Print

Print


Luc & Roger

Thank you both for these insightful comments. Very helpful.

And Luc, congratulations on becoming a grandfather -- I know that you will
have noticed the new subtle energy shift that occurs as a new living octave
emerges in the family domain (through Grace no doubt, although Dawkins would
call it a gene thing I guess).

regards
Russell

On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Yes,
>
> Indeed, Luc, the important thing for me in Maturana's 'structural drift' is
> its conscious distancing from any notions of historical or genetic
> determinism. Dawkins is a strange instance. In terms evolutionary dynamics
> he is forced to reject purpose, but one always sense a desire for purpose to
> be lurking in his discourse. The thing I liked about the recent presentation
> that Russell referenced, is that Dawkins appears to be making an effort to
> 'reign in' this yearning for some sort of other '-ism'.
>
>
> Roger
>
>
> On 2 Jan 2011, at 15:03, Luc Hoebeke wrote:
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> The problem are not Friedman and Dawkins but the way they are abused behind
> ideological "determinisms" through the media. The only problem I have with
> Dawkins is his use of a teleology in his word creating programme to prove
> "randomness". He had to inject a phrase to obtain a sensible phrase (the
> Blind Watchmaker). Now if you reject teleology don't use it to prove your
> rejection. That's where ideology steps in. The concept of a selfish gene is
> a mess up of "languaging" and Dawkins got trapped in his representationist
> way of thinking. But, I agree, he ha more depth than Friedman.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Luc
>
>
> Op 2-jan-11, om 15:47 heeft Roger Harnden het volgende geschreven:
>
> Yes, Luc, I go along with all that.
>
> Slight caveat e Dawkins and Friedman. I think we might be confusing 'style'
> with 'content'.
>
> Bot men are fanatics, though in slightly different ways. But that does not
> at all negate everything each one says or writes. With fanatics, we make a
> mistake if we 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Roger
> On 2 Jan 2011, at 14:00, Luc Hoebeke wrote:
>
> Dear Roger,
>
> I like the way you understand me.
> Amelioration is making better (my book is named making work systems
> better), but I don't specify what "better" is, because this is a political
> decision, a decision for the polis, and thus a value judgment. Eudemony is
> not a pre-defined state, but a judgment which has to be made continuously.
> Pain and suffering are also value judgments and not "objective" facts. This
> is the reason why I am strongly resisting those who try to define others as
> "victims". Remember how the local people in the Wild Coast rejected to be
> defined as "destitute" because their income was lower than 2 $ a day. I am
> on their side, and not on the side of their victimizers.
> This brings me to this question of "jobs". In the beginning of the 80's I
> wrote an article for Human Systems Development making the distinction
> between labour, employment and work. Employment is a modern form of slavery
> which replaced the  slavery of the Ancien Régime. What is avoided nowadays
> is the concept of "income": every human being has a right to have his/her
> basic needs met: food, shelter, security. No "employment" is necessary to
> achieve this goal. What is inevitable is labour, which is spending effort
> and energy, and work, which is meaningful labour fot the one spending his
> energy and effort. The basic metaphor is "a woman in labour" and the child
> as the product of her work (here is a recent proud grandfather writing).
> When the younger generation is looking out for "jobs" and "employment" they
> get trapped in the discourse of those who need them for voluntary slavery. I
> think that the "elite" unconsciously created the crisis and its consequences
> to avoid the issue of the right to a basic income and to an eudemonic world
> where the human species accepts to become part of nature and not to pursue
> its exploitative role, the tendency to create slavery everywhere by those
> anxious to maintain their illusory power. Setting the younger generation
> agains the older one is a classical: divide ut imperat trick. The media
> which have lost mostly their critical function because they are paid by
> advertising for the powers in place, play the game for those in "power".
> This is why I am very critical about the hype with people as Dawkins or
> Friedman, because their message is fundamentally deterministic: they
> scientifically define what human nature is and put themselves beyond the
> political dimension entailed by the concept of eudemony. They have not the
> slightest idea about what a conversation is in Pask's terms.
> POSIWID is the language I use to start conversations in every occasion I
> have to talk.
>
> All the best for 2011, which I think is a prime number.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Luc
>
>
> Op 2-jan-11, om 14:11 heeft Roger Harnden het volgende geschreven:
>
> Russell,
>
> I'm still not sure where you're coming from - I mean in a positive, not a
> negative way.
>
> I see a difference between attempts at prescription and attempts to be
> descriptive. Obviously, as a constructivist I know the two are braided
> together, sometimes pathologically, but still there IS a distinction.
>
> Many of the 'items' identified by Friedman strike me as observable. Now,
> whether or not those observations imply 'proposed solutions', and what
> comprise those solutions is rather different.
>
> The main thing that I keyed into was the simple proposition of the need for
> as many people as possible to have access to global connectivity (what I
> refer to as ENS). I simply can't see this as anything other than a truism.
>
> I think everything else (including symptoms you and others mention) concern
> other things - such as failures in representative or consensus politics,
> persistence of educational and economic inequality etc..
>
> The 'flattening' (as Friedman's Q & A0 make clear), surely concerns
> potential NOT actual.
>
> I suppose, Russel, maybe where you and I sometimes get in a tangle is that
> I tend to talk about long-term trends, where you (and Luc) are immersed in
> (and preoccupied with) immediate measures that might alleviate pain and
> suffering in transition states. I suppose, from Luc's perspective (I am
> presumptuous in assuming this, but I do think about things he has said)
> social living is ALWAYS a transition state, requiring some sort of
> amelioration.
>
> And I am aware that my point of view sometimes seems to ignore this because
> of a fascination on the shape of the trends,
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> The quotes you refer indeed strike me also as informative about a possibly
> shifting mood and tone. I think what we are witnessing is the insights of
> the seventies and eighties (which were ignored) concerning the impact of
> automation etc, coming home to roost. Since then we have been (falsely)
> driven by a stated need to 'provide more jobs', instead of 'plan for the
> future when there are few jobs'. I have all my working life been puzzled by
> the drive for something called 'full-employment' which equates 'employment'
> with 'paid work' instead of 'paid' something else.
>
>
>
> Roger
> On 2 Jan 2011, at 04:00, russell_c wrote:
>
> This type of thing catches my eye, Roger.
>
> The outrage of the young has erupted, sometimes violently, on the streets
> of Greece and Italy in recent weeks, as students and more radical anarchists
> protest not only specific austerity measures in flattened economies but a
> rising reality in Southern Europe: People like Ms. Esposito feel
> increasingly shut out of their own futures. Experts warn of volatility in
> state finances and the broader society as the most highly educated
> generation in the history of the Mediterranean hits one of its worst job
> markets.
>
> Politicians are slowly beginning to take notice. Italy’s president, Giorgio
> Napolitano, devoted his year-end message on Friday to “the pervasive malaise
> among young people,” weeks after protests against budget cuts to the
> university system brought the issue to the fore.
>
> Giuliano Amato, an economist and former Italian prime minister, was even
> more blunt. “By now, only a few people refuse to understand that youth
> protests aren’t a protest against the university reform, but against a
> general situation in which the older generations have eaten the future of
> the younger ones,” he recently told Corriere della Sera, Italy’s largest
> newspaper.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/world/europe/02youth.html
>
> The phrase: "the most highly educated generation in the history of the
> Mediterranean hits one of its worst job markets" -- a classic environment
> described in Norman Cohn's *The Pursuit of the Millennium -- e.g. *
> http://www.notbored.org/cohn.html
>
> BTW: my little annual 'future scan' at the New Year sees one emerging weak
> signal in an increase in the number of references to Karl Marx in cometary.
> I'd suggest perhaps some people are re-reading him in light of recent
> trends.
>
> Russia can also now pipe oil to China and Europe.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12103865   And China is
> offering the EU a bailout for greater access to technology IP etc and Latin
> America coming online
> http://english.aljazeera.net/video/americas/2011/01/20111155519698705.html
> .
>
> With a *Free Spirit* (see Cohn) like ethos emerging within the
> Environmental movements we may be approaching a new tipping point.
>
> With rising unemployment and under employment we may begin to see the
> beginning of a questioning of the meaning of "work" and its relationship to
> a 'good life'. This is not a new idea. Is unemployment so bad in itself?
>
> If the slogan "Never work" doesn't strike you as *heresy,* it can only be
> because -- after centuries of becoming historical -- the dream of not
> working is no longer an illusion or a matter of speculative doctrine. Never
> working has become something for the eye to see and desire, and for the hand
> to reach out for, hold and enjoy. (http://www.notbored.org/cohn.html)
>
> Whether they were Dark Ages or Middle Ages (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages) , we are all headed for Old Ages.
> This time was around when a bunch of Irish monks fell down a hole in St
> Gallen, Switzerland while on walk-about. Why were they walking about?
> Economic recession in Ireland? Did the banking system fail?
>
> Russell
>
>
> (*) I take this view in referring to it.
>
> On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians
> today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the
> events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the scarcity of
> artistic and cultural output,[12] including historical records, when
> compared with both earlier and later times.
> And I see a difference between "artistic and cultural output" and
> data/information output.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Stefan Wasilewski <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> acronym ;-)
>>
>> On 1 Jan 2011, at 12:22, russell_c wrote:
>>
>> Is "crap" a new technical term?
>>
>> Having been through a very political IT outsourcing exercise in the late
>> 1990's, which was not rational, and lead to one of my staff committing
>> suicide some time later after the new US company chewed him up and spat him
>> out (PHD in Chemistry and quiet achiever, two beautiful twin daughters), I
>> can confirm that, in my experience, it is not 'good'.
>>
>> I'm just following the logic of the lecture -- it is efficient (or claims
>> to be). "Good" and "natural" do not come into it imo. The logic (e.g. of the
>> brown shorts men) is: they can specialise and then provide a service more
>> efficiently. The host company retains the identity and franchise etc -- and
>> one assumes the improved bottom-line profit result.
>>
>> I understand the logic, and it may work well in some cases, but I'm not
>> sure I agree when all the more w/holistic longer-term factors are taken into
>> consideration. But in economic rationalism they are externalities.
>> Sustainability etc is the new ethos that tries to address the larger/broader
>> stakeholder theory (as distinct to shareholder theory). The 'court case' on
>> these two theories is still running I believe.
>>
>> If your comment's focus is on "resource management" -- then I'd say, from
>> a VSM perspective: what does it matter, as long as the contractual linkages
>> are robust and clear and suit the S3 etc?
>>
>> And in part answer to one of Roger's points (which I'll get to later) --
>> Ozz is shipping natural resources to China as if there is no tomorrow. Money
>> everywhere except in people's pockets (who do not work in the mining/energy
>> sectors). We have a major outbreak of 'Dutch Disease' in New Holland! Local
>> businesses were promised the great bounty (but not the regulations to
>> enforce it as that is against ideology!) -- but they are going broke because
>> they cannot complete with Asian manufacturing and fabrication costs. The
>> focus at present is on how to get a fair share in the global supply chain
>> that these huge resource conglomerates are, and use. There is also so much
>> 'inside' trading that the tax systems struggle even work out who is trading
>> with whom or whether it is just internal company operations! Boundaries!!!
>>
>> BUT it is Saturday night on New Year's Day here and I'm off for some R&R!
>> ... ;-)
>>
>> Russell
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Stefan Wasilewski <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>> There's a lot to consider in your email Russell (as usual) so I'll pick
>>> up on one thing.
>>>
>>> Are you saying outsourcing is a natural and good thing to have because of
>>> resource management? If so crap!
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Jan 2011, at 10:12, Roger Harnden wrote:
>>>
>>> Russell,
>>>
>>> On 1 Jan 2011, at 01:23, russell_c wrote:
>>>
>>> My 2 cents worth.
>>>
>>> I think Friedman has picked the emerging and defining trends well (for
>>> 2005) but is a little rosy eyed on the social-political implications. As we
>>> see now, it was the USA that hit the road bump and everyone else's wheels
>>> fell off except China.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is about 'social-political implications. It's about
>>> observing and recognising infrastructural changes and THEN thinking about
>>> governance issues in the light of the implications of such changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Criticizing China's political system while speaking from Singapore, where
>>> the same family/group has run the place since inception ('liberation' from
>>> British rule), is a bit cheeky. He does not seem to see a connection between
>>> socio-cultural factors being aligned and good governance. The US model of
>>> 'freedom' works for the US -- Singapore synergises the Chinese/Indian.
>>>
>>> Well, I didn't pick this criticism up as strongly as have you. The
>>> nearest was to equate India and China to two super-highways - India's with
>>> cracks and weeds but perhaps opening into a smoother future in the distance;
>>> Chiina's an exquisite road surface with a whole population driving along at
>>> 80 miles and hour and a speed bump somewhere ahead.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think his horizontal (flat) concept is very VSM friendly --
>>> outsourcing/insourcing is all system 1/2 etc. The future is supply-chain
>>> control which is network control and not 'command and control'.
>>>
>>> This is the real point from a management cybernetic point of view,
>>> Russell.
>>>
>>>
>>> The notion of identity (and hence S3/5 and boundary for profit) is now
>>> increasingly the task -- i.e. how to define net benefit for share/stake
>>> holders. So it is three levels of S5 interacting to produce (the capacity
>>> for) eudemony -- i.e. country/nation -- company/corporation --
>>> individual/family.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you mean, here.
>>>
>>>
>>> The classic problem still exists -- closing the circle via capital
>>> (dividend) or labour/employment. Unemployment at personal level implies
>>> disconnect with corporate level (including state public services and ngo
>>> welfare organisations etc) which in turn decouple from the nation-state
>>> concept.
>>>
>>> I think this issue though currently prevalent is withering on the vine,
>>> but its withering will lead to major social and political unrest in all
>>> countries.
>>>
>>>
>>> The biggest risk for many US (and others) industrial systems today is
>>> that peace will break out.  The risk for many smaller nations states in the
>>> near future is that it won't. And I note the rhetoric these days is about
>>> troop pull out (US/Nato) while handing over to mercinary hirelings
>>> (Blackwater in all its variants). Where as war gives some sense of identity
>>> (who the enemy is), corporate security force employee does not quite have
>>> the same ring to it.
>>>
>>> Totally agree - but this has nothing to do with the 'flat' world, and
>>> everything to do with the global one.
>>>
>>>
>>> A globalised 'viable network' will be the innovative inter-meshing of
>>> viable system elements into producing the 'juice' for the owners and
>>> participants across a globalised planet economy. But how are the benefits
>>> fairly distributed? And be seen to be so! We are likely to see the UN
>>> dissolve in the next decade as the US pulls funding (they cannot get the
>>> arms sales through UN funding as they can through bilateral agreements).
>>> What then?
>>>
>>> Bah! How are the benefits ever fairly distributed, and when were they
>>> ever.  US clout will massively decrease in this timescxale, with all sorts
>>> of consequences,.
>>>
>>> However, what he fails to see (and we are seeing it now) is the blow-back
>>> of new protectionism. It may well be that his development versions 1,2,&3
>>> (1492 to the present, i.e. focus from countries, companies, individual)
>>> reflect mega-trends. However, after the cargo-cult orgy there is the
>>> 'morning after' when the mums and dads and kids wake up in fright at the
>>> socio-economic Luna landscape they find outside their newly foreclosed front
>>> door.
>>>
>>> Once more, I am lost here, Russell. I think I live in a different world
>>> than you do.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is sobering to see globalization ideology and inertia still driving
>>> economic and foreign policy today. But what is the alternative? The Net
>>> itself becomes the 'Wall' which our plastic cards either engage with or not.
>>> In fact the cards and their id information is the wall as well. Being
>>> 'beyond the pale', as Assange is discovering, is only a mouse click away.
>>> But who is making the decisions? Us or them? Or can we even use that split
>>> sensibly in this new world order?
>>>
>>> This once more is perhaps your key point, Russell. 'What is the
>>> alternative?' I hear it all the time in political debate in UK. What a
>>> kop-out! They even all said that a coalition was not an alternative - well,
>>> believe it or not (even ignoring the case of Germany) it IS!!
>>>
>>>
>>> There is still some Utopian idealism in play today but I think it is
>>> equally possible we are entering a new Dark Ages where high mobility (in
>>> mobile homes) and lack of writing (just uploads into the You Tube system
>>> etc) become the norm in many areas. Interesting times indeed!
>>>
>>> Russell! l;l my previous comments about your cynicism here come home to
>>> roost!!!☺
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>
>>> Russell
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Trevor E Hilder <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Roger,
>>>>
>>>> I can't argue with anything you say here.
>>>>
>>>> Happy New Year :-)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>   Trevor
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Dec 2010, at 20:07, Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Trevor,
>>>>
>>>> I totally go along  with your sentiments and unease, which I find with
>>>> you is often the case. But, as I said, person (and motives) don't
>>>> necessarily negate arguments. Stafford forcefully instructed me in
>>>> McCulloch's imperative - "Don't bit my finger, llok where it's pointing!".
>>>>
>>>> The reason why I posted the URL for the clip (and why such clips are
>>>> valuable) is that people can quickly make up their own minds without
>>>> spending the hours needed to digest the book (as did you and I), and without
>>>> relying on third party commentaries. And in between the USA-ism and the
>>>> corporatism, there are a number of really good points......
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Dec 2010, at 18:29, Trevor E Hilder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Roger,
>>>>
>>>> My suspicions about the book were aroused by the fact that I first heard
>>>> about it from a friend to whom it was recommended by an economist who was
>>>> getting paid absurd sums of money (including multi-million dollar bonuses)
>>>> by one of the big US merchant banks. Call me cynical, but anything that gets
>>>> recommended by such people immediately makes me nervous :-)
>>>>
>>>> I suppose my view is that the world is "flatter" than it was, but it
>>>> still isn't very "flat". The increased flatness is mostly to the
>>>> disadvantage of badly educated and poorly informed people in the Western
>>>> world. This is a particular problem for "ordinary" British and American
>>>> citizens, who find themselves either unemployed or forced into increasingly
>>>> pointless and badly paid jobs providing unnecessary "services" to people who
>>>> already have more stuff than they could possibly need.
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Dec 2010, at 17:55, Roger Harnden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 'The World is Flat'. And I sent a URL for those who haven't the time to
>>>> read the book, to get a sense of it from a presentation from the author,
>>>> Thomas Friedman:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcK3b9qlBfk&feature=channel>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcK3b9qlBfk&feature=channel
>>>>
>>>> The only problem (which I imagine I find as distasteful as does Trevor)
>>>> is that Friedman appears to put 'free trade US' at the centre- when it
>>>> wasn't!.
>>>>
>>>> But I don't think this flaw takes anything away from the argument that
>>>> the world is a 'smaller' place with more equal opportunities for more
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>> On 31 Dec 2010, at 17:43, Paul Stokes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  What book are you guys talking about?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>   *From:* Roger Harnden <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 31, 2010 5:10 PM
>>>> *To:* <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> *Subject:* Re: The World is Flat
>>>>  I disagree, Trevor. I too have read the book. It's a case of the devil
>>>> (him) making an actually very insightful point. Don't shoot the messenger!
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>>>
>>>>  On 31 Dec 2010, at 16:37, Trevor E Hilder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Dear Roger,
>>>>
>>>> Hope your Christmas was merry and here's to a Happy New Year!
>>>>
>>>> I've read the book. The world isn't as flat as he makes out. I think
>>>> this is a variant of the old Trickle Down Theory of economic development. It
>>>> provides a comforting idea that everything will turn out just fine without
>>>> anybody actually having to make any ethical decisions or doing anything
>>>> other than what they were going to do anyway.
>>>>
>>>> If the book was more truthful, Friedman would be a lot less popular than
>>>> he is!
>>>>
>>>>  On 31 Dec 2010, at 16:28, Roger Harnden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
> information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
> Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
> eList Archive available at -
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
> available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
> information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
> Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
> eList Archive available at -
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
> available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
> information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
> Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
> eList Archive available at -
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
> available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
> information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
> Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
> eList Archive available at -
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
> available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For more
> information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum Collaborative
> Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org METAPHORUM
> eList Archive available at -
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html Archive of CYBCOM eList
> available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~