Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery

[Lucas Bietti <lucas@bietti.org>]

Andy, 


Thanks for the remark and my apologies if I was not clear enough. I understand
your point about the historicity and cultural and social trajectories of
artifacts and I agree on that. What I was suggesting was that gesturing could be
an activity in which the body would act as an artifact without counting on
external devices -if we claim that *the body is an artifact*. I was wondering
how the mind-body unity and necessary interanimations would be operating in
dreaming? 


Lucas 




 

On October 16, 2010 at 4:51 AM Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Lucas,
> I think the distributed mind idea emphasises certain aspects of human
> life, namely the involvement of *other people* in the production of
> artefacts and participation in institutions and other forms of social
> practice. But it should be remembered that an artefact is typically the
> product of *other people* working in institutions; as Hegel said: "the
> tool is the norm of labour." So both ideas are making the same claim but
> with slightly different emphasis.
>
> But when you say "if we believe that the body is crucial for perception
> and cognition, ..." surely this is not up for debate? And yet you seem
> to be suggesting that the body might not be needed for cognition and
> consequently, the body might not be an artefact. I'm really lost here. :)
>
> Andy
> Lucas Bietti wrote:
> > Carol and Andy,
> >
> >
> > As far as I know, the point of the extended mind/distributed cognition
> > approach
> > is the idea that in many cases cognitive processes are extended/distributed
> > across social and material environments. So in writing both the pencil and
> > paper
> > are acting as mediating interfaces enabling us to perform certain cognitive
> > tasks (e.g. basic math operations) that, otherwise, we would not be able to
> > perform.
> >
> >
> > Extended and distributed approaches to the mind don't consider the body as
> > an
> > artifact. The basis for the these approaches is that cognitive processes are
> > embodied and situated in concrete activities. That's why cognitive and
> > sensory-motor interanimations are part of the same mind-body unity.
> > Gesturing
> > can be thought as a cognitive-embodied activity in which the body acts as an
> > artifact to represent and convey meaning. In gesturing the mediating
> > interface
> > is the space. However, if we believe that the body is crucial for perception
> > and
> > cognition, in my view, there would be no reason to claim that the body is an
> > artifact -or I missed something of the discussion.
> >
> >
> > Lucas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On October 16, 2010 at 3:13 AM Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >   
> >> Andy
> >> In a small and trembling voice, 'cos we don't want to get into dualisms
> >> here--surely artefacts mediate with other artefacts--the pencil mediates
> >> writing? I don't feel I am in the right league to answer this questions,
> >> but
> >> I think we are pushed back to this position.
> >> Carol
> >>
> >> On 16 October 2010 08:33, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>     
> >>> Understood, and an interesting example it was too. I was just trying to
> >>> get
> >>> back to Paula's interesting question which started the thread.
> >>> Jenna got a thread going on the blind person's cane, where that part of
> >>> the
> >>> mind which is in artefacts become completely subsumed into the body, from
> >>> a
> >>> psychological point of view. Paula then pointed out that from a
> >>> psychological point of view we can take parts of our body to be tools.
> >>> So the question is raised: psychologically speaking, where is the border
> >>> line between body and things?
> >>> Lucas added the idea of "distributed cognition" so that the activity of
> >>> other people is seen also to be a part of mind.
> >>> But, and I think this is an challenging one: if the human body is an
> >>> artefact, what is it mediating between?
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>>> Actually Andy
> >>>> I thought I was giving an historically interesting example.  Maybe it's
> >>>> because we have 350 000+ people a year dying from AIDS that health is so
> >>>> high in our national consciousness. So excuse the example: you are lucky
> >>>> you
> >>>> didn't get an historical account of HIV/AIDS!!
> >>>>
> >>>> Raising children is also interesting across the cultures in our country.
> >>>> But
> >>>> I have work to do so must stop here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Carol
> >>>>
> >>>> On 16 October 2010 02:44, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>>>> We shouldn't take this "the body is an artefact" down an entirely
> >>>>> negative
> >>>>> line of course, Carol.
> >>>>> Every parent will tell you the efforts that went into raising their own
> >>>>> darling children.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> TB is very interesting historically in the way we have responded to it.
> >>>>>> Firstly, you got ill from it and died from it, like the poet Keats.
> >>>>>>   Then
> >>>>>> people were isolated in sanatoria and given drugs and then they
> >>>>>> recovered.
> >>>>>> And now, you are infectious until you start taking your medication, and
> >>>>>> then
> >>>>>> if you faithfully take it, then you get better. And most recently, you
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> likely to get TB as an opportunistic infection when you are HIV+, and
> >>>>>> it's
> >>>>>> harder to shake off because your immune system is compromised.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Recently my niece had a group of friends round for supper and then was
> >>>>>> diagnosed with TB the following day.  She had to inform everybody, and
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> had to be checked, but within 48 hours, when she was on medicine, she
> >>>>>> didn't
> >>>>>> have to tell/warn anybody. Astonishing for someone who regularly swims
> >>>>>> 5km
> >>>>>> before breakfast!! If she had been Keats, her symptoms would have been
> >>>>>> more
> >>>>>> than a slight cough at night.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> carol
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 15 October 2010 14:42, Leif Strandberg <leifstrandberg.ab@telia.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>> and TB
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is Karin Johanisson (Prof in Medical History, Univ of Uppsala, Sweden)
> >>>>>>> translated...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> her books are really interesting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Leif
> >>>>>>> 15 okt 2010 kl. 14.26 skrev Martin Packer:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>   Lactose intolerance - just one example of cultural continuation of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>>> biological evolution...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>> <Wade 2010 Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force.pdf>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>   I am intrigued Rod. You conclude from this interesting story that
> >>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>>>> body is not ("may not be") an artefact, but "virtual maps" within
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> brain
> >>>>>>>>> are? I presume because these neural structures are "constructed,"
> >>>>>>>>> whereas
> >>>>>>>>> other parts of the body are not?
> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Rod Parker-Rees wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>> In 'The body has a mind of its own' by Sandra Blakeslee and Matthew
> >>>>>>>>>> Blakeslee (2007 Random House), there is a chapter which begins with
> >>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>> account of research by Dr Atsushi Iriki and colleagues in Japan.
> >>>>>>>>>> This
> >>>>>>>>>> research involved training monkeys to use rakes as tools to
> >>>>>>>>>> retrieve
> >>>>>>>>>> food
> >>>>>>>>>> and then using arrays of microelectrodes implanted in their skulls
> >>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>> study
> >>>>>>>>>> the visual receptive fields of visual-tactile cells in the
> >>>>>>>>>> posterior
> >>>>>>>>>> parietal cortex of the monkeys. What Iriki found was that these
> >>>>>>>>>> visual-tactile cells, which usually responded to information only
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> region within the monkeys' arms length, began to respond to more
> >>>>>>>>>> distant
> >>>>>>>>>> information (within arm+rake's length) but ONLY when the monky was
> >>>>>>>>>> using the
> >>>>>>>>>> rake as a tool - when the mankey was passively holding the tool the
> >>>>>>>>>> response
> >>>>>>>>>> drew back to its normal range. The chapter goes on to describe
> >>>>>>>>>> studies
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> virtual reality in which participants learn to control avatars
> >>>>>>>>>> which
> >>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>> strikingly different physiology - e.g. a lobster - controlled by a
> >>>>>>>>>> complex
> >>>>>>>>>> code of combined body movements which is never shared with
> >>>>>>>>>> participants,
> >>>>>>>>>> they learn to control the movement of their avatar just by trial
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> error
> >>>>>>>>>> but they soon become able to 'automate' the process - focusing on
> >>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>> want to do rather on what they have to do to do it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Our bodies may not be artefacts but our cerebellar virtual maps of
> >>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>> our bodies work and what we can do with them surely are.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have just started wearing varifocal glasses and am in the process
> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>> retraining my body's ways of seeing (learning to move my head and
> >>>>>>>>>> neck
> >>>>>>>>>> rather than just move my eyes) already I am finding that things
> >>>>>>>>>> 'stay
> >>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> focus' more as my head and neck get my eyes into position without
> >>>>>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>> having
> >>>>>>>>>> to tell them where to go!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For me this links with the discussion about bodies and tools and
> >>>>>>>>>> possibly extends (rake-like) beyond it - how much of the tool is
> >>>>>>>>>> defined by
> >>>>>>>>>> its form and how much by the cultural history of how, by whom,
> >>>>>>>>>> when,
> >>>>>>>>>> where
> >>>>>>>>>> and for what it has been and could be used?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All the best,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rod
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>>>>> ]
> >>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: 15 October 2010 06:02
> >>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My claim is, David, not just that (for example) my fingers are
> >>>>>>>>>> functionally artefacts because I use them to play the piano, but
> >>>>>>>>>> also
> >>>>>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>>>>> are genetically artefacts because they are the products of art.
> >>>>>>>>>> "Labour
> >>>>>>>>>> created man himself" as old Fred said. If we are going to claim
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> thinking is artefact-mediated activity, then we must accept our
> >>>>>>>>>> bodies
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>> artefacts, or abandon other important definitions of artefact, as
> >>>>>>>>>> mediator
> >>>>>>>>>> of activity, material product of human labour and the substance of
> >>>>>>>>>> culture.
> >>>>>>>>>> We fashion our bodies for the purpose of constructing a culture
> >>>>>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>> surely as we fashion our buildings, our domestic animals, our food
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> clothing and everything else.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You can define a word how you like, but the importance of realising
> >>>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> our bodies are products of human labour which we use as both
> >>>>>>>>>> instruments and
> >>>>>>>>>> symbols, just like our white canes and spectacles,  is demonstrated
> >>>>>>>>>> by
> >>>>>>>>>> intersubjectivists who simply overlook the role of artefacts as
> >>>>>>>>>> mediators
> >>>>>>>>>> altogether. In part this is possible because they subsume the human
> >>>>>>>>>> body
> >>>>>>>>>> into the notion of 'subject', something which also allows them to
> >>>>>>>>>> scoot over
> >>>>>>>>>> all sorts of tricky philosophical problems entailed in recognizing
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> active participation of subjectivity in what would otherwise be
> >>>>>>>>>> simply
> >>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>> complex series of material interactions. The result,
> >>>>>>>>>> contradictorily
> >>>>>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>>>>> far worse Cartesian dualism than the one they tried to avoid.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No, I thought long and hard about this, and the conclusion is
> >>>>>>>>>> inescapable: the human body is an artefact.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>> / //// /
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>   Sometimes I would really like to be a mosquito in the room when
> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>                     
> >>>>>>>>>>> is giving his course on developmental psychology. But I would
> >>>>>>>>>>> probably want
> >>>>>>>>>>> to bite the student who asked if the replacement of social
> >>>>>>>>>>> relations
> >>>>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>>> language (e.g. discourse) by psychological ones (e.g. grammar) is
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>> "fact"
> >>>>>>>>>>> or just one of Martin's ideas; the question strikes me as rather
> >>>>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>>> bumbling and humbling.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, I have my own Thursday night session, which this
> >>>>>>>>>>> semester
> >>>>>>>>>>> is all about systemic functional linguistics and conversation
> >>>>>>>>>>> analysis. Last
> >>>>>>>>>>> night we were discussing the difference between them, and I
> >>>>>>>>>>> pointed
> >>>>>>>>>>> out that
> >>>>>>>>>>> the systemic view is quite consistent with the idea of language as
> >>>>>>>>>>> an
> >>>>>>>>>>> artefact and the conversation analysis view is much less so.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Take, for example, the problem of repair. A teacher walks into a
> >>>>>>>>>>> classroom.
> >>>>>>>>>>> T: Good morning, everybody.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ss: Good morning, everybody!
> >>>>>>>>>>> T: !!!!
> >>>>>>>>>>> The conversation is broken. But in order to repair it, the teacher
> >>>>>>>>>>> does
> >>>>>>>>>>> not pull over and stop. The teacher has to keep going. The teacher
> >>>>>>>>>>> has to
> >>>>>>>>>>> find out what exactly the kids mean, if anything (are they simply
> >>>>>>>>>>> repeating
> >>>>>>>>>>> what they heard, as seems likely, or are they including their
> >>>>>>>>>>> classmates in
> >>>>>>>>>>> their reply to the teacher?)
> >>>>>>>>>>> This means that even quite simple conversations (the sort we have
> >>>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>>> third graders) are quite gnarly and knobbled; they have
> >>>>>>>>>>> convolutions
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> introvolutions, knots and whorls and burls of negotiation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>   Conversations
> >>>>>>>>>>> exhibit very few of the genetic or structural of mechanical tools,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and in
> >>>>>>>>>>> fact only resemble "tools" only if we take a quite narrowly
> >>>>>>>>>>> functionalist
> >>>>>>>>>>> squint and presuppose a coinciding will that wields them. It even
> >>>>>>>>>>> seems to
> >>>>>>>>>>> me that they are misconstrued when we say that they are artefacts.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I think the Romantics, especially Herder, would agree with this
> >>>>>>>>>>> view:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> think they would have been rather horrified at Andy's idea that a
> >>>>>>>>>>> body is an
> >>>>>>>>>>> artefact in the same sense as a tool is an artefact.  They would
> >>>>>>>>>>> point out
> >>>>>>>>>>> that it is not genetically so; the body is a natural product and
> >>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>> man
> >>>>>>>>>>> made. It is also not structurally so: unlike other artefacts, much
> >>>>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>>>> its
> >>>>>>>>>>> structure reflects self-replication and not other-fabrication.  Of
> >>>>>>>>>>> course,
> >>>>>>>>>>> we may say that a body is FUNCTIONALLY like an artefact, because
> >>>>>>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>>> use it
> >>>>>>>>>>> as a tool in various ways. But if we privilege this particular
> >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the body over the genetic, or the structural,
> >>>>>>>>>>> account, it
> >>>>>>>>>>> seems to me we get a pretty functionalist view of things. A body
> >>>>>>>>>>> involved in
> >>>>>>>>>>> a conversation is not an artefact; it's more like a work of art,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> gratuitous and organic complexity of conversation is an indelible
> >>>>>>>>>>> sign of
> >>>>>>>>>>> this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> David Kellogg
> >>>>>>>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
> >>>>>>>>>>> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: Paula M Towsey <paulat@johnwtowsey.co.za>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Tom Toolery
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: ablunden@mira.net, "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <
> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 5:40 AM
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Andy-of-the-5-o'clock-shadow
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yet it's a different kind of gnashing of teeth (and wailing and
> >>>>>>>>>>> weeping)
> >>>>>>>>>>> when the baboons at Third Bridge get stuck into the tinned
> >>>>>>>>>>> supplies...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Paula
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
> >>>>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
> >>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>> xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >>>>>>>>>>> On
> >>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 14 October 2010 13:19
> >>>>>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Tom Toolery
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> My answer, Paula: yes.
> >>>>>>>>>>> My body, with its various parts, is an artefact; according to
> >>>>>>>>>>> context,
> >>>>>>>>>>> symbol or tool.
> >>>>>>>>>>> My face and my 5 o'clock shadow is a symbol just as much as the
> >>>>>>>>>>> shirt
> >>>>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>> wear. My teeth a tool just as much as a can opener.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>   For some inexplicable reason while watching Mike's blind man
> >>>>>>>>>>>with
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>                       
> >>>>>>>>>>>> stick video, I remembered smsing Carol with a quirky question: if
> >>>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> researcher without a knife is trying to open an airline packet of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> peanuts,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and she resorts to using her teeth, what tool is she using?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Though, perhaps the better question would be - is she using a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tool.?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paula M Towsey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PhD Candidate: Universiteit Leiden
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Faculty of Social Sciences
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/%7Eandy/><
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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/<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> >>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> >>>>>>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>>>>>> 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/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <
> >>>>> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>           
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>         
> >>> --
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>
> >> --
> >> WORK as:
> >> Visiting Lecturer
> >> Wits School of Education
> >> HOME (please use these details)
> >> 6 Andover Road
> >> Westdene
> >> Johannesburg 2092
> >> +27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> xmca mailing list
> >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>     
> >
> >
> > Lucas M. Bietti
> > Macquarie University
> > Universitat Pompeu Fabra
> >
> > lucas@bietti.org
> > www.collectivememory.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


Lucas M. Bietti
Macquarie University
Universitat Pompeu Fabra

lucas@bietti.org
www.collectivememory.net
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca