[Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural psychology" ?
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Fri May 22 21:02:52 PDT 2020
I won't argue the translation with you David; not only is it
clear, it's just one particularly pithy line in a
simultaneous critique of Jacobi and Kant, two alternative
attitudes of modern philosophy to Objectivity expounded over
a number of pages of dense argument. And it is argument
about the /beginnings of philosophy/, not psychology, and
certainly about the distinction between basic and higher
mental functions. Does the subject have an immediate
relation to objectivity? Undoubtedly "yes." If you say "no"
then you are with Kant and the material world lies beyond
human knowledge, /jenseits/. Is the relation of the subject
to objectivity mediated? Undoubtedly "yes." If you say "no"
then you are either with Revealed Religion or naive realism.
There is no 50-50 here. It is not the truth being somewhere
in the middle. It is 100% yes and 100% yes.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpoaXbJvCMw$ >
Home Page <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6Opoa5_yMvig$ >
On 23/05/2020 7:39 am, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> But this is not the exact quote. It is only a translation.
> The exact quote is this:
>
> ("...) daß es nichts gibt, nichts im Himmel oder in der
> Natur oder im Geiste oder wo es sei, was nicht ebenso die
> Unmittelbarkeit enthält als die Vermittlung, so daß sich
> diese beiden Bestimmungen als ungetrennt und untrennbar
> und jener Gegensatz sich als ein Nichtiges zeigt." (There
> is nothing given, neither in heaven nor in nature nor in
> mind nor in wherever it may be, which is not equally the
> unmediated contain alongside the mediated, so that both of
> these two determinations (i.e. determining something as
> unmediated or as mediated--DK) prove to be inseparable and
> inextricable, and their contrast (or their opposition--DK)
> proves nul."
>
>
> What's the difference between the exact quote and the
> translation? As I pointed out to Andy, the translation
> puts "equally" and "both" in the same clause, while the
> original German has them in two different clauses. Compare:
>
> a) Chiaroscuro paintings are both dark and light, and this
> was equally true for Caravaggio as for us.
>
> b) Chiaroscuro paintings are equally both dark and light
> in Caravaggio's time and in our own.
>
> Statement a) is true enough, although as Mike points out
> it is the beginning of a concrete genetic analysis and not
> the end. But statement b) is utterly false: it puts an end
> to all genetic analysis and abolishes development
> altogether. It says, uselessly, that all paintings are
> 100% dark and 100% light and so the only genetic analysis
> possible is one of changing self-consciousness, either in
> the painter or the viewer. This is an idealist dialectic,
> and it is certainly not a historical one.
>
> Similarly, it is one thing to say that all psychological
> functions are both mediated and unmediated, and this is
> equally true for lower functions as it is for higher
> functions. For example, when I look at a painting by
> Caravaggio or a film by Derek Jarman, the rod cells in my
> retina and my optic nerve are mediating the experience as
> well as my cerebral cortex and my biographical knowledge
> of Caravaggio.
>
> But it's very different to say that all psychological
> functions are equally both mediated and unmediated, or100%
> mediated and 100% unmediated. In addition to the
> arithmetical absurdinty, this does not allow me to
> distinguish between lower and higher psychological functions.
>
> (And I do think this is how Andy gets his notion that when
> two things are different we cannot say that one is more
> developed than the other. Yet higher psychological
> functions do indeed presuppose lower functions but not the
> other way around. Andy calls this difference and not
> development; I call it equally both difference and
> development.)
>
>
> David Kellogg
> Sangmyung University
>
> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam: A manual and a
> manifesto.
> Outlines, Spring 2020
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpobiNehdxg$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!UhX3qSLCbdS5rxC7Q9WFIHPghpcB2oEb5UNjVMhBS8xyhYxH_Pn8J--D4dz7kemhahe23g$>
>
> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov: /L.S. Vygotsky's
> Pedological Works/ /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpoZPLX5WDQ$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!UhX3qSLCbdS5rxC7Q9WFIHPghpcB2oEb5UNjVMhBS8xyhYxH_Pn8J--D4dz7kelgaaoaZw$>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 2:13 PM Andy Blunden
> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>
> And it is worth noting that Hegel wrote this in the
> 1810s simply on the basis of logical criticism of Kant
> and Jacobi (a contemporary sharing some views with
> Descartes). And yet it took more than a century (if
> I'm not mistaken) to make its way into hard science.
> Here's how he explains it:
>
> § 66
> That said, we continue to stand by the
> position that immediate knowing is to be taken
> as a fact. With this, however, the
> consideration is directed towards the field of
> experience, to a psychological phenomenon. –
> In this respect, it should be noted that it is
> one of the most common experiences that truths
> (which one knows very well to be the result of
> the most intricate and highly mediated
> considerations) present themselves immediately
> in the consciousness of someone conversant
> with such knowledge. Like everybody else who
> has been trained in a science, the
> mathematician immediately has at his
> fingertips solutions to which a very
> complicated analysis has led. Every educated
> person has immediately present in his or her
> knowing a host of universal viewpoints and
> principles that have resulted only from
> repeated reflection and long life experience.
> The facility we have achieved in any sphere of
> knowing, also in fine art, in technical
> dexterity, consists precisely in having those
> sorts of familiarity, those kinds of activity
> immediately present in one’s consciousness in
> the case at hand, indeed, even in an activity
> directed outwards and in one’s limbs. – In all
> these cases the immediacy of knowing does not
> only not exclude its mediation; to the
> contrary, they are so connected that immediate
> knowing is even the product and result of
> knowing that has been mediated.
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Hegel for Social Movements
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!V1lohvu0fySbbUkCcYcJRCbGDu-27I-V6eExTcBvLglpwRB4sUpmOZ-FCZ_JuZI9AVk-hA$>
> Home Page
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!V1lohvu0fySbbUkCcYcJRCbGDu-27I-V6eExTcBvLglpwRB4sUpmOZ-FCZ_JuZLU_NXvXg$>
>
> On 22/05/2020 1:59 pm, mike cole wrote:
>> Both HAVE TO BE present at once, Andy or there is no
>> perception.
>> Mike
>>
>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:55 PM Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, last week in our Hegel Reading Group we read
>> the section in the Shorter Logic, following his
>> critiques of Kant and Descartes, Hegel explains
>> how thought is both immediate /and/ mediated, and
>> even over Zoom I could see the clouds gradually
>> receding from my young students' eyes. All of a
>> sudden the whole fruitless argument between
>> scepticism and dogmatism, relativism and
>> historicism, fell away. The most difficult thing
>> to grasp was how perception was not just
>> immediate and mediated, but both were essentially
>> present in the same moment, how without the
>> cultural training of the senses the brain could
>> not make any sense at all of the nervous
>> stimulation of the organs of sight, etc.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> PS. the exact quote from Hegel is: "there is
>> nothing, nothing in heaven, or in nature or in
>> mind or anywhere else which does not equally
>> contain both immediacy and mediation"
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpoZw9K8C-g$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlbegin.htm*0092__;Iw!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuPh_oxBg$>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDuiF8_dnA$>
>> Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TUMhXu_xWvwV4y6fvpgv4VHU2relV4Y4V5cWZTRpCZSmXSJxKlYezU-yXkbrDDty4Bji_w$>
>>
>> On 22/05/2020 9:20 am, mike cole wrote:
>>> This is a point I have struggled to make for
>>> many years, Andy. I didn't know I was quoting Hegel:
>>>
>>> Hegel:
>>> 'Everything is both immediate and mediated."
>>>
>>> The challenge is to rise to the concrete with
>>> this abstraction or its just la la la.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:42 PM Andy Blunden
>>> <andyb@marxists.org <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, Annalisa, I agree that Science is
>>> a moral practice, but that is not what is at
>>> issue here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Two issues concern me with what you have
>>> said: (1) the question of "who decides?" and
>>> (2) the quantification of development as in
>>> "more evolved" bringing with it the
>>> implication of moral value attached to
>>> development.
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) The discovery of the "social
>>> construction of reality" was an achievement
>>> of the Left, the progressives, with people
>>> like the Critical Psychologists, the
>>> theorists of postmodernism and
>>> post-structural feminists in the 1970s an
>>> 80s, who exposed how taken-for-granted facts
>>> along with the truths of Science were on
>>> closer inspection ideological products of
>>> dominant social groups. Of course, how
>>> reality is /seen /is an inseparable part of
>>> how reality /is/. This insight led to a
>>> range of powerful theoretical and practical
>>> critiques of all aspects of society.
>>> Feminists offered an alternative way of
>>> interpreting reality as a powerful lever for
>>> changing that reality by undermining
>>> patriarchal structures and certainties. So
>>> far so good. But today, in 2020, it is not
>>> progressives who are asking "who decides?"
>>> and calling into question the very idea of
>>> truth and fact: it is Donald Trump and Rudi
>>> Giuliani. Quite honestly, this outcome was
>>> always implicit in the postmodern and
>>> poststructuralist critique. Or, could I say:
>>> "Donald Trump is a more evolved form of
>>> Judith Butler" if I thought in those terms,
>>> which I don't.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hegel takes up this problem with the maxim:
>>> "Everything is both immediate and mediated."
>>> Yes, social interests dominant in a certain
>>> social domain by definition determine what
>>> is true in that domain (though remember,
>>> every social domain is finite and has its
>>> boundaries). But that is not just by saying
>>> something about an/independently existing/
>>> reality which can be subject to any number
>>> of /alternative/ representations (as Kant
>>> would have it), but rather the dominant
>>> social interests /determine that reality
>>> itself/. They do that both /immediately /and
>>> /through the ideal representation/ of that
>>> reality which is *part of that reality*. You
>>> can't "decide" by a purely discursive moves
>>> - you have to /change /that reality. You do
>>> that with the weapons of both theoretical
>>> and practical critique.
>>>
>>>
>>> What this means is that you can study the
>>> documents (assuming you weren't personally
>>> present) of some past dispute and see with
>>> your own eyes how and why some people
>>> formulated new word meanings, and began to
>>> use these new word meaning(s) in their own
>>> communication, and thereby facilitated
>>> others from using this word meaning, and the
>>> relevant concepts, in their work, and so on.
>>>
>>>
>>> (2) As perhaps I have illustrated in my
>>> example above that there is no implication
>>> of "higher" in development. In my own
>>> education, it was Sylvia Scribner's "Uses of
>>> History" (1985) which explained this to me.
>>> "Higher" implies comparison and comparison
>>> in turn implies /interchangeability/. For
>>> example, if I was considering whether to
>>> emigrate to the US or France, I might
>>> consider public safety as a metric and
>>> decide that France was superior to the US
>>> and make my decision accordingly. Or, I
>>> might consider job availability for an
>>> English-speaking monoglot like me as the
>>> metric, and decide that the US was superior
>>> to France. But to decide that the US is
>>> superior to France or vice versa without the
>>> choice and the relevant metric is the moral
>>> judgment which neither you nor I find
>>> acceptable. They're just different.
>>>
>>>
>>> Understanding word meanings and concepts
>>> entails an analysis of *both *how the word
>>> is used in the field in question, and the
>>> history as to how it came to be so. Using
>>> the concept of "germ cell," I can work my
>>> way back and forth through an etymological
>>> field, forensically, like a detective, until
>>> I can connect the particular use of the word
>>> which emerged as a germ cell at some earlier
>>> time, in some situation where the
>>> implication of choosing that word meaning
>>> was abundantly clear to all, which allows me
>>> to see *why* someone felt the need (now
>>> forgotten) to introduce the word meaning and
>>> what it's absence would mean here and now,
>>> where it is already taken for granted.
>>>
>>>
>>> My apologies for the unacceptably long
>>> message, which is much against my own mores,
>>> but I don't know how to clarify these issues
>>> more succinctly.
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSlw_w_wdw$>
>>> Home Page
>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!TLrWUBWNIMJR-d4Rr1HJ5aNy8a9feC14rEE8Y9KK_yg-3NYAubzMD2iHXcVRpSkhfCnwZw$>
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2020 3:51 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>
>>>> I suppose the issue about being on a branch
>>>> of evolution has more to do with who
>>>> decides what the branch is. Is it time? or
>>>> is it topical? or is it based upon the
>>>> interlocutors?
>>>>
>>>> If we say one word usage is more "evolved"
>>>> than another, I suppose I am just pushing
>>>> back on that because who decides what is
>>>> more evolved?
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me, but can we ever say that if
>>>> something is more "evolved" it is actually
>>>> better? What do we actually mean when we
>>>> say something is evolved?
>>>>
>>>> What if one term lasts over a longer arc of
>>>> time than another usage? It seems if we use
>>>> the evolution rubric, it would be
>>>> considered more "fit" than the one that is
>>>> changing over the same period of time.
>>>>
>>>> I do find it helpful that you to bring up
>>>> the germ cell and how that concept pertains
>>>> to analysis. That makes a lot of sense to
>>>> me. I'm glad to know that to assign the
>>>> parentheses does entail an ideological
>>>> move, and that that can't be escaped. As
>>>> long as we know what the ideology is, there
>>>> is transparency in our analysis.
>>>>
>>>> I do think moral evaluations are worth
>>>> including on all discussions, not
>>>> necessarily to forbid discussions or
>>>> scientific pursuits, but to use as
>>>> landmarks to keep our bearings. Scientific
>>>> concepts have a way of not being inclusive
>>>> of contexts (i.e., lived experiences) or
>>>> being grounded, right?
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is what made Vygotsky such a
>>>> humane and compassionate scientific thinker
>>>> is that he could understand how scientific
>>>> concepts can be abusive tools for
>>>> oppression. Anchoring them in lived
>>>> experience shows their validity. Would this
>>>> be a fair statement to you, Andy?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *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 Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 17, 2020 7:23 PM
>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural
>>>> psychology" ?
>>>>
>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> Annalisa, "where does history start"?
>>>> Effectively there is no starting point, and
>>>> the choosing of a starting point is always
>>>> an ideological move. Foucault does this to
>>>> great effect. Ilyenkov deals with this in
>>>> his book "The Abstract and Concrete in
>>>> Marx's Capital" and explains the need for
>>>> what he calls the "logical-historical
>>>> method." To short circuit the complexities
>>>> of reading Ilyenkov, in CHAT we rely on the
>>>> identification of the unit of analysis or
>>>> "germ cell" to anchor our historical
>>>> investigation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Sociogenesis" is just Latin for "social
>>>> development," the word I used. But if you
>>>> are going to ascribe a moral value to
>>>> "evolution" and then reject the concept on
>>>> that basis, you'd better also reject
>>>> "development" and all the "geneses" and
>>>> evolution of species by natural selection
>>>> and all modern biology while you are at it.
>>>> Alternatively, you could choose *not* to
>>>> ascribe moral values to scientific
>>>> concepts, then the whole of science is open
>>>> to you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFYW2qyYWA$>
>>>> Home Page
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!VTGuGy4gvXj-8N5E9YCj2IevXlVoBhK7UBQ37lx10IRWhO4lMbcXmdD-gzoCEFZ5oaoZdg$>
>>>>
>>>> On 18/05/2020 3:25 am, Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>>> Hi Andy (& VO's),
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that that was my point, that we
>>>>> cannot capture everything in the word to
>>>>> describe the theory. And that is because
>>>>> of the limit of our language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even where genesis actually is, where
>>>>> something starts can be difficult to
>>>>> pinpoint. I mean where does History
>>>>> actually start?
>>>>>
>>>>> These words that you mention phylogenesis,
>>>>> ethnogenesis, ontogenesis, are words that
>>>>> are like brackets of a pair of
>>>>> parentheses. Who decides where to put
>>>>> them? (And why not sociogenesis?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure it's correct to say the
>>>>> choice of a word locates the user on a
>>>>> branch of a cultural evolutionary tree,
>>>>> because then that starts to mean that one
>>>>> speaker is more evolved than another based
>>>>> on the use of a word.
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be better to say that the choice
>>>>> of a word locates the user to a particular
>>>>> context. I could live with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *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 Andy Blunden
>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:27 PM
>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural
>>>>> psychology" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>
>>>>> You're never going to succeed in formally
>>>>> capturing the full scope of the theory in
>>>>> a word, Annalisa.
>>>>> "socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical
>>>>> activity theory" still leave out biology
>>>>> and Darwin, which is a part of our theory,
>>>>> too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is sometimes said that human
>>>>> development is the coincidence of *four*
>>>>> processes: *phylogenesis *(i.e., evolution
>>>>> of the species), cultural development
>>>>> (*ethnogenesis*, the development of
>>>>> technology *and *language), *social
>>>>> development* (one and the same culture has
>>>>> different classes and political groups
>>>>> side by side) and *ontogenesis *(even
>>>>> twins can grow up very differently
>>>>> according to the experiences
>>>>> (/perezhivaniya/) they go through). I
>>>>> tried to describe this in:
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpoYtTbGMBQ$
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ontogenesis.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXB3YgOwg$>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But if you look into the history of a word
>>>>> what you will inevitably find is that at
>>>>> some point (in time and social space)
>>>>> there was some dispute, and this dispute
>>>>> was either (1) resolved by both parties
>>>>> agreeing and marking this agreement by the
>>>>> coining of a new word meaning or the
>>>>> dropping of a word meaning altogether, or
>>>>> (2) there is a split and one or both sides
>>>>> of the split adopt a word meaning which
>>>>> distinguishes them from the other side
>>>>> (structuralism's favourite trope) or
>>>>> variations on the above scenarios.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So the choice of a word tends to locate
>>>>> the user on a branch in the cultural
>>>>> evolutionary tree.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://brill.com/view/title/54574__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXzee78rQ$>
>>>>> Home Page
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm__;!!Mih3wA!Vn9T05o4yQ8JmcN8k0Rcq65ZDZvXCxCkPwjrS8BQz_aRy-V218xJbfgO-7EiQaXY03UVbw$>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2020 11:56 am, Annalisa Aguilar
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> David K & VO's
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What pray-tell is an anthropologue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am divided (pun intended) about saying
>>>>>> that sociocultural = social + culture,
>>>>>> when they are intertwined holistically.
>>>>>> To me, sociocultural points to a space in
>>>>>> between, or perhaps better said to a
>>>>>> context of interactions between
>>>>>> individuals (who form a society) that are
>>>>>> easily accepted among them and practiced
>>>>>> over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can conceptually parse out the social
>>>>>> and the cultural, but don't we do that
>>>>>> because of the words and not because of
>>>>>> the ostensible reality going on
>>>>>> interactionally? Can we always understand
>>>>>> something by dissecting it into parts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, this seems to be the limit of
>>>>>> language, not of the conceptual context
>>>>>> or content.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sense to use the term
>>>>>> "sociocultural" is to grab the tail of
>>>>>> the tiger. The tail of the tiger is still
>>>>>> the tiger, but perhaps a more manageable
>>>>>> one than to grab its head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps this is why Vygotskians just call
>>>>>> themselves Vygotskians to align
>>>>>> themselves with the source of the first
>>>>>> theories rather than to later conceptions
>>>>>> and other developments (i.e. Leontiev,
>>>>>> etc). Just thinking out loud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another argument is that if we want to be
>>>>>> all inclusive, then we have to include
>>>>>> tool-use, as it's not the social, the
>>>>>> culture, and the history, but also the
>>>>>> language and tools used. I realize some
>>>>>> practitioners would say that language is
>>>>>> no different than a tool, but I feel
>>>>>> language is different, even though it may
>>>>>> have a similar cognitive response in the
>>>>>> mind as would using a tool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Activity suggests tool use, though not
>>>>>> always. Consider dance, or storytelling,
>>>>>> or going for a walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>> socioculturahistoricalinguapparatical
>>>>>> activity theory???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes! I am writing this a little tongue in
>>>>>> cheek. I hope you do not mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalsia
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *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 David Kellogg
>>>>>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:dkellogg60@gmail.com>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 6:14 PM
>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: "sociocultural
>>>>>> psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a very domain-specific umbrella,
>>>>>> like those cane-brollies that go with a
>>>>>> bowler. "Sociocultural" is strongly
>>>>>> preferred used in second language
>>>>>> acquisition, thanks to the influence of
>>>>>> Merrill Swain, Jim Lantolf and Matthew
>>>>>> Poehner; I have never seen "cultural
>>>>>> historical" used in this literature. But
>>>>>> "cultural-historical" is similarly
>>>>>> preferred in psychology and anthropology,
>>>>>> thanks to the influence of J.V. Wertsch,
>>>>>> Mike Cole, Martin Packer and Andy
>>>>>> Blunden; that's really why we are having
>>>>>> this discussion on what "socio-cultural"
>>>>>> might mean on a list largely populated by
>>>>>> roving psychologists and nomadic
>>>>>> anthropologues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interestingly, the Francophones prefer
>>>>>> "historico-cultural", using the argument
>>>>>> that you can understand the process
>>>>>> without the product but not the product
>>>>>> without the process. I stopped using
>>>>>> "sociocultural" because I thought it was
>>>>>> redundant, but now I am really not sure
>>>>>> of this: it seems to me that the
>>>>>> relationship is a similar one--you can
>>>>>> study society as process without studying
>>>>>> its cultural product (e.g. as
>>>>>> demographics, economics, statistics) but
>>>>>> you can't really study culture without
>>>>>> some understanding of the process of its
>>>>>> formation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a similar disagreement in
>>>>>> systemic functional linguistics between
>>>>>> Halliday and Jim Martin over the term
>>>>>> "socio-semiotic". Martin said that it was
>>>>>> redundant, because there couldn't be any
>>>>>> semiotic without society. Halliday rather
>>>>>> flippantly replied that ants had a
>>>>>> society without a semiotics, and at the
>>>>>> time it seemed to me that this was a non
>>>>>> sequitur, first of all because ants don't
>>>>>> really have a society in our sense
>>>>>> (precisely because there is no such thing
>>>>>> as an ant history separate from
>>>>>> phylogenesis on the one hand and
>>>>>> ontogenesis on the other) and secondly
>>>>>> because ants most definitely do have a
>>>>>> semiotics, albeit one based on chemistry
>>>>>> and not perception as ours is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me, in retrospect, that the
>>>>>> relationship between the semiotic and the
>>>>>> social is much more like the relationship
>>>>>> between the social and the biological, or
>>>>>> even the biological and the chemical. The
>>>>>> semiotic is a certain level of
>>>>>> organization that the social has, but
>>>>>> there are other levels, just as biology
>>>>>> is a certain kind of chemical
>>>>>> organization which does not exclude
>>>>>> other, nonbiological ways organizing
>>>>>> chemicals, and chemistry is a kind of
>>>>>> physical organization which doesn't
>>>>>> exclude sub-chemical organizations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps we can think of the relationship
>>>>>> between culture and society in the same way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>>> Sangmyung University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Article: Ruqaiya Hasan, in memoriam:
>>>>>> A manual and a manifesto.
>>>>>> Outlines, Spring 2020
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpobiNehdxg$
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://tidsskrift.dk/outlines/article/view/116238/167607__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5IH1niRwQ$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New Translation with Nikolai Veresov:
>>>>>> /L.S. Vygotsky's Pedological Works/
>>>>>> /Volume One: Foundations of Pedology/"
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6OpoZPLX5WDQ$
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811505270__;!!Mih3wA!QwnjuGWv1M4ZX6kMNV7A1nO46fLjKXBSeMFcdiKYZQb3gv2FV78Tq_DhJK9vM5JySLOtJA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:28 AM David H
>>>>>> Kirshner <dkirsh@lsu.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:dkirsh@lsu.edu>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4. As an umbrella term for any
>>>>>> sociogenetic approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn’t that its current usage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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 *Annalisa Aguilar
>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 16, 2020 3:31 PM
>>>>>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>>>>>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Andy, and VO's,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What fascinates me is that the word
>>>>>> "sociocultural" has a lot of
>>>>>> different facets in terms of how the
>>>>>> word was used in different contexts.
>>>>>> It seems there are three I've been
>>>>>> able to pick out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. as a derisive term in early
>>>>>> Soviet history.
>>>>>> 2. as an empowering term from Latin
>>>>>> American voices.
>>>>>> 3. as a relaxed term of the Marxist
>>>>>> "brand" at the height of the Cold
>>>>>> War in the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if I've done justice in
>>>>>> the manner that I've represented
>>>>>> that, but it is a well-intended
>>>>>> attempt. Are there others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I don't understand fully is
>>>>>> whether there must be ONE explanation
>>>>>> how the term came to be, or ONE
>>>>>> definition of what it actually means.
>>>>>> Can't it be polysemantic?
>>>>>> polycontextual?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is what's happening, then it
>>>>>> makes sense that there would be an
>>>>>> ongoing controversy about which one
>>>>>> is the right definition or reason for
>>>>>> not using it, depending on the
>>>>>> interlocutor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we are to talk about who used the
>>>>>> term first, and that's where the
>>>>>> value/authority holds, then all that
>>>>>> tells us is that for those who value
>>>>>> who used the term first. that's where
>>>>>> the authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we talk about the emotional
>>>>>> attachment of the word as it is used
>>>>>> in context and that's where the
>>>>>> value/authority holds, then that
>>>>>> tells us for those who value the most
>>>>>> personal attachment to the word,
>>>>>> that's where the authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we talk about how the word was
>>>>>> used functionally, where the
>>>>>> value/authority holds in its
>>>>>> efficacy, then all that tells is that
>>>>>> for those who value whether the word
>>>>>> works or not, that's where the
>>>>>> authority is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure one can put any of one
>>>>>> these over the other two (or if there
>>>>>> are more than that, if there are
>>>>>> more). All we can say I suppose is
>>>>>> whether in a particular context is
>>>>>> the word "sociocultural" appropriate
>>>>>> or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do find that this debate has begun
>>>>>> to have its own life, this debate
>>>>>> over the use of a word. I've begun
>>>>>> doubt it will ever cease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One day the discussion will be how
>>>>>> one used to debate about the term,
>>>>>> first everyone was this way about the
>>>>>> word, than they were that way about
>>>>>> the word, and many large camps were
>>>>>> formed in XXXX year to say why the
>>>>>> word should not be used, but then X
>>>>>> years later other large camps formed
>>>>>> to say it is fine to use the word. I
>>>>>> suppose it will only be when the
>>>>>> debate ceases will it come to pass
>>>>>> that the debate will be forgotten.
>>>>>> But will that cessation solidify the
>>>>>> use or non-use of the word?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand the reasons for saying
>>>>>> "cultural psychology." But for those
>>>>>> swimming in a culture where
>>>>>> behaviorism is considered the soul of
>>>>>> psychology, adding "cultural" becomes
>>>>>> a sad necessity. Even then, that
>>>>>> necessity only depends upon how one
>>>>>> sees culture, as either as an
>>>>>> additive, an integral ingredient of
>>>>>> psychology, or its basis. I believe
>>>>>> I've read on the list that one should
>>>>>> be able to say "psychology" and just
>>>>>> *know* that it includes culture. I
>>>>>> don't think we are there yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then that would be my argument to use
>>>>>> "sociocultural" to understand it
>>>>>> includes history. CHAT is sort of a
>>>>>> defensive term (well, it is an
>>>>>> acronym). But then... it leaves out
>>>>>> "social" and is that OK? We certainly
>>>>>> should not say sociocultural
>>>>>> historical activity theory because
>>>>>> that acronym is very unfulfilling.
>>>>>> What is nice about CHAT though is
>>>>>> that to chat is an activity of
>>>>>> speech, and there is a implied
>>>>>> meaning that also pertains to
>>>>>> Vygotskian theories, and therefore
>>>>>> meaningful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a sense, it's not the meaning that
>>>>>> we are arguing over, but how the
>>>>>> limitations of our particular
>>>>>> language fails to convey a meaning
>>>>>> with such precision that it thereby
>>>>>> to parses away any other
>>>>>> inappropriate meaning. I'm just not
>>>>>> sure that the project is one that can
>>>>>> be achieved successfully, even if it
>>>>>> succeeds for an interim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the same time I can see why story
>>>>>> of the elephant and the blind men
>>>>>> also have a part to play in our
>>>>>> understandings and assumptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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 Andy Blunden
>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org
>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, May 15, 2020 7:49 PM
>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>>> "sociocultural psychology" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *[EXTERNAL]*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa, I have only been talking
>>>>>> and writing about Vygotsky and co.
>>>>>> since about 2000 and have been openly
>>>>>> Marxist since the 1960s (indeed,
>>>>>> Vygotsky is core to how I understand
>>>>>> Marx) and never had any reason not to
>>>>>> be. But it is true that when Mike
>>>>>> first went to Moscow, it was at the
>>>>>> height of the Cold War, and when he
>>>>>> and others first brought Vygotsky's
>>>>>> ideas to the USA, there was a lot of
>>>>>> resistance to their Marxist content.
>>>>>> I think the naming issue only arose
>>>>>> as Vygotsky and the others began to
>>>>>> build a real following. The issues
>>>>>> with the choice of name change over
>>>>>> the years, as you say. I prefer"
>>>>>> CHAT," but sometimes I use "Cultural
>>>>>> Psychology" and sometimes I use
>>>>>> "Activity Theory" depending on the
>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> Hegel for Social Movements
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fbrill.com*2Fview*2Ftitle*2F54574__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26SqOHBwA*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=s6REk*2BjVd*2Btd*2BH4FD*2FsS8hm1G6*2B*2FmMW*2FXfk4Vok6eNM*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LhYAqXW_A$>
>>>>>> Home Page
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https*3A*2F*2Furldefense.com*2Fv3*2F__https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ethicalpolitics.org*2Fablunden*2Findex.htm__*3B!!Mih3wA!TlyHZFzEZ7SUE8GqN8__jv7a2SAk9Q_jiqAbrNCH5Bf1I-_gLIHGg1AbVtGJm26T9d8i0w*24&data=02*7C01*7Cdkirsh*40lsu.edu*7C6f6f52b10ee64d7bfdbd08d7f9d8676f*7C2d4dad3f50ae47d983a09ae2b1f466f8*7C0*7C0*7C637252580239268522&sdata=VSo7NWNg3ZIpG7YMMUA6Ch*2BLEaFsqH*2FT1*2FuHN0t7Zlc*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl!!Mih3wA!R9drsiySNEmllp604wKW_RghL8N-6pKyp0upwIQ08rRyyX4_xUCbMKYtkRxP4LiAFa1TEg$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/2020 4:18 am, Annalisa
>>>>>> Aguilar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy, et al,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sort of came to this a little
>>>>>> late in the thread, but I can
>>>>>> offer that Vera John-Steiner
>>>>>> didn't mind "sociocultural" to
>>>>>> describe Vygotskian theory, but
>>>>>> as I learn more about the word
>>>>>> (thank you Mike), I can see how
>>>>>> once a word is utilized with
>>>>>> intent of derision, it's hard for
>>>>>> the association to be broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's that way with words
>>>>>> all the time coming and going out
>>>>>> of favor, or meanings shifting,
>>>>>> like the game of telephone, but
>>>>>> across generations and cultures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Might I contribute to the
>>>>>> discussion by asking whether the
>>>>>> use of "sociocultural" was also a
>>>>>> means of making the theories more
>>>>>> available in the West (at least
>>>>>> in the US). It seems there was
>>>>>> redscare (you are welcome read
>>>>>> the double entendre: "red scare"
>>>>>> or "reds care", as you like)
>>>>>> prevalent, and wouldn't it be
>>>>>> useful to remove the Marxist
>>>>>> "brand" to access the actual
>>>>>> theories on child development? In
>>>>>> other words, to depoliticize the
>>>>>> science?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had been a proponent of the use
>>>>>> of the word, but as time passes,
>>>>>> I can see its problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, I had preferred the word
>>>>>> because historical was always a
>>>>>> given for me. In concern of the
>>>>>> here and now, the real difficulty
>>>>>> I had thought was understanding
>>>>>> the social- how interactions
>>>>>> between the child and the
>>>>>> caretaker/teacher/knowledgeable
>>>>>> peer and the -cultural, how the
>>>>>> culture impacts thought, those
>>>>>> things are more of the micro
>>>>>> level, but also sociocultural,
>>>>>> how the two also can interact and
>>>>>> influence one another and that
>>>>>> combined bears its own signature
>>>>>> on the mind and its development.
>>>>>> As far as History (capital H)
>>>>>> that is sort of difficult to
>>>>>> measure when we are talking about
>>>>>> child development as there is
>>>>>> very little history that a child
>>>>>> has, unless we are talking about
>>>>>> genetics, I suppose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now? I'm fairly agnostic about
>>>>>> the term. I respect and am
>>>>>> enriched by the discourse in
>>>>>> which we now we find ourselves
>>>>>> immersed about it so thanks to
>>>>>> all for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Annalisa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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 Andy Blunden
>>>>>> <andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2020
>>>>>> 7:24 PM
>>>>>> *To:* xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> "How does newness come into the world? How is it
>> born? Of what fusions, translations, conjoinings is
>> it made?" Salman Rushdie
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> Cultural Praxis Website: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!Q5tqqNq9av_0Mgbytqiz_f32wma6JhRq615p-kbq2d-npu-bmGh8nAejEW6Opob8s_JmJg$
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://culturalpraxis.net__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBDTrLXgg$>
>> Re-generating CHAT Website: re-generatingchat.com
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://re-generatingchat.com__;!!Mih3wA!WkcWw-Z3AI5QbHQG3kQk977PWXXDiVwBdpwxA8ArenUhjysOeMjqpavdBME_3DBsgnimuA$>
>> Archival resources website: lchc.ucsd.edu
>> <http://lchc.ucsd.edu>.
>> Narrative history of LCHC: lchcautobio.ucsd.edu
>> <http://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu>.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20200523/3518ed9a/attachment.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list