Steve, I will respond to your question about hopes and dreams in more detail in a couple of days. But a short answer would be: I find the work of Wegner and Maturana and Varela compelling, but "incomplete." I have a simple gut reaction to AT of the sort, "here might be a framework from within which I can apply/develop/embellish the W and M&V ideas." I want to reread Wegner tonight and some notes I made in the past about structural coupling.
davew On Mon, Aug 11, 2025, at 2:56 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > > > On 8/10/25 6:13 pm, Prof David West wrote: >> Who knows anything about AT - Assembly Theory - and evolution. I know the >> web/LLM provided stuff. Want more depth if anyone can provide such. > I've listened to/watched Sarah Walker and Lee Cronin's Lex interviews (from a > year or more back). I find it a compelling post-hoc perspective which > complements Kauffman's "adjacent possible" quite neatly, but both fall short > (IMO) of addressing the more interesting complexity arguments around emergent > affordances, possibly classified by Deacon's homeo/morpho/teleodynamics.. > my take on it is probably idiosyncratic and has probably been (over) shared > here bfore so.I won't beat that dead-but-still-braying mule here (again)... > > what are your thoughts/opinions/hopes/fears as registered on AT? > > > >> >> On Sun, Aug 10, 2025, at 5:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> Thanks Stephen, >>> >>> I hoped for some sort of answer like that. >>> >>> If Eisenhower was the president for the Age of Collective Reasonableness, >>> and Reagan wa the president for the Age of Noble Selfishness, and Trump is >>> the president for the Age of Anarchy, what is next? How does a complexity >>> theorist plan his way out of this one, baby? Inquiring geezers want to >>> know. What do the ants have to say? I want to say that we ants should all >>> get together and think this through, but that is, of course, exactly what a >>> geezer from the ACR would say. I do despair. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin >>> *Sent:* Saturday, August 9, 2025 8:36 PM >>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>> >>> Nick writes: >>> >>> > I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The Enemy – Complexity, >>> > which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess for the future and >>> > planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. >>> >>> Nick — you came to Santa Fe to “confront The Enemy – Complexity,” but I’ve >>> always admired how that move was also a reach to extend the individual into >>> the group. Your framing of evolution beyond the lone actor fits naturally >>> into complexity’s home territory: the study of collective dynamics. >>> >>> Complexity challenged the civic ideal you grew up with — that we could make >>> our best guess about the future, then plan together calmly and rationally >>> around stable facts — by showing: >>> • The world is nonlinear — small perturbations can cascade. >>> • Prediction decays fast — best guesses expire before guiding long-horizon >>> plans. >>> • Feedback loops are short — conditions shift before consensus can form. >>> From the Victorian lens of the forward-propagating individual — the gene, >>> the photon, the solitary actor — the unit of selection is the >>> forward-propagator itself, competing with only a once-in-a-lifetime >>> reproduction as feedback, with everything else treated as downstream >>> consequence. >>> >>> But complexity might instead be the handshake of duals — like the mutual >>> adjustment of fireflies flashing in unison or pendulums entraining to a >>> common rhythm — where coherence emerges from continuous exchange, not >>> solitary advance. This shift is much like physics’ move from solid state >>> (crystal order, replication) to condensed matter (emergent phenomena, >>> reproduction) — the very distinction Eric Smith draws between systems that >>> merely repeat and systems that generate novel, coherent forms. >>> >>> This spirit runs through the science: >>> • Stuart Kauffman’s autocatalytic sets — molecules persist as part of >>> collectively closed webs of reactions. >>> • Harold Morowitz & Eric Smith — life’s core metabolic cycles may emerge >>> as planetary-scale solutions to channel geochemical energy flows; selection >>> might happen at the network level, not molecule-by-molecule. >>> • Afred's Hübler’s ball bearings — conductive spheres collectively grow >>> to dissipate massive charge gradients more effectively. >>> • Per Bak’s self-organized criticality — critical states are properties of >>> the network, not any single grain or fault. >>> • Ilya Prigogine’s dissipative structures — ordered patterns like Bénard >>> cells exist only through system-wide throughput of energy/matter. >>> Physics offers a parallel in Feynman–Wheeler absorber theory, where >>> interactions are bidirectional handshakes between advanced and retarded >>> waves, settling into a self-consistent exchange. Carver Mead’s Collective >>> Electrodynamics carries this into the macroscopic: electrons act as part of >>> a global configuration, not as isolated particles. >>> >>> It’s the same dynamic in my favorite ant foraging model: food-seekers >>> diffuse “nest” pheromone outward, nest-seekers carrying food diffuse “food” >>> pheromone outward; each biases its walk along the other’s field. The >>> shortest-time path emerges from the handshake between complementary >>> propagations, not from any one ant “deciding” the route. >>> >>> Seen this way, complexity might not be the death of rational planning — it >>> could be pointing us toward a different design target: the coherent >>> configuration. We're still on the lookout for our “Carnot” to formalize >>> these principles. >>> >>> And for me, that search has been shaped by the voices in this group — >>> especially yours. Your probes have been part of the collective dynamic >>> here, and I’ve been heavily informed by them. For that, I’m grateful. >>> >>> -Stephen >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Ok, but I am not done with my infernal questions. The way you pose your >>>> question, I cant help thinking that you know the answer. You and I could >>>> recite fo one another the thousand ways in which we know that humans are >>>> groupish. We know that people can make sacrifices for the good of groups >>>> of all sorts, some of which are incorrigibly abstract. We know that >>>> humans identify with the fate of other humans to the extent that they will >>>> put aside their own good fortune for that of an iconic figure. We know >>>> the people are capable of appalling group nastiness. There is no savagery >>>> like the modern army, sitting around in an anonymous office bloc in New >>>> Jersey lobbing missiles at wedding parties in Iraq. >>>> >>>> So what is the question concerning human groupishness . What is it >>>> beyond these facts that you need to know and what will change when you >>>> come to know it. One question you might be asking yourself is “Am I >>>> justified in keeping any money I earn beyond the median income of my >>>> fellow citizens. The answer is almost certainly, “No”. Knowing that and >>>> knowing that I am damned well not going to give it away, what next?” >>>> >>>> One of the hardest projects to take on is the discovery of one’s own >>>> hankerings. Glen, Jon, and DaveW have been very good at exposing mine. >>>> Make American Rational Again. Return to the genteel rationalism of the >>>> Deweyan 1950’s where every town had a town meeting and every discussion >>>> was “informed” by the “facts.” (And we were all cheerful racists instead >>>> of the guilty racists that we are now.) That I have grown up and helped to >>>> create a world in which nobody knows anymore what a fact has been like >>>> living my worst childhood nightmare. I was head of our planning board for >>>> three years in the early 70’s where I learned that small towns are the >>>> scariest, least rational places on the face of the earth. When we moved >>>> in from California, marginal hippies, the town could not rest before it >>>> was decided whether we were Catholics or Protestants. What???!@!! >>>> Sorry, I am ranting. I moved to Santa Fe 20 years ago to confront The >>>> Enemy – Complexity, which made nonsense of the idea making a best guess >>>> for the future and planning for it collectively , calmly, and rationally. >>>> The idea that people should build businesses models on destabilizing the >>>> present and then swooping in and pillaging until one has established an >>>> irrevocable monopoly on the future just seems WRONG to me. I loved the >>>> idea of American exceptionalism. But lo and behold, we were exceptional >>>> in only one respect. WE had discovered destabilization as a business >>>> model. Drop by, plant a lethal virus, wait a few years and then return >>>> (with your slaves) to a “virgin” land populated only by a few desperate >>>> savages. Let the rape of the virgin begin. Calm down, Nick. >>>> >>>> These are my commitments, and I cannot escape them. What are yours? >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter Steenekamp >>>> *Sent:* Friday, August 8, 2025 4:21 PM >>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>>> >>>> Nick, >>>> >>>> Too good to miss — I’m in. Lead me into the jungle of group selection, >>>> especially the human variety. >>>> >>>> What I’m after: a clear, simple (but not dumbed-down) take on what group >>>> selection in humans is, and why it might explain our behaviour better than >>>> individual selection alone. >>>> >>>> Happy to start at the very beginning — dawn of the argument, cave >>>> paintings, whatever you think works. >>>> >>>> And yes, send me that Famous Great Amateur reading list. I promise to read >>>> it with respect… and just enough suspicion to keep it fun. >>>> >>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:05, Nicholas Thompson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, Pieter, >>>>> >>>>> Let me be a George to you as you explore this topic. I will try to >>>>> respond off hand, quickly, and unself-consciously as you think along. I >>>>> think this whole topic is fascinating both substantively, and >>>>> historically. The literature seems to track (or lead?) the Zeitgeist so >>>>> precisely from post war peace-nikery (Wynne-Edwards), to the revanchist >>>>> academic Reaganism (Williams-Dawkins), to chaos (evodevo). It's really >>>>> hard to take the whole argument seriously once one begins to understand >>>>> how complex and multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and >>>>> dont resemble their children. One of the tools to thinking straight is >>>>> to own up to one's hankerings before one dives into the literature. What >>>>> are you hoping to find? Post war peace-nikery was covertly deistic, >>>>> hoping to find that there was some sort of over arching regulatory agency >>>>> that would keep the species and the planet safe. Academic Reaganism said >>>>> good luck with that! Success is virtue. And then evodevo, the bull in >>>>> the china shop of that whole argument. I recommend reading the >>>>> biologist, Sean B. Carroll, (not the physicist), Endless forms most >>>>> beautiful, and The making of the fittest. It's really hard to take the >>>>> whole argument seriously once one begins to understand how complex and >>>>> multi layered are the mechanisms by which parents do and dont resemble >>>>> their children. That there is any resemblance at all begins to seem like >>>>> some sort of miracle. Or perhaps just momentum. One hankering that >>>>> misleads us is naturalism, the idea that we can find some sort of MORAL >>>>> guidance in the way things are. Is the opposite hankering, >>>>> existentialism? The belief that what makes humans special is their power >>>>> to CHOOSE. You should remember that I am not a philosopher and am, in >>>>> fact, an amateur in all things. >>>>> >>>>> "Any time you want to explore this issue, I am here ready to help. >>>>> Would you like suggestions of articles to read by that Famous Amateur, >>>>> Nick Thompson? " >>>>> >>>>> signed, >>>>> >>>>> ChatNST >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 5:19 AM Pieter Steenekamp >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Thanks, Nick. Just like you struggled to get your head around entropy, >>>>>> I’m battling to wrap my mind around how the basic but very powerful >>>>>> mechanism of evolution works in human groups. I can easily understand >>>>>> individual human selection, or even group selection in swarming insects >>>>>> where only the queen has babies. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think I’ll take a page from your book and work with George to help >>>>>> guide me through this learning journey. Every now and then, I might >>>>>> check in with you and others here for a chat or to ask a question. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only catch is that I’ve just started a really exciting AI project, >>>>>> so I might not have much time for my group-level evolution journey — but >>>>>> I’ll try to keep it going. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 03:40, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks Pieter, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sorry I have taken so long to get back to you. If FRIAM ever started a >>>>>>> journal, it should be called “the emperors new clothes”. We are not >>>>>>> committed to anything if not to the validity of an “amateur’s” >>>>>>> perspective. As people will be quick to tell you, mine has always been >>>>>>> of that sort. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I read you carefully, the position you take is that laid out in >>>>>>> Dawkins The Extended Phenotype – that the genes are the basic unit of >>>>>>> selection. But as Dave Wilson has been pointing out for years, Who >>>>>>> made that decision? For one thing, as epigenic studies have made >>>>>>> clear, when one looks in detail, it is really hard to find a thing that >>>>>>> is exactly the gene. For another, that decision runs the risk of >>>>>>> confusing the the thing that is selected with the forces that are >>>>>>> selecting it. Whatever level you care to calculate the impact of >>>>>>> selection, it is differential group success that is driving selection >>>>>>> or it is not group selection. And if it is differential group success >>>>>>> that is driving selection, then it is group selection. I think you >>>>>>> might quite enjoy The Extended Phenotype. For a whild ride, have a >>>>>>> look at Elliott Sober and D. S. Wilson’s Reintroducing Group Selection >>>>>>> to the human behavioral sciences. There is a wonderful metaphor in >>>>>>> there about two riders riding three horses. It was the article that >>>>>>> broke the tide for me. I had been totally up Dawkins ass for the >>>>>>> preceding 20 years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here is the citation, courtesy og George Patrick Tremblay IV >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). *Reintroducing group selection to >>>>>>> the human behavioral sciences*. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17*(4), >>>>>>> 585–608. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00036104 >>>>>>> en.wikipedia.org+15philpapers.org+15 >>>>>>> <https://philpapers.org/rec/WILRGS?utm_source=chatgpt.com>…. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Pieter >>>>>>> Steenekamp >>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 6, 2025 12:55 AM >>>>>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Group Selection IS a metaphor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick, I'm genuinely impressed. Honestly, I feel a bit out of my depth >>>>>>> trying to respond meaningfully on this topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So please take my reply in the same spirit I’d expect a response from >>>>>>> my 10-year-old grandchild when debating computer programming with me. >>>>>>> The gap between your understanding of evolution and mine feels about >>>>>>> that wide. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, I’d still like to offer a response to your group selection >>>>>>> argument—fully aware that it may come across as amateurish, and I'm >>>>>>> okay with that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's the question I’m grappling with: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the following valid? >>>>>>> Genes as the Unit of Selection: >>>>>>> Modern evolutionary theory generally views genes as the primary unit of >>>>>>> selection. Natural selection acts on individuals, and the success of an >>>>>>> individual is ultimately determined by the genes they carry. >>>>>>> Group Selection as a Modifier: >>>>>>> Group selection can be seen as a process that influences the expression >>>>>>> of genes. For example, if a group-level trait (like cooperative >>>>>>> behavior) is advantageous, then genes that promote that behavior will >>>>>>> be favored, even if those genes also have individual-level costs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 00:12, Prof David West <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Nick, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wish to embody the fear of being dragged away from what you think >>>>>>>> you are supposed to be doing, to be engaged in the topic you raise in >>>>>>>> your paper. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have read the paper before and, as then, I find it meritorious, well >>>>>>>> written, and reasonable in argument. I am, basically, convinced. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However; two points: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, your use of the concept, "metaphor," is the way that I use the >>>>>>>> term, in a manner that glen pointed out is inconsistent with the >>>>>>>> literal definition of the term. I speak of metaphor when there is some >>>>>>>> thing of which I think I know something and I have a suspicion that >>>>>>>> some other thing might be of the same ilk. I use what I think I know >>>>>>>> to craft a 'model', one that suggests particular points and particular >>>>>>>> relations that, if my suspicion is correct, will have direct analogs >>>>>>>> in the unknown thing. I check them out individually and in >>>>>>>> combinations and, if substantiated, confirm my suspicion. If >>>>>>>> unconfirmed, the metaphor is refuted. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This seems to me to be what you are doing in the paper, albeit it more >>>>>>>> abstractly and academically. Please correct me if wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Second, and here is the real time sink, would it be possible to make >>>>>>>> your ideas concrete, real groups with actual history and demonstrated >>>>>>>> differential "success." If you were amenable to such a conversation, I >>>>>>>> would propose the Mormons as a test case. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of 20 or so "religions"/"societies" to emerge from the "Burnt Over >>>>>>>> District" of western New York. The only one still extant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Disproportionately successful, (in material and social terms), to >>>>>>>> their neighbors. Smith was living in a two-story New England style >>>>>>>> home while down the road, Abe Lincoln, was living in a log cabin with >>>>>>>> mud floor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A schism immediately after Smith's death, with the Reformed LDS barely >>>>>>>> evident while the main group flourished. (Last time I checked, >>>>>>>> Mormonism and Sokka Gokai, in Japan, were the two fastest growing >>>>>>>> religions.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In Utah there was a concerted effort to spawn multiple small groups by >>>>>>>> sending out colonies. Because each group was originally "seeded" with >>>>>>>> four or five families, you get a strong genetic/heritance component as >>>>>>>> well as "traits." (It is still possible to identify what part of Utah >>>>>>>> someone is from (especially females) by their physical appearance.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some interesting "adaptations" at the trait level, e.g., when Smith >>>>>>>> was alive blacks were included in the community and held the >>>>>>>> priesthood—something that Missourians, at the time, could not abide. >>>>>>>> Brigham Young 'suspended' (restored in 1978 with the admission that >>>>>>>> the suspension was not for theological, but merely political reasons) >>>>>>>> black priesthood membership and gave up polygamy (de jure only) to >>>>>>>> appease the Federal Government and avoid a second martyrdom. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> davew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025, at 1:10 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues in FRIAM, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sometimes, if I am going to get anything done, I just have to ignore >>>>>>>>> Friam, and keep my head down, and work at the thing I am working at. >>>>>>>>> It always seems, on that occasion, that you-guys dangle in front of >>>>>>>>> me some enticing topic so I must scream and put my fingers in my ears >>>>>>>>> to keep focus on my work. So it was that when I decided I must fish >>>>>>>>> or cut bait on entropy or it would take me to my grave, that almost >>>>>>>>> immediately you-guys started not one but two conversations close to >>>>>>>>> my heart: on the centrality of metaphor to science and on the group >>>>>>>>> selection controversy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A couple of decades ago I brought those two interests together in a >>>>>>>>> paper called “Shifting the Natural Selection Metaphor to the Group >>>>>>>>> Level. There are two things about this paper that make it salient >>>>>>>>> for me. The first is that I think it is the best paper I ever wrote. >>>>>>>>> The second is that for each of the two people whom I most hoped to >>>>>>>>> reach when I wrote it, D. S. Wilson and Elliott Sober, it is a piece >>>>>>>>> of crap. In it, I try to show that the problem with metaphors is not >>>>>>>>> with their use in scientific thinking: on the contrary, it is with >>>>>>>>> their ill-disciplined use. Metaphors need to be worked in a >>>>>>>>> systematic way, not simply flung out in a gust of poetic exuberance. >>>>>>>>> This lesson I try to teach by working the natural selection metaphor >>>>>>>>> in a systematic way to show that if it had been treated seriously in >>>>>>>>> the first place, the whole dispute about group selection might have >>>>>>>>> been avoided. Thus the paper is not only arrogant, but >>>>>>>>> meta-arrogant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing is more pitiable than the retired academic who would do >>>>>>>>> anything to have anybody read his moribund essays. But, alas, I >>>>>>>>> simply am such a person. So, I am attaching a copy of the paper in >>>>>>>>> the hope that it will have some value to you within the context of >>>>>>>>> your two discussions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mumble, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>>>>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>>>>>>>> Clark University >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>>>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. >>>>>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Attachments:* >>>>>>>>> • Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>>>>>>>> • Shifting the natural selection metaphor to the group level.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. >>>>>>>> --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. >>>>>> / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology >>>>> Clark University >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson >>>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >>> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >>> archives: 5/2017 thru present >>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >>> >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
