Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[uǝlƃ ☣]

[sigh] Fine. We can change what I wrote from: 

  "artifact = model absent the usage context"
to
  "artifact = model in a non-modeling context"

The toy train isn't a useful example for this distinction. But a wooden sphere 
as a model for, say, a baseball, *is* a useful example. In the "sphere models 
baseball" context, "model" is properly used. But in another context, say, roll 
the wooden sphere down a ramp to measure gravity, the sphere is no longer a 
model and a word like "artifact" would be better when pointing to the sphere.

It's very difficult for me to imagine you *not* already having thought of this 
yourself. So, by "listening generously", I would have expected you to 
understand my phrases like "absent it's contextual analogies" and such. I feel 
the same way about my description of how obtuse models can be useful. It's 
difficult for me to imagine you haven't *already* considered parallax and 
expressibility. And although I appreciate playing at being naive, or practicing 
the Socratic method, part of "listening generously" is to "steel man" others' 
conceptual constructs (as opposed to "straw man").

In these 2 recent episodes, you could easily have imagined and described to 
*me* how obtuse models *might* be found useful. And you could easily have 
changed "absent context" to "in a non-modeling context". 

On 1/16/20 8:59 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of 
> "listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in 
> understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a 
> context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just don't 
> see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him intending.  
> (or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in favor of your 
> position.  I just haven't worked it out yet. 

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[thompnickson2]

Oh crap!  I;ve done it again.  Sorry  

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

Nick:  Oh no, you've morphed Glen and myself into an interchangeable entity!   
You must be flying at high altitude! 

On 1/16/20, 8:59 AM, "Friam on behalf of thompnicks...@gmail.com" 
 wrote:

Marcus, 

I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of 
"listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in 
understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a 
context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just don't 
see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him intending.  
(or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in favor of your 
position.  I just haven't worked it out yet. 

Eric's argument against my position is even more troubling.  I WAS playing 
fast and loose with levels of organization. 

I am going to have to think about all of this. 

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:52 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and 
reply

It would be easier if you would use a word like "artifact" or somesuch when 
you talk about the model absent it's contextual analogies. E.g. some yahoo back 
10k years ago draws a picture and some teenage spelunker comes upon it in 2020. 
That picture is better described as "artifact" than "picture".

To reword: the artifact you call "Eric" doesn't intend anything. But when 
you use that artifact to get him to do something, then the artifact+usage 
_intends_ that something. Some may argue that the word "model" shouldn't be 
used unless the usage/context is present. But that's a load of sophistry, I 
think. People will use whatever word they want to use whenever they want to use 
it. So we just have to be flexible and listen generously.

On 1/15/20 12:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you 
with which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is a 
case of a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So why 
not just say so, in the first instance.


--
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[thompnickson2]

Dave, 

 

I don’t think it’s dualism unless I assert that the representation and the 
thing represented are different sorts of stuff.  If every representation is OF 
OTHER REPRESENTATIONS, then we have a representation-monism.  If you taunt me 
by asking what the FIRST representation was OF, I will shrug and say I am not 
that interested in first cases.  We begin in the middle.  

 

Snowing, here.  Fat flakes. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 1:39 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

 

Nick,

 

Not sophmoric smarminess - but a contradiction of your monism.  "you are a 
model" contradicts "my model of you"  which asserts "representation" of 
something — Cartesian dualism.

 

davew

 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, at 9:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com 
  wrote:

Eric,

 

I apologize forwhat may seem sophomoric smarminess but…..

 

To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you with 
which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is a case of 
a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So why not just 
say so, in the first instance.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

  thompnicks...@gmail.com

  
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Eric Charles

Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:27 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

 

There is an interesting issue that often comes up in these contexts, in which 
someone asserts that the models mean something all on their own.  If it is 
someone who has picked up our language,  they might,  for example,  ask "What 
does the model intend? The Model, itself? "

 

Glen does this by saying "there's good reason to believe you will *never* 
actually understand how your model works."

 

I have seen Nick oscillate in those discussions, towards and away from thinking 
he needs to rewrite everything.  

 

I insist that is not the direction should be going in.  The model doesn't 
intend anything.  A person,  who is offering a model,  intends something by it, 
 and does not intend other things.  Because THAT is what we'r are talking 
about There IS a chance (though no guarentee) that the person offering a 
model (fully) understands what they do or do not intend to match between the 
model and the situation that is modeled.  

 

We aren't talking about anything other than people doing things. X is "a model" 
if/when someone thinks an aspect of X matches something happening somewhere 
else,  and all models contain both intended and unintended implications.  This 
makes a question of whether or not someone "fully understands their model" a 
question primarily about the understanding,  not primarily about "the model 
itself". 

 

 

 

 

 

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 1:13 PM uǝlƃ ☣ mailto:geprope...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Did Epstein ever respond to your criticism?

 

For what little it's worth, I disagree with your lesson. Obtuse models can be 
very useful. In fact, there's good reason to believe you will *never* actually 
understand how your model works, any more than you'll ever understand how that 
model's referent(s) work. I may even be able to use Pierce to argue that to 
you. 8^)

 

On 1/15/20 9:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com   
wrote:

> The lesson is, if you

> don’t understand how your model works, you aren’t doing yourself any favors 
> by inventing it.  This led to my war with Epstein in the pages of JSSS about 
> the relation between explanation and prediction.  

 

-- 

☣ 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

 

 

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[Marcus Daniels]

Nick:  Oh no, you've morphed Glen and myself into an interchangeable entity!   
You must be flying at high altitude! 

On 1/16/20, 8:59 AM, "Friam on behalf of thompnicks...@gmail.com" 
 wrote:

Marcus, 

I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of 
"listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in 
understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a 
context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just don't 
see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him intending.  
(or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in favor of your 
position.  I just haven't worked it out yet. 

Eric's argument against my position is even more troubling.  I WAS playing 
fast and loose with levels of organization. 

I am going to have to think about all of this. 

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:52 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and 
reply

It would be easier if you would use a word like "artifact" or somesuch when 
you talk about the model absent it's contextual analogies. E.g. some yahoo back 
10k years ago draws a picture and some teenage spelunker comes upon it in 2020. 
That picture is better described as "artifact" than "picture".

To reword: the artifact you call "Eric" doesn't intend anything. But when 
you use that artifact to get him to do something, then the artifact+usage 
_intends_ that something. Some may argue that the word "model" shouldn't be 
used unless the usage/context is present. But that's a load of sophistry, I 
think. People will use whatever word they want to use whenever they want to use 
it. So we just have to be flexible and listen generously.

On 1/15/20 12:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you 
with which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is a 
case of a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So why 
not just say so, in the first instance.


--
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[thompnickson2]

Marcus, 

I am not sure I understand what you say here.  But I like the idea of 
"listening generously" and I am trying to do it.  I guess my problem in 
understanding is that I don't think we perceive anything other than in a 
context.  Like the gorilla walking through the basketball game, we just don't 
see it.  I don't think it's possible to see Eric and not see him intending.  
(or, say, sleeping).  This may, in fact, be an argument in favor of your 
position.  I just haven't worked it out yet. 

Eric's argument against my position is even more troubling.  I WAS playing fast 
and loose with levels of organization. 

I am going to have to think about all of this. 

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:52 PM
To: FriAM 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

It would be easier if you would use a word like "artifact" or somesuch when you 
talk about the model absent it's contextual analogies. E.g. some yahoo back 10k 
years ago draws a picture and some teenage spelunker comes upon it in 2020. 
That picture is better described as "artifact" than "picture".

To reword: the artifact you call "Eric" doesn't intend anything. But when you 
use that artifact to get him to do something, then the artifact+usage _intends_ 
that something. Some may argue that the word "model" shouldn't be used unless 
the usage/context is present. But that's a load of sophistry, I think. People 
will use whatever word they want to use whenever they want to use it. So we 
just have to be flexible and listen generously.

On 1/15/20 12:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you with 
> which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is a case 
> of a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So why not 
> just say so, in the first instance.


--
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[Frank Wimberly]



---
Frank Wimberly



Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 1:39 AM Prof David West  wrote:

> Nick,
>
> Not sophmoric smarminess - but a contradiction of your monism.  "you are a
> model" contradicts "my model of you"  which asserts "representation" of
> something — Cartesian dualism.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, at 9:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> I apologize forwhat may seem sophomoric smarminess but…..
>
>
>
> To me, you are a model, right?  Whatever you are, it is my model of you
> with which I am dealing.  So, when you intend something  by a model, it is
> a case of a model intending a model, right?  So, models intend, right?  So
> why not just say so, in the first instance.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>
> Clark University
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:27 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and
> reply
>
>
>
> There is an interesting issue that often comes up in these contexts, in
> which someone asserts that the models mean something all on their own.  If
> it is someone who has picked up our language,  they might,  for example,
> ask "What does the model intend? The Model, itself? "
>
>
>
> Glen does this by saying "there's good reason to believe you will *never*
> actually understand how your model works."
>
>
>
> I have seen Nick oscillate in those discussions, towards and away from
> thinking he needs to rewrite everything.
>
>
>
> I insist that is not the direction should be going in.  The model doesn't
> intend anything.  A person,  who is offering a model,  intends something by
> it,  and does not intend other things.  Because THAT is what we'r are
> talking about There IS a chance (though no guarentee) that the person
> offering a model (fully) understands what they do or do not intend to match
> between the model and the situation that is modeled.
>
>
>
> We aren't talking about anything other than people doing things. X is "a
> model" if/when someone thinks an aspect of X matches something happening
> somewhere else,  and all models contain both intended and unintended
> implications.  This makes a question of whether or not someone "fully
> understands their model" a question primarily about the understanding,  not
> primarily about "the model itself".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 1:13 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>
> Did Epstein ever respond to your criticism?
>
> For what little it's worth, I disagree with your lesson. Obtuse models can
> be very useful. In fact, there's good reason to believe you will *never*
> actually understand how your model works, any more than you'll ever
> understand how that model's referent(s) work. I may even be able to use
> Pierce to argue that to you. 8^)
>
> On 1/15/20 9:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The lesson is, if you
> > don’t understand how your model works, you aren’t doing yourself any
> favors by inventing it.  This led to my war with Epstein in the pages of
> JSSS about the relation between explanation and prediction.
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and reply

[Prof David West]

Nick,

Not sophmoric smarminess - but a contradiction of your monism. "you are a 
model" contradicts "my model of you" which asserts "representation" of 
something — Cartesian dualism.

davew



On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, at 9:44 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eric,

> 

> I apologize forwhat may seem sophomoric smarminess but…..

> 

> To me, you are a model, right? Whatever you are, it is my model of you with 
> which I am dealing. So, when you intend something by a model, it is a case of 
> a model intending a model, right? So, models intend, right? So why not just 
> say so, in the first instance.

> 

> Nick

> 

> Nicholas Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

> Clark University

> thompnicks...@gmail.com

> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> 

> 

> 


> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Eric Charles
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2020 1:27 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] description - explanation - metaphor - model - and 
> reply

> 

> There is an interesting issue that often comes up in these contexts, in which 
> someone asserts that the models mean something all on their own. If it is 
> someone who has picked up our language, they might, for example, ask "What 
> does the model intend? The Model, itself? "

> 

> Glen does this by saying "there's good reason to believe you will *never* 
> actually understand how your model works."

> 

> I have seen Nick oscillate in those discussions, towards and away from 
> thinking he needs to rewrite everything. 

> 

> I insist that is not the direction should be going in. The model doesn't 
> intend anything. A person, who is offering a model, intends something by it, 
> and does not intend other things. Because THAT is what we'r are talking 
> about There IS a chance (though no guarentee) that the person offering a 
> model (fully) understands what they do or do not intend to match between the 
> model and the situation that is modeled. 

> 

> We aren't talking about anything other than people doing things. X is "a 
> model" if/when someone thinks an aspect of X matches something happening 
> somewhere else, and all models contain both intended and unintended 
> implications. This makes a question of whether or not someone "fully 
> understands their model" a question primarily about the understanding, not 
> primarily about "the model itself". 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 1:13 PM uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:


>> Did Epstein ever respond to your criticism?
>> 
>> For what little it's worth, I disagree with your lesson. Obtuse models can 
>> be very useful. In fact, there's good reason to believe you will *never* 
>> actually understand how your model works, any more than you'll ever 
>> understand how that model's referent(s) work. I may even be able to use 
>> Pierce to argue that to you. 8^)
>> 
>> On 1/15/20 9:23 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > The lesson is, if you
>> > don’t understand how your model works, you aren’t doing yourself any 
>> > favors by inventing it. This led to my war with Epstein in the pages of 
>> > JSSS about the relation between explanation and prediction. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ☣ 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