[p2p-research] call for debate: a reponse to digital maoism by Nikos Salingaros

[Ryan Lanham]

My critique would be that the article does not deal in specifics.  What, at
some actionable level of detail, is the problem?  What, in detail, is the
solution?  For the most part, I read a critique of modernism that could be
Bauhaus-ian or Green, but I do not see the underpinning ideal...nor do I see
the practical means by which it could be plausibly set in place.

I presume we are meant to be more aware of a alien cityscape enhabited by
robotic people who don't "care" about us.  But wasn't that same thing being
said in 1955 by Lewis Mumford or in 1980 by Jane Jacobs?

I would prefer the article have subsections with the following titles:

Getting more human and humane in the City without Leaving our Technology
Behind

Toward the P2P Cityscape

Reconciling Old Power with New Urgencies in the City

Where are the issues of neighborhood?  Where are the issues of diversity?
Work/life balance?

There is much to be said on these topics, and I fear that this is either too
short of a piece or too long of one.  It is too short if it is to tackle
these big issues comprehensively.  It is too long if the message is as
simple as...Modernism sucks...Let's revert to a stick and stone past!

There is passion in the writing but it is under a layer of political
correctness.  It should be more raw and uncooked.

Ryan




On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear friends,
>
> This is a draft for an important article by Nikos, the p2p architectural
> thinker, to be published later on the p2p blog,
>
> Please send your reactions and don't forget to cc Nikos,
>
> Michel Bauwens
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Nikos Salingaros <salingar at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dear Michel,
>>
>> I have prepared this for your foundation. I don't want you to publish
>> it yet, but would like to ask you to send it to friends who might be
>> able to mark suggestions and changes on the manuscript. After I have
>> received those comments back, I'll prepare a final version for you.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Nikos
>>
>
>
>
> *P2P Themes and Priorities. Creating the thinking society. *
>
> * *
>
> *Nikos A. Salingaros.*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Introduction.*
>
> I would like to respond to Michel Bauwen’s article published on 3 April
> 2010, which examines the nature of a broad alliance that could be expected
> to adopt a new P2P worldview. Bauwens correctly questions whether the old
> Left/Right divide is still valid. It probably is, but it is certainly
> neither the only nor the predominant divisor of society into groups with
> opposing worldviews. I have been exploring contrasting viewpoints from the
> perspective of art, architecture, and urbanism for some time, and would like
> to suggest another view of contemporary problems. This approach may
> hopefully yield insights that could be exploited in moving towards a more
> humanly-adaptive P2P society.
>
>
>
> *Partitioning society between individual and groupthink populations. *
>
> Let me suggest a divide in worldview: that between personal validation,
> versus the blind following of groupthink. On the one side, the individual
> decides that he/she possesses enough biological capability to judge complex
> events and structures in the world; on the other side, an individual
> relegates the ability to judge to some expert. This second alternative is
> influenced by the method introduced by science, where ordinary people do not
> usually possess the scientific training that would enable them to make
> scientific judgments. Science requires specialization, and its applications
> in fields such as engineering, medicine, etc. also define domains of
> specialization. The ordinary citizen simply does not have the training to
> match experts in those fields. Even in economics, something as necessary as
> tax-return preparation divides individuals who can accomplish it on their
> own from those for whom the task is too complex, and requires paying a tax
> expert to do it for them.
>
> The authority of the expert is, however, commandeered by politicians and
> other figures intent on building a power structure. With religion in its
> most oppressive forms, an individual is told what to think. In the field of
> art, architecture, and urbanism, with which I am involved, an expert class
> of enormous extent and power has grown and now dictates group opinion about
> what is right and wrong. Here we have a problem in that much of contemporary
> artistic endeavor is felt (i.e. perceived biologically, psychologically, and
> viscerally) to be noxious and damaging to our psyche. This direct impression
> contradicts what the experts are saying, as it contradicts what a vast
> economic infrastructure — consisting of contemporary art museums, heavy and
> expensive picture books, courses in our universities, publications by
> world-famous critics, international shows and competitions, prestigious
> awards and prizes — uniformly supports.
>
> The other, equally negative face of this phenomenon involves condemnation
> of what the present artistic/architectural elite does not like (because it
> reminds us of the past). What naturally appeals to a person on the basis of
> evolved human physiology is very frequently dismissed as “kitsch” and is
> harshly condemned as a sign of moral degeneracy and backwardness. I’m sorry
> to say that much of the world’s traditional art, architecture, and urbanism
> falls into this category of forms condemned by an immensely powerful
> establishment. We therefore face a global phenomenon of cognitive
> dissonance: what we feel is right is supposed to be wrong according to
> authority, and what we feel is wrong is supposed to be right.
>
> So who is justified, the expert supported by a trillion-dollar industry
> centered in the world’s Art Capitals, or the folks who buy gaudy souvenirs
> and paint their house interiors and exteriors with bright colors? Who can we
> safely believe? I claim that it is the latter, and that we should trust our
> own biological instincts above all else, not simply for any political reason
> that should automatically side with the common human being out of
> egalitarianism, but as evidenced by our own biology. Much of the research
> supporting my claims is very recent and is contained, but is not limited to,
> the new discipline of Biophilia. Science is coming to bear, not on the side
> of the expert established through hegemony, but on the side of the ordinary
> human being. The problem is that this clarification comes several decades
> too late, only after a monolithic power structure has built itself up. The
> power the establishment wields is enough to silence scientific results.
>
>
>
> *Distinction between individual/groupthink and Left/Right partitions. *
>
> The individual/groupthink partition defines another political divide
> distinct from the old Left/Right partition. I will look for overlaps and
> contradictions. Justifying the feelings of common people against an elitist
> society that manipulates the media is a classic responsibility of the
> political Left. But this same idea is just another side of the insistence of
> the political Right that the individual should have the ability to decide
> for him/herself, and not be bullied into accepting a generic world imposed
> by the majority society which could represent the lowest common denominator.
> In this crucial point of individualism, the Left and Right partially
> intersect.
>
> It is also important to point out that both Right and Left have also
> historically encouraged the partition as I have just defined it. The Right
> is often enamored with expensive things and the latest fashions, and this
> consumerist urge is precisely what drives inhuman art, architecture, and
> urbanism. Experts arise within, and are promoted by the unstoppable engine
> of global consumerism, initially very much a phenomenon of the Right. There
> is a lot of money to be made from promoting useless and even noxious
> products, whether they be art objects, fashionable-looking buildings, or
> entire new cities designed by a fashionable architect (who may in fact have
> absolutely no grasp of the principles of urbanism). The media are controlled
> by the market, which itself exists in a self-feeding cycle within the global
> consumerist engine.
>
> The Left is not blameless, however. For much of its history, it has fallen
> prey to an ideology that falsely couples liberation and progress to abstract
> images of a future modernity, even long after such images turn out to be
> inhuman and dysfunctional in application. Well-meaning progressives bought
> into the promise of mass-production, and its more noxious (and unnecessary)
> aspect of the machine aesthetic. We are therefore still wedded to utopian
> architectural and urban typologies of the 1920s, promised at that time to be
> liberating for the oppressed working class, and implemented by both
> democratic and totalitarian governments of both Left and Right. Every
> application has been a dismal failure, yet our universities continue to
> teach the “socially liberating” ideal of the Bauhaus aesthetic as it applies
> to lamps, windows, buildings, and entire cities.
>
> At the same time, traditional architecture and urbanism are condemned by
> the creators of the groupthink society, and this is done in the harshest
> possible terms. Applying negative meme encapsulation, the
> globally-controlled media terrorize society with the warning that any
> traditional-looking building, and historical-looking urban fabric, is an
> immediate threat to liberty and even to technological progress. The majority
> of people buy that lie because of media conditioning. The Left has been
> unfortunately complicit in condemning traditional architecture and urbanism
> because of a tragic misinterpretation that conflates social forces with
> abstract images.
>
>
>
> *P2P principles reinforce the individual society. *
>
> Before continuing with my analysis of the individual/unthinking partition,
> I would just like to mention in what way P2P practices and ideas help to
> balance out the two sections in the partition. Readers will immediately
> offer that improved education would prevent ordinary, intelligent people
> from following obviously restrictive and oppressive ideologies. People
> reason for themselves. And yet, we see the same phenomenon repeating
> throughout history, where pseudo-religious cults and extremist political
> movements drag entire nations along in a nihilistic frenzy. Many classic
> cases involved societies with a highly-educated citizenry. Clearly,
> education is not enough to combat the phenomenon of brainwashing, especially
> as today, a major sector of Western economy (advertising and political
> campaigns) is devoted to it.
>
> P2P practices, on the other hand, have both the right appeal and the right
> message to accomplish the job. Since its inception in the slightly
> subversive world of open software, P2P has caught on with those who wish to
> sidestep a monolithic power establishment. Education in the P2P arena offers
> the perception that its content lies outside, and is thus potentially far
> more valuable, than information pumped through the regular channels by an
> establishment interested primarily in controlling the minds of citizens.
> While this may be an extreme view, it nevertheless concords with the
> open-source movement that liberates the tools of Information and
> Communications Technologies so that the rest of the world outside the global
> elite can profit from them.
>
> The basis for P2P philosophy requires INDIVIDUALS helping each other, and
> its idealization is achieved when this multiple connectivity finally creates
> a “collective intelligence”. I hold the view that this type of collective
> thinking process is very different from the psychology of crowds that occurs
> when masses of people are driven by an ideology and groupthink. As
> previously mentioned, the fierce individualism of conservative thought
> combines to generate a higher-level of group intelligence that is
> participatory rather than simply blindly reinforcing a single message. This
> collective intelligence among peers hopefully possesses a vastly improved
> analytical skill, which permits it to analyze social manipulation such as
> being practiced today by the mass media. P2P society keeps its components as
> individuals, whereas consumerist society converts them into one unthinking
> mass.
>
>
>
> *Urbanism among the groupthink society. *
>
> Beginning in the 1920s, the sleek, mechanical images of a new future
> defined a built environment made of glass curtain walls, steel frames,
> reinforced concrete, and the isolated free-standing high-rise building.
> Neither the Left nor the Right questioned these inhuman typologies, as
> massive construction put up prison-like apartment blocks from Magnitogorsk,
> to Detroit, to Teheran. These stubbornly neat geometrical visions contrasted
> with owner-built housing that is tailored to human sensibilities, though
> most often constructed with very poor materials. Self-built settlements are
> uniformly condemned as not conforming to the accepted image of progress (in
> truth those of reformist 1920’s Europe). Governments of every political
> orientation make it their determined objective to bulldoze informal cities
> and replace them with neat-looking but inhuman tower blocks. This is one of
> the most serious actions against P2P urbanism, since participatory building
> occurs only when it is supported by local help and connectivity, and never
> by implementation from above.
>
> The Right offers a bulwark against this propaganda, as it continues to
> value older, traditional forms. Perhaps valid for a subset of the right
> reasons, conservatives maintain an appreciation of traditional things, and
> do not rush to dispose of everything old just because a political ideology
> declares that such a sacrifice is necessary for progress. Conservatives are
> more immune to this urge to jettison all that has evolved in our past; they
> maintain the belief that the past is connected to the living present and
> cannot simply be thrown away. It is not necessary to convince those on the
> Right of the sacred value of preserving the great human achievements of the
> past, but less easy to underscore the value of folk art and architecture and
> irregular urbanism. Those are too closely tied to the poor and so do not
> often gain adequate support from the Right.
>
> World production of vernacular art, architecture, and urbanism tends to
> come from those on the Left, simply because they are less well off. But the
> problem here is that the same people aspire to values instilled in their
> minds by the globally-controlled media, and thus refuse to value what they
> themselves produce. They are easily manipulated in a global game of
> unsustainable consumerism that profits only the multinationals. The goal of
> consumerism is to undervalue what can be produced in a P2P society, and to
> create a dependence upon a proprietary product. Therefore, the world today
> has almost entirely been taken over by an elite that is converting it into
> the groupthink society, driving global consumerism and the economic engine
> that supplies it. Most people have no qualms about the massive
> indoctrination that is necessary to maintain the global consumerist society.
> At the same time, however, we are wasting the earth’s resources.
>
>
>
> *Protecting the natural resources of the world. Love and ownership of the
> commons. *
>
> I would like to explore the foundations of a P2P approach connecting to and
> eventually protecting our world. First and foremost, the basic concept of
> the commons needs to be established by physicality, not ideology. In my
> experience with urban forms and spaces, people do not identify with a
> particular place unless they feel they own it in some way. For that to
> occur, they must take emotional ownership. I believe that this is possible
> only if there is a shared feeling of love for the physical object, and even
> then only when this feeling is quite intense. If we love something, we care
> to preserve it. We can love something that is not exclusively ours, and then
> it becomes a common good. Much of the time, we love something that we have
> participated personally in creating.
>
> Consider the urban square of a village built by its inhabitants, the small
> church or temple in a village also built by its inhabitants, the great
> cathedral that was nevertheless the common endeavor of the people in a city
> for over a century. In all these cases, the users “own” the structure
> because they helped to create it, and they love it for the same reason. They
> will protect it against damage and destruction because they connect to it
> emotionally, psychologically, and viscerally.
>
> We don’t love the modern church designed by a “name” architect because it
> is not part of us; it is alien. Its geometry and surfaces contradict its
> claim of being sacred through an unmistakable visceral message that triggers
> a negative physiological response in our bodies. It has been sold to us by a
> corrupt media through indoctrination, in a political power game where a
> servile group is proud to execute the wishes of the dominant elite. In the
> same way, we don’t love the hard alien plaza designed by another “name”
> architect, nor the giant and absurd abstract sculpture that occupies and
> spoils what could have been a very nice urban space. None of these objects
> can ever become part of the “commons”, despite the enormous media expense
> trying to convince us of their worth in ideological terms based upon an
> ephemeral fashion.
>
> Another dimension of love and ownership develops over time, after several
> generations have experienced connection to a particular place or building.
> Our ancestors could have built it, so ownership and love of that place or
> building runs in our family. Traditional societies value the continuity of
> connection that establishes an indirect link with our ancestors, and the
> same link continues into the future to include our descendants.
> Conservatives place a high value on this continuity that links generations
> of people across time through the intermediary of particular shared places.
> Unfortunately, here the Left is less helpful because of its urge to undo
> past society so as to move forward towards real or imagined progress. When
> the past is seen as a barrier to emancipation and advancement, there is
> little to do to convince a society of the value of preserving at least some
> continuity.
>
> The Left/Right divide dissolves in a dangerous manner when the groupthink
> society is brainwashed into a fanatical hatred of its own past. In a
> phenomenon that is now referred to as Ecophobia, both Left and Right have
> turned against their built heritage and unthinkingly embrace images of
> buildings that are totally inhuman. The simple necessity of demolition in
> historic city centers in order to erect these new structures has spawned a
> propaganda war against historical and traditional built form, with the aim
> of replacing them. All the techniques developed in the advertising industry
> are applied in a clever manner to promote alien images of new buildings,
> while at the same time the complementary techniques of negative meme
> encapsulation, developed in the military rather than in Madison Avenue, are
> applied to condemn historical and vernacular architecture and urbanism. The
> “outdated” geometry is marked for elimination, and the people are convinced
> by the media of the necessity of introducing as rapidly as possible the new
> “signs of progress” that are the products of the global architectural elite.
>
>
>
>
> *Problems with political and moral corruption. *
>
> Today, most world governments support the dominant cultural elite without
> any reservations; indeed, the most powerful governments (the US, Western
> Europe, Japan, etc.) put their own considerable economic might behind the
> indoctrination machine. Other nations in the world fall roughly into three
> groups. 1) Nations that receive financial and military assistance from the
> West go along so as not to jeopardize those sources. 2) Nations that are
> openly hostile to the West react to its world domination by rejecting its
> commercial arm. 3) More independent countries which try to play both sides.
> The second group correctly perceives the danger that Western brainwashing
> poses for their own tradition and culture. There is hope that P2P solutions
> can be developed in those countries that do not wish to lose their heritage
> to Western consumerism. In some cases, however, a P2P solution for them is
> no closer, because their society has a top-down power structure that is not
> very different in essence from the Western model.
>
> This scenario turns into a tragedy that transcends the P2P society, for the
> following reason. The West has some enormously useful lessons to teach the
> rest of the world in terms of democratic systems of government with built-in
> checks and balances. When the lessons of democracy are accompanied by the
> selling of consumerist images and products, however, those willing to
> embrace the first are turned off by the second. How can you ever trust a
> world power that is trying to sell you glass-and-steel skyscrapers, which
> you know are extremely expensive to run and maintain in most climates, and
> which will destroy the traditional urban and social fabrics of your society?
> In many cases, the situation is even worse: corrupt and totalitarian states
> eagerly make deals with the global consumerist sector while carefully
> keeping democratic messages out of their country. They import the worst that
> the West has to offer.
>
> Political affiliation of individuals has nothing to do with professional
> politicians. Having followed closely top-down inhumanly-scaled projects that
> continued through changing administrations, I can vouch for the fact that
> politicians are concerned primarily about power. They will therefore
> initiate an inhuman project in order to satisfy a large local building firm
> or an international consortium, and this leads to disaster. The motivation
> behind monstrously-scaled projects follows because the larger the project,
> the more power there is to concentrate. This is the opposite of the P2P
> philosophy. As long as this practice of gigantism continues — and I see no
> indication that it can stop — P2P will remain an elusive dream. In more than
> one instance, I have witnessed a government fall in part because it
> sponsored a monstrous building project against popular opinion, and the
> opposition was elected on the promise of stopping it. Once in power,
> however, the new administration pursues the old project with the same zeal,
> simply replacing the previous government in a cozy deal with the
> builders/contractors.
>
> The proposals we (architects and urbanists who work with P2P principles)
> make for human-scaled social housing, preserving the historic city centers
> from alien intrusions, micro-surgery in the sprawling European, Asian, and
> Latin American suburbs to create living urban fabric on the human scale, are
> so far ignored. Participatory design is simply not on the agenda of the
> powerful local construction companies and hence it is uninteresting to the
> vast majority of politicians that are beholden to them. To truly implement a
> P2P urbanism, we will have to change the unhealthy concentration of brute
> economic and political power that now controls all such projects.
>
> I do not see at this time how the political system could be re-aligned so
> as to support P2P urbanism. The disappointing examples I refer to above
> occurred in separate European democracies, so evidently having an elected
> system of government is not enough to apply P2P principles. Of course, in a
> totalitarian system, the situation is far worse, yet we don’t normally
> expect any progress under those conditions. Paradoxically, where we see some
> hope for the present is in nations or specific regions that have very little
> central government control, so that P2P principles can be freely
> implemented. This is already being realized in the developing world. Many
> regions in the world where this one condition is met, however, suffer from
> lawlessness and instability as well, which preclude any stable society from
> functioning.
>
>
>
> *The threat from the deception of high-tech sustainability. *
>
> The global power system has learned ever more clever and deceptive
> techniques with which to continue its world hegemony. Perhaps the greatest
> threat faced by P2P urbanism today lies in the nightmarish “sustainable”
> cities and urban projects proposed and built by the power elite. The global
> system has picked up our own sustainable vocabulary and has used it to
> re-package their extraordinarily expensive and fundamentally unsustainable
> products (glass and steel towers, monstrous buildings, industrial-style
> cities in the middle of nowhere) as “sustainable”. The trick consists of
> using some technological gimmicks, and coming up with numbers for energy
> saved through having some solar panels and double glazing on the buildings’
> glass façades. But this is a fundamental deception, since the city or
> country that buys one of these eco-monsters becomes totally dependent on the
> consumerist energy system.
>
> As the companies selling these industrial products are the major
> multinationals tied into the power of Western states, it is extremely
> difficult to counter the stream of propaganda that is devoted to their
> promotion. Also, the selling occurs at the highest government levels, far
> above any decision-making that can be influenced by ordinary citizens. Even
> in the few cases where no obvious corruption takes place, the client nation
> blindly trusts the giant Western-based multinationals to deliver a
> sustainable product. At the same time, the controlled media acting as a
> mouthpiece for the multinationals is directed to praise the client nation
> for its “great foresight” and its adoption of “progressive urbanism”. Since
> national pride is involved here, even the most blatant urban disaster will
> not be discussed openly. Maybe we will read of a new city that proved to be
> totally dysfunctional, or too expensive to run, after several decades have
> passed, but certainly not sooner.
>
> The Left was (and is) enamored of large-scale industrial solutions,
> industrial cities, massive five-year building plans, etc. Despite all good
> intentions, these proved to be totally dehumanizing because of their
> ignoring human psychological needs and the human scale. Those are now
> re-appearing as neo-imperialist urban applications, with a newly-polished
> high-tech glamour. I’m sure that many persons continue to support these
> projects as a continuation of the false promises of technology solving every
> social problem (a dangerous proposition but not fatal in itself) made toxic,
> however, by skewing everything towards the very largest scale. Old-style
> centralized industrialization is the antithesis of P2P.
>
> By contrast, P2P sustainability uses small-scale technology linked in an
> essential manner to traditional socio-geometric patterns that connect a
> society to itself and to its place. This approach enjoys the natural kinship
> of bottom-up entrepreneurial initiatives such as the Grameen Bank. We begin
> from the smallest scale and move up through increasing scales. P2P empowers
> the individual to work and act within a society in a way that benefits that
> society. Just as in any stable complex system, different layers of
> functionality are added on increasingly larger scales, yet the working whole
> requires a balance of mechanisms acting on all scales, interacting
> horizontally as well as vertically. The new techno-cities, tragically, are
> designed to work on only one scale — the largest scale, designed as an
> abstract sculpture on the drawing table by a fashionable architect — in
> which case they may not work at all.
>
>
>
> *Conclusion: towards a new alliance. *
>
> I hope to have helped make clear part of what is required for a P2P
> society. Doubtless, we are only at the beginning of thinking about this
> effort, making plans for the first implementations, and there is much more
> that will need to evolve and develop. But we can summarize the first steps
> to take towards this goal. My discussion has been ranging between urbanism
> and politics, and certainly does not include the other significant
> components that are crucial for a P2P restructuring of institutions into a
> thinking society.
>
> The conclusion is obvious: a consumerist frenzy driven by a massively
> global economic-political establishment is eating up the earth’s resources.
> In order to function, it had to create a groupthink society, and it
> continues to do so through its absolute control of the global media. This
> much is immediately grasped by part of the Left, which eagerly embraces P2P
> ideas because it sees in them an alignment with its own anti-establishment
> ideals. Nevertheless, while these points are necessary they are not
> sufficient to develop a new P2P society.
>
> The other component of P2P is the re-utilization of patterns of geometry,
> of socio-economic actions, of tradition, which have worked in the past. Most
> (though certainly not all) of these traditional patterns are intrinsically
> sustainable because they arose out of necessity, and apply on the human
> scale. Here we are in the traditional domain of the Right. The Right
> preserves the essential respect of traditions by making them sacred. The
> cultural baggage of conservatives includes not only an essential
> understanding of what is worth saving, but also the worldview that gives an
> individual the strength of character to oppose the massive brainwashing that
> is converting the world into a groupthink population. The Left might be
> surprised to realize that it needs essential tools from the Right in order
> to complete the basic requirements for a P2P society.
>
> We can profitably argue the viewpoint that the world has been divided
> according to a new partitioning, which is non-political. The old Left/Right
> partitioning is not very useful in implementing a new P2P society. Any
> component of either side of the old political divide that supports P2P can
> and should be incorporated into a new worldview. As soon as the world
> realizes this, it will become easier to cross over the old political divide
> in order to implement new ideas towards a sustainable society.
>
>
>
> *Acknowledgments*: Without including references, let me mention that my
> principal influences are Christopher Alexander, Michel Bauwens, and Roger
> Scruton.
>
>
> --
> Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100415/09577c6e/attachment-0001.html>