M-TH: Is Chris Buford here?
Chis a controversy from the old "Maoist wars" at Jefferson Village has leaped up. Could you comment on my memory here and if it is correct? Thanks Bob Malecki ___ Oh yeah! Well your "pal" (Detcom)was going around and fingering Peruvian militants in the US and bragging about it. Foremost Aldolfo and your pal were going after the Red Flag group and Luis Quispe who also lay claim to Maoist ideology howebver not the particular brand of Aldolfo. This by the way was called the "maoist" wars over on Jefferson Village And your pal's roll in this stuff can allso be proved as there are people still around including Quispe and the Red Flag people who remember quite well all of this stuff. Because they had to take up campaigns for some of these jailed Peruvian militants awaiting deportation. > This is a vicious lie. Detcom has a hard enough time getting out of his > house (being physically disabled with Cystic Fibrosis), much less doing what > you accuse him of! Well if it is a viscious lie then why did the guy go around bragging they he was going to demos and taking pictures for Aldolfo in order to get the goods on the Red Flag people? Although Detcom was being accused of being a nutter and drunk by the Detroit "milkmaid" who was another quite intelligent maoist who was involved in all of this. But the real point is that Mao/Stalinism in all of its variants especially rely it appears on goon tactics and accusing all and sundry of being agents of something or other. In fact another character who was involved in all of this was Rolf here in Sweden who first was in a block with Aldolfo/Detcom and then wound up deadly enemies trying to set each other up for the cops. Over and above this Rolf was claiming that I was agent of Social imperialism (meaning Russia) and was working with the Swqedish secret police to get me as and enemy of the Swedish people! This got him dumped from the lists at Jefferson Village. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Fwd: Re: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 6:26 AM >>> I am with Charles Brown 100% (almost) in this dispute. __ Charles: Thanks for that, comrade. _ Charles: I think you are making fundamentally helpful points in emphasizing the usual aspects of materialism. It's funny but we have been discussing mainly dialectics and comes the charge from Andy that Engels and Lenin are idealists in their position. I have been arguing against this without going into the usual fundamentals of materialism to combat Andy's charge of idealism. As you point out, it usually means that oneself is the real idealist when one tries to say Engels is an idealist. The turning point in this argument was the Giraffe debate where the evolution of the long neck was accepted as (partially) dialectical. None could say what ___ Charles: Oops I cut off some. I think the giraffe example, which I only skimmed is dialectics in a natural example. It seems like the discussion of Lewontin and Levins in _The Dialectical Biologist_ ; animals have some subjectivity vis-a-vis their environments. The whole is prior to the parts. These are dialectical principles. But Darwinism is dialectical too. Did you see the letter in which Marx called Darwin's work "our (Marx AND Engels'_ method in natural history ? 1. There are no universal, absolute laws we are told. Then comes the current, very good debate, on Marx and the particular and the general. But Charles Brawn must be aware the there is an even more *general* statement of the general. ___ Charles: Yes ! That quote was rattling around in the back of my mind and I was going to find it and post it. This is the fullest statement of the principle I am getting at. Thanks. This will help to concentrate the argument. I refer to Engels famous passage an Anti-Duhring (Gerry Healy*s favourite to enrage the anti-diamets): " When we consider and reflect on nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. [We see therefore at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still kept more or less in the background.; we observe the movement, transition, connections, rather than the things that move, combine and are connected.] This primitive, naïve, but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly coming into being and passing away. 2. But this conception, correct as it expresses the General character of the picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of which this picture is made up, and as long as we do not understand these we cannot have a clear ideal of the whole picture. In order to understand these details we must detach them from their natural or historical connection and examine each one separately, its nature, specific causes, etc. * The analysis of nature into its individual parts, the groupi8ng of the different natural processes and objectives in definite classes, the study of the internal anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms - these were the fundamental conditions for the gigantic strides in our knowledge during the last four hundred years. But this method of work also left us as legacy the habit of observing natural objects and processes in isolation, apart from their connection with the vast whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion; as constants not as essentially variables; in their death, not in their life. And when this way of looking at things was transferred by Bacon and Locke from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of thought peculiar to the last century." AND THATS DIALECTICAL Charles: Yes indeedy ! Gerry Downing Charles Brown >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 6:26 AM >>> I am with Charles Brown 100% (almost) in this dispute. __ Charles: Thanks for that, comrade. _ Charles: I think you are making fundamentally helpful points in emphasizing the usual aspects of materialism. It's funny but we have been discussing mainly dialectics and comes the charge from Andy that Engels and Lenin are idealists in their position. I have been arguing against this without going into the usual fundamentals of materialism to combat Andy's charge of idealism. As you point out, it usually means that oneself is the real idealist when one tries to say Engels is an idealist. The turning point in this argument was the Giraffe debate where the evolution of the long neck was accepted as (partially) dialectical. None could say what ___ Charles: Oops I cut off some. I think the giraffe example, which I only skimmed is dialectics in a natura
Fwd: Re: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 2:54 AM >>> . . . need to correct some mistatements of fact . . . On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology >fit the Engels model. . . . I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's >position . . . . I have long argued that aspects of evolutionary theory and evolutionary process may be described as dialectical and I was open-minded about this matter. What I dispute is Engels argument that the dialectic is the general laws of development in nature, society, and thought. I have never a priori rejected the possibility of any form of change being dialectic. What I have rejected is the view that all change is a priori dialectical. Charles: So your position is that we just have to wait and see as each type of change comes up as to whether it is dialectical ? Has any type of change been discovered yet that was not dialectical as you understand Marx to mean dialectical ? What is it ? ___ Below, Charles contradicts himself. First, he says that >However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical . . . as >described by Lenin in _The Teachings of Karl Marx_ especially with >respect to Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium, in which, I >believe the punctuations are major extinctions in the history of life. But then he writes that >the point is that catastrophes, revolutions, leaps within slower change >or evolution renders this fundamental theory of natural history more >dialectical in the Hegelian sense than it was in the Darwinian form. In this argument we find that Darwin's theory is said to be dialectical in the classically Marxist sense. _ Charles: The answer to your riddle, Andy,my boy, is that I used Darwinism the first time to include Stephen Jay Gouldism as part of Darwinism. And the second time I used Darwinism, I should have said original Darwinism not modified by Gould's theory. This was an equivocation of my use of the word "Darwinism." But the point is consistent for anyone trying to understand. _ And the example given is Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. But then in the next sentence we find that whereas Gould's theory is dialectic, it is more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than in the Darwinian form. The problem is that revolutions, qualitative leaps, and so forth, are Marxian dialectical (and the form is Hegelian). But this is different, Charles says, than the Darwinian form. So, the conclusion is this: Darwinian evolution is not dialectical. I agree. Charles: The conclusion one more time, is that Darwinism is more dialectical than the theories of biology which prevailed when he wrote his famous thesis, creationism etc. But Darwinism was not fully dialectical in the Hegelian sense. You mentioned that evolutionism had been around for a thousand years and Darwin's father was an evolutionist. But if you look in any biology basic textbook , which will have a sketch of Darwin's biography, you will find that Christian creationism was the prevailing theory of Darwin's day AND THAT CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF WAS A CREATIONIST UPON STARTING THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. The 101 text I just read says that Darwin was going out to find data to uphold creationism over a recent geological theory that held the earth's geology had evolved. The point here is that relative to his day, Darwin's theory was none other than a LEAP, a revolution, a qualitative change, from a metaphysical or anti-dialectical conception of natural species, to an elementarily , though not fully dialectical conception. >Marx and Engels considered that he [Darwin] was using their method in >biology. Where does Marx ever say that Darwinian evolution is an application of Marx's dialectical method? Charles: In his book _Ever Since Darwin_ in the essay "Darwin Delay" , Stephen Jay Gould says the following: "In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about Darwin's _Origin_" (Get this Andy, this is Marx speaking) "ALTHOUGH IT IS DEVELOPED IN THE CRUDE ENGLISH STYLE, THIS IS THE BOOK WHICH CONTAINS THE BASIS IN NATURAL HISTORY FOR OUR VIEW" >This seems to be evidence that Gould endorses Engels use of the dialectic >in natural history. He seems to find use for the three principles that >Andy mentioned a number of times. All these quotes by Gould don't prove or even support Engels' claim that dialectics are general law in nature, society, and thought. What is the point of quoting Gould? __ Charles: Andy, I am starting to think that you are incorrigible. These quotes from Stephen Jay Gould blow your argument out of the water. First of all you haven't denied that Marx and Engels said what Gould says they do. Second, Gould is the perfect one for this discussion because he is a recognized expert in paleontology or natural history. He is not a philosopher or social scientist. He has basic data knowledge about change outside of human history,
Fwd: Re: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
Andy, I just came across the below. Interjections below. Another dialectical concept is sublation or supersecession or to preserve and overcome ( a contradiction ). Marx, Engels and Lenin use this from Hegel too. It occurs as a variation of some of the more elementary concepts of dialectics. I will get to it in the text below, but I would say there is a paradox or irony in Marx and Engels career of philosophical publishing. You see I think in Hegel's heyday, for Young Hegelians and all philosophers in Germany , it was unthinkable that Hegel would fall into such oblivion as he did. So, Marx and Engels got off in their start with a big emphasis on fighting too much philosophizing (The German Ideology, etc.). When Marx looked up at the time of the Afterword to the Second German edition of Capital he had sort of realized some of what I am getting at here. The bottom line for the moment is that Marx didn't feel the need to write out elementary dialectics because Hegel already had. Marx's dialectic is not just "different than Hegel's but it's direct opposite". It's the whole Hegel flipped around with the center pulled out and used. Being the direct opposite in a dialectical conception is closer than being different. It is an indication of relation or dialectical opposition between the two. Interjections below. >>> Andrew Wayne Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/17 10:09 PM >>> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >The generalization, or transhistorical category of class struggle doesn't >mean it is historically universal. Struggle or contradiction or unity and >struggle of opposites is the more general category which would apply to >all human history. Okay, so you say you do not think that class struggle is a universal category. __ Charles: Class struggle is not universal in human history. We all agree on that, don't we ? The first sentence of the Manifesto, modern anthropology and archeology, the old stone age , the new stone age, most of human history was not a class society. Classes arose about 7,000 years ago. The Origin of the Family, Private, Property and the State. But isn't it your position is that the universal dialectic manifests in concrete reality, of which class struggle is one example? _ Charles: Universal dialectic is like universal non-universal. I guess you should think of how change means difference. If the dialectic is universal , that means change or becoming different is universal. But difference is the opposite of universal. Universal means the same everywhere. A universal dialect means difference everywhere. >But CLASS struggle arises with classes. So the dialectic of class struggle in history is a process that inheres in the social system itself, and is not the manifestation of a universal dialectic? This seems at odds with the position of the universal dialectic. __ Charles: The class struggle is a particular change going on. It is not the same as all changes everywhere. It is like them in that it is a changing. >I treat [class struggle] as a limited generalization just like the first >sentence. So now you are arguing that the dialectic does not really exist outside of some social dynamics (such as class struggle)? Are you abandoning you previous position? __ Charles: The dialectic exists in social dynamics and in physical dynamics. My position is (ironically) not changing in this thread. You are thinking wishfully when you say that or refer to back peddling. You wish. _ >Charles: You asserted that, but you didn't demonstrate it. Natural >selection is dialectical. The struggle for existence involves the >unity and struggle of opposites. Explain this, please. How does the process of random variation and natural selection in populations involve the "unity and contradiction of opposites"? Charles: I responded to this before. Since this comment this discussion has extended. I would recommend Levins and Lewontin's _The Dialectical Biologist_ And I have posted the quote from Stepehn Jay Gould quoting Engels on species evolution as cooperation and struggle, or unity and struggle. However, I would reiterate the model I gave before. The species unit does change as a unity and struggle of opposites, as the genotypical range is both a unity ,as they are all exclusively fertile (definition of a species) and a struggle as some will be selected against that is not pass on their genes to a viable next generation. >Charles: The dialectic of human history is not the same dialectic as that >of natural history. Darwin's theory is not fully dialectical, but it is >dialectical relative to creationism and the prevailing theories of nature >of his day. So now you are saying that whereas natural selection involves the unity and contradiction of opposites - one of the three laws of dialectics - class struggle does not involve the unity and contradiction of opposites? ___ Charles: Andy, you try your best NOT to understa
Fwd: Re: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
Andy Austin had asked:
What does it mean to say something is not fully dialectical? Does that
mean that it only meets one or two of the three laws of dialectics, such
as unity and contradiction of opposites, but does not meet one or both of
the other two criteria (quantity into quality and the negation of the
negation)?
__
Charles: I responded as follows. I want
to put on the thread here a section
from Lenin's _The Teachings of Karl
Marx_ which speaks to this issue
of the partial dialectiality of Darwin's
thesis as written by Darwin. Original
Darwinism (not modified by Gould's
theory of punctuated equilibrium).
First follows my comment from the
previous post.
Charles: Lenin in _The Teachings
of Karl Marx speaks directly to this
issue. He points out that Marx's
theory of evolution has more
to it than the "current" theory,
meaning Darwin's. Darwin's has
gradual change ,which is part of
Hegel's. Gradual change is more
dialectical than creationism with
no change. Revolution/evolution
is even more Hegelian. So in
a way Darwin's lacks the idea that
new quality arises from quantitative
leaps or discontinuities.
Here is a passage from Lenin
"Dialectics"
Marx and Engels regarded Hegelian
dialectics, the theory of evolution most
comprehensive, rich in content and profound,
as the greatest achievement of classical
German philosophy. All other formulations
of the principle of development, of
evolution, they considered to be one-
sided, poor in content, distorting and
mutilating the actual course of
development of nature and society
(a course often consummated in
leaps and bounds, catastrophes,
revolutions).
(quoting Engels) Marx and I were
almost the only persons who rescued
conscious dialectics...{from the
swamp of idealism, including Hegelianism}
by transforming it into the materialist
conception of nature... (Anti-Duhring)
Nature is the test of dialectics, and we
must say that science has supplied a
vast and daily increasing mass of material
for this test, thereby proving that, in
the last analysis, nature proceeds
dialectically and not metaphysically
(Anti-Duhring) (this was written before
the discovery of radium, electrons,
the tranmutation of elements, etc.
- Lenin's insert) (end quote of Engels)
Again Engels writes:
The great basic idea that the world
is not to be viewed as a complex of
fully fashioned objects, but as a complex
of processes, in which apparently
stable objects, no less than the images
of them inside our heads (our concepts),
are undergoing incessant changes, arising
here and disappearing there, and which
with all apparent accident and in spite of
all momentary retrogression, ultimately
constitutes a progressive development-
this great basic idea has, particularly since
the time of Hegel, so deeply penetrated
the general consciousness that hardly
any one will now venture to dispute it
in its general form. But it is one thing to
accept it in words, quite another thing
to put it in practice on every occasion
and in every field of investigation (Ludwig
Feuerbach)
In the eyes fo dialectic philosophy, nothing
is established for all time,
nothing is absolute or sacred ( See
Andy). On everything and in
everything it sees the stamp of
inevitable decline; nothing can resist
it save the unceasing process of
formation and destruction, the unending
ascent from the lower to
the higher - a process which that
philosophy itself is only a simple
reflection with the thinking brain. (
Ludwig Feuerbach) (end quote of
Engels)
Thus dialectics, according to Marxism,
is "the science of the general laws
of motion both of the external world
and of human thinking.
This revolutionary side of Hegel's
philosophy was adopted adn
developed by Marx. Dialectical
materialism "does not need
any philosophy towering above the
other sciences." (Anti-Duhring).
Of former philosophies there remain
"the science of thinking and its laws
- formal logic and dialectics. (Anti-
Duhring). Dialectics, as the term
is used by Marx in conformity with Hegel,
includes what is now called the theory
of cognition, or epistemology, or
gnoseology, a science that must
contemplate its subject matter in
the same way - historically, studying
and generalising the origin and development
of cognition, the transition from
non-consciousness to consciousness.
In our times the idea of development, of
evolution ( i.e. Darwinism -CB)
has almost fully penetrated
social consciousness, but it has done
so in other wasy, not through Hegel's
philosophy. Still, the same idea, as
formulated by Marx and Engels on the basis
of Hegel's philosophy, is much
more comprehensive, much more abundant
in content than the current theory of
evolution . (THIS IS WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT ANDY. DARWIN'S
EVOLUTION IS NOT FULLY DIALECTICAL
-CB) A development that repeats, as it were,
the stages already passed, but repeats them
in a different way, on a higher
plane (negation of negation) ;
a development, so to speak,
in spirals, not in a straight li
Fwd: Re: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20 12:04 PM >>> G'day Chas, >I'll be glad to yield to your >suggestion. I cannot say >that I yield on the substantive >point, though ,as I said in >my post, I have great respect >for James F's opinion. I wasn't suggesting you stop talking about this, _ Charles: Oh good, cause I do have a few thoughts regarding what Jim F. said. Just checking. That hammering the lid on the box sounded kind of like a coffin metaphor, so I figure you were dead serious. Never can tell you know. My understanding is that Andy and Jim F. are saying that they disagree with the Engels and Lenin position of what is called dialectical materialism which looks for Marx's (not Hegelian , though it is a tranformed Hegelian dialectic) dialectic in nature and culture(human history). I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology fit the Engels model. I thought they were similar to those which Levins and Lewontin make in _The Dialectical Biologist_. They develop a definite dialectical aspect of biology related to the priority of the whole over the parts. I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's position on the issue of this thread. and in _Anti-Duhring_ and _The Dialectics of Nature_ ( the latter by the way is unpublished notes in preparation for a book All of the criticisms of Engels oversimplification do not take this into account). However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical both in its transition from creationism to evolutionism ;and as described by Lenin in _The Teachings of Karl Marx_ especially with respect to Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium,in which, I believe the punctuations are major extinctions in the history of life. I'll copy the larger passage on this later.But the point is that catastrophes, revolutions, leaps within slower change or evolution renders this fundamental theory of natural history more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than it was in the Darwinian form. James F. seems to know Stephen Jay Gould fairly well. I am not trying to say what Gould's philosophical position is. I am glad for Gould's work. Unrelated to this thread , I had been reading Darwin's _The Origin of Species_ to better understand the types of issues we are discussing here. I noticed that Darwin put a lot of emphasis on gradual change. I thought to myself that's not all the way dialectical. Not that Darwin was a conscious dialectician,but I knew that Marx and Engels considered that he was using their method in biology. Then I heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium as modification of Darwin and I thought he's rendered it more dialectical. Whether Gould agrees with that I don't know. James F. indicated elsewhere that Gould is a Marxist. So, I assumed that he may have seen his theory as making natural history more Marxist or dialectical. From the discussion of Gould on the other list came the following post. >Chas.:The dialectical is me looking at what Gould >is saying and analyzing it. I have never >heard Gould use the term to describe it. >However, Engels says somewhere that >most good scientists then ( and now we might add) >proceed dialectically but without knowing >it. I will look for the statements from >Engels and maybe Haldane, if you like. > >The principle in question is the interpenetration >of quality and quantity. Darwin describes >evolution as continuous (gradual). The punctuations >would make it continuous with rare discontinuities. > >What say you ? > >Charles Brown > Detroit Writing about punctuated equilibrium in *The Panda's Thumb* Gould writes: "If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change-the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model similar to our punctuated equlibria." (pp.184-5) In a review of Lewontin et al., *Not In Our Genes* reprinted in *An Urchin in the Storm* Gould writes: "...we cannot factor a complex social situation into so much biology on one side, and so much culture on the other. We must seek to understand the emergent and irreducible properties arising from an inextricable interpenetration of genes and environments. In short, we must use what so many great thinkers call, but American fashion dismisses as political rhetoric from the other side, a dialectical approach. "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded becasue some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine. The issues that it raises are, in another form, the crucial questions of reductionism versus holism, now so much un
Re: M-TH: Committed to my science...
>>> "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20/98 11:20AM >>> Rob, I probably talked too long on this thread. You probably are tired of it. Anyway, you seem to say we are saying the same thing. I certainly cheer your rigorous democracy. I just don't want you to think we Leninists are not with you 100% in that, despite Stalinism. Charles >>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/18 11:54 PM >>> G'day Chas, I'm a bit snowed under just now, but I think we'd ultimately have to agree we're not gonna agree on much of this (something Russia's socialists, for whatever reason, were not very good at after 1917). I do think you miss my point in this part of the exchange, though: >>Charles: But no bourgeois government >>has done better than this , right ? > >Rob: Most bourgeois governments have the TINA hegemony going for them. >Churches, schools, workplaces, media and papers all combine beautifully to >make profound disagreement at the social level pretty unlikely. > > >Charles: The Soviet government had >the equivalent going for it. If you are >saying the Soviet government had >democratic centralism then the above >is part of democratic centralism and >so the bourgeoisie have democratic >centralism too. It is false that the >Soviet system was run on force >and not Gramscian hegemony as >well. >___ >Rob: Bourgeois >governments do VERY well as a consequence. > > >Charles: Some have, some haven't. They >have a long history. They have carried out >the biggest wars in the history of humanity. >That is the complete opposite of democracy >and is total centralism. In other words, >they send millions of their own people >off to be massacred for profits mainly. >That ain't democracy. > > > >Rob: They function daily against the >better interests of those who put 'em there and we respond by ever keeping >'em there. > > >Charles: This is not democracy. It is >a profound trickster masquerading >as democracy. >_ As I see it, I made the point that it's not easy distinguishing between DC as it was practiced from what bourgeois parties generally do. You then argued that this is demonstrably not democracy at all. Which is what I thought I was saying. Cheers, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Fiji Up-date
-- Forwarded message --Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 09:41:03 +1000From: Centre For the Contemporary Pacific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Fiji Up-date Dear Readers,The School of Law at the University of the South Pacific, Emalus Campus,Vanuatu would like to highlight its Special Interest Section of the Journalof South Pacific Law. The first volume features articles and comments onthe attempted coup in Fiji. It can be accessed on the following URL: http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/whatsnew/What's The USP's Emalus Campus home page is: www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj Regards, Greg RawlingsCentre for the Contemporary PacificResearch School of Pacific and Asian StudiesRoom 4207Australian National UniversityCanberra ACT 0200Australia Telephone: (61) (2) 6249 3098Fax: (61) (2) 6249 5525E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ccp/ For catalogs of online resources see:Pacific Studies WWW Virtual Libraryhttp://coombs.anu.edu.au/WWWVL-PacificStudies.html
