[FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology

[Frank Wimberly]

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 <sasmyth at swcp.com> 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, thompnickson2 at gmail.com 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2020 2:58 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *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, thompnickson2 at gmail.com 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
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:54 AM
>
> To: friam at redfish.com
>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology
>
>
>
> comments embedded.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020, at 5:26 PM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com 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
>
> > ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2020 8:28 AM
>
> > To: FriAM <friam at redfish.com>
>
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200317/5444861e/attachment.html>