RE: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination

["Denise Newnham" <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>]

Dear Martin and Larry, 

I agree to be able to connect these different perspectives and that goes for
Valsiner as well would be far richer and perhaps closer to the truth.
However there are some hurdles to be overcome. Have you read Anne Edwards
(2007) article: An interesting resemblance: Vygotsky, Mead, and American
Pragmatism in Daniels, Cole and Wertch (eds). The Cambridge companion to
Vygotsky? 

Denise

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Martin Packer
Sent: 17 August 2010 03:49
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination

Preparing for classes is keeping me from participating actively in these
fascinating lines of discussion. Here's grist for the imagination mill:

<http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/reclaiming-the-imagination/
>

Martin

On Aug 12, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Larry Purss wrote:

> Michael
> Hard to keep up with the correspondence, trying to read Vygotsky,
Valsiner,
> Paavola, Mead, and also have a personal life in Vancouver.
> However I must respond to your thoughts on the "Chicago School" of
> Pragmatism and the profound ripples it continues to generate across the
> ages. Your comment that when they are considered together  the ways in
which
> their ideas fit together is much richer than exploring their ideas
> separately is a perspective I fully embrace.  I would also mention Cooley
as
> another perspective within the Pragmatist project.  Reading historical
> re-constructions of that time period and current re-engagement with these
> ideas [for example pragmatism in dialogue with activity, discursive,
> dialogical and hermeneutical accounts] allows many opportunities for
> abduction and creativity.
> 
> Mead was raised within a very religious home where CERTAINTY was valued.
He
> experienced a crisis of faith around issues of "revealed truth" but
> continued to be gripped by questions of "the moral good" and his life's
> "project" was a search for another "home" to express the "moral good".
The
> ideal of "a community of inquiry", shared with his fellow scholars, was
his
> response to his moral crisis.
> 
> Michael, I wonder how many others in the Chicago School came from a
similar
> religious background and had a "crisis of faith" and searched for a
secular
> response to the same impulse to search for the moral good.  I'm a little
> more familiar with American "therapists" [such as Harry Stack Sullivan]
who
> were writing in the 1920's and it seems that there was an expansion of
> sociocultural narrative accounts at this time. In places such as rural
upper
> New York State, in the 1920's there were multiple religious denominations,
> all focused on certainty and infallibility.  It seems, in my
> reading biographies of scholars who were writing in the 1920's,  that many
> of the sons and daughters raised with ABSOLUTE certainty, went through
> periods of crisis and chaos, but continued to  search deeply for answers
to
> "the moral good".  The Chicago School" of pragmatism with its emphasis on
> embracing fallibility and uncertainty within a dialogical shared space
seems
> to have been a generative expansion of secular responses to the search for
> the moral good in reaction to religious upbringings that emphasized
> infallibility and certainty.
> 
> [For anyone interested, when Chicago University celebrated their 100 year
> anniversary, the archival section of their library  developed brief
> historical articles on the members of the "Chicago School" and the impact
of
> these scholars on American scholarship.  These articles are posted on a
> website from the University]
> 
> I'm continuing to read the Vygotsky article on imagination and creativity
> [and also the Valsiner and Paavola articles]  The tension between
abduction
> and formed concepts  seems to parallel the tension between "revealed
truth"
> [religious or scientific] and fallibility.
> 
> I'm looking forward [and backward as I re-read these threads] to the next
> installment in coordinating these multiple perspectives.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Michael Glassman
<MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Larry,
>> 
>> I think you are right on the money drawing links between Peirce and Mead.
>> One of the things that has always puzzled me is that Peirce, James,
Dewey,
>> Mead (and Schiller and Pepper and Beard and Bentley) were all working on
>> essentially the same problems and developing a common philosophy at
>> approximately the same time.  They are all wonderful taken separately,
but
>> taken together it seems to me they are the murderer's row, the 1927
Yankees
>> of philosophy of mind that became pschology, education, anthropology,
>> sociology etc.  Why are they so often considered apart when the are all
much
>> richer when considered together and the ways in which their ideas fit
>> together?
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
>> Sent: Wed 8/11/2010 9:24 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Denise
>> 
>> The quote from Bateson [a very original thinker] certainly captures the
>> spirit of this topic as being central to development. Andy's comments on
>> Valsiner as "only" a "cognitivist" who focuses on "abstract general
>> features" leaves me perplexed and more skeptical [and with the sense I
may
>> be standing on quicksand and not firm sand.]  Have to remember to
continue
>> to embrace "uncertainty" as an ideal and "not knowing" as the foundation
of
>> curiosity.  However, as Bateson recommends I will continue to "pass
through
>> the chaos".
>> The last sentence of your quote by Bateson
>> "Every abduction may be seen as a DOUBLE OR MULTIPLE DESCRIPTION of some
>> object or event or sequence"
>> seems to be pointing in the same direction as Mead's idea of reflection
as
>> coordinating multiple perspectives within social acts. Meads ideas link
up
>> with Bateson's reflection on the UNIVERSAL fact of abduction which is
>> relevant to the ORDER OF CHANGE.
>> 
>> On the question of "the moral good" implicit in this line of questioning
>> [in the spirit of human science as ALWAYS a moral science] I recognize a
>> value of openness and deep respect for OTHERS perspectives in this topic
on
>> abduction.
>> 
>> Larry
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Larry and Michael, I find this conversation so very interesting and
>>> exciting (to the neglect of some of my other work(: I agree with Michael
>>> that there should be a dialectical focus on the three logics with prime
>> on
>>> imagination as the other logics are rule bound and damper creativity as
>>> Valsiner stated. DO either of you know the works of Engestrom and
>> expansive
>>> learning? I recommend the article of " studies of expansive learning:
>>> foundations, findings and future challenges. (Engestrom and Sannino,
>> 2009).
>>> 'In expansive learning, learners learn something that in not yet there'.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have found a bit by Bateson (1979) and quote: We are so accustomed to
>> the
>>> universe in which we live and to our puny methods of thinking about it
>> that
>>> we can hardly see that it is for example, surprising that abduction is
>>> possible, that it is possible to describe some event or thing and then
to
>>> look around the world for other cases to fit the same rules that we
>> devised
>>> for our description. ... this lateral extension of abstract components
of
>>> description is called abduction, and I hope the reader may see it with a
>>> fresh eye. THie very possibility of abduction is a little uncanny, and
>> the
>>> phenomenon is enormously more widespread than he or she might, at first
>>> thought, have supposed. Metaphor, dream, parable, allegory, the world of
>>> art, the whole of science, the whole of religion, the whole of poetry,
>>> totemism the organization of facts in comparative anatomy- all of these
>> are
>>> instances of aggregates of instances of abduction, within the human
>> mental
>>> sphere. But obviously the possibility of abduction extends to the very
>>> roots
>>> also fo physical science, Newton's analysis of the solar system and the
>>> periodic table of the elements being historic examples. Conversely, all
>>> thought would be totally impossible in a universe in which abduction not
>>> expectable. Here I am concerned only with that aspect of the universal
>> fact
>>> of abduction which is relevant to the order of change...Any change in
our
>>> epistemology will involve a shifting our whole system of abductions. we
>>> must
>>> pass through that threat of that chaos where thought becomes impossible.
>>> Every abduction may be seen as a double or multiple description of some
>>> object or event or sequence.
>>> 
>>> Abduction is that moment (long or short) of no mans land or liminality
>>> before the new and solid and in this I see the link to pseudo-concepts.
>> It
>>> is not the last but the highest:)
>>> 
>>> Denise
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of Larry Purss
>>> Sent: 10 August 2010 19:55
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination
>>> 
>>> Denise
>>> 
>>> Your wonderful articles from Valsiner, and now Paavola, along with
>>> Vygotsky's chapter on Imagination [and Dewey's chapter 1 in "Art &
>>> Experience"] is a wealth of new connections and a topic which I believe
>> is
>>> CENTRAL to understanding human sciences.  You mention your work is
mostly
>>> with adults.  I work with 12 year olds who I believe are getting a
>> cultural
>>> message that "play" as central to development [and recognition
>>> of "imagination" as central] must no longer be central at their age and
>> it
>>> is time for learning "received" knowledge in order to aquire the tools
to
>>> become "productive members of society.  I want to emphasize that I agree
>>> that acquiring received knowledge IS CENTRAL [within schools],  BUT I
>>> question the loss of vitality that I "perceive" [or project???] as
>>> childhood
>>> is left behind and life gets "serious".  I question why imagination  has
>> to
>>> become so "interiorized" and "private" at this developmental time
period.
>>> Is it an INVARIANT STAGE of development or a cultural artifact that
>> locates
>>> "imagination" as private.
>>> In my work as a counsellor, when I'm successful in creating "shared
>> spaces"
>>> where 12 year olds can OPENLY delight in each others fanciful imaginal
>>> thoughts, INTERCHANGEABILITY of social positions [listener and speaker]
>>> becomes fluid and dynamic with a blurring of private and public imaginal
>>> sharing of perspectives.  This procedural process CREATES novel spaces
>>> where
>>> imagination [ones most private reveries] have an opening to become
shared
>>> and co-constituted.  The vulnerability and risk involved in sharing ones
>>> most interiorized fanciful reveries with other 12 year old peers is an
>>> experience that most 12 year old students in school settings [where the
>>> focus and institutional structure supports passing on received
knowledge]
>>> have left behind on the playground.
>>> 
>>> It is my perception of institutions, such as schools, which value
>> received
>>> scientific knowledge as central to development which needs to be
>>> critiqued. The institutional de-valuing of "shared" imagination
>> [creativity
>>> and coordination of perspectives] within our particular HISTORICAL
>> school
>>> structures may be constraining the recognition of imagination as
>> continuing
>>> to be foundational beyond childhood. The topic of ABDUCTION within the
>>> pragmatic tradition and the expansion of this line of inquiry by authors
>>> such as Paavola seems to hold a lot of potential [which may become
>>> actualized] for re-visioning the place of the imagination in the
learning
>>> sciences.  Playworlds, such as the 5th dimension, are a specific example
>> of
>>> this potential.
>>> 
>>> Denise, your contribution to this conversation and the articles you have
>>> posted are a gold mine of new perspectives which need coordinating in
>>> shared
>>> [imaginal & actual] space.
>>> 
>>> Michael you mentioned that you have been doing a lot of reflection on
>> this
>>> topic.  I also am fascinated with the dialectical process of how
>> abduction
>>> coordinates with deduction and induction and the pragmatist IDEAL  of
>> this
>>> process proceeding within a community of inquiry. I'm planning on
reading
>>> the Valsiner, Vygotsky, and Paavola articles to become more conversant
>> with
>>> these topics.  This topic preoccupied Peirce for a reason.  I don't
>> believe
>>> abduction is any more or less central as a form of inference than
>> deduction
>>> or induction.  However, I do intuitively sense, in school settings that
>>> abduction is sometimes viewed as less central to reflection and
therefore
>>> may need to be foregrounded in developmental accounts to re-establish a
>>> more
>>> equal balance.
>>> 
>>> Larry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Michael, Andy, Larry and Mike
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I have sent you the chapter 6 from Valsiner culture in minds and
>>> societies
>>>> which you should have received by now.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> There was one thing that came to my mind during the weekend is that
>>>> Vygotsky is referring to children's concept formation from the embryo
>>>> forward. I think that there is a big gap between what we know of
>> children
>>>> and the thinking process of adults. My work is at the moment largely
>> with
>>>> adults.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I do enjoy Peirce's abduction as that moment of creativity (agree with
>>>> Michael) and his way of expressing it . This then would be the locus of
>>>> change. As the next step would be experimentation (stabilization) and
>>>> adaptation/modification.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Denise
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>> Sent: 09 August 2010 14:04
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Larry and All,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I wonder if it might be worthwhile making a differentiation between
>>>> creativity and imagination.  Creativity it seems to be is more active
>> and
>>>> can be observed, is process oriented, and is, or can be directly
>> related
>>> to
>>>> problem solving.  Imagination is maybe more inside the head and less
>>>> directly related to problem solving.  I sort of think of John Lennon's
>>> song
>>>> Imagine and the old song "Just my Imagination."  Well anyway, maybe
>>>> abduction is more related to creativity than imagination.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _____
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
>>>> Sent: Sun 8/8/2010 9:45 AM
>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Mike and Denise and Michael [and others engaged in this expanding
>>>> conversation]
>>>> 
>>>> Mike, this topic's multi-voicedness has definitely gone ballistic and
>>> I've
>>>> been sent into orbit. However, without coordinates I'm confused about
>>> which
>>>> constellation I'm circling. Hard to get my bearings when moving at warp
>>>> speed.
>>>> 
>>>> I struggle with reading and understanding Peirce, but I do recognize
>> the
>>>> depth and profound intuitive insights which he generates from a
>> lifetime
>>> of
>>>> reflecting.
>>>> 
>>>> Valsiner's "translation" of Peirce's concept "abduction" as ABSOLUTELY
>>>> FOUNDATIONAL to the other generative functions of "inferencing"
>>> [deduction
>>>> and induction] articulates the ABSOLUTE CENTRALITY OF IMAGINATION as
>>>> implicated in the formation of mind, "self" "culture" "history".
>>>> 
>>>> Your mentioning the influence of prior discussions about LSV and
>>>> imagination
>>>> [and playworlds] led me back to a CHAT discussion in 2006 on these
>>> topics.
>>>> In that thread you were discussing John Dewey's Chapter 1 of "Art &
>>>> Experience"
>>>> 
>>>> Within that thread on Dewey the topic of "learning by expanding" was
>>> being
>>>> discussed and you posted the following quote from Dewey.
>>>> 
>>>> "... if life continues and in continuing it expands there is an
>>> overcoming
>>>> of factors of opposition and conflict; there is a transformation of
>> them
>>>> into different aspects of a higher powered and more SIGNIFICANT life.
>> The
>>>> marvel of organic, of vital, adaptation through expansion (instead of
>> by
>>>> contraction and passive accomodation) actually takes place. Here in
>> germ
>>>> are
>>>> balance and harmony attained through rhythm.  Equilibrium comes about
>> not
>>>> mechanically and inertly but out of and because of tension." (p.13)
>>>> 
>>>> Mike, I decided to repost this quote you previously posted to express
>> the
>>>> centrality of this theme of abduction and imagination for Peirce,
>> Dewey,
>>>> and
>>>> Mead.
>>>> Michael mentioned the central value of instrumental pragmatism was in
>>> the
>>>> empirical putting into practice abductive processes.  However as I read
>>>> Valsiner's translation of Peirce I want to suggest that instrumental
>>>> pragmatism is GROUNDED IN IMAGINATION [abduction] and without
>> imagination
>>>> there is no LEARNING BY EXPANDING.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe Mead's contribution to pragmatism was his focus on expanding
>>> SELF
>>>> formation and developing the "agentic capacity" to ACTUALIZE imaginal
>>>> expansions within a community of dialogical inquiry.  What Mead brings
>> to
>>>> the conversation is a focus on "intersubjectivity" and SHARED
>> imagination
>>>> as the ground of emerging subjectivity.  The terms "perspective-taking"
>>> and
>>>> "social acts" and "SIGNIFICANT [shared] SYMBOLS" are key concepts in
>> his
>>>> emphasis on learning by EXPANDING.  Coordinating multiple perspectives
>> is
>>>> the procedural process of abduction [as I understand abduction from
>>>> Valsiner's translation]
>>>> 
>>>> Denise,
>>>> I want to once more thank you for Valsiner's article which I hope
>> EXPANDS
>>>> our learning in our playworld.  When I asked for other readings
>>> contrasting
>>>> "mind reading" and "non-mind reading" theories I had no idea of the
>> orbit
>>> I
>>>> would be sent into.
>>>> 
>>>> Larry
>>>> 
>>>> This
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 10:21 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Denis
>>>>> This time of year (in northern hemisphere) everyone is moving around
>> in
>>>>> every which direction. And when lots of people get into the
>> discussion.
>>>>> multi-voicedness goes ballistic!!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Will read Valsiner on abduction with interest. Mulling over the
>>>> abduction/
>>>>> imagination connection which intuitively works, although I had not
>>>> connect
>>>>> the two ideas before (the influence, too, of prior discussions about
>>> LSV
>>>>> and
>>>>> imagination).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sure a lot of threads entangled here. very interesting.
>>>>> mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Michael,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wrote to Jaan about your question as no where was it clearly
>>>> stipulated
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the earlier works and he has just replied so I forward his words
>> and
>>>> text
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Denise,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good question! In 1998 I was somewhat naively optimistic about
>> Peirce
>>>>> cand
>>>>>> abduction (see Pizarroso & V 2009 on overcoming that optimism).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But the 1998 quote from my book is indeed an embryonic form of what
>>>> later
>>>>>> (2001 in Potsdam, and more thoroughly in my 2007 book CULTURE IN
>>> MINDS
>>>>> AND
>>>>>> SOCIETIES became clear-- words as POINT-LIKE CONCEPTS cannot be the
>>>>> highest
>>>>>> level of semiotic mediation as they would close up further
>> creativity
>>>> of
>>>>>> meaning-making. So Vygotsky was basically limited.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Instead, the pseudo-concept translates in my terminology into
>>>> field-type
>>>>>> sign (Level 4 in my system of semiotic mediation)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jaan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>>>> Sent: 05 August 2010 15:22
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Denise,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I was wondering, does Valsiner have an argument as to how and why
>>>>>> pseudo-concepts actally aids in Peirces ilogic of abduction.  I am
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>> under the impresson that abduction is primarily about hypothesis
>>>>> generation
>>>>>> - the ability to develop new hypotheses in response to unique
>>> problems.
>>>>> So
>>>>>> I'm wondering what role pseudo-concepts, if we are going by
>>> Vygotsky's
>>>>>> definition, might play in all this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Denise Newnham
>>>>>> Sent: Thu 8/5/2010 5:26 AM
>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net; 'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Andy, the reference as you saw to pseudoconcepts is in his
>> book
>>>>> 'The
>>>>>> guided mind' 1998 and the other is : The development of the concept
>>> of
>>>>>> development: Historical and epistemological perspectives. In W.
>>> Damon,
>>>> &
>>>>> R.
>>>>>> Lerner(Eds), Handbook of child psychology. 5th Ed. VOl.1.
>> Theoretical
>>>>>> models
>>>>>> of human development (pp. 189-232). New York: Wiley.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I quote (1998): 'Vygotsky and his colleagues (Luria would be the
>>>> closest
>>>>>> example) attributed and overly idealized role to the role of
>> concepts
>>>> in
>>>>>> human reasoning. The role fitted with his emphasis on the hierarchy
>>> of
>>>>>> mental functions (i.e. higher mental functions regulating lower
>>> ones),
>>>>> yet
>>>>>> by this exaggerated emphasis the focus on the process of
>> semiogenesis
>>>> is
>>>>>> actually diminished. In contrast, it could be claimed that
>>>>> pseudo-concepts
>>>>>> (i.e. specific unified conglomerates of concept and complex
>>> qualities)
>>>>> are
>>>>>> the core (and highest form) of human psychological functioning. The
>>>> claim
>>>>>> would fit with the unity of representational fields (of Karl
>> Buhler,
>>>>>> described and extended earlier) and with the central focus of
>>> abduction
>>>>>> (rather than induction or deduction) in the process of making sense
>>>>> (along
>>>>>> the lines of Pierce).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I read you paper 'when is a concept really a concept' and heard
>> that
>>>>> there
>>>>>> was a debate on XMCA but as I was not connected at that time have
>> not
>>>>> heard
>>>>>> or read this debate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>>>> Sent: 05 August 2010 10:22
>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you give us the full reference for "see Valsiner,
>>>>>> 1997d", Denise, and maybe even the context? I just find it
>>>>>> incredible that someone could know as much about Vygotsky as
>>>>>> Valsiner does and place pseduoconcepts at the top of the
>>>>>> development hierarchy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise Newnham wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear Larry and others,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I am new to this game so perhaps am doing something out of turn
>> so
>>> if
>>>>> so
>>>>>> let
>>>>>>> me know. Larry I read your reply and this extract below made me
>>> think
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Valsiner's work on semiotic mediators and concepts where he
>> states
>>>> that
>>>>>>> pseudoconcepts (1998, p.278-279) should be placed at the top to
>> the
>>>>>>> developmental hierarchy as the hierarchy should be seen as 'open
>> to
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> or formation of intrasensitive order- [see Valsiner, 1997d]'
>> (2001,
>>>> p.
>>>>>>> 85).This brings ot my mind Markova's discussion on the
>> spontaneous
>>> of
>>>>>>> intuitive in knowledge formation (2003) and I think that Cole's
>>> fifth
>>>>>>> dimension attests to this argument. There is an interesting paper
>>> by
>>>>>>> Galligan (2008) "using Valsiner" on the web.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 'These reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to
>> the
>>>>>>> developmental question of how  socially situated microgenetic
>>>>> experiences
>>>>>>> get "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that
>>> organize
>>>>>>> experience across situations [and organize the relation of the
>>>> "lower"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> "higher"
>>>>>>> functions]?'
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>>> On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of Larry Purss
>>>>>>> Sent: 04 August 2010 19:04
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special
>> Issue
>>>> on
>>>>>>> Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Leif and Katerina
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Leif,
>>>>>>> I have recently read Daniel Stern's latest book "The Present
>>> Moment"
>>>>> and
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> agree that he has a fascinating perspective on the topic of
>>>>> "engagement"
>>>>>>> that emphasizes a "non-mind reading interpretation" of engaging
>>> with
>>>>>>> others.  I will look up his earlier work discussing Vygotsky and
>>>> Glick.
>>>>>> It
>>>>>>> is also interesting that you mention Joseph Glick. Glick's
>> articles
>>>> on
>>>>>>> Werner are also fascinating as they suggest that Werner was also
>>>>> focused
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> "microgenesis" as central to developmental accounts.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Katerina,
>>>>>>> I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "accept metaphor" but
>>> generally
>>>> I
>>>>>>> accept metaphor as a central way of understanding "human science"
>>> as
>>>>>>> interpretive and "perspectival".  As I read  Glick's
>> interpretation
>>>> of
>>>>>>> Werner's microgenetic developmental theory, I was also REFLECTING
>>> on
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> &
>>>>>>> Natalia's focus on the microgenetic social situation of
>>> development,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> also my attempt to link these perspectives with neo-Meadian
>> notions
>>>> of
>>>>>>> social ACTS [interchangeability of actual social positions].
>> These
>>>>>>> reflections of linking up multiple perspectives lead to the
>>>>> developmental
>>>>>>> question of how  socially situated microgenetic experiences get
>>>>>>> "generalized" into "higher" levels of organization that organize
>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>> across situations [and organize the relation of the "lower" and
>>>>> "higher"
>>>>>>> functions]?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Glick's article "Werner's Relevance for Contemporary
>> Developmental
>>>>>>> Psychology"  points out that Werner thought developmental
>> processes
>>>> got
>>>>>>> organized "at one of  three different levels: the sensorimotor,
>> the
>>>>>>> perceptual, or the symbolic." (p.562)  Metaphor organizes
>>> experience
>>>> at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 3rd symbolic level and at this level we can have metaphoric
>> models
>>> of
>>>>>> "mind"
>>>>>>> [for example: conversation, text, computers, dance, orchestra,
>>> etc.]
>>>>>>> However, this still leaves us with questioning  the RELATIONAL
>>>> process
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> linking language and metaphor to the other levels of organization
>>> at
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> sensorimotor and perceptual levels.
>>>>>>> Stern, Reddy, Werner, Glick, Gillespie & Martin, Mike and
>> Natalia,
>>>> and
>>>>>>> others are exploring the possible dynamic fluidity of the
>> capacity
>>>> for
>>>>>>> organizing and structuring the 3 levels of experience that may be
>>>> more
>>>>>>> reciprocal [and possibly simultaneous assemby] than a linear
>>>>> teleological
>>>>>>> dynamic.  The question becomes, how central are the sensorimotor
>>> and
>>>>>>> perceptual ways of "constructing" or "forming" experience once
>>> social
>>>>>>> situations of development are  symbolic [and metaphorical]?  As
>>> Glick
>>>>>> points
>>>>>>> out, Werner believed these language and symbolic functions
>> "undergo
>>> a
>>>>>>> differentiation process from deeper sensorimotor roots." (p.562)
>>>>> However
>>>>>>> these deeper roots are NOT TRANSCENDED but continue to organize
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>>> The notion of "leading activity" implies an INVARIANT linear
>>> process
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> specific leading activity DOMINATES each stage of development.
>> An
>>>>>>> alternative perspective emphasizes the fluidity of these "leading
>>>>>>> activities" as continuing to remain central for development. For
>>>>>>> example functions such as "affiliation" are not only dominant in
>>> one
>>>>>>> specific stage of developmentand then recede into the background,
>>> but
>>>>>>> ACTUALLY continue to ACTIVELY organize experience [depending on
>> the
>>>>>> societal
>>>>>>> microgenetic situation of development].  Whether the previous
>>>> "leading
>>>>>>> activity" recedes or remains active is dependent, not on the
>> stage
>>> of
>>>>>>> development [age determined] but rather on the particular social
>>>>>> situation
>>>>>>> of development. Mike's point that particular school contexts
>>>> correlate
>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> particular ages of students allows 2 alternative models of
>>>> development.
>>>>>>> Stage theory that is age "determined" or layered development that
>>> is
>>>>>>> socially situated [schools CONSTRAIN affiliative activity which
>>>> recedes
>>>>>> into
>>>>>>> the background]  If the 2nd alternative guided how we structured
>>>>> schools
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> affiliation and interchangeability of social positions was
>> VALUED,
>>>>>> identity
>>>>>>> and concept development would be altered.
>>>>>>> My personal fascination, working in schools, is the idea of the
>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> of creating institutional structures which promote the
>>>>>> "interchangeability
>>>>>>> of social positions in social acts" and how to facilitate social
>>>> spaces
>>>>>>> which nurture this interchangeability. An example of this is the
>>>>> creation
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the 5th dimension METAPHORICAL SPACES where interchangeability of
>>>>>> positions
>>>>>>> is fluid and dynamic and leads to the development of "agentic
>>>> capacity"
>>>>>>> where ALL participants experience being recognized and
>> experiencing
>>>>>> OTHERS
>>>>>>> RESPONDING to their recognition.  This affiliative activity is
>>>>> formative
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> particular "identity" characteristics [communal self] and also
>>>> "concept
>>>>>>> development" formed within microgenetic moments of development.
>> The
>>>>>> reason
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> appreciate  neo-Meadian accounts of development are
>>>>>>> there privileging the centrality of ACTUAL INTERCHANGEABILITY of
>>>> social
>>>>>>> positions [which simultaneously organize and regulate
>> sensorimotor,
>>>>>>> perceptual, and symbolic experiences].  I also believe this
>> "ideal"
>>>> of
>>>>>>> actual interchangeability is fundamentally affiliative and
>>> dialogical
>>>>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> participants openly share perspectives.  This also creates social
>>>>>>> spaces where cognitive development [and reflective capacity] is
>>>>> nurtured
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> "grown" [cultured]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Katerina Plakitsi
>>>>>> <kplakits@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Larry, with "trans situated" do you mean that you accept
>>> "metaphor",
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> is been considered as a constructivist argument?
>>>>>>>> Katerina Plakitsi
>>>>>>>> Assistant Professor of Science Education
>>>>>>>> Department of Early Childhood Education
>>>>>>>> School of Education
>>>>>>>> University of Ioannina
>>>>>>>> 45110
>>>>>>>> Greece
>>>>>>>> tel.: +302651005771 office
>>>>>>>> fax: +302651005842
>>>>>>>> tel.: +6972898463 mobile
>>>>>>>> e-mail: kplakits@cc.uoi.gr
>>>>>>>> http://users.uoi.gr/kplakits
>>>>>>>> http://users.uoi.gr/5conns
>>>>>>>> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr <http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>  <
>> http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>
>>>> <http://erasmus-ip.uoi.gr/>
>>>>>>>> http://www.edife.gr/school/5oschool.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> From: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 8:43 PM
>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special
>>> Issue
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mindreading, Review of Philosophy and Psychology
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin
>>>>>>>>> This topic of "mind-reading" vs  "non-mind reading" models of
>>> young
>>>>>>>>> infants
>>>>>>>>> CAPACITY for attending to and ENGAGING with other "minds"
>>> [persons]
>>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> fascinating topic which has been discussed previously in CHAT
>>>>>>>>> conversations
>>>>>>>>> on this listserve.
>>>>>>>>> I recently read V. Reddy's book which recommends a 2nd person
>>>>> societal
>>>>>>>>> interactional microgenetic model of non-mind reading. I have
>>>> sympathy
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> this particular perspective. However, I would like to read more
>>>>> widely
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> this particular topic.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Do you or others on this listserve have any recommendations for
>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>> articles which  engage with the pros and cons of the various
>>> models
>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> spirit similar to the proposed intent of the special issue of
>> the
>>>>>> Review
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Philosophy and Psychology?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm curious about the various theories of young infants
>> capacity
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> engaging with others within sociogenesis, ontogenesis, and
>>>>>> microgenesis.
>>>>>>>>> However, I'm also interested in how the various  models of
>>> "infants
>>>>>>>>> engaging
>>>>>>>>> with others" become transformed in the transition to
>>>>>>>>> TRANS-situational understandings  [the development of "higher"
>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>> functions.]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Victoria Southgate <v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: August 2, 2010 4:22:07 AM GMT-05:00
>>>>>>>>>>> To: cogdevsoc@virginia.edu
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [COGDEVSOC] Call For Papers: Special Issue on
>>>> Mindreading,
>>>>>>>>>> Review of Philosophy and Psychology
>>>>>>>>>>> Social Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Guest Editors:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel D Hutto, University of Hertfordshire
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Herschbach, University of California, San Diego
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Victoria Southgate, University of London
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>          CALL FOR PAPERS
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>          Deadline for submissions: 1 December 2010
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Human beings, even very young infants, exhibit remarkable
>>>>> capacities
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> attending to, and engaging with, other minds. A prevalent
>>> account
>>>> of
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> abilities is that they involve "theory of mind" or
>>> "mindreading":
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> ability to represent mental states as mental states of
>> specific
>>>>> kinds
>>>>>>>>>> (i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>> to have concepts of "belief," "desire," etc.) and the contents
>>> of
>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>>> mental states. A number of philosophers and psychologists
>>> question
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> standard mindreading and wider representationalist framework
>> for
>>>>>>>>>> characterizing and explaining our everyday modes and methods
>> of
>>>>>>>>>> understanding other people. One possibility is that infants
>> may
>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> exhibiting sophisticated yet non-conceptual, and possibly
>>>>>>>>>> non-representational, mind tracking abilities that do not
>> equate
>>>> to
>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> sort
>>>>>>>>>> of mindreading.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Proponents on both sides of this debate must adequately
>>>> accommodate
>>>>>>>>>> recent work in developmental psychology. Experiments involving
>> a
>>>>>> variety
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> nonverbal tasks - e.g., the "violation of expectation"
>> paradigm
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> anticipatory looking tasks, as well as nonverbal tasks
>> involving
>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> active
>>>>>>>>>> responses -suggest that young infants can understand others'
>>>> goals,
>>>>>>>>>> intentions, desires, knowledge/ignorance, and beliefs. Perhaps
>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>> prominent are studies suggesting infants as young as 13 months
>>> of
>>>>> age
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> selectively responsive to the false beliefs of others, well
>>> before
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>> able to reliably pass standard verbal false belief tasks
>> around
>>> 4
>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> age.
>>>>>>>>>>> This special issue of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology
>>>> aims
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> create a dialogue between the mindreading and non-mindreading
>>>>>> approaches
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> basic social cognition. Contributors are asked to clarify
>> their
>>>>>>>>>> theoretical
>>>>>>>>>> commitments; explain how their accounts compare with rivals;
>> and
>>>> how
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> propose to handle the emerging empirical data, particularly
>> that
>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>> developmental psychology. Themes and questions to be addressed
>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> are not limited to:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Infants as young as 13 months old display a
>> systematic
>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity to the beliefs of others. Does it follow that they
>>>> must
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> operating with a concept of belief, or indeed, any concepts at
>>>> all?
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Normally developing children become able to attribute
>>>> false
>>>>>>>>>> beliefs to others between the ages of 3 and 5. Does it follow
>>> that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> be operating with a "theory of mind" or the equivalent?
>>>>>>>>>>> -       What does mental attribution minimally involve? What
>>>>> exactly
>>>>>>>>>> distinguishes mindreading from non-mindreading approaches to
>>> early
>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>>>> cognition? Are there theoretical reasons to prefer one over
>> the
>>>>> other?
>>>>>>>>>>> -       What exact roles are mental representations thought
>> to
>>>> play
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> mindreading approaches? What kind of mental representations
>>> might
>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> involved? Can a principled dividing line be drawn between
>>>>>>>>>> representational
>>>>>>>>>> and non-representational approaches?
>>>>>>>>>>> -       How precisely should we understand the
>>> explicit/implicit
>>>>>>>>>> distinction as invoked by certain theorists?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Invited contributors
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       José Luis Bermúdez, Texas A&M University
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Pierre Jacob, Institut Jean Nicod
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Andrew Meltzoff, University of Washington
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Important dates
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Submission deadline: 1 December 2010
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -       Target publication date: July 2011
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> How to submit
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Prospective authors should register at:
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.editorialmanager.com/ropp to obtain a login and
>>>> select
>>>>>>>>>> "Social
>>>>>>>>>> Cognition: Mindreading and Alternatives" as an article type to
>>>>> submit
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> manuscript. Manuscripts should be no longer than 8,000 words.
>>>>>>> Submissions
>>>>>>>>>> should follow the author guidelines available on the journal's
>>>>>> website:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.springer.com/13164  Any questions? Please email
>> the
>>>>> guest
>>>>>>>>>> editors: d.d.hutto@herts.ac.uk, mherschb@ucsd.edu,
>>>>>> v.southgate@bbk.ac.uk
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> About the journal
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The Review of Philosophy and Psychology (ISSN: 1878-5158;
>>> eISSN:
>>>>>>>>>> 1878-5166) is a peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by
>>>>> Springer
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> focusing on philosophical and foundational issues in cognitive
>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> aim of the journal is to provide a forum for discussion on
>>> topics
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> mutual
>>>>>>>>>> interest to philosophers and psychologists and to foster
>>>>>>>>>> interdisciplinary
>>>>>>>>>> research at the crossroads of philosophy and the sciences of
>> the
>>>>> mind,
>>>>>>>>>> including the neural, behavioural and social sciences.
>>>>>>>>>>> The journal publishes theoretical works grounded in
>> empirical
>>>>>>> research
>>>>>>>>>> as well as empirical articles on issues of philosophical
>>>> relevance.
>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>> includes thematic issues featuring invited contributions from
>>>>> leading
>>>>>>>>>> authors together with articles answering a call for paper.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Editorial board
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Editor-in-Chief: Dario Taraborelli, Surrey. Executive
>> Editors:
>>>>>> Roberto
>>>>>>>>>> Casati, CNRS; Paul Egré, CNRS, Christophe Heintz, CEU.
>>>>>>>>>>> Scientific advisors: Clark Barrett, UCLA; Cristina Bicchieri,
>>>> Penn;
>>>>>>> Ned
>>>>>>>>>> Block, NYU; Paul Bloom, Yale; John Campbell, Berkeley; Richard
>>>>>> Breheny,
>>>>>>>>>> UCL;
>>>>>>>>>> Susan Carey, Harvard; David Chalmers, ANU; Martin Davies, ANU;
>>>>>> Vittorio
>>>>>>>>>> Girotto, IUAV; Alvin Goldman, Rutgers; Daniel Hutto,
>>>> Hertfordshire;
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>> Jackendoff, Tufts; Marc Jeannerod, CNRS; Alan Leslie, Rutgers;
>>>> Diego
>>>>>>>>>> Marconi, Turin; Kevin Mulligan, Geneva; Alva Noë, Berkeley;
>>>>>> Christopher
>>>>>>>>>> Peacocke, Columbia; John Perry, Stanford; Daniel Povinelli,
>>>>>>>>>> Louisiana-Lafayette; Jesse Prinz, CUNY; Zenon Pylyshyn,
>> Rutgers;
>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>>>> Scholl, Yale; Natalie Sebanz, Nijmegen; Corrado Sinigaglia,
>>> Milan;
>>>>>> Barry
>>>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>>> Smith, Birkbeck; Elizabeth Spelke, Harvard; Achille Varzi,
>>>> Columbia;
>>>>>>>>>> Timothy
>>>>>>>>>> Williamson, Oxford; Deirdre Wilson, UCL
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Victoria Southgate
>>>>>>>>>>> Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellow
>>>>>>>>>>> Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development
>>>>>>>>>>> Henry Wellcome Building
>>>>>>>>>>> Birkbeck, University of London
>>>>>>>>>>> Malet Street
>>>>>>>>>>> London, WC1E 7HX.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/> <
>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/%20%3Chttp://home.mira.net/~andy/> ><
>>> http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
>>>> <http://home.mira.net/~andy/%3Chttp:/home.mira.net/~andy/> >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca