Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Prof David West]

*"Nature abhors a category"* sayeth Nick. But categories are but a mere 
byproduct of an even more abhorrent practice — any use of "is." Category 
assignment may leave an event of a thing writhing on the plain, but saying that 
"X"
 is an event of a thing kills it dead, dead, dead.

davew

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, at 10:03 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry for bad typos.  My eyes are hopeless in the morning.  Correction below.
>  
> I also regret my answer.  I still like the question, “What do categories 
> want?”.  I take it as, “What hopeless endeavor does a commitment to a 
> category in thought commit one to.  First answer: “Just one more instance.”  
> Second answer: “Firm Boundaries”. Nature abhors a category.  To assign an 
> event or a thing to a category is to pierce it with a vector of one’s own 
> choosing and leave it writhing on the plain of Life.   Still, just as we are 
> hunters by nature, so are we category-assigners.  Evolutionarily speaking, we 
> have been abducted by abduction. 
> 
> Nick
>  
> Nick Thompson
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> *From:* thompnicks...@gmail.com  
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 30, 2021 9:39 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
> *Subject:* RE: [FRIAM] we are lost
> 
>  
> Roger,
>  
> I also regret my answer.  But I still like the question.  I take it as, “What 
> hopeless endeavor does a commitment to categories in though commit one to.  
> First answer: “Just one more instance.”  Second answer: “Firm Boundaries”. 
> Nature abhors a category.  To assign an event or an object to a category is 
> to piece it with a vector of one’s own choosing and leaving writhing on the 
> plain of Life.   Still, just as we are hunters by nature, so are we 
> category-assigners.  Evolutionarily speaking, we have been abducted by 
> abduction. 
>  
> Nick
>  
> Nick Thompson
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow
> *Sent:* Friday, October 29, 2021 6:39 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
> 
>  
> I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions on 
> the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me understand 
> how they see their purpose, given that I was already being asked about the 
> purpose of a platonic solid.
>  
> I hadn't thought about the prehistoric models of platonic solids crafted in 
> rock, they can have purposes like other material objects.  Nor had I 
> considered making the jump from abstract mathematical constructs to groups of 
> people sharing characteristics.
>  
> And I was being silly, but I was provoked.
>  
> -- rec --
>  
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:
>> Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being silly, 
>> but `categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent thing like 
>> typed computer programs for autonomous control systems in a robot.  Let’s 
>> call it a careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like humans and 
>> will they want love and recognition?   Why must that be the case?  Why must 
>> it be true for humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a safe space?   I’m 
>> reminded of George Packer’s Free America, Smart America, Real America and 
>> Just America.   None of them really gave a damn about the others as far as I 
>> can tell.  It is just a model, of course.
>>  
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/
>>  
>>  
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of 
>> *thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>> 
>>  
>> Ok, So, Marcus,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> >   What do categories want?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on 
>> a new policy!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
>> small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
>> safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
>> crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction 
>> between those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each 
>> and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason 
>

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Marcus Daniels]

What’s needed are obvious consequences of climate change.   There’s no point in 
explaining something is coming, it needs to happen.   On the positive side, one 
way is with jobs for electric cars, and massive solar/wind generation systems.  
 On the negative side, giant fires and floods help, but it is like a dog that 
swiped something off the counter an hour ago and left the remnants in the 
living room.  They forgot what they did and don’t understand why you are mad.   
They won’t even parse “I told you so.”   There is no one to reach in the Real 
American camp (call that Stupid Tribal America) and the Free America is too 
selfish to listen unless she feels the end is nigh.

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 12:41 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost



On 10/30/21 10:48 AM, Edward Angel wrote:
Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt many Democrats would 
consider their economic and social positions reasonable.
I agree with this but also wonder how the social/political 
discussion/playground can be shifted/reframed such that there is more room for 
alliances among subfactions, overlap of interests, etc.   It feels that our 
strong bimodal distribution across the axes implied in Eric's analysis of 
Packer's essay yields a no-man's land that is hard to cross.   As much as I 
wanted much more radical ideas/policies/actions from Biden, I think he *does* 
represent someone who can straddle all that better than Sanders or Warren might 
have.   I was a fan of Buttegeig because of that, while being more 
generationally relevant to those who will have to/get to live in the future we 
are paving with best intentions right now.


Getting primaried is an issue for all of them. Kinzinger is out. Cheney is in 
an enormous flight to get reniminated and Romney has to contend with far right 
opposition in Utah.

Ed
___

Ed Angel
Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) 
an...@cs.unm.edu<mailto:an...@cs.unm.edu>
505-453-4944 (cell)
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel


On Oct 30, 2021, at 8:12 AM, Frank Wimberly 
mailto:wimber...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Does anyone understand why a couple of reasonable Senate Republicans (Romney, 
Kinzinger, Cheney, ...) don't vote with the Democrats for the Biden bills?  
Getting "primaried" isn't an issue for all of them.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 6:18 AM David Eric Smith 
mailto:desm...@santafe.edu>> wrote:

On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith 
mailto:sasm...@swcp.com>> wrote:
excellent reference/article... thanks.
I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I could write 
that way; I wish I could _think_ that way.  There are few thoughts I have had 
that aren’t already contained in Packer’s synthesis, in forms compatible with 
or better than the ones I would have given.  (Usually those with which I 
overlap aren’t different enough that I consider his take on them a lot 
“better”: mostly I think he chooses well the things I would front.  The 
“better” part mostly comes from a view that goes well beyond any that I could 
have commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all into a coherent 
layout.)
Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the orbital 
mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body problem?
But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not merely 4, but 
2.x 2.

There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two principle 
components of stress.

The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a kind of 
cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big part.  But the axis 
is somehow more and different than only that, as it has historically moved 
through primacy of other dichotomies that can still be seen, while retaining 
its essential nature: Open vs. Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial, 
Communitarian vs. Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems quite adequate as I 
write them, but something along that line.

The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself existing along 
several dimensions that have become correlated.  It can be conditions of 
living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency as well as wealth or 
safety.  That is why Packer sets the Just up as an uprising against the Smart, 
and the Real as an uprising against the Free.  The nature of the uprising and 
the stress driving it is in a sense the same, and the establishment and the 
insurgency sort of remain within whichever silos they started in.  Mostly 
because that phase is still fairly young.

Anything that 

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

On 10/30/21 10:48 AM, Edward Angel wrote:
Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt many Democrats 
would consider their economic and social positions reasonable.
I agree with this but also wonder how the social/political 
discussion/playground can be shifted/reframed such that there is more 
room for alliances among subfactions, overlap of interests, etc.   It 
feels that our strong bimodal distribution across the axes implied in 
Eric's analysis of Packer's essay yields a no-man's land that is hard to 
cross.   As much as I wanted much more radical ideas/policies/actions 
from Biden, I think he *does* represent someone who can straddle all 
that better than Sanders or Warren might have.   I was a fan of 
Buttegeig because of that, while being more generationally relevant to 
those who will have to/get to live in the future we are paving with best 
intentions right now.


Getting primaried is an issue for all of them. Kinzinger is out. 
Cheney is in an enormous flight to get reniminated and Romney has to 
contend with far right opposition in Utah.


Ed
___

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory 
(ARTS Lab)

Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home)an...@cs.unm.edu
505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel


On Oct 30, 2021, at 8:12 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:

Does anyone understand why a couple of reasonable Senate Republicans 
(Romney, Kinzinger, Cheney, ...) don't vote with the Democrats for 
the Biden bills?  Getting "primaried" isn't an issue for all of them.


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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 6:18 AM David Eric Smith  
wrote:




On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

excellent reference/article... thanks.


I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I
could write that way; I wish I could _think_ that way. There are
few thoughts I have had that aren’t already contained in Packer’s
synthesis, in forms compatible with or better than the ones I
would have given.  (Usually those with which I overlap aren’t
different enough that I consider his take on them a lot “better”:
mostly I think he chooses well the things I would front.  The
“better” part mostly comes from a view that goes well beyond any
that I could have commanded, and much better ability to arrange
it all into a coherent layout.)


Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in
the orbital mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three
body problem?


But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not
merely 4, but 2.x 2.

There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first
two principle components of stress.

The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into
a kind of cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a
big part.  But the axis is somehow more and different than only
that, as it has historically moved through primacy of other
dichotomies that can still be seen, while retaining its essential
nature: Open vs. Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial,
Communitarian vs. Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems quite
adequate as I write them, but something along that line.

The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself
existing along several dimensions that have become correlated. It
can be conditions of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power
or agency as well as wealth or safety.  That is why Packer sets
the Just up as an uprising against the Smart, and the Real as an
uprising against the Free.  The nature of the uprising and the
stress driving it is in a sense the same, and the establishment
and the insurgency sort of remain within whichever silos they
started in.  Mostly because that phase is still fairly young.

Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a
tool to entrench advantage in a setting where competition never
relents.

Eric



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..-
--. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. 
.- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam 


un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

> Evolutionarily speaking, we have been abducted by abduction.

Classic line of the decade!
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Jon Zingale]

"""
I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions
on the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me
understand how they see their purpose...
"""

I am unsure how to approach such a question. What I can respond to, wrt
categories (mathematics), is the question of what is the content of a
category. What follows I suspect you know full well, but maybe I will
accidentally type something surprising. Categories consist of *objects*
and most importantly *morphisms*. I emphasize morphisms because, unlike
arbitrary functions, they are constrained to equationally preserve
properties of and between the objects. For instance, morphisms in a
category of groups, homomorphisms, are constrained to relate symmetry in
one object to symmetry in another. In a topological category, the
morphisms (homeomorphisms) are constrained to relate continuity in one
topological space to continuity in another. Fields like algebraic topology
arose by posing questions like, "How is this chain of relations between
continuous objects like a chain of symmetry relations"? Answers to this
question varied greatly and now we have homotopy, homology, cohomology,
and each with its own special flavors (singular, simplicial,...)

When I look at a chain of homology groups, I see, on the one hand, an
analogy between (continuous spaces and symmetries) and on the other I
see an encoding of spaces into algebra (a kind of accounting technique).
The formal analogies are functors and the accounting is one way to see
a purpose for the analogy.

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Edward Angel]

Reasonableness is in the eye of the beholder. I doubt many Democrats would 
consider their economic and social positions reasonable.

Getting primaried is an issue for all of them. Kinzinger is out. Cheney is in 
an enormous flight to get reniminated and Romney has to contend with far right 
opposition in Utah.

Ed
___

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) an...@cs.unm.edu 

505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel 


> On Oct 30, 2021, at 8:12 AM, Frank Wimberly  wrote:
> 
> Does anyone understand why a couple of reasonable Senate Republicans (Romney, 
> Kinzinger, Cheney, ...) don't vote with the Democrats for the Biden bills?  
> Getting "primaried" isn't an issue for all of them.
> 
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
> 
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 6:18 AM David Eric Smith  > wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith > > wrote:
>> excellent reference/article... thanks.
>> 
> I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I could write 
> that way; I wish I could _think_ that way.  There are few thoughts I have had 
> that aren’t already contained in Packer’s synthesis, in forms compatible with 
> or better than the ones I would have given.  (Usually those with which I 
> overlap aren’t different enough that I consider his take on them a lot 
> “better”: mostly I think he chooses well the things I would front.  The 
> “better” part mostly comes from a view that goes well beyond any that I could 
> have commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all into a coherent 
> layout.)
>> Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the orbital 
>> mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body problem?
>> 
> But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not merely 4, 
> but 2.x 2.
> 
> There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two principle 
> components of stress. 
> 
> The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a kind of 
> cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big part.  But the 
> axis is somehow more and different than only that, as it has historically 
> moved through primacy of other dichotomies that can still be seen, while 
> retaining its essential nature: Open vs. Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial, 
> Communitarian vs. Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems quite adequate as I 
> write them, but something along that line.
> 
> The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself existing 
> along several dimensions that have become correlated.  It can be conditions 
> of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency as well as wealth or 
> safety.  That is why Packer sets the Just up as an uprising against the 
> Smart, and the Real as an uprising against the Free.  The nature of the 
> uprising and the stress driving it is in a sense the same, and the 
> establishment and the insurgency sort of remain within whichever silos they 
> started in.  Mostly because that phase is still fairly young.
> 
> Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a tool to 
> entrench advantage in a setting where competition never relents.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
> 
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
> 
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
> 
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 
> 
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ 
> 
> 
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present htt

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[thompnickson2]

Sorry for bad typos.  My eyes are hopeless in the morning.  Correction below.

 

I also regret my answer.  I still like the question, “What do categories 
want?”.  I take it as, “What hopeless endeavor does a commitment to a category 
in thought commit one to.  First answer: “Just one more instance.”  Second 
answer: “Firm Boundaries”. Nature abhors a category.  To assign an event or a 
thing to a category is to pierce it with a vector of one’s own choosing and 
leave it writhing on the plain of Life.   Still, just as we are hunters by 
nature, so are we category-assigners.  Evolutionarily speaking, we have been 
abducted by abduction.  

Nick

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

From: thompnicks...@gmail.com  
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 9:39 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

Roger,

 

I also regret my answer.  But I still like the question.  I take it as, “What 
hopeless endeavor does a commitment to categories in though commit one to.  
First answer: “Just one more instance.”  Second answer: “Firm Boundaries”. 
Nature abhors a category.  To assign an event or an object to a category is to 
piece it with a vector of one’s own choosing and leaving writhing on the plain 
of Life.   Still, just as we are hunters by nature, so are we 
category-assigners.  Evolutionarily speaking, we have been abducted by 
abduction.  

 

Nick 

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 6:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions on 
the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me understand how 
they see their purpose, given that I was already being asked about the purpose 
of a platonic solid.

 

I hadn't thought about the prehistoric models of platonic solids crafted in 
rock, they can have purposes like other material objects.  Nor had I considered 
making the jump from abstract mathematical constructs to groups of people 
sharing characteristics.

 

And I was being silly, but I was provoked.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being silly, but 
`categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent thing like typed 
computer programs for autonomous control systems in a robot.  Let’s call it a 
careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like humans and will they want 
love and recognition?   Why must that be the case?  Why must it be true for 
humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a safe space?   I’m reminded of George 
Packer’s Free America, Smart America, Real America and Just America.   None of 
them really gave a damn about the others as far as I can tell.  It is just a 
model, of course.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

Ok, So, Marcus, 

 

>   What do categories want?

 

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!

 

Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction between 
those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each and every 
one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason to mock 
human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts to 
facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t think so.  Irony is a guilty 
pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a an 
abdication and fails as a policy.  

 

Nick 

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 

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

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

Eric -

You are to me as you indicate Packer is to you in this matter. You have 
articulated well what I was only able to intuit.


I also feel vindicated (if only in the company of myself) in having 
"mathematized" or "geometrized" this business of human nature/intention 
as existing within differing basis spaces (Glen asked me directly at one 
point "but why do you have to do that?", to which I had no answer, good 
or lame at the time).  Your own attempt here (as I measure it) to tease 
out more dimensions that might have been compressed/projected/collapsed 
into Packers's 4 (or as you point out, roughly 2x2).


I like your extension beyond dimensionality into actual material 
substance with the addition of "visible fractures along the first two 
pinciple components of stress", though as Glen likes to point out, this 
is likely burdened by *some* kind of excess meaning, especially if I 
were to try to carry it further.


Nothing more satisfying than being generously lapped by another 
bumper-car driver with your signature style.





On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

excellent reference/article... thanks.

I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I could 
write that way; I wish I could _think_ that way.  There are few 
thoughts I have had that aren’t already contained in Packer’s 
synthesis, in forms compatible with or better than the ones I would 
have given.  (Usually those with which I overlap aren’t different 
enough that I consider his take on them a lot “better”: mostly I think 
he chooses well the things I would front.  The “better” part mostly 
comes from a view that goes well beyond any that I could have 
commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all into a coherent 
layout.)


Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the 
orbital mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body 
problem?


But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not 
merely 4, but 2.x 2.


There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two 
principle components of stress.


The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a 
kind of cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big 
part.  But the axis is somehow more and different than only that, as 
it has historically moved through primacy of other dichotomies that 
can still be seen, while retaining its essential nature: Open vs. 
Closed, Cosmopolitan vs. Parochial, Communitarian vs. 
Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems quite adequate as I write 
them, but something along that line.


The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself 
existing along several dimensions that have become correlated.  It can 
be conditions of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency 
as well as wealth or safety.  That is why Packer sets the Just up as 
an uprising against the Smart, and the Real as an uprising against the 
Free.  The nature of the uprising and the stress driving it is in a 
sense the same, and the establishment and the insurgency sort of 
remain within whichever silos they started in.  Mostly because that 
phase is still fairly young.


Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a tool 
to entrench advantage in a setting where competition never relents.


Eric



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[thompnickson2]

Roger,

 

I also regret my answer.  But I still like the question.  I take it as, “What 
hopeless endeavor does a commitment to categories in though commit one to.  
First answer: “Just one more instance.”  Second answer: “Firm Boundaries”. 
Nature abhors a category.  To assign an event or an object to a category is to 
piece it with a vector of one’s own choosing and leaving writhing on the plain 
of Life.   Still, just as we are hunters by nature, so are we 
category-assigners.  Evolutionarily speaking, we have been abducted by 
abduction.  

 

Nick 

 

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 6:39 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions on 
the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me understand how 
they see their purpose, given that I was already being asked about the purpose 
of a platonic solid.

 

I hadn't thought about the prehistoric models of platonic solids crafted in 
rock, they can have purposes like other material objects.  Nor had I considered 
making the jump from abstract mathematical constructs to groups of people 
sharing characteristics.

 

And I was being silly, but I was provoked.

 

-- rec --

 

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Marcus Daniels mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote:

Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being silly, but 
`categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent thing like typed 
computer programs for autonomous control systems in a robot.  Let’s call it a 
careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like humans and will they want 
love and recognition?   Why must that be the case?  Why must it be true for 
humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a safe space?   I’m reminded of George 
Packer’s Free America, Smart America, Real America and Just America.   None of 
them really gave a damn about the others as far as I can tell.  It is just a 
model, of course.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/

 

 

From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> > On 
Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

Ok, So, Marcus, 

 

>   What do categories want?

 

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!

 

Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction between 
those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each and every 
one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason to mock 
human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts to 
facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t think so.  Irony is a guilty 
pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a an 
abdication and fails as a policy.  

 

Nick 

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> 

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

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group mailto:friam@redfish.com> >
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

 

> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, 
> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads 
> to:

> 

>   What do categories want?

 

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!

 

Marcus

 

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam>  un/subscribe  
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives:

5/2017 thru present  <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/> 
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/

1/2003 thru 6/2021   <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/> 
http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Co

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

On 10/29/21 6:38 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these 
abstractions on the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that 
might help me understand how they see their purpose, given that I was 
already being asked about the purpose of a platonic solid

...

And I was being silly, but I was provoked
-- rec --
highly oblique angle>
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Frank Wimberly]

Does anyone understand why a couple of reasonable Senate Republicans
(Romney, Kinzinger, Cheney, ...) don't vote with the Democrats for the
Biden bills?  Getting "primaried" isn't an issue for all of them.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021, 6:18 AM David Eric Smith  wrote:

>
> On Oct 29, 2021, at 4:32 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
> excellent reference/article... thanks.
>
> I agree, Marcus; thanks.  I was struck that not only do I wish I could
> write that way; I wish I could _think_ that way.  There are few thoughts I
> have had that aren’t already contained in Packer’s synthesis, in forms
> compatible with or better than the ones I would have given.  (Usually those
> with which I overlap aren’t different enough that I consider his take on
> them a lot “better”: mostly I think he chooses well the things I would
> front.  The “better” part mostly comes from a view that goes well beyond
> any that I could have commanded, and much better ability to arrange it all
> into a coherent layout.)
>
> Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the orbital
> mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body problem?
>
> But I think the whole core of Packer’s article is that it is not merely 4,
> but 2.x 2.
>
> There are axes of stress, and visible fractures along the first two
> principle components of stress.
>
> The Left-Right axis has resolved itself, in the current era, into a kind
> of cultural-status axis, with educational markers being a big part.  But
> the axis is somehow more and different than only that, as it has
> historically moved through primacy of other dichotomies that can still be
> seen, while retaining its essential nature: Open vs. Closed, Cosmopolitan
> vs. Parochial, Communitarian vs. Dominance-ordered.  None of these seems
> quite adequate as I write them, but something along that line.
>
> The Up-Down axis is probably about winners versus losers, itself existing
> along several dimensions that have become correlated.  It can be conditions
> of living, or hope versus despair w.r.t. power or agency as well as wealth
> or safety.  That is why Packer sets the Just up as an uprising against the
> Smart, and the Real as an uprising against the Free.  The nature of the
> uprising and the stress driving it is in a sense the same, and the
> establishment and the insurgency sort of remain within whichever silos they
> started in.  Mostly because that phase is still fairly young.
>
> Anything that becomes organized, it seems, becomes available as a tool to
> entrench advantage in a setting where competition never relents.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Frank Wimberly]

Well, Hywel, bless his soul, clearly knew what electrons want--to be in a
lower energy state.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021, 6:41 PM Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions
> on the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me
> understand how they see their purpose, given that I was already being asked
> about the purpose of a platonic solid.
>
> I hadn't thought about the prehistoric models of platonic solids crafted
> in rock, they can have purposes like other material objects.  Nor had I
> considered making the jump from abstract mathematical constructs to groups
> of people sharing characteristics.
>
> And I was being silly, but I was provoked.
>
> -- rec --
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Marcus Daniels 
> wrote:
>
>> Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being
>> silly, but `categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent
>> thing like typed computer programs for autonomous control systems in a
>> robot.  Let’s call it a careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like
>> humans and will they want love and recognition?   Why must that be the
>> case?  Why must it be true for humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a
>> safe space?   I’m reminded of George Packer’s Free America, Smart America,
>> Real America and Just America.   None of them really gave a damn about the
>> others as far as I can tell.  It is just a model, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
>> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, So, Marcus,
>>
>>
>>
>> >   What do categories want?
>>
>>
>>
>> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
>> on a new policy!
>>
>>
>>
>> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful
>> in small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition,
>> and safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some
>> of us crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the
>> contradiction between those things, can we expect the right balance be
>> guaranteed for each and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course
>> not.   But is that reason to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to
>> mock Utilitarian attempts to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t
>> think so.  Irony is a guilty pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it,
>> I have to admit that it is a an abdication and fails as a policy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick Thompson
>>
>> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > >
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather,
>> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads
>> to:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >   What do categories want?
>>
>>
>>
>> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
>> on a new policy!
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>> archives:
>>
>> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>
>> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Roger Critchlow]

I was asking what categories, eg monads, comonads, all these abstractions
on the abstractions of mathematics, want, since that might help me
understand how they see their purpose, given that I was already being asked
about the purpose of a platonic solid.

I hadn't thought about the prehistoric models of platonic solids crafted in
rock, they can have purposes like other material objects.  Nor had I
considered making the jump from abstract mathematical constructs to groups
of people sharing characteristics.

And I was being silly, but I was provoked.

-- rec --

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 1:36 PM Marcus Daniels  wrote:

> Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being
> silly, but `categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent
> thing like typed computer programs for autonomous control systems in a
> robot.  Let’s call it a careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like
> humans and will they want love and recognition?   Why must that be the
> case?  Why must it be true for humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a
> safe space?   I’m reminded of George Packer’s Free America, Smart America,
> Real America and Just America.   None of them really gave a damn about the
> others as far as I can tell.  It is just a model, of course.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of *
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>
>
>
> Ok, So, Marcus,
>
>
>
> >   What do categories want?
>
>
>
> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
> on a new policy!
>
>
>
> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful
> in small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition,
> and safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some
> of us crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the
> contradiction between those things, can we expect the right balance be
> guaranteed for each and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course
> not.   But is that reason to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to
> mock Utilitarian attempts to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t
> think so.  Irony is a guilty pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it,
> I have to admit that it is a an abdication and fails as a policy.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>
>
>
>
>
> > So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather,
> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads
> to:
>
> >
>
> >   What do categories want?
>
>
>
> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
> on a new policy!
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives:
>
> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Steve Smith]

excellent reference/article... thanks.

I did have the page dogeared in my paper copy of the Atlantic next to 
the bathtub... I just skimmed the online version you linked... I find 
bits easier to skim than atoms for some reason... maybe because the 
ability to cutNpaste quotes with a few keystrokes gives me the illusion 
of more participation.   Or maybe it will be easier for me to skim the 
paper copy with the Foster Grant Progressive (0-2.75) Readers I 
shoplifted from the grocery today.


Like George Packer, my first vote was in 1980, but unlike him I was 
captured by the L/libertarian undertone of the Reaganites.  I was young 
and dumb and full of myself (now I'm just old) and I missed the 
racial/class signaling going on which is what slowly flipped (inverted) 
me to something a lot more like a Socialist these days.


I do like the narrative(s) implied by the tension between Real, Smart, 
Free, and Just America(n)s...  in a cyberpunk kinda way.


Is it a 4 component spring model, or is a four body problem in the 
orbital mechanics sense... probably no harder than the three body problem?


On 10/29/21 11:36 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:


Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being 
silly, but `categories’ could be wrangled into to some vaguely 
adjacent thing like typed computer programs for autonomous control 
systems in a robot. Let’s call it a careful robot.    Will all 
intelligent life be like humans and will they want love and 
recognition?   Why must that be the case?  Why must it be true for 
humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a safe space?   I’m reminded 
of George Packer’s Free America, Smart America, Real America and Just 
America.   None of them really gave a damn about the others as far as 
I can tell.  It is just a model, of course.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/

*From:* Friam  *On Behalf Of 
*thompnicks...@gmail.com

*Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
*To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 


*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

Ok, So, Marcus,

>   What do categories want?

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball 
rolling on a new policy!


Spoken from the high perch of Irony. Irony is like wormwood, 
delightful in small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want 
love, recognition, and safety?  Do we also want excitement and 
challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us crave more of the one; some more 
of the other.  Given the contradiction between those things, can we 
expect the right balance be guaranteed for each and every one of us, 
for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason to mock human 
striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts to 
facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t think so.  Irony is a 
guilty pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit 
that it is a an abdication and fails as a policy.


Nick

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, 
weather, animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which 
probably leads to:


>

>   What do categories want?

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball 
rolling on a new policy!


Marcus

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com 
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>


FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
<http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>


archives:

5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 
<https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>


1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ 
<http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribehttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIChttp://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
  5/2017 thru presenthttps://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Marcus Daniels]

Will AIs want the same things I want?   I think Roger was just being silly, but 
`categories' could be wrangled into to some vaguely adjacent thing like typed 
computer programs for autonomous control systems in a robot.  Let's call it a 
careful robot.Will all intelligent life be like humans and will they want 
love and recognition?   Why must that be the case?  Why must it be true for 
humans?   Why does HR assume I even want a safe space?   I'm reminded of George 
Packer's Free America, Smart America, Real America and Just America.   None of 
them really gave a damn about the others as far as I can tell.  It is just a 
model, of course.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/


From: Friam  On Behalf Of thompnicks...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 11:30 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost


Ok, So, Marcus,



>   What do categories want?



Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!



Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction between 
those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each and every 
one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason to mock 
human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts to 
facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don't think so.  Irony is a guilty 
pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a an 
abdication and fails as a policy.



Nick



Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com<mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>

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



-Original Message-
From: Friam mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com>> On 
Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost





> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, 
> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads 
> to:

>

>   What do categories want?



Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!



Marcus



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives:

5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/

1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Gary Schiltz]

I have to agree with you, Nick. If we as a species are to survive, we've
got to stop this reversion back to our pre-civilized roots. I'm not really
a bleeding-heart liberal, but I do want to evolve beyond survival of the
fittest.

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:30 PM  wrote:

> Ok, So, Marcus,
>
>
>
> >   What do categories want?
>
>
>
> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
> on a new policy!
>
>
>
> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful
> in small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition,
> and safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some
> of us crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the
> contradiction between those things, can we expect the right balance be
> guaranteed for each and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course
> not.   But is that reason to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to
> mock Utilitarian attempts to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t
> think so.  Irony is a guilty pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it,
> I have to admit that it is a an abdication and fails as a policy.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost
>
>
>
>
>
> > So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather,
> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads
> to:
>
> >
>
> >   What do categories want?
>
>
>
> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling
> on a new policy!
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives:
>
> 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[thompnickson2]

And the tenth is?

Nick Thompson
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 12:45 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

Nah. Irony is more than a guilty pleasure. It's a crucial tool in the 
authentication toolbox. That becomes obvious when considering gate keeping 
between subcultures. It's easy to assume such gate keeping is bad. 
Hyper-democrats make such assumptions all the time. But gate keeping is simply 
a form of establishing us vs. them. And it's not merely binary, either. There 
are scales to irony. When you express a layered irony, based on the feedback 
from it, you can distinguish Them from Tourists from Ally from Us. This is, 
essentially, [Counter ]Intelligence 101. 

As for what categories want, there's a perfectly non-teleological connotation 
of "want" that we could have used to respond to Roger's question, that hooks 
almost like lock and key, or hand in glove, to the recent thread(s) on duality. 
But, again, "know 10 things. say 9."

On 10/28/21 11:29 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 10/28/21 7:17 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> 
>>> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, 
>>> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads 
>>> to:
>>>
>>>   What do categories want?
>> 
>> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on 
>> a new policy!
>> 
> 
> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
> small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
> safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
> crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction 
> between those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each 
> and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason 
> to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts 
> to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t think so.  Irony is a guilty 
> pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a an 
> abdication and fails as a policy. 
> 

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

Nah. Irony is more than a guilty pleasure. It's a crucial tool in the 
authentication toolbox. That becomes obvious when considering gate keeping 
between subcultures. It's easy to assume such gate keeping is bad. 
Hyper-democrats make such assumptions all the time. But gate keeping is simply 
a form of establishing us vs. them. And it's not merely binary, either. There 
are scales to irony. When you express a layered irony, based on the feedback 
from it, you can distinguish Them from Tourists from Ally from Us. This is, 
essentially, [Counter ]Intelligence 101. 

As for what categories want, there's a perfectly non-teleological connotation 
of "want" that we could have used to respond to Roger's question, that hooks 
almost like lock and key, or hand in glove, to the recent thread(s) on duality. 
But, again, "know 10 things. say 9."

On 10/28/21 11:29 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 10/28/21 7:17 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> 
>>> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, 
>>> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads 
>>> to:
>>>
>>>   What do categories want?
>> 
>> Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on 
>> a new policy!
>> 
> 
> Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in 
> small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and 
> safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us 
> crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction 
> between those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each 
> and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason 
> to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts 
> to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don’t think so.  Irony is a guilty 
> pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a an 
> abdication and fails as a policy. 
> 

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[thompnickson2]

Ok, So, Marcus, 

 

>   What do categories want?

 

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on
a new policy!

 

Spoken from the high perch of Irony.  Irony is like wormwood, delightful in
small doses but ultimately toxic.  Do we not all want love, recognition, and
safety?  Do we also want excitement and challenge.  Go figure!   Some of us
crave more of the one; some more of the other.  Given the contradiction
between those things, can we expect the right balance be guaranteed for each
and every one of us, for all time?  No.  Of course not.   But is that reason
to mock human striving toward these goals?  Or to mock Utilitarian attempts
to facilitate their achievement?  No.  I don't think so.  Irony is a guilty
pleasure.  Even though I use it and enjoy it, I have to admit that it is a
an abdication and fails as a policy.  

 

Nick 

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 8:18 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

 

> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather,
animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads
to:

> 

>   What do categories want?

 

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on
a new policy!

 

Marcus

 

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

archives:

5/2017 thru present  <https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/>
https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/

1/2003 thru 6/2021   <http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/>
http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[thompnickson2]

What do categories want?

 

More than one example that actually fits. 

 

n

Nick Thompson

 <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com

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

 

From: Friam  On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

 

Actually these "valuable" Roman objects are the subject of some theories about 
their function

PDF attached

 

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:42 PM Roger Critchlow mailto:r...@elf.org> > wrote:

I'm 3d printing so I googled up dodecahedron to find a set of coordinates.

 

Google told me that people also ask:

 

  What is the purpose of the dodecahedron?

 

So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, animals, 
and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads to:

 

  What do categories want?

 

-- rec --

 


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam 
<http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] we are lost

[Marcus Daniels]

> So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather, 
> animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads 
> to:
> 
>   What do categories want?

Love, recognition and safety?   Someone phone HR and get the ball rolling on a 
new policy!

Marcus

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] we are lost

[Roger Critchlow]

I'm 3d printing so I googled up dodecahedron to find a set of coordinates.

Google told me that people also ask:

  What is the purpose of the dodecahedron?

So, not only do we attribute teleology to inanimate objects, weather,
animals, and people, but also to the platonic solids.  Which probably leads
to:

  What do categories want?

-- rec --

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/