For what it's worth, Freud experimented with cocaine. --- Frank C. Wimberly 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Dave, > > > > Oh, Damn. I thought I had pretty much sorted this disagreement out, and > now I am all confused again. I am in doubt, and doubt is painful. He that > falls hardest, falls from his highest horse. Where do I stand (as a > purported experience monist) EVER to deny your experience? OK. Calm down, > Nick. Let’s see where this comes out. > > > > First, let’s go back to unicorns. You say (let’s say) that during one of > your sessions you have encountered a unicorn. You describe that unicorn in > great detail, including the golden horn, the flowing white mane and tail, > the restless silver-shod hooves, and (if you like) the golden haired damsel > on his back. (Frank Wimberly is gearing up his Freudian interpretation of > my fantasy here as you read.) And you say that this apparition is > accompanied in you with a feeling of great joy and peace. Where could I > possibly stand to deny you any of this? > > > > Now, feeling my way here, let’s divide what I propose to deny you into two > parts. Was the Unicorn real and was your feeling of well-being real? As > a dualist, I can deny you one without denying you the other. The test of > whether you really saw a UNICORN is in the world outside of experience > (w.e.t.f. that is) whereas the test of whether YOU SAW a unicorn is a > matter entirely between you and your mind, a matter about which I could not > possibly have any direct information. Since dualists claim to have two > sources of information about the world (their experience and ….God’s?) it’s > possible for there to be a unicorn experience (I saw it, God, I saw it!) > when in fact God knows there is no unicorn. So a dualist can grant you > your unicorn experience, with all its emotional glory, while not granting > you the unicorn. Not sure I have that out. > > > > Now, mind you, as an experience-monist, I am not tied to the notion that > there can be no varieties of experience. I am only tied to the notion that > there is only one kind of stuff in the world, experience, and relations > between experiences. Glen, (I think) once pointed out to me that this is > already TWO kinds of stuff, experiences and relations, and that I have > already forsaken my monism. Pressed on that point I would take the > position that there are only relations among experiences, at which point > perhaps Glen will ask me about the FIRST experience, and I will trot out my > usual contempt for twisting our knickers about “first cases”. I really > REALLY don’t give a damn about when the first object was conscious of > another object. I won’t worry about that first case until we have worked > out all the subsequent cases. After all, given that there was, *ex > hypothesi*, only one first case, why should I give a damn? Why are > extreme cases *iconic?* > > > > One of the dimensions along which experiences differ is in the degree to > which they prove out in future experience. If what you saw really as a > unicorn, then it should be possible to go to the equine biology section of > your local library and read up on them. They might, perhaps, be very rare, > like Nessie or the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, but there are ways of working > these disagreements out, and we monists assert only that what we MEAN by > saying that unicorns, Loch Ness Monsters, and Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are > real, is that, in the fullness of time, the community of inquiry, those who > care about the matter, will agree that they exist. And if the bulk of > contemporaneous evidence suggests that they DON’T exist, then I will > cheerfully deny you your experience of a unicorn *in the limited sense > that I confidently deny that what you saw actually was a unicorn. * > > > > But can I also deny you your report that you SAW a unicorn. Well, > perhaps. This is trickier. What are the practicial consequences of saying > that you have seen a unicorn? Setting aside the non existence of unicorns, > how could the community of inquiry come to a conclusion about whether you > had, in fact, hallucinated one. Is that solely between you and your > “mind”? Or do we have standing to deny even that you hallucinated one? I > think the answer is absolutely “Yes”. Imagine that you’re the jury in a > traffic accident case in which the accused driver claims to have swerved to > avoid a unicorn. Now, everybody in the courtroom has stipulated (ex > hypothesi) that unicorns do not exist, so the only question before the > court is whether I genuinely hallucinated one, or if I am claiming the > hallucination in order to get a light sentence. You can imagine the list > of questions that the district attorney might ask me. Am I in the habit of > seeing mythical animals. Interviewed at the scene, did I describe in > detail (and with amazement) the animal? Did it run away, or did I try to > approach it? In short, did I do any or all of the things that an ordinary > person might do if he encountered a large white horse, with silver hooves, > and a golden horn, ridden by a fair-haired damsel on a dark road in the > middle of the night – other than swerve into my neighbors orchid > conservatory? If not, the community of inquiry would conclude that not > only was a unicorn not what I say, but I was lying when I said I saw a > unicorn. > > > > Can I also deny your feeling of joy and peace at the sight of your > unicorn? Well, maybe. What are the practicial consequence of being in a > state of joy and peace? Etc. > > > > All the best, > > > > NIck > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > *Sent:* Monday, March 9, 2020 8:17 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous > conversation > > > > But Nick, > > > > I don't understand your unwillingness to acknowledge my experience(s). > > > > When I return from Amsterdam and provide you with a detailed trip report > detailing all things bicycle (rules of the road, rider attitudes, bicycle > culture, multi-level bicycle garages, exotic bikes, electro-bikes, utility > bikes, bikes with bins on the front for small children and groceries, "deep > inner peace" from riding many kilometers, feelings of being one with Nature > in a way impossible inside a car, enhanced perception of body language > nuances [essential for safety reasons] ... ) will you discount those > stories the same way you discount a "Trip" report? > > > > Or, suppose I attend my next FriAM while under the influence; do you > believe I will be less cogent and more stupid than I normally appear? > > > > How about an experiment where I play a poker tournament while under the > influence of mescaline and another "sober." Want to bet in which one I will > do better? If mescaline increases sensitivity and reduces the 'importance" > of time, then its influence would increase my ability to detect "tells" and > eliminate the, sometimes, crushing boredom I normally experience. > > > > When I post all kinds of notes (glen asked for some) and reports of > findings from the ICPR conference showing both "no harm" and "measurable > benefits" from hallucinogen use — will that be "evidence" or still, in some > fashion, "faith?" > > > > Two caveats: > > > > 1) individual experience may vary. My brother, for instance, cannot stand, > cannot deal with, any sense of lacking "control" whether that is induced by > alcohol, or the one time he tried drugs; > > > > and, 2) it is quite possible that some drugs, like large doses of DMT, are > pretty much sledgehammers. The experience is so pronounced — very much like > being in a different Reality andnot just an altered state of consciousness > — that it may very well be a case of scrambled circuits. I am certain that > "glue sniffing," for example, and similar means of "getting high" are > exactly what you fear — John Henry size sledgehammers. There is all kinds > of physiological evidence of the harm. > > > > Time is something we all experience. Mescaline-Time-Experience is very > different than Straight-Time-Experience. Is there value in > comparing/contrasting/discussing those differences in order to enhance our > common understanding of Time? I don't think it possible to truly understand > Time if the only experience we allow into the discussion is either > Straight-Time-Experience or Mescaline-Time-Experience. > > > > Mayhap your fear is "irrational" and my "faith" is rational? > > > > davew > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020, at 5:41 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > But Dave, I don’t understand your *faith* that drugs are a Tao-ist > butcher, rather than a sledgehammer. Do you stipulate that feelings of > well-being, wisdom, insight, etc. can be neurologically divorced from the > facts thereof? So, the presence of such feelings does not constitute > sufficient evidence of the facts, right? Now remember, I have stipulated > to the value of the sledgehammer, and admitted that the position I am > taking in this argument arises from in part an from a fear of having my > brain sledged. So “potential benefits of sledgehammering” are irrelevant > to our PRESENT argument, unless, of course we want this whole vast, > tortured, philosophical argument to boil down to the fact that you like > being sledge-hammered and I don’t. Apart from the fact that you LIKE > taking drugs, what is the EVIDENCE that it constitutes a *method* of > gathering knowledge less chaotic than electro-shock therapy. How does > sledging your clock with drugs *systematically* reveal something about *time? > * Or are you ready to try ECT? > > > > I apologize for all the typos in my previous messages. My macular pucker > makes it hard sometimes to see the words as they are, but Bill Gates does > not have macular pucker, so there is really no excuse. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > > *Sent:* Sunday, March 8, 2020 3:10 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous > conversation > > > > Ignore the software thing — an example of cross-talk between two unrelated > conversations that happens because so much of my neural network is still > twisted-pair copper instead of LSD-Fiber. > > > > I clearly missed your sledgehammer metaphor. I think, however, it might > reveal a fundamental difference in perspective. You seem to see the taking > of a drug (and drugs are not the only or even the most important means > available) as destructive of an orderly experience processor (an > experience-randomizer); and I see such taking as "oiling the machinery to > make it run more efficiently." > > > > But the key metaphor — one you admit is different in kind — from the > others, is the Taoist butcher and you are correct that I am suggesting > drugs (other means available) augment perception/awareness in very roughly > a manner akin to the way that telescopes and microscopes augment our > perception/awareness capabilities. > > > > The self-referential feedback loop you allude to is very real. But it > takes us, not to Castenada-land, but to Buddha-land or to Wheeler(et.al. > combining information and quantum theories)-land where the Universe is > Experiencing Itself as experiencing itself (faith); or the Universe > Computing Itself computing (supposedly, science). > > > > What you see as paradox, I see as confirmation. A metaphor that provides a > perspective that facilitates bringing together fibers from multiple sources > and finding the consistencies among them, so as to create threads, from > which my tapestry. > > > > davew > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 6:35 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Ok, so we need to get our metaphor’s straight, here. > > > > The sledge hammer is meant to be an experience-randomizer. To the extent > that sledge hammers do predictable things to clocks, it fails for me as a > metaphor. Once my Sledge Hammer has struck my clock, there should be no > relation between the positions of the pieces of the clock before the blow > and after. But even granting its limitations, I don’t think my Sledge > Hammer is an appropriate metaphor for your complaint about ordinary > software. I think you are talking about a bull-dozer. Like a Sledge > Hammer, a Bulldozer does not care for the structure of whatever it > encounters; but unlike my Sledge Hammer, it imposes a highly predictable > order of its own. Neither the Sledge Hammer nor the Bulldozer are like the > Taoist Butcher, who clearly cares for .the structure of what he cuts. > > > > So, what we are arguing about can be construed as an argument about which > metaphor is most aptly applied to taking drugs. I am arguing for the > Sledge Hammer. Sledge Hammers have their uses. I have always imagined > that electroshock therapy is a kind of sledge hammer, although perhaps it > is more like a bulldozer, returning the brain to factory settings. > Bulldozers are very useful in that they create a structure on which other > things can easily be built. You might be arguing that drug-taking is a > bull dozer. Or you might be arguing that drug-taking is more like the > Taoist butcher, in that it reveals the structure of what is already there. > It is like a microscopist’s stain. But to make that metaphor work, you > have to grant to the drug, or to the person who administers it, the wisdom > and experience of the butcher who has become so familiar with meat that he > can, without thinking about it, see where the meat isn’t. Now you are in > Castenada territory, the territory of *faith*. > > > > Thanks, as always, Dave, for your generosity of spirit. By the way, some > keen-eyed observer may detect something seriously awry in my metaphorical > proceeding above. Presumably we both agree that the brain is a device that > tells us something about something else, not about itself. Dubious as I am > that a sledge hammer can tell us anything about the structure of clocks, I > am even MORE dubious that it can tell us anything about the structure of > *time. > *The Taoist Butcher metaphor seems to work in a different way. To make > it consistent, we would have to have the Taoist Butcher dissect HIMSELF in > order to discover the structure of meat. > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West > > *Sent:* Saturday, March 7, 2020 3:37 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous > conversation > > > > Oooh fun ... > > > > *I also stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT > reveal robust and enduring information about alarm clocks.* > > > > Let me twist this example a bit to make what I think might be a valid way > to assert a "benefit" of drug-epistemology over sledge-hammer. > > > > I must start a bit afield with a quote from Plato and a Taoist koan: > > > > [First,] perceiving and bringing together under one Idea the scattered > particulars, so that one makes clear the thing which he wishes to do... > [Second,] the separation of the Idea into classes, by dividing it where the > natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of > as a bad carver... I love these processes of division and bringing > together, and if I think any other man is able to see things that can > naturally be collected into one and divided into many, him I will follow as > if he were as a god. > > - Plato > > > > "A Taoist butcher used but one knife his entire career without the need to > sharpen it. At his retirement party the Emperor asked him about this > extraordinary feat, The butcher stated, "Oh, I simply cut where the meat > wasn't." > > > > Now this leads to a problem of decomposition - breaking up a large and > complex problem into tractable sub-problems. Software engineering uses a > sledgehammer epistemology of data structures and algorithms to accomplish > this decomposition with results that are horrific. In contrast, a "vision" > induced, daydreaming about biological cells and cellular organisms led to > the insight that cells are differentiated from each other by what they do, > not what they are. So software modularity might be based on behavior. Far > superior results in myriad ways. > > > > If we take C.D.Broad and Huxley seriously, mescaline reveals "more of > reality" than typically available to our conscious minds. I would assert > and be willing to defend that at least that sort of drug-epistemology could > enhance our ability to actually see "where the meat wasn't" and therefore > enhance our ability to decompose large complicated systems (maybe even > complex systems) in tractable sub-problems. > > > > * * * * * * * > > > > My vision was not based on a stain, nor was it of cells dividing - it was > an inter-cellular dissolving and recombining of inter-cellular elements, > proteins etc., into other inter-cellular elements such that when the cell > did eventually divide its internals were radically different. What I "saw" > would more likely inform a genetic engineer than someone investigating cell > division stuff. > > > > * * * * * * > > > > Sorry for making you ill, but it is your interpretation that is at fault. > > > > You might remember the early days of Cinerama movies. They would start the > movie showing a scene, like flying through the Grand canyon, then suddenly > expand the displayed rectangle, the size of a traditional movie screen, > into the full height and width of the Cinerama screen. > > > > It was still just a movie, but the experience of the movie was enhanced? > with sensations of vertigo, movement, detail, etc. > > > > What Broad and Huxley suggest is that experience is "filtered" by the > organism and that filtering reduces experience to the dimensions of a > pre-Cinerama movie. Huxley then asserts that mescaline turns experience > into Experience. > > > > We are all experience monists here, but some of us are making the claim > that there can be, at minimum, quantitative differences among experiences > (something akin to the increase in pixel density and 8 versus 64 bit > representation of the color of each pixel) and, at least the possibility of > qualitative differences, e.g. the vertigo of Cinerama. > > > > And, those differences are attainable via various means. Not just drugs. > > > > So my assertion of "Apollonian-er than thou" is a claim that I experience > "life" in "Cinerama" and you in "cinema multiplex standard screen." > > > > davew > > > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020, at 5:53 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > See Larding below. > > > > By the way: my mail interface is taken to tucking some of my mail into a > folder called "important" where, of course, I cannot see it. So, if I > appear to go missing, don't hesitate to write me an unimportant message > telling me that there are important ones awaiting me. > > > > Of course I have n o I d e a what distinguishes an important message > from an unimportant one. > > > > As I said, see below: Oh, and dave, what I wrote below is TESTY. I don’t > realty feel testy, I don’t really feel qualified to be testy. I think the > rhetoric just got away with me. It has happened before and you have > promised it doesn’t’ bother you, so I am counting on your grace-under-fire > again. > > > > Your friend , > > Nick > > > > Nicholas Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > > Clark University > > [email protected] > > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West > > Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 2:00 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation > > > > thanks Glen, > > > > I totally agree with you about dead white guys. [Except I have had > face-to-face conversations with a couple of them :) ] I reference them not > as a source of answers but in an attempt to find some kind of conceptual > bridge for a conversation. But that might be totally counterproductive as > it tends to introduce a propensity for forking the conversation. > > > > Engaging with contemporary scientists is hard when it comes to > drug-induced data sets / experiences. I hope to make some connections with > contemporary researchers at the ICPR conference I mentioned but the focus > there seems to be psycho-medical and related to the oxytocin article you > posted, and my direct interests tend to diverge from that. > > > > Perhaps something more direct might be useful. Two things, the second is > mostly to tease Nick. > > > > > > 1) I am fascinated by the field of scientific visualization, using imagery > to present complex data sets. Recently I "observed" the precise moment of > sperm-egg fertilization. A whole lot was going on inside the egg cell > boundary immediately upon contact (not penetration) with the sperm. The > visualization was of thousands (millions?) of discrete inter-cellular > elements breaking free from existing structures, like DNA strands, > proteins, molecules and moving about independently. I could see several > "fields" that were a kind of "probability field." These fields constrained > both the movement of the various elements and, most importantly, what > structures would emerge from their recombination. "Watching" the DNA > strand 'dissolve" and "reform" was particularly interesting because it was > totally unlike the "unzip into two strands, the zip-up a strand-half from > each donor" visualization I have seen presented in animations explaining > the process. Instead I saw all kinds of "clumps" form and merge into > larger/longer "clumps" then engage in an interesting hula/belly/undulation > dance to rearrange the structure into a final form. All of this "guided" > by the very visible "probability fields;" more than one and color coded. > > > > Now, if I were a cellular biologist could I make use of this vision? > > *[NST===>] I love this example. Every stain produces a new image and some > stains are more revealing than others, in that the models they facilitate > are more robust and enduring in their predictions. I stipulate that. I > also stipulate that hitting an alarm clock with a sledge hammer MIGHT > reveal robust and enduring information about alarm clocks. I just don’t > think it’s likely. And there is the possibility that the clock wont be > very accurate thereafter. That is the whole of my argument against drug > -epistemology. So if you are NOT arguing that drug-epistemology is somehow > superior to sledge-hammer epistemology, then we agree and we don’t have to > argue any more. * > > > > Since I am not a cellular biologist and have no understanding of > inter-cellular structures/dynamics/chemistry, nor any DNA knowledge, where > did the imagery come from and why did it hang together so well? > > > > Was this experience just an amusing bit of entertainment" Or, is there an > insight of some sort lurking there? > > *[NST===>] I like the metaphor with stains. But just remember, if my > memory serves me correctly, you don’t see jack shit when cells divide > without the right stain. All such observations are of the Peircean type/; > “If I do this, then I will get that.” * > > > > 2) En garde Nick. > > *[NST===>] je me garde* > > > > Quoting Huxley, paraphrasing C.D. Broad — "The function of the brain, > nervous system, and sense organs is, in the main, eliminative and not > productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that > has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening > everywhere in the universe. This is Mind-At-Large. > > *[NST===>] Dave, even without my characteristic ill ease with dispositions > (like gravity, for instance), this last sentence gives me the heebs. And > the Heaves. It is either a definition of memory (=all that I experience as > past at a moment) or it is non-sense. Or some kind of balmy article of > faith. * > > > > But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. > > *[NST===>] No. No animal has ever survived. No animal has ever tried to > survive. No species has ever tried to survive. This is all foolishness > pressed on us by Spencer. Even Darwin was leery of it. (and no I cannot > cite text)* > > To make biological survival possible, Mind-At-Large, has to be funneled > through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out > at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which > will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet." > > *[NST===>] I suppose one can make sense of this sort of talk by > postulating a world outside of experience, but unless you postulate that > this world beyond experience can in principle never affect experience, you > end up with a contradiction because anything that effects experience in any > way, however indirect, is, by definition, experienced. * > > > > Two personal experiences: 1) I tend to not notice when my glasses get > cloudy from accumulation of dust and moisture until it is quite bad. I > clean my glasses, put them on, and am amazed at how clear and detailed my > perceptions are post-cleaning. A very dramatic difference. > > *[NST===>] Well of course. Cleaning glasses is a method that increases > the predictive potential of your current visual experiences. If your > argument is only that there are experiences I have not had which will > surprise me if I have them, I agree, so we don’t have to argue about that > any more, right?* > > And, 2) the proper dose of a hallucinogen (and/or the right kind of > meditation) and my perceptions of the world around me, using all my senses, > are amazingly clear and detailed in the same way as my visual perception > was changed by cleaning grime from my glasses. > > *[NST===>] The innate school marm gives us little jolts of pleasure from > time to time, usually in response to activities that please her. One of > those jolts is a “sense of clarity.” If you break into her storeroom and > steal her clarity candies, you will get the clarity-pleasure even while > seeing muddily. * > > > > *Now I grant you it’s possible you will see something more clearly. See > above the sledgehammered clock argument.* > > > > I would contend that the drug (meditation) removed the muddying filter of > my brain/nervous system/ sense organs just as the isopropyl alcohol removed > the muddying filter of moisture-dust on my glasses. > > > > I see the world as it "really" is.*[NST===>]Well, that remains to be > seen, right. It might be that the dust filters the light in such a way as > to reveal structures that you cannot see through the cleaned glass. The > proof is in the pudding … i.e., the proving out. * > > > > Now the tease: I would contend that I am more Apollonian than thou because > I value Life, and more of Life, more directly, than you do. It is not > varied experience I seek, but a direct, clear, complete, apprehension and > appreciation of Life Itself. > > *[NST===>] Similarly, let it be the case that I had a dozen clocks and you > told me you had hit them all with a sledge hammer; now, if you told me you > had lied, and gave me back the 12th clock in perfect working order, I would > value it a lot more for having thought I had lost it. * > > > > davew > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 4:58 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > > It's not pesky for me in the slightest. I'm *very* interested. I > > > haven't contributed because it's not clear I have anything to > > > contribute. > > > > > > Maybe I can start with a criticism, though. It's unclear to me why you > > > (or anyone) would delicately flip through crumbling pages of > > > philosophy when there are fresh and juicy results from > > > (interventionist) methods right in front of us? The oxytocin post > > > really *was* inspired by this thread. But because you guys are talking > > > about dead white men like Peirce and James, it's unclear how the science > relates. > > > > > > My skepticism goes even deeper (beyond dead white men) to why one > > > would think *anyone* (alive, dead, white or brown) might be able to > > > *think* up an explanation for how knowledge grows. I would like to, > > > but cannot, avoid the inference that this belief anyone (or any > > > "school" of people) can think up explanations stems from a bias toward > > > *individualism*. My snarky poke at "super intelligent god-people" in a > > > post awhile back was > > > (misguidedly) intended to express this same skepticism. I worry that > > > poking around in old philosophy is simply an artifact of the mythology > > > surrounding the "mind" and Great Men > > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory>. > > > > > > It seems to me like science works in *spite* of our biases to > > > individualism. So, if I want to understand knowledge, I have to stop > > > identifying ways of knowing through dead individuals and focus on the > > > flowing *field* of the collective scientists. > > > > > > Of course, that doesn't mean we ignore the writings of the dead people. > > > But it means liberally slashing away anything that even smells obsolete. > > > > > > Regardless of what you do post, don't interpret *my* lack of response > > > as disinterest or irritation, because it's not. > > > > > > On 3/5/20 6:14 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > > > And the key to my being a pest — is anyone else curious about these > things? > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > at St. John's College to unsubscribe > > > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
