[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
Andy Blunden
andyb@marxists.org
Sun Sep 29 23:44:23 PDT 2019
Ethics is about what we ought to do togetehr. It may be
distinguished from morality in that ethics explicitly
includes acting together with others, with social practices,
and not just individual "decisions." Though I think I'd say
that Ethics presupposes morality. But this is a contested
field and there will be other views. But every social theory
is also implicitly an ethical order, and conversely every
ethical order has an implied social theory within it.
Ethics is meaningful only within historically articulated,
sustainable forms of life, not small groups of sects which
may generate aberration, or forms of life which are
unsuistainable.
Aristotle's maxim: "The good life for humans is seeking the
good life for humans" is as good a basic principle as I know
of.
Bourgeois society is undoubtedly an ethical order, based on
exchange of commodities and the equal value of every
individual. The contradiction is that this basic principle
generates unlimited inequality of wealth and unlimited
destruction of Nature. The main defect of bourgeois ethics
is that it is based on the fiction of independent,
individual agents. This is what Marx was dealing with in
/Capital/. In my view, it is worthwhile to demand adherence
to the basic moral and ethical tenets of capitalism which
militate against racial prejudice, patriarchy, dishonesty,
etc., but in the meantime a new ethic has to be developed
which goes beyond the limits of bourgeois ethics.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Hegel for Social Movements <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
Home Page <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
On 30/09/2019 3:59 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> Thanks Greg; I did not think you suggested capitalism is
> “ethical”, but I was questioning the notion that
> capitalism was a framework for ethical evaluation. I of
> course see it is a context within which all sorts of
> practices emerge, but that it itself provides an ethical
> framework crashes with my preconceptions of what ethics
> means. I think I need someone to help us clarify what
> “ethics” means.
> Alfredo
>
> On 30 Sep 2019, at 07:44, Greg Thompson
> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> I appreciate your generosity in reading/responding as
>> well as your forthrightness (without which, conversation
>> can feel a bit empty). And I entirely respect and
>> appreciate your position.
>>
>> One point of clarification: on the relativism front I was
>> simply making a statement of fact, capitalism provides a
>> framework that people use to make ethical judgments. I
>> wasn't suggesting that capitalism is ethical. I might add
>> that as an anthropologist I believe that it is possible
>> to judge beliefs and practices but that this can only be
>> done after a deep understanding of the entire context of
>> those beliefs and practices. I've had a lot of experience
>> with capitalism and I'm pretty comfortable saying that,
>> to my mind, capitalism is unethical and that it provides
>> a rather unfortunate grounding for ethics and morality.
>> (and you'll notice that this leads me directly to what I
>> was chiding you for - an argument about the false
>> consciousness of the proponents (pushers?) of capitalism!!).
>>
>> And I agree with Andy about the important contributions
>> of others in this thread but I'm lacking the bandwidth to
>> adequately acknowledge/engage right now.
>>
>> And still wondering if we could hear more from/about
>> Vaedboncoeur and her work? Maybe there is a publication
>> that someone could point us to?
>> Beth Ferholt's work seems quite relevant as well.
>> (but perhaps this thread is a bit too tiresome?).
>>
>> Very best,
>> greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 5:11 PM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks a lot Greg for your help and care, I really
>> appreciate it and it is very helpful. And thanks also
>> for emphasizing the importance of bridging across
>> positions and trying to understand the phenomenon not
>> only from our (often privileged) point of view, but
>> also from that of others, even those with opposed
>> belief systems. I truly appreciate that.
>>
>> Let me try to follow the signposts you nicely
>> identified:
>>
>> 1. I see that my language lent itself to that
>> reading. I believe the root of our differences is
>> that I am trying to discuss denialism as a given
>> historical practice, and not as something
>> individual. At the individual level, both deniers
>> and people who accept the science do so out of
>> trust; just as you say, the one can argue that
>> the other is the one who is wrong or trusting the
>> wrong people. From the socio-historical
>> perspective, however, neither position is the
>> “free” choice of individuals who came upon the
>> thought and believed it. Climate science
>> communication and dissemination has its channels
>> and ways to reach the public, just as climate
>> science denial does. It so happens, though, that
>> climate science denial was born of an explicit
>> attempt to generate doubt in people, to confuse
>> them and manipulate them for profit. This is well
>> documented in the links I shared earlier. If both
>> science and science denial have a function of
>> persuading, and we cannot differentiate between
>> the two, then I think we have a big problem. What
>> I am saying is that we should be able to
>> differentiate between the two. I am not saying
>> people who believe climate change is real is more
>> conscious or better conscious or any other
>> privilege; they may be acting out of pure habit
>> and submission. I am saying, though, that if
>> people would engage in critical inquiry and
>> question the history of their reasoning habits,
>> then they may be better equipped to decide; both
>> sides. It so happens, however, that, if we all
>> would engage in such exercise, one side would
>> find out they are (involuntarily perhaps)
>> supporting actions that really harm people. In
>> today’s modern societies, not finding out is
>> truly an exercise of faith.
>> 2. You invite us to try to understand what the
>> frameworks are within which people may see
>> choosing to deny climate science as “good” or the
>> “right” thing to do, and I applaud and support
>> that goal. I think that framework is the sort of
>> sociocultural object I am trying to discuss. Yet,
>> by the same token, I’d invite anyone to consider
>> the views and positions of those who are already
>> suffering the consequences of global warming, and
>> I wonder what justifies ignoring their suffering.
>> This can be extrapolated to a myriad practices in
>> which all of we engage, from buying phones to
>> going to the toilette; we live by the suffering
>> of others. And when we do so, we are wrong, we
>> are doing wrong. That’s my view, but perhaps I am
>> wrong. I believe human rights are not partisan,
>> or negotiable; again, my leap of trust.
>> 3. Thanks for sharing your experience with your
>> acquainted. I’d like to clarify that, when using
>> the language of criminality, I refer to the
>> people directly involved in making conscious
>> decisions, and having recurred to science, to
>> then not just ignore the science but also present
>> it wrongly, making it possible for denial
>> practices to thrive. People like the one you
>> describe are having to deal with what it’s been
>> left for them, and I totally empathize.
>>
>> Finally, you explicitly state that you do not want to
>> relativize, but then you also say that “If capitalism
>> is the framework for evaluating ethical behavior,
>> then there is every reason to believe that EM execs
>> are acting ethically”. To me, the suggestion that
>> capitalism can be an ethical framework suggests a
>> treatment of ethics as fundamentally arbitrary
>> (meaning that any framework can be defined to
>> evaluate ethical behavior). I am not sure I am ready
>> to accept that assertion.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on behalf
>> of Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 23:44
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me of the importance of my own
>> humility with respect to the positions of others.
>> (conclusion jumping is an unfortunate consequence of
>> trying to respond quickly enough on a listserve to
>> remain relevant - or at least that's a challenge for
>> me).
>>
>> Thank you for clarifying that your position is not to
>> dehumanize. I appreciate that.
>>
>> Let me see if I can recover what it was from your
>> prior email that provoked my response and I'll do my
>> best to stick more closely to your words
>> (respectfully) and what I didn't quite understand.
>>
>> Here is the quote from your post: "I agree on the
>> difficulties, but I would like to emphasize that
>> being on the right or the wrong side in issues of
>> climate change in today’s Global societies is a
>> matter of having fallen pray to self-interested
>> manipulation by others, or of being yourself one
>> engaged in manipulating others for your own."
>>
>> This language of "fallen pray..." or, worse,
>> "being... engaged in manipulating others..." were
>> both phrases that I read to mean that this is
>> something that THEY do and something that WE don't do
>> (and ditto for the psychological studies that explain
>> "their" behavior in terms of deterministic
>> psychological principles - rather than as agentive
>> humans (like us?)). But it seems that maybe I've
>> misread you?
>>
>> I think calling them "criminals" is a little better
>> but doesn't capture the systemic nature of what they
>> are doing or why it is that many people would say
>> that they are doing good. Or to put it another way,
>> I'd like to better understand the minds and life
>> situations and experiences of these criminals - what
>> are the frameworks within which their actions make
>> sense as good and right and just and true. The point
>> is not to relativize but to understand (this is the
>> anthropologists' task).
>>
>> Relatedly, I may have mistakenly assumed that your
>> question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek: "the motives
>> of these corporations never were the “feel that this
>> is the ethically good and right position for
>> humanity”. Or do we?"
>>
>> I think that this is a real question and for my two
>> cents I would suggest that the answers to this
>> question are important to the work of climate justice.
>>
>> As I mentioned in the p.s. above, I recently had the
>> opportunity to push the ExxonMobil recruiter on these
>> issues. He's been working for them for about 7 years.
>> He was conflicted when first joining ExxonMobil
>> (hereafter EM) but I could sense how hard he
>> continues to work to justify working for EM. A brief
>> summary of his justification (and I took this to be
>> EM's justification) could be summed up with: "just as
>> there was an iron age in which innovations were
>> essential to the development of human beings, we are
>> now in the oil age". He acknowledged that oil is a
>> problem but then pointed out that everything in the
>> room was enabled by oil - whether because it
>> was transported there by gas-powered vehicles or
>> because of the massive amounts of plastic, rubber,
>> and other products that are made from oil and are
>> everywhere in our everyday lives. His argument was
>> that this is the way it is right now. Our lives (and
>> our current "progress") are entirely dependent upon
>> oil. And he clarified that EM's position is to find
>> ways to transition away from oil dependency but
>> remain as central to the world as they are now. He
>> saw his position as one in which he could be on the
>> "inside" and help to enable this transition and change.
>>
>> Now my point is NOT that he is right in all of what
>> he says (or that EM is not a central cause of the
>> problem that he seems not to be able to see). At the
>> end of the day, I personally concluded that he is an
>> oil apologist (and I did my best to point this out to
>> him and to the potential ethical ironies of his
>> work). Rather, my point is that I took him at his
>> word that he genuinely believes what he says and that
>> he did not "fall prey" to the manipulations of others
>> and is not himself manipulating others to further his
>> own interests. He does feel conflicted about his work
>> but at the end of the day he feels that he is doing
>> what is ethically good and right for humanity.
>>
>> And to take this one step further, I think that in
>> order to evaluate whether something is ethical or
>> not, we need some kind of framework within which to
>> make such a determination. If capitalism is the
>> framework for evaluating ethical behavior, then there
>> is every reason to believe that EM execs are acting
>> ethically.
>>
>> Let me know where I've misread you and/or
>> misunderstood you.
>>
>> With apologies,
>>
>> greg
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 9:59 AM Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Greg, for reminding us of the importance
>> of humility. Please, let us all realize of the
>> humanity of deniers, as much as those of anyone
>> else. But no, I am not saying that they are the
>> ones who live in a world of false consciousness.
>> Please, if I wrote that somewhere, help me
>> correct it, cause I did not intend to write so. I
>> never said Exxon staff were not human, Greg. I
>> said they are criminals. I am not alone in this:
>> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/24/climate-justice-ecocide-humanity-crime/
>>
>> I am more than happy to disagree, but your
>> misrepresentation of what I just wrote went
>> beyond what I can explain or understand in the
>> language that I use. So, I think I’ll need help
>> to find common ground and continue dialogue.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 17:45
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> You point to an important possibility that I
>> would not want to rule out, the possibility of
>> false consciousness. Yet, I'd like to also just
>> point to the fact that one must undertake such a
>> claim with the utmost of humility since "they"
>> are making precisely the same kind of claim about
>> you.
>>
>> You say that THEY are the ones who live in a
>> world of false consciousness, while WE are the
>> ones who are awake to the reality of things. This
>> is precisely what climate deniers say of you!!!
>> They say that you are caught up in the
>> pseudo-science of climate change that works to
>> further the introduce governmental control over
>> our daily lives (an outcome that for them is just
>> as monstrous as what you describe).
>>
>> We can stand and shout and say that we are right
>> and they are wrong, but we have to recognize that
>> they are doing the same thing. We could try and
>> kill them off since we are convinced that they
>> are murders, but they might do the same. To me it
>> seems, there is still something more that is needed.
>>
>> Another way to go about this is to seek some kind
>> of true understanding across these divides.
>> Rather than dismissing "them" as a bunch of
>> manipulators who are just trying to get theirs or
>> a bunch of dupes who are going along with a line
>> that they've been sold, why not try to engage
>> "them" as humans just like "we" are humans? How
>> many climate change deniers have we actually
>> talked to and treated as humans? (but, you
>> object, they aren't human!)
>>
>> I don't think that this needs to be ALL of the
>> work of climate justice, but I do think that it
>> should be part of this work. And it happens to be
>> one that is sorely lacking in many approaches.
>> (and just to be clear, I'm not saying that it is
>> lacking in yours, Alfredo, I'm just posing the
>> question, perhaps you know and have had
>> conversation with many deniers and realize their
>> humanity).
>>
>> -greg
>>
>> p.s., I spoke with a recruiter for ExxonMobil
>> this past week and he noted that their new CEO
>> stated unequivocally that man-made climate change
>> is real and that oil is a major cause of it.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 8:39 AM Alfredo Jornet
>> Gil <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I see and Greg’s point. I can see that not
>> everyone denying climate change is
>> necessarily a “bad” person or the evil in and
>> of themselves.
>>
>> However, I cannot agree with the statement
>> that “everyone acts because they think it
>> right to do so”. I’ve done (and keep doing)
>> enough stupid (and wrong!) things in my life
>> to be convinced of the falsehood of that
>> statement. That statement, in my view, would
>> ONLY apply to (a) instances in which people
>> indeed ponder/consider what they are about to
>> do before they do it, and (b) the nature of
>> their pondering is in fact ethical.
>>
>> Should we refer to Exxon corporate
>> decision-makers who initiated misinformation
>> campaigns to cast doubt on climate science as
>> psychopaths (as per your definition)? Would
>> that be fair to people with actual
>> pathologies? I’d rather call them criminals.
>>
>> You seem to assume (or I misread you as
>> assuming) that all actions are taken based on
>> a pondering on what is right or wrong, even
>> when that pondering has not taken place.
>> First, I don’t think we always act based on
>> decision-making. Second, not every
>> decision-making or pondering may consider
>> ethical dimensions of right or wrong. I
>> invite you to consider how many people among
>> those who deny the climate science has
>> actually gone through an ethical pondering
>> when they “choose” to deny the science. My
>> sense is that most deniers do not “choose,”
>> but rather enact a position that is, in the
>> metaphorical terms that the author of the
>> article that Anne-Nelly has shared uses, in
>> the air they breath within their communities.
>> I am of the view that exercising ethics, just
>> as exercising science denial in the 21st
>> century, is engaging in a quite definite
>> historical practice that has its background,
>> resources, and patterns or habits. I think
>> that if we exercised (practiced) more of
>> ethics, science denial would be less of a
>> “right” choice. That is, decision-making is a
>> sociocultural endeavor, not something an
>> individual comes up with alone. Sometimes we
>> cannot choose how we feel or react, but we
>> can choose who we get together to, the types
>> of cultures within which we want to generate
>> habits of action/mind.
>>
>> We cannot de-politicize science, for it is
>> only in political contexts that science comes
>> to effect lives outside of the laboratory.
>> But we can generate cultures of critical
>> engagement, which I think would bring us
>> closer to your option (3) at the end of your
>> e-mail when you ponder whether/how to
>> disentangle bipartisanism and scientific
>> literacy. I don’t think then relativism (that
>> you act ethically or not depending on what
>> you think it’s right or not, independently of
>> whether great amounts of suffering happen
>> because of your actions) is what would
>> thrive. Rather, I believe (and hope!)
>> **humanity** would thrive, for it would
>> always ponder the question Dewey posed when
>> considering why we should prefer democracy
>> over any other forms of political
>> organization, such as fascism:
>>
>> “Can we find any reason that does not
>> ultimately come down to the belief that
>> democratic social arrangements promote a
>> better quality of human experience, one which
>> is more widely accessible and enjoyed, than
>> do nondemocratic and antidemocratic forms of
>> social life? Does not the principle of regard
>> for individual freedom and for decency and
>> kindliness of human relations come back in
>> the end to the conviction that these things
>> are tributary to a higher quality of
>> experience on the part of a greater number
>> than are methods of repression and coercion
>> or force?” (Dewey, Experience and Education,
>> chapter 3).
>>
>> Please, help me see how Exxon leaders
>> considered any of these when they chose to
>> deny the science, and thought it was right. I
>> know voters did not “choose” in the same way
>> (Exxon staff trusted the science, indeed!).
>> But it is back there where you can find an
>> explanation for climate change denial today;
>> it is in the cultural-historical pattern of
>> thinking they contributed engineering, along
>> with political actors, and not in the
>> individual head of the person denying that
>> you find the explanation.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From: *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>> on
>> behalf of Andy Blunden <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at 15:28
>> *To: *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo, I think Greg's point is basically
>> right, that is, everyone acts because they
>> think it right to do so. The only exception
>> would be true psychopaths. The issue is:
>> /why/ does this person believe this is the
>> right thing to do and believe that this is
>> the person I should trust and that this is
>> the truth about the matter?
>>
>> Take Darwinian Evolution as an example. In
>> the USA, this question has been
>> "politicised," that is, people either accept
>> the science or not according to whether they
>> vote Democrat or Republican. There are
>> variants on this, and various exceptions, but
>> for the largest numbers belief in the Bible
>> or belief in the Science textbook are choices
>> of being on this side or the other side. This
>> is not the case in many other countries where
>> Evolution is simply part of the Biology lesson.
>>
>> In the UK, Anthropogenic climate change is
>> not a Party question either. People believe
>> it whether they vote Tory or Labour. Still,
>> how much people change their lives, etc.,
>> does vary, but that varies according to other
>> issues; it is not a Party question.
>>
>> In Australia, Anthropogenic climate change is
>> a Party question, even though this year
>> right-wing political leaders no longer openly
>> scorn climate science, but everyone knows
>> this is skin deep. But like in the UK,
>> Evolution is not a partisan question and eve
>> the right-wing support public health (though
>> it was not always so).
>>
>> The strategic questions, it seems to me are:
>> (1) is it possible to break a single issue
>> away from the partisan platform, and for
>> example, get Republicans to support the
>> teaching of Biology and sending their kids to
>> science classes with an open mind? Even while
>> they still support capital punishment and
>> opposed abortion and public health? Or (2) Is
>> it possible to lever a person away from their
>> partisan position on a scientific or moral
>> question, without asking for them to flip
>> sides altogether? or (3) Is it easier to work
>> for the entire defeat of a Party which
>> opposes Science and Humanity (as we see it)?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>>
>> On 29/09/2019 8:16 pm, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Anne-Nelly, I had not read this
>> one. Very telling! __
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>> On 29 Sep 2019, at 10:20, PERRET-CLERMONT
>> Anne-Nelly
>> <Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch
>> <mailto:Anne-Nelly.Perret-Clermont@unine.ch>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alfredo,
>>
>> You probably remember this very
>> interesting report from a journalist :
>>
>> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2019/6/8/1863530/-A-close-family-member-votes-Republican-Now-I-understand-why-The-core-isn-t-bigotry-It-s-worse
>>
>> I like to mention it because it
>> contributes to illustrate your point,
>> shading light on powerful
>> micro-mechanisms.
>>
>> Anne-Nelly
>>
>> Prof. emer. Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont
>>
>> Institut de psychologie et éducation
>> Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines
>>
>> Université de Neuchâtel
>>
>> Espace Tilo-Frey 1 (Anciennement:
>> Espace Louis-Agassiz 1)
>>
>> CH- 2000 Neuchâtel (Suisse)
>>
>> http://www.unine.ch/ipe/publications/anne_nelly_perret_clermont
>>
>> A peine sorti de presse:
>> https://www.socialinfo.ch/les-livres/38-agir-et-penser-avec-anne-nelly-perret-clermont.html
>>
>> *De :
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>>
>> *Répondre à : *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date : *dimanche, 29 septembre 2019
>> à 09:45
>> *À : *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Cc : *Vadeboncoeur Jennifer
>> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> *Objet : *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Greg,
>>
>> Thanks, we are on the same page. But
>> you write: «most climate change
>> deniers are such because they feel
>> that this is the ethically good and
>> right position for humanity». I agree
>> on the difficulties, but I would like
>> to emphasize that being on the right
>> or the wrong side in issues of
>> climate change in today’s Global
>> societies is a matter of having
>> fallen pray to self-interested
>> manipulation by others, or of being
>> yourself one engaged in manipulating
>> others for your own.
>>
>> When you pick up a scientific article
>> (very unlikely if you are a denier)
>> or a press article, and read that the
>> Earth is warming due to human
>> civilization, and then think, “nah,
>> bullshit”, you most likely are
>> inclined to infer that way cause
>> that’s a cultural pattern of thinking
>> characteristic of a group or
>> community you belong to. There are
>> out there many psychology studies
>> showing the extent to which
>> “opinions” on climate science vary
>> not with respect to how much one
>> knows or understand, but rather with
>> respect to your religious and
>> political affiliation (see, for
>> example,
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547
>> ).
>>
>> My point being that, when you deny
>> climate change today, you engage in a
>> practice that has a very definite
>> historical origin and motive, namely
>> the coordinated, systematic actions
>> of a given set of fossil fuel
>> corporations that, to this date,
>> continue lobbying to advance their
>> own interests, permeating through
>> many spheres of civic life, including
>> education:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
>>
>> http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Greenpeace_Dealing-in-Doubt-1.pdf?53ea6e
>>
>> We know that the motives of these
>> corporations never were the “feel
>> that this is the ethically good and
>> right position for humanity”. Or do we?
>>
>> Again, educating about (climate)
>> **justice** and accountability may be
>> crucial to the “critical” approach
>> that has been mentioned in prior
>> e-mails.
>>
>> I too would love seeing Jen V.
>> chiming in on these matters.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Sunday, 29 September 2019 at
>> 04:15
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Cc: *Jennifer Vadeboncoeur
>> <j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca
>> <mailto:j.vadeboncoeur@ubc.ca>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and Science
>>
>> Alfredo and Artin, Yes and yes.
>>
>> Alfredo, yes, I wasn't suggesting
>> doing without them, but simply that
>> something more is needed perhaps an
>> "ethical dimension" is needed
>> (recognizing that such a thing is
>> truly a hard fought accomplishment -
>> right/wrong and good/evil seems so
>> obvious from where we stand, but
>> others will see differently; most
>> climate change deniers are such
>> because they feel that this is the
>> ethically good and right position for
>> humanity not because they see it as
>> an evil and ethically wrong position).
>>
>> Artin, I wonder if Dr. Vadeboncoeur
>> might be willing to chime in?? Sounds
>> like a fascinating and important take
>> on the issue. Or maybe you could
>> point us to a reading?
>>
>> (and by coincidence, I had the
>> delight of dealing with Dr.
>> Vadebonceour's work in my data
>> analysis class this week via LeCompte
>> and Scheunsel's extensive use of her
>> work to describe data analysis
>> principles - my students found her
>> work to be super interesting and very
>> helpful for thinking about data
>> analysis).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 9:19 AM
>> Goncu, Artin <goncu@uic.edu
>> <mailto:goncu@uic.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> The varying meanings and
>> potential abuses of the
>> connection between imagination
>> and trust appear to be activity
>> specific. This can be seen even
>> in the same activity, i.e., trust
>> and imagination may be abused.
>> For example, I took pains for
>> many years to illustrate that
>> children’s construction of
>> intersubjectivity in social
>> imaginative play requires trust
>> in one another. Children make the
>> proleptic assumption that their
>> potential partners are sincere,
>> know something about the topics
>> proposed for imaginative play,
>> and will participate in the
>> negotiations of assumed joint
>> imaginative pasts and anticipated
>> futures. However, this may not
>> always be the case. As Schousboe
>> showed, children may abuse play
>> to institute their own abusive
>> agendas as evidenced in her
>> example of two five year old
>> girls pretending that actual
>> urine in a bottle was soda pop
>> trying to make a three year old
>> girl to drink it. This clearly
>> supports exploring how we
>> can/should inquire what Alfredo
>> calls the third dimension. More
>> to the point, how do we teach
>> right from wrong in shared
>> imagination? Vadeboncoeur has
>> been addressing the moral
>> dimensions of imagination in her
>> recent work.
>>
>> Artin
>>
>> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>>
>> Professor, Emeritus
>>
>> University of Illinois at Chicago
>>
>> www.artingoncu.com/
>> <http://www.artingoncu.com/>
>>
>> *From:*xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>]
>> *On Behalf Of *Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> *Sent:* Saturday, September 28,
>> 2019 9:35 AM
>> *To:* eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject:* [Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Yes, Greg, I agree there is all
>> grounds and rights to question
>> trust and imagination, but I am
>> less inclined to think that we
>> can do without them both. So, if
>> there is a difference between
>> imaginative propaganda aimed at
>> confusing the public, and
>> imaginative education that grows
>> from hope and will for the common
>> good, then perhaps we need a
>> third element that discerns good
>> from evil? Right from wrong? That
>> may why, in order for people to
>> actually engage in
>> transformational action, what
>> they need the most is not just to
>> understand Climate Change, but
>> most importantly, Climate
>> Justice. Don’t you think?
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Greg Thompson
>> <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
>> <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September
>> 2019 at 16:05
>> *To: *"eXtended Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Note that there is a great deal
>> of trust and imagination going on
>> right now in the US. We have the
>> most imaginative president we’ve
>> had in years. He can imagine his
>> way to bigly approval ratings and
>> a massive inaugural turnout. He
>> imagines that trying to get dirt
>> on an opponent is a “beautiful
>> conversation”. And if you watch
>> the media these days, he has a
>> cadre of others who are doing
>> additional imagining for him as
>> well - they are imagining what
>> the DNC is trying to do to ouster
>> this president, they are
>> imagining what Joe Biden might
>> really have been up to with that
>> prosecutor. And what makes
>> matters worst is that there is a
>> rather large contingent of people
>> in the US who trust this cadre of
>> imaginative propagandists and who
>> trust Trump and believe that they
>> are the only ones who have the
>> real truth.
>>
>> So I guess I’m suggesting there
>> might be reason to question
>> imagination and trust (and this
>> all was heightened for me by a
>> dip into the imaginative and
>> trust-filled land of conservative
>> talk radio yesterday - but you
>> can find the same message from
>> anyone who is a Trump truster -
>> including a number of politicians
>> who are playing the same game of
>> avoiding the facts (no one on
>> those talk shows actually
>> repeated any of the damning words
>> from Trumps phone call) while
>> constructing an alternative
>> narrative that listeners trust).
>>
>> Sadly,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 5:17 AM
>> Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> <a.j.gil@ils.uio.no
>> <mailto:a.j.gil@ils.uio.no>> wrote:
>>
>> Henry, all,
>>
>> Further resonating with Beth
>> et al’s letter, and with what
>> Henry and Andy just wrote, I
>> too think the point at which
>> trust and imagination meet is
>> key.
>>
>> A couple of days ago, I
>> watched, together with my two
>> daughters (10 and 4 years old
>> respectively) segments of the
>> /Right to a Future /event
>> organized by The Intercept
>> https://theintercept.com/2019/09/06/greta-thunberg-naomi-klein-climate-change-livestream/,
>> where young and not-so-young
>> activists and journalists
>> discussed visions of 2029 if
>> we, today, would lead radical
>> change. It was a great chance
>> to engage in some
>> conversation with my children
>> about these issues, specially
>> with my older one; about hope
>> and about the importance of
>> fighting for justice.
>>
>> At some point in a follow-up
>> conversation that we had in
>> bed, right before sleep, we
>> spoke about the good things
>> that we still have with
>> respect to nature and
>> community, and I–perhaps not
>> having considered my
>> daughter’s limited awareness
>> of the reach of the
>> crisis–emphasized that it was
>> important to value and enjoy
>> those things we have in the
>> present, when there is
>> uncertainty as to the
>> conditions that there will be
>> in the near future. My
>> daughter, very concerned,
>> turned to me and, with what I
>> felt was a mix of fair and
>> skepticism, said: “but dad,
>> are not people fixing the
>> problem already so that
>> everything will go well?”
>>
>> It truly broke my heart. I
>> reassured her that we are
>> working as hard as we can,
>> but invited her not to stop
>> reminding everyone that we
>> cannot afford stop fighting.
>>
>> My daughter clearly exhibited
>> her (rightful) habit of trust
>> that adults address problems,
>> that they’ll take care of us,
>> that things will end well, or
>> at least, that they’ll try
>> their best. In terms of
>> purely formal scientific
>> testing, it turns out that my
>> daughter’s hypothesis could
>> easily be rejected, as it is
>> rather the case that my
>> parent’s generation did very
>> little to address problems
>> they were “aware” of (another
>> discussion is what it is
>> meant by “awareness” in cases
>> such as being aware of the
>> effects of fossil fuels and
>> still accelerating their
>> exploitation). Yet, it would
>> totally be against the
>> interest of science and
>> society that my daughter
>> loses that trust. For if she
>> does, then I fear she will be
>> incapable of imagining a
>> thriving future to demand and
>> fight for. I fear she will
>> lose a firm ground for
>> agency. Which teaches me that
>> the pedagogy that can help in
>> this context of crisis is one
>> in which basic trust in the
>> good faith and orientation
>> towards the common good of
>> expertise is restored, and
>> that the only way to restore
>> it is by indeed acting
>> accordingly, reclaiming and
>> occupying the agency and
>> responsibility of making sure
>> that younger and older can
>> continue creatively imagining
>> a future in which things will
>> go well at the end.
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>> *From:
>> *<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> on behalf of Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> *Reply to: *"eXtended Mind,
>> Culture, Activity"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Date: *Saturday, 28
>> September 2019 at 04:38
>> *To:
>> *"xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>"
>> <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
>> <mailto:xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Trust and
>> Science
>>
>> Science is based on trust,
>> isn't it, Henry. Only a
>> handful of people have
>> actually measured climate
>> change, and then probably
>> only one factor. If we have a
>> picture of climate change at
>> all, for scientists and
>> non-scientists alike, it is
>> only because we /trust/ the
>> institutions of science
>> sufficiently. And yet,
>> everyone on this list knows
>> how wrong these institutions
>> can be when it comes to the
>> area of our own expertise. So
>> "blind trust" is not enough,
>> one needs "critical trust" so
>> to speak, in order to know
>> anything scientifically. Very
>> demanding.
>>
>> Important as trust is, I am
>> inclined to think trust and
>> its absence are symptoms of
>> even more fundamental
>> societal characteristics,
>> because it is never just a
>> question of *how much* trust
>> there is in a society, but
>> *who* people trust. It seems
>> that nowadays people are
>> very erratic about *who *they
>> trust about *what *and who
>> they do not trust.
>>
>> Probably the agreement you
>> saw between Huw and me was
>> probably pretty shaky, but we
>> have a commonality in our
>> trusted sources, we have
>> worked together in the past
>> and share basic respect for
>> each other and for science.
>> Workable agreement. I despair
>> over what I see happening in
>> the UK now, where MPs
>> genuinely fear for their
>> lives because of the level of
>> hatred and division in the
>> community, which is beginning
>> to be even worse than what
>> Trump has created in the US.
>> A total breakdown in trust
>> *alongside* tragically
>> misplaced trust in a couple
>> of utterly cynical criminals!
>> The divisions are just as
>> sharp here in Oz too, but it
>> has not go to that
>> frightening level of menace
>> it has reached in the UK and US.
>>
>> Greta Thunberg talks of a
>> plural, collective "we" in
>> opposition to a singular
>> personal "you." She
>> brilliantly, in my opinion,
>> turns this black-and-white
>> condition of the world around
>> in a manner which just could
>> turn it into its negation.
>> Her use of language at the UN
>> is reminiscent of Churchill's
>> "we fill fight them on the
>> beaches ..." speech and
>> Martin Luther King's "I have
>> a dream" speech. There's
>> something for you linguists
>> to get your teeth into!
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 28/09/2019 2:42 am, HENRY
>> SHONERD wrote:
>>
>> Andy and Huw,
>>
>> This is a perfect example
>> of what I was talking
>> about in the discussion
>> of your article on
>> Academia: Two
>> philosophers having a
>> dialog about the same
>> pholosophical object, a
>> dialog manifesting an
>> experience of common
>> understanding. In the
>> same way that two
>> mathematicians might
>> agree on a mathematical
>> proof. I have to believe
>> that you are not bull
>> shitting, that you really
>> have understood each
>> other via your language.
>> So, of course this is of
>> interest to a linguist,
>> even though he/I don’t
>> really get the “proof”. I
>> may not understand the
>> arguments you are making,
>> but I can imagine, based
>> on slogging through
>> thinking as a lingist,
>> what it’s like to get it.
>>
>> I think this relates to
>> the problem in the world
>> of a lack of trust in
>> scientific expertise, in
>> expertise in general.
>> Where concpetual thinking
>> reigns. So many climate
>> deniers. So many
>> Brexiters. But can you
>> blame them entirely?
>> Probably it would be
>> better to say that trust
>> isn’t enough. The problem
>> is a lack of connection
>> between trust and the
>> creative imagination.
>> It’s what Beth Fernholt
>> and her pals have sent to
>> the New Yorker.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2019, at
>> 6:40 AM, Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Huw.
>>
>> The
>> interconnectedness of
>> the "four concepts,"
>> I agree, they imply
>> each other, but
>> nonetheless, they
>> remain distinct
>> insights. Just
>> because you get one,
>> you don't necessarily
>> get the others.
>>
>> Hegel uses the
>> expression "true
>> concept" only rarely.
>> Generally, he simply
>> uses the word
>> "concept," and uses a
>> variety of other
>> terms like "mere
>> conception" or
>> "representation" or
>> "category" to
>> indicate something
>> short of a concept,
>> properly so called,
>> but there is no
>> strict categorisation
>> for Hegel. Hegel is
>> not talking about
>> Psychology, let alone
>> child psychology.
>> Like with Vygotsky,
>> all thought-forms (or
>> forms of activity)
>> are just phases (or
>> stages) in the
>> development of a
>> concept. Reading your
>> message, I think I am
>> using the term "true
>> concept" in much the
>> same way you are.
>>
>> (This is not relevant
>> to my article, but I
>> distinguish "true
>> concept" from "actual
>> concept." All the
>> various forms of
>> "complexive thinking"
>> fall short, so to
>> speak, of "true
>> concepts," and
>> further development
>> takes an abstract
>> concept, such as
>> learnt in lecture 101
>> of a topic, to an
>> "actual concept". But
>> that is not relevant
>> here. Hegel barely
>> touches on these issues.)
>>
>> I don't agree with
>> your specific
>> categories, but yes,
>> for Vygotsky,
>> chapters 4, 5 and 6
>> are all talking about
>> concepts in a
>> developmental sense.
>> There are about 10
>> distinct stages for
>> Vygotsky. And they
>> are not equivalent to
>> any series of stages
>> identified by Hegel.
>> Vgotsky's "stages"
>> were drawn from a
>> specific experiment
>> with children;
>> Hegel's Logic is cast
>> somewhat differently
>> (the Logic is not a
>> series of stages) and
>> has a domain much
>> larger than Psychology.
>>
>> The experienced
>> doctor does not use
>> what I would call
>> "formal concepts" in
>> her work, which are
>> what I would call the
>> concepts they learnt
>> in Diagnostics 101
>> when they were a
>> student. After 20
>> years of experience,
>> these formal concepts
>> have accrued
>> practical life
>> experience, and
>> remain true concepts,
>> but are no longer
>> "formal." Of course,
>> the student was not
>> taught pseudoconcepts
>> in Diagnostics 101.
>> But all this is
>> nothing to do with
>> the article in question.
>>
>> Hegel and Vygotsky
>> are talking about
>> different things, but
>> even in terms of the
>> subject matter, but
>> especially in terms
>> of the conceptual
>> form, there is more
>> Hegel in "Thinking
>> and Speech" than
>> initially meets the eye.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for Social
>> Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> On 27/09/2019 4:32
>> pm, Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> The "four
>> concepts", for
>> me, are four
>> aspects of one
>> understanding --
>> they imply each
>> other.
>>
>> Quoting this passage:
>>
>>
>> "The ‘abstract
>> generality’
>> referred to above
>> by Hegel,
>> Vygotsky aptly
>> called a
>> ‘pseudoconcept’ -
>> a form of
>> abstract
>> generalization,
>> uniting objects
>> by shared common
>> features, which
>> resembles
>> conceptual
>> thinking because,
>> within a limited
>> domain
>> ofexperience,
>> they subsume the
>> same objects and
>> situations as the
>> true concept
>> indicated by the
>> same word.
>> The pseudoconcept
>> is not the
>> exclusive
>> achievement of
>> the child. In our
>> everyday lives,
>> our thinking
>> frequently occurs
>> in
>> pseudoconcepts.
>> From the
>> perspective of
>> dialectical
>> logic, the
>> concepts that we
>> find in our
>> living speech are
>> not concepts in
>> the true sense of
>> the word. They
>> are actually
>> general
>> representations
>> of things. There
>> is no doubt,
>> however, that
>> these
>> representations
>> are a
>> transitional
>> stage between
>> complexes or
>> pseudoconcepts
>> and true
>> concepts.
>> (Vygotsky,
>> 1934/1987, p. 155)"
>>
>> My impression
>> from your text,
>> Andy, is that you
>> are misreading
>> Vygotsky's
>> "Thinking and
>> Speech". Implicit
>> LSV's whole text
>> of vol. 1 is an
>> appreciation for
>> different kinds
>> of conception (3
>> levels: pseudo,
>> formal, and
>> dialectical), but
>> the terminology
>> of "concept" is
>> only applied to
>> the formal
>> concept, i.e.
>> where Vygotsky
>> writes "concept"
>> one can read
>> "formal concept".
>>
>> In vol. 1,
>> the analysis of
>> the trajectory of
>> the thought of
>> the child is
>> towards a growing
>> achievement of
>> employing formal
>> concepts. These
>> formal concepts
>> are only called
>> "true concepts"
>> (not to be
>> confused with
>> Hegel's true
>> concept) in
>> relation to the
>> pseudo (fake or
>> untrue) formal
>> concepts. The
>> pseudo concepts
>> pertain to a form
>> of cognition that
>> is considered by
>> Vygotsky (quite
>> sensibly) to
>> precede the
>> concepts of
>> formal logic.
>> This is quite
>> obvious to any
>> thorough-going
>> psychological
>> reading of the text.
>>
>> However, within
>> the frame of
>> analysis of the
>> text there is
>> another form of
>> conception which
>> is Vygotsky's
>> approach towards
>> a dialectical
>> understanding.
>> None of
>> Vygotsky's
>> utterances about
>> dialectics (in
>> this volume)
>> should be
>> conflated with
>> the "true
>> concept" which he
>> is using as a
>> short-hand for
>> the "true formal
>> concept",
>> similarly none of
>> Vygotsky's
>> utterances about
>> "pseudo concepts"
>> should be
>> confused with
>> formal concepts.
>>
>> I hope that helps,
>>
>> Huw
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Sep
>> 2019 at 06:37,
>> Andy Blunden
>> <andyb@marxists.org
>> <mailto:andyb@marxists.org>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd dearly
>> like to get
>> some
>> discussion
>> going on this:
>>
>> It will
>> be shown
>> that at
>> least
>> four
>> foundational
>> concepts
>> of
>> Cultural
>> Historical
>> Activity
>> Theory
>> were
>> previously
>> formulated
>> by Hegel,
>> viz., (1)
>> the unit
>> of
>> analysis
>> as a key
>> concept
>> for
>> analytic-synthetic
>> cognition,
>> (2) the
>> centrality
>> of
>> artifact-mediated
>> actions,
>> (3) the
>> definitive
>> distinction
>> between
>> goal and
>> motive in
>> activities,
>> and (4)
>> the
>> distinction
>> between a
>> true
>> concept
>> and a
>> pseudoconcept.
>>
>> https://www.academia.edu/s/7d70db6eb3/the-hegelian-sources-of-cultural-historical-activity-theory
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Hegel for
>> Social
>> Movements
>> <https://brill.com/view/title/54574>
>> Home Page
>> <https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>
>> Assistant Professor
>>
>> Department of Anthropology
>>
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>
>> Brigham Young University
>>
>> Provo, UT 84602
>>
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor
>> Department of Anthropology
>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> WEBSITE: greg.a.thompson.byu.edu
>> <http://greg.a.thompson.byu.edu>
>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190930/034ceafb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list