[-empyre-] Starting the Third Week: Michael Boghn and Jerome Sala

Tue Nov 22 07:38:28 AEDT 2016

No moderator, no guest moderator, no glitches!

Murat

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Michael Boughn <mboughn at rogers.com> wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hi Chris -- maybe I got it wrong -- someone gave me the Latin -- but the
> banner is supposed to read No Long List, No Short List, No Guest List. It
> was a slogan I came up with for the Friggin Poetry Award, of which there
> has to date been only one. DIU is Latin for long.
>
> I am glad to hear you are enjoying Dispatches. You should send something
> when you get a chance.
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Funkhouser, Christopher T. <
> christopher.t.funkhouser at njit.edu> wrote:
>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Michael,
>> I've been meaning to say that I've been following Dispatches fairly
>> closely from the beginning, & there's much to enjoy in there...
>> You got my attention right away with the masthead/crest, emblazoned, in
>> part, with the curious phrase (w/obscure reference) "non DIU list' (DIU an
>> irreverent project Ben Friedlander & I worked on together as grad
>> students). I'm sure Jack Clarke wouldn't have approved of DIU (as did a lot
>> of others), & yes flaws in our approach.
>> What you are doing with Dispatches is far more respectable, & glad to see
>> issues being kept alive & muck getting kicked up
>> -Chris F
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Michael Boughn <mboughn at rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>> Murat, Dispatches is not a blog, at least not in my reckoning. Nor, I
>>> think, in Kent's. . Blogs are a singular voice, even when they become an
>>> information clearing house. Neither is it strictly spealking a
>>> curated/edited instrument, which also a controlled zone.We saw Dipatches
>>> from the beginning as more of a place for a conversation to take place. I
>>> was motivated to match what Jack Clarke did with intent. and Ken Warren did
>>> with House Organ. intent. especially was an active zone of multiple
>>> intersecting vectors of thought. Jack's spirit informed it by opening it
>>> into time and space and welcoming a diverse community into a world of talk,
>>> thinking, and document.
>>>
>>> So with Dispatches, we try to keep the conversations open to various
>>> modes of address that are part of a being in common: critical commentary,
>>> poetry, video, satire, letters. It's really not a question of fighting
>>> anything. It's more a question of priming something. getting enough people
>>> to see it as a useful and interesting place that they can participate in so
>>> that the energy takes on a life of its own. A place you want to hang out
>>> and maybe say something every once in while. Explore some stuff in the
>>> basement.
>>>
>>> And the question of speed comes up again here in a different light.
>>> Everything happens quickly, much more quickly than with a print
>>> publication. Conversations can move almost as quickly as you can keep up
>>> with them. Something happens.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>> Yes, Michael, we do need to simplify (not necessarily be simplistic)
>>>> not to miss the forest for the trees.
>>>>
>>>> For instance, you mention the "potential" of the computer. Hasn't the
>>>> vector of this potential has been essentially in the reverse order towards
>>>> increasingly restrictive. You have rightly mentioned the access the net
>>>> provided for us to get to know people that we would not have known
>>>> otherwise. That is truly a positive revolutionary achievement. But let us
>>>> examine the progression in use of social exchange structures on the web--
>>>> from  lists to blogs to facebook, each one more restricive than the other.
>>>> On lists, one could have discussions because each response kicked that
>>>> topic back to the top for easy access. When blogs first appeared they felt
>>>> great, as a medium of self expression. I think we are mostly familiar of
>>>> long stretches of time when the response box of the blog remains empty
>>>> --the blog surviving at best as a space of meditation.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, a blog like *Dispatches* is an exception to that. You are
>>>> fighting against the entropy of the form, turning it upside down. I would
>>>> very much like to know how you achieve that, what kind of effort does
>>>> involve. That's why I was so happy when you accepted to be a guest
>>>> participant.
>>>>
>>>> As for facebook, every comment almost immediately disappears in the
>>>> flow of time. Facebook has no practical mechanism of retrieval, therefore,
>>>> no memore. Time is made of pointillistic instances of time. That's why I
>>>> was so surprised and intrigued that you were able to sustain memorable,
>>>> life changing exchanges on facebook, rather than on lists (as it was with
>>>> Poetry Wars) or even blogs. How did you do that, Michael?
>>>>
>>>> You also say, "... But another facet of that is the weakening of
>>>> foundationalisms and their dogma. I worry about overly moralizing these
>>>> questions where the inevitable outcome is a foregone dystopia."
>>>>
>>>> Can you say that with the awesome,  increasing presence and affect of
>>>> Isil in the world, essentially through their use of communication on the
>>>> web?
>>>>
>>>> If we do not moralize --in the sense of assessing its human cost--
>>>> about a medium that shapes our lives so deeply, what should we moralize
>>>> about?
>>>>
>>>> Ciao,
>>>> Murat
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Michael Boughn <mboughn at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>> I think that's a bit too simple, Murat. Lots of things created the
>>>>> computer. Just as it has lots of uses. Certainly its use in war and its
>>>>> presence as a commodity have been extremely important in its development,
>>>>> but they don't own it. Again, how FB monetizes its service does not fully
>>>>> define the potential of that service. The velocitized temporality of it is
>>>>> important, but again, I would argue, not defining. The consequences include
>>>>> the rise of what is now being called a post-truth culture (pretty much
>>>>> Baudrillard's precession of the simulacra, no?). But another facet of that
>>>>> is the weakening of foundationalisms and their dogma. I worry about overly
>>>>> moralizing these questions where the inevitable outcome is a foregone
>>>>> dystopia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 20, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <muratnn at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerome, capitalism and war created the computer, not the Communist
>>>>> state or an agrarian utopia-- and a desire to penetrate a code. One should
>>>>> pay attention how things are created --one discovers a lot about their
>>>>> purposes. I talk about in in an earlier post. Isn't the same thing with
>>>>> Facebook, to peek into the private activities of a college girls dormitory.
>>>>> Isn't that original impulse written all over what Facebook has become
>>>>> despite all the "social media" goodies it offers --to penetrate the
>>>>> personal activities of one's essentially private, intimate lives, create
>>>>> data out of them and sell it. The primary impulse of Facebook --the raison
>>>>> d'etre of its flourishing personhood-- is to make the private public and
>>>>> social interactions short and infinite. In a very few years, it has
>>>>> created a Brave New World and we are all caught in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ciao,
>>>>> Murat
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Jerome Sala <jeromesala502 at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> Murat, your comment brought another question to my mind, especially
>>>>>> because it alludes to the transformation of businesses. Working in the
>>>>>> corporate world for many years, I know that businesses found digital
>>>>>> technology irresistible because it was a tool that saved them lots of
>>>>>> money. It helped eliminate lots of jobs and made outsourcing, near
>>>>>> shore and far, much easier. As a result, it's hard for me to separate
>>>>>> the growth of this technology from the capitalism's desire to increase
>>>>>> profits by cutting costs. So the question for me is -- is it
>>>>>> technology per se that's the problem, or the way capitalism uses it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <
>>>>>> muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> > Michael, I do not agree with you. What makes it different is the
>>>>>> incredible speed with which things are happening. There is no time to catch
>>>>>> up and rebalance as in the old model. It is a bit like cancer or like a
>>>>>> species through a mutation gaining a critical, basically irresistible
>>>>>> advantage over its habitat. As a result all the other species begin to
>>>>>> disappear and finally the habitat is destroyed, including the dominant
>>>>>> species.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Something like this is already happening. Wealth is concentrated
>>>>>> more and more on fewer and fewer people (and Trump, who ostensibly got
>>>>>> elected to fight this trend, will intensify it through his tax cuts). One
>>>>>> day, companies will have nobody to sell their goods to. That sounds far
>>>>>> fetched. But it will happen, maybe sooner than we think. That is when the
>>>>>> pandemonium will start. My guess is it will not be pretty.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Take the idea of Uber for example, which is the cat's meow because
>>>>>> of its convenience for people who used to take taxis and the bus. By one
>>>>>> "disruption" enabled by the computer, they destroyed a whole ecology of
>>>>>> businesses that owned local taxi fleets or individuals who owned their own
>>>>>> taxis. They seduced taxi drivers by offering them better commissions. Who
>>>>>> cares for a few taxi fleet owners! Everyone is happy. It took I think less
>>>>>> than five years, now Uber is talking about driverless cars. I suppose those
>>>>>> drivers can find jobs in the future as traffic cops for those Uber cars.
>>>>>> One should not forget the owners of the taxi fleets may represent the
>>>>>> "other," but the drivers are us.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > To be continued...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Ciao,
>>>>>> > Murat
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Michael Boughn <mboughn at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> >> OK, devil's advocate here. Every tool humans have developed has
>>>>>> changed them, has obliterated certain practices and modes of thinking and
>>>>>> generated new ones. The computer is just another tool, a really
>>>>>> sophisticated and complex hammer. Some of the consequences of this tool are
>>>>>> pretty dire -- the enablement of a post-truth polity, for instance -- but
>>>>>> it also creates a potential being in common that is the  -- I want to say
>>>>>> "cure" but that's not quite it. It's the antithetical action that opens
>>>>>> into other possibilities. It can go either way, depending on what people
>>>>>> do, and there are a lot of people doing a lot of different things.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I don't think that our lack of awareness of our dependence on
>>>>>> those systems is new. Isn't it always just "the world". And they (the
>>>>>> techne) have always shaped us. Isn't that Heidegger's point? If you figure
>>>>>> out how to make flint spear tips, you stop throwing rocks and become
>>>>>> different. We become aware of it when the computer stops working in the car
>>>>>> in the middle of Death Valley, or the operating system goes wacky just
>>>>>> before the deadline for a huge project. It's really the same old same old.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It's just that the stakes have risen catastrophically.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I think that's true about sci-fi. It has framed the question of
>>>>>> technology in terms of an address to ontology.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Mike
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Sent from my iPad
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Nov 19, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Jerome Sala <jeromesala502 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> >> Murat, your question, as to whether "the computer (and the web and
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> >> consequence) has the ability to expose and criticize the condition
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> >> has created...whether the digital can be 'revealer of is own
>>>>>> truth',
>>>>>> >> brought to mind a book I've been reading - Discognition, by Steven
>>>>>> >> Shaviro. One of the points Shaviro argues is that, in our everyday
>>>>>> >> experience, "we're mostly unaware of how deeply our lives depend
>>>>>> upon
>>>>>> >> the functioning of complex, expert systems..." -- we're the fish in
>>>>>> >> their ocean (McLuhan) (unless they break down). Another aspect we
>>>>>> >> don't grasp, as your question implies, is that such technological
>>>>>> >> entities, rather then just being there, inert until we manipulate
>>>>>> >> them, have an agency of their own: "...if we engineer them, in
>>>>>> various
>>>>>> >> ways, they 'engineer' us as well, nudging us to adapt to their
>>>>>> >> demands."
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I am not sure whether the "digital" can speak its truth (at least
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> >> language we understand), but Shaviro suggests one way we humans
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> >> begin to see its truth/reality for ourselves - by creating art
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> >> the "material and technological factors are explicitly
>>>>>> foregrounded."
>>>>>> >> His book is about science fiction stories that do this. Perhaps
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> >> is also what I had in mind by the poetic project I wrote about,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> >> foregrounds digital/corporate cliches that inform us, through the
>>>>>> >> jargon we speak. In any case, Shaviro's book may offer a clue as to
>>>>>> >> the great popularity of the SF genre. Often, in allegorical ways,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> >> acknowledges the agency of the technological (remember the Borg?),
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >> enables people to start talking about the power of its influence.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat <
>>>>>> muratnn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Hi Jerome, by your question on the nature of "knowing" in poetry, I
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> think you touched a critical point, an issue running throughout the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> discussions and presentations this month.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Knowledge that poetic experience contains or "reveals" does have
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> multiple facets. On the one hand, the knowledge (in some
>>>>>> incarnations,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> message/propaganda) may be transactional and implicitly points or
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> leads to action. Some great classics are of that sort, for
>>>>>> instance,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Lucretius's On Nature or Virgil's Eclogues, Shakespeare's Henry V
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> also, in some sense, though a book of "revelation," The Bible, etc.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The election of Trump last week drove the discussion to the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> transactional side of poetry (art), and rightly so. That is what
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> the writing invited to be sent to Dispatches for the anthology all
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> about. So are the post cards Craig refers to, as conceptual acts.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> There is another kind of knowledge that poetry "reveals," not
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> necessarily leading to action-- of course, the distinction is
>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> artificial since a poem or work of art contains both simultaneously
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> each time creating a different balance. If one extreme side of this
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> spectrum is propaganda (all nations/cultures/languages have
>>>>>> propaganda
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> masterpieces), the other extreme is gnosis-- a knowledge not quite
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> contained in the practicalities of a language, but in its
>>>>>> peripheries,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> the often unacknowledged overtones that emanate from words, space,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> etc. (embedded in poesies).
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> It is in terms of this same dilemma (the nature of poetic
>>>>>> knowledge)
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> that Heidegger is discussing technology in his essay. On the one
>>>>>> hand
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> it is defined as "enframing" nature to exploit it (in terms that
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Francis Bacon asserts as "knowledge is power"). On the other hand,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> returns technology to its roots as techne, a making that reveals
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> truth. Their relationship is dialectical.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I have been on Empyre list for about two years, following it on and
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> off with interest because it presents to me a digital culture that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> of great interest to me; but in which I am not directly involved
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> practitioner. What struck me most is that, save for important
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> exceptions such as Alan Sondheim and Isak Berbic (and I am sure
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> are others), the focus of the participants was on what the
>>>>>> internet or
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> the computer can do for them, on the computer as a new potent
>>>>>> enabler,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> the computer as artistic or political power. As far as I can see,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> little attention was given to it as a revealer of "truth," the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> knowledge of human condition and psyche in a digital technological
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> age.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In my view, poetry (art) is doomed to die without containing within
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> itself both these knowledge, though the melange may be different in
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> each.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The underlying focus for me this month has been, that is why I
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> accepted the invitation to moderate, to explore whether the
>>>>>> computer
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> (and the web as its consequence) has the ability to expose and
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> criticize the condition it has created, in other words, whether the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> digital can be the "revealer of its own truth." I can not say I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> been that successful up to now.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> The primary text for this month is the fifteen minute video clip I
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> referred to in my introductory statement at the beginning of the
>>>>>> month
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> in which the film maker Jean Renoir discusses the effect of
>>>>>> technology
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> on art (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Mtd6GE_PI ). He says
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> art becomes boring to the extent that that the art maker is in
>>>>>> total
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> control of his or her own materials and techniques. He refers to a
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> group of 11th century French tapestries (the Bayeux, the first
>>>>>> known
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ones) where the threads were coarsely spun, the colors were
>>>>>> primitive
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> and of a narrow range; but they contained great beauty, revealing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> strife of their making.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> That is why "Overcoming Technique"--the first two words of my
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> introductory title-- is crucial, whether one finally agrees with
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Renoir or not. In our daily lives with family and children and
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> teaching and grading papers, etc., I hope some of us find time to
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> re-focus on these issues the remaining days of this month. As
>>>>>> artists,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> the issues are important for all of us.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Ciao,
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Murat
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Craig Saper <csaper at umbc.edu>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Relevant to the discussion and the “dispatches” this event might
>>>>>> speak to the issue of, what Jerome Sala called in a recent "poetry is a
>>>>>> particular way of knowing the mind” …
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> "Post Card Avalanche"
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Join in and send a postcard directly to Trump! Here are the basic
>>>>>> instructions to participate:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> ** IMPORTANT - Don't mail your card until NOV. 26th **
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In the message section, write this simple message: NOT BANNON!
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Throw a post card Avalanche party. Make postcards.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Address it as follows:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Donald Trump
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> c/o The Trump Organization
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 725 Fifth Avenue
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> New York, NY 10022
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Affix a stamp - you can use a 35 cent postcard stamp, or a normal
>>>>>> letter stamp.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Take a picture of your postcard that you can share on social media
>>>>>> using the hashtag #stopbannon
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Drop it in the mail! We are aiming to get these mailed between
>>>>>> Saturday, Nov 26th and Monday, Nov. 28th to create a concentrated avalanche
>>>>>> of postcards.”
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> empyre forum
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> empyre forum
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> empyre forum
>>>>>> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> >> empyre forum
>>>>>> >> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> >> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > empyre forum
>>>>>> > empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> empyre forum
>>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> empyre forum
>>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Christopher T. Funkhouser
>> Program Director, Communication and Media
>> Department of Humanities
>> New Jersey Institute of Technology
>> University Heights
>> Newark, NJ 07102
>> http://web.njit.edu/~funkhous
>> funkhous at njit.edu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20161121/7b1b629c/attachment.html>