<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">#qt #qt-qt p.qt-qt-MsoNormal,#qt #qt-qt li.qt-qt-MsoNormal{margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
#qt #qt-qt a:link{color:blue;text-decoration-line:underline;text-decoration-style:solid;text-decoration-color:currentcolor;text-decoration-thickness:auto;}
#qt #qt-qt p.qt-qt-qt-msonormal{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}
#qt #qt-qt ol{margin-bottom:0in;}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">an addendum to my last post<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">The human perceptual system is incredibly sensitive.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">As mentioned before, the human eye can detect a single photon - but this is deceptive as it takes approximately nine photons arriving more or less at the same time for a sensor to actually trigger an electrical impulse to the brain. Even though the eye cannot detect infrared or ultra-violet, sensors embedded in the skin certainly can. All of the five standard senses are sensitive to a much greater degree than typically noticed. Then there are all the other "senses" like orientation and balance, kinesthetic, internal state awareness, even aesthetic senses like Christopher Alexander's KWAN.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">The amount of information captured by that system is immense, and — apparently, from what I have learned about cognitive science — processed as an integrated whole albeit with focal activation with the brain.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Our brains (plus entire perceptual system) seem to have evolved for survival and survival is enhanced if we "ignore" much of the sensory inputs we receive so that we can better recognize the "exception cases." E.g. "pay attention to those 17 pixels of brown and gold with an edge in the center as it is likely a tiger. Ignore all the other surrounding pixels as irrelevant."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">That which we deem "experience" is but a small subset of what is actually perceived/detected/sensed. The set of acknowledged permutations of inputs — the "things" we have experience of — are likewise a very limited subset of that which might exist, could be experienced.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">It is possible to "extend" our perceptual awareness and "enlarge" the set of experiences. An oenophile, for example, is one who has trained taste and smell senses to become aware of "nose" and "bouquet," and "overtones of raspberry and chocolate."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Huxley's Doors of Perception is an account of how Mescaline allows an awareness of perceptions/sensations/experiences that are normally filtered out. He also speaks of the ability to utilize these experiences/sensations to "think with." For example relating a particular hue he sees on a flower in his garden to the use of colors in paintings by specific artists. Or, seeing the "meaning" behind the words expressed in specific poems.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">In some manner, the proper administration of a psychedelic could be considered another form of "training" leading to increased sensitivity, awareness, and experience somewhat akin to learning how to appreciate wine.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">This leads to the question: just how valuable is a method, a philosophy, of experience that excludes, what appears to me to be a very large "data set?" <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Prof David West wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><div style="font-family:Arial;">Nick,<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Not dismissive,but definitely skeptical.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">A metaphorical account of my problem.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Since the Age of Enlightenment, a host of people interested in knowledge, how we know, what we can know, what we can take as "fact," what might be deemed as "truth," etc. have developed philosophies and methods to answer these questions. Peirce is but one example.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Visualize that all of this thinking resulted in a really fine-grained sieve, through which we could pour our raw "stuff" and have it sort out the useful from the non. Upon close examination we note that the holes in the sieve consist, exclusively, of triangles and squares.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">My "stuff" consists of spheres. None of my spheres can pass through the sieve, not because they are absent of, at least potentially, "knowledge" or "fact" or "truth:" but only because they are spherical and the sieve cannot deal with them.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Those responsible for creating the sieve and those who have made careers using the sieve to sift and sort "stuff" tend to hold the attitude that <u>Our Sieve </u>is the best sieve that human minds could possibly conceive and therefore anything not Sieve-able is irrelevant and of no possible value.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Peirce has produced a very fine sieve, but it is of no, (or very little), use to me. This was a disappointing discovery, for me, because, at least initially, I thought Peirce admitted a bit of the mystical into his philosophy.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">******<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">There have been sieve-makers who specialize in circles instead of triangles and squares. I have studied many of them, noting consistencies and differences. I also "know" where one "has got it right" and another "just misses the mark." But how do I "know" this?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Two years ago, I was driving overnight from Salt Lake City to Santa Fe to come to FRIAM. En route, just southeast of Moab, I stopped to have a conversation with Brigham Young. (A combination of pain, drugs, and Hatha Yoga made this possible.) The conversation concerned the reasons and mechanisms responsible for the evolution of very pro-female religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism) to near absolute misogyny. I took notes and later went back to see if Brigham had actually said any of this while he was alive. He did. I had read all of that material decades ago. What was the mechanism that allowed/prompted the mental coalescence of that information into a cogent conversation in a dry wash, sitting naked, next to an imaginary campfire, with Brigham's "presence" in the shadows? Could it be replicated? Could I drop a bit of acid and use the same "method" to write an academic paper — or at least a good first draft of one?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">In Buddhism there is no "self." So what is it that reincarnates? I "know" the answer. <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Right now I am trying to sort out an amalgam of process philosophy (Bergson, Whitehead), Hermeneutics (Heidegger), quantum interpretations, quantum consciousness, embodied mind and a couple of other threads; and from that mixture craft a "lens" through which I can examine all that I have read about Zen, alchemy, hermetic, Sufism, ... and all the other esoterica (and first hand experience) I have absorbed over the decades.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Open for suggestions.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">[An aside: discounting Kekule's Ouroboros dream would be easier were it not for the fact that his notation and a host of other organic chemistry derived from dreams of atoms dancing, holding hands, and forming chains. Benzene was but one of many instances of his "dream induced chemistry."]<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Sun, Feb 23, 2020, at 6:16 PM, thompnickson2@gmail.com wrote:<br></div><blockquote id="qt-qt" type="cite"><div class="qt-qt-WordSection1"><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Dave,<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">You have indulged me as much as any other human on earth, and so it distresses me to hear you say that I would dismiss experiences in extremis out of hand. Let it be the case that Archimedes solved the king’s crown problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that Kerkule solved the benzene problem while lolling in a hot bath. Let it be the case that Watson and Crick were lolling in a hot bath (oh those Brits!) when they discovered the double helix. I would say that, there was SOME grounds (however weak) to suspect that hot bathing led to scientific insight. In fact, it is one of the great advantages of Peirce’s position that weak inductions and abduction have the same <i>logical</i> status as strong ones and worthy always to be entertained. I DON’T believe, as I think many do, that extreme experiences have any special claim on wisdom. Dying declarations are attended to NOT because a dying person necessarily has great wisdom, but because we are unlikely to hear from that person again in the future. <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">I suppose you might ague that the reason to go to extreme states is the same as the reason to go the Antarctic or the moon. There MIGHT be something interesting there, but until you have been there, you will never know, for sure, will you? The crunch comes when you are deciding on how much resources to devote to the exploration of extremes, given that those resources will be subtracted from those devoted to the stuff such known realities as climate change. If it’s a choice of exploring Mars or exploring climate change, you know where my vote would go.<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">But that has no bearing on whether I would encourage or discourage anyone to go with their individual curiosity. One of our number here is interested in exploring a variant of ESP. I say let’s go! <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Nick<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Clark University<br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><a href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"><span style="color:rgb(5, 99, 193);">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><div style="border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-left-color:currentcolor;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:medium;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-top-color:rgb(225, 225, 225);border-top-style:solid;border-top-width:1pt;padding-top:3pt;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;"><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><br></p><div><b>From:</b> Friam <friam-bounces@redfish.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Prof David West<br></div><div><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, February 23, 2020 4:15 AM<br></div><div><b>To:</b> friam@redfish.com<br></div><div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] A longer response to Dave's question<br></div><p><br></p></div></div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Eric, Nick, et.al.,</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span class="qt-qt-e24kjd">"Well, [Dave] here's another nice mess you've gotten me into."</span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">My issue/problem/quest — I have a body of "stuff" and I want to determine if there are ways to think about it in a "useful" manner.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">The "stuff" appears pretty mundane: assertions, observations, conjectures, metaphors and models, even theory. The problem is provenance: directly or indirectly from, loosely defined, altered states of consciousness. Examples of indirect would be reports from enlightened mystics or dream experiences (ala Kekule or Jung). Direct would be psychedelics.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Nick might have me dismiss the entire corpus; stating it has the same value as the latest Marvel universe movie.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">I disagree. But, by what means, what method, can "fact" even "truth" be discovered and shared. Peirce offers no real assistance. Nor does any other school of epistemology I have encountered.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Is there an approach to thinking about my "stuff" that would, at minimum, enable more consistent discovery of examples like Eric cites in #8 of his list. Would it not be useful to be able to quickly identify and focus on insights with the potential to "hold up pretty well."</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">Eric states there are reasons to believe (in #7) that altered states are less reliable, but I would argue, in some cases, the exact opposite. Especially with regard the ability to perceive stimuli of which perceive but never consciously "register" because our brain has filtered them out as being irrelevant. Mescaline can be an instrument as revealing as a microscope or a telescope and it would be worthwhile, I think, to learn how to make effective use of it.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">The crux of my dilemma remains, I think there is gold in them thar hills, but don't have a means of mining and refining.</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font">davew</span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, at 10:41 PM, Eric Charles wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt;" id="qt-qt-qt"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">If we are willing to go back and forth a bit between being philosophers and psychologists for a moment, there are far more interesting things to talk about regarding "altered states".... here are the some of the issues: <br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><ol type="1" start="1"><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">When someone claims to be responding to something, we should believe they are responding to <i>something</i>. <br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">People generally suck at stating what they are responding to, even in highly mundane situations. <br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">It is worth studying any types of experiences that lead fairly reliably to other certain future experiences, because in such situations one has a chance discover what it is people are <i>actually </i>responding to. <br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">As we are complex dynamic systems, human development is affected by all sorts of things in non-obvious ways.<br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">There is no <i>a priori </i>reason to discount the insights one experiences under "altered states of consciousness", but also no <i>a priori</i> reason to give them special credence. <br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">The degree to which a someone has a sense of certainty about something is not generally a reliable measure of how likely that thing is to hold up in the long run, unless many, many, many other assumptions are met.<br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">There is likely good reason to think that altered states of consciousness are less reliable in general than "regular" states.<br></li><li class="qt-qt-MsoNormal" style="">There are many examples that suggest certain insights-that-turn-out-to-hold-up-pretty-well, which were first experienced when under an altered state, were unlikely to have been experienced without that altered state. <br></li></ol><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Is that the type of stuff we were are poking at?<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">-----------<br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist<br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">American University - Adjunct Instructor<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:30 PM Frank Wimberly <<a href="mailto:wimberly3@gmail.com">wimberly3@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in;"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Agreed<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">---<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Frank C. Wimberly, PhD<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">505 670-9918<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Santa Fe, NM<br></p></div></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">On Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 12:25 PM Marcus Daniels <<a href="mailto:marcus@snoutfarm.com">marcus@snoutfarm.com</a>> wrote:<br></p></div><blockquote style="border-top-color:currentcolor;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:medium;border-right-color:currentcolor;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:medium;border-bottom-color:currentcolor;border-bottom-style:none;border-bottom-width:medium;border-image-outset:0;border-image-repeat:stretch;border-image-slice:100%;border-image-source:none;border-image-width:1;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);border-left-style:solid;border-left-width:1pt;padding-top:0in;padding-right:0in;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in;"><div><div><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal">Frank writes:<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal"> <br></p><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><It would constitute proof that Marcus exists if he were to admit that I was correct in our years-ago argument when I said that gender defines an equivalence relation on the set of people.><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal">Definitions. Notation. Argh, who cares. Where’s that neuralyzer, let me get rid of them.<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal">(That should at least be evidence of continuity!)<br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal"> <br></p><p class="qt-qt-qt-msonormal">Marcus<br></p></div></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div></blockquote></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">============================================================<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">to unsubscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">archives back to 2003: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal">FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> by Dr. Strangelove<br></p></div><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></blockquote><div><p class="qt-qt-MsoNormal"><span style=""><span class="qt-font" style=""><span style="font-family:"Arial", sans-serif" class="font"> </span></span></span><br></p></div></div><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>============================================================<br></div><div>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College<br></div><div>to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com<br></div><div>archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/<br></div><div>FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove<br></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div></body></html>