[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[Frank Wimberly]

Yes, if you use Google Translate it takes you from fit to ataque (seizure)
and back to attack.  I would have said in Nick's case "Vamos a enfadar a
Nick" or "Nick se va a volver trastornado" or one of several other
expressions none of which contains "tener".

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 6:09 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

>
> 'Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I can't speak for other
> languages, but I assume there are many others where that would be true.)
>
> Nick está teniendo una rabieta...  In Spanish.  Perfectly parallel to the
> English version.
>
> But if it were more appropriate to say "Nick is *throwing* a fit" would
> the idiom transfer to Spanish?
>
> I was literally just (hours ago) discussing the various words for
> "strong/hard/firm" in Spanish with the man who helps me around the
> property.   Our language overlap is not good enough to discuss at the level
> that occurs here, but "Fuerte", "Firma" and "Dura" all came to mind.
> Given the context, all three fit the conversation (discussing my choice of
> a juniper fencepost as a support for a rick of firewood we were stacking.
>
> Google Translate leads me to believe that "having a fit" is more like
> "making an adjustment" while "throwing a fit" is like "launching an
> attack".  I suspect this represents the fundamental weakness in automatic
> translation, not Google Translate alone.   It takes a bit of context or
> something to realize "throwing a fit" can be dramatic but need not imply it
> is directed (attack) at anyone aggresively?   It seems (coincidentally)
> nuanced to think of "having a fit" as making some kind of (internal?)
> adjustment to one's emotional/mental state?
>
> Your own (Frank's) understanding of the context(s) involved
> allowed/required you to use "rabieta" (tantrum), though I would ask if YOU
> think Nick is "having" or "doing" (or in my lingo "throwing") un rabieta?
>
> (nod of genial thanks to NST for letting us rib him mercilessly in public).
>
> mascullar balbucear, barbotear, o mascar?
>
>  Steve
>
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021, 9:37 AM Eric Charles <eric.phillip.charles at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So.... This is JUST a question of whether we are having a casual
>> conversation or a technical one, right? Certainly, in a casual,
>> English-language conversation talk of "having" emotions is well understood,
>> and just fine, for example "Nick is *having *a fit, just let him be." (I
>> can't speak for other languages, but I assume there are many others where
>> that would be true.)
>>
>> If we were, for some reason, having a technical conversation about how the*
>> Science of **Psychology*, should use technical language, then we *might *also
>> come to all agree that isn't the best way to talk about it.
>>
>> In any case, the risk with "have" is that it reifies whatever we are
>> talking about. To talk about someone *having *sadness, leads
>> naturally --- linguistically naturally --- in English --- to thinking that
>> sadness is *a thing* that I could find if I looked hard enough. It is
>> why people used to think (and many, many, still do) that if we just looked
>> hard enough at someone's brain, we would find *the sadness* inside
>> there, somewhere. That is why it is dangerous in a technical
>> conversation regarding psychology, because that implication is wrong-headed
>> in a way that repeatedly leads large swaths of the field down deep rabbit
>> holes that they can't seem to get out of.
>>
>> On the one hand, I *have *a large ice mocha waiting for me in the
>> fridge. On the other hand, this past summer I *had *a two-week long trip
>> to California. One is a straightforward object, the other was an extended
>> activity I engaged in. When the robot-designers assert that their robot
>> "has" emotions, which do they mean? Honestly, I think they don't mean
>> either one, it is a marketing tool, and not part of a conversation at all.
>> As such, it does't really fit into the dichotomy above, and is trying to
>> play one off of the other. They are using the terms "emotions and
>> instincts" to mean something even less than whatever Tesla means when they
>> say they have an autodrive that for sure still isn't good enough to
>> autodrive.
>>
>> What the robot-makers mean is simply to indicate that the robot will be a
>> bit more responsive to certain things that other models on the market, and *hopefully
>> *that's what most consumers understand it to mean. But not all will...
>> at least some of the people being exposed to the marketing will take it to
>> mean that emotion has been successfully put somewhere inside the robot.
>> (The latter is a straightforward empirical claim, and if you think I'm
>> wrong about that, you have way too much faith in how savvy 100% of
>> people are.) As such, the marketing should be annoying to anti-dualist
>> psychologists, who see it buttressing *at least some* people's tendency
>> to jump down that rabbit hole mentioned above.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:48 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many points well taken.  I am particularly proud of being dope-slapped
>>> by Glen about being overly narrow in my understanding of “inside.”  It was,
>>> as he said, a case of my failure to fulfill my obligation as a thinker to
>>> steelman any argument before I try to knock it down.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But let me turn Glen’s steel-man obligation around.  Aren’t you made
>>> uneasy when people claim that to be private that which is plainly present
>>> in their behavior?  And doesn’t the whole problem of “What it’s like to be
>>> a bat” and “the hard problem” strike you as an effort to make hay where the
>>> sun don’t shine?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you do share those concerns, and you worry that I have (as usual)
>>> overstated my case, then that’s one kind of discussion; if you don’t share
>>> them at all, then that’s a very different conversation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My position on “the realm of the mental” is laid out in many of my
>>> publications, perhaps most concisely in the first few pages of Intentionality
>>> is the Mark of the Mental"
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312031901_Intentionality_is_the_mark_of_the_vital>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s an old argument, going back to Descartes.  Do we see the world
>>> through our minds, or do we see our minds through the world?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Thompson
>>>
>>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric
>>> Smith
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7:47 AM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s the right kind of answer, Nick, and I don’t find it compelling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Put aside for a moment the use of “have” as an auxiliary verb.  I can
>>> come up with wonderful reasons why that is both informative and primordial,
>>> but I also believe they are complete nonsense and only illustrate that
>>> there are no good rules for reliable argument in this domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I don’t adopt the frame of using the past tense as a device to
>>> skew the argument toward the conclusion you started with.  (Now _there_ is
>>> a category error: to start with a conclusion.  Lawyer!)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think probably throughout Indo-European derived languages, “have” is
>>> used to refer to inherent attributes.  I have brown eyes.  I have eyes at
>>> all.  It takes a surprisingly convoluted construction to assert that
>>> someone looking at my face will find two brown eyes there, that doesn’t use
>>> “have” as the verb of attribution.  So that’s old, and it is something the
>>> language has really committed to.  I think you have to commit unnatural
>>> acts to argue that that is a verb of action.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possession isn’t even a lot more action-y.  I have two turntables and a
>>> microphone.  If nobody is trying to take them from me, it is not clear that
>>> I am “doing” anything to “have” them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (btw, I am not a metaphor monist.  I practice polysemy, like the
>>> Mormons.  So it seems completely natural that there can be multiple
>>> meanings, if there are any meanings at all, and that distinct ones can use
>>> the same word because they are somehow similar despite not being the
>>> self-same.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems to me as if the truest action usage of “have” is one that is
>>> not nearly as baked into the language.  If I have lunch, I eat lunch.  If I
>>> have a fit, I throw a tantrum.  Many circumlocutions available to me.  That
>>> also could be quite idiosyncratic to small language branches.  I think you
>>> would never, in normal speech, say you “had” lunch in German.  You would
>>> just say you ate lunch.  (Or in Italian or French either, for that matter.)
>>>  These kinds of usages do not seem to me to carry strong cognitive weight.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So it seems to me that the semantic core of “have” is probably
>>> attribution.  The legal sense of ownership is probably metaphorical.  It
>>> would not _at all_ surprise me if the use both in the auxiliary (widespread
>>> in IE) and in the deictic (French il y a, there is) are deep metaphors
>>> describing either the ambient, or the ineluctable structure of time, with
>>> attributes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But, back to whether attribution is natural for emotions (or, as good as
>>> anything else, and better than most):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I “have” a sunny disposition, that seems not far from having brown
>>> eyes.  Italian: Il ha un buon aspetto.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I am having a bad day, that is a little different from having brown
>>> eyes, and perhaps closer to having a black eye.  Not an essence that
>>> defines my nature, but a condition I can be in, or “take on". To say,
>>> indeed, that I parse that as a pattern I carry around (as an aspect of
>>> constitution or condition) does not seem category-erroneous to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, there are patterns in my behavior: if I take a hot shower and the
>>> water lands on my black eye, I will wince.  If you say good morning and I
>>> am having a bad day, I will growl at you.  A Skinnerian can say that my
>>> wincing is all there is to my black eye.  But a physician would tell me to
>>> put ice on it, and would use the color of the bruise to indicate which eye
>>> I should put the ice on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These uses of having seem tied up, more closely than with anything else,
>>> with uses of being, as SteveS mentioned.  So the be/do dichotomy seems to
>>> determine largely where the verb usages split.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course, living is a process, played out on organized structures.
>>> Brains probably look different in eeg and electrode arrays in one emotional
>>> condition than in another, and they probably also have different
>>> neurotransmitter profiles, and maybe other things.  Even You probably don’t
>>> want to refer to a neurotransmitter concentration as a “doing”; It is a
>>> variable of state, like a black eye is a state of an eye.  You might want
>>> to refer to the brain action pattern as “doing”, but maybe only in the
>>> sense that you refer to the existence of non-dead metabolism as “doing” —
>>> they are both processes.  To me, the common language seems to split the be
>>> and the do on brevity, transience, isolation, or suddenness of an
>>> activity.  I _am_ surly, and I _do_ growl at you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If non-black English still preserved the habitual tense, as John
>>> McWhorter claims black American English still does, we might be able to
>>> make a different kind of a distinction, between the pattern or habit as a
>>> state, and the event within it as an act.  That might give an even better
>>> account of the split in the common language.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also want to acknowledge Glen’s points about working through many
>>> frames in a dynamical way.  I can’t add anything, but I do agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2021, at 12:30 PM, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <
>>> thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now wait a minute!  This is the sort of question I am supposed to ask of
>>> you?  A question to which the answer is so obvious to the recipient that he
>>> is in danger of not being able to locate it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so, their meanings obviously overlap.   If you tell me you “had” a
>>> steak last night, I wont assume that it’s available  for us to eat tonight:
>>> “had” is serving as a verb of action.  The situation is further confused
>>> by the fact that both words are used as helper words, i.e, words that
>>> indicate the tense of another verb.  To say that I “have” gone and that I
>>> “done” gone mean the same thing in different dialects
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In general the grammar of the two words is different.  If you say I had
>>> something, I am sent looking for a property, possession or attribute.  If
>>> you say I did something, I am sent looking for an action I performed.   So,
>>> there is a vast inclination to make emotion words as a reference to
>>> something we carry inside, rather than a pattern in what we do.  This seems
>>> to me like misdirection, a category error in Ryle’s terms.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that help?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mumble, mumble, as steve would say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> Nick Thompson
>>>
>>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,JZI_rTsnO4PMxifIK-1Pc4gAtSO08UfA4WqKjx73T4Ek3tY5Xl71BUdt3A807uKgEplYNDHINHuRjmL2qnv7SkO_J10fWv5jebCjhCravg,,&typo=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric
>>> Smith
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 4:23 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick, what’s the difference between having and doing?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I once heard Ray Jackendoff give quite a nice talk on word categories.
>>> Of all of it, the one part I remember the most about is what he said about
>>> prepositions.  Even after you are getting right most of the rest of word
>>> usage in a new language (or handling it well with a dumb, rule-based
>>> translator), you are still at sea in the prepositions.  Their scopes are
>>> not completely arbitrary, but arbitrary in such large part that speakers
>>> essentially learn them nearly as a list of ad hoc applications.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But when we are in a specialist domain, such as reference to the
>>> unpacking of the convention-term “emotion”, which we all know is a
>>> different specialist domain from car ownership or the consumption of lunch,
>>> we know that verbs are not on any a priori firmer ground than
>>> prepositions.  Or it seems to me, we should expect that to be so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am struck by how widespread it is in languages to use the same
>>> particle or other construction for possession and attribution.  Both in
>>> concretes and in the abstractions that seemingly derive from them.  SteveG
>>> will like this one from Chinese if I haven’t messed it up or misunderstood
>>> it: youde you, youde meiyou.  Some have it, some don’t.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Performance of an act, being configured in a state or condition, if we
>>> use passphrases rather than passwords, we can discriminate many categories.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So when we use metaphors to expand the scope of reference and discourse
>>> (to eventually shed their metaphor status and become true polysemes once
>>> our familiarity in the new domain is such that, as novelists say, it
>>> “stands up and casts a shadow”), are some of the metaphors more obligatory
>>> than others?  Are the psychologists sure they are right about which ones?
>>> Are they right?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2021, at 3:06 AM, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> <
>>> thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAArgh!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How we seal ourselves in caves of nonsense!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And emotion is not something we “have”; it’s something we do.  Or, if
>>> you prefer a dualist sensory metaphor, it’s a particular mode of feeling
>>> the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> n
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nick Thompson
>>>
>>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>>
>>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwordpress.clarku.edu%2fnthompson%2f&c=E,1,7HSjAiYZs0TskSYM3z8t3I3vm7JNBV7OyZgHYp-6EjYczSSRW9xIT6typjL4CJpU_atJnKNr9galrl_vRQGGlXHYIX3WqoquVu8Bpe1ntqUc&typo=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Pieter
>>> Steenekamp
>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 23, 2021 6:04 AM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at redfish.com>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Eternal questions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The creators of the Aibo robot dog say it has ‘real emotions and
>>> instinct’. This is obviously not true, it's just an illusion.
>>>
>>> But then, according to Daniel Dennett, human consciousness is just an
>>> illusion.
>>> https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/illusionism.pdf
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fase.tufts.edu%2fcogstud%2fdennett%2fpapers%2fillusionism.pdf&c=E,1,wZyzI4xcowqEH1XfK9Q39EPbwHxfV11-EVaCCROdnuFD-hDpoJBA6vqVkaGgbd-yOuYwvTupjP_Soz_obIbOZjgWkLMocfZEa2BpUqNsBKBy&typo=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 09:18, Jochen Fromm <jofr at cas-group.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> "In today’s AI universe, all the eternal questions (about
>>> intentionality, consciousness, free will, mind-body problem...) have become
>>> engineering problems", argues this Guardian article.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/10/dogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fscience%2f2021%2faug%2f10%2fdogs-inner-life-what-robot-pet-taught-me-about-consciousness-artificial-intelligence&c=E,1,0zM4mCzKmbes0weZLeJCmVy6dAfDvfYxSyHKpvl-aa8-hwd84lMymcY9HHVsp4jXbWOCjmb3kQDLfcwUGjHCouKd8sNTTfFuQtv62vY-RfAsXg,,&typo=1>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -J.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> 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,USKWJzhBjgjJh7B-0LkOfSd3nemyd1czMDhazLKVBZtafmJNbogUKdBckMq8YDhHys57cq3edfUxouOPaNKkqPHN7BSB2_jSqY2nj0PnsWO4&typo=1>
>>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,kQIZirvod42goqmNxnJBxEDkNQZgDx4-Cpp9h61g27SR8pmXJ_MMfIylqQDG-apIDYJ41YBK5dlfDvP0mcsA7tgQfSN_fX8GOBstoJ7bRsPqllS8Hti8YhbPnto,&typo=1>
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,W-ArAxIKQNrM-7j3cHCB7DvRKs598JN3aWrygvNoMFhZMfHBdCpRnINnr__3jjhPqyWLiXzRL9KRjVJqtjeAAqtCaNq5qf7Ix3B4AjcEzvp4LWtuE0_bNYs00g,,&typo=1>
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> 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,-pDsdi2AM5J35lPLI_g3-LtyM-BJTNkO0LNOJk2N-zEMrFYJAuMsizuSyrQ7ah2EPXAXyuv9FarhQ-3FZOuytwgV2gtKas1n43TbWDgKajH-&typo=1>
>>> un/subscribe
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,MzWtukTHxTmO0o4T4K75ZC6zy8h-gQojlN_6BSajavsHHOIC9hTMR8rjRvM4bWXKVt05qr4hoH2_sIH0XXVCaG4M61FBfWSeFBC6EOnQSCYDf-SZ&typo=1
>>> FRIAM-COMIC
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,t5Vd_UMHRAMj63ikH0-cOAr7pxIW_XRAEXTZXCbAclW2tPEeUJHS7SstrpQmDgjUyzeW0mVLy-LmuIF58gw1_1tcSuaylib5tGj2zgHAqJE7&typo=1
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> un/subscribe
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,BFllSC-pZ0weFNqjV1iB-w3DR43rvvcmxiYfCh3Inlzi3UOaC9v0gh67rb1SPyCmQIqhrg8ev1C7TSKyRr6rbt_1hS-Cky5ClbwSki3p&typo=1
>>> FRIAM-COMIC
>>> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,lWRd3h5zEi_Sd3v9P1_NsGjaV_yXFovGQ-t8djjh-BNY8-KmDoPieLQWC8sugjPgglUTHnntK67jLtccS-k24YihXM8lbfVJ0LhKe0F-QUg-&typo=1
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> 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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210824/e648cf67/attachment-0001.html>