>>>>>>>>> South
>>>>>>>>> African
>>>>>>>>> Law unless
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>>>> agrees in
>>>>>>>>> writing to
>>>>>>>>> the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Mandarin Ducks.jpg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>> Assistant Professor
>>> Department of Anthropology
>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>> Brigham Young University
>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20181203/ec34af88/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list