[OSList] self-organization

Tue Jan 7 16:17:04 PST 2014

Thank you Skye! I will have to dance with your text some more to grasp it.
There is a lot in it. I like your two cents. :)

To clarify, I'm not a Habermasian, even if I sympathise with his social
theory and admire his intellectual honesty.

I agree with you that the organising laws of life is the next frontier -
and maybe there is place for desire, personality, difference in what we
call life/spirit? ;)

A questions: I'm wondering if we sometimes use emergence and
self-organisation inter-changeably and maybe they are different?

Thank you.

Marie Ann

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Paul Nunesdea <nunesdea at me.com> wrote:

> Beautiful inspiring text Skye, I saw in it where I am going.
> Thanks
>
> From my iPad
>
> On 07/01/2014, at 16:33, Skye Hirst <skyeh at autognomics.org> wrote:
>
> At the risk of adding to the mix -  http://www.clarewgraves.com/   you
> might wish to look at Graves work on spiraling development who followed and
> studied human cultural development.
>
>  I think there is a cosmic rhythm in which we all dance and find our way.
> This was Joseph Campbell's summarization of his observations of cultural
> universal myths; There seems to be some way we organize within a cosmic set
> of laws yet discovered,  but laws of coherence such a valuing laws Robert
> S. Hartman's work begins to point in this direction.     But natural
> language discourses usually can be most unsatisfying since everyone brings
> their own vortex of perspective to any view of "reality."  So defining
> terms may help but again not very satisfying.  How do we know what we
> know?  Charles Peirce's work of semiotics, sign processes what asking this
> question. I think you will find he was an influence  of Piaget and Dewey
> moving thoughts in the direction of constructivism/ pragmaticism.  And
> Habermas is trying to find a logic - and that's the hard part when most of
> our logic is based on "thing"  fixedness and life's processes are ever
> evolving.  Up or down the staircase,  there is always a movement,  a new
> becoming - for each living entity.  How it adds up will most likely be
> "self-organized" through our vortex plus that in which we live.  We can
> look back and make some sense of it, but actually only slightly as even in
> looking at facts,  we can change our perception of those facts and now have
> a new reality.
>
> How do we get to the underlying assumptions about reality of Open Space
> Tech?   Rather than define language,  Harrison seems to be pointing to what
> those underlying, most fundamental assumptions and operatives upon and
> through which every act can find its way. Open means never ending - without
> form, until there is need for such and societies form as needed around
> passions towards intentional fulfillments.  Yet even when the coherence
> fulfillment occurs,  the next act begins,  and the next,  all the while we
> move into and out of what works for us, what we value or not (law of two
> feet). It's so complex that to analyze it without understanding the
> fundamentals,  you can get lost.  (Example consider all the ways you can
> move without even knowing about the law of gravity, there is no end to
> choices, yet if you want to go the moon, you need to know about that law of
> gravity, it doesn't say you have to, but if you want to do something that
> requires functioning within that realm, then you will want to know about
> it.  However, we walked around this planet  a long time not knowing this
> law existed.)
>
> I think the organizing laws of life (most different than the laws of
> matter, I hypothesize)  are the new frontier
>
> So if we explore all the ways life self-organizes we may be talking about
> this for a long time each adding our own knowing of the experience.  We get
> richer and deeper perspectives and in the process we may just begin to
> sense the threads that show up and eventually we grow in our understanding
> of our human shared experience.  This is called philosophy - and as
> knowledge expands,  we act with new awareness and I'm beginning to think
> each of us do this in our own way,  within the constraints of our
> "identity", the society and of nature.  This life process is open ended as
> each of us finds our way acting with our best knowledge - within and
> without, and then we get to choose again sensing what "feels" right to us
> and acting/creating anew.   My two cents.  Skye
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Marie Ann Östlund <
> marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John, thank you so much for providing clarity to the discussion. You're
>> right that Piaget talked about developmental stages or cognitive
>> structures, and was interested in the structures of development rather than
>> individual development. I didn't study Piaget more than was required for my
>> study of Habermas, but you're right.
>>
>> Habermas was, and still is, certainly engaged with the idea of social
>> progress, which is a foundational idea in his overall social theory, but
>> his interest does not lie in historical development but in the *logic of
>> development* (which was also Piaget's interest). I found David Owen's *Between
>> Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Social Progress* really
>> useful in clarifying Habermas' social theory - and you may find it here:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rsk84z0wy6v7nsj/OWEN%20Habermas%20and%20the%20Idea%20of%20Progress%20%282002%29.pdfIf you're interested. :) Habermas did speak about progress and about
>> consciousness, but wasn't interested in the historical facts and content of
>> consciousness, but in the structure and logic of societal progress and the
>> evolution of consciousness. Owen likens development logic with a staircase
>> - one may move up, or down or remain stationary, the movements follow a
>> certain logic. Why and when one moves up and down the stairs is a
>> contingent matter, but when one moves one has to follow a certain logic.
>> When societies step up a stair they have expanded their consciousness,
>> meaning learning capacity, when they step down, their learning capacity or
>> horizon of consciousness constricts. I never thought I'd read about
>> expansion of consciousness when reading Habermas, but did. :)
>>
>> Habermas has been interested in the staircase, not in the belief in
>> progress per se. But I would say that his main interest has been solidarity
>> - what makes people bond and cooperate, and thus what makes societies stick
>> together. That's why he's been interested in communication.
>>
>> Marie Ann
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:39 AM, John Watkins <johnw536 at mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul and Marie Ann,
>>>
>>> There are some pretty loose uses of terms in this conversation I'd like
>>> to challenge.  I don't think Piaget ever talked about human evolution, nor
>>> about an individual "evolving," nor about societal cognitive development
>>> over time.  He did develop a theory about individual human cognitive
>>> development, that involved several stages (sensorimotor, pre-operational,
>>> concrete operations, and formal operational stages) and two different
>>> processes (assimilation and accommodation) of concept/category development.
>>>  It's also a constructivist theory of knowledge in general, positing an
>>> active cognitive construction of our understanding of the world around us.
>>>  Here is a good summary from the Wikipedia page on his theory:
>>>
>>> "Piaget's theory of cognitive development is a comprehensive theory
>>> about the nature and development of human intelligence, first developed by
>>> Jean Piaget. It is primarily known as a developmental stage theory, but in
>>> fact, it deals with the nature of knowledge itself and how humans come
>>> gradually to acquire, construct, and use it. To Piaget, cognitive
>>> development was a progressive reorganization of mental processes as a
>>> result of biological maturation and environmental experience. Children
>>> construct an understanding of the world around them, then experience
>>> discrepancies between what they already know and what they discover in
>>> their environment.[1] Moreover, Piaget claims the idea that cognitive
>>> development is at the center of human organism and language is contingent
>>> on cognitive development. Below, there is first a short description of
>>> Piaget's views about the nature of intelligence and then a description of
>>> the stages through which it develops until maturity. "However, research has
>>> shown that not all persons in all cultures reach formal operations, and
>>> most people do not use formal operations in all aspects of their lives."[2]"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_theory_of_cognitive_development
>>>
>>> People have contested parts of his theory because of the seeming
>>> rigidity of the stages, and people have modified it with social learning
>>> theory (Vygotsky, Wenger). As far as I know, none of these people posited
>>> that individual development is mirrored in the development of human society
>>> (other than the seemingly unrelated argument of recapitulation theory,
>>> "ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny"), which argues that an individual
>>> organism's physical development from once cell to fully formed takes it
>>> through all the evolutionary precursors of its species.  And seemingly the
>>> opposite of what you are saying, he argues that language is contingent on
>>> cognitive development, not the other way around.
>>>
>>> I think Habermas, as a member of the Frankfurt School, was trying to
>>> find a way around the problems in critical theory of "false consciousness"
>>> when he proposed his ideas about communicative competence as a way to
>>> transcend social orders based on ideology (and the languages and
>>> communication forms specific to technical and social discourses).  He was
>>> concerned with conditions that would allow for social change in settings
>>> constrained by ideology, and thus proposed the idea of "emancipatory
>>> knowledge," that could arise in social communicative interactions that he
>>> called "linguistic intersubjectivity." Though the Frankfurt School are
>>> neo-Marxists, I doubt that Habermas and his followers were strong believers
>>> in "progress," the only word I can think of that might be what you mean by
>>> societal evolution, though, I suppose one could call that a materialist
>>> form of social evolution (I just wonder at the precision of the use of the
>>> term, "evolution," in this context).  If communicative competence is the
>>> main way he saw to move beyond ideologically constrained realities and
>>> achieve social justice, then it must be a precarious and necessarily
>>> recursive strategy at best.  You could argue that epistemologically, Piaget
>>> and Habermas might have been somewhat similar in being anti-postivists, one
>>> being a cognitive constructivist and the other a social constructivist.
>>>  But I think the similarities end there.  I don't think either of them
>>> really talked about the evolution of consciousness.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Marie Ann Östlund wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi Paul,
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for that. I'm not well versed in these theories but I know
>>> that Habermas have used Piaget's theory of human evolution to describe
>>> evolution of human society. What I find attractive with his view is his
>>> emphasis on communication as the motor of evolution - human conciousness
>>> evolves through interaction with others and become less egoistic or
>>> self-centred. However, this evolution is not inevitable. That's why
>>> Habermas is so concerned with the communicative side of society. It is
>>> through our interaction with others that our self-centredness is challenged
>>> and hopefully modified.
>>> >
>>> > Others have challenged the view that it's possible to compare the
>>> evolution of consciousness - from childhood to youth - with the evolution
>>> of society. Still others don't agree with Piaget's theory (within his
>>> field) but I don't know their objections.
>>> >
>>> > But if we use the idea that evolution of consciousness means becoming
>>> less self-centred and more conscious of others - are we sure that human
>>> society is evolving? And if we are, is it from a historical low-point (20th
>>> century wasn't particularly wonderful, considering the WWs, Cold War etc.)
>>> or has it progressed steadily from time immemorial? From what historical
>>> point do we take our measure? From where, which continent, and what are we
>>> measuring?
>>> >
>>> > I'm conscious that I'm questioning some commonly held assumptions, and
>>> you might find it ridiculous of me to do so. But that's what fools are for
>>> :)
>>> >
>>> > Marie Ann
>>> >
>>> > Skickat från min iPhone
>>> >
>>> > 6 jan 2014 kl. 22:38 skrev Paul Nunesdea <nunesdea at me.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Marie Ann,
>>> >>
>>> >> I apologise if interrupting an otherwise interesting conversation
>>> here with but when you ask
>>> >>> interested to know what you base your idea that human consciousness
>>> has "clearly evolved". :)
>>> >>
>>> >> Piaget and others have written about how human consciousness evolves
>>> from birth to adult life.
>>> >>
>>> >> Most of this knowledge derives from cheer observation of small
>>> child's behaviour.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you extrapolate this findings to our own evolution as a species
>>> wouldn't it be natural that this same self-developing path applies to this
>>> other dimension of 'being human'?
>>> >>
>>> >> Happy new year!!
>>> >>
>>> >> From my iPad
>>> >>
>>> >> On 06/01/2014, at 18:02, Marie Ann Östlund <
>>> marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi Paul,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I do agree that Open Space is a form of organising - a beautiful and
>>> eloquent one, as you say. If we bring 200 people in a room without any set
>>> up, principles, law, facilitator etc, it most probably be quite a different
>>> meeting than an Open Space meeting. So yes, a form of organising.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Interesting view on self-organising. I hear what you're saying, and
>>> I think many esoterically inclined on the list would agree. I'm
>>> esoterically inclined, but don't quite agree. But that's not the point.
>>> This discussion helps me understand how some of you define and view
>>> self-organisation, and why you talk about it in the way you do.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'd be interested to know what you base your idea that human
>>> consciousness has "clearly evolved". :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Marie Ann
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:
>>> >>> HI Marie
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm suggesting quite the opposite. Truth doesn't always elude us
>>> because we are both tiny and universal.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Open Space is a form of organisation. It is a minimally structured
>>> process that enables BOTH selves and the SELF to organise.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Self-organisation is the act of the self, organising. The self is
>>> microcosmic, realised in the emergent, incarnated individual self, and
>>> macrocosmic in the holism (whole-ism) of the universe. Diversity lies in
>>> between, different levels and qualities of consciousness.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As consciousness in our human selves has clearly been evolving,
>>> we've gone through various stages. Egoism has tended to both harden the
>>> self and lead to overstructure as those selves attempt to enclose and gain
>>> control over nature. Minimal structuring and organisation is an antidote to
>>> overstructure. Open Space Technology is such a minimal structure. And, oh
>>> yes, a structure it is. A beautiful, eloquent one.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Paul
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 2 January 2014 23:37, Marie Ann Östlund <
>>> marieann.ostlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>> Thank you Paul. I'm not sure how to respond or if I need to. :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Truth with always elude us since we're tiny. But that doesn't mean
>>> we shouldn't try to understand. And as you say: "Perhaps it's us
>>> self-organising so the self might know it" That's what I'm suggesting. Our
>>> experiences might help us towards some more coherence.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Marie Ann
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:09 PM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> Of course, all of these wonderful statements about what
>>> self-organisation is, are organising statements !
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Open Space Technology itself, minimal as it is, is an organising
>>> process.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I do enjoy lazy philosophy. It's part of our mysterious humanity.
>>> And making statements about self-organisation is like trying to bite your
>>> own teeth. You can't grasp this particular spiritual feather because you
>>> are the feather, the wind, the blowing and even the story of it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Though, perhaps the "self" in self-organisation really does refer to
>>> the human self.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The eye is formed by the light, for the light. Perhaps it's us
>>> self-organising so the self might know it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Happy New Year
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Paul Levy
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Monday, 30 December 2013, Daniel Mezick wrote:
>>> >>> Such a rich topic! Thanks to Marie Ann Östlund for opening this
>>> topic.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am compelled to add the following words (verbatim) from RIGHTS OF
>>> MAN, by Thomas Paine. The book is quite an interesting read for folks like
>>> us. It tends to confirm and join with all of Harrison's key points.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My favorite quote in the book:
>>> >>> "...society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed
>>> to government."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> When he says [society] in the text, he means groups to people who
>>> are self-organizing, according to natural propensity.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The whole book is here, for free:
>>> >>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2H_4_0007
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Quoting below, from this specific section:
>>> >>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3742/3742-h/3742-h.htm#link2HCH0001
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Will you pardon my forwardness? I've taken the liberty of bolding a
>>> few words for emphasis:
>>> >>> "So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the
>>> abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, that it
>>> acts by a contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All
>>> that part of its organisation which it had committed to its government,
>>> devolves again upon itself, and acts through its medium. When men, as well
>>> from natural instinct as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated
>>> themselves to social and civilised life, there is always enough of its
>>> principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find
>>> necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so
>>> naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out
>>> of it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Formal government makes but a small part of civilised life; and
>>> when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a
>>> thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and
>>> fundamental principles of society and civilisation—to the common usage
>>> universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained—to the
>>> unceasing circulation of interest, which, passing through its million
>>> channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilised man—it is to these
>>> things, infinitely more than to anything which even the best instituted
>>> government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual
>>> and of the whole depends.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "The more perfect civilisation is, the less occasion has it for
>>> government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern
>>> itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of
>>> the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought
>>> to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilised life requires, and
>>> those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the
>>> forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we
>>> consider what the principles are that first condense men into society, and
>>> what are the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we
>>> shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly
>>> the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the
>>> parts upon each other.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of
>>> consistency than he is aware, or than governments would wish him to
>>> believe. All the great laws of society are laws of nature. Those of trade
>>> and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of
>>> nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and
>>> obeyed, because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on
>>> account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ***
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 12/30/13 11:10 AM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>>> >>>> Marie – I think you have it just right. But maybe you are making
>>> things a little too complicated, and working a bit too hard. In my simple
>>> mind, things look like this. First: All systems are self organizing, even
>>> those we think we organize. Second: Organizing a self organizing system is
>>> not only an oxymoron, but stupid – especially when the system can do a
>>> better job all by itself. Third: Whenever we try to organize a
>>> self-organizing system, we inevitably get it wrong. Our efforts are
>>> “clunky.” Even though it may look great on paper, our efforts are never
>>> subtle or flexible (agile) enough. Fourth: Open Space is simply an
>>> invitation to self organize. In other words it is simply an invitation to
>>> be and do what we are. The fact that it works as it does has nothing to do
>>> with our knowing any philosophy, principles, practices... It works as it
>>> has for 13.7 billion years, long before we arrived on the scene, all
>>> without our help and assistance. Fifth: the real value of OST is as a
>>> training program enabling us to experience consciously and intentionally
>>> what all too often passes by unnoticed – Life. It is also a marvelous
>>> laboratory in which we can learn more about our natural state. And oh yes –
>>> all the principles, philosophies, practices, etc are fun, interesting, and
>>> useful to the extent that they help us to understand with greater clarity
>>> what is really going on. But at the end of the day they really don’t change
>>> a thing. I think.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> ho
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Harrison Owen
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 7808 River Falls Dr.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Potomac, MD 20854
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> USA
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Camden, Maine 04843
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Phone 301-365-2093
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> (summer)  207-763-3261
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> www.openspaceworld.com
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> www.ho-image.com (Personal Website)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives
>>> of OSLIST Go to:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> OSList mailing list
>>> >>>> To post send emails to
>>> >>>> OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> >>>> OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Daniel Mezick, President
>>> >>>
>>> >>> New Technology Solutions Inc.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> (203) 915 7248 (cell)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bio. Blog. Twitter.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Examine my new book:  The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Explore the Agile Boston Community.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> OSList mailing list
>>> >>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> OSList mailing list
>>> >>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> OSList mailing list
>>> >>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> OSList mailing list
>>> >>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> OSList mailing list
>>> >> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> >> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OSList mailing list
>>> > To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OSList mailing list
>>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OSList mailing list
>> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
>> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
>> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Skye Hirst, PhD*
> President - The Autognomics Institute
> *Conversations in the Ways of Life-itself*
> www.autognomics.org
> @autognomics
>
> New Phone Number:
> 207-593-8074
>
>  _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OSList mailing list
> To post send emails to OSList at lists.openspacetech.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to OSList-leave at lists.openspacetech.org
> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140108/08ef70ee/attachment-0008.htm>