[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?



On 15 October 2012 23:36, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Certainly no harm in free associating, but perhaps better not to freely
> interpret. It would indeed be difficult to interpret lytical as meaning
> "loosening" in the text you provided. But it does leave me still wondering
> why the word was translated as "lytical". And as to how this might contrast
> with "critical" - I'm at a loss. (but the do set up a nice rhyme scheme).
>
>
"turning point in a disease" according to this etymology dictionary:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=crisis&searchmode=none

Huw

As for the rest, the molecular accumulation model of "lytic"(?) and
> "gradual" development does suggest that there is a place for the kind of
> concern with micro-interactional contexts that are of most interest to me -
> even if those contexts don't show abrupt and critical developments. So the
> gist of this passage remains appealing even if I can't make sense of the
> "long-term cryptic molecular process" that V is describing. Anyone else
> have insight here?
>
> -greg
>
> p.s. The mole spirit may be a bit too much reification of development for
> me.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > I see no harm in a bit of free association here, Greg. Here is Vygotsky's
> > own words on the topic.
> > (I have bolded what Vygotsky associates with lytcal and underlined what
> he
> > is contrasting with lytical):
> >
> >    By purely empirical studies, psychology established that age-level
> >    changes may, in the words of Blonsky, occur _abruptly and
> >    critically_, or may occur *gradually and lytically*. Blonsky terms
> >    as /periods and stages /the times of the child’s life that are
> >    separated from one another by more (periods) or less (stages)
> >    _abrupt crises_; phases are times of the child’s life separated from
> >    each other *lytically*.
> >
> >    Actually, at certain age levels, development is marked by *slow,
> >    evolutionary, or lytic flow*. These are age levels of predominantly
> >    *smooth and frequently unremarkable internal change* in the child’s
> >    personality, change that is accomplished by *insignificant
> >    “molecular” attainments*. Here, over a *more or less long time* that
> >    usually takes several years, no _fundamental, abrupt shifts and
> >    alterations_ occur that _reconstruct_ _the child’s whole
> >    personality_. More or less remarkable changes in the child’s
> >    personality occur here only as a result of a *long-term cryptic
> >    “molecular” process*. They appear outside and are accessible to
> >    direct observation *only as a conclusion of long-term processes of
> >    latent development*.
> >
> >    During r*elatively firm or stable* ages, development occurs mainly
> >    through *microscopic change*s in the child’s personality *that
> >    accumulate* to a _certain limit_ and _then appear spasmodically in
> >    the form of some kind of neoformation_ of the age level.
> >
> > "Well burrowed, Old Mole!"
> > http://www.marxists.org/**glossary/terms/o/l.htm#old-**mole<
> http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/l.htm#old-mole>
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > Greg Thompson wrote:
> >
> >> and one last pitch for my (blind!) interpretation of "lytic":
> >>
> >> Lytic as loosening or breaking down before re-incorporation feels to me
> a
> >> lot like Hegel's "aufheben" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Aufheben<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben>)
> >> or "sublation" of the two elements in the dialectic. Lysing as taking
> apart
> >> the pieces and assembling them into something new that couldn't
> otherwise
> >> have been. That is Hegelian genesis, no? The source of creativity?
> >> At bottom, all "development" (regardless of timescale) involves the
> >> problem of change and creativity. How does something new come into being
> >> that wasn't already there?
> >>
> >> And as I said, my interpretation of "lytic" is severely blind and Andy's
> >> reading of the text suggests to me that I am connecting a few too many
> >> dots. But it is fun business to try to make (new?) sense of these
> things.
> >>
> >> I'm currently looking into aktualgenese in the Leipsig tradition, but I
> >> don't know the extent of Hegel's influence there. I assume that Vygotsky
> >> would have been influenced by folks there, but the names I'm coming
> across
> >> there don't seem to come up in Vygotsky's writings much - Wilhelm Wundt,
> >> Friederich Sander, Kleine-Hurst, and Erich Wohlfart. Certainly Vygotsky
> >> would have known of Wundt, but are there meaningful links here from
> >> aktualgenese to Vygotsky's notion of genesis and development?
> >>
> >> Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to return to micro-genesis - right now,
> >> too busy trying to rock my little micro-genetic to sleep. Hard to type
> >> while swaying back and forth...
> >>
> >> -greg
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com<mailto:
> >> lchcmike@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Thanks very much Andy and all who jumped in to indicate their
> >>     interest.
> >>     I will replace the file online at lchc website with Andy's
> >>     improved version.
> >>
> >>     The re-admiration of "lytic" that Greg introduced is really thought
> >>     provoking to me. It also puts me in mind of the meaning of culture
> >>     that
> >>     goes with biological research which urges us to think about the
> >>     relation
> >>     between culture and "medium." All useful.
> >>
> >>     With respect to the polysemy of "development" and "learning." In
> >>     *The Construction Zone, *Denis Newman, Peg Griffen, and I struggled
> >>     enough so that we often gave up and used "change" which of course
> >>     elides the difficulties but does not solve them.
> >>
> >>     With respect to this learning/development discussion I think we
> >>     are still
> >>     struggling to get ourselves clear about whether the notion of
> "genetic
> >>     domain" or "time scales" matters. In this discussion, at least, I
> have
> >>     been struggling to get us to focus on short time intervals. Very
> >>     often,
> >>     as in Andy's earlier notes and in Helen's recent note with the
> helpful
> >>     reminders about Marianne H's writing, the time scale is
> >>     *ontogenetic -*
> >>     years.
> >>
> >>     I am all for discussion of these time scales!! But the issue that
> >>     Greg put
> >>     on the table was about micro time scales (or I thought that was
> >>     what the
> >>     topic was). From our discussion so far (I have not had a chance to
> >>     read
> >>     Huw's note carefully and have certainly forgotten other relevant
> >>     contribution, so I may be overgeneralizing) I got the strong
> >>     impression that
> >>     it was being argued that at short time scales, the term
> >>     development in any
> >>     meaningful sense, does not apply.
> >>
> >>     So, being interested in notions like a zone of proximal
> >>     development, which
> >>     presumably applies to interactions on a time scale closer to
> >>     minutes than
> >>     lifetimes, I have tried to get a focus there.
> >>
> >>     I am arguing that if the term, development, is inappropriate at this
> >>     briefer time scale, then there should be some very serious
> >>     reconsideration
> >>     of Vygotsky's use of the zone of proximal development, since
> >>     development
> >>     would be ruled out in all the examples he gives by virtue of the
> >>     short time
> >>     scale. So people who confuse a zone of proximal learning for a zone
> of
> >>     proximal development have been right all along, just using
> misleading
> >>     terminology.
> >>
> >>     mike
> >>     PS-- And while we are at it, a reconsideration of LSV's idea that
> in a
> >>     zoped "one step in learning" should produce "two steps in
> >>     development" also
> >>     seems in order. My intuition is that Davydov was trying to point
> >>     us right
> >>     at that problem, and that his germ cell approach to development
> >>     was his way
> >>     of trying to deal with the issue, but others could probably speak
> >>     to that
> >>     better than I.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>     *
> >>     *
> >>
> >>     On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
> >>     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     > Mike, I have attached a modified version of the document about
> >>     "Question
> >>     > Asking Reading." Two pages which were out of order have been
> >>     replaced in
> >>     > order and I have embedded OCR so it should be searchable.
> >>     Perhaps you could
> >>     > replace NEWTECHN.pdf
> >>     <http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/****NEWTECHN.pdf<
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf>
> >> <http://lchc.**ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf<
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>
> >> >>
> >>     > on the server with this one?
> >>     >
> >>     > Now, my hat off to the authors of this paper. I am sure others
> >>     on this
> >>     > list knew about *Question Asking Reading*, but I was not one of
> >>     them. You
> >>     > define reading as "/expanding/ the ability to mediate one's
> >>     interactions
> >>     > with the environment by interpreting text." You recognise that a
> >>     child
> >>     > already has an ability to "read the world" and is probably already
> >>     > proficient in mediating their reading of the world by
> >>     interacting with
> >>     > adults, so learning to read is constructed upon this base. This
> >>     is clearly
> >>     > drawing on Vygotsky (credit to Piaget as well), and taking
> >>     reading as a
> >>     > specific kind of collaborative process rather than just a
> >>     technical process
> >>     > of decoding. You call on Luria's idea of "combined motor method"
> to
> >>     > introduce an approach to combining diagnostic tasks with
> >>     teaching tasks.
> >>     > And you call on A N Leontyev to solve the crucial problem of the
> >>     child's
> >>     > motivation for learning to read.
> >>     >
> >>     > (As an aside I much enjoyed the observation of how prominent it
> >>     was for
> >>     > the children to engage in discussion about the relation between
> >>     "growing
> >>     > up" and learning to read. My one and only experience of teaching
> >>     a child to
> >>     > read hinged around this discussion. We were living in a very
> remote
> >>     > location in the UK and her older brother was old enough to
> >>     attend the
> >>     > mixed-age primary school, but Sam was too young. This
> >>     hyperactive, very
> >>     > physical child suddenly focused on reading with startling
> >>     intensity and
> >>     > learnt to read fluently inside of a week. ... despite our
> >>     explanations
> >>     > about the legal age of public school attendance. But very soon
> >>     the school
> >>     > willingly bent a rule or two and admitted her. :) )
> >>     >
> >>     > Now I grant that my contributions to this thread have not gone
> >>     within a
> >>     > mile of the issues raised in this paper. But my interests and
> >>     experience
> >>     > are in social transformation, not teaching and learning in
> >>     elementary
> >>     > schools. But I am willing to listen and learn.
> >>     >
> >>     > A point of clarification on my side.
> >>     >
> >>     > ZPD. I have heard it said that ZPD is relevant only to the
> >>     critical phases
> >>     > of development. I have also heard that ZPD was not a discovery
> >>     of Vygotsky.
> >>     > For my part, I don't see any reason why this simple idea is not
> >>     applicable
> >>     > to any learning situation. And likwise if you want to introduce
> >>     the concept
> >>     > of "development" into qualitative achievements in the lytical
> >>     phase of
> >>     > development under the heading of "microgenesis" to distinguish
> >>     it from the
> >>     > whole process of growing into an adult citizen through a series
> >>     of distinct
> >>     > social roles, I see no problem with this. ... Only provided we
> >>     understand
> >>     > that if a child soldier who learns one day how to torture a
> >>     prisoner, which
> >>     > they were formerly reluctant to do, this is "development" in a
> >>     different
> >>     > sense, because it creates only a barrier to becoming a citizen of
> a
> >>     > community governed by democratic norms. But it would remain
> >>     "microgenesis"
> >>     > if considered in cultural isolation. What makes every step along
> >>     the road
> >>     > of learning to read in countries like ours /development/ is that
> >>     (as you
> >>     > discussed with the kids) being able to read is a /sine qua non/
> >>     of being a
> >>     > grown up in our world. Torturing your peers is not.
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     > In your message of almost 24 hours ago you said:
> >>     >
> >>     > "If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean
> >>     > in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? ... classroom
> >>     >
> >>     > lessons are clusters of events that take place in microgenetic
> time
> >>     > WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.Where does that leave us?"
> >>     >
> >>     > I am perfectly prepared to live with a lot of polysemy with a
> >>     word like
> >>     > "development" when one moves from context to context. Provided
> >>     only we
> >>     > don't claim that there is /no qualitative distinction/ between
> >>     the little
> >>     > developments that add up to development during a lytic phase,
> >>     and the
> >>     > change in social position of a child which is constituted by
> >>     successful
> >>     > completion of both lytic and critical phases of development. In
> >>     that sense
> >>     > there is development and development. If that is how you are
> >>     deploying the
> >>     > word "microgenesis," then fine. I just don't see any real
> >>     disagreement.
> >>     >
> >>     > Andy
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     > mike cole wrote:
> >>     >
> >>     >> Hi Andy--
> >>     >>
> >>     >> I made it home through a ton of LA traffic alive, which,
> >>     microgenetically
> >>     >> feels good whatever the larger significance.
> >>     >>
> >>     >> When you write "I personally regard it as a matter or "mere
> words"
> >>     >> whether "child X at last managing to recognize the difference
> >>     between d
> >>     >> and b today," for example, is described as a development" it is
> >>     clear that
> >>     >> you and I are not close enough to the same topic for me to know
> >>     how to make
> >>     >> progress.
> >>     >> It also appears that no more than four of the some 700 people
> >>     on xmca
> >>     >> give a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it,
> >>     cc'ing Greg,
> >>     >> and David,
> >>     >> if he has patience to hang with us.
> >>     >>
> >>     >> mike
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden
> >>     <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:
> >>     >> ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Yeah, whoever translated Vygotsky's "Problem of Age" is
> >>     >> responsible. It just means /gradual/. So in a process of
> >>     >>
> >>     >> development, you have alternating critical and lytical phases, as
> >>     >> in stepwise processes.
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Andy
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Greg Thompson wrote:
> >>     >>
> >>     >>> Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of
> >>     >>> clarification, for the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
> >>     >>> (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking
> >>     >>> down of cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense of
> >>     >>> "development" - a breaking down so that things can be
> >>     >>> reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
> >>     >>> -greg
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden
> >>     <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>     >>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it, Mike.
> >>     >>> Some of my best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on
> >>     >>> from that.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we can
> >>     >>> reaonsably understand Vygotsky to be saying, something which
> >>     >>> we believe could be correct and significant. To do this I
> >>     >>> think we have to understand the concept of "development"
> >>     >>> always in a particular context. A truism for anyone here I
> >>     >>> think. What it means to me is that I cannot just ask: what
> >>     >>> transformations in psychological functioning constitutes
> >>     >>> "development"? The necessary, relevant context is what role
> >>     >>> in what cultural and historical community is the person to
> >>     >>> play, in the short term and in the longer term. So the
> >>     >>> question of what constitutes development is age-specific,
> >>     >>> culturally specific and future-oriented.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> (Of course, the world changes, and what was development
> >>     >>> yesterday may become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and
> >>     >>> vice versa, but let's abstract from cultural and historical
> >>     >>> change for the moment.)
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> >From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed is
> >>     >>> an absurdity and incompatible with basic tenets of science
> >>     >>> ... because I have made development dependent on events and
> >>     >>> relations in the future. In my opinion, that is just as it
> >>     >>> should be: kids go to school "for a purpose" - although what
> >>     >>> we mean by "purpose" in this context (the child's? the
> >>     >>> parents'? the state's? in retrospect? under advice?
> >>     >>> sponatneous?). But again, let's just put the problems arising
> >>     >>> from the idea of human actions being part of object-oriented
> >>     >>> activities to the side for the moment.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the
> >>     >>> concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which
> >>     >>> crisis or lytic period are we talking about. Now I guess we
> >>     >>> can manage to give a general answer to the question: general
> >>     >>> questions require general answers. What "development" means
> >>     >>> is relative to which ZPD you are talking about. On the other
> >>     >>> hand, the presence of the ZPD itself depends on the
> >>     >>> development being posed. Achievment of a specific new mode of
> >>     >>> action with those around you, transforming your relations and
> >>     >>> your identity and your actions in the social situation
> >>     >>> depends on the expectations of those around you, according to
> >>     >>> broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering
> >>     >>> development (if they can be presumed to reflect general,
> >>     >>> broader cultural expectations) has in mind what new
> >>     >>> functioning will be a necessary step towards the child
> >>     >>> becoming an autonomous citizen of the community.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her
> >>     >>> "helper" two different kinds of situation: either /lytical/
> >>     >>> development or /critical/ development. Lytical development is
> >>     >>> gradual and prepares the basis for developmental leap. To
> >>     >>> argue whether the gradual progress made in strengthening the
> >>     >>> relevant psychologhical functions in this phase is or is not
> >>     >>> development is in my opinion /just words/. Gradual
> >>     >>> accumulation of strength in those activities which the child
> >>     >>> is basically able to do, but maybe not very confidentally and
> >>     >>> well is a necessary preparation for transcending their
> >>     >>> age-role and entering into a phase of critical development in
> >>     >>> which they have a chance of successfully coming out the other
> >>     >>> side. It is by completion of the critical phase of
> >>     >>> development - the leap - which transforms the child's
> >>     >>> identity and role, that "/the development" is realised/. All
> >>     >>> the preparation in the world proves to be not development if
> >>     >>> it is not realised in facilitating the critical transformation.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing
> >>     >>> egg-sucking for grandma's erudition.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether
> >>     >>> "child X at last managing to recognise the difference
> >>     >>> between d and b today," for example, is described as a
> >>     >>> development. In the context of course it is; it is a step.
> >>     >>> You want to call that a "microgenetic development"?
> >>     >>> Personally I don't have a problem with that. David may, but
> >>     >>> paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: "Microgenesis is not one of my
> >>     >>> words." But if the child at last managed to repeat the
> >>     >>> Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
> >>     >>> describe this as a microgenetic development, I would want to
> >>     >>> hear the developmental plan that made that claim coherent.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Where if anywhere does this leave us?
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Andy
> >>     >>> My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
> >>     >>> Just trying to be clear and careful.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> mike cole wrote:
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Hi Andy--
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion
> >>     >>> alive. I am away from home without books or control of my
> >>     >>> time, so I want to ask a question that may highlight what
> >>     >>> is central to my queries here.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> If what you write is correct, what does the word
> >>     >>> DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a zone of proximal
> >>     >>> DEVELOPMENT? Its all fine and dandy to point out what
> >>     >>> dolts Americans are for not understanding that learning
> >>     >>> leads DEVELOPMENT in classroom instruction, that but
> >>     >>> classroom lessons are clusters of events that take place
> >>     >>> in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Where does that leave us?
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> mike
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea
> >>     >>> of acquisition of reading as a cultural-historical
> >>     >>> developmental process. Old and never published. But at
> >>     >>> least we might refine what is indexed by the phrase
> >>     >>> "learning to read."
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/****NEWTECHN.pdf<
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf>
> >> <http://lchc.ucsd.**edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf<
> http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>
> >> >
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden
> >>     >>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
> >>     >>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
> >>     <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>
> >>     >>> wrote:
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> So this thread does not die ...
> >>     >>> You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to
> >>     >>> thinking
> >>     >>> about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by
> >>     >>> analogy with the
> >>     >>> phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and
> >>     >>> ethnogeny are two
> >>     >>> (overlapping and mutually determining) processes with
> >>     >>> two very
> >>     >>> distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts.
> >>     >>> But learning
> >>     >>> to read/write and development of abstract thinking
> >>     >>> (and other
> >>     >>> leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not
> >>     >>> such a relation,
> >>     >>> it is a relation between critical phases and lytic
> >>     >>> (gradual)
> >>     >>> phases of development. This is quite a different
> >>     >>> relationship.
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> The analogy I would see for something which couold be
> >>     >>> called
> >>     >>> microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
> >>     >>> momentrily in a person and their actions in a
> >>     >>> situation. The
> >>     >>> situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis,
> >>     >>> it essentially
> >>     >>> belongs to the very short time scale, and its
> >>     >>> material basis is
> >>     >>> activity. I grant that no-one might use
> >>     >>> "microgenesis" in that way
> >>     >>> and no-one may be doing research into that process
> >>     >>> these days. I
> >>     >>> don't know. But the situation is a distinct material
> >>     >>> basis for
> >>     >>> development and one on which Vygotsky did a great
> >>     >>> deal of work. On
> >>     >>> the other hand, I think /all/ processes of
> >>     >>> development have both
> >>     >>> critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated
> >>     >>> evolution).
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> What do you think?
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> Andy
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> ______________________________****____________
> >>     >>> _____
> >>     >>> xmca mailing list
> >>     >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>     <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/****listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca>
> >> <http://dss.ucsd.**edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >> >
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>> -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >>     >>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> >>     >>> Department of Anthropology
> >>     >>> Brigham Young University
> >>     >>> Provo, UT 84602
> >>     >>>
> >>     http://byu.academia.edu/****GregoryThompson<
> http://byu.academia.edu/**GregoryThompson>
> >> <http://byu.**academia.edu/GregoryThompson<
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
> >> >
> >>     >>>
> >>     >>>
> >>     >> --
> ------------------------------****----------------------------*
> >> *--
> >>     >> **------------
> >>     >>
> >>     >> *Andy Blunden*
> >>     >> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>     <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> >>     >> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/****<
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> >> >
> >>     >>
> >>     >> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >>     >>
> >>     >> ______________________________****____________
> >>     >> _____
> >>     >> xmca mailing list
> >>     >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>     <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> >>
> >>     >>
> >>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/****listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca>
> >> <http://dss.ucsd.**edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >> >
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     >>
> >>     > --
> >>     > ------------------------------****----------------------------**
> >> --**
> >>     > ------------
> >>     >
> >>     > *Andy Blunden*
> >>     > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>     <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
> >>
> >>     > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >>     >
> >>     > ______________________________**____________
> >>     > _____
> >>     > xmca mailing list
> >>     > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>
> >>     > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>     >
> >>     >
> >>     ______________________________**____________
> >>     _____
> >>     xmca mailing list
> >>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>
> >>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> >> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> >> Department of Anthropology
> >> Brigham Young University
> >> Provo, UT 84602
> >> http://byu.academia.edu/**GregoryThompson<
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> > ------------
> >
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> >
> > ______________________________**____________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Department of Anthropology
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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