Re: [xmca] Abduction, Creativity and Imagination

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

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

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

Martin

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

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

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