[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
Andy, I need to reread the opening chapters in which ANL sketches the
phylogenesis of reflection. I may well be adding baggage from the English
connotations of the word. For instance, we speak of a reflection as "in" a
mirror, when a mirror has an 'inside' only metaphorically. Talk of
reflection tends to imply both a distinction and a relation (of similarity
or correspondence) between two things, 'object' and 'image.' And we can
speak of an 'accurate' or an 'inaccurate' reflection, but not an accurate or
inaccurate trace.
But this may all be me, not ANL. Though it's interesting that both he and
Vygotsky wrote explicitly about *mirrors*! I need to do more homework.
I'm making a fuss about this only because I agree with both V and ANL that
avoiding/transcending dualism is crucially important for social science, and
because they both take important steps in that direction. Figuring out
whether they succeeded or fell short in this is important, to me at least.
Martin
On 1/7/09 9:44 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> As David said, "reflection" may or may not be understood in
> a dualist way. Likewise "meaning" or "activity." Personally,
> I don't like the term "reflection" mainly because it
> connotes passivity on the part of the "subject," but
> according to Ilyenkov, reflection describes both the
> formation of the data of sensation and the reverse movement
> in which conceptual knowledge is formed. IE the Russians
> don't necessarily mean "reflection" as a passive process, or
> at least some do not.
>
> I do not think any of the Russians are claiming that the
> internal physiological processes that are the internal basis
> of thought *equal* thought, and there are plenty of
> statements to the contrary. I have severe criticisms of
> Leontyev and I feel no need to defend him. I see deep
> methodological problems, but I think that if we are going to
> cry "dualism" or "dichotomy" there has to be a stronger
> basis for it.
>
> Michael Roth has said I seem to recall that the mere use of
> contrating terms inevitably draws one into dualisms. I don't
> believe that is the case. Dichotomy means dividing a field
> into two kinds of self-sufficient (mutually independent)
> things or substances.
>
> I think this quote is an instance where you, Martin, believe
> ANL is succumbing to dualism:
>
> "The transition to existence in the conditions of a complex
> environment formed as things is therefore expressed in or-
> ganisms' adaptation to it taking on a qualitatively new form
> associated with reflection of the properties of a material,
> objective reality of things" (44)
>
> But I don't see any necessary dualism here. I would say that
> shivering and the tradition apparel of the Inuit people are
> both reflections of the properties of cold weather. Does
> that make me a dualist?
>
> Andy
>
> Martin Packer wrote:
>> Andy, I expected something more challenging from you! Yes, I have a brain, a
>> stomach, etc., and interesting things happen inside my body as I act and
>> think. But what happens in my brain is physiological activity, not mental
>> action. There's physiological activity in my brain when I dig a hole in the
>> ground, but you would not *equate* the brain activity with my 'external'
>> action of digging. So why equate the brain activity that goes on when I am
>> thinking with some 'internal' mental action? Mental action isn't 'inside'
>> the organism in the same way that brain activity is inside. In my view it
>> isn't 'inside' at all.
>>
>> And Leontiev himself argues this point:
>>
>> "Consciousness, thinking, and mind are not reducible in
>> general to processes taking place in the brain, and cannot
>> be deduced directly from them. With this approach we thus find independent,
>> external reality on one side of mental phenomena, and the brain
>> and the nervous, physiological processes that take place
>> in it on the other side, i.e. we find in both cases phenomena
>> that are not psychic" (p. 21).
>>
>> But although he goes on to point out that:
>>
>> "It is impossible, however, to close one's eyes to the fact
>> that psychological science, restricted by the framework of
>> bourgeois philosophy, has never risen above the level of a
>> purely metaphysical opposing of subjective psychic phenomena
>> to the phenomena of the external world, and could
>> therefore never penetrate their real essence, and that both
>> here and in psychology, the clumsy cart-horse of ordinary
>> bourgeois thought stops every time, perplexed, at the ditch
>> that divides essence from appearance, and cause from effect" (p. 23).
>>
>> ... later in the same book, in the pages I cited in my last message, he
>> seems to fall back into the ditch.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On 1/6/09 8:31 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Even ancient "materialism", which like contemporary
>>> "neuropsychology" wants to reduce thought to atoms and
>>> neurons, does not deny that something happens in the
>>> organism and something in the constitution of the organism
>>> changes when we learn, develop, etc. Surely you don't deny
>>> that there is something going on inside an organism when it
>>> learns, thinks, perceives, etc., Martin? What do you make of
>>> the maxim of Paracelsus and Marx about the bee and the
>>> architect?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>> OK, to keep the ball rolling, what are we to make of the discussion around
>>>> page 310 of "interiorization," which Leontiev defines as "the gradual
>>>> conversion of external actions into internal, mental ones"?
>>>>
>>>> On page 284 Leontiev has just praised Rubinstein for proposing that mind is
>>>> *in* activity. Now he says that mental activity is the *product* of
>>>> 'external' activity, and furthermore that mental activity is 'internal'
>>>> activity. This sounds very dualistic to me.
>>>>
>>>> And here are my notes on page 311:
>>>>
>>>> "But this is circular reasoning. Interiorisation is necessary, ANL tells
>>>> us,
>>>> because accumulated human knowledge comes to the child as something
>>>> 'external.' These 'objects, verbal concepts, knowledge' have an 'immediate
>>>> physical aspect' that is 'not yet refracted through the prism of the
>>>> generalized experience of social practice.' But what happened to ANL's
>>>> recognition that the child acts on objects always with adult guidance, so
>>>> that the *immediate* contact *is* refracted through this prism (though I'd
>>>> like to avoid the refraction/reflection metaphors).
>>>>
>>>> "And even if ANL were correct, why is any of this an explanation of why
>>>> interiorization is necessary? If (past) human activity is 'embodied' in
>>>> objects, that doesn't mean that I need mental actions to act with them. On
>>>> the contrary, the whole notion of 'embodiedness' began as an *alternative*
>>>> to idealist psychology.
>>>>
>>>> "And 'reflection in the child's head [p. 311]'?!"
>>>>
>>>> Someone give me a monist gloss of all this, please!
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/09 6:46 PM, "Haydi Zulfei" <haydizulfei@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin,
>>>>> Just one quote :
>>>>> [[Mind arises at a certain stage of the evolution of life not
>>>>> by chance out of necessity.i.e. naturally . But in what does
>>>>> the necessity of its origin consist? Clearly, if mind is not
>>>>> simply a purely subjective phenomenon, and not just an
>>>>> 'epiphenomenon' of objective processes, [but a property that
>>>>> has real importance in life] , the necessity of its origin
>>>>> is governed by the evolution of life itself . More complex
>>>>> conditions of life require an organism to have the capacity,
>>>>> to reflect objective reality in the form of the simplest sensa-
>>>>> tions. The psyche is not simply 'added' to the vital functions
>>>>> of organisms, but arises in the course of their development
>>>>> and provides the basis for a qualitatively new, higher form
>>>>> of life-life linked with mind, with a capacity to reflect real-
>>>>> ity.
>>>>> This implies that in order to disclose the transition from
>>>>> living matter that still has no psyche to living matter that
>>>>> has one, we have to proceed not from internal subjective states
>>>>> by themselves, separated from the subject's vital activity,
>>>>> or from behaviour taken in isolation from mind, or
>>>>> merely as that through which mental states and processes
>>>>> are studied, but from the real unity of the subject's mind
>>>>> and activity, and to study their internal reciprocal connections
>>>>> and transformations.]]
>>>>> Here we read there was a time when the organism faced *undifferentiated*
>>>>> flat
>>>>> environmet ; in his A,C,P , Leontiev also alludes to the idea of
>>>>> environment
>>>>> once having been *objectless* for the organism , then at a higher stage
>>>>> having
>>>>> faced *object-based differentiated* environment .
>>>>> If I'm right in my reading , first the rustling in the environment
>>>>> triggers
>>>>> the frog to be led then to the food direct (insect) . This is when
>>>>> Leontiev
>>>>> says need is not sufficient clue to activity ; it must hit an object .
>>>>> The other problem with your *dualism* vs *monism* is explained as follows
>>>>> :
>>>>> Leontiev says at one time in evolution , it's not been the case that the
>>>>> organism has been able to see the thing once ; the image of that thing
>>>>> twice
>>>>> . He has seen just one . Here we face the idea of the extension of matter
>>>>> .
>>>>> In
>>>>> his book Lenin says quite clearly extension , time , place , causality are
>>>>> intrinsic to the Matter . Monism says the superhuman existence is the
>>>>> extension of **matter** . These are not two but one and and the same thing
>>>>> .
>>>>> Decartes , Hume , you well know had a different problem in view . They
>>>>> believed in so-called one SOULED-body . Soul having been incarnated , as
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> says , in the Air and detachable capable of leading independent life This
>>>>> is
>>>>> Dualism . But when you believe in *Mind* being just a *property* of
>>>>> matter
>>>>> ,
>>>>> then philosophical dualism is eliminated . And here is again where I could
>>>>> say
>>>>> when you initiate with *culture* as one agental transformative , we object
>>>>> as
>>>>> you placing yourselves just midway ignoring *continuity* disconnecting
>>>>> culture
>>>>> from its whereabout/origin .
>>>>> Best
>>>>> Haydi
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Re: Kant and the Strange Situation
>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 2:51 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Sad' because my sense is that if one wants to avoid dualism - crucial
>>>>> for
>>>>> Vygotsky - Lenin's writing about 'reflection' isn't the way to
>>>>> go. I don't
>>>>> know the details well, but from what I have read Lenin assumed a simple
>>>>> dualism in which mental representations 'reflect' the real world. The
>>>>> 'image' may be reversed, but still it is in a realm quite different
>>>>> from the
>>>>> real. (Bakhurst discusses Lenin's philosophy in *Consciousness and
>>>>> Revolution* if I remember correctly.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently read through *Problems of the Development of Mind*, which
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> and Andy generously made available (it fell down my chimney early one
>>>>> morning) and was disappointed to discover how little Leontiev seems to
>>>>> have
>>>>> avoided dualistic ways of thinking/writing. Here too the relation of
>>>>> psyche
>>>>> to world is expressed in terms of 'reflection,' for example:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The transition to existence in the conditions of a complex
>>>>> environment formed as things is therefore expressed in or-
>>>>> ganisms' adaptation to it taking on a qualitatively new form
>>>>> associated with reflection of the properties of a material,
>>>>> objective reality of things" (44)
>>>>>
>>>>> The sense of reflection is not very clear in this excerpt, but the term is
>>>>> used repeatedly in ways that generally suggest Leontiev sees the psyche
>>>>> forming subjective representations of an objective reality. Perhaps this
>>>>> can
>>>>> be saved by drawing on Marx's use of 'widerspiegeln,' which as
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> points out avoids the connotations of mirroring. But at least it invites
>>>>> readings of CHAT which don't challenge the dualism in contemporary western
>>>>> social science.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, although the repeated presentations of the same notions in
>>>>> Leontiev's book made me suspicious along the way, it wasn't until the
>>>>> very
>>>>> end that I discovered (from an endnote) that it is a compilation of
>>>>> articles
>>>>> from very different dates. I'd recommend reading it in chronological order
>>>>> to get a clearer sense of how his ideas developed. For instance, I need to
>>>>> go back to see how his relative emphasis shifted between the child's
>>>>> encounter with objects, and adult guidance of this encounter. At times the
>>>>> latter is not mentioned, at others it is added on ("by the way..."),
>>>>> and at
>>>>> times it is highlighted. But since the chapters are out of order, I don't
>>>>> yet have a clear sense of the chronology of these shifts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/09 11:50 PM, "Mike Cole" <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea that always occurs to me about reflections is that in mirrors,
>>>>>> left
>>>>> and right are reversed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sad? Or a reason to pause to think?
>>>>> Quien
>>>>>> Sabe?
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Why sad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know, but it would be sad
>>>>>> to discover that Vygotsky was drawing so
>>>>>>> heavily
>>>>>>> from Lenin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On
>>>>>> 1/4/09 9:42 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I might say
>>>>>> as an aside, that "reflection" whatever it is in
>>>>>>>> Russian, has a strong
>>>>>> place in Russian Marxism. This is
>>>>>>>> because Lenin made such a powerful
>>>>>> attack on his
>>>>>>>> philosophical enemies in "Materialism and
>>>>>> Empirio-Criticism"
>>>>>>>> written in 1908. Ilyenkov still defends this books in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> mid-1970s, though almost all non-Russian Marxists would say
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>> it is a terrible book and was written before Lenin had
>>>>>>>> studied Hegel, etc.
>>>>>> In M&EC Lenin makes reflection a central
>>>>>>>> category, a universal property of
>>>>>> matter, etc., and bitterly
>>>>>>>> attacks the use of semiotics of any
>>>>>> kind.
>>>>>>>> I have an ambiguous attitude to M&EC myself. Apart from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "sins of omission" perhaps, Lenin is right, but did he
>>>>>>>> really have to
>>>>>> shout it that loud? Well, in the historical
>>>>>>>> context of the wake of the
>>>>>> defeat of the 1905 Revolution,
>>>>>>>> probably he did. Did all Russian Marxists
>>>>>> for the next 100
>>>>>>>> years have to follow his lead? Probably not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>> note that in Dot Robbins' book on Vygotsky and Leontyev's
>>>>>>>> Semiotics etc.,
>>>>>> Dot defends the notion of reflection. The
>>>>>>>> situation, as I see it, is that
>>>>>> "reflection" has a strong
>>>>>>>> advantage and an equally strong disadvantage in
>>>>>> conveying a
>>>>>>>> materialist conception of sensuous perception.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On one
>>>>>> side it emphasises the objectivity of the
>>>>>>>> image-making - there is nothing
>>>>>> in the mirror, or if there
>>>>>>>> is, it is an imperfectionit which distorts the
>>>>>> image. On the
>>>>>>>> other side, mirror-imaging is an entirely passive process,
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> property of even non-living matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally, I think
>>>>>> "reflection" belongs to Feuerbachian
>>>>>>>> materialism, not Marxism, but in
>>>>>> historical context, the
>>>>>>>> position of many Russians who use the concept,
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> understandable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's how I see it anyway,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>> Ed Wall wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It appears the
>>>>>> root is more or less
>>>>>>>>> отрaжáть
>>>>>> (отрaзить)
>>>>>>>>> and, at least according to my dictionary, has the
>>>>>> sense of reflecting
>>>>>>>>> or having an effect. However, my qualifications are
>>>>>> dated.
>>>>>>>>> Ed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Martin Packer
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> At the end of last year several of us were trying to figure
>>>>>> out whether
>>>>>>>>>> 'reflection' is a good term to translate the way
>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>>> and leontiev
>>>>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> about 'mental' activity. Michael Roth pointed
>>>>>> out that the German word
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> Marx used was Widerspiegeln rather
>>>>>> than Reflektion (see below). I don't
>>>>>>>>>> think anyone identified the Russian
>>>>>> word that was used. I still haven't
>>>>>>>>>> found time to trace the word in
>>>>>> Vygotsky's texts, English and Russian.
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> an article by Charles
>>>>>> Tolman suggests that the Russian term was
>>>>>>>>>> 'otrazhenie.' Online
>>>>>> translators don't like this word: can any Russian
>>>>>>>>>> speakers suggest how
>>>>>> it might be translated?
>>>>>>>>>> Reflection (German: Widerspiegelung;
>>>>>> Russian: otrazhenie)
>>>>>>>>>> Tolman, C.W. (1988). The basic vocabulary of
>>>>>> Activity Theory. Activity
>>>>>>>>>> Theory, 1, 14-20.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/25/08 12:40 PM, "Wolff-Michael Roth"
>>>>> <mroth@uvic.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>>>> Marx does indeed use the term
>>>>>> "widerspiegeln" in the sentence you
>>>>>>>>>>> cite.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Das Gehirn
>>>>>> der
>>>>>>>>>>> Privatproduzenten spiegelt diesen doppelten
>>>>>> gesellschaftlichen
>>>>>>>>>>> Charakter ihrer Privatarbeiten nur wider in den
>>>>>> Formen, welche im
>>>>>>>>>>> praktischen Verkehr, im Produktenaustausch erscheinen
>>>>>> - den
>>>>>>>>>>> gesellschaftlich
>>>>>>>>>>> nützlichen Charakter ihrer Privatarbeiten
>>>>>> also in
>>>>>>>>>>> der Form, daß das Arbeitsprodukt nützlich sein muß,
>>>>> und zwar
>>>>>> für
>>>>>>>>>>> andre - den gesellschaftlichen Charakter der
>>>>> Gleichheit der
>>>>>> verschiedenartigen
>>>>>>>>>>> Arbeiten in der Form des gemeinsamen
>>>>>> Wertcharakters
>>>>>>>>>>> dieser materiell verschiednen Dinge, der
>>>>>> Arbeitsprodukte.
>>>>>>>>>>> But the Duden, the reference work of
>>>>>> German language says that there
>>>>>>>>>>> are 2 different senses. One is
>>>>>> reflection as in a mirror, the other
>>>>>>>>>>> one that something brings to
>>>>>> expression. In this context, I do not
>>>>>>>>>>> see Marx draw on the mirror
>>>>>> idea.
>>>>>>>>>>> For those who have trouble, perhaps the analogy with
>>>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>> functions. In German, what a mathematical function
>>>>> does
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> "abbilden," which is, provide a projection
>>>>> of, or reflection,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> whatever. You have the word Bild, image, picture in
>>>>> the verb.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> when you look at functions, only y = f(x) = x, or -x
>>>>> gives you
>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> you would get in the mirror analogy. You get very
>>>>> different
>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>> when you use different functions, log functions, etc.
>>>>> Then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> relationship between the points on a line no longer is
>>>>> the same
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> the "image", that is, the target domain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We sometimes
>>>>>> see the word "refraction" in the works of Russian
>>>>>>>>>>> psychologists, which
>>>>>> may be better than reflection. It allows you to
>>>>>>>>>>> think of looking at the
>>>>>> world through a kaleidoscope, and you get all
>>>>>>>>>>> sorts of things, none of
>>>>>> which look like "the real thing."
>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 25-Oct-08, at 9:01 AM,
>>>>>> Martin Packer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's one example
>>>>>> from Marx, and several from Leontiev, if we can
>>>>>>>>>>> get into
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Russian too.
>>>>>>>>>>> "The twofold social character of the labour of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> individual appears
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> him, when *reflected* in his brain, only
>>>>>> under those forms which are
>>>>>>>>>>> impressed upon that labour in every-day
>>>>>> practice by the exchange of
>>>>>>>>>>> products." Marx, Capital, Chapter 1,
>>>>>> section 4.
>>>>>>>>>>> " Activity is a non-additive unit of the
>>>>> corporeal,
>>>>>> material life of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> material subject. In the narrower sense,
>>>>>> i.e., on the psychological
>>>>>>>>>>> plane,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is a unit of life, mediated
>>>>>> by mental *reflection*, by an *image,*
>>>>>>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>>>>>> real function is to
>>>>>> orientate the subject in the objective world."
>>>>>>>>>>> Leontiev,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Activity & Consciousness.
>>>>>>>>>>> " The circular nature of the processes
>>>>>> effecting the interaction of
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> organism with the environment
>>>>>> has been generally acknowledged. But
>>>>>>>>>>> the main
>>>>>>>>>>> thing is not this
>>>>>> circular structure as such, but the fact that the
>>>>>>>>>>> mental
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *reflection* of the objective world is not directly generated by the
>>>>>> external influences themselves, but by the processes through which the
>>>>>> subject comes into practical contact with the objective world, and
>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>> therefore necessarily obey its independent properties,
>>>>>> connections,
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> relations." ibid
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> " Thus,
>>>>>> individual consciousness as a specifically human form of the
>>>>>>>>>>> subjective
>>>>>> *reflection* of objective reality may be understood only
>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> product of those relations and mediacies that arise in the course of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> establishment and development of society." ibid
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca
>>>>>> mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing
>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3
>>>>>> 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>>>>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy
>>>>>> Blunden:
>>>>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca