Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Andy and Denise-

David K and Paula T have poured huge amount of energy into the pseudoconcept
issue.
I take it for granted that no one has THE ultimate truth, but where is the
sheep in wolf's clothing discussion?
mike

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Denise Newnham <dsnewnham@bluewin.ch>wrote:

> Dear Andy this is really interesting. I was ruminating over this exact same
> thought this morning (5am) before being really awake I sent an email before
> and would like you to comment please:)
>
> Denise
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: 11 August 2010 10:45
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>  Subject: Re: [xmca] Valsiner and pseudoconcepts
>
> Denise,
>
> I have at last found the time to look at Valsiner's article.
> I have only got 2 or 3 pages into the article but the
> problem is immediately obvious and I have better things to
> do than read the whole article.
>
> *From what I have read*, Valsiner is some kind of
> cognitivist and consequently his idea of what a concept is
> is simply quite different from the tradition of Goethe,
> Hegel and Marx which Vygotsky was continuing. He holds to
> the childish and shallow view that a concept is just a
> collection of "features" which are deemed to be necessary
> and sufficient for a thing to fall under the definition of a
> concept, as in Set Theory and Formal Logic. The same as for
> people like Rudolf Carnap and the Logical Positivists.
>
> Once you adopt what Hegel calls the "abstract general"
> conception of concepts, then what Vygotsky calls a
> pseduoconcept is the only genuine concept. Vygotsky's idea
> of "concept" will simply make no sense. Talking about
> concepts from a Vygotskyan point of view to someone that
> holds this view is just talking at cross purposes. Waste of
> time.
>
> Andy
>
> Denise Newnham 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://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/
> > 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
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://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