<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Nick -</p>
<p>Interesting introspective riff on the imperative to argument.
First, I applaud you recognizing and/or digging out the roots of
Shadenfreud. I've always used it in a more passive mode... not
so much to *inflict* a scar, but perhaps enjoying seeing someone
else scarred... in particular in the sense of a self-inflicted
wound, even if it might be receiving a saber scar in a duel as was
popular in Europe well into the 18th century, among "gentlemen".
Reading "Gods of the Upper Air" recently I was reminded of this
practice... with Franz Boas himself sporting a few such facial
scars. It seems that these duels were somewhat more like
professional wrestling than a proper street-scuffle, designed to
yield *only* facial scars... I believe Austria was the epicenter
of such behaviour and Boas is credited with gaining his own whilst
defending his honor against anti-semites... I'd say this activity
might well be a good place to use the term "Shadenfreud"?</p>
<p>Your assertion that you are "too dumb to hold two ideas in my
head at once" and "each moment I care about the idea I am thinking
and want others to join me in thinking it" harkens back to my
introduction to Debate Club in high school. I don't know that it
is that I am "smart" that I join the Red Queen in "thinking six
impossible things before breakfast", but I do cultivate that...
the propensity for seeking high *intellectual* ground on a topic
and rather than treat that vantage point as something to
vigorously defend, use it it to survey the larger landscape
looking for other interesting features on said landscape... other
promising, defensible, and most of all with-a-good-viewshed
ideas. <br>
</p>
<p>Following this landscape metaphor, I somewhat understand why some
feel safer hunkered down in a sheltered valley or "holler" as my
hillbilly ancestors chose to occupy (or good reasons I think). I
also don't always like the exposure of being "on top of a hill" as
others are given to mistaking my posture there as a challenge in
the proverbial "king of the mountain" game. Rather than getting
people to "believe what I believe", I am interested in seducing
others into stepping to the top of the same rise and surveying the
"same" landscape with their own eyes and perhaps joining me in a
trek to what looks like "yet higher ground" or if not precisely
"higher", "ground offering unique perspective", like an escarpment
jutting out into a deep canyon that I'd like to see (more) to the
bottom of. My variation of "getting people to believe what I
believe" might be getting them to pause and gaze in the same
direction I am looking and "compare notes", to discuss with me
what THEY think they see out there on the horizon... how they read
the landscape from that vantage point.<br>
</p>
<p>While you (and others) may be fighting over positions of higher
ground, I do appreciate the stories you tell *from* those higher
grounds, which help me navigate the same territories with a
broader view... ideally expanding my territories of interest. In
that I align with your quote about learning more from your
"enemies" than from your "friends" and to invoke a contemporary
term, I feel that we all have a number of such "frienemies" here
to help goad and prod us to see the "world" from different
perspectives. I've been harried from time to time for my
obsessive use of "scare" quotes... and this use here of "world"
is under such emphasis because by "world" I am not so much talking
about an implied absolute, physical "real world" as has been
bandied about here, but rather the implied "landscape of
perspectives" on something similar which is "the world as we
consensually construct it, whether there is a physical base
underneath it or not".</p>
<p>Your invocation of the competitive-sports metaphor (you reference
American rules Football as the target domain) is not without
motivation... a lot of discussion (including on this list) has
that tone... while I am not a rock-climber myself, I find the
metaphor of rock climbing a bit more apt for what I seek here....
others with different skill levels on different types of
rock/ascents/weather studying a particular face with me,
discussing their preferred potential attacks/routes. While I
might be eager to take the first ascent, I am very happy to come
upon a rock face being "attacked" by others who either A) help me
by eliminating some of the false-starts; B) help me by showing me
how this particular rock/conditions *works*; C) help me by
teaching me new techniques (through demonstration as well as
critique).</p>
<p>I was drawn to mathematics for roughly this reason... there were
a LOT of ascents already chronicled but there were many that had
refused assault to date (and new ones being recognized/discovered
every day). I never became much of a serious mathematician but
am glad to have learned the skills enough to clamber around on
boulders (not so much anymore) and properly appreciate a great
climber when I stumble over them on a given face. There are a
(large) handful here who inspire me when I watch them swarm up
what looks like an unassailable rock face and sometimes even, I
can see the chinks and holds and nubs in the rock as they are
climbing and my limited ability/experience allows my mirror
neurons to fire as if it were *I* who were making that climb with
my own mind (body).</p>
<p>Thanks for the "views"...</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/26/19 2:12 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:013201d5bc31$27bbdbe0$773393a0$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hi, eric, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I share your distaste for<i>
Schadenfreud: </i>Isn’t that a great word! Schaden arises
from the same root as “scar”. Its root meaning is taking
pleasure in leaving scars in others – “scar-inflicting-joy.”
I have the same problem with Rorty, who seems to take joy in
tearing down what others have constructed. In fact, it makes
me so mad, I want to… um … tear him down. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The idea’s/teams thing is more
complicated. Perhaps because I am too dumb to hold two ideas
in my head at once, I think the best way to develop an idea is
to take it and run with it, hence my current advocacy of
monism. It probably sounds like I am not listening, but
actually each time I am knocked down in the open field I get
up and head off in a slightly different direction. For me,
listening takes the form of feeling my bones hitting the
astroturf. I don’t know if it is true of the rest of you, but
I can be in a discussion and change my mind several times, but
at each moment I care about the idea I am thinking and want
others to join me in thinking it. But who is it who said; “I
take most pleasure from those who agree with me, but learn
most from those who do not.”? Thus intellectual argument is
an exercise in restraint of passion. Whence cometh the ENERGY
to argue if not from the idiotic notion that one is correct
and others are in want of convincing? Anybody who claims to be
neutral in argument probably holds the position that the
argument is stupid, and that, of course, is the most
aggressive position of all. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">By the way, I haven’t watched a football
game in 25 years. I don’t know why I am giving way of
football metaphors today. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Larding below.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks Glen, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nick <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Clark University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Friam <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"><friam-bounces@redfish.com></a> On Behalf Of
Eric Smith<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 11:33 AM<br>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"><friam@redfish.com></a><br>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor -
model</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I am relieved you brought up the
Truth/Power bundling, Glen, because I wanted to but was too
much of a coward to do it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">There is a style of speech that I hear
often, which goes something like “It doesn’t matter what
so-and-so says, or thinks he means. He is just claiming he
owns truth, but I know he is just an entitled
group-group-group-assignment, motivated only to exploit or
oppress [fill in whoever the good people are].” My inner
translator translates that to my language as “The only thing I
care about in life is the fight by which I have constructed my
identity, and in my world, there are only two kinds of people:
those who are in my army and the enemy. There are no
non-combatants.” I know my cartoon above is excessive and
over-simple, but I may as well admit I have become primed to
hear it through time and the accumulation of conflicts, and I
can think of a few good exemplars (specific exchanges with
specific people over the years) where I think it is fair to
say that is really what is there to be heard. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[NST===>].
I am not sure the most interesting discussions occur
between people who are not invested personally in their
ideas. Shifting sports, for a moment, to one I have not
played in 40 years: imagine the best rally in tennis you
have ever watched. Each of the players was trying to
end the rally on the next shot, and the beautiful thing
arises dialectically out of their failure to do so.
Now, before you take me to be some kind of ravening
Neo-liberal, let me quickly say that that beautiful
thing could not arise without the players’ agreement on
a highly constraining set of rules – nobody “wins” a
tennis match by leaping over the net and braining his
opponent with his racket. </span></i></b><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The problem is, that kind of conduct
precludes any other conversation about anything, including
most conversations aimed at intellectual clarity,
distinctions, etc. Basically, you can talk to that person if
you are talking about or some other way engaged in that
person’s fight. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[NST===>]
Yes!</span></i></b><span style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To me it is not hard to understand that
there is a difference between what one is trying to think
about, and what one may be motivated to care about.
Certainly, there are some who are so totally consumed by
compulsions that they can’t do it ever and so can’t see a
distinction, but I think most of us in ordinary life are
comfortable with the premise that both can exist, and are
capable to some extent of knowing when we drift from one to
the other. Not ideal, and not reliable, but enough that we
can see a reason to have both categories. I assume most
postmodern philosophers are complex enough to be capable of
parsing such distinctions. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>[NST===>] But many of their
followers are not. <o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Hence if they choose to entirely
conflate them, it feels to me like dishonesty, and often the
specific dishonesty of a resentment motive (at the core; it
accretes lots of other vanities and problems as it grows
institutional.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">This is what I find unpleasant about
Rorty. If he had labeled himself a social critic, I would
have been happy to support him (and in that role, I _do_
support much of what he says and I find it insightful and
important). But his delight in hoping he is destroying
something that somebody once esteemed (here, the concept of
truth, though I have watched him dance like a Stephen King
monkey in attacking Weinberg’s efforts to describe some things
about how science is practiced) is to me just the posture of
the person who is mainly motivated by resentment of whatever
he construes as power. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">My comments above are oblique to your
main point below about Truth and Power, and the postmoderns
being pragmatist, but I think it connects back eventually. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I have been thinking a bit about
pragmatism in the context of a different conversation, which
(for reasons not relevant to the thread here) have me thinking
there should be a formal version of the pragmatist position
that has technical questions in common with ideas we pursue in
statistical mechanics, error correction, and things of that
kind. Where I want to get to is that we can all admit to the
probable error of all positions on the short term, without
concluding thereby that they must reflect claims to power and
therefore we can be power-monists, without needing to have
both truth and power as primitives. (I am not branding you as
endorsing such a position, but I read you as saying that is
where the postmoderns want to be, which is also how I read
them). What I want to claim is that that postmodern position
is very far from what I would think of the main conceptual
center of pragmatism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i><span style="color:black">[NST===>]
I am called to the Kitchen, but let me say one more
thing. I think it’s important to understand the
distinction that Peirce made between PragmatiCIsm, which
ultimatedly called his own form of the philosophy, and
Pragmatism, which he invented but was soon over run by
heathens like Rorty. Given Peirce’s ferocious
commitment to scientific thought and practice (whence
his original use of the word “pragmatism” probably
arises), for modern “pragmatists” to advance an anti
scientific obscurantism is frankly more irony than I can
stand. It’s like dressing the devil in a Santa Claus
outfit and sending down to the mall to preach </span></i></b><span
style="color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The idea being very lowbrow. Suppose we
are willing to work within the space of concepts and models
that physicists have been using for a century, and not worry
about deconstructing every word in every sentence in case they
might all be hallucinating. I want to make claims about
structure _within_ that space of models and concepts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We routinely talk about a generating
process for some stochastic dynamic, and the process has
values for some parameters. (Rates for a chemical reaction,
biases for flipped coins, whatever.). We then talk of
samples from the process, of estimators computed for the
samples, and of how the estimators are distributed. In this
lowbrow world, it is unproblematic for a problem with a
continuous state space, that a finite sample estimator has
measure-zero probability to coincide with the exact value of
the parameter in the generating process, but that the
generating parameter can still give the value of a stable
central tendency for samples. We care, then, about which
estimators are unbiased, which estimation protocols converge
with large sample sizes, etc. All stuff that everybody on
this list knows backward and forward.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Things become interesting when there
starts to be considerable mechanistic complexity and
hierarchy, control relations, feedbacks, etc., so that it
becomes _very_ hard to chase through the convergence
properties of finite samples. Hence we see that the biosphere
appears to have certain properties stable on geological
timescales even though many other things change, but can we
justify that impression, or derive from some kind of “first
principles” whether a sensible model for the biosphere would
be stable in that way? So far, not. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The problem of making pragmatism a
well-formed position feels like it should have much of that
character. Scientific inference (also everyday inference) is
very much “theory-full” in Leslie Valiant’s sense in Probably
Approximately Correct. The theories are controlling systems
over how we get rich interpretations from poor observations.
Sometimes the weight of observation can nudge a theory
Bayes-wise in a better direction. Sometimes a bad theory
leads to systematic misinterpretation of facts for a very long
time (Alchemy, trickle-down, one could go on seemingly forever
with examples). The components have only each other and their
couplings with whatever we posit is a “real world” to
stabilize them, and whereas we tautologically consider the
“real world” to be whatever is consistent by virtue of being
what it is, we should take as assumptions that all the
components of the interpretive system can be subject to errors
in a monstrously more difficult version of the way sample
estimators can be wrong.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Biases from unfortunate motives can be
one source of sample skew, but that is just one mechanism.
Identifying it, or any other mechanism, seems like a different
conceptual problem from trying to figure out what
convergence-to-truth can mean in an interpretive system, and
to then derive what kinds of properties “truths” can have as
the fixed points of such convergences. For instances, even if
I tell you that phase transition theory exists, or that
asymptotically reliable error correction exists, you still
have the whole scientific domain of understanding how sparse
or dense or stable phases can be, how they can be related or
interconnected, etc., or what is the domain of applicability
of Shannon’s reliable-encoding theorem and how its
manifestations vary from context to context. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">It would be appealing to me if some of
what we have learned in these much simpler fields (physics of
matter, reliable communication) could be bootstrapped into a
technical analysis of what pragmatism can be or is. It also
seems to me that there is a kinship between the explanation
for the stability (or apparent stability) of very complex
things like the biosphere, and the problem of formulating a
notion of truth with the right kinds of stability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">To circle back, then, with the complaint
that opened this post, when the postmoderns just declare that
there isn’t really anything else to think about regarding
truth, than their resentments of somebody or some system that
they regard as holding power, they make themselves
uninteresting for me to invite into my personal world, which
has a hard enough time holding together and making any
progress on anything as it is. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Eric<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> On Dec 26, 2019, at 12:25 PM, uǝlƃ
<span style="font-family:"Segoe UI
Emoji",sans-serif">☣</span> <<a
href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gepropella@gmail.com</span></a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> And this is one of the reasons
postmodern rhetoric is more pragmatic than modern rhetoric,
because it shifts the concern away from Truth and toward
Power. It's nothing more nor less than the standard gumshoe
technique of following the money. If you want to know why some
yahoo said what he said, Truth is irrelevant. What matters is
how he might benefit from such expression.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> But many people seem to think
postmodern implies a form of pure relativism. I disagree. A
postmodernist can still believe in some stably structured
reality "out there". But she is willing to employ *both*
power-based *and* stability-based analytic tactics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> A friend recently claimed I wasn't
a Platonist because I challenged the idea of a unitary,
constant entailment operator (<span
style="font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">⊢</span>),
as well as me claiming that the whole algebra can be
arbitrarily changed, at will. So, the question for the
Platonist becomes "which parts do we hold constant and which
parts vary". I'm still a Platonist ... simply one that's
skeptical of anyone's assertion that some part should be held
constant/universal.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> As you point out later in your
post, of course, we have to doubt our own rhetoric just as
much as we doubt others' rhetoric. And that's (obviously)
difficult. Personally, posts like this one (<a
href="https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4476"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4476</span></a>)
teeter me on a kind of knife edge. It's a great sensation to
teeter one way, then another, on some value-based judgement.
Did Pinker's tweet provide cover for systemic sexism? It's a
kinda Zen Koan ... one of those unanswerable questions whose
only proper answer is Mu. But if we look at it through a
postmodern lens, Pinker is *clearly* part of the good old boys
club ... as crisply a member of that set as Jordan Peterson.
He's objectively smart enough to know better than to tweet
such nonsense.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Seth Meyers handles this well with
his "Jokes Seth Can't Tell" segments. And the recent Jost/Che
bit where they give each other jokes to tell blind handles it
well, too: <a href="https://youtu.be/Ys786ZsA5tI"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://youtu.be/Ys786ZsA5tI</span></a>.
In the end, the bane of the rationalists (including Aaronson,
Pinker, et al) is their tendency to *avoid* power analytics
and focus on truth analytics.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> On 12/24/19 10:08 AM, Steven A
Smith wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> But (BUT) what I think I find
disturbing about the truism (oupsie!) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that "everything is
interpretation" is so often used as the sophists <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> entree into a manipulation,
into a switcharoo where the "everything <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> is interpretation" suddenly
becomes "let me give you my <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> interpretation in a compelling
way that has you acting as if it is <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> somehow 'more true' than the
one you started with".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> --<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <span
style="font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">☣</span>
uǝlƃ<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>
============================================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group
listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> at St. John's College to
unsubscribe <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> archives back to 2003: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> FRIAM-COMIC <a
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a>
by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">============================================================<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St.
John's College to unsubscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">archives back to 2003: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">FRIAM-COMIC <a
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</span></a>
by Dr. Strangelove<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives back to 2003: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>