Qwan in Tagalog (usually spelled Kwan) is a very common word meanining “whatchamacallit”or “who’s it” so not giving a soecific name to whatever or whom ever is being referred to.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:34 AM Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > Who knew this: > > Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary > <https://www.yourdictionary.com/qwan> > qwan. Acronym. Quality Without A Name - in computer programming QWAN > refers to a more metaphysical attribute that expresses elegancy of code. > > ? > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 8:52 AM Steven A Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dave - >> >> I myself am having an ineffable experience just now, as my drive through >> the big-rock country has taken on a Mad Max quality (simile borrowed from a >> friend on his own Hellride back up the coast of CA after retrieving his >> college son, with counties closing down behind him as he rolls through). >> FWIW, I was pretty close to your brother's place on this trip but didn't >> give over to the thought of stopping by and asking if I could help dig an >> extra bunker or two. Bunker rhymes with hunker. >> >> I think your enumeration of "reasons" for "cannot express in words" >> covers the space well, but as a self-referential example naturally fails >> for many of the reasons you cite. It is rather concise to reference >> "knowing ABOUT" vs "knowing", the biggest failing I find amongst our >> discussions here on FriAM... perhaps convenings of the Mother Church itself >> do better? >> >> I am also reminded of JIddu Krishnamurti's "cousin", also a Krishnamurti >> who, when asked of Jiddu's knowledge/wisdom/perception reluctantly replied >> "Jiddu has held the sugar cube in the palm of his hand, but he has not >> tasted it". >> >> Context;SignVsSignifier;Incompleteness;Paradox;EtCetera >> >> We have words/phrases LIKE ineffable;QWAN;je ne sais quois "for a >> reason" though circularly, said reason cannot be described, merely >> "gestured in the direction of"? >> >> Carry On, >> >> - Steve >> >> PS. The Sheriff shut down Durango just as we slipped into a motel here >> and will be raiding *their* City Market before we drive toward home... Gas >> tank is fullish, within range I think, though fueling is not closed, just >> virtually everything else. I will check for TP there out of curiosity, >> but we have a dozen rolls at home unless our house-sitter snatched them all >> for HER hoard. Time to start raking, drying, sorting the cottonwood >> leaves methinks! Are you sorry you are in Weesp rather than Utah for this >> incipient "Jackpot"? >> On 3/17/20 4:16 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> You are correct: I assert that you can know things of which you cannot >> speak; but there is still too much ambiguity in that statement. It would be >> more correct to say: some experiences are not expressible in words. I am >> making a narrow, but ubiquitous, claim — ubiquitous, because all of us have >> a ton of experiences that we cannot express in words. >> >> Another dimension of precision, "cannot express in words" can mean: 1) we >> do not have enough words; 2) we do not have the right words; 3) any >> expression in words fails the capture the whole of the experience; 4) >> translating the experience to words creates a conflict (e.g. a paradox) in >> the words that was not present in the experience; 5) words are mere symbols >> (pointers or representations) and never the "thing" itself (Korzibski); 6) >> missing context; and/or 7) the grammar of the language mandates untrue or >> less than true assertions. Probably a few other ways that language fails. >> >> This is not to deny the possibility of a language that could express some >> of these experiences. We have myths of such languages; e.g. The language of >> the birds that Odin used to communicate with Huggin and Muninn. Maybe there >> is some element of fact behind the myths? >> >> It does not preclude using words in a non-representational way to >> communicate. Words can be evocative, recall to present experience, >> experiences past. Poetry does this. Nor does it preclude non-verbal, e.g. >> painting, as an evocative means of "bring to mind" experiences. (There is a >> lot of evidence that evocation can bring to mind experience that the >> construct called Nick did not itself experience — evidence that led Jung to >> posit the "collective unconscious.") >> >> It is also quite possible to talk *about* experience rather than *of* >> experience. Mystics to this all the time, but always with the caveat that >> what is said *about* IT is *not* IT. >> >> A specific example: Huxley talks about "the Is-ness" of flower and the >> variability of Time. Heidegger and his followers have written volumes >> *about* Is-ness and Time. One more: Whitehead and process philosophers >> have written volumes *about* a dynamic, in constant flux, Reality; that >> I have experience *of*. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, at 11:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Yeah, Dave, I screwed it up by mixing up “speaking of” and “knowing”. >> >> >> >> I would never expect that you would sign up for a conversation about that >> of which we cannot know. But, others at friam, if I understood them >> correctly, HAVE tried to engage me in such a conversation. >> >> >> >> I think you would agree that that of which we cannot speak, we cannot >> speak. [Tautology] >> >> >> >> And you also would agree that which we cannot know we cannot know. >> [Another tautology} >> >> >> >> And I think it also follows that we cannot speak of what we cannot know, >> since we would have no basis on which to speak of it. >> >> Well, except possibly to say we do not know it, perhaps. I don’t want to >> die on that hill. >> >> >> >> >> >> But you insist that the inverse is not true. We can and do know things >> of which we cannot speak. So we might be having a conversation about how >> to move such things into the domain of speechable. Your goal, in that >> case, would be as hunter, sent out into the domain of the unspeakable to >> capture some specimen from that world and drag it back. Think, again, >> Castenada. >> >> >> >> Or, we might be having a conversation about how we might transfer >> knowledge in ways other than speech. You giving me a dose of some >> substance that you have already had a dose of would seem to be of this >> second sort. Think Don Juan. >> >> >> >> Hastily, >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> PS. Any philosopher that holds that “knowledge” can only applied to true >> belief would not understand this conversation because I think we share the >> idea that there is probably no such thing as true belief in that sense and >> that therefore you and I are always talking about provisional knowledge, >> unless we are talking about an aspiration we might share to arrive at that >> upon which the community of inquiry will converge in the very long run. >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On >> Behalf Of *Prof David West >> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >> >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> >> >> The only time that I have said something is "unknowable" is referencing >> complex systems that some variables and some relations among variables in >> a complex system are literally unknowable. The context for such a statement >> is computing / software / and software engineering with a heavy timeline >> element. Pretty sure it has never appeared on this list. >> >> >> >> What I do say, and will repeat, there are things you can know that you >> cannot articulate in language. There is Experience of which you cannot >> speak. >> >> >> >> I am pretty sure my assertion is 180 degree opposite of what you think I >> may have been saying. Rest assured that I would never assert that there are >> things that are unknowable. >> >> >> >> What needs care, and I have tried to do this, is to consistently use the >> same vocabulary — in this case experience. So I say there are experiences >> that cannot be put into words. Some of those experiences are worth >> experiencing. >> >> >> >> You said "(Or speak of them which is the same thing.)" Equating >> "knowing" with "speaking" is an error. Using "knowing" and "experiencing" >> as synonyms is not. >> >> >> >> davew >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 15, 2020, at 5:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Dave, >> >> >> >> Thanks for this. And it goes very well most of the way, but there is one >> spot where you persistently misunderstand me, and so I will go directly to >> that: >> >> >> >> > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot >> >> > speak" is non-sense. >> >> >> >> DW**It is no, everyone has experienced that of which they cannot speak. >> You can know something and you can know about something. You can know the >> experience of high or low insulin levels, you can know a lot about insulin >> and diabetes. You can speak about the latter knowledge, you cannot speak >> the former. >> >> >> >> PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THIS NAILED DOWN TODAY. The >> claim that I am referring to, which I have heard made by my colleague >> dualists, is not that there are things that I know nothing of, or that you >> and I know nothing of, or that at any finite grouping of human beings or >> cognitive systems know nothing of. It is the claim that there are things >> about which it is impossible to know, period, and that yet, we should try >> to know them. (Or speak of them, which is the same thing.) (Damn! I was >> just induced to do it!) That is non-sense. Or a paradox. Or both. >> >> >> >> Now you might (others have) insisted that while the statement is a >> logical paradox (I would call paradoxes non-sense), the contemplation of >> paradoxes might lead me to knowledge. I worry this might even be one of >> the methods you prescribe when you speak of a deep dive. If so, I guess I >> have a right to ask (at least in Western Practice) what is the theory that >> tells you that these methods will lead to truth or wisdom, etc. >> >> >> >> Eric may enter the conversation at this point and start to talk about >> castles in the sky. We can build castles in the sky, and talk about them, >> and even argue, from text, or logic, about the color of the third turret to >> the right on the north wall. And we might find a lot of inner peace and >> sense of coherence by engaging in this sort of “knowledge gathering” with >> others. But I think, if he does, his claim will be irrelevant. Knowledge >> about castles in the sky, however deeply codified, is fake knowledge in the >> sense that it lacks the essential element of claims of knowledge, which is >> the claim that, in the fullness of time, the arc of inquiry bends to the >> position that I or you are now asserting. Someday, people will actually >> walk in its corridors and admire its battlements. Kings and queens will >> reighn, here. That is what a castle IS. >> >> >> >> Later in the day, when I have gotten control of my morning covid19 >> anxiety, I may try to lard your message below, but right now, I hope to >> straighten out this particular misunderstanding. When I speak of “we” who >> cannot know, I am NOT referring to you and or me or any other finite >> population of knowers, but to what can NOT known by all cognitive systems >> in the far reach of time. I still assert, despite your patient and kind >> argumentation, that to speak of “our knowing” THAT is nonsense. Actually, >> to speak of NOT knowing it, is nonsense, also. It’s just logic, right? >> Mathematics. Tautology, even. Even Frank would agree. RIGHT? >> >> >> >> Only when we have settled on that logical point does it make sense to go >> on and talk about how you, and I and Glen and Marcus are going to come to >> know, that which we do not now know. >> >> >> >> 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: Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:54 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >> >> >> >> comments embedded. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 5:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >> > Dave and Glen, >> >> > >> >> > It's great to see your two frames coming into adjustment. At the risk >> >> > of taking the discussion back to absurdity, let me try to express, in >> >> > laughably simple terms, what I hear you guys agreeing to. >> >> > >> >> > I have been taught a way of thinking about science that is western. >> >> > Like all ways of thinking it both sights me and blinds me. Nobody >> >> > knows everything; everybody knows what they know. Nobody should >> >> > presume to judge what they don't know. I don't know Eastern ways of >> >> > thinking. I have no basis on which to claim privilege for my western >> >> > ways of thinking about science. >> >> > >> >> > Now, as a person who has always delighted in attending discussions >> >> > among people who do not agree, and always fascinated by the >> >> > possibility of convergence of opinion, what do I do when Dave (or Kim, >> >> > or others) highlight the fact that there are whole ways of thinking >> >> > that I just do not know anything about? >> >> > >> >> > One way would be to shrug. AW heck, you go your way, I will go mine. I >> >> > can't do that. Shrugging is just not in my natire. I need to try to >> >> > integrate discordant ideas held by people I respect. Now, it is >> >> > possible that need is, in itself, Western. And what an eastern >> >> > philosophy would tell me is to put aside that need. >> >> >> >> DW** Eastern ways of thinking would tell you to do a deep dive into that >> need. You will never, so they would say, truly understand your partial, >> Western, way of knowing absent the ability to integrate that way of >> thinking into a holistic mode of thinking.**DW >> >> >> >> Often >> >> > developmental psychologists among my acquaintances have asserted that >> >> > my quest for agreement is a kind of invasion of their mental >> >> > territory, that each person is entitled to his own individual and >> >> > pristine experience. >> >> >> >> DW** and Eastern ways would state that all "individual" and "pristine >> experience" is purely an illusion, but there is a Reality behind that >> illusion (no, not a Cartesian dualism — still maintaining an experience >> monism here) — a One (shared) behind the ones (individual).**DW >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Let's say you come to me and tell me that you hold in your hand an >> >> > instrument of great wisdom, a revolver. And if I will only put it to >> >> > my head, and pull the trigger, I will have knowledge and understanding >> >> > beyond anything I can now imagine. I would be reluctant to follow >> >> > that advice. Is that western? >> >> >> >> DW**No that is universally human common sense. And, as I am not in the >> habit of encouraging people to kill themselves, such an offer would never >> be extended.**DW >> >> > >> >> > Let's say, I say to you that "to speak of that of which we cannot >> >> > speak" is non-sense. >> >> >> >> DW**It is no, everyone has experienced that of which they cannot speak. >> You can know something and you can know about something. You can know the >> experience of high or low insulin levels, you can know a lot about insulin >> and diabetes. You can speak about the latter knowledge, you cannot speak >> the former. >> >> >> >> I am baking bread and just pulled the loaves out of the oven. I know when >> I have kneaded the dough enough to get the consistence I want in the final >> product but I cannot speak that knowledge. I can speak of it — employing >> lots of metaphors — but cannot speak it or communicate it directly**DW >> >> >> >> To say, as an occasional member of the home >> >> > congregation occasionally says, "What if there is a world out there >> >> > which is totally beyond all forms of human understanding" is non-sense. >> >> > As Wittgenstein says, the beetle divides out. Is an Eastern >> >> > philosopher going to reply, "Ah Nick, such a paradox is not non-sense >> >> > but the beginning of wisdom." >> >> >> >> DW**be careful of word games — be true to your experience monism. >> Suppose, at my next FriAM I say to you, you know Nick there are >> 'experiences' that are beyond 'understanding'. There are many ways to >> interpret that sentence. I could be saying something like "You will >> experience death. Do you understand it? Will you understand it once you >> experience it? The latter is tough, because in your Western way of >> thinking, death is the end and it is certain that "you" will no longer be >> extant to understand anything. ——Interesting question: will "you" actually >> experience death or is death a non experience because there is no >> experiencer? —— The Tibetan Book of the Dead is premised on the certainty >> that "you" will experience death, find it rather terrifying, and could use >> some expert guidance on how to navigate the experience. >> >> >> >> In stating that there is experience beyond understanding, I might be >> merely asserting that there are no words or phrases that adequately >> represent the totality of the experience and if 'understanding' requires >> linguistic, symbolic, or algorithmic expression than 'understanding' is >> impossible. >> >> >> >> There are other possible "meanings" in the phrase "experience beyond >> understanding," but for later. **DW >> >> > >> >> > Or perhaps, the eastern philosopher would say, No, No, Nick, you have >> >> > it all wrong. If you seek that sense of convergence, go for it >> >> > directly. Don't argue with dave and Glen, hug them, drink with them, >> >> > play Russian roulette. What you seek cannot be found with words! >> >> >> >> DW**You will have to play Russian Roulette by yourself, I'll not >> participate. I will accept the hug and a drink. I'll even share a slice of >> the warm bread I just made. Delicious even if I am the only one saying so. >> >> >> >> I am pretty certain the the revolver of which you speak is a euphemism >> for psychedelics. If so, it is a particularly bad metaphor, one that might >> express your fears — fears that ALL empirical evidence confirm are >> unfounded — than it is of the actual use/experience. [Caveat: there are >> some instances were the psychedelic provides a tipping point for a >> psychological ill effect, and overdoses can damage the physiology — but >> "ordinary" use of psylocibin, mescaline, DMT, and LSD cause no harm of any >> form.]**DW >> >> >> >> > >> >> > If what we have encountered here is the limits of discourse, why are >> >> > we talking? >> >> >> >> DW**The Limit of Discourse is, at minimum, when all possible permutations >> of the 600,000 words in the Oxford English Dictionary, have been exchanged >> and we still lack agreement/convergence. But, then we would have to >> consider all the other Natural Languages (maybe even those like the one >> found in the Voinich Manuscript), all of art and music, and body language. >> Metaphor adds yet another dimension that would need to be taken into >> consideration.**DW >> >> > >> >> > 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 u?l? ? >> >> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM >> >> > To: FriAM <[email protected]> >> >> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > FWIW, I agree completely with your gist, if not with your pique. The >> >> > lost opportunity is implicit in the ebb and flow of collective >> >> > enterprises. Similar opportunity costs color the efforts of any large >> >> > scale enterprise. I can't blame science or scientists for their lost >> >> > opportunities because triage is necessary [†]. But there is plenty of >> >> > kinship for you out there. I saw this the other day: >> >> > >> >> > Your Mind is an Excellent Servant, but a Terrible Master - David >> >> > Foster Wallace >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsAd4HGJS4o >> >> > >> >> > I'm tempted to dive into particulars on your examples (Vedic, Buddhist, >> >> > Hermetics). But my contributions would be laughable. I'll learn from >> >> > any contributions I hope others make. I've spent far too little of my >> >> > life in those domains. >> >> > >> >> > [†] Both for the individual trying to decide what to spend their life >> >> > researching and the whole (as Wolpert points out >> >> > <https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1476h/1476%20(Wolpert).pdf>). >> >> > Most of the prejudice I encounter doesn't seem mean-spirited, though. >> >> > Even virulent scientismists seem to be victims of their own, personally >> >> > felt, opportunity costs. >> >> > >> >> > On 3/14/20 3:21 AM, Prof David West wrote: >> >> > > Glen, I really appreciate your response and insights. >> >> > > >> >> > > You are certainly correct that much, or most, of my pique is simply >> impatience. But, I am here now, with these questions, and with a limited >> window within which to be patient. Should my great grandchildren have my >> interests, Science might serve them well, but is is frustrating right now. >> >> > > >> >> > > Science is far more reflective that I generally give it credit for. >> Your examples, save one, illustrate that. The one that I object to is >> "assessing scientific literacy" which, based on limited exposure, seems to >> be more of "checking to see if you are bright enough to agree with us" than >> evaluating what it would mean to be scientifically literate. >> >> > > >> >> > > A closely related, I think, topic is the push by computer science to >> have "computational thinking" embedded in elementary and secondary >> education as "essential." Computational thinking is exactly the wrong kind >> of thinking as most of the critical things we need to think about are not >> algorithmic in nature. The scientific and computational part of the climate >> crisis is the easy part. figuring out the complex >> social-cultural-economic-politcal answers to the problem is the hard part >> and I doubt it is reducible to scientific thinking and absolutely positive >> it is not amenable to computational thinking. >> >> > > >> >> > > Maybe when Hari Seldon has his psychohistory all worked out it will be >> >> > > different. :) >> >> > > >> >> > > It may very well be possible to develop a science of philosophy, but >> it will require relinquishing what, again to me, appears to be a double >> standard. Scientists are willing to wax philosophical about quantum >> interpretations but would, 99 times out of a hundred, reject out of hand >> any discussion of the cosmological philosophy in the Vaisesika Sutras — >> despite the fact that that Schrodinger says the idea for superposition came >> from the Upanishads. >> >> > > >> >> > > George Everest (the mountain is named after him) introduced Vedic >> teachings on math and logic to George Boole, Augustus de Morgan, and >> Charles Babbage; shaping the evolution of Vector Analysis, Boolean Logic, >> and a whole lot of math behind computer science. >> >> > > >> >> > > One could make a very strong argument that most of the Science that >> >> > > emerged in England in the 1800-2000, including Newton, was derived >> >> > > from Vedic and some Buddhist philosophies. But try to get a Ph.D. in >> >> > > any science today with a dissertation proposal that incorporated >> >> > > Akasa. [The Vedas posited five elements as the constituents of the >> >> > > universe — Aristotle's four, earth, air, fire, water, plus Akasa, >> >> > > which is consciousness.] >> >> > > >> >> > > Swami Vivekananda once explained Vedic philosophical ideas about the >> relationship between energy and matter to Nicholas Tesla. Tesla tried for >> years to find the equation that Einstein came up with much later. Try to >> get a research grant for something like that. >> >> > > >> >> > > A practical question: how would one go about developing a "science" >> of the philosophy of Hermetic Alchemy and its 2500 years of philosophical >> investigation. Information, perhaps deep insights, that was tossed out the >> window simply because some pseudo-alchemists tried to con people into >> thinking that lead could be turned into gold. >> >> > > >> >> > > Of course the proposal for developing such a science would have to be >> at least eligible for grants and gaining tenure, or it is not, in a >> practicial (take note Nick) sense. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > ☣ 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 >> > ============================================================ > 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 > -- George Duncan Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University georgeduncanart.com See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram Land: (505) 983-6895 Mobile: (505) 469-4671 My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and luminous chaos. "Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may then be a valuable delusion." >From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn. "It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest power." Joanna Macy.
============================================================ 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
