I fear this does not help me a whole lot, Andy.
Sorry I cannot grasp the method of Goethe properly. I guess Luria
probably failed
as well. Or maybe he succeeded and I have misunderstood him? Entirely
possible.
I did not ask what what is at odds. I asked for what the empirical
consequences of the the distinctions you are making are. I cannot
follow the path to reforming all of the educational system of the USSR
or Russia, which, so far as I know, neither
Vygotsky nor anyone else associated with Activity Theory every
accomplished. Nore have I ever seen claims that they have. (The Finns
appear to have done well recently using an approach, the relationship
to activity theory I have no knowledge of, but perhaps our Finnish
colleagues do).
Here is what would help me, and I suspect others on XMCA. Take an
already published piece of work that uses the expanded triangle Yrjo
proposes in Learning by Expanding. Say, the work on cleaners in the
early work. Tell us about the mistaken conclusions that arise because
of misunderstandings that confusion of the triangle for "activity" (no
modifiers) causes. Suggest how we might improve our
understanding. Or tell us why that example works, but some other
example (teachers in schools, nurses and doctors in a hospital, etc.)
does not.
Or suggest an entirely different way of looking at matters so that
when we go into
classrooms, housing projects, work places, we can more effectively
understand what is going on and be of more help to those with whom we
work that publishing another article in MCA.
I guess I am asking that you rise to the concrete here, keeping the
object of analysis constant.
My apologies if this seems unreasonable. Perhaps it is approaching
senility, but
I am failing to track you.
mike
Lost in the words here.
mike
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Yes, in Yjro's (1986) words, it is a "root model". (The derivation
of it is a beautiful piece of work, too, close to Hegel's early
"System of Ethical Life". Deserves to remain in print).
But modelling a complex process is not the same as the method of
Goethe, Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky. As you know, Mike, in order to
understand this approach, which Luria called Romantic Science, I
had to go back to its origins c. 1787 when Goethe was doing his
Journey in Italy, studying all the plant life, and its variation
by altitude, latittude, nearness to the sea, etc., and in
conversation with J G Herder, arrived a his conception of
Urphaenomen. The Urphaenomen is not a model.
It is an abstraction, true. And yes, the understanding of a
complex process by the "romantic" method is indeed, the rising to
the concrete, the logical-historical reconstruction of the whole
process from this abstract germ.
As I remarked (somewhere) I find Yrjo's work over the past couple
of years, which focuses more on the germ cell than the triangle,
closer to what I am trying to do. The germ cell is not a model either.
What is at odds here is whether a real, complex situation (such as
reforming the education system in a nation in Africa, rather than
in the USSR or Finland) can be based on a conception which
isolates a "system of activity", whilst dozens of different
ethnic groups, NGOs, government(s), trade unions and so on, are
all contesting the aims and benefits of "education." Every person
in such a situation is committed to more than one project, and
deploys concepts (institutionalised projects) frequently at odds
with one another. What is needed is a process whose basic units
are (1) units and not systems, and (2) processes of development,
processes in which people are struggling to realise ideas,
processes of formation. And we need the algebra through which such
units interact with one another, rather than declaring any single
such interaction to be an entire new "unit" - i.e. coupled systems.
Andy
mike cole wrote:
Isn't the trangle a "model, " Andy? A model of the root
metaphor. Still an abstraction... waiting to see if it can
rise to the concrete? Perhaps?
Empirically speaking, what is at odds here? For whom?
mike
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
Antti, I was directing my question to you and your remarks.
In Engestrom's highlky regarded, now out of print, 1987 text
"Learning by Expanding", the famous triangle logo is given as
Figure 2.6, and after a long consideration of "candidates" for
"unit of analysis" he says the following about this
triangle: "The
model of Figure 2.6 may now be compared with the four
criteria of
a root model of human activity, set forth earlier in this
chapter." and goes on to list and consider the criteria
which are
commonly associated in this current with the notion of
"unit of
analysis." (numerous citations are not required). But he never
said that the triangle is a unit of analaysis, and it is
not, and
cannot be. He said it is a root model and it is. The root
model is
a system concept, not a unit of analysis.
Do you think it possible that this has been the source of some
confusion?
Andy
Antti Rajala wrote:
Thanks Andy for sharing the wikipedia text, and your
thoughts
about the issue! The thoughts about unit of analysis
were my
own interpretation of the study, and I am not sure if the
issue you raised concerns the original study.
Warm wishes, Antti
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:20 AM, 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:
Antti, here is a link to th eWikipedia on "System
concept"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Why do Activity Theorists in Engstrom's current of
thinking mix up
the idea of a system concept with a unit of analysis?
Andy
Antti Rajala wrote:
Greg,
You asked:
”My question is getting at where we locate
"agency". In
individuals alone?
Or as possibly being distributed among
multiple people and
perhaps in
amanner that isn't recognizable to the
individual. But
maybe
there is
aconcept for that that is different from "double
stimulation.”
I think that double stimulation can be
analyzed not
only at
the individual
level but at the collective level as well.
Actually,
the study
of Engeström
and Sannino (2013) that I referred to in my
earlier email
gives a nice
example. The study also involves in some
respects a
similar
situation as
the one that you described having taken place
with the
workers
in Malaysia.
According to my reading, the study describes a
change
laboratory
intervention taking place in a university
library. The
library
as invited
researchers to help them find new forms of
work with
research
groups. A
first stimulus emerges in the course of the change
laboratory
intervention,
as a member of one of the research groups that the
university
library is
delivering services says that they can find these
services in
the internet
without the help of the library. Thus a problem
emerges for
the librarians
to collectively produce a service that would
be genuinely
helpful for the
research groups.
In solving this problem, they organize their
collective action
with the
help of a second stimulus, namely the concept of
knotworking
(Engeström,
Engeström & Vähäaho, 1999) that the
researchers have
introduced in the
beginning of the change laboratory. In
particular, a new
working group, a
knot, is formed that starts to work with the
emergent
problem
of inventing
a useful service.
What is in my opinion very innovative,
Engeström and
Sannino
also provide
an example of this second stimulus, the concept of
knotworking, becoming an
initial theoretical generalization that is
reworked and
enriched through a
process of ascending from abstract to concrete
as the
intervention evolves.
Specifically, in the end of the intervention, the
concept of
knotworking
gives rise to many concrete, practical
applications of the
librarians' work
at multiple levels of hierarchy.
As for the unit of analysis, I think that the
unit of
analysis
in the study
is the intersection of several activity
systems, the
university libarary
and the research groups, In terms of agency,
one can maybe
talk about
shared transformative agency in which the
subject is
not an
individual but
a collective. (More about shared transformative
agency, see
Virkkunen’s
paper in
http://www.activites.org/v3n1/v3n1.book.pdf#page=43)
Best wishes, Antti
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM,
<ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>>
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>>>> wrote:
forgot to send this to XMCA
-----Forwarded by ERIC RAMBERG/spps on
06/06/2013
10:56AM
-----
To: 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>>>
From: ERIC RAMBERG/spps
Date: 06/06/2013 09:05AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
True true, the history of philosophy does lead
there Andy.
But that leads
to my trepidations regarding ideology
lacking in
practice.
What substance within conscious formation is
measurable?
I believe that answer has yet to be found
perhaps?
eric
-----xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>> wrote: -----
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>>
From: Andy Blunden
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
Date: 06/05/2013 08:42PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
Eric,
By posiing the problem as that of the Kantian
dilemma, of
unifying two
disparate abstractions, you determine the
answer
as from
the history of
philosophy and the answer is Hegel's
answer: "a
formation of
consciousness" or Gestalt des Bewusstsein.
Andy
ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>> <mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org
<mailto:ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>>> wrote:
I believe that
this discussion needs to
involve "unit
of analysis" for
what it is that provides the
mediational method.
What unit of study can properly
encapsulate
that which
is being observed?
Activity? Concept? Word? Mirror Neuron?
Oh my what a great temptest LSV did
let out of
the teapot
eric
-----xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>> wrote: -----
To: "xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>>
From: Achilles Delari Junior
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
Date: 06/05/2013 07:04AM
Subject: RE: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
Sure, Greg,
Well, seems to me that "draw analogies
between
different domains of
their worlds" is closer to "meaning
construction" than
to choice a
"stimulus medium" to help memory
tasks, for
instance.
The "double
stimulation" is fine because
introduces a kind of
mediation between a
stimulus and our response to the
stimulus. But,
following Vygotsky's
formulations at that time this new
series of
"stimulus" (a nude, a
word, etc) act also as a stimulus, a
conditioned one.
If you change
you paradigm to the proposition that
all sign
implies
any kind of
"generalization process" (meaning)
that differs in
their structure and
has a genetic construction (see the
studies about
concepts, for
instance), a sign could not be only a
second
series of
stimuli ruled
by the same laws that a conditional
reflex...
As in
"Instrumental
method": S-------X-------R. Where the
relation
S---------R is a direct
stimulus response relationship, but
when you
introduce
a second series
of stimulus "X" (double stimulation)
you have an
indirect stimulus
response relationship, but the relation
between S and
X, and X and R
remain a conditioned reflex
relationship... "Draw
analogies between
different domains of our worlds" seem
to mean
that we
are in transit
between different words of
signification, and
culture
is a human
production that involves the
"generalization"
from a
world to another,
broader, maybe not exactly more
precise, but
"broader", in my opinion.
I don't know...
"In natural memory a direct associative
(conditional
reflex)
connection A?B is established between two
stimuli A
and B. In
artificial, mnemotechnic memory of the
same
impression, by means of a
psychological tool X (a knot in a
handkerchief, a
mnemonic scheme)
instead of the direct connection A?B
two new
ones are
established: A?X
and X?B Just like the connection A?B
each of
them is a
natural
conditional reflex process,
determined, by the
properties of the brain
tissue. What is new, artificial, and
instrumental is
the fact of the
replacement of one connection A?B by two
connections:
A?X and X?B They
lead to the same result, but by a
different
path. What
is new is the
artificial direction which the instrument
gives to the
natural process
of establishing a conditional connection,
i.e., the
active utilization
of the natural properties of brain
tissue."
Vygotsky
"The Instumental
Method" (this is 1930)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1930/instrumental.htm
But already in 1928:
"Let us now compare the natural and
cultural
mnemonics
of a child. The
relation between the two forms can be
graphically
expressed by means
of a triangle: in case of natural
memorization a
direct associative or
conditional reflexive connection is set up
between two
points, A and
B. In case of mnemotechnical memorization,
utilizing
some sign,
instead of one associative connection
AB, the
others
are set up AX and
BX, which bring us to the same result,
but in a
roundabout way. Each
of these connections AX and BX is the
same kind of
conditional-reflexive process of
connection as
AB."
Vygotsky (1928)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/cultural_development.htm
See: "AX and BX
is the same kind of
conditional-reflexive process of
connection as AB." --> The same
kind... This
paradigm
will not be the
same in 1933-34...
"(Introduction: the importance of the
sign;
its social
meaning). In
older works we ignored that the sign has
meaning. <
But there is “a
time to cast away stones, and a time
to gather
stones
together”
(Ecclesiastes). > We proceeded from the
principle of
the constancy of
meaning, we discounted meaning. But
the problem of
meaning was already
present in the older investigations.
Whereas
before
our task was to
demonstrate what “the knot” and
logical memory
have in
common, now our
task is to demonstrate the difference
that exists
between them.From
our works it follows that the sign
changes the
interfunctional
relationships." (Vygotsky, 1933-34)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-consciousness.htm
And now?
Thank you.
Achilles.
Date:
Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:31:23 -0600
Subject: Re: [xmca] Double
Stimulation?
From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>>
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
Achilles,
Sounded interesting, but I'm not
sure I
followed
you completely. You
say
that
Strathern's quote seems like it has a
broader
application that
"double
stimulation", but I could use some help
with the
rest of your message.
If you have a few minutes, maybe
you could try
rephrasing?
-greg
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:11 PM,
Achilles
Delari
Junior <
achilles_delari@hotmail.com
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com>>
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com
<mailto:achilles_delari@hotmail.com>>>> wrote:
In my undertanding, this is very
broader and
more powerful than
double
stimulation... Double stimulation could be
overcoming with another
way for
think signs than "medium stimulus" -
See "The
problem of
consciousness"
(1933-34), for instance. The more
important
will be not the
similarity
between
a nude and a word, but their
difference, "before was
forgotten that
sign had a meaning" and "now" the
meaning must
be take in account.
Double
stimulation, in my understanding, do not
resists to this new point
of view.
Achilles.
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:19:04 -0600
From:
greg.a.thompson@gmail.com <mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
<mailto:greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>>>
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>;
lchcmike@gmail.com
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>>;
antti.rajala@helsinki.fi
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi>
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi>>
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi>
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi
<mailto:antti.rajala@helsinki.fi>>>
CC:
Subject: [xmca] Double
Stimulation?
I wonder if this quote by
Marilyn
Strathern can be productively
connected
(not necessarily geneaologically, but
ideologically) to the
notion of
"double stimulation" (which I am
just now
trying to figure out):
"Culture consists in the way
people draw
analogies between
different
domains of their worlds" (1992: 47).
-greg
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto: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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>> <mailto: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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto: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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto: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
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto: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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto: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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden
__________________________________________
_____
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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
http://marxists.academia.edu/AndyBlunden