[Xmca-l] Re: language and consciousness
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Dec 9 17:46:18 PST 2018
(1) Analytical Philosophy vs. Continental Philosophy
This is the tribal division which divides philosophy
departments across the Anglosphere into rival, mutually
incomprehensible tribes. My lights - Hegel, Marx and
Vygotsky - are certainly not part of Analytical Philosophy
but are not really Continentals either. The Pragmatists -
from Dewey, James and Peirce to Rorty and Brandom - are not
quite Analytical Philosophers, but these are the only
Analyticals I find interesting. So I'd say I am definitely
not an Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental
philosopher either. All the people I like are "in between."
(2) "Reality as a creation of minds or mental states?"
This is the absurd claim of Subjective Idealism. No, as a
Hegelian-Marxist, I am definitively not a Subjective Idealist.
(3) "Consciousness bestows meaning to the objects of the
world or that the experience of a human subject makes these
objects meaningful?"
Well, yes, I don't know what "meaning" could mean otherwise,
so something of this kind must be the case.
(4) I can't make much sense of your paragraph beginning
"More specifically ..." I go with Vyotsky's view of the
mutually interconnected development of verbal intellect and
intelligent speech (whether verbal or signed). I don't want
to add anything to what Vygotsky said in "Thinking and Speech."
(5) Why "consciousness cannot in itself be a sign"?
I think Peirce's view of consciousness as semiosis is a
powerful one and can be utilised consistently with
Vygotsky's views on the solution of relevant problems. But
the thing is that consciousness is not something which in
itself has any impact on the external world, only mediately
through the physiology of the thinking body and material
objects wielded by the body. You strangely leap from
Peirce's semiotics to Saussure's Semiology when you say:
"consciousness is the signifying and the signified." How can
consciousness signify if it is not empirically given? Unless
you are just referencing an "internal world" here?
(6) How semiotics in the Peircean sense is "not language"?
As I see it, semiotics is an approach (like structuralism or
functionalism or behaviourism), an extremely powerful
approach, for the objective analysis of culture in the sense
of a mass of interconnected objects and behaviours. The
context in which I was speaking was the phylogenetic origins
of language. Treating language as a natural process subject
to objective analysis just like geological formations or the
structure of ecosystems, or whatever, ruled out Semiotics as
providing the explanation for why language is essentially
*not* just a system of signs,- that a chimp screeching in
fright and causing another chimp to run away, is essentially
different from a chimp calling out: "There's a wolf coming!"
and another chimp responding by calling out "Stop playing
games, Charlie! You scared the life out of me." Even old
Spinoza took the essential issue, not to *have *emotions,
but to be able to *control *one's emotions and one's
response to emotions.
Whatever your ontological position, there remains a real
puzzle: how did homo sapiens sapiens evolve? What is it that
was the essential driver in forming our unquestionably
unique species. Many answer that it is language, and it is
not unreasonable to re-pose the original question: how did
language-using evolve? If the analytical tools you bring to
bear can't make a fundamental distinction between
language-using and any other semiotic process, then that
tool is of no use for the task at hand.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 10/12/2018 9:15 am, James Ma wrote:
> Andy, I'm now back to you after a busy week. You said:
> "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 found this interesting - would it
> encapsulate an idealistic view of reality as a creation of
> minds or mental states? Are you saying that consciousness
> bestows meaning to the objects of the world or that the
> experience of a human subject makes these objects meaningful?
>
> More specifically, linking consciousness with language, do
> you consider both the intentionality of consciousness and
> the linguistic structures as described in analytical
> philosophy (I guess you're more of an analytical
> philosopher)? I wondered, in your view, what would serve
> as a foundation for knowledge, if human subjects had no
> recourse to the narratives of "transcendent being" or
> "higher being". I'm interested in Wittgenstein and
> Husserl, both of whom examined language and consciousness.
> Wittgenstein saw limits in what philosophy could do in
> terms of explaining and understanding; Husserl stressed
> limits in articulating or communicating consciousness. Can
> you comment on this and perhaps how it might be implicated
> in your position?
>
> Can you also explain why "consciousness cannot in itself
> be a sign"? As I see it, consciousness is the signifying
> and the signified, both of which evolve as consciousness
> evolves. In Peirce's terms, consciousness is a semiosis.
>
> In an earlier message, you said semiotics in the Peircean
> sense is "not language". Reading Peirce, I've found it
> intriguing that a great deal of his pragmaticism (as
> distinguished from William James's pragmatism) can be
> packed into his semiosis. It seems that his semiosis might
> be studied against the backdrop of his pragmaticism (which
> provides a conceptual basis for his tripartite of the
> sign). As I see it, Peircean pragmatism is also a theory
> of meaning, indicative of the role of language in making
> clear what we mean by what we say (e.g. what it is meant
> by "going around the tree" in William James's "squirrel on
> the tree").
>
> This discussion is perhaps a most enduring one so far on
> Xmca-I. I'm busy again from tomorrow but will be joyfully
> watching how it develops in the background!
>
> James
>
>
> */________________________________________________/*
>
> /*James Ma *Independent Scholar
> //https://oxford.academia.edu/JamesMa /
>
> /
> /
>
>
> On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 04:35, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> 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/20181210/0e1a0f91/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list