[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] about emotions
Jay:
I believe this to be a great start to what I was thinking on the issue.
eric
Jay Lemke <jaylemke@umich.edu>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
11/28/2009 10:45 PM
Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
cc:
Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
So, would we begin with the simple contradiction: emotion is society's
principal support? (vs. "nemesis"?)
Reasonable on the grounds that "fellow-feeling" or primary sociality,
our empathic bond to our fellow humans, is what counters any notion
that the "state of nature" is ONLY "red in tooth, claw, and nail". We
do not begin from a war of all against all, but from family ties, and
cultural extensions of kinship feelings to notional kin, and loyalties
and identifications with larger groups and with lineages, clans,
moieties, age cohorts, initiation cohorts, totemic subgroups, etc. etc.
Without fellow-feeling, no society. Can the same be said as
convincingly of reason? Do we imagine that social systems cohere
because we rationally recognize our advantage from them? And that that
bond is strong enough to stand the test of conflict? That we would
sacrifice our lives to defend others solely out of rational
calculation? I doubt it. It seems clearly that sociality is rooted in
feeling.
Or, rather, in the unity and functional integration of kinds of
meaning making (e.g. to determine culturally who is in-group and who
is out-group) and kinds of feeling (loyalty, love, and alas their
opposites).
Emotions may be the nemesis of abstract and arbitrary, perhaps even
ideologically suspect, social ties. The "rational" grounds of the
capitalist nation-state, and its efforts to recruit loyalty
emotionally (songs, flags, rhetoric) seem rather easily interrupted by
the emotions of anger and resentment and the feeling of righteous
wrath against the oppressor, not just of myself, but also of others,
that leads to revolution, or at least to throwing a brick or two.
So I hope I am being a bit dialectical here in seeing even the sense
in which emotions ARE the nemesis of society as also and more
fundamentally being the same sense in which they ground the very
possibility of society.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
Educational Studies
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
Visiting Scholar
Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
University of California -- San Diego
La Jolla, CA
USA 92093
On Nov 28, 2009, at 7:48 AM, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I would like to point out that when I suggested that emotion
> appeared to be
> societies nemesis I did not bring in the dialectic but rather used
> the word
> dichotomy. Dichotomy does bring out the notion of either/or where
> dialectic is rather a wholeness a both sidedness within the same
> 'gestalt' (for lack of a better word). I believe in the dialectic and
> would like someone to stage this aspect of emotions in the form of the
> dialectic. Does this make sense?
>
> much thanks and turkey gravy
> eric
>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc:
> bcc:
> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
> Achilles Delari Junior <achilles_delari@hotmail.com>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 11/28/2009 10:28 AM GMT
> Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <font
> size=-1></font>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So, now, compare the two contexts
>
> 1926 - Fighting against general dualistic view in old psycholoy
>
> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
> every point nourished and permeated by these
> interdependences. NOT FOR A SINGLE MILLISECOND,
> PSYCHOLOGY TO MEASURE THE EXACT DURATION OF MENTAL
> PROCESSES, IS IT ISOLATED AND SEPARATED FROM THE REST OF THE
> WORLD ANDA THE OTHER ORGANIC PROCESS. Who claimsand studies
> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
>
>
> 1931-33 - Fighting against specific dualistic view in theory of
> emotions
> Chabrier completely justifiably refers to the fact that a feeling of
> hunger, usually
> considered in the group of lower bodily feelings in civilized man, is
> already a
> fine feeling from the point of view of the nomenclature of James,
> that the
> simple
> need of food can acquire a religious sense when it leads to the
> appearance
> of a
> symbolic rite of mystical communication between man and God. And
> conversely,
> a religious feeling, usually considered as a purely spiritual
> emotion, in
> pious cannibals
> bringing human sacrifices to the gods, can scarcely he referred to the
> group
> of higher emotions. Consequently, THERE IS NO EMOTION THAT BY NATURE
> WOULD
> BE
> INDEPENDENT OF THE BODY AND NOT CONNECTED WITH IT.Thank you for the
> English
> version. Where in English is "Psychology to measure" in Russian is
> "Psychologists"
> The Spanish is more correct - I don´t know about other mistakes.
>
> Achilles.
>
>> From: achilles_delari@hotmail.com
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] about emotions
>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:04:36 +0000
>>
>>
>> Of course this view is a mistake, because this view do not consider
>> what he said after, that is that mind is not separate from organism.
>> He not only denying old psychology, he is making an affirmation
>> againt
>> it. The same affirmation that I quote.
>>
>> Achilles.
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:53:47 +1100
>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>
>>> "Apart from irs purely psychological barrenness, traitional
>>> psychology suffers from another flaw. The point is that
>>> reality, as it obvious to anyone, does not at all justify
>>> such a view of mind. On the contrary, every fact and event
>>> loudly testifies to another and directly opposite state of
>>> affairs: the mind with all its subtle and complex mechanisms
>>> forms part of the general system of human behavior. It is in
>>> every point nourished and permeated by these
>>> interdependences. Not for a single millisecond, used by
>>> psychology to measure the exact duration of mental
>>> processes, is it isolated and separated from the rest of the
>>> world and the other organic processes. Who claimsand studies
>>> the opposite, studies the unreal constructions of his own
>>> mind, chimeras instead of facts, scholastic, verbal
>>> construtctions instead of genuine reality."
>>>
>>> LSW CW v. 3, p. 152-3.
>>>
>>> Reading this together with the preceding 3 sections, I take
>>> it that "traditional psychology" means introspective, or
>>> subjective psychology, and the view that introspection
>>> provides direct access to a distinct part of reality (soul,
>>> spiritual beings, something nonphysical, above matter).
>>> Vygotsky is saying that this view is mistaken.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>> Please Andy,
>>>>
>>>> Please if you are with the text about Thonrdike,
>>>> The passage is in the part 2, paragraph 4th -
>>>> The paragraph immediately above has te following
>>>> reference (N. N. Langue, 1914, p 42)...
>>>>
>>>> "The psyche and any its delicates and complex mechanisms, is
>>>> inserted
>>>> in the general system of the human behavior, each one of its
> manifestations
>>>> is totally impregnated by this mutual relation. Do not appears
> isolated nor
>>>> separated from the rest of the world an from the process of
>>>> organism
> even
>>>> a millesinum of a second, that is the time that psychologists
> calculate to
>>>> the psychic process. Who sustains in their investigations the
> contrary, will
>>>> be studying an unreal configuration of the own intelligence,
>>>> chimeras
> in
>>>> the place of facts, terminologicals constructs in the places of
>>>> real
> authentic
>>>> facts"....
>>>>
>>>> He is discussing methodological problem of definition of the
> psyche... Just
>>>> trying to posing about what king of things psychologist want make
>>>> his
> questions.
>>>> And stating that a psyche without orgnism is not a real thing about
> what
>>>> make questions... because if you ask for something that doesn't
> exist, you
>>>> can find answers that can not exist too. Its what I understand
>>>> about
> that
>>>> formulation. And I guess that in "The teatching about emotions" the
> problem
>>>> is methodological too. Let me say, about the own conditions to you
> make a
>>>> good question related to emotions, at that time, and even in our
> time, I can
>>>> conclude...
>>>>
>>>> I will see a manner to type the Russian, for any adictional
>>>> checking
> about this
>>>> quoting. Because there are two problems:
>>>>
>>>> 1) How it was translated from Russian to Spanish.
>>>> 2) How, of course, I translate from Spanish to English... (this
>>>> very
> worse, of course)
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Andy. Again.
>>>> Sorry about my persistence.
>>>>
>>>> Achilles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:57:19 +1100
>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>
>>>>> Achilles, I am looking at the English version in LSV CW v.3.
>>>>> I can't find the passage you quote, but I see on p. 155 that
>>>>> Vygotsky puts "other somatic reactions that form the basis
>>>>> of emotion" in the same category as "the first component of
>>>>> an organism's perception of this environmental influence."
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I don't think emotion has anything to do with
>>>>> instinct or higher vs lower mental functions. We perceive
>>>>> the reaction of our body and that affects our thinking and
>>>>> our whole process of perception, just like our vision does.
>>>>> Vygotsky compares it to inner speech actually. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that Vygotsky was trying to solve the problem of
>>>>>> dualism in theory of emotions. He worked with the principle
>>>>>> of "psychophysical unit" - the "main principle of Soviet
> psychology"
>>>>>> in the words from Rubinshtein. The difference between
>>>>>> the cognitive and the instinctive is not because the cognitive
>>>>>> have not physiological conditions, but the complexity of that
>>>>>> conditions and it mediated character... Vygotsky said that
>>>>>> "the psyche do not appears isolated from the world or from
>>>>>> the process form organism neither for a 0,001 second" (1926/1991
>>>>>> - Prólogo a la versión russa del libro de E. Thorndike
>>>>>> 'Principios
>>>>>> de enseñanza basados a la psicología - this is the Volume I
>>>>>> of the Works in Russian and Spanish, I don't remeber the number
>>>>>> in English, because they do not follow the Russian numeration).
>>>>>> You can see that psyche are not isolated from the organism and
>>>>>> not isolated from the world. In fact human beens are constituted
>>>>>> by the same substance that the world, we are not an "Impire
>>>>>> inside
>>>>>> the impire" - but to be the same substance do not means that we
>>>>>> are in the same way... the same "mode" - I Spinoza´s words.
>>>>>> Vygotsky fight against a dualistic approach to emotions. And to
>>>>>> him James is an "involuntary disciple of Descartes" because his
>>>>>> especial emphasis in cultural feelings as spiritual process. Much
>>>>>> common even today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I only don't uderstand why you say that there is a problem that
>>>>>> I am trying to solve. If cognition have not material support what
>>>>>> kind of substance is cognition? This is not a problem, the
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> is how to understand ideological, historical, conscious,
>>>>>> cultural,
>>>>>> constitution of human emotions in his/her whole personality
>>>>>> without
>>>>>> repeat a dualistic approach. I understand this problem is not
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> mine... this is a problem posed by Vygotsky himself. And I only
>>>>>> agree that is good question... I don't if Damasio already answer
> that.
>>>>>> Can you tell me who did?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Achilles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:10 +1100
>>>>>>> From: ablunden@mira.net
>>>>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you still need a distinction between a physiological
>>>>>>> reaction and a cognitive disposition, don't you, Achilles?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the specific problem you are trying to solve?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Achilles Delari Junior wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you very much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Something near to this distinction between feelings and
>>>>>>>> emotions
>>>>>>>> was posed by William James too, according Vygotsky, but James
>>>>>>>> saw this distinction in terms that these social dimension of
> affective
>>>>>>>> world, the higher feelings, have almost nothing related to
> biological,
>>>>>>>> physiological, material, body, conditions. And Vygotsky
> criticizes
>>>>>>>> this like a way of dualistic thinking - this dualism can be
> understood
>>>>>>>> as based in ideological motivations too: "the human is not an
> animal,
>>>>>>>> nor a material been, but a divine been, in his higher, superior
> feelings..."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A distinction between feelings and emotions is present in
>>>>>>>> Damasio
> too
>>>>>>>> in neurofunctional terms... But Vygotsky proposed the
>>>>>>>> question of
>>>>>>>> a systemic inter-relationship in that the lower can turns
>>>>>>>> higher,
> and
>>>>>>>> vice versa... I don't know what we can thing about this... In
> this
>>>>>>>> case, distinction between feelings and emotions are useful, but
> if
>>>>>>>> we want to understand the entire human been, his/her whole
> personality,
>>>>>>>> the integration and inter-functional relations between feelings
> and
>>>>>>>> emotions turns relevant too, In my point of view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best wishes.
>>>>>>>> Achilles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: jaylemke@umich.edu
>>>>>>>>> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] about emotions
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:28:26 -0800
>>>>>>>>> CC:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am certainly one of those people interested in emotion, or
> feeling,
>>>>>>>>> or affect, or whatever we choose to make of the phenomenon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The topic seems to have historically accumulated a lot of
> ideological
>>>>>>>>> baggage. And while its expression may be more sophisticated
> today than
>>>>>>>>> in times past, there doesn't seem to be that much less of it
>>>>>>>>> (as
> for
>>>>>>>>> example in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy review
>>>>>>>>> noted
> by
>>>>>>>>> someone earlier).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emotion tends to be seen as bad in our philosophical
>>>>>>>>> tradition.
> As the
>>>>>>>>> enemy of reason, the motor of self-deception, etc. It links us
> to the
>>>>>>>>> animals, to our "baser" nature, etc. A bit of this in the
>>>>>>>>> pagan
>>>>>>>>> tradition, a lot of it in christian asceticism, and tons of it
> in
>>>>>>>>> Enlightenment rationalism and its successors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Emotions are also associated with the unreliable feminine vs..
> the cool
>>>>>>>>> and collected masculine, with the passions of the mob vs. the
>>>>>>>>> thoughtful elite, with peasants, workers, and children, and
> pretty
>>>>>>>>> much every social category whose oppression needs some
> legitimation.
>>>>>>>>> Indeed one of the near universal legitimations of elite
>>>>>>>>> power is
> "we
>>>>>>>>> know what's good for you", not just because of what we know,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> because you can't be trusted to see your own best interests
> through
>>>>>>>>> the haze of your emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Useful as this is to elite interests, it combines further with
> the
>>>>>>>>> cult of individualism to make emotions a purely individual,
> mental,
>>>>>>>>> subjective matter. Non-material, non-social, non-cultural, and
>>>>>>>>> universal (the easier to apply the stigma of emotionality to
> non-
>>>>>>>>> European cultures). It is rather hard to crawl out of this pit
> of mud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I've been trying to do for the last year or two. There
>>>>>>>>> would
> be too
>>>>>>>>> much to say for a short post on this list, but here are a few
> basic
>>>>>>>>> suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feeling is a broad enough category to get back to the
> phenomenology of
>>>>>>>>> affect/emotion, whereas "emotion" is too narrowly defined
>>>>>>>>> within
> the
>>>>>>>>> tradition of animal-like and universal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a LOT of different feelings, and that is more
> important than
>>>>>>>>> efforts to identify some small number of basic emotions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many feelings are associated with evaluative judgments and
>>>>>>>>> this
> may be
>>>>>>>>> a key link to re-unify affective and cognitive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings do differ significantly across cultures, and are part
> of a
>>>>>>>>> larger system of meanings-and-feelings specific to a
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't make meanings across any longer term process of
> reasoning
>>>>>>>>> without feelings and evaluative judgments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is likely that feelings have histories, both in cultures
>>>>>>>>> and
> in
>>>>>>>>> individuals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings are often reliable guides to survival, to adaptive
> action,
>>>>>>>>> and to finding ways to meet our needs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feelings are just as situated and distributed as are
>>>>>>>>> cognitions.
> And
>>>>>>>>> just as active and actively made and produced.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short -- pretty much everything in our dominant tradition
> about
>>>>>>>>> emotions and feelings is exactly wrong -- and for the worst
> possible
>>>>>>>>> ideological-political reasons, I believe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> JAY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>>>>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>>>>>>>> Educational Studies
>>>>>>>>> University of Michigan
>>>>>>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>>>>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Visiting Scholar
>>>>>>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>>>>>>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>>>>>>>> La Jolla, CA
>>>>>>>>> USA 92093
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 8:08 AM, mike cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With so much interest in achieving an integrated
>>>>>>>>>> understanding
> of
>>>>>>>>>> emotion,
>>>>>>>>>> cognition, and development, Achilles, your focus on this
>>>>>>>>>> topic
> is a
>>>>>>>>>> helpful
>>>>>>>>>> reminder of its continued importance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like one of those many areas in psychological research
> where
>>>>>>>>>> we cannot
>>>>>>>>>> keep from murdering to dissect.
>>>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e
>>>>>>>> muito
> mais. Conheça!
>>>>>>>>
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> Agora a pressa é amiga da perfeição. Chegou o Windows 7. Conheça!
>>>>>>
> http://www.microsoft.com/brasil/windows7/default.html?WT.mc_id=1539_______________________________________________
>>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
> mais. Conheça!
>>>>
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
>>> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Novo site do Windows Live: Novidades, dicas dos produtos e muito
>> mais..
> Conheça!
>>
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Você já ama o Messenger? Conheça ainda mais sobre ele no Novo site de
> Windows Live.
> http://www.windowslive.com.br/?ocid=WindowsLive09_MSN_Hotmail_Tagline_out09_______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca