[Xmca-l] Re: Signing up for the LSV-MAKH discussion, version 2

[Martin Packer]

Dana, if you tell the group what it is that you’d most like to learn, you’ll satisfy Mike’s requirements.  :)

We’re *all* there to learn!

Martin

"I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brown or Kroeber, I become at once aware that my partner does not understand anything in the matter, and I end usually with the feeling that this also applies to myself” (Malinowski, 1930)



> On Apr 23, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Walker, Dana <Dana.Walker@unco.edu> wrote:
> 
> I guess I will need to recuse myself.  I was hoping to learn from this conversation, but that does not appear to be the purpose of this new sub-group.  
> Dana Walker
> 
> On 4/23/18, 1:09 PM, "xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mike cole" <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> 
>    Hi Kim, you are now signed in I see.
> 
>    All -- Seems like time to close the doors to group. If someone important is
>    missing, please get them to sign up soon because it seems time to move from
>    gathering an interested group to converting to a working group to produce a
>    memorable academic
>    result.
> 
>    To this end,  I have exchanged notes with a couple of the people on the
>    list (Natalia and Anna) who are invested in the topic, but unable to shift
>    priorities to engage. They will be leaving the list so that we do not slip
>    in to the "big audience is listening in" situation of xmca. I would
>    appreciate it if others in the same circumstances would also recuse
>    themselves, so to speak, for the time being. I promised to report back to
>    xmca with the results of our efforts when we actually have some to report
>    (!).
> 
>    In this regard, in response to Peter's and Greg's notes. I hope it is clear
>    that I am not
>    seeking a "one right answer" here. Stone soups mix a lot of flavors from
>    their varied
>    ingredients. I believe our biggest service here is to make clear where
>    there are complementarities, where, as Peter puts it, there are
>    irreconcilable differences, and how to be clear about the underlying
>    paradigmatic differences that convert misunderstandings into irreconcilable
>    differences.
> 
>    What are the differences that make a difference? \
>    What are the similarities that draw some people to believe in
>    complementarity?
>    What difference do the differences make in practice?
> 
>    It is this last question that seems to be crucial in a special issue. If we
>    remain at the level of general theory without showing how the theoretical
>    differences make a difference in our practice -- and what differences those
>    practices mak-- who cares?
>    What should young scholars entering the field know so that their practices
>    are more
>    effective (by what criteria)? Are their theoretical commitments put at risk
>    by their
>    practices?
> 
>    I am seeing A LOT of articles now that throw around various terms as an
>    interpretive frame for results in hand, but where theory is not guiding
>    practice at all, and there is no evidence of self-critical next steps to
>    see if the interpretive frame is more than one of many possible post-hoc
>    explanations.
> 
>    I do not know about you-all, but I feel a keen need to read and get
>    straight the
>    documents that we have gathered. If you are missing something, check out the
>    archive of emails where they appear as attachments. We will try to gather
>    them up at this end, but our volunteer fire department is being kept busy
>    by my ineptness
>    as getting the various email procedures straight.
> 
>    Over to those we have not heard from yet.
>    I will follow up with David on the "rotation"/ingrowing/internalization
>    problem, having added Martin's objection to internalization to my reading
>    list.
> 
>    mike
> 
>    On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Kim Anh Dang <dangthikimanh@gmail.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> Is this too late to sign up for this? Sorry I have not found the original
>> email about the process to sign up for this discussion.
>> 
>> If it is not too late, could I join please?
>> 
>> Thanks very much.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Kim
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 19 Apr 2018, at 1:30 pm, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Maybe people do not understand the confirmation delay?
>>> Try that out on them and lets see how it goes.
>>> 
>>> Archive or articles url??
>>> 
>>> sorry for the extra hassle
>>> mike
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Bruce Jones <bjones@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I removed the confirmation requirement for subscriptions to the LSV-MAKH
>>>> mailinglist.
>>>> 
>>>> All that's current required is my approval, which I will apply on a
>> daily
>>>> basis for the near future.
>>>> 
>>>> This should help.
>>>> 
>>>> Please refer any problems to me rather than the xmca list.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Bruce Jones
>>>> Sys Admin, LCHC
>>>> bjones@ucsd.edu
>>>> 619-823-8281
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>    **This message originated from outside UNC. Please use caution when opening attachments or following links. Do not enter your UNC credentials when prompted by external links.**
> 
> 
>