[Xmca-l] Analytical and Continental
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Thu Dec 20 18:37:57 PST 2018
James, according to Wikipedia's entry, Hegel is a part of
"continental philosophy," but this is an anachronism really,
because the tribal division is a 20th century phenomenon and
affects mainly university departments in the Anglosphere.
Continental philosophers like to cite Hegel and Marx, but I
don't think we can count these writers as part of
Continental Philosophy. In any case, people interested in
CHAT are going to be outside of that argument.
In the tradition that I identify with Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky we
value natural science in a way which is uncharacteristic of
Continental Philosophy, but also value meta-philosophical
considerations over formal-logical argument in a way which
is uncharacteristic of Analytical Philosophy.
As I think I said in the previous message the people we find
in philosophy departments most sympathetic to CHAT concerns
are the Pragmatists. Dewey was trained as a Hegelian and
James got his scientific education in 19th century Germany,
still affected by German Idealism. Peirce seems to try to
unite the virtues of both currents in his own way, too.
Hegelian Philosophers like Robert Pippin and Charles Taylor
recognise their own affinity with the Pragmatist school, and
recent Pragmatist Philosophers like Richard Rorty and Robert
Putnam accept the disciplines of Analytical Philosophy while
making an effort to appropriate Hegel.
Myself, I have never attended a university course in
Philosophy, any more than I have attended any course in
Psychology, so I cannot be part of either current.
Personally, I remain of the view that it is Hegel and Marx
who provide the meta-concepts needed to develop Vygotsky's
legacy in Psychology and Social Theory, and I don't see a
lot of prospects in either the Analytical or Continental
Philosophical traditions in themselves.
What do you think?
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 21/12/2018 7:56 am, James Ma wrote:
>
> Andy, thank you for your message. Just to make a few
> brief points, linking with some of your comments:
>
> ...
> Third, on hearing that you are "definitely not an
> Analytical philosopher, but not really a Continental
> philosopher either", it's not surprising that in my last
> email the paragraph beginning "More specifically..."
> doesn't make much sense to you. That paragraph reflects
> a take on consciousness and language informed by
> phenomenology and post-structuralism. Phenomenology gave
> way to post-structuralism in the 1960s, prior to which
> Heidegger and Sartre had taken phenomenology to a
> direction different to Husserl. However, Heidegger's
> theory as mainly presented in "Being and Time", albeit
> provocative and much disputed, has long been a landmark of
> modern thought in philosophy and beyond. Funnily enough,
> when reading your comments, my first impulse was
> recollection of you remarking that phenomenology was not
> for you and that Heidegger was a flawed personality!
>
> After all, perhaps we all have a Dasein unique to
> ourselves. Our different disciplinary interests lead to
> different ontological positions that influence our views
> on how we should know what we know! Sometimes synergistic
> meaning-making without emotion may be fruitful and
> illuminating.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 01:50, Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> (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
>
>
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 22:15, James Ma
> <jamesma320@gmail.com <mailto:jamesma320@gmail.com>> 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/20181221/56a9ac87/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list