Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

[Charles Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>]

I look forward to your elaborations and will view your video.
Chuck

----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:27 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> I'm sorry for being so obscure, Chuck. I am still working on how to 
> explain my position. But all I am proposing is my reading of Vygotsky 
> on 
> Concepts as set out in "Thinking and Speech." Nothing more. I 
> certainly 
> do not think concepts are "philosophic phantasms," although this is 
> the 
> most common response to discovery of the kind of points I am raising: 
> 
> "Well, if concepts are not like this, then they must be philosophic 
> phantasms and not worth chasing after."
> 
> I am fine with locating yourself in this world in a pragmatist way, 
> etc., etc. I do nothing different. Though I am not sure what you mean 
> by 
> "communal" and other allusions to "community." Maybe my video
> 
> https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238
> 
> explains it better. Yes, I think there is a "more grounded approach," 
> 
> though those are not words of mine. I am certainly not trying to "deal 
> 
> with concepts in an abstract way," in fact that is a fair definition 
> of 
> what I am opposing.
> 
> Andy
> Charles Bazerman wrote:
> > Andy, I am not sure I see what you are driving at, and thus I do not 
> know how to continue the discussion.  I know you have written and just 
> published a book on concepts, but I have not read it. 
> > Are you suggesting that there is a more grounded approach to 
> concepts or that concepts dissolve and that we should not chase after 
> them as philosophic phantasms?  
> >
> > I am trying to deal with concepts not in an abstract philosophic way 
> but in a pragmatist way based on the social circulation of terms and 
> their use in communal practices and then on what evidence we can glean 
> about internal phenomena--and as I say in the essay, my primary 
> activity system and project as a teacher of writing has to do with 
> helping people engage with public circulation of words which people 
> find of value in their endeavors and in their personal understanding 
> of the world which they act within.  To that task I bring the 
> resources of Vygotsky and activity theory.  I do not claim an 
> epistemic position outside those realms of practice.  So what are you 
> trying to persuade me and others of, or what difficulty in my pursuit 
> of my practices within my activity systems do you want me to attend to?
> >
> > Once I have better bearings of the intersection of our interests, I 
> may be able to say something more useful.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 4:30 pm
> > Subject: Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> >   
> >> Nice to meet you, Chuck. I read your original submission and the 
> >> revised 
> >> ms twice, but that is some time ago now. I will re-read it later 
> today 
> >>
> >> so I can be properly prepared for this multilogue. In the meantime 
> let 
> >>
> >> me make just one point, because my point about the drive to make 
> >> aconcept into a typology has nothing to do with the distinction 
> >> between 
> >> dichotomous typologies and typologies that point to a continuous 
> >> spectrum. The latter is always the refuge of a failed dichotomy.
> >>
> >>
> >> Let's suppose you are on a jury. You are hearing a case of murder. 
> You 
> >>
> >> know what murder is, and I am assuming that everyone on this list 
> >> knows 
> >> and I won't try to define it. The case however turns out to be 
> >> challenging, even though the facts are not in dispute. You hear 
> about 
> >>
> >> provocation and blind rage and fear, and about blows whose effect 
> far 
> >>
> >> exceeds intention, and the victim's heart condition. Before you 
> retire 
> >>
> >> to consider your verdict, the judge gives you a list of criteria 
> >> against 
> >> which you have to judge the facts.
> >>
> >> My question is this: is the list of criteria which define a 
> typology 
> >> of 
> >> homicide according to the various contingent circumatances of the 
> act 
> >>
> >> the *real, scientific* definition of "murder", and the vague 
> >> ill-defined 
> >> concept of murder that you arrived with a "spontaneous concept"? Or 
> is 
> >>
> >> it the fact that you had a better concept to start with, and the 
> >> judge's 
> >> criteria were the best approximation the law could make to that 
> >> concept 
> >> for teh purpose of categorisation?
> >>
> >> Let us go further. You find the defendant guilty of murder and they 
> go 
> >>
> >> to prison, but there is a public outcry and a massive campaign to 
> have 
> >>
> >> her acquitted. The campaign is successful, the defendant appeals 
> and 
> >> is 
> >> acquitted after which the government amends the law so that in 
> future 
> >>
> >> judges will give new directions to juries ensuring not-guilty 
> findings 
> >>
> >> in such cases in future.
> >>
> >> My next question is this: which is the "real concept" of murder? Or 
> 
> >> did 
> >> it change? Or are there in fact multiple concepts of murder in 
> >> competition with one another? Was everyone previously mistaken 
> about 
> >> the 
> >> definition of murder? What typology of concepts do you use to 
> >> distinguish them.
> >>
> >> Now I float this hypothetical NOT to prove how complicated is real 
> 
> >> life, 
> >> so that we can all shrug our shoulders and say "Goodness! What can 
> you 
> >>
> >> do?" But it is targeted specifically at the concept of concept 
> which 
> >> reads Vygotsky, like everyone else (almost), as taking the concept 
> of 
> >>
> >> concept to be a typology of contingent attributes with nothing 
> >> underneath. And of course, Chuck, it is a question for everyone 
> else 
> >> as 
> >> much as for you.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >> https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238
> >>
> >>
> >> Charles Bazerman wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Mike Forwarded the current string, and I have now rejoined the 
> list. 
> >>>       
> >> An earlier message I sent about T.S. Eliot's poem got lost, and I 
> may 
> >> repost it later.  Right now, however, let me respond to these Andy 
> and 
> >> Larry's thoughtful comments.  I think Andy has got my intentions 
> and 
> >> situation right.  I was certainly invoking my understanding of 
> >> Vygotsky's ideas of scientific and spontaneous concepts, and was 
> >> interpreting scientific to include organized sets of practices 
> where 
> >> there were stronger degrees of public criticism and social 
> >> accountability, particularly with respect to coherence among 
> concepts 
> >> and collected evidence gathered according to communal standards in 
> 
> >> pursuit of communal projects. And thus I would indeed associate 
> >> concepts with use and practice within social groupings.  (I am 
> using 
> >> the term social groupings rather than the more common term 
> community 
> >> in order to emphasize the varieties among groupings and the 
> >> differentiation of roles, positions, and objects within 
> >>     
> >>> those groupings, although collective objects may bind those groups 
> together.)
> >>>
> >>> To some degree any publicly articulated ideas are accountable to 
> >>>       
> >> communal expectations, practices, and rules of accountability, even 
> if 
> >> such rules are of the sorts such as "let it pass, because it is not 
> 
> >> important for immediate action" or "let's accept everyone's ideas, 
> 
> >> although we may not understand them or agree with them, in the name 
> of 
> >> goodwill or mutual support." Each of these do provide climates in 
> >> which we formulate our ideas.  So in this way the spectrum of 
> >> spontaneous to disciplined/scientific concepts is continuous and 
> does 
> >> not provide bright lines, except as we historically construct them. 
>  
> >> However, we have historically created more robust social groupings 
> 
> >> devoted to particular lines of practice and projects, with more 
> >> explicit and detailed sets of expectations and criteria of judgment 
> 
> >> for the consequentiality of proposed ideas--and these groupings 
> have 
> >> as well been associated with emergent institutions associate with 
> the 
> >> objects of these groupings.  
> >>     
> >>> These might include not only the secular institutions and 
> >>>       
> >> disciplines of the academy and professions, but also those of the 
> >> spiritual domain, the performing and graphic arts, commerce games 
> and 
> >> sports, politics, criminal culture, and other domains that have a 
> >> robust alignment of practice and communal thinking.  These may not 
> all 
> >> have occurred to Vygotsky as scientific, as attached as he was to 
> the 
> >> emergence of "scientific socialism" (though his connection with the 
> 
> >> arts, especially literature drama and the early film, may have led 
> him 
> >> to include them in his view of an increasingly scientific social 
> >> order). Thus I may be drawing the fuzzy line between spontaneous 
> and 
> >> scientific concepts nearer to the spontaneous end than Vygotsky, 
> who 
> >> might as well have been drawing a somewhat brighter line.  However, 
> 
> >> since Vygotsky did not elaborate extended visions of society or 
> >> history, especially after he articulated his view of concepts, we 
> may 
> >> not ever know what he thought or even if he 
> >>     
> >>> thought very much about this issue.  His earlier writings about 
> the 
> >>>       
> >> arts, however, did indicate that he did treat them as capable of 
> >> disciplined evocation of internal states to create shared experiences.
> >>     
> >>> This discussion still leaves me with the dilemma that both Andy 
> and 
> >>>       
> >> Larry point toward, that my own articulation of concepts is within 
> the 
> >> intellectual project and practices of historically emerged 
> disciplines 
> >> and projects. Guilty. I do not claim to escape social time or 
> social 
> >> space, but only speak to them.  It is in fact Yrjo's call for the 
> >> special issue that drew together my various ruminations about 
> concepts 
> >>  in other contexts to a new articulation, directed towards the 
> >> inter/multi-disciplinary world of MCA, situated within the wider 
> >> social intellectual projects that have drawn on activity theory.  I 
> 
> >> found this context gave fresh wind to my sails to push my thinking 
> 
> >> further.   Additionally, it was the review processes and dialog 
> around 
> >> publication that further helped me articulate my thought for this 
> >> particular social formation and occasion. Accordingly and 
> obviously, I 
> >> draw on the conceptual world and intellectual practices that come 
> with 
> >> the activity theory projects. I
> >>     
> >>>  have cast my bets with this particular lot and the fate of my 
> text 
> >>>       
> >> depends on the usefulness for people engaged with this evolving 
> >> project or with future projects that might find a useful resource 
> in 
> >> this set of concepts. 
> >>     
> >>> My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last 
> >>>       
> >> sentence of my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's 
> 
> >> ideas and accounts to new moments, and how that provides new 
> refining 
> >> disciplines.  What strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I 
> >> commented on in my lost message, is how urgent he feels the need to 
> 
> >> continually rearticulate himself, despite what others may have said 
> 
> >> more powerfully or even himself in better times.  Of course, Eliot 
> was 
> >> caught up in both religious and artic stic disciplines which seemed 
> to 
> >> call for this constant rearticulation to measure the quality of his 
> 
> >> soul and his path in the world. To what extent, more generally all 
> of 
> >> us are driven to rearticulate the self in those disciplines 
> important 
> >> to the self, is a question I am now thinking about.  Is this a 
> >> characteristic of participation in particular social worlds or is a 
> 
> >> consequence of the organization of the human brain and 
> consciousness, 
> >> in the manner Ramachandran proposes.
> >>     
> >>> Chuck
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:11 am
> >>> Subject: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> >>> To: Chuck Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>> Chuck-
> >>>>
> >>>> There are some comments on your xmca paper. You might want to join
> >>>> xmca for a bit or I will just forward for your comments.
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >>>> Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
> >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I appreciated Bazerman's deployment of the conceptr of "genre" 
> and 
> >>>>         
> >> I also
> >>     
> >>>> liked his use of "gist".
> >>>>
> >>>> To be fair, Larry, Bazerman qualifies the use of "scientific" by 
> following
> >>>> the term with "(or disciplined or schooled)," and this indicates 
> a 
> >>>>         
> >> much
> >>     
> >>>> broader concept of concept, much closer to what I would take to 
> be 
> >>>>         
> >> a "true"
> >>     
> >>>> concept in Vygotsky's sense. I wonder if his use of "scientific" 
> to 
> >>>>         
> >> "stand
> >>     
> >>>> for" that whole category of concept was a nod to Vyvgotsky? In general
> >>>> though, I think what Bazerman calls "conceptual words" and "scientific
> >>>> (disciplined or schooled)" concepts are precisely concepts which 
> 
> >>>>         
> >> arise 
> >>     
> >>>> from
> >>>> problems in a definite system of practice, or dare I say it, a 
> >>>> project. A
> >>>> set of practices has to have rules in order to generate contradictions
> >>>> which are the source of new concepts.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I think the problem that Bazerman has in developing this 
> >>>>         
> >> insight flows
> >>     
> >>>> from his concept of concept. Yes, the concept of concept is 
> >>>>         
> >> circular. 
> >>     
> >>>> When
> >>>> you make claims about concepts, or say anything about them, you 
> are 
> >>>>         
> >> already
> >>     
> >>>> presuming your interlocutor shares your understanding of the subject
> >>>> matter, i.e. your concept of concept. ...
> >>>>
> >>>> So Bazerman wants to categorise concepts and sets off trying to 
> >>>>         
> >> make a
> >>     
> >>>> typology, and so we have "spontaneous" and "scientific" concepts 
> 
> >>>>         
> >> ... which
> >>     
> >>>> immediately leads to observations like yours about the "fuzzy boundaries"
> >>>> not to say "shifting boundaries" etc. Because despite it all, it 
> seems,
> >>>> Bazerman still cannot get away from the concept of concept as a 
> >>>>         
> >> means 
> >>     
> >>>> of
> >>>> categorisation. So the first thing you have to do in talking 
> about 
> >>>>         
> >> concepts
> >>     
> >>>> is to set up a typology of concepts.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are a lot of nice things about this paper, but so long as 
> you 
> >>>>         
> >> are
> >>     
> >>>> stuck on categorisation and typologies you will forever be tied 
> in 
> >>>>         
> >> knots
> >>     
> >>>> trying to understand concepts, I think.
> >>>>
> >>>> Andy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry Purss wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> Hi Mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I will attempt a commentary on Charles Bazerman's article 
> "Writing 
> >>>>>           
> >> With
> >>     
> >>>>> Concepts: Communal Internalized and Externalized"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I struggled with how to enter into this genre of writing which 
> is 
> >>>>>           
> >> exploring
> >>     
> >>>>> the concept of concepts.  The topic of the paper I find 
> >>>>>           
> >> fascinating 
> >>     
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> and the
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> insight that concepts are embedded within genres allows 
> reflection 
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> on the
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> notion of *romantic science*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In particular the genre's propensity to explore concepts as two 
> 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> *kinds* -
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> spontaneous and scientific. Bazerman then offers a qualification 
> 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> that these
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> *kinds* have fuzzy boundaries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is this notion of the fuzzy boundaries within this particular 
> 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> genre that
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> I would like to explore further. When we enter into a dialogue 
> on 
> >>>>>           
> >> the
> >>     
> >>>>> relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts and  
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> explore the
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> functions of each are we moving away from *strict* dialectcs towards
> >>>>> *interpretive* dialectics*?
> >>>>> In other words is the relationship BETWEEN spontaneous and scientific
> >>>>> concepts a *real* or an *interpretive* distinction?
> >>>>> Do these distinctions exist in the natural world or are they 
> >>>>>           
> >> aspects 
> >>     
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> of a
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> particular genre which has developed textually and 
> intertextually 
> >>>>>           
> >> through
> >>     
> >>>>> effective history?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I'm playing with is the theme of *romantic science*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I also want to share an image which this article sparked.
> >>>>> At the AERA conference in Vancouver, I felt a sense or mood of
> >>>>> fragmentation within the *project* of AERA.  There were multiple 
> genres
> >>>>> with the corresponding conceptual *tools* or *artifacts*. The 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> throngs were
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> moving aboutt as if at a trade fair  picking up and putting down 
> the
> >>>>> various tools, artifacts, and scientific concepts wondering if 
> >>>>>           
> >> these 
> >>     
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> tools
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> would be useful for their particular projects. But where was the 
> 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> sense or
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> mood of *shared purpose* within *commonly shared projects*?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Charles Bazerman's article is exploring a fascinating theme of 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> genres and
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> concepts. I hear Andy's voice calling us to put this particular 
> 
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> genre in a
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>> wider framework engaging with our ancestors. The topic as genre 
> is
> >>>>> fascinating but it does have a history within an evolving dialogue.
> >>>>> As Andy is passionate about calling us to remember  the genre exploring
> >>>>> concepts of concepts has a romantic history.  Exploring 
> scientific 
> >>>>>           
> >> and
> >>     
> >>>>> spontaneous concepts [with their FUZZY boundaries] is one way 
> into 
> >>>>>           
> >> this
> >>     
> >>>>> fascinating genre.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Larry
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> Dear Colleagues--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have been reminded of an issue that has been nagging at me 
> for 
> >>>>>>             
> >> some
> >>     
> >>>>>> time,
> >>>>>> that we have not had a discussion of any of the articles in the 
> special
> >>>>>> issue of
> >>>>>> MCA called "concepts in the wild."  The article selected by a 
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> plurality of
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> voters
> >>>>>> was by Chuck Bazerman on concepts in the process of writing. 
> But 
> >>>>>>             
> >> no 
> >>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> one
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> has
> >>>>>> commented on the article. That seems to me a shame. In fact, 
> the 
> >>>>>>             
> >> entire
> >>     
> >>>>>> issue,
> >>>>>> with its stellar set of authors and papers is worth discussing, 
> 
> >>>>>>             
> >> and 
> >>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> I
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> figure there will be more
> >>>>>> articles on this general theme in the time to come, spanning as 
> 
> >>>>>>             
> >> it 
> >>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> does,
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> the story of
> >>>>>> all those practice in which we acquire and deploy concepts in organizing
> >>>>>> our social life and experience the world.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Below are two items for your consideration: The first is the 
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> abstract of
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> Chuck's paper. The second
> >>>>>> is a stanza from a poem by T.S. Elliott which I believe is 
> >>>>>>             
> >> relevant 
> >>     
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> to
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> topic of the paper and
> >>>>>> in any event, worth considering in its own right. I first 
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> encountered it
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> Jack Goody's *Domestication of the Savage Mind, *a book about the
> >>>>>> relationship between thinking and writing in societies varying 
> in 
> >>>>>>             
> >> their
> >>     
> >>>>>> practices related to the concept of literacy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the 25 people or more who led us to this article are not in 
> a 
> >>>>>>             
> >> position
> >>     
> >>>>>> to contribute to the discusion,
> >>>>>> perhaps this invitation will be sufficient for others, 
> including 
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>> Chuck, to
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>>>>> do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And if no one is interested in this discussion, we might 
> re-visit 
> >>>>>>             
> >> the
> >>     
> >>>>>> process by which articles for discussion taken from MCA. Or  not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> mike
> >>>>>> -----------------------
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> T. S. Elliott from “East Coker”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Twenty years largely wasted, the years of *l'entre deux guerres*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trying to use words, and every attempt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With shabby equipment always deteriorating
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By strength and submission, has already been discovered
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To emulate—but there is no competition—
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The whole poem is here: 
> >>>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>>> _____
> >>>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>         
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>>> _____
> >>>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>           
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**------------
> >>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ______________________________**____________
> >>>> _____
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>>>         
> >>> __________________________________________
> >>> _____
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> -- 
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >> http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________
> >> _____
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>     
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
> 
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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