https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/WIh-Gk1rAQfagUkW9j9Vfb0_18xPkJI9b1Ci41loQI3r9dukFTKHgoziO3lN0wOTZC0Ljzi_99okKnJguPbjqM1MsxcKNSZXjsr0sqZuILrrSGtAx5iavd5wxkfRdqOXYXQB=s0-d-e1-ft#https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5f72193f672e2c76463652e6/1:1/w_800/A24713.jpg
Do you have to have a Google account to see that? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 3:35 PM Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric - > > Great "wander" from the main thread... Your "wander" through the > rhetoric of Adam Smith and the abuses of the *ideal* of a free market leads > me to (re) offer up the tome written by Tomas Bjorkman: "The World we > Create: From God To Market" <http://www.tomas-bjorkman.com/#books>. > > As a young man I was seduced by the illusions implicit in the "card > carrying Libertarian" mode. I was perhaps myself, seduced by the minor > (or at least obscured) edge the Libertarian rhetoric seems to give to those > with some kind of advantage, the opportunity (inevitability?) to parlay > that into dominance. Coming out of childhood where my parents, older > sibling, teachers, older classmates, bosses, authorities, etc. all had a > range of advantage up to complete dominance over my life, I was focused a > bit more on wiggling out from under those thumbs than I was perhaps aware > that *I* was going to become someone else's thumb, and in fact very likely > already was, merely by being a member of varied overlapping communities of > privilege. Some of the conversations here, including what I interpret > from Glen (at least) and others having gone through some of those illusions > and come out the other side, have helped me understand how "yet more" I was > seduced by those idea(l)s and continue to benefit from them > unconsciously. For example, as I consider myself part of the "dominated" > 99% by the "dominating" 1% (wealth) in our culture, I have to recognize > that I am at least part of the dominating 10% (wealth, military, political) > in the world over the 90% (each of us can pick our own ratio). > > I also appreciate your analysis of "originalism", as I have lived under > the specter of the differences between letter and spirit or letter and > intent of various laws/rules/etc. I eventually (again, some help from > some of the discussions here) had to acknowledge (more and more) that > simply discarding the letter *for* the intent/spirit has risks and > challenges in the same way as blindly (or belligerently?) following the > letter can. I regretfully agree that the upcoming Senate hearings to > consider (rubber-stamp?) confirmation of ACB, *might* (but won't) offer a > forum to discuss publicly the larger issues of how the three branches of > government were considered to provide checks and balances to runaway > accumulations of power, at least in our political and governance systems. > > My own personal "answer" to the lack of "an algorithm to track > externalities" is to scope my transactions more and more local, and > re/up-cycle As of a month ago, I only eat eggs layed in my own back > yard. When I have my farming shit together, I mostly only eat vegetables > (including beans and dried corn and squash) grown on the land near my home, > with water pumped from the aquifer underneath my home by (if I had my > solar/wind shit together better) energy obtained from the sun/wind flux in > my immediate environs. I can virtue-signal in concentric rings out from > there to include the wood I burn for supplemental heat to come from the > trees growing nearby, and the car I drive (up to 40mi RT/day) being > electrified by the same solar flux as the water pumped). > > The point isn't to (just) virtue signal but to experiment with how much I > *really* need to ask people all over the world to defer to my > financial/military/political dominance (laundered through my government and > the huge corporations it enables) and first-world privilege squanderage. > I still regularly eat avocados shipped (with fossil fuels) 1000 miles or > more, often from Mexico and drink coffee shipped similar differences and > cultivated/picked by people making a tiny fraction of what I live on while > very wealthy middle-persons (or corporations) get wealthier from their > labor (and likely what was formerly their ancestor's landscape) and my > excess spending power. The computer (12 year old macbook pro) I type on > definitely started life as a pure externality as did the stupid-big battery > in my (already used-up by the former owner's perspective) electric car (did > that lithium come from Mongolia, or just the Neodymium in the > motor-generators?), and the cement in the mortar I'm using to face the > stem-wall (and the concrete block OF the stem wall) of my sunroom is > another externality (in material AND energy) I have no trouble (usually) > treating as "no big deal". And I still ask my UPS/FedEx/USPS driver to > haul her 10,000 GVW delivery vehicle down my lane to my house to idle while > she unloads whatever bit of electronic/digital junk I thought I needed > while browsing Amazon/aliExpress/NewEgg/??? last week, albeit only once a > week (using Amazon Day, etc.). I don't know *where* the bitumen in the > asphalt of the highway those trucks and I speed down (all electric!!!) > every day or so comes from, or how it gets there. There are no end of the > externalities to ignore. > > I'm convinced that if the global industrial-transportation system doesn't > collapse out from under us, only the most rabid of freegans can even begin > to pretend that their externalities are strictly local. My personal > attempts to contract in this way may be entirely ideosyncratic and thin > unto empty, but every time I try to recognize who and what I'm harming, > where, I get a brief glimpse of a local optimization I *can* do, and listen > for the screams of those who have to absorb them. > > This might provide a fair segue back into the questions of the kinds of > optimization that free markets might offer: *Economies of Scale*, > *Synergy* amongst qualitatively different goods/services, and the > *Annealing* that the push-and-shove of competitive markets *can* > provide. Are these real things, or just tricks and illusions the(we?) > power/wealth mongers caste to keep the rest of us(them?) feeding their > greed? The thought of an algorithm (facilitated how?) to help keep track > of if/when/where/how these things come to play and where they are just an > obfuscation to exploiting Gaia and her (human and other animal) children. > > - Steve > On 9/28/20 11:17 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > Yeah, agree with Pat, agree with Glen. > > I will say it in a way that seems inevitably to be ruder, though I don’t wish > to be rude. I find libertarian thinking, in any forms I have encountered > that have agency in the world, to be willfully disingenuous about the things > that actually cause problems. > > A lot of this would not occur in a world where people have to build something > that operationalizes whatever they say in words. Nod to Marcus’s comments > about the virtue of cashing out thoughts in algorithms. > > For years I wanted to write a paper called “There’s no such thing as a free > market”, but I couldn’t find anything new to say that wasn’t already quite > well said, and deliberately ignored, in extant discourse. Define a “free > market”, with the intended Chicago-economists’ notion of “free of coercive or > more generally intrusive power”, which I will hold them to since they want to > invoke Arrow’s and Hahn’s and Debreu’s existence proofs of optimal > allocations. Build me the social algorithm by which every action that I > take, in each small moment of any day, that will ever have effects on me or > anybody else anywhere, has all those consequences fully known to us all, and > fully and fairly negotiated, before the next action I take (turn on the tap, > throw a piece of plastic in the trash, start the engine of the car, eat food > produced in a way that degrades land, use a battery with materials mined in > Mongolia.) The absurdity of the concept is so overwhelming that I can’t help > but respond to people who treat it as existing as if they mean to be > dishonest. Everything else that isn’t within that perfect-costless-contract > model is “externalities”. Those include, ignorance, power, > non-responsibility for consequences, non-existence or unenforcibility of > laws, and on and on and on. > > That, to me, is where the problems occur, and a good-faith conversation > engages with all the clarity we don’t have to deal with them. > > I also think Adam Smith’s name is taken in vain, again in a sleight of hand > that switches intents of words that sound the same. One can read his > arguments, made in the context of his time and the power structures most > active then, as an argument that decentralized optimization can do many > things that centralized planning can’t, or that deliberately oppressive power > structures such as churches or church/state complexes actively degrade. As I > understand it, Smith made all sorts of conditions about morally grounded > societies, some kind of mechanism for regulation against abuses, etc. Not to > mention it was mostly agrarian, pre-financial, and the power all but the > fewest people could accumulate was extremely limited. Much of Smith’s > argument has a similar flavor, as a problem-solving analysis, to Walter > Bagehot’s later writing in Lombard Street, about the better performance of > decentralized banking with fractional-reserve lending. In context, they make > a lot of sense. Quoted as scripture in contexts where the words would > represent quite different choices, they can be given all sorts of meanings > that a counterpart to Smith, suffering under today’s abuses, would not > espouse. > > I bother to write that because, with the question of how to handle the Coney > Barrett appointment, there is a thing I don’t know how to A) think through, > or B) express properly, and I don’t know which of those it is. > > By the accounts of people who follow such things professionally, she is a > capable jurist and a decent person. I can believe that. Interestingly, > having had some of the old interviews of Scalia and Ginsburg played for me in > the past week (great watching if you want to hear an advocacy of originalism > and living-text made by people with skin and brain in the game), Scalia seems > to stand for many not only sensible, but even decent positions. > > However, in the creep that destroys the world, what are the arguments about > how it should play out and how it does? > > I can see one argument for “originalism” as being that those who ratified the > constitution in 1788 had suffered more, risked more, and thought more, than > an average modern judge, and what they intended things to mean should not > lightly be discarded by whoever comes along in each new generation. I think > that would be Scalia’s argument, to the effect that the power of judges to > re-architect the country should be limited by the constitution, which it is > the job of congress to amend (come back to that in a minute). > > But then how does that work? There was all kinds of stuff that didn’t exist > in 1788. So how does it work out that the right-aligned jurists consistently > come down on the side of rulings that give those who have excessively > concentrated power the collaboration of the law in concentrating that power — > I take this to be Pat’s assertion, and I agree — no matter how destructive > the means (here I mean citizens united, nullification of the pre-reporting > requirement in the voting rights act, whatever that was, but probably lots > more that I would know if I knew this area), while those who do not have > concentrated power do not have the law as protection from oppressive use by > those who do have it? I don’t see how one gets from “originalism” to > Citizens United. > > And to the extent that ACB is considered a studious adherent to Scalia’s > originalism, but with less than Scalia’s originality in recognizing important > times to deviate, she is expected to be more mechanical in driving the style > of decisions people expected from him. But the mismatch between the > rhetoric, and the cumulative effects on the role of law in the society, seem > drastic after these many decades. > > Which brings us to the wider question (which a scientist would not pursue, > knowing that he needs to focus on refining the accuracy of one point of > data): What the hell is taking place in the large-scale play of power in > this country around this period? > > Here are some things I have heard that seem valid, granting that I don’t have > expertise to judge. > > 1. For a party to control congress requires the coordination or coercion of > some 260 or so people, which even the more corrupt and authoritarian > societies can struggle to achieve. > 2. An organ like SCOTUS has 9 people and votes by majority. The control role > may be more limited, but the numbers are certainly a lot smaller. > 3. I heard yesterday from Durbin that the senate passed 22 pieces of law last > year. Certainly none of them addressing important ways in which our society > has changed since 1788 that would reflect a new role for law. I think the > big one was the tax cut for the rich. There were probably also some farm > bill things, which from my reading of the farm columns involve some > extraordinary debt-financed bailouts to try to buy republican votes for this > election. MMcC calls himself “the grim reaper”, to boast that he allows > nothing to be done. > 4. So it seems to me not unfair to say that the R position these days is to > do no work themselves, and to block any work the Ds try to do, so that the > congress does as close to nothing as possible. > 5. This means that legislating has now been bounced to the courts, with > SCOTUS as the court of last appeal. Rather than write laws to address needs, > the judges are asked to issue “interpretations” of ancient law for modern > problems, and thus de facto define what the modern law is, bypassing congress. > 6. No wonder it is such an ultra-high priority for Rs to stack every court > they can, and perhaps also explicable that it is less of a priority for Ds, > since they wouldn’t mind using the congress to do things, and so are not so > exclusively focused on SCOTUS as a locus of control. What “the voters” > think is not something I find organic, as there is a highly sophisticated > machinery to install what “the voters” think. > > So if one wanted a senate hearing on the ACB appointment that meant no > disrespect to the person, but was about the substance of both her judicial > method, and the context of power dynamics in which it will be applied, the > above list seems to me to be where the causality lies. > > Even if there were politicians who could speak plainly (rather than in the > ultra-sterilized talk that is required these days), I can’t imagine a > conversation’s being transacted in that frame. Yet, short of that frame, I > don’t see what else meaningfully addresses important sources of > near-existential problems for the governance of the US. > > I guess that wandered off the strict thread. > > Eric > > > > On Sep 28, 2020, at 11:42 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Pat's comments are interestingly powerful as a response to EricC's comments. > I don't remember getting this sense from the recent thread on meritocracy. > But my main objection to the existence of meritocracy is its assumption of > linearity/orthogonality, a lack of friction between the various sliding > dimensions of life. EricC talks mainly [⛧] about disagreeing with individual > sentences, regardless of Fix's compoisitonal *narrative*. And the other > thread about economic mobility assumes the same materially open, formally > closed, permanent underclass required by capitalism. > > It all seems to point to this tendency/ability of libertarians to "separate > concerns" ... e.g. one's attendance to a PTA meeting is assumed to be > decoupled from one's status as a wage slave ... or the artificial separation > between, say, one's ability to vote despite not being able to take the day > off. Or even questioning why Joe Sixpack would prefer to watch The Voice and > drink Budweiser over inventing mouse traps in his basement, after having > spent the last 8 hours being ordered around by someone half his age in a > flourescent lit cubicle. > > I don't agree that libertarianism is nonsense. But the sense it does make is > false, at odds with reality, primarily because reality is replete with > cross-terms and couplings ignored by its assumptions. > > > [⛧] I think the "free-market thinking promotes power relations" is a mere > lemma in the argument. The thesis seems to be that free market thinking > limits market freedom. That paradox is what makes it so insidious. > > On 9/27/20 8:43 PM, Patrick Reilly wrote: > > In my experience, Libertarian ideas when offered at any level above the most > basic are almost always justifying the interests of those who control wealth. > The key myth of Libertarianism is that those who control wealth on any given > day MUST be morally worthy of this control. Which is nonsense. > > The model that any action to disempower the powerful, i.e., the wealthy, and > redistribute their power, i.e., share wealth that essentially has fallen > under the control of a small group of "elites" little regard to justice, is > morally bankrupt is advanced only by ideologues who are (often intentionally) > blind to actual economic history. > > Just one case in point, the standardization of computer Operating Systems was > inevitable. Gates was a clever and hard working industrialist, but the key > business opportunity that he rode to billions was almost purely created by > his ruthlessness married with both an unforeseen timing of technology > development and conditions not of his making. In other words, if he had > failed to be an ambitious and smart creep, he would have been defeated by a > smarter creep . . . someone had to end up in the lead position in this > "winner take all" nature that we still find ourselves in . . . > > Libertarianism is nonsense. > > ---- Pat > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Eric Charles <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> > wrote: > > This article is absolutely fascinating! I think that if we just took each > sentence individually, I would disagree with around 60% of them. That is > being generous and assuming the author is accurately reporting what other > authors are saying. If you allow for my disagreeing with those cited (while > not disputing the citation itself), that could easily bring me as high as > disagreeing with 80% of the individual sentences. That is making it very hard > for me to assess what I think of the overall argument. It seems quite > plausible that "free-market thinking promotes power relations" in a > particular historic context, which seems to be one of the main theses of the > argument... but the author is covering at least a dozen deep topics that are > in no way necessary to make that argument, and is not demonstrating a deep > understanding of any of them. > > Here are some example sentences from throughout the paper that seem > confused. Some might merely be massive overgeneralizations, but even that > seems pretty problematic in the context of the argument being made: > > * Free-market ideology claims that to help society, we must help > ourselves. If we all act selfishly, the thinking goes, the invisible hand > will make everyone better off. So here we have an ideology that promotes > selfishness in the name of group benefit. It’s a Machiavellian lie that > should be caustic to social cohesion. > * According to the theory of multilevel selection, there is /always/ a > disconnect between the interests of a group, and the interests of individuals > within the group. > * So for groups to be successful, they must suppress the selfish > behavior of individuals. There are many ways of doing this, but the most > common is probably /punishment/. To encourage altruistic behavior, groups > punish self-serving individuals. > * But while punishing deviance is universal to all social organisms, > humans have developed a method for suppressing selfishness that is unique. To > promote prosocial behavior, we harness the power of ideas. We /lie/ to > ourselves. > * According to evolutionary theory, Rand’s Machiavellian lie ought to be > caustic to group cohesion. > * /power relations/ qualify as a type of altruism. In a power relation, > one person submits to the will of another. Bob submits to Alice. By doing so, > Bob sacrifices his own fitness for the benefit of Alice. That’s altruism. But > if Bob’s subservience only benefited Alice, it would be an evolutionary dead > end. The Bobs of the world would die out, having given all their resources to > the Alices. Since power relations have not died out, something more must be > going on. > * On the face of it, freedom and power seem to be opposites. > * Business firms, you may have noticed, don’t use the market to organize > their internal activities. They use hierarchy. Firms have a chain of command > that tells employees what to do. Given this fact, the growth of large firms > is as much an assault on the free market as is the growth of government. > * To measure the growth of private hierarchy, I’ll use the size of the > management class — the portion of people employed as ‘managers’. Here’s my > reasoning. Managers work at the tops of hierarchies. > * Anthropologists Carla Handley and Sarah Mathew recently found that > cultural variation between human groups is far greater than genetic > variation. Put simply, this means that ideas matter. What we /think/ probably > affects our behavior more than our genes. > * > > The reason is that human life is marked by a fundamental tension. We > are social animals who compete as groups. For our group’s sake, it’s best if > we act altruistically. But for our /own/ sake, it’s better to be a selfish > bastard. How to suppress this selfish behavior is the fundamental problem of > social life. The solution that most cultures have hit upon is to lie. > > * The alternative is that free-market ideas /do/ promote altruism … just > not the kind we’re used to thinking about. They promote altruism through > power relations. And they do so through doublespeak. Free-market ideology > uses the language of ‘freedom’ to promote the accumulation of power. > > Just for a taste of why this all seems so weird: "Free market ideology" is > not the promotion of selfishness writ large, it is the idea that people > should look for beneficial deals when buying and selling goods. Like, if you > could buy a car for $15,000, or get an equivalent car for $12,000, you should > buy the cheaper one; but if you are selling, and you could sell for $12,000 > or $15,000, you should sell for the higher price. That's it. Free market > ideology has nothing to do with whether you should support the local PTA or > whether you should invest in your children beyond the time-corrected dollar > value you expect them to give you in return. And similarly, my manager's > ability to tell me what to do at work has little to do with whether I buy > rice in bulk at the asian grocery where it is cheaper. (And if you want to > talk about Ayn Rand as promoting selfishness writ large, then we would need a > separate conversation about what "selfish" means in an "Objectivist" context, > and > how that has only a loose relation with "free market ideology".) > > > Eric C > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:24 PM ⛧ glen <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>> wrote: > > Why Free Market Ideology is a Double Lie > > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fevonomics.com%2fwhy-free-market-ideology-is-a-double-lie%2f&c=E,1,d2TnMVUh7KVPhp7lLOjPS60gXNNEZz6qiD8G3plDleoUYApuONZKAEuZlWeuhTTYFPFEb1-lRiWwHFw2gWpRDcvIRibx9tM6OuExB8uwHyCGDI8ucukQCaEx&typo=1 > "So yes, free-market thinking is a lie. But it’s not the lie you think > it is." > -- > glen ⛧ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,KGzu2APwbRTafgbyuDendLu2FlO7a7iPaI-2HeDHn6NdQPs16C_DfFYpEy0i8RZUva6WJ7kViY_MqMK0yvSedxvfyo49921ta9IJPsq5ngJLjME0bS-aVu4,&typo=1> > > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,KGzu2APwbRTafgbyuDendLu2FlO7a7iPaI-2HeDHn6NdQPs16C_DfFYpEy0i8RZUva6WJ7kViY_MqMK0yvSedxvfyo49921ta9IJPsq5ngJLjME0bS-aVu4,&typo=1> > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,LvXwopHMaxW94USa-apUEe2BCCuXO4GLm60UzqExS9H-4VzxMkLpOqH9_tNOZIXnu3RdsDNlx2vRGbdqehIlT9ujWcN-XlfiDOYRzmBGzVsO&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,KgYk_nt2N2JXaYLtuV9964RM6BZVeZF7orcPxgjF7uD6HCP1D6tQCIOMLdj2IlUVWWwot6vsQ_mno420RHS7wjHZ8eJwhVS1SocjaELEA145jmnNXSy4zQ,,&typo=1 > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,BtXiikeFFnvUvkzxt5_XgQYZ_7Rp1xaTxE770BDoILHHW5w-OCcxAXdD99pg_bgDqpbj4Ma5NpZk1q9-WkcCVM86-1yY1B8VPCkSmIv_rV-8MYw,&typo=1> > > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,BtXiikeFFnvUvkzxt5_XgQYZ_7Rp1xaTxE770BDoILHHW5w-OCcxAXdD99pg_bgDqpbj4Ma5NpZk1q9-WkcCVM86-1yY1B8VPCkSmIv_rV-8MYw,&typo=1> > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,KmZpy-Z04yp2LD4Rviyza0kZsG_PaO08Jy_HwG2M7kA7OvqDwcMcEemASY84rBH-IwgZGLjpRQUcfKwQs8RcYk7cpKmG9fveOgQFXJoJ&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,1SflVgqAR21wXioXL4OP2Ku_EB0S4Gw8JY0Kx_09hP8wWZcx9581bjkbPD8frsQ8R6Bm94bwyJkPGB5VgvAMrOl6CyTRtpUyo-BJoionpCvthycwWu5Togk0&typo=1 > > > > -- > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, > please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the > original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send > an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]>. > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,8HxwR5TfpAHdrZ9zW4gHL0YL2NNUR3np5sGRR8NmDIIwgl_JSrs07ZbM01Api_spDKAsj0MxcYusBYM5HEoEwpKSia2Soirl9t48ApztlEbZ&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,3Nr2gLeFcNTTDygx7K9fHe-R-EBEv1kvLwUtrQNEz9qsjAUYLkmklMMv2xggTCtRf3DI1_TRIGMNqkIiYRjqI2l3lR8MEFby5wD-o7KA4hM1&typo=1 > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,s94HZm4FBlutY5QQnOUtWVaTkL44uf-jQKyvh_1qQEp21vBQEdUb94GcO25s_mD1ykk_pRBnSeFtyGYxt8XrJjBFZzxOyNkmWRazQHmIEQnKxk4wPUs,&typo=1 > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,1XgHsBPh3R2GYxOxsKSPhofjYSNUdB0RelCmVp0ST8xFKC28Wns24fdbKwF2sS4I8fvzSa-_6SsKMg3hZCtcEoVapxgU_jeGW6WdiDvB&typo=1 > > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
