[FRIAM] science privilege — fork from acid epistemology

[George Duncan]

Qwan in Tagalog (usually spelled Kwan) is a very common word meanining
“whatchamacallit”or “who’s it” so not giving a soecific name to whatever or
whom ever is being referred to.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:34 AM Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Who knew this:
>
> Qwan dictionary definition | qwan defined - YourDictionary
> <https://www.yourdictionary.com/qwan>
> qwan. Acronym. Quality Without A Name - in computer programming QWAN
> refers to a more metaphysical attribute that expresses elegancy of code.
>
> ?
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020, 8:52 AM Steven A Smith <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
>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
-- 
George Duncan
Emeritus Professor of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University
georgeduncanart.com
See posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Land: (505) 983-6895
Mobile: (505) 469-4671

My art theme: Dynamic exposition of the tension between matrix order and
luminous chaos.

"Attempt what is not certain. Certainty may or may not come later. It may
then be a valuable delusion."
>From "Notes to myself on beginning a painting" by Richard Diebenkorn.

"It's that knife-edge of uncertainty where we come alive to our truest
power." Joanna Macy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200317/f49b4ea1/attachment-0001.html>