Re: [xmca] Cultural memory

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Andy
I'll jump in with my 2 thalers worth:

Let's begin with,

- Concepts are "real" and have material existence [in the sense that
concepts are artefacts including genres and designed tools] Concepts as the
general category.
-Add in "agency" as "that" which exerts an influence [constitutes??]  us
through our expressions.

-Our expressions are actualized within conceptual "spaces" or
"moments"  [artefacts, genres, texts, traditions.]

-Expressions are actions [interactions??] operationalized within activity
processes of shared coordinated projects.

Now for a metaphor of the body with distinct perceptual systems [sight
hearing touch etc]. From a Gestalt perspective We do not have 5 distinct
inputs that then interweave and consolidate into "consciousness"  The
Gestalt is PRIMARY and the 5 senses all confirm the gestalt. If only one
sense registers the phenomena it is experienced as delusional.  GESTALT IS
PRIMARY

 Is any "body" listening?

Andy in the same way that the person as body "perceives" not the eye or the
ear or the skin, concepts are  gestalten. Concepts [as material] are
metaphorical "bodies" of perceiving. These concepts are expressed within
artefacts [designed structures and texts] and the concept "imbues" [not sure
of that word] the activity, actions, and operations.

Mediation operates within conceptual gestalts.

Andy I'm probably still not grasping where you are  pointing and have
garbled this but I am attempting to grasp "concepts" [through your mediation
:-}

Now the struggle I have within this conceptual gestalt is the place of
"chiasmic intertwining" which is a phenomena that "should" be included in
"this" conceptual universe. [in my opinion]

Chiasmic refers to binocular vision where left eye and right eye do not see
two distinct images which are then interconnected or orchestrated or
coordinated.  The two sources express a single gestalt perception "in depth"
that is new and novel and trans*formative. Not a dialectic, not a tension,
but a novel gestalt expression

Andy, this is NOT the "master-bondsman" form of intersubjectivity which
posits conflict, dialectic, and overcoming and in the overcoming
"subjectivity develops"  That dialectical tension is a phenomena that may
also be crucial, but I'm pointing to another  form of intersubjectivity
which in continental philosophy is referred to as "witnessing". This is the
language of "calling and response" [or turning away from the calling]

Witnessing as a particular kind of action [of "intersubjectivity"] that
in*forms a particular kind of "subjectivity"  Witnessing as a term is
pointing to the "receptive" aspect of "hearing" the others calll.  It does
not use the language of "seeing" the others signal or gesture [as
understanding, interpretation, reflective detachment from the phenomena]
This is a particular type of action that is often referred to archetypically
as the "mother-infant" constellation. To me this archetype is a metaphor of
the fundamental re-cognition of human vulnerability and suffering and our
response to this need as motivated to move towards another [or ward off the
other if too vulnerable]
Witnessing as chiasmic intertwining [as explored in Shotter's paper] is an
aspect of our humaness that must also be mediated within conceptual gestalts

This does not question other fundamental needs such as "orientation" and
"exploration" but I wonder if  "vulnerability and suffering" and "chiasmic
intertwining" are also fundamental and need a home in our conceptual
socio-cultural formations.

I have Haydi in mind as I write this and want to confirm the traditions of
looking at domination and nondomination, being colonized BY THE OTHER
[master bondsman], becoming subjected to the other, material labour
practices and class formations which are as "real" and "actual" as chiasmic
intertwining and must be responded to with struggles for social justice.
However I do wonder if we struggle and "see" [observe] the injustices
without  our being "heard" in our "sayings" [chiasmic intertwining] then a
vital aspect of trans*formation [which will produce multiple forms of
"subjectivities" as expressions of particular conceptual socio-historical
moments] will loose their vitality.

I'm arguing for "witnessing" as a particular kind of knowlegeability [skill]
as an expressive "calling and response" within a  conceptual
socio-historical moment that is forming [being with or becoming]

An AS IF narrative

Larry





On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Greg, thank you forwarding my previous post, and obviously no offence was
> taken about being "pegged."
>
> The difficulty is that my protagonist is very much aware that interactions
> are governed by norms. But they suffer from the illusion that it is
> sufficient for a parent to tell their child about the rule, and intervene in
> their behaviour as required, and likewise aficienados to instruct neophytes
> in any community of practice for norms to be established and maintained.
> This may seem a plausible claim, and one which is hard to fault. But it is
> essential to theorise social life as so many dyads, relegating mediation to
> a secondary role, and this in my mind leads to libertarian madness. Mike
> Cole says that he teaches this point by suddenly, in the middle of his
> lecture, breaking into Russian. Deborah made a similar point by mentioning
> how dysfunctional life becomes when the technology one is used to is changed
> to a different one. It may be that *changing* the form of mediation (cf your
> cow and vache) is the strongest line of argument.
>
> About the thought of my dollar bill and the dollar bill in my pocket. This
> comes from Kant actually, and it is posed in terms of 100 thalers (you can
> google it), and has been the subject of argument ever since, with Hegel
> weighing in and Slavoj Zizek as well. And someone (was it Engels?) making
> the point: what would happen if Kant showed the 100 thalers to someone from
> a different country where thalers were not money? The question is two-fold:
> (1) about the difference between the thought of something and its actual
> existence, even for you privately, and (2) the difference between a personal
> belief and an ideal which is shared by an entire community. Quite
> practically, if I go out the door to go into the city thinking I have a
> 2-dollar coin in my pocket to pay the tram fare, it matters very much to me
> if, when I get on the tram and put my hand in my pocket I find that I am
> mistaken. I would not be impressed and nor would the ticket inspector, and
> finally, if I forgot that I was actually in Paris, nor would M. Inspector
> des billets, even if I did find a 2-dollar coin in my pocket.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>> Didn't mean to cast such aspersions Andy. Maybe I should clarify what I
>> was referring to when I pegged you (likely erroneously) with the
>> material/language split label.
>>  You had, a long time ago, posted a question about the difference between
>> the dollar bill in your pocket and the words "dollar bill" (and please
>> insert appropriate denomination here). In that post, you seemed to be
>> suggesting that there was a fundamental distinction there. I didn't have
>> time, at that moment to respond (and these conversations do move fast!), but
>> the question stuck in my head for some time b.c. it had such an obvious ring
>> to it but also seemed to be missing the way in which those two things are,
>> in fact, really quite the same thing (both attain "value" through the social
>> and both have similar materiality). I'm happy to say more on this point but
>> frankly I'm still a bit confused as to what ground you were staking out
>> there and here. Do you recall that prior post? I'm sure I could dig it up in
>> my notes but if you remember it, then it might be better to get some
>> clarification of what you were after rather than my notes on what I thought
>> you were after.
>>  As for your protagonist, it seems like they have that wonderful
>> old-fashioned common sense view of language as a kind of delivery system
>> where communication is akin to tossing a football from one person to
>> another. Your protagonist, though, is completely unaware of how the local
>> rules (Aussie rules?) affect how the ball can (and will!) be tossed. To
>> carry the metaphor through, your protagonist sees the "medium" merely as the
>> air through which the ball is flying. Maybe if you're at a really high
>> altitude, the ball may travel a little differently, but in most cases, it's
>> pretty negligible, says the protagonist. The airy metaphor with "phonemes"
>> here is apt. With language, your protagonist would likely say "so what if
>> you call a cow a 'cow' or a 'vache' - it's still the same thing." I say, in
>> many cases (particularly when you look at languages that are more
>> divergent), it isn't the same thing at all.
>>  So the question that I keep coming back to is: how do you get them to see
>> the role of the rules, particularly when the rules are so transparent to so
>> many people (as with language, so too with culture). It is hard to argue
>> that these rules matter if they appear perfectly transparent (and though it
>> may be cliche, the crystalline lens of the eye is a wonderful metaphor -
>> transparent but essential for sight - so, what would be the language/culture
>> equivalent of having your protagonist's "lenses" removed?).
>>  Love to hear more detail of your prior post about dollar bills, as well
>> as how it is coming with your protagonist.
>> -greg
>>
>>
>>   On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net<mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>>    Well Greg, I recoil in horror from the idea that I am proposing
>>    "the material/language split"! Of course, I abhor such an idea.
>>    There is a difference between setting out one's ideas, on one
>>    hand, and on the other, trying to make a point in such a way that
>>    someone who doesn't share your set of concepts, can see the point.
>>    My protagonist is fully in agreement that language is the medium
>>    in which norms are instantiated, shared and transmitted down the
>>    generations, and does not deny that words are material artefacts
>>    and essentially so. They just don't see the point of including
>>    *other* artefacts (linguistic or not), other than phonic.
>>
>>    What I have a problem with is the consistent effort to deny the
>>    essential existence of concepts, in the world. My protagonist
>>    would also agree that language and norms are meaningless other
>>    than in connection with Activity. But it is taken as incidental
>>    that a sign or word exists before the interaction happens. On the
>>    contrary, I see "cultural memory" as absolutely essential to the
>>    existene of culture. Is it possible to explain a person's, or two
>>    persons' actions, without taking into account how some idea came
>>    into existence before they were born? Is there anything in the
>>    question of the origin of human society other than two people
>>    talking to each other?
>>
>>    And to Tony: yes, C S Peirce is wonderful on this. Strangely, even
>>    though he is the *inventor* of Pragmatism (though he denies it), I
>>    think the movement which followed is not directly inspired by his,
>>    or Dewey's ideas, but rather seems to have grown out of conditions
>>    in the USA. Perhaps "inspired" but not in the same way that other
>>    great figures have had a "following" which interpreted and
>>    popularised their writings.
>>
>>    To Larry, what if myu protagonist doesn't see any point in mediation?
>>
>>    Andy
>>
>>    Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>>        Yes, I think I see. I just have a hard time on the split
>>        between material artifacts and language. You've made that
>>        argument before and while I understand the distinction from an
>>        emic perpective, I also that it is not very useful when making
>>        arguments about social mediation. The sign is like a material
>>        artifact in that it is of social origins and it allows us to
>>        do something that we might not otherwise be able to do.
>>         To make this point and as one more suggestion to try with
>>        your protagonist, why not try the phylogenetic argument. Two
>>        examples work well here. Consider the first use of a arrow or
>>        spear and how that transformed all of mankind not simply by
>>        making it easier to get food but by creating a diet that had
>>        higher amounts of fat, this created opportunities for the
>>        human body to evolve (over generations of generations) in new
>>        ways (this is a dialectic argument pushed across a great many
>>        years - the ability to use the tool created new evolutionary
>>        possibilities). Second, consider the use of language as a tool
>>        and how this transforms the hunt such that people can
>>        coordinate their attacks in much more complex ways (although
>>        it should be said that many animals do pretty complex
>>        coordinated attacks when hunting, everything from hyenas to
>>        whales - but it seems like there is something about planning
>>        and foresight that humans can do that dogs can't, but maybe
>>        this will be another sticking point).
>>         So the idea is to try the argument of human language vs.
>>        non-human language. What does having human language "get" you
>>        in some larger sense. It seems critical in order to be able to
>>        do all the things that we do that distinguish us from animals,
>>        no? Buildings, commerce, technology, etc. - all turns on our
>>        ability to use language humanly. And the fact that we have the
>>        available time that we do (as well as the ability to instantly
>>        communicate around the globe - Hello Australia!) also makes it
>>        possible for us to engage with each other in ways that we
>>        could not otherwise.
>>         But, as you see, I've offered little in the way of material
>>        artifacts (the arrowhead). This is because I see the important
>>        point being one that involves social mediation and certainly
>>        materials are needed, but it seems to me to be too easy to
>>        pick apart the material argument because you can always
>>        substitute other material artifacts. What you can't substitute
>>        is the social nature of the artifacts being used. And language
>>        makes that argument best. Two questions strike the heart of
>>        the matter here: Who would you be without language? Where does
>>        language come from?
>>
>>        Curious to hear your thoughts, esp. re: the material/language
>>        split (e.g., isn't language "material" in exactly the same way
>>        as the material artifact? Or is language somehow "immaterial"?)
>>        -greg
>>
>>         On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Andy Blunden
>>        <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>
>>           Of course you are right Greg that language, whether spoken or
>>           written, is the mediating artefact par excellence. But not
>>           everyone recognises words as specifically mediating
>>        artefacts. The
>>           dominant trend of interactionism today regards interactions
>>        as a
>>           subject-to-subject dyad, and subsumes within each subject their
>>           knowledge and facility with language use. So the status of
>>        words
>>           as artefacts existing prior to and independently of the
>>           interacting individuals is invisible. Indeed, the actually
>>        words
>>           do not exisat prior to the interaction, only the "model"
>>        for them,
>>           so to speak. The distinction between a text (i.e., the written
>>           word) and speech in this context is just that those who do not
>>           come from Cultural Psychology or Activity Theory do not take
>>           speech as a mediating artefact, but rather a function of the
>>           subject. This allows them to pretend that a culture is
>>        recreated
>>           from scratch every moment as people interact, and the subject's
>>           memory and continuing language-ability is the only thing
>>           guaranteeing the existence of culture, recreating appropriate
>>           words in the course of evey interaction.
>>
>>           I agree with you that the distinction between text and
>>        speech is
>>           entirely secondary but in the context of arguing for the
>>        very idea
>>           of mediating artefacts it becomes important, because my
>>           protagonist just doesn't see the point of considering mediating
>>           artefacts, i.e., material objects with social significance, at
>>           all. This is what forces me on to the territory of "cultural
>>           memory." If cultural memory can be plausibly explained without
>>           recourse to the idea of mediating artefacts, then it is just as
>>           Deborah suggested, we must agree to disagree, it's just a
>>           difference of preference.
>>
>>           Do you see what I am getting at?
>>           Andy
>>
>>           Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>>               Seems like you're in a pinch Andy. The way you've
>>        phrased the
>>               problem makes it something of a riddle to me, for a
>>        number of
>>               reasons. How do you pass things by word of mouth but
>>        not with
>>               texts? Unless by "texts" you meant written words, in which
>>               case, what do you make of oral "texts" passed down through
>>               generations? There are other sorts of ways in which thickly
>>               culturally mediated words and practices, similar to the
>>        things
>>               that Lucas mentioned, are passed down through the
>>        generations.
>>               So I'm with Lucas that there are lots of examples of
>>        cultural
>>               practices (activities?) that get passed on from
>>        generation to
>>               generation without necessarily having land or artifacts
>>        tied
>>               to them. But I also disagree with your "protagonist."
>>                I'd locate the problem somewhere in the notion that
>>        words of
>>               the mouth are unmediated expressions of subjectivity.
>>        Two big
>>               problems here, first, words, second subjectivity.
>>        Taking the
>>               second first (b.c. you seem to suggest that he is positing
>>               that "words" are unmediated - more on that later), if
>>               subjectivity has thickly social origins, i.e. is
>>        mediated by
>>               culture and place, then aren't things issuing forth
>>        going to
>>               be mediated by culture. Volosinov and Bakhtin provide
>>        some of
>>               the best thinking about this (I'd strongly suggest
>>        Volosinov's
>>               Chapter 3 of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, titled
>>               Language and Objective Psychology).
>>                For me, Andy, the problem arises when you accept your
>>               protagonist's claim that language simply and
>>        straightforwardly
>>               brings what is inside out. You skim over language as a
>>               mediating artifact. I think there's been some talk
>>        about this
>>               lately (some in disagreement with my position), but I just
>>               don't see how you can leave language out as a mediating
>>        artifact.
>>               But maybe you can give some convincing examples?
>>               And maybe I'm missing the larger point of your position.
>>                But I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the
>>        times
>>               as one in which people don't see the mediating artifacts
>>               around them (I regularly teach about my favorite mediating
>>               artifact: language!). I think the success of the
>>        American TV
>>               show Survivor provides good evidence of the
>>        Robinsonade-like
>>               fantasies of people today who imagine themselves as great
>>               heroes surviving in the wild. (and I'd add that Volosinov's
>>               other well-known book, Freudianism, speaks very well to the
>>               fantasies of the bourgeousie during times of crisis).
>>                -greg
>>
>>               On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Andy Blunden
>>               <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>               <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>
>>                  My point is, Lucas, that I doubt that this can be
>>        done in fact,
>>                  without reliance on one kind or another of enduring
>>        artefact. I
>>                  need a counterexample to be convinced.
>>                  Andy
>>
>>                  Lucas Bietti wrote:
>>
>>
>>                      Dear Andy,
>>
>>                               Can these customs be related to ways of
>>               behaving according to
>>                      specific social contexts? In a broad sense,
>>        'politeness' in
>>                      the pragmatic and discursive sense (to say the right
>>               things at
>>                      the right time) could be a way of behaving
>>        handed down from
>>                      one generation to the next based on imitation and
>>                correction
>>                      by verbal communication among members of the
>>        same epistemic
>>                      community. This also depends on what you are
>>        referring
>>               to by
>>                      'cultural memory'.
>>                               Lucas
>>
>>                                           On October 15, 2011 at 1:54 AM
>> Andy Blunden
>>               <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>                      <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>        <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>
>>
>>               wrote:
>>
>>                      > I need some help. I am having a discussion with a
>>               supporter
>>                      of Robert
>>                      > Brandom, who was at ISCAR, but is not an Activity
>>               Theorist.
>>                      on the
>>                      > question of cultural memory.
>>                      >
>>                      > One of my criticisms of Robert Brandom is that he
>>               does not
>>                      theorise any
>>                      > place for mediation in his theory of
>>        normativity. He
>>                      supposes that norms
>>                      > are transmitted and maintained down the
>>        generations
>>               by word
>>                      of mouth
>>                      > (taken to be an unmediated expression of
>>               subjectivity), and
>>                      artefacts
>>                      > (whether texts, tools, buildings, clothes,
>>        money) play no
>>                      essential role
>>                      > in this.
>>                      >
>>                      > I disagree but I cannot persuade my protagonist.
>>                      >
>>                      > I challenged him to tell me of a (nonlierate)
>>        indigenous
>>                      people who
>>                      > managed to maintain their customs even after being
>>               removed
>>                      from their
>>                      > land. My protagonist responded by suggesting
>>        the Hebrews,
>>                      but of course
>>                      > the Hebrews had the Old Testament. Recently on
>>        xmca
>>               we had
>>                      the same
>>                      > point come up and baseball culture was
>>        suggested, and I
>>                      responded that I
>>                      > didn't think baseball-speak could be
>>        maintained without
>>                      baseball bats,
>>                      > balls, pitches, stadiums, radios, uniforms and
>>        other
>>                      artefacts used in
>>                      > the game.
>>                      >
>>                      > Am I wrong? Can anyone point to a custom
>>        maintained over
>>                      generations
>>                      > without the use of arefacts (including land
>>        and texts as
>>                      well as tools,
>>                      > but allowing the spoken word)?
>>                      >
>>                      > Andy
>>                      > --
>>                      >
>>                                    ------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------
>>
>>                      > *Andy Blunden*
>>                      > Joint Editor MCA:
>>               http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>                      > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**>
>>               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
>> **>
>>
>>                      <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
>> **>
>>                      > Book:
>>               http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>               <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >>
>>
>>                             <http://www.brill.nl/default.**
>> aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>               <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>>>
>>
>>
>>                      >
>>                      > ______________________________**____________
>>                      > _____
>>                      > xmca mailing list
>>                      > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
>>
>>
>>                      > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
>>
>>                  --                   ------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------
>>                  *Andy Blunden*
>>                  Joint Editor MCA:
>>        http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>                  Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**>
>>               <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
>> **>
>>
>>        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**>
>>
>>                  Book:
>>        http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>               <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >>
>>
>>                         <http://www.brill.nl/default.**
>> aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>               <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                  ______________________________**____________
>>                  _____
>>                  xmca mailing list
>>                  xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>               <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>                  http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>               --         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>               Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
>>               Department of Communication
>>               University of California, San Diego
>>
>>
>>           --            ------------------------------**
>> ------------------------------**------------
>>           *Andy Blunden*
>>           Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>           Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>        <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**> <
>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ <http://home.mira.net/~andy/>**>
>>
>>           Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>           <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>        <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>           ______________________________**____________
>>           _____
>>           xmca mailing list
>>           xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>        <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
>>           http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        --         Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>        Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
>>        Department of Communication
>>        University of California, San Diego
>>
>>
>>    --     ------------------------------**------------------------------*
>> *------------
>>    *Andy Blunden*
>>    Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
>>
>>    Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
>> **>
>>    Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>>
>>    <http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Sanford I. Berman Post-Doctoral Scholar
>> Department of Communication
>> University of California, San Diego
>>
>>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Joint Editor MCA: http://www.tandfonline.com/**toc/hmca20/18/1<http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1>
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.**aspx?partid=227&pid=34857<http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857>
>
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca