QWAN - Quality Without A Name - from Christopher Alexander, most prominently in his book *The Timeless Way of Building*. Got into Software world via the patterns community and the Gamma, Helm, Johnson, and Vlissides book, *Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software.*
Alexander claimed that some architecture exhibited QWAN and that it was cross-cultural and universally recognized. His last work — the four volume Nature of Order — replaced QWAN with "Liveness" which arises from fifteen properties: e.g. centers, boundaries, deep interlock and ambiguity, etc. davew On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, at 4:34 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Who knew this: > > Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary > 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]> *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 >
============================================================ 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
