Re: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Vandy
I appreciate your reflective contributions to our conversation and your
insightful questions.
The concept of *hearing* an other into *voice* was coined by Nelle Morton.
It captures the spirit of CHAT as a place of IN-spirt-ation
Vandy, your comment,  "I sort of ask to be allowed to step outside the
Vygotsky frame of reference, since I patently can't hold my own in a
discussion, as unschooled as I am"

can be reframed as:

 *we* can hold and *hear* you in a discussion, as we are now in a new type
of school where the assumption is we are all in school and hearing the
other's voice which is coming into being.

Vandy, I personally am outside the Vygotsky frame of reference, and often
am doubtful that I can't *hold* my own, but I realize I can let go and ask
to be heard. Then possibly I may find my voice and may also be held.

Larry


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 5:56 AM, vwilk <vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> wrote:

> So I have a "moment of insight" and take a stab at what I think is a rough
> sketch at an approach to setting up an open stage for building and working
> with concepts. I sort of ask  to be allowed to step outside the Vygotsky
> frame of reference, since I patently can't hold my own in a discussion, as
> unschooled as I am.
>
> But the stage includes empty frames, sets inside of sets, ladders, and
> dialectics.  All of those are metaphors, mappings and models - and those
> are concepts.  The whole idea of stepping out of something is itself a
> concept.  So I find myself in the absurd predicament of putting this idea
> forth as concept free and can't even see that I haven't extricated myself
> at all.  So, Andy, I won't take up your challenge this time around.  I
> don't even understand what *is* means, in this context.
>
>
>
> (2012/11/13 17:13), Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> A rather bewildering array of frames here, Vandy. What *is* a concept in
>> your approach?
>> Andy
>>
>> vwilk wrote:
>>
>>> Good afternoon.  I'll start at the top here.  I am stepping outside of
>>> this interesting conceptual loop for a moment to a "serene" space which can
>>> be defined by General System Theory.  It is academic, graduate level,
>>> abstract, about the methodology (praxis) and access to information
>>> resources, how to set up a research topic IN ANY FIELD WHATSOEVER and be
>>> able to proceed "creating your own system" (Blake) while acting in
>>> community, even if across disciplines, with those who speak to and
>>> challenge your system.
>>>
>>> Bateson offered us "set theory" via Whitehead and Russell and if we look
>>> back into the depths of time, we can find Plato offering us the abstract
>>> ladder via Diatima/Socrates in Symposium.
>>>
>>> Then I want to turn back to Bateson immediately for his work in DOUBLE
>>> BIND theory, which involves Bateson's theory of learning.  Learning One is
>>> learning.  Learning Two is learning how to learn. Learning Three takes us
>>> to the level where the tertiary academic world meets the world in the wild
>>> and they discuss "how are we going to talk about this".  Then, though not
>>> so simple, the "languages of the conceptual worlds" begin to match terms
>>> for equivalences.
>>>
>>> Conspicuous in Andy's jury example, we have "a case" and all types,
>>> presumably including the scientific and the spontaneous. Well, that is a
>>> dialectic, a pretty clear one.  We can call on the language of mental
>>> processing, right brain for spontaneous, creative, innovative, integrative
>>> and the left brain for categories, descriptions, criteria, atomizing.
>>>
>>> I'm going to round off this quick duck out to the stratosphere by
>>> quoting Einstein:
>>> “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when
>>> we created them. <http://thinkexist.com/**quotation/we_can-t_solve_**
>>> problems_by_using_the_same_**kind_of/15633.html<http://thinkexist.com/quotation/we_can-t_solve_problems_by_using_the_same_kind_of/15633.html>
>>> >”
>>>
>>> The shipwreck of interdisciplinarity comes from the war of preferences
>>> in which conceptual tools we are going to use, but a proper duel needs to
>>> have a conference, a choice of tools and rules of engagement to be
>>> productive.   We have found at the academy that writer's and teachers of
>>> writing need every kind of thought and language tool to assist in the
>>> creation of new research and writing about new research.  Well, enough for
>>> now. I'm always going back to Bateson.
>>>
>>> Vandy
>>>
>>> (2012/11/13 9:30), Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nice to meet you, Chuck. I read your original submission and the
>>>> revised ms twice, but that is some time ago now. I will re-read it later
>>>> today so I can be properly prepared for this multilogue. In the meantime
>>>> let me make just one point, because my point about the drive to make
>>>> aconcept into a typology has nothing to do with the distinction between
>>>> dichotomous typologies and typologies that point to a continuous spectrum.
>>>> The latter is always the refuge of a failed dichotomy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's suppose you are on a jury. You are hearing a case of murder. You
>>>> know what murder is, and I am assuming that everyone on this list knows and
>>>> I won't try to define it. The case however turns out to be challenging,
>>>> even though the facts are not in dispute. You hear about provocation and
>>>> blind rage and fear, and about blows whose effect far exceeds intention,
>>>> and the victim's heart condition. Before you retire to consider your
>>>> verdict, the judge gives you a list of criteria against which you have to
>>>> judge the facts.
>>>>
>>>> My question is this: is the list of criteria which define a typology of
>>>> homicide according to the various contingent circumatances of the act the
>>>> *real, scientific* definition of "murder", and the vague ill-defined
>>>> concept of murder that you arrived with a "spontaneous concept"? Or is it
>>>> the fact that you had a better concept to start with, and the judge's
>>>> criteria were the best approximation the law could make to that concept for
>>>> teh purpose of categorisation?
>>>>
>>>> Let us go further. You find the defendant guilty of murder and they go
>>>> to prison, but there is a public outcry and a massive campaign to have her
>>>> acquitted. The campaign is successful, the defendant appeals and is
>>>> acquitted after which the government amends the law so that in future
>>>> judges will give new directions to juries ensuring not-guilty findings in
>>>> such cases in future.
>>>>
>>>> My next question is this: which is the "real concept" of murder? Or did
>>>> it change? Or are there in fact multiple concepts of murder in competition
>>>> with one another? Was everyone previously mistaken about the definition of
>>>> murder? What typology of concepts do you use to distinguish them.
>>>>
>>>> Now I float this hypothetical NOT to prove how complicated is real
>>>> life, so that we can all shrug our shoulders and say "Goodness! What can
>>>> you do?" But it is targeted specifically at the concept of concept which
>>>> reads Vygotsky, like everyone else (almost), as taking the concept of
>>>> concept to be a typology of contingent attributes with nothing underneath.
>>>> And of course, Chuck, it is a question for everyone else as much as for you.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>> https://vimeo.com/groups/**129320/videos/35819238<https://vimeo.com/groups/129320/videos/35819238>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Charles Bazerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Forwarded the current string, and I have now rejoined the list.
>>>>> An earlier message I sent about T.S. Eliot's poem got lost, and I may
>>>>> repost it later.  Right now, however, let me respond to these Andy and
>>>>> Larry's thoughtful comments.  I think Andy has got my intentions and
>>>>> situation right.  I was certainly invoking my understanding of Vygotsky's
>>>>> ideas of scientific and spontaneous concepts, and was interpreting
>>>>> scientific to include organized sets of practices where there were stronger
>>>>> degrees of public criticism and social accountability, particularly with
>>>>> respect to coherence among concepts and collected evidence gathered
>>>>> according to communal standards in pursuit of communal projects. And thus I
>>>>> would indeed associate concepts with use and practice within social
>>>>> groupings.  (I am using the term social groupings rather than the more
>>>>> common term community in order to emphasize the varieties among groupings
>>>>> and the differentiation of roles, positions, and objects within those
>>>>> groupings, although collective objects may bind those groups together.)
>>>>>
>>>>> To some degree any publicly articulated ideas are accountable to
>>>>> communal expectations, practices, and rules of accountability, even if such
>>>>> rules are of the sorts such as "let it pass, because it is not important
>>>>> for immediate action" or "let's accept everyone's ideas, although we may
>>>>> not understand them or agree with them, in the name of goodwill or mutual
>>>>> support." Each of these do provide climates in which we formulate our
>>>>> ideas.  So in this way the spectrum of spontaneous to
>>>>> disciplined/scientific concepts is continuous and does not provide bright
>>>>> lines, except as we historically construct them.  However, we have
>>>>> historically created more robust social groupings devoted to particular
>>>>> lines of practice and projects, with more explicit and detailed sets of
>>>>> expectations and criteria of judgment for the consequentiality of proposed
>>>>> ideas--and these groupings have as well been associated with emergent
>>>>> institutions associate with the objects of these groupings. These might
>>>>> include not only the secular institutions and disciplines of the academy
>>>>> and professions, but also those of the spiritual domain, the performing and
>>>>> graphic arts, commerce games and sports, politics, criminal culture, and
>>>>> other domains that have a robust alignment of practice and communal
>>>>> thinking.  These may not all have occurred to Vygotsky as scientific, as
>>>>> attached as he was to the emergence of "scientific socialism" (though his
>>>>> connection with the arts, especially literature drama and the early film,
>>>>> may have led him to include them in his view of an increasingly scientific
>>>>> social order). Thus I may be drawing the fuzzy line between spontaneous and
>>>>> scientific concepts nearer to the spontaneous end than Vygotsky, who might
>>>>> as well have been drawing a somewhat brighter line.  However, since
>>>>> Vygotsky did not elaborate extended visions of society or history,
>>>>> especially after he articulated his view of concepts, we may not ever know
>>>>> what he thought or even if he thought very much about this issue.  His
>>>>> earlier writings about the arts, however, did indicate that he did treat
>>>>> them as capable of disciplined evocation of internal states to create
>>>>> shared experiences.
>>>>>
>>>>> This discussion still leaves me with the dilemma that both Andy and
>>>>> Larry point toward, that my own articulation of concepts is within the
>>>>> intellectual project and practices of historically emerged disciplines and
>>>>> projects. Guilty. I do not claim to escape social time or social space, but
>>>>> only speak to them.  It is in fact Yrjo's call for the special issue that
>>>>> drew together my various ruminations about concepts  in other contexts to a
>>>>> new articulation, directed towards the inter/multi-disciplinary world of
>>>>> MCA, situated within the wider social intellectual projects that have drawn
>>>>> on activity theory.  I found this context gave fresh wind to my sails to
>>>>> push my thinking further. Additionally, it was the review processes and
>>>>> dialog around publication that further helped me articulate my thought for
>>>>> this particular social formation and occasion. Accordingly and obviously, I
>>>>> draw on the conceptual world and intellectual practices that come with the
>>>>> activity theory projects. I
>>>>>  have cast my bets with this particular lot and the fate of my text
>>>>> depends on the usefulness for people engaged with this evolving project or
>>>>> with future projects that might find a useful resource in this set of
>>>>> concepts.
>>>>> My last paragraph pulls me back to the Eliot poem and the last
>>>>> sentence of my abstract--the need and value of rearticulating one's ideas
>>>>> and accounts to new moments, and how that provides new refining
>>>>> disciplines.  What strikes me most about Eliot's poem, which I commented on
>>>>> in my lost message, is how urgent he feels the need to continually
>>>>> rearticulate himself, despite what others may have said more powerfully or
>>>>> even himself in better times.  Of course, Eliot was caught up in both
>>>>> religious and artic stic disciplines which seemed to call for this constant
>>>>> rearticulation to measure the quality of his soul and his path in the
>>>>> world. To what extent, more generally all of us are driven to rearticulate
>>>>> the self in those disciplines important to the self, is a question I am now
>>>>> thinking about.  Is this a characteristic of participation in particular
>>>>> social worlds or is a consequence of the organization of the human brain
>>>>> and consciousness, in the manner Ramachandran proposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:11 am
>>>>> Subject: Fwd: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
>>>>> To: Chuck Bazerman <bazerman@education.ucsb.edu>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Chuck-
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are some comments on your xmca paper. You might want to join
>>>>>> xmca for a bit or I will just forward for your comments.
>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] A Failure of Communication
>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I appreciated Bazerman's deployment of the conceptr of "genre" and I
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> liked his use of "gist".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair, Larry, Bazerman qualifies the use of "scientific" by
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> the term with "(or disciplined or schooled)," and this indicates a
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> broader concept of concept, much closer to what I would take to be a
>>>>>> "true"
>>>>>> concept in Vygotsky's sense. I wonder if his use of "scientific" to
>>>>>> "stand
>>>>>> for" that whole category of concept was a nod to Vyvgotsky? In general
>>>>>> though, I think what Bazerman calls "conceptual words" and "scientific
>>>>>> (disciplined or schooled)" concepts are precisely concepts which
>>>>>> arise from
>>>>>> problems in a definite system of practice, or dare I say it, a
>>>>>> project. A
>>>>>> set of practices has to have rules in order to generate contradictions
>>>>>> which are the source of new concepts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I think the problem that Bazerman has in developing this insight
>>>>>> flows
>>>>>> from his concept of concept. Yes, the concept of concept is circular.
>>>>>> When
>>>>>> you make claims about concepts, or say anything about them, you are
>>>>>> already
>>>>>> presuming your interlocutor shares your understanding of the subject
>>>>>> matter, i.e. your concept of concept. ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Bazerman wants to categorise concepts and sets off trying to make a
>>>>>> typology, and so we have "spontaneous" and "scientific" concepts ...
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> immediately leads to observations like yours about the "fuzzy
>>>>>> boundaries"
>>>>>> not to say "shifting boundaries" etc. Because despite it all, it
>>>>>> seems,
>>>>>> Bazerman still cannot get away from the concept of concept as a means
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> categorisation. So the first thing you have to do in talking about
>>>>>> concepts
>>>>>> is to set up a typology of concepts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are a lot of nice things about this paper, but so long as you
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> stuck on categorisation and typologies you will forever be tied in
>>>>>> knots
>>>>>> trying to understand concepts, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Purss wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Hi Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will attempt a commentary on Charles Bazerman's article "Writing
>>>>>>> With
>>>>>>> Concepts: Communal Internalized and Externalized"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I struggled with how to enter into this genre of writing which is
>>>>>>> exploring
>>>>>>> the concept of concepts.  The topic of the paper I find fascinating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> insight that concepts are embedded within genres allows reflection
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> notion of *romantic science*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In particular the genre's propensity to explore concepts as two
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> *kinds* -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> spontaneous and scientific. Bazerman then offers a qualification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that these
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *kinds* have fuzzy boundaries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is this notion of the fuzzy boundaries within this particular
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> genre that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would like to explore further. When we enter into a dialogue on the
>>>>>>> relationship between spontaneous and scientific concepts and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> explore the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> functions of each are we moving away from *strict* dialectcs towards
>>>>>>> *interpretive* dialectics*?
>>>>>>> In other words is the relationship BETWEEN spontaneous and scientific
>>>>>>> concepts a *real* or an *interpretive* distinction?
>>>>>>> Do these distinctions exist in the natural world or are they aspects
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> particular genre which has developed textually and intertextually
>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>> effective history?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I'm playing with is the theme of *romantic science*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also want to share an image which this article sparked.
>>>>>>> At the AERA conference in Vancouver, I felt a sense or mood of
>>>>>>> fragmentation within the *project* of AERA.  There were multiple
>>>>>>> genres
>>>>>>> with the corresponding conceptual *tools* or *artifacts*. The
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> throngs were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> moving aboutt as if at a trade fair  picking up and putting down the
>>>>>>> various tools, artifacts, and scientific concepts wondering if these
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> tools
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> would be useful for their particular projects. But where was the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> sense or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mood of *shared purpose* within *commonly shared projects*?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles Bazerman's article is exploring a fascinating theme of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> genres and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> concepts. I hear Andy's voice calling us to put this particular
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> genre in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wider framework engaging with our ancestors. The topic as genre is
>>>>>>> fascinating but it does have a history within an evolving dialogue.
>>>>>>> As Andy is passionate about calling us to remember  the genre
>>>>>>> exploring
>>>>>>> concepts of concepts has a romantic history.  Exploring scientific
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> spontaneous concepts [with their FUZZY boundaries] is one way into
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> fascinating genre.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Dear Colleagues--
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have been reminded of an issue that has been nagging at me for
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> time,
>>>>>>>> that we have not had a discussion of any of the articles in the
>>>>>>>> special
>>>>>>>> issue of
>>>>>>>> MCA called "concepts in the wild."  The article selected by a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> plurality of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> voters
>>>>>>>> was by Chuck Bazerman on concepts in the process of writing. But no
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> commented on the article. That seems to me a shame. In fact, the
>>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>>> issue,
>>>>>>>> with its stellar set of authors and papers is worth discussing, and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> figure there will be more
>>>>>>>> articles on this general theme in the time to come, spanning as it
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> does,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the story of
>>>>>>>> all those practice in which we acquire and deploy concepts in
>>>>>>>> organizing
>>>>>>>> our social life and experience the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Below are two items for your consideration: The first is the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> abstract of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck's paper. The second
>>>>>>>> is a stanza from a poem by T.S. Elliott which I believe is relevant
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> topic of the paper and
>>>>>>>> in any event, worth considering in its own right. I first
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> encountered it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> Jack Goody's *Domestication of the Savage Mind, *a book about the
>>>>>>>> relationship between thinking and writing in societies varying in
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> practices related to the concept of literacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the 25 people or more who led us to this article are not in a
>>>>>>>> position
>>>>>>>> to contribute to the discusion,
>>>>>>>> perhaps this invitation will be sufficient for others, including
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck, to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if no one is interested in this discussion, we might re-visit
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> process by which articles for discussion taken from MCA. Or  not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> T. S. Elliott from “East Coker”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So here I am, in the middle way, having had twenty years—
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Twenty years largely wasted, the years of *l'entre deux guerres*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trying to use words, and every attempt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a wholly new start, and a different kind of failure
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because one has only learnt to get the better of words
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For the thing one no longer has to say, or the way in which
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One is no longer disposed to say it. And so each venture
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a new beginning, a raid on the inarticulate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With shabby equipment always deteriorating
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the general mess of imprecision of feeling,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Undisciplined squads of emotion. And what there is to conquer
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By strength and submission, has already been discovered
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To emulate—but there is no competition—
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The whole poem is here: ______________________________**
>>>>>>>> **____________
>>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  ______________________________****____________
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**--**------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
>>>>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________________****____________
>>>>>> _____
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  ______________________________**____________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca