Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

[jon zingale]

"Your story is only intelligible if you understand the participants as
rational."

Thanks for appreciating it, Nick. I find your claim to be a bold claim.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

Arent you talking about a Rationalist as opposed to a rationalist/  Or does the club have to be incorporated.  So I am not a Rationalist unless Rationalist is a trade mark.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:20 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

No, you're not a member of the population I point at with "rationalist". I guess it's ambiguous like "scientist" vs "scientismist" ... or "woke" vs. "wokeist".

The rationalists are a fairly well-defined community of tech-savvy intellectuals who engage in things like Effective Altruism (e.g. get a job making as much money as you possibly can, *then* giving away a large percentage of it, like 90%). They also take Bayesianism to an extreme, talk a lot about "priors", give their opinions "epistemological confidence" ratings, etc.

But moving to the interpersonal baroque, I don't consider you a rationalist. I don't even think you're very rational. Your commitment to metaphysical stances is way too strong. Such commitment is faith-based and irrational. But it *is*, I think, idealist. And in that context, I would suggest I'm more rational than you are. Agnosticism is rational.

On 4/30/21 9:49 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> So, I think I am a rationalist, right?  So if anybody is doing pearl clutching on this list, it's me.  So, here goes.
>
> Is rationality the same as rationalism.  You, glen, are patently rational.  Does that make you a rationalist?  I want you to clarify the meanings of your words, remove, to the extent possible, ambituities in how you use them, try to extract the same meanings FROM them that you put INTO them.  That seems rational to me.  Does that make me a rationalist?

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

Jon,

I just lost an argument about the rationality of long division.  I was
trying to do division by folding.  Nobody wanted to play.  

Missed you.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

"Your story is only intelligible if you understand the participants as
rational."

Thanks for appreciating it, Nick. I find your claim to be a bold claim.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[jon zingale]

Mmm, long division is an interesting one. Who am I to say how things must be proved, but the proofs of the division algorithm with which I am familiar involve the well-ordering principle. There, in this one idea, lies two problematic details:

1. The non-algebraic nature of the well-ordering principle, and its correlative controversies . As outlined in the paper, "It has been shown that if you want to believe the well-ordering theorem, then it must be taken as an axiom."

2. The first significant moment where intension in the form of computational complexity enters an otherwise extensional number theory.

[Steve Smith]

> That night, the three of us were invited back to this young woman's
> house. Her absent parents were both ceramicists and it showed. Every
> possible spandrel was decorated with cup handles, clay faces, and other
> abstract forms. The next morning we drank coffee in her kitchen and read
> the sad news that John Griggs Thompson's lecture would be canceled due
> to his poor health.
>
> The whole affair struck me as being a sort of anti-Aesopian fable.
>
> One where, if I needed a moral it would be
> that one can get more honey with a poem,
> one involving compost tea.
>
> or alternatively, that youth is a donut to be eaten on the spot.

My takeaways: 

    "Life is what happens while you are making other plans"

and

    "It's spandrels all the way down?"



- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

I am neither a rationalist nor an origamist but I suspect that origami
teaches us more about prime numbers than vice-versa?

> Jon,
>
> I just lost an argument about the rationality of long division.  I was
> trying to do division by folding.  Nobody wanted to play.  
>
> Missed you.
>
> n
>
> Nick Thompson
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:28 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf
>
> "Your story is only intelligible if you understand the participants as
> rational."
>
> Thanks for appreciating it, Nick. I find your claim to be a bold claim.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Origami approach:  the trouble is that unless the pieces are congruent some kid will think he's being cheated.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 11:42 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jon,

I just lost an argument about the rationality of long division.  I was
trying to do division by folding.  Nobody wanted to play. 

Missed you.

n

Nick Thompson
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:28 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

"Your story is only intelligible if you understand the participants as
rational."

Thanks for appreciating it, Nick. I find your claim to be a bold claim.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/


- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[jon zingale]

Origami is kind of amazing. I find it fascinating, that in principle, we can encode messages via elliptic curve methods in traditional paper folds.

---

Sent from the Friam mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Rational numbers whose decimal representations have a finite length are well-ordered.  In third grade they divide integers.  This may lead to rational quotients but they just write 34R3, for example, if the remainder is 3.

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 12:01 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Mmm, long division is an interesting one. Who am I to say how things must be proved, but the proofs of the division algorithm with which I am familiar involve the well-ordering principle. There, in this one idea, lies two problematic details:

1. The non-algebraic nature of the well-ordering principle, and its correlative controversies. As outlined in the paper, "It has been shown that if you want to believe the well-ordering theorem, then it must be taken as an axiom."

2. The first significant moment where intension in the form of computational complexity enters an otherwise extensional number theory.

---

Sent from the Friam mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[jon zingale]

Yes, but what would a mathematician say.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Frank Wimberly-2]

Snarky?

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 4:14 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yes, but what would a mathematician say.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[jon zingale]

Again, an attempt to draw more. Much ink has been spilled over the axiom of
choice, the maximal principal of Zorn (wrath?), and the well-ordering
principle. Here is a chance to spill more.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Marcus G. Daniels]

So funny.  Probably because he is a SFI trustee.    "It all makes perfect sense.."

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 11:18 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

[sigh] Congratulations to Idaho for its regressive reaction to Wokeism: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/idaho-critical-race-theory If anyone's looking for a place to live that's insulated from liberal arts, Idaho may well be your ideal. "Come to Idaho, where men are men and women are ..." Whatever.

I don't know why I continue to give Rutt my ear time. As always, he has great guests, who he interrupts with bouts of nonsense. Then the guest has to recover the thread and force the conversation forward. E.g. from: https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-123-jamie-wheal-on-recapturing-the-rapture/

"Jamie: And their women wanted those copper-bottom pots, because have you ever tried boiling stew in an animal skin with hot rocks? It’s a ball lake, and we want those bright and shiny things, and by the way, we’re going to take those guns, we’re going to kick the living shit out of the Hurons, our historic neighbors, and we’re going to shwhack every fucking beaver we can find to get more of them. That was agency. Those were choices, right? Now, the millennials, I think there’s been amnesia and voltage drop, right? Because the boomers, to articulate postmodern, critical race, and gender theory, as they did, they waded through Fuko [Foucault] and Derrida. They read Franz Fanon. It was real work.

Jim: Hardly any Boomers read that shit, right? I’m a classic mid-boomer, and I never heard any of that horseshit until the nineties. Long, long, long, long after my schooling was done at a fairly elite university. The professors read it, but normal people didn’t read that horseshit in those days.

Jamie: Yeah, but I mean, it was built from first principles. They had to put some back into it, and it was based on real world conditions. The ’68 revolutions, all the things, right? But millennials simply got the pablum, they got the de-tuned version of everyone can grow… The whole trophy generation and that, blah, blah, blah, and they got it in grade school, middle school, high school. They took it for granted, but they didn’t understand the mechanics. It was like a scientific graphing calculator, but never knowing how to do long division yourself."


What am I missing, here? Why do these guests give Rutt their time?  Then just a few minutes later:


"Jim: Well, the identity lens can be useful, right? Particularly looking at culture and how culture keys on identity, but realizing that’s plastic and can be easily, relatively easily changed and does change over time. Instead, retreating into making these identity categories very rigid and core to the definition of who a person is, strikes me as exactly ass fucking backward of what we should be doing to move forward to a society that works for everybody. I mean, it’s very, very, very disturbing actually, this new turn towards wokeism and reified identity, fuck those people. You mentioned they want to fight. I say, “Bring it on motherfucker.” I’m ready to fight those fuckers. I wouldn’t start it, but I fucking sure ass finish it.

Jamie: Well, there you go with your feisty Irishman, and I think it is important to kind of, to absolutely hear the signal in the noise. Right? If the signal in the noise is, hey, we bought into, if we were patiently, if we play by the rules and we waited our turn, that we would get ours eventually. For anybody that has found themselves on a, not an even field and constantly under the thumb of adversarial forces that are not part of the thing we all signed on to, I think there’s a critical need to be like, “You’re right, I get it.” There’s no question. There’s been asymmetrical distribution of resources, and it’s worked for us, right? Better than it’s worked for you, and just whatever that is. Right? An acknowledgement of that."


I mean, it's normal to hear the language Rutt's using in a pub *AFTER* everyone's had 3 pints and the rules are mostly gone. But to go off with that cowardly posturing "I'll sure ass finish it" when sober? ... in an interview with someone who's seriously trying to say something substantive? When some moron claims they'd "finish" a fight with someone else, I always have to wonder if that posturing ape has ever been in a real fight. Pfft. At least Rutt puts up the transcript so we can see how cartoonishly stupid he gets.



On 4/30/21 8:55 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> Ha! Well, no worries. Not only are liberal arts unis dying rapidly, the entire university system is dying, which is why, as problematic as it is, https://www.mikeroweworks.org/ is a good thing in principle. The rationalists are like refined royals clutching their pearls in response to naughty words spoken by (postmodernist, gender studies) libertine "gentlemen". The villagers with pitch forks won't distinguish between Karen Barad and David Deutsch.
>
> On 4/30/21 8:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Sheesh, Reed, Evergreen.  It's like freaking Ice-9.  :-)
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[thompnickson2]

Ok.  Narrow brush, here.

 

One of the first principles of Wokery is that I get to say what you call me, right? 

 

So, If I ask you to call me Nicole, are you under any obligation to do so?

 

If I ask you to refer to me as "she", are you any obligation to do  so?

 

If I announce that I am of Cherokee descent, are you any obligation  to honor that?

 

Are the Cherokees under any such obligation?

 

If I tell you I am black, are you obligated to recompense me for centuries of abuse?

 

Where exactly do we get off this train?

 

I think the answer I would get is, "OK, pre-Boomer, Only a white ,male, privileged , heterosexual,  retired, academic has time for such a Jesuitical question.  The rest of us know that we have been screwed and that it is you that has been screwing us.  So put aside your word play and get the fuck out of our way!"

 

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 12:18 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

 

[sigh] Congratulations to Idaho for its regressive reaction to Wokeism: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/06/idaho-critical-race-theory If anyone's looking for a place to live that's insulated from liberal arts, Idaho may well be your ideal. "Come to Idaho, where men are men and women are ..." Whatever.

 

I don't know why I continue to give Rutt my ear time. As always, he has great guests, who he interrupts with bouts of nonsense. Then the guest has to recover the thread and force the conversation forward. E.g. from: https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-123-jamie-wheal-on-recapturing-the-rapture/

 

"Jamie: And their women wanted those copper-bottom pots, because have you ever tried boiling stew in an animal skin with hot rocks? It’s a ball lake, and we want those bright and shiny things, and by the way, we’re going to take those guns, we’re going to kick the living shit out of the Hurons, our historic neighbors, and we’re going to shwhack every fucking beaver we can find to get more of them. That was agency. Those were choices, right? Now, the millennials, I think there’s been amnesia and voltage drop, right? Because the boomers, to articulate postmodern, critical race, and gender theory, as they did, they waded through Fuko [Foucault] and Derrida. They read Franz Fanon. It was real work.

 

Jim: Hardly any Boomers read that shit, right? I’m a classic mid-boomer, and I never heard any of that horseshit until the nineties. Long, long, long, long after my schooling was done at a fairly elite university. The professors read it, but normal people didn’t read that horseshit in those days.

 

Jamie: Yeah, but I mean, it was built from first principles. They had to put some back into it, and it was based on real world conditions. The ’68 revolutions, all the things, right? But millennials simply got the pablum, they got the de-tuned version of everyone can grow… The whole trophy generation and that, blah, blah, blah, and they got it in grade school, middle school, high school. They took it for granted, but they didn’t understand the mechanics. It was like a scientific graphing calculator, but never knowing how to do long division yourself."

 

 

What am I missing, here? Why do these guests give Rutt their time?  Then just a few minutes later:

 

 

"Jim: Well, the identity lens can be useful, right? Particularly looking at culture and how culture keys on identity, but realizing that’s plastic and can be easily, relatively easily changed and does change over time. Instead, retreating into making these identity categories very rigid and core to the definition of who a person is, strikes me as exactly ass fucking backward of what we should be doing to move forward to a society that works for everybody. I mean, it’s very, very, very disturbing actually, this new turn towards wokeism and reified identity, fuck those people. You mentioned they want to fight. I say, “Bring it on motherfucker.” I’m ready to fight those fuckers. I wouldn’t start it, but I fucking sure ass finish it.

 

Jamie: Well, there you go with your feisty Irishman, and I think it is important to kind of, to absolutely hear the signal in the noise. Right? If the signal in the noise is, hey, we bought into, if we were patiently, if we play by the rules and we waited our turn, that we would get ours eventually. For anybody that has found themselves on a, not an even field and constantly under the thumb of adversarial forces that are not part of the thing we all signed on to, I think there’s a critical need to be like, “You’re right, I get it.” There’s no question. There’s been asymmetrical distribution of resources, and it’s worked for us, right? Better than it’s worked for you, and just whatever that is. Right? An acknowledgement of that."

 

 

I mean, it's normal to hear the language Rutt's using in a pub *AFTER* everyone's had 3 pints and the rules are mostly gone. But to go off with that cowardly posturing "I'll sure ass finish it" when sober? ... in an interview with someone who's seriously trying to say something substantive? When some moron claims they'd "finish" a fight with someone else, I always have to wonder if that posturing ape has ever been in a real fight. Pfft. At least Rutt puts up the transcript so we can see how cartoonishly stupid he gets.

 

 

 

On 4/30/21 8:55 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> Ha! Well, no worries. Not only are liberal arts unis dying rapidly, the entire university system is dying, which is why, as problematic as it is, https://www.mikeroweworks.org/ is a good thing in principle. The rationalists are like refined royals clutching their pearls in response to naughty words spoken by (postmodernist, gender studies) libertine "gentlemen". The villagers with pitch forks won't distinguish between Karen Barad and David Deutsch.

>

> On 4/30/21 8:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

>> Sheesh, Reed, Evergreen.  It's like freaking Ice-9.  :-)

>

 

--

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[gepr]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[thompnickson2]

Glen,

 

I was trying to start small  . think you are flat out wrong, by the way: I think the principle that “You do not get to say who I am” is deeply entrenched in the principles that 538 listed.

 

I am grateful for the list.  Let's work with it a bit.  See below.

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

 

No, that's not a principle of Wokeism. It may be a reactionary misunderstanding of what's being said. (More likely it's an absurdist strawman, intended to help you *avoid* hearing what's being said.) But if you listen closer, you might actually hear what's being said. This article does a pretty good job of listing the drivers:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ideas-that-are-reshaping-the-democratic-party-and-america/

 

"    1. The United States has often not lived up to the ideals of its founders or the notion that it is an “exceptional” nation that should be a model for other countries. Because the U.S. has disempowered its Native and Black populations and women throughout its history, America has never been a true or full democracy[NST===>Agreed.  Furthermore, the myth of exceptionality arises just because we have had land to expropriate, and native Americans, African Americans, and immigrants to exploit.  See “These Truths” and “1493”<===nst] .

    2. White people, particularly white men, are especially advantaged in American society (“white privilege”).

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

    3. People of color in America suffer from not only individualized and overt acts of racism (someone uses a racial slur, for example) but a broader “systemic” and “institutional” racism.

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

    4. Capitalism as currently practiced in America is deeply flawed, giving way too much money and power to the wealthy. America’s economy should not be set up in a way that allows people to accumulate billions of dollars in wealth.[NST===>Yes, but the focus on Billionaires tends to absolve the millionairs among us (weath, not salary) from responsibility.<===nst]  

    5. Women suffer from systemic sexism.

[NST===> Agreed, but we have to decide if women are different or not and what to do about it.<===nst]

    6. People should be able to identify as whatever gender they prefer or not to identify by gender at all.[NST===>Really?  Are you sure.  If there are no gender roles, than what exactly does  gender mean?  There is surely some weird contradiction here.  <===nst]

    7. The existence of a disparity — for example, Black, Latino or women being underrepresented in a given profession or industry — is evidence of discrimination, even if no overt acts of discrimination are visible.[NST===>Yes, and a large effort should be invested in tracking these disparities, and the new ones that will inevitably arise, and countering them, but see below …<===nst]  

    8. Black Americans deserve reparations to make up for slavery and post-slavery racial discrimination.

[NST===>Absolutely NOT!  We start in the middle, and we start now. We counter the discrimination  that we have right now.   Bugger the sins of our foreparents.  <===nst]

    9. Law enforcement agencies, from local police departments to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are designed to defend America’s status quo as much as any public safety mission. When they treat people of color or the poor badly, they are working as they are designed. So these agencies must be defunded, abolished, disbanded or at least dramatically changed if the goal is to improve their treatment of people of color and the poor.

[NST===>I am tantalized by the suggestion that the actual Idea of a modern police force grows out of the “paterollers” of the South<===nst]

    10. Trump’s political rise was not an aberration or a surprise. Politicians in both parties, particularly Republicans, have long used racialized language to demean people of color — Trump was just more direct and crude about it. And his messages resonated with a lot of Americans, particularly white people and conservatives, because lots of Americans have negative views about people of color, Black people in particular."

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

 

 

On 5/6/21 12:07 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> One of the first principles of Wokery is that I get to say what you

> call me, right?

 

--

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

[Steve Smith]

I find "wokeism" or "wokeness" or "woke" to be a caricature of something important, but perhaps a little intractable, for me at least.  

I have doubled down on paying attention to the BLM activities and probably watched every minute of the Chauvin trial, trying to grasp what the real and deeper fundamental issues actually are (hidden under a few layers of misdirections by the strongest proponents on both sides).

<another one of my Very Too Long; Don't Expect Many To Read Rants> 

I am happy with the process and outcome for the most part and hope we are turning a new chapter on both Systemic Racism and Police Abuse, and especially the cross product of the two.   I liked the quotes that it is "not Justice, but it IS Accountability".   After the other officers on scene and the whole department who must have tolerated (if not sanctioned) the likes of Chauvin (and Tau?) for years have been brought to some Accountability, I'll believe that there is some Justice, at least in Milwaukee.   There are dozens of other outstanding cases with similar profile to be addressed (and more coming all the time) before  I would feel like "Justice" as been approached, much less achieved.  And while it is almost exclusively African American people under abuse in the limelight, I know we need the *other* oppressed groups who also suffer inordinate police-abuse to have similar accountability before we have "Justice" on a broader scale.

My whole life, I've tried (and surely failed) to have enough empathy to not only make room for, or tolerate "all kinds" but when I can find enough common ground or appreciation as my own "other" to their "other" to be supportive in some way or another, including trying to help change the systemic issues involved, not just my own personal behaviour or of those in my immediate circle.  

I grew up in the multicultural milieu of various "Hispanic" and "Native" subcultures mixed with (mostly) late comer "whites".   I have never lived among enough African American or Asian American or really any other (pick a cultural/regional/ethnic group) to NOT experience members of those classes exclusively as *individuals*.   Reviewing my grade-school and high-school rosters I see just slightly more "Hispanic" surnames than otherwise.   I had precisely 3 african-american schoolmates in high-school (out of 300ish), one was geeky enough to be in my friend group, one was our star athlete/student and *everybody* wanted to be his friend, he probably doesn't remember my name.  The third was missing a hand at the wrist and had a chip on his shoulder and tended to pick fights with anyone he could get away with it.  I like all three of them, though the last one could be difficult to be around when he was looking for someone to exercise his angst with, we tolerated one another well minus one or two incidents in 7th grade.  

The "Hispanics" I went to grade-school with were roughly grandchildren (or great-grandchildren) of direct descendants of Spanish colonists who arrived after the Pueblo Revolt and settled in the Socorro area and became Mexican citizens after the revolution, then hopped 100 miles east after the US Cavalry rounded up (and killed off) the Apache living in the region in US Territorial days, a few of the older generation still spoke only Spanish.  The self-identified as proud descendants of Spanish Colonizers (but distanced from the violence of the Conquistadors). While there was some awareness of race/culture (virtually all Hispanics were Catholic, virtually all Whites/Natives were not).   There were plenty of marriages between the two "groups" and the teachers, county officials and (few) merchants were represented by both groups evenly.

 The "Hispanics" I went to high school with were almost exclusively the (great)grandchildren of the flourishing Mexican culture who woke up one day after the Gadsden purchase to abruptly be US Citizens.   Most of them had grandparents and aunts/uncles/cousins living in the adjacent border town that was really the primary settlement when the line was drawn and a (3 string barbed wire) fence was strung.  Their parents were significantly the merchant class in town though some were professional (doctors, dentists, lawyers) class, there was not a huge distinction between the two.   They preferred to be called Mexican (maybe Mexican-Americans but they didn't seem to feel the need for the hyphened, "Mexican" was a point of pride, not dismissal or slur).  They rejected "Latin", "Chicano" or "Hispanic". 

The Native Americans in both contexts were also small enough in number that I knew them only as individuals...   but the difference was that their roots were in nearby-ish communities.   While I might have heard people refer to them  as "those Indians", mostly that was not the case.   Among the mostly Navajo/Hopi/Zuni/Apache I knew through that time, I can't say didn't know a single individual that I didn't both like and call a friend.   In College (Northern AZ, University) I encountered a number of Native Americans in passing who I didn't know personally and there *was* a racial bias held by some of the locals (but nothing I detected from the students who came from elsewhere,  at worse they elevated them as "noble savages" which is it's own problem).    When I am thoughtful enough to use " Dine' " instead of Navajo or Apache, my Dine' friends seem to appreciate my effort though I still feel required to hyphenate ("Dine' pause Navajo" or "Dine pause Apache") because I'm pretty sure they consider themselves distinct and in fact seem to appreciate it if I acknowledge *which* Apache band they come from (when I even know).   The only Navajo I've had acknowledge they care to have called out distinctly, are the Alamo Band.   My Tewa friends seem to appreciate that I know which pueblo they are from, but also seem to appreciate that I know that  they have a strong identity with the Tewa language culture, as much as the  Saints their villages were named for by the Spanish Catholics (Ildefonso, Juan, Clara, etc.).

Half of the people I knew growing up were women.   I saw the gender disparity more than I saw racial/ethnic/cultural/religious disparity.   I didn't like the slight or hidden asymmetry of "women's" and "men's" roles.   But in semi-subsistence cultures (I believe) where there is not a lot of room for wasted human potential, men could not afford to treat their women too badly... they really, really needed them to carry the load they can't.   Though this characterization reflects the asymmetry that was there.   Somehow men *were* presumed to be "primary" and women/children adjunct/secondary.   My parents were not particularly bad in this way, but there was definitely some generational assumed "dominance/deference", though it was *very* common in the subculture I saw for the women to have priority control over the family finances.  They balanced the checkbook and kept a budget and made sure there were savings to fall back on.  The man may bring home the only or larger paycheck (or proceeds from farm/livestock sales) but the woman was likely the one to "keep the books" and execute most of the purchasing decisions.    Virtually all of the girls I went to school with were "cowgirls" if not "tomboys" and could/did saddle/groom their own horses if not (in a few cases) shoe  and worm them.   My mother had a number of friends who were "ranch widows"... enough younger than their husbands to inherit a working ranch in their 40's/50's when their (male-dominant cowboy) husbands died of hard living (tobacco, exposure to elements, accidents) in their 50's/60's.   These ranch widows ended up running (small) operations with one to a few male "hands" working for them.   They had been working alongside their husbands (and maybe their fathers before that) and knew what they were doing, and likely did a share of the outdoor/hard work themselves, even if they *also* would have my mother in for tea in a well-kept house.   My father did his damnedest to give my sister as much support and direction as he did me (from my perspective) but he *did* condescend in ways that I believe blunted her.  As he helped her learn a variety of "men's work" skills, his praise came down to "you are really good at that.... for a girl".   My mother was pretty capable herself (my grandparents being subsistence farmers in KY with my grandmother working alongside my grandfather when she wasn't cooking) but my father was dead set on making sure my sister was able to change a tire, check her oil, hammer a nail, mow a lawn, etc.  And my mother was dead set on making sure *I* could cook a meal,  do my own laundry, wash dishes, windows, and floors.   I cannot express (though this Mother's day is a good opportunity) how much I valued that as I came of age and was NOT seeking a "traditional wife" who would then cook, clean, sew, offer praise for me.

I will acknowledge that *one* of the cohort I grew up with (2 years younger) grew up to take his wife and children out of this world in a murder-suicide presenting the worst face of the "male dominant" pattern.

So I was *puzzled* as I encountered the 60's 70's culture wars that were *entirely legitimate* in the larger world and *did* have a muted version in my own.   It took me a long time to come to appreciate that the Equal and Civil Right's movements were NOT "much ado about nothing"...   I had more awareness of the gender equality issues, and when I *saw* the kind of poverty that "people of color" suffered in urban or ??? areas, I was intellectually sympathetic to their plight (the American Indian Movement and the United Farmworker's Movement were more recognizable to me than the various African American issues, just because of my familiarity).   In my 30s I began to travel to Urban centers (Boston, Baltimore, DC, NYC, San Francisco, LA, Seattle) where there *were* a lot more non-White/Hispanics and I saw the kind of poverty that many (not all) were relegated to, and I knew *of* the prejudicial circumstances (such as redlining, etc) that lead them into those situations and I came to realize that while my (often very poor) friends/neighbors growing up could put any spare time/effort they had if they were under-employed into a garden or chopping firewood or patching their adobe walls (none of which required anything more than manual labor), the urban poor had virtually *nothing* to do to apply their spare cycles to that was obviously productive.   So what did that leave them to do about their circumstance besides either "give up" or "act out"?   I know that this is overstating and that plenty of urban poor *do* find a way to better their circumstances, I guess I just realized (maybe for the first time) how poverty can be much more soul-crushing than I knew it to be, and how it *can* lead pretty directly to addictions and crime.

So am I "woke"?   I'd say I did wake up a *little* when I made that last leap of perspective.   The BLM protests of this year and the *never-ending* stream of police abuses against African Americans, made me realize that my default around race-equity is to retreat to what I know (the issues of equity around Native and Hispanic populations) because I feel mostly impotent to help much in this problem.   My vote for the last 20 years has gone to progressive causes exclusively and the 20 before that I declined because I felt incompetent.  

Glen busted me more than once when I've used the phrase Politically Correct or "PC" with what I believe was *his* strawman understanding of what I meant.  At the time, his admonition was "what is wrong with calling people what they want to be called?".   I didn't defend myself in that position, because I am completely fine with calling people what they ask me to call them, assuming I can figure that out quickly enough to avoid censure.   I don't know that I have ever had anyone confront me with getting that wrong *for themselves*, but I did encounter plenty of (almost exclusively White, though usually Female) people (in the 80s mostly) confront me for "using the wrong name" for someone.   I had the great-good-fun of being "schooled" by people who had self-appointed to police my language.  My "Hispanic" or "Spanish Descendent" friends from grade school, and my Mexican (or Mexican American) friends from High School were *never* under *any circumstances* to be called anything *but* "Latino" (or for a period Chicano).    My Indian (or more aptly Apache/Zuni/Hopi/Navajo/Tewa) friends were *only* to be called "Native", "Native American", "Aboriginal" (for a short period), or "First Peoples" (more rare).  My best Native friend (Lakota) is happy to be called Native but he grew up as an Indian, as a Red Man, and is proud of both of those (now considered to be slurs), he's old enough (my age) to have good ears and thick hide.  He knows by context and tone of voice if someone uses either of those words if they are being rude or dismissive and he knows if they are not.    I tried hard to simply "go with the flow" from the "Negro" to "Black" or "Colored" to "African American" and "Person of Color" that has evolved over my lifetime.  Best I can tell, "Negro" is the only term that is fully deprecated and "Black" and "Colored" both seem a little archaic to me now.  For better or worse I almost never have a need to refer to the fairly few "African American" friends I have as anything but their names.   Abraham is from Kenya (he's Kenyan, not Black, not Colored, not African American, not even African, he's Kenyan), Darryl is old and wise and a fixture in the communities we both run in, and doesn't need any description other than his name), nobody needs to know that he is African American who doesn't know it because they know him...  I think it is racist when anyone (including me here) even bothers to point it out. 

Back in the day, it seemed not to matter if I tried to explain myself OR shrug it off, the only acceptable response too often was deferential compliance with a dash of contrition.   I tried to be polite and thoughtful in my responses and every once in a very long while I would get a different response like, "oh... I never thought of/knew/realized that..."  I never (that I can remember) accused anyone of being PC or Politically Correct, but I *did* probably think it often and maybe nod my head in agreement (gently) if someone else said it.    Maybe that made me a racist/bigoted a$$h0l3 (at least in their minds?).   Maybe I should have found a better way.  But I didn't.

Back to "woke".    I have dozens of privileged (White, mostly female again) friends who are acutely attuned to "being woke" and when they take it beyond their own personal growth path, it verges on what I complain about above with PC.    I, like my friend, am old enough and have thick enough hide to know that when they think they need to correct me on something I do or say, that I can often recognize when their need to do that is more about their deal than it is about mine and I can smile and nod politely and put their "advice" in my hat and spend a little time considering it later.   Every once in a while I feel like I DO learn something that helps me be more properly empathetic and understanding.   I learned all the detail (about what people want to be called) I describe above *by* listening and watching AND being told those things.   I probably had to have a dozen of my new "Mexican" friends correct me when I tried to call them "Spanish Descendants" or Hispanics before I "got it".   I still have to listen closely for nuance as I try to navigate the pronouns in the QT of LGBTQ and while haven't been confronted by "getting it wrong" by anyone I do think I've heard people make a point of repeating what I should have heard the first time.

I feel very sorry for those who spew anti-PC/anti-Woke rhetoric (e.g. Fox/Tucker-Carlson) as if it is a weapon to be wielded.  It seems very self-destructive.  In spite of feeling a (mostly) innocent casualty of the efforts to help the angry/judgemental/dismissive/prejudiced among us into some level of awareness that they don't *have to be* angry a$$h0les, I am glad that energy has been out there, even if some of the most vocal proponents of it can be people struggling with their own inner demons and needing to work it all out in public by angrily/dismissively correcting others who may very well be more tuned in than they are.  I do beieve that my black/brown/red/yellow/female/queer friends are better off today than they were 40 years ago, and in particular my daughters enjoy a MUCH better experience of being women than I believe my mother, my sister, my partners did in the same phase of life.    Glen's making the point that my very use (in other missives) of "PC" can be *mistaken for* apologetics for Racist/Bigoted behaviour (my characterization) , was useful to me.   Maybe I'll find out if I've "got it (more) right" yet.

By the way, I'm pretty used to being called a "Privileged White (Heteronormative) Male" (as a slur) and I AM trying to take ownership of that term back, understanding that it includes actually *taking ownership OF* the privilege that I might have (partly inherited by whiteness and maleness, but also other things which might not be as easy to identify on visual inspection).   Where I *am* in fact significantly privileged by those inherited (or lucked into) characteristics, then what can/should I do with that privilege?  It's a life's study, I'm old but I'm not done yet.  The default, I find, for most of us seems to be roughly  "squander it" if not "wield it roughshod".    I'm thankful that across the generations I am in touch with (down to, but not much including Millenials), I feel I find many among the "white male privileged" who are providing *some* good examples of how not to "squander" or "wield", including a few notable examples here (if you know who you are, then I'm probably not talking about you <grin> ).  I also (fortunately) have a few women and a few (under) privileged friends of many stripes who sometimes help me expand my understanding and empathy with their grace.  

<to be continued, never-ending-rant>

On 5/6/21 2:05 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Glen,

 

I was trying to start small  . think you are flat out wrong, by the way: I think the principle that “You do not get to say who I am” is deeply entrenched in the principles that 538 listed.

 

I am grateful for the list.  Let's work with it a bit.  See below.

 

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [hidden email] On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 1:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Natures_Queer_Performativity_the_authori.pdf

 

No, that's not a principle of Wokeism. It may be a reactionary misunderstanding of what's being said. (More likely it's an absurdist strawman, intended to help you *avoid* hearing what's being said.) But if you listen closer, you might actually hear what's being said. This article does a pretty good job of listing the drivers:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-ideas-that-are-reshaping-the-democratic-party-and-america/

 

"    1. The United States has often not lived up to the ideals of its founders or the notion that it is an “exceptional” nation that should be a model for other countries. Because the U.S. has disempowered its Native and Black populations and women throughout its history, America has never been a true or full democracy[NST===>Agreed.  Furthermore, the myth of exceptionality arises just because we have had land to expropriate, and native Americans, African Americans, and immigrants to exploit.  See “These Truths” and “1493”<===nst] .

    2. White people, particularly white men, are especially advantaged in American society (“white privilege”).

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

    3. People of color in America suffer from not only individualized and overt acts of racism (someone uses a racial slur, for example) but a broader “systemic” and “institutional” racism.

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

    4. Capitalism as currently practiced in America is deeply flawed, giving way too much money and power to the wealthy. America’s economy should not be set up in a way that allows people to accumulate billions of dollars in wealth.[NST===>Yes, but the focus on Billionaires tends to absolve the millionairs among us (weath, not salary) from responsibility.<===nst]  

    5. Women suffer from systemic sexism.

[NST===> Agreed, but we have to decide if women are different or not and what to do about it.<===nst]

    6. People should be able to identify as whatever gender they prefer or not to identify by gender at all.[NST===>Really?  Are you sure.  If there are no gender roles, than what exactly does  gender mean?  There is surely some weird contradiction here.  <===nst]

    7. The existence of a disparity — for example, Black, Latino or women being underrepresented in a given profession or industry — is evidence of discrimination, even if no overt acts of discrimination are visible.[NST===>Yes, and a large effort should be invested in tracking these disparities, and the new ones that will inevitably arise, and countering them, but see below …<===nst]  

    8. Black Americans deserve reparations to make up for slavery and post-slavery racial discrimination.

[NST===>Absolutely NOT!  We start in the middle, and we start now. We counter the discrimination  that we have right now.   Bugger the sins of our foreparents.  <===nst]

    9. Law enforcement agencies, from local police departments to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are designed to defend America’s status quo as much as any public safety mission. When they treat people of color or the poor badly, they are working as they are designed. So these agencies must be defunded, abolished, disbanded or at least dramatically changed if the goal is to improve their treatment of people of color and the poor.

[NST===>I am tantalized by the suggestion that the actual Idea of a modern police force grows out of the “paterollers” of the South<===nst]

    10. Trump’s political rise was not an aberration or a surprise. Politicians in both parties, particularly Republicans, have long used racialized language to demean people of color — Trump was just more direct and crude about it. And his messages resonated with a lot of Americans, particularly white people and conservatives, because lots of Americans have negative views about people of color, Black people in particular."

[NST===>Agreed<===nst]

 

 

On 5/6/21 12:07 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> One of the first principles of Wokery is that I get to say what you

> call me, right?

 

--

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

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

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/