From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 11:38 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus AND BINARIES
Really, I am the last person to state, too seriously, unconditional
propositions, whether pro-binary or anti-binary! I am all for
complexity and the need for Both/And vs. Either/Or logics. (There
is a
lot of very interesting discussion of the Both/And approach in the
work of Anthony Wilden, who sought a synthesis of Bateson and
Lacan.)
I did write, re synthesizing approaches to the integers, and
synthesizing into coherent master narratives generally, that they
can
do good for us and also can mislead us.
I don't really identify binary logic with scientism, because
binarism
is far more widespread. Of course there is a lot of breath expended
over one binary, True/False, but I believe that the focus on this
one
evaluative dimensions, and depriving it of the key feature of
having
degrees (say, of freshness), common to all evaluations in English
semantics, is quite ideological and intellectually
counter-productive.
It's also really quite abstract because it implies that all
propositions that are called True are true in the same sense,
which I
do not believe. Many different classes of proposition are
demonstrated
to be true or not by very different procedures, and so,
concretely, I
take them to be true in different senses. This is turn means one
has
to be rather cautious about metaphors comparing different sorts of
truths, as for example freshness vs honesty or whatever Bulgakov
was
on about. (I have not read the novel, and maybe I will now.)
So I liked Mike's strong version of what is not so much, I think,
anti-
binarism as anti- Black-or-White-ism, meaning not only that we are
presented with only two mutually exclusive choices, but that
everything on one side is reduced to an equivalence class,
homogenized, stereotyped, and so also on the other. Which gives
rise
to such very unhappy binaries as White vs Black, or non-White
(racially), or Gay vs Straight, or American vs un-American, or Us
vs
Them. Less abstraction and more attention to local, specific,
concrete
realities (life, in Mike's terms) restores the messiness,
requiring at
least a fuzzy logic (i.e. the technical one, not merely sloppy
classical logic), with degrees of membership in classes, and more
desirably, explicit clustering of diverse elements on both sides.
Which in turn tends to subvert the radical mutual exclusivity of
the
two sides (Mike's leakage), because now we begin to see that some
of
the concrete elements on one side actually do have important
(values!)
qualities in common with some of the elements that have been put on
the other side. From the inevitability of binarist war, we find
some
potential grounds for a modus vivendi.
I saw online the other day Obama speaking to the National Academy
of
Sciences. He got the biggest round of applause, not for his
announcement of lots of new funding for research, but for a
statement
that in his administration the practice of subjugating science to
ideology would end. While there was not a lot of media attention to
this issue during the Bush presidency, it was widely known in the
scientific community, and in the education research community, that
there was an unprecedented amount of serious political
interference in
the conduct of research based on right-wing political ideology.
While
I am against Science making quasi-religious claims to universal
Truth,
as much because it is bad in the long run for the goals of science
as
because it is intellectually distasteful to me, I do agree, Eugene,
that sometimes we do also need to support, conditionally and on a
case
by case basis, some of the normative canons of scientific
investigation, even when those include what I might call
"provisional
binaries". Sometimes it is just heuristically useful to investigate
something as if there were an absolute binary involved. It
occasions a
risk to the research that it will miss something else important by
doing so. And the culture of science believes that sooner or
later, if
there is a problem with the binarist assumption, someone else will
point it out and we can come back and re-do things as needed.
We also have a serious practical political issue here. Scientism,
or
just the credibility of scientifically-derived statements of
"fact",
can be a wonderful weapon to use against ideologies we passionately
disagree with. It is nice to have it in reserve, just in case our
moral-political arguments are not enough, or the balance of
material
and media power is against us. The reason that the Bush
conservatives
were interfering in scientific research was as much to try and
insure
that no such weapons fell into their opponents' hands as to try and
generate "facts" that fit with their own ideological prejudgments.
On
our side, I think we have a measure of confidence that, left to its
own devices, science's findings will at least not contradict our
values and political prescriptions (or maybe we'd even reconsider
our
positions if they did). Personally, I think most scientific
findings
or conclusions are already so larded with interpretations that
there
is always a lot of leeway between anything I'd call a "fact" (say,
a
reading on a measuring instrument) and anything that can be
construed
as bearing very directly on a political or moral issue. So I am not
too worried about the inevitability of a certain "realpolitik"
when it
comes to the credibility of Science.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
On May 3, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
Dear Mike and everybody—
Mike, I am not interested in playing intellectual games either
(e.g., I do
not like playing a chess game). But I liked your challenge or my
own
challenge: to find out if there are any unconditional statements
that I
would agree. I almost believed that you offered one… but, at the
end, it did
not pass my final test. Since, I’m trying to be consistently
inconsistent,
consideration of truth, whatever it leads me, does not bother me.
I’m happy
that you did not play the game either (although, you would not
offend me if
you did).
I think I respectfully disagree with you and maybe with Jay that
the
binary
logic is inherently (and unconditionally) bad while contextual
statements
involving leakage of sides are inherently (and unconditionally)
good. I
think (=expect) that you agree with the latter but might still
disagree with
the former. I admit that at times, I have conversations with my
computer
despite the fact that I agree with you that it is an oxymoron ;-)
It
is also
oxymoron to speak to myself – what new I can say to myself that
myself/I do
not already know? Despite this apparent paradox (and my
inconsistency), I
have conversations with myself and with my computer.
I think that our suspicion of the binary logic comes from our
criticism of
positivism and scientism. There is nothing wrong in this
suspicion,
especially, when the binary logic is treated as the universal one
but I
think we should be careful in not overdoing our criticism. There
is
a danger
that our post-modernist criticism of modernist, positivistic
science, aligns
with pre-modernist criticism of modernism. However, as we all
know,
enemy of
my enemy is not necessary my friend but it can be an even bigger
enemy.
Bush’s premodernist critique of science should be also criticized
from a
post-modern position rather we should join him.
As your question about freshness and Jesus, I think that there is
only one
freshness: the first and the last one (very binary! J). I do not
know about
Jesus, but I believe that Kot Begemot would agree with me (for
non-
Russian
audience, Kot Begemot was a part of the Devil’s court from
Bulgakov’s novel
“Master and Margarita”, literally “Tom-cat Hippo”, a very cunning,
ironic,
and smart character). I wonder what Dewey or Vygotsky would say
about it…
;-)
Take care,
Eugene
From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:23 PM
To: Eugene Matusov
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
Philippakos
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
I am a Cretan, that anyone can tell you, Eugene. As to Sandra
"having a
conversation with Ella(Z):
I have long taken it as axiomatic that the phrase, "Conversation
with a
computer"
is an oxymoron. Sort like an oxy-Cretan (poor people from Crete-
judging
from the
size of their houses when Zeus was roaming around, they were very
small and
led difficult lives).
Computers, and chatbots, are artifacts created by other humans (or
other
computer programs created by humans) and are, eventually, in the
sequences
of
mediations, connect to other humans. I agree with the conclusion,
but am
saddened by the lack of orientation to the discourse that
generated
this
journal.
I was not playing Gotcha. I was trying to explore the way in which
categories
create insides and outsides and generalize and in so doing, err.
But
if I
lost a game
of gotcha and it brings you pleasure, go for it. Thanks for the
new
insight
into that
issue of two kinds of people. Diversity uber alles, up to the
point
where it
causes blood to flow. Then it start to worry me a lot, but I am a
worrier.
Do you think that Jesus believed there were only two degrees of
freshness of
fish?
What would Kot Begamot think about this issue?
mike
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear Mike and everybody—
Mike, you almost got me! Very good challenge – thanks!, “And, as
you
know,
there are only two kinds of people in the world --- those who
believe there
are only two kinds of people and those who think there are more.”
I
almost
unconditionally agreed with your statement and then I noticed its
meta-statement, “there are only two kinds of people in the
world….”
that is
congruent with “those who believe there are only two kinds of
people…” thus
the person who stated this claim that I had initially liked
belongs
to the
first category him or herself… It is like, “One Cretan said that
all
Cretans
are liars.” Very smart, indeed! ;-) Thanks for this Sabbath’s
puzzle
(I did
not know it)…
Have an unconditionally tasty fish,
Eugene
PS I like to hear more about your reading of discursive psychology
and their
use of the terms “activity” and “culture” and about reasons for
your
wonderment. Can you share more, please?
From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:37 PM
To: Eugene Matusov
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; PIG;
backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi
Philippakos
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
da net! Eugene. :-)
Of course there are several degrees of freshness. This is a trout
fisherman
writing.
And a resident of the coastline of California. Caught and cooked
on
the
spot/ caught and
frozen and taken home safely through the desert/bought at my local
fish
store on thursday,
bought at my local fish store on monday..........
But I love your example and the novel is one of my very favorites.
And, as you know, there are only two kinds of people in the world
--- those
who believe there are only
two kinds of people and those who think there are more.
conditionally speaking
mike
PS-- Reading about discursive psychology in the interims and
wondering why
the word activity is
used as it is and where the word culture is, and what Lois thinks
of
it, and
mostly wishing I had more
time to read it!
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear Jay and Mike and everybody--
Conditionally, Jay, I like Mike's statement as well,
It
is the
heterogeneity within the "two parts" and leakage between them
and
their
relations to "their context" that IS life.
but only conditionally. There are situations when this statement
is
deadly
but binary logic is on the side of life. I remember a famous
allegoric
statement from Russian novel "Master and Margarita" by Michael
Bulgakov. In
short, in the novel's plot, the Devil visited Stalinist Russia
(Moscow to be
exact) in the 1930s during the Stalinist worst purges. Among other
things
the Devil visited a theater to make familiar with New Soviet
people.
In
theater buffet, the Devil noticed rotten fish with the label,
"Fish
of the
third [degree] freshness." The Devil told the buffet salesperson,
"Dear
salesperson, somebody has lied to you. There is no such thing as
'fish of
the third-degree freshness. Fish can be only one degree of
freshness: either
it is fresh or not. Respectful, your fish is not fresh, it
stinks."
This
short exchange revealed the deception of Stalinist "leakage" of
two
parts
(namely, life and death). The binary logic presented by the Devil
here was
on the side of life, while non-binary Stalinist discourse of
making
'white'
black and 'black' white (that at that time often referred as
'dialectics')
was on the side of death.
I think we might be careful in indorsing any universal statements
even when
they can be true, on average (in our sociocultural conditions). We
should be
also careful with our fight against scientific positivism that has
historically emerged in response to (religious) totalitarian
ideology of
manipulative "leakages". After the Bush administration reign, I
have
become
even more careful about dissing positivistic science.... (By the
way, the
Bush administration used discourses that were convincingly based
on
both the
binary logic and at the same time on the manipulative "leakages",
like, for
example, torture becomes not torture but rather a permissible grey
area of
an "intense interrogation technique"). Binary logic can bring life
sometimes, indeed....
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Jay Lemke
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:46 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Right on, Mike!!
Jay Lemke
Professor
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke> <
http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
On May 2, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
What one I think is literally deadening, Eugene, is binaries
with
uniformities on both sides. Under such conditions, change is
impossible. It
is the
heterogeneity within the "two parts" and leakage between them
and
their
relations to "their context" that IS life.
mike
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Tony Whitson
<twhitson@udel.edu>
wrote:
According to Wikipedia, "Jackie Mason" was born Yacov Moshe
Maza
(for what
it's worth).
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Michael Glassman wrote:
Eugene,
I would argue that the intonation is not so much related to
language as it
is to culture - in essence a part of cultural capital that
can be
found in
Russia, but in a number of other places around the world with
a
number of
different languages. You use the example,
-?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish
English,
"Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is very
intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
opposite meaning
with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my
taken
my
book?" "I
need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
«????? ??? ????? ????
?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange
into
English
because the response has the intonation indicating the
opposite
meaning that
its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet
commented
that
Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
secret police).
But anybody who has listened to Jackie Mason, not such a good
human being
but a pretty good comedian, has heard him using the type of
intonation you
are discussing brilliantly in English - so brilliantly you
would
wonder how
it could work in any other language - but of course it could.
I'm
sure the
same intonation, or maybe different types of intonations
expressing meaning
but especially sense, could be used in almost any language as
long
as the
speaker was comfortable with it. What is interesting about
the
use of this
type of intonation is when somebody uses it - at least in
English
- I can
make a pretty good guess about where they grew up in the
United
States.
Some people who are really good at this can even limit it to
general
neighborhoods - and you immediately recognize certain cultural
qualities
about that individual and it cuts through a lot of other
information. On
the other end of the spectrum somebody could use the
intonation
perfectly in
Columbus Ohio and individuals would just understand the remark
based on the
more straight forward understanding (and might consider you a
little alien
for using the intonation). What also might suggest the
intonation
being
part of cultural capital rather than the language itself is
the
fact the I
think it is often time used as a form of intimacy, kidding, or
making fun in
a non-maliscious way.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Eugene Matusov
Sent: Sat 5/2/2009 1:31 PM
To: mcole@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; 'Zoi Philippakos'; 'eXtended
Mind,
Culture, Activity'; 'PIG'
Subject: RE: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Dear Mike and everybody-
You wrote, "another example of binary logic which is
anti-human".
I wonder
what makes this logic anti-human is not necessary that it is
binary, but
maybe the fact that it strives to be the universal,
unconditional,
disembodied, and decontextualized. I think that limited and
situated binary
relations can be humane. As you nicely put it before, the
universal answer
to any problem is, "it depends" ;-) The big problem, of
course,
what it
depends on... (I always say to my grad students that the
answer
for the
latter question will be addressed in a future Advanced Grad
Sociocultural
Seminar that I never teach J)
??
-?? (da-da) is a good translation from Mogenbesser's Jewish
English,
"Yeah, yeah" in Russian. As you, probably, know, Russian is very
intonation-based language - almost any word might have the
opposite meaning
with the right intonation. Like for example, "Have you my
taken
my
book?" "I
need your book badly!" ("?? ?? ???? ??? ??????» --
«????? ??? ????? ????
?????!») - it is difficult to translate this Russian exchange
into
English
because the response has the intonation indicating the
opposite
meaning that
its formal semantics suggests. One Russian (Soviet) poet
commented
that
Russian language does not support «?????» (i.e., report to a
secret police).
Ed made an interesting and thought-provoking point, "Social
relations
don't give rise to mathematics, but mathematics seems to give,
perspectivally, a rise to social relations." I think that in
general, it is
a chicken-egg problem but I suspect that social relations have
priority over
math. So, Ed, we have a respectful disagreement, indeed. The
reason for my
suspicion is that usually, although not always, social
relations
have a
priority over everything else. For example, it seems that
historical
emergency of geometry was a result of a certain development of
private
property on land and conflicts associated with it. Certain
(but
not all!)
mathematical questions could emerge only within certain social
relations..
One of these vivid examples can be mathematical division. I'm
always amazed
how difficult for Western kids to understand fractional
division
leading to
a number bigger that divided. For example, 2 divided by ½
becomes
4. Western
understanding of fair sharing almost exclusively as splitting
the
whole on
equal but smaller parts (private property) makes very
difficult
to
consider
a possibility for collective sharing in which the more people
share the more
value the whole has. We have a PIG Lab of Internationally
Recognize
Excellence - the more people use it, the more valuable it
becomes
(to a
point of course, ;-). By collective sharing, ten PIGgies
virtually
have 10
labs! Or 1 divided on 1/10 is 10. I think this fractional
division
reflects
collective sharing (and collective fairness) in contrast to
whole
number
division based on private property sharing (and private
property
fairness).
It is interesting to study this question empirically....
What do you think?
Eugene
PS I know that everyone in this XMCA discussion who replies
to my
messages
gets bounced message from the PIG email list (no connection to
the
swine
flu!). I try to resend your messages to the my PIGgy
colleagues.
---------------------
Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
Professor of Education
School of Education
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716, USA
email: ematusov@udel.edu
fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu <http://
ematusov.soe.udel.edu/> <
http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/>
publications:
http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu <
http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/> <http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/>
---------------------
From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:01 PM
To: Eugene Matusov
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity;
backontrack@wwscholars.org;
Zoi
Philippakos; PIG
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
That it works to think that the enemy of your enemy is your
friend
is
another example
of binary logic which is anti-human. Shit happens a lot,
Eugene.
Your yeah yeah example is in the increasingly long and equally
interesting
trail of emails on
this thread.
da da
?
zhanchit?
mike
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Eugene Matusov
<ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear Mike--
You wrote,
And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe that
the
enemy
of
your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
Actually, it worked rather well during the WWII for the Allies
(US-
UK) and
the USSR. Their cooperation in opposition to the Nazi Germany
was
governed
by the Arabic wisdom "an enemy of your enemy is your friend."
It
can be
powerful indeed but as you said it is not universal.
As to the natural language and the formal logic (math), in
natural
language
(+1)*(+1)=-1, according to famous anecdote, "The most
celebrated
[Sidney]
Morgenbesser anecdote involved visiting Oxford philosopher J.
L.
Austin,
who
noted that it was peculiar that although there are many
languages
in which
a
double negative makes a positive, no example existed where two
positives
expressed a negative. In a dismissive voice, Morgenbesser
replied
from the
audience, 'Yeah, yeah.'"
Take care,
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
]
On Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:38 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: backontrack@wwscholars.org; Zoi Philippakos; PIG
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Eugene, the mixture of plus and minus was the focus of my
inquiry.
Natural
language understanding
of double negatives solves that problem for 2 numbers, beyond
which I
assume
natural language needs
a notation system to keep track.
So far Jerry Balzano's mirror explanation seems like it has
the
best
chance
with my grand daughter (in
part because i can actually imagine creating the
demonstration
that
lines up
intuition and notation). I
have not had time to read all of the notes in this thread
owing
to
heavy
teaching and extra lecture schedule
and a rash of recommendation letters out of season (which I
will
accept
as a
sub for swine flu). But
simply in scanning could I make a plea for socio-CULTURAL
constructivism? If
we do not keep what is
essential to human forms of human sociality in the
discussion,
we
might
as
well be talking about bonobos
who, at least, know enough to make love not war.
And for sure, Eugene, it is a cardinal error to believe that
the
enemy
of
your enemy is your friend. Maybe, maybe
not. Like all laws of social science, it all depends.
mike
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Eugene Matusov
<ematusov@udel.edu>
wrote:
Dear everybody--
In response to Mike's profound inquiry of why a minus times
a
minus
is a
plus, I was thinking that it is a mathematical model of the
Arabic
wisdom
that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend." Of course, the
latter
is
not
always true -- we have plenty of examples when enemy of our
enemy is
still
our enemy (or just indifferent) and, thus, for these types
of
social
relations, the mathematical model of (-1) x (-1) =1 does not
work.
Just
consider, for an example, the relations among the US,
Al-Qaida,
and
Saddam
Hussein.
The issue for me is why the Western civilization prioritizes
(and
then
mathematizes) social relations described in the Arabic
wisdom.
One
answer
is
because "the real world" works according to these social
relations
(i.e.,
the social relations is just an example of the truth out
there).
An
alternative explanation is that the Western civilization can
afford
and
might be even benefit from imposing these social relations
on
"the
real
world" that by itself is indifferent to any social relations
(and
thus
mathematical models). Any other explanations?
What do you think?
Eugene
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
On Behalf Of Ng Foo Keong
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:23 PM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] a minus times a plus
Is Mathematics _merely_ socially constructed, or is there
something
deeper and inevitable?
I think this deserves a new thread, but I couldn't manage
to
start
one.
Let me try to draw out and assemble the line of discussion
that
spun
off from the "a minus times a plus" thread.
In her inaugural post to xcma, Anna Sfard about talked
"rules
of the mathematical game" among other things.
Then Jay Lemke said:-
...
I think it's important, however, to see, as Anna
emphasizes,
that there is a certain "arbitrariness" involved in this,
or
if you like it better: a freedom of choice. Yes, it's
structure-and-agency all over again! Structure determines
that
some things fit into bigger pictures and some don't, but
agency is always at work deciding which pictures, which
kind
of fit, which structures, etc. And behind that values, and
culture, and how we feel about things.
-----
Then I (Ng Foo Keong) said:-
regarding structure and agency, arbitrariness:-
i think now it's time for me to pop this question that has
been
bugging me for some time. i am convinced that
mathematics is
socially constructured, but i am not so convinced that
mathematics
is _merely_ socially constructured. if we vary across
cultures
and different human activities, we might find different
ways
in which patterns and structure can be expressed and yet
we
might
find commonalities / analogies. the question i am asking
is:
is maths just a ball game determined by some group of
nerds
who
happen to be in power and dominate the discourse, or is
there
some
invariant, something deeper in maths that can transcend and
unite
language, culture, activity .... ?
Foo Keong,
NIE, Singapore
-----
Then Ed Wall said:-
Ng Foo Keong
As regards your question about mathematics being socially
constructed, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by
mathematics or what kind of evidence would convince you it
wasn't.
Suppose I said that there was evidence for innate subtizing.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature
database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature database 4043 (20090429) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com <http://www.eset.com/>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of
virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4049 (20090501) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4050 (20090503) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com