[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
Martin, Mike, Peter and others interested in the *ensemble* of forms of
communicative action.
The book by Susan G-M and the questions she is answering are fascinating
and intriguing.
Martin, your comment, *Language IS gesture* seems to be an insight that
may ramify throught our questions about communicative action.
A question that comes to mind is triggered by Susan's comment in the
introduction to her book
*The fourth section explores situations in which there is no speech and
gesture is forced to take on the full burden of communication. When gesture
is produced with speech, it shares the burden of communication with that
speech and, I show in the book, takes on an imagistic form that is quite
distinct from speech as a consequence*
The question is the place of IMAGES in the ensemble of communicative
action. The question of the SPONTANEITY of image formation IN RELATION to
normative images that seem to *carry* cultural meaning. For example the
normative image that consciousness IS spontaneity and creates world making
[Cassier's image of consciousness as symbolism] .
Charles Taylor's notion of *social imaginaries* explores a similar theme.
Images [as normative canonical images] and the RELATION to images [ as
deeply personal and SPONTANEOUS] and the interplay
in the *ensemble* of communicative action is a question that plays IN my
mind [or am I just attuning to the play IN the sociocultural surround??
The concept of *ensembles* as compositions and composing of symphonies of
meaning. When are our performances *solo* and when ensembles of images,
gestures, and texts expressing our contribution in the here and now BUT
also contributing to LIVING normative images. [in contrast to Heidegger's
notion of the gravitational pull of DEAD convention and dead normative
images]
Larry
On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Phil Chappell <philchappell@mac.com> wrote:
> Peter: Thank you for the heads up on the book Hearing Gesture: How Our
> Hands Help Us Think I've ordered a copy and am looking forward to reading
> more from Susan G-M and working on links between her work and McNeil's.
>
> Chai Yo
>
> Phil
>
>
> On 03/05/2012, at 8:07 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>
> > http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu/PDF/1997/Iverson_GM1997.pdf
> > http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu/books/hear_gest.html
> > http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu/PDF/2008/Ping_GM_2008.pdf
> > http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu/PDF/1992/GM_Wein_Chang1992.pdf
> >
> > Mike, Larry, et al., Susan G-M was on my doctoral committee, I'm pleased
> to say. She's got a lot of this stuff archived at these links, and perhaps
> others at the http://goldin-meadow-lab.uchicago.edu URL. p
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> On Behalf Of mike cole
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:21 PM
> > To: vygotsky@unm.edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
> >
> > The person who came to mind for me on this issue is Susan Goldin-Meadow
> who shows that children about to display Piagetian conservation in words
> gesture in distinctively relevant ways before they verbalize the correct
> response. But I could not find the relevant material in an article. :-( mike
> >
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Larry et al,
> >> The dichotomy between words and gestures, (the latter being non-rule
> >> governed and spontaneous) is not quite in accordance with the rich
> >> research literature on gestures. David McNeil's research reveals
> >> interesting synchronies between speech and gesture. You may like to
> >> look into his work, Vera
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> >> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 5:11 PM
> >> To: lchcmike@gmail.com
> >> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
> >>
> >> Mike, Monica, Andy,and others
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Mike, sedimentation as the relatively stable product of joint activity
> >> materialized in language is an excellent starting point. I'm still
> >> attempting to understand what is meant by *materialized* in the
> >> statement *materialized in language* In other words, as we
> >> participate in the
> >> *ensemble* of modalities expressing meaning [motor, perceptual,
> >> gesture, language, artifacts] *as* enactments questions if one
> >> modality (language) is conventional and rule bound while another
> >> modality (gesture) is spontaneous and free and and expressing
> >> subjective non-conventional [natural] expressions.
> >>
> >> I want to return to Martin's exploration of *inner form* as central to
> >> meaning Shpet wrote a book on inner form where he expanded on
> >> Humboldt's notion of language as a *living* entity. Shept wrote,
> >>
> >> "We must look at language not as a DEAD product OF a generative
> >> process but instead language is a living generative process. This is
> >> the central tenet he lays out in his phenomenological account of
> >> language as *energeia* not
> >> *ergon* [extending Humboldt's idea]. Language *as* activity of the
> >> spirit and the immanent work of the soul. Language is the foundation
> >> of the very nature of being human. ... Language can be viewed not only
> >> as a substance but as a SUBJECT. Not only as a thing, product, or
> >> result of production [instrument or tool to be picked up and used] but
> >> *as* production PROCESS asenergeia."
> >>
> >> The notion that language is a SUBJECT, an activity of the spirit, adds
> >> an element of dynamism that is often not a part of contemporary Western
> >> traditions of schorlarship. Martin's exploration of Merleau-Ponty's
> >> notion of meaning *as* style explores the same theme.
> >>
> >> I would like to add Gadamer's voice to this conversation with his
> >> notion that sedimented materiality in language may have its *own*
> >> being that participates and answers the interpreter in genuine
> >> conversations [living texts]. Conversations & texts are
> >> hermeneutically interpreted and in THIS dialogical process BOTH
> >> subject and living materialized language [as subject] are transformed
> >> within expanding *fusions* of horizons. This suggests that language
> >> itself is living spirit [being] with its own energeia and its own
> >> horizon of understanding that can *open* and *unveil* an infinity of
> the *unsaid* in its enactment with our subjectiviy.
> >>
> >> This reflection on language as living energeia may be far too
> >> metaphysical [with talk of spirit and soul] and I may be
> >> mis-understanding Shpet and Gadamer and Merleau-Ponty. [I will leave
> others to comment on Vygotsky].
> >> However this phenomenological, historical, and metaphorical
> >> exploration attempting to render the energeia of language in DYNAMIC
> >> flight, and its infinite unveiling of the *unsaid* within further
> >> conversations and further unveilings] seems to be a theme inhabiting
> language.
> >>
> >> I may be taking us all down a rabbit hole and if so I apologize. I do
> >> not have a background in language studies but the materiality of
> >> language [object *enlightenment*, subject *romanticism*, energeia,
> >> convention, rule bound, non-conventional, fluid, dynamic, spontaneous,
> >> living, product, productive] seems to have an ambiguous nature that
> >> calls for continuous hermeneutical unveiling as we descend deeper into
> >> its overflowing potential.
> >>
> >> Elena Cuffari playing within the traditions of phenomenology,
> >> pragmatics, and gesture studies as one example of this living energeia
> >> [not ergon]
> >>
> >> Larry
> >>
> >> PS My jumping off point for these reflections on Vygotsky being
> >> influenced by Shpet.
> >>
> >> http://books.google.ca/books?id=iw4jk11pm_YC&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=Pheno
> >> menolo
> >>
> >> gy+of+language+%22inner+form%22&source=bl&ots=WwslGiIO7c&sig=QPVSgaPHx
> >> gy+of+language+MdWYQ4
> >>
> >> EImKktK-Hcqc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cr6hT4mhCIKyiQKhm8CYBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=on
> >> epage& q=Phenomenology%20of%20language%20%22inner%20form%22&f=false
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is from my memory of lsv, not my idea.
> >>> mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM, monica.hansen <
> >>> monica.hansen@vandals.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Describing meaning as a "the most stable pole" is that your
> >>>> metaphor for your interpretation of LSV as a whole or does that
> >>>> come from a
> >> particular
> >>>> contextual instantiation?
> >>>>
> >>>> When you put it that way, Mike, it does seem daunting! It is
> >>>> amazing we ever thought to study psychological processes,
> >>>> especially using science
> >> ;).
> >>>> There are so many factors that can't be isololated--the nature of
> >>>> the relationships in question is not easily defined by the types of
> >>>> relationships we are used to establishing in science. So, all I can
> >>>> come
> >> up
> >>>> with is that we continue to work at our understandings.
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________________
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on
> >>>> behalf of mike cole [lchcmike@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:35 AM
> >>>> To: Larry Purss
> >>>> Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Alfred Schuetz
> >>>>
> >>>> Parsing the multi-phased, overlapping, seemingly cyclical processes
> >>>> involved in joint mediated action in real time seems like a task
> >>>> that
> >> must
> >>>> be specified in the particulars of the case, Larry. Avoiding the
> >>>> pothole that opens up when we murder to dissect seems essential,
> >>>> but rendering accessible the process in flight also seems essential.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have to make sense at the same time that we are making meaning,
> >>>> seems to me. If, a la lsv, meaning is thought of as "the most
> >>>> stable pole" of externalized sense making, materialized in
> >>>> language, perhaps it can be thought of the sedimented (relatively
> >>>> stable) product of joint activity.
> >>>>
> >>>> How to obtain empirical evidence of these multi-temporal,
> >>>> simultaneous, two way processes at multiple time scales seems a
> >>>> question worth asking.
> >>>> Especially in micro time (relative to ordinary experience) getting
> >>>> access to observation of the processes at work seems a daunting
> >> challenge.
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Mike
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You wrote,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> from this perspective, meaning is retrospectively constructed.
> >>>>> That idea seems entirely consistent with joint-mediated activity
> >>>>> as a unit of analysis for lots of the phenomena we discuss
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The queston that comes to mind is, Do we grant the backward
> >>>>> glance
> >> the
> >>>>> royal road *to* meaning?
> >>>>> Where do we locate the *dialogical* notion of mediation that
> >>>>> posits meaning as located *in* the answering of the other? Until
> >>>>> our playful encounter *in* the conversation [conversation as
> >>>>> having its own living experience or being] is answered meaning
> >>>>> continues in transition to becoming. This notion of meaning
> >>>>> points more to the centrality of
> >>>>> *translation* within the dance rather than locating meaning in
> >>>>> the completed actuality of our anticipated projection, as
> determinative.
> >> At
> >>>>> least within the conversation I'm having with myself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike, as Martin is expressing, what is the relation BETWEEN *the
> >>>> backward
> >>>>> glance* as completing the arc AND the *answering of the other* as
> >>>>> the completion of the arc?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are these alternative ways of *forming* meaning? The backward
> >>>>> glance
> >> as
> >>>> a
> >>>>> particular TYPE of consciousness and the *answering other* as
> >>>>> another TYPE? The centrality of the permeable relational
> >>>>> boundary between
> >> inner
> >>>>> and outer and the reciprocity and movement back and forth between
> >> these
> >>>>> forms of meaning? Or does one type subsume the other?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Both point to *joint mediation* but one seems to privilege
> >>>>> *cognition*
> >>>> as
> >>>>> located in subjectivity [MY backward glance] while the other form
> >>>>> of mediation seems to privilege the *play* as having its own
> >>>>> being *in*
> >>>> which
> >>>>> *we* [not *I*] participate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Larry
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 9:32 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> To me what stands out is the fact that from this perspective,
> >>>>>> meaning
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> retrospectively
> >>>>>> constructed. That idea seems entirely consistent with
> >>>>>> joint-mediated activity as a unit of analysis for lots of the
> >>>>>> phenomena we discuss, teaching/learning processes for example.
> >>>>>> I am not so sure about the "reflective attitude" part being
> >> necessary.
> >>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Larry Purss
> >>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On page 4 of the article on multiple realities Schultz
> >>>>>>> writes,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it makes us - in our language - either live within our present
> >>>>>> experiences,
> >>>>>>> directed toward their objects, or turn back in a reflective
> >> attitude
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> our
> >>>>>>> past experiences and ask for their meaning.*[7]*
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the same spirit as Martin was reflecting on the *relation
> >> between*
> >>>>>>> realization and instantiation [*play* in Gadamer's language]
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>> either/or
> >>>>>>> language in the above quote [directed toward objects OR
> >>>>>>> turning
> >> back]
> >>>>>> may
> >>>>>>> be interpreted *as* a reciprocal hermeneutical relation of
> >>>> continuous
> >>>>>>> moving back and forth and interpenetrating with more permeable
> >>>>>> boundaries
> >>>>>>> and more dynamic flow [in other words *fusing* of the horizons
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>> present
> >>>>>>> experiences and reflective attitude]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I understand Gadamer, he would suggest Schultz is operating
> >>>>>>> from
> >> a
> >>>>>>> particular prejudice-structure of understanding reflective
> >>>>>>> conduct [subject-object reflection] whereas Gadamer is
> >>>>>>> pointing to an
> >>>>>> alternative
> >>>>>>> form of what he terms *effective* reflection. I acknowledge I
> >>>>>>> may
> >>>> have
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> *mis*-understanding Gadamer, and what I'm suggesting is
> >>>>>>> tentative,
> >>>> but
> >>>>>> I am
> >>>>>>> hearing a particular type of reflection being articulated as I
> >>>>>>> read
> >>>> the
> >>>>>>> article.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Larry Purss
> >>>>>>> <lpscholar2@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andy, Mike, Martin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for this lead. I have been reading Gadamer's
> >>>>>>>> response to
> >>>>>> Habermas
> >>>>>>>> and the interplay between his notion of *traditions* and
> >>>>>>>> Habermas
> >>>>>> notion
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>> *emancipation* within social theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The two chapter's of Martin's book will help further the
> >>>>>> conversations on
> >>>>>>>> these themes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Martin, your conversation with David on the interplay of
> >>>> realization
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> instantiation and the centrality of the *relation between*
> >>>>>>>> these
> >>>>>> concepts
> >>>>>>>> seems central to this discussion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I also wonder about the interplay between realization and
> >>>> reflection
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> Gadamer's notion of multiple TYPES of reflection. Assertive
> >>>>>> reflection,
> >>>>>>>> thematic reflection, and what Gadamer names as *effective
> >>>> reflection*
> >>>>>>>> where one engages with developing the skills to enter and
> >>>> participate
> >>>>>>>> effectively in playing the games without holding back and
> >> *merely*
> >>>>>>> playing
> >>>>>>>> at playing the game. Effective playing as having its *own*
> >>>>>>>> being
> >>>> and
> >>>>>>> *we*
> >>>>>>>> enter this play and get *taken up* and *carried* along
> >>>>>>>> within the
> >>>>>> play.
> >>>>>>> Not
> >>>>>>>> privleging either *subjective* consciousness or *objective*
> >>>>>> consciousness
> >>>>>>>> but rather privileging the play in which subjectivity and
> >>>> objectivity
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>> their *ground* [metaphorically]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Martin, I'm not sure if this was the direction you were
> >>>>>>>> taking theconversation, but it what I interpreted you saying.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Larry
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM, mike Cole
> >>>>>>>> <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Andy et al -
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Martin's book, the science of qualitative research has a
> >>>>>>>>> chapter
> >>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> traces Kant-Husserl-
> >>>>>>>>> Schutz - BergerLuckman that we r reading at Lchc. It helped
> >>>>>>>>> me a
> >>>> lot
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> sort out this branch
> >>>>>>>>> of thought. It is followed by a chapter that traces
> >>>>>>>>> Heidegger -
> >>>>>> Merleau
> >>>>>>>>> Ponty- garfinkle.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have heard there is an electronic version, but do not
> >>>>>>>>> know how
> >>>> to
> >>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>> it. Working from actual hard copy!
> >>>>>>>>> Mike
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 28, 2012, at 10:19 AM, Andrew Babson
> >>>>>>>>> <ababson@umich.edu
> >>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He was very influential to Garfinkel, and so from an
> >>>> intellectual
> >>>>>>>>>> historical perspective, the development of
> >>>>>>>>>> ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and modern
> sociolinguistics.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/12, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd just like to share the attached article, written in
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1945
> >> by
> >>>>>>> Alfred
> >>>>>>>>>>> Schuetz, a refugee from the Frankfurt School living in
> >>>>>>>>>>> New
> >>>> York,
> >>>>>> like
> >>>>>>>>> so
> >>>>>>>>>>> many others. In the article he appropriates Wm James, GH
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mead
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> J
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dewey, whilst coming from the Pheneomenology of Husserl,
> >>>>>>>>>>> to
> >>>> adapt
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> concepts of Pheneomenology to social theory. It is quite
> >>>>>> interesting.
> >>>>>>>>> He
> >>>>>>>>>>> remains, in my view within the orbit of Phenomenology,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>> readers
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>>>> recognise significant points of agreement with AN
> >>>>>>>>>>> Leontyev's
> >>>>>> Activity
> >>>>>>>>>>> Theory. What he calls "Conduct" comes close to "Activity,"
> >> and
> >>>> he
> >>>>>>>>>>> introduces the concept of Action which is certainly the
> >>>>>>>>>>> same
> >> as
> >>>>>> it is
> >>>>>>>>>>> for CHAT, and instead of "an activity" (the 3rd level in
> >> ANL's
> >>>>>>> system)
> >>>>>>>>>>> he has "Project." But although this project has the same
> >>>> relation
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>> Action, it is a subjectively derived project posited on
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>> world,
> >>>>>>>>>>> rather than project discovered in the world, and having
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>> basically
> >>>>>>>>>>> societal origin. This is the point at which I think he
> >> confines
> >>>>>>> himself
> >>>>>>>>>>> to Phenomenology, and fails to reach a real social theory.
> >> The
> >>>>>> whole
> >>>>>>>>>>> business about "multiple realities" which gives the
> >>>>>>>>>>> article
> >> its
> >>>>>> title
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>> very tedious, but actually is valid in its basics I think.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Some of us on this list may appreciate him. He's a
> >>>>>>>>>>> recent
> >>>>>> discovery
> >>>>>>>>> for me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Andy
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
> >>>>>>>>>>> Joint Editor MCA:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
> >>>>>>>>>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> >>>>>>>>>>> Book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1608461459/
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> __________________________________________
> >>>> _____
> >>>> 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
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > 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