[Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning - [chaotic issues]

[Mark Johnson]

Excuse the obvious error re. the Law of Crossing!!

On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 at 13:10, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Lou, Joe and Terry,
>
> I want to add something about transduction from Stafford Beer because I
> think it is highly germane both to the issue of boundaries, and to the
> issue of energy and antagonism which I understand is so important to Joe.
> Personally, I find the antagonisms (maybe between Joe and Lou, pro and anti
> GSB, etc) on the list productive, but they are invitations to enter the
> detail of the dispute - to coin another of Beer's phrases, it's about
> getting "Beyond Dispute"
>
> I've attached a couple of scans of Beer's "Diagnosing the System for
> Organisations". This is a practical book, full of diagrams for teaching
> managers about cybernetics. It uses a similar "E-prime" style to LoF,
> presenting instructions for taking simple steps (e.g. "NOW DO THIS..."). It
> is also not only about management, but about viable organisation in
> general.
>
> Transduction is one of the basic concepts Beer introduces - he says
> "Whenever the information carried on a channel capable of distinguishing a
> given variety crosses a boundary, it undergoes transduction; the variety of
> the transducer must be at least equivalent to the variety of the channel.".
> In order for this transduction to work, there must be attenuation and
> amplification on the channel so as to ensure that the variety on the
> channel equals the variety of the transducer.
>
> My personal view on this is that attenuation is selection of signals to
> those signals which "matter", while amplification is the generation of
> redundancy in order to assist in the construction of a niche for the
> transduction to take place (rather like in Ulanowicz, and Leydesdorff) -
> think about a spider spinning a web... Without attenuation and
> amplification, transduction can't work.
>
> This detail about transduction is particularly interesting with regard to
> the philosophy of information - particularly that of Gilbert Simondon,
> whose work revolves around this concept. Simondon's work is related to that
> of Stephane Lupasco - I don't know, Joe, if you know more about their
> relationship, but as I understand it, both Lupasco and Simondon place
> emphasis on energy flow and antagonism.
>
> In Lou's work antagonism appears through exploring the full implications
> of self-reference and LoF marks. I understand Joe's objection to the binary
> aspect of this, but following Lou's thought through to the emergence of
> 3-dimensionality, quaternions, time, quantum mechanics, etc takes us to a
> similar place where antagonistic forces co-exist simultaneously - between
> figure and ground, idealism and realism, marked and unmarked, formal
> systems and undecidability, etc. It can give rise to higher-order
> organisation, particularly in the world of quaternions - see Peter Rowlands
> work, which Lou mentioned earlier.
>
> There is more that unites than divides - and that which divides is
> productive.
>
> It is curious that "transduction" today is almost always considered a
> cell-biological term. But maybe that provides a clue as to the difference
> (and the opportunity) between human organisation and biological cell
> organisation. Cellular transduction is an empirical example of energy flow
> in nature and viable organisation. Surely it must embrace antagonism and
> higher-order emergence just as Joe says here: Linking the Tao, biomathics
> and information through the logic of energy - ScienceDirect
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610717300792__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KBWjWYXs$ >.
> How does it do it? And why can't we?
>
> John Torday would say that it works through symbiogenesis - endogenising
> the environment in one way or another. It's a position which at least has
> the benefit of some empirical data. Coming back to LoF, the cell boundary
> isn't just crossed so that what was unmarked becomes marked, but crossing
> the boundary changes the transducers. Whether GSB's Law of Crossing {{}} =
> {} applies here, I've never been convinced (I think a mapping to reality is
> probably an epistemological error). But Lou shows how the axioms that {}{}
> = , and {{}} = {} do lead to a sophisticated dimensional mathematical
> landscape which can be used in a practical way.
>
> What I'm saying is that it isn't either/or, but both - I'd appreciate any
> thoughts on this. How would our thinking and our discourse be different if
> we operated on those principles?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 19:40, Terrence W Deacon <deacon at berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Louis, Mark, and all,
>>
>>
>>      I have remained a spectator in these last two threads of discussion,
>> even though the nature of emotion is of particular interest to me from a
>> neurophysiological perspective (and I think is largely misunderstood both
>> philosophically and in the cognitive neurosciences).
>>
>>      I also have a particular fondness for GSB's *Laws of Form* and its
>> semiotic and Gödelian implications (as should be evident from my book
>> Incomplete Nature). I think that its depth and elegance has been
>> under-appreciated, in part because of the hint of mysticism that GSB
>> implies and because logicians often consider it a kind of knock-off of
>> Scheffer's stroke (I remember as a grad student receiving a stinging rebuke
>> from one of my heroes, WVO Quine, when I mentioned that I thought LoF was
>> insightful - I still think he was wrong).
>>
>>      But because I am wary of getting drawn into discussions where my
>> contrary views will lead to endless back and forth debates that are often
>> animated by unacknowledged incompatible semantic uses of the same term (a
>> problem with the term 'information' in particular), I will only contribute
>> the following comment.
>>
>>
>>      I regularly find the concept of "transduction" useful in my
>> neuroscience research, to refer to the form-energy transfer processes
>> between neurons. It is especially useful with respect to perception (where
>> the concept is often applied). Below, I quote some etymological analyses of
>> the term to illustrate its potential relevance, and to help us avoid
>> semantic quibbles.
>>
>>
>> — Terry
>>
>>
>> *https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KrQYYAVQ$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.etymonline.com/word/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KrQYYAVQ$ >*
>>
>> *transduction (n.)*
>>
>> "act of leading or carrying over," 1650s, from Latin *transductionem*/
>> *traducionem* (nominative *transductio*) "a removal, transfer," noun of
>> action from past-participle stem of *transducere*/*traducere* "change
>> over, convert," …
>>
>>
>> *https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KChGZs_k$ 
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/transduction__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KChGZs_k$ >*
>>
>> *transduction (n.)*
>>
>>      (biology) The transfer of genetic material from one cell to another
>> typically between bacterial cells, and typically via a bacteriophage or
>> pilus.
>>
>> The process whereby a transducer converts energy from one form to another.
>>
>>      (physiology) The conversion of a stimulus from one form to another.
>>
>> (physics) The conversion of energy (especially light energy) into another
>> form, especially in a biological process such as photosynthesis or in a
>> transducer.
>>
>>      (logic) Particularly in the discipline of artificial intelligence,
>> a form of inference, according to which the response appropriate to a
>> particular known case, also is appropriate to another particular case
>> diagnosed to be functionally identical. This contrasts with induction, in
>> which general rules derived from past observations are applied to future
>> cases as a class (compare also analogy).
>>
>>      (logic design) The improvement of an electronic logic network by
>> reduction of redundant components in an initial version, using an
>> established pruning procedure, then applying permissible functions for
>> transformation of the network into a workable form. Thereafter the
>> transformation and reduction may be repeated till no worthwhile further
>> improvement results
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 12:08 AM Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Mark,
>>> I looked up “transduction” and found:
>>>
>>> “Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material
>>> from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bateriophages are able to
>>> infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.”
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have something else in mind.
>>> Please elucidate what you mean by transduction.
>>>
>>> It is certainly the case that indication reaches a “viral” level in that
>>> we can repeat indications and send them around.
>>> Indication is how we infect one another with ideas of distinction and
>>> indication. Transduction in this sense is a perfect
>>> description of the human literary and academic process, not to speak of
>>> our social and political processes (but I do speak of them). We also infect
>>> ourselves by fundamental indicative recursion.
>>> Heinz von Förster: “I am the observed relation between myself and
>>> observing myself.”
>>> But in that fundamental relationship of the self (and the other) there
>>> is more than just the multiplying of viral indicators.
>>> So, using transduction in this sense, I would say that it is describing
>>> a level where only indication is recognized and the allowance and letting
>>> go of indication, the movement toward unity, is ignored. Of course I am
>>> saying here what cannot be said.
>>> What cannot be said shows itself.
>>> Best,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> Transduction is the process by which a virus transfers genetic material
>>> from one bacterium to another. Viruses called bacteriophages are able
>>> to infect bacterial cells and use them as hosts to make more viruses.
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2025, at 1:37 AM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Lou - that's helpful.
>>>
>>> If I can push this a little bit further, I take the point about my wish
>>> to say indication = transduction. Indeed that is what I'm saying.
>>>
>>> Taking "one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction"
>>> (with which I completely agree), I might say "a distinction is the result
>>> of transduction" - at the very least our senses or consciousness. We cannot
>>> not transduce. I think Simondon said something similar.
>>>
>>> Is it reasonable then to transpose the question "what is the structure
>>> of an indication?" to "what is the structure of a transduction?" (and what
>>> cannot be transduced.). This does open the door to the biologists and
>>> experimentalists...
>>>
>>> What I find fascinating in your work, and what I want to understand if
>>> my interpretation resonates with you at all, is that from the structures of
>>> LoF you arrive at a 3-dimensional topology, Clifford algebra, etc - all of
>>> which provides a powerful answer to the question "what is the structure of
>>> an indication?".
>>>
>>> I want to stick my neck out and say that to conceive of this approach as
>>> being about the structure of transduction is potentially more practical in
>>> addressing some of what Jason and others point out. Am I mistaken?
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025, 00:05 Louis Kauffman, <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Mark,
>>>> GSB’s diagrams are intended for “digital circuitry” (maybe
>>>> transcendental digital circuitry!) and we use them that way with a possible
>>>> assignment of a “time delay” across the mark. The “signal” that traverses
>>>> the mark in the diagram undergoes a flip from value A to value <A> (cross
>>>> A).
>>>> In the usual interpretation we have only the values marked and unmarked
>>>> happening at the lines in the diagrams. Already this is very rich. People
>>>> including myself have used these diagrams more generally so that the mark
>>>> is a black box, or a more general boundary and the signals running through
>>>> are also more complex. At that point the diagram could actually be any
>>>> directed graph with various interpretations for its parts. Stafford is
>>>> advocating using directed graphs to indicate flow of information or goods
>>>> or spirituality or … and all this is close to very general descriptions of
>>>> the systems. Some people like to restrict to just Spencer-Brown type
>>>> boundaries and indicate how boundaries are crossed between different
>>>> sometimes nested domains. You will see this is in Dirk Baecker’s work.
>>>> Diagrams can have many interpretations and one does not need to speak as
>>>> though these interpretations are necessarily implicit in say Spencer-Brown
>>>> from the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that the correct understanding is that what Spencer-Brown
>>>> shows us, the structure that he shows us and that we can develop further if
>>>> we wish, is inherent in any and all indicative domains. LoF is about the
>>>> structure of indication. And it is obliquely therefore about what cannot be
>>>> indicated. One cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>>
>>>> But when you start asking questions in the form "In GSB transduction
>>>> must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not specifying exactly what is
>>>> going on there, is GSB saying that the transduction occurs in the observer?
>>>> (and so doesn't need to be shown on the page?)” you are making a mistake of
>>>> a peculiar kind. YOU are the one who wishes to make indications about
>>>> transduction! If you find that it fits to be “on the line” fine do that. If
>>>> you wish to understand the relationship with the observer, fine do that. It
>>>> is ALL your responsibility and ALL your creation!
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 23, 2025, at 12:30 PM, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Lou and Joe,
>>>>
>>>> It's interesting, Lou, that you raise Stafford Beer's diagrams, because
>>>> these have an intimate connection to GSB (by virtue of the Beer's
>>>> facilitation of LoF). Beer's tribute to GSB is in his archive in Liverpool
>>>> - a children's story called "Kate gets a Bird" (example picture here - Improvisation
>>>> Blog: Beer's Tribute to Laws of Form
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/2025/01/beers-tribute-to-laws-of-form.html__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8vhIokzhl$>
>>>> ).
>>>>
>>>> What's different between Beer's diagrams and GSB is that Beer draws the
>>>> transducers in his diagrams as lines between boxes, converting variety from
>>>> one form to another. In GSM transduction is presumably the mechanism by
>>>> which the unmarked becomes marked. For Beer, transduction always infers
>>>> amplification and attenuation of variety. It's just that GSB doesn't show
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> In GSB transduction must happen "in the line" of the mark. In not
>>>> specifying exactly what is going on there, is GSB saying that the
>>>> transduction occurs in the observer? (and so doesn't need to be shown on
>>>> the page?)
>>>>
>>>> However, if we could zoom-in on a line/mark, we would probably
>>>> encounter transducers within transducers within transducers - like Beer's
>>>> diagrams. That, it seems to me, is a "moving picture". I'm not sure it's
>>>> the kind of moving picture that Joe or Lupasco would approve of, but it is
>>>> dynamic - particularly when taken together with the form of the mark
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 07:47, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>> I have already answered this in some other ways, but lets try again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Diagrams
>>>>> (a) A diagram is not particularly static. It could be a movie or an
>>>>> injunction to make a movie.
>>>>> It could be a dance or a ritual, a temple or a war.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is how you might view the diagrams about topology of DNA
>>>>> recombination.
>>>>> And it is in that mode that diagrammatic work and the possibility of
>>>>> creating a diagram from the “microword” by electron microscopy, led to the
>>>>> understandings about
>>>>> Knotted DNA and topological enzymes. These in turn have had an effect
>>>>> at some medical levels since if your topo enzymes do not work, your cells
>>>>> cannot divide and you die.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1Kw1U8UoY$ 
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.excedr.com/resources/topoisomerase-overview*:*:text=In*20pharmaceuticals*2C*20topoisomerases*20are*20used,anticancer*20therapeutics*20other*20than*20chemotherapy__;I34lJSUlJSUlJSU!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygvadEF65$>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> So here you have a real example of how diagrammatic topological
>>>>> mathematics is closely allied with applications that can save lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> (b) For the design of quantum algorithms and all things quantum field
>>>>> theoretic we use diagrams quite intensively.
>>>>> The same is true for working out the reactions that lead to the bomb.
>>>>> So diagrams can also be used to kill en masse, as can all of language.
>>>>>
>>>>> (c) Written language is a work of diagrams. Those little characters
>>>>> you string together are stylized diagrams, rather static by themselves. And
>>>>> if you live in China or Japan your
>>>>> Language is an incredible pastiche of diagrams.
>>>>>
>>>>> (d) Actually all of mathematics is a pastiche of diagrams for all
>>>>> sorts of conceptual and calculational purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>> (e) I refer you to C.S. Peirce for the role of diagrams and signs in
>>>>> thought.
>>>>>
>>>>> (f) The greatest masters of diagrams in Cybernetics were Strafford
>>>>> Beer and Humberto Maturana. Perhaps you see some value in their work.
>>>>>
>>>>> (f) The GUI that began with Mac and infiltrated PC is the
>>>>> diagrams of finitely nested boxes
>>>>> that are the basis of the distinctions and indications of LOF.
>>>>> LOF is about distinctions and indications.
>>>>> Its diagrams are just a particular representation of that.
>>>>> Mac uses these diagrams and never had to pay any royalties to GSB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Religion
>>>>> (g) The Heart Sutra explains clearly how to use the unmarked state
>>>>> (emptiness) to solve all human problems.
>>>>> That it has not been applied to this end is not the fault of either
>>>>> GSB or the Buddha.
>>>>>
>>>>> (h) I am aware that no matter what I say,
>>>>> someone will complain
>>>>> about something
>>>>> that comes up for them
>>>>> when we get near to no-thing.
>>>>> That is the nature of it.
>>>>> Believe it or not,
>>>>> I am not an advocate of the absolute binary distinction.
>>>>> It is in contrast to what cannot be said.
>>>>> See the quote below that fell into my email from Malcolm Dean.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KMnkR9ZE$ 
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://books.google.com/books?id=oI9hwgEACAAJ__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yggIa9BkE$>
>>>>>   GIF by Etienne Jacob
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bleuje.com/mp4set/2019/2019_25.mp4__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_ygkOzwPOE$>* used
>>>>> to illustrate Bits forming an Information process.*
>>>>>
>>>>> "The *tentative and non-black-and-white nature of categorization* is
>>>>> inevitable, and yet *the act of categorization often feels perfectly
>>>>> definite and absolute* to the categorizer, since many of our most
>>>>> familiar categories seem on first glance to have *precise and sharp
>>>>> boundaries*, and this naïve impression is encouraged by the fact that
>>>>> people’s everyday, run-of-the mill use of words is seldom questioned; in
>>>>> fact, every *culture constantly, although tacitly, reinforces the
>>>>> impression that words are simply automatic labels that come naturally to
>>>>> mind and that belong intrinsically to things and entities*. If a
>>>>> category has fringe members, they are made to seem extremely quirky and
>>>>> unnatural, suggesting that nature is really *cut precisely at the
>>>>> joints by the categories that we know*. The resulting illusory sense
>>>>> of the *near-perfect certainty and clarity of categories* gives rise
>>>>> to much confusion about categories and the mental processes that underlie
>>>>> categorization. The idea that category membership always comes in shades of
>>>>> gray rather than in just black and white *runs strongly against
>>>>> ancient cultural conventions*and is therefore disorienting and even
>>>>> disturbing; accordingly, it gets swept under the rug most of the time."
>>>>>
>>>>> (i) Oh, and what did you think Hofstader was about?
>>>>> Did you think that he was bragging about the clarity and perfection of
>>>>> logic?
>>>>> He was telling you the story of how logic in the hands of human
>>>>> understanding
>>>>> slayed the Jabberwock of the completeness of formality.
>>>>> Don’t worry. You are not the only one who did not listen.
>>>>> We sell you fake word makers to do your job.
>>>>> And in the year of our T, you can buy cryptocurrency, watches and
>>>>> bibles  from your leader.
>>>>>
>>>>> *"It was one of those pictures
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VN3_KOI3NVnHHrQCUBhk-CmKe_3eXVjVC6CDnsTgT_aqTDe_YRSaOTbYTVnZXUUn-RfO2h_yglukToEj$> which
>>>>> are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move."*
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 2025, at 4:14 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
>>>>> gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>> I’m having some difficulty understanding the message conveyed through
>>>>> the pictures you’ve shared.
>>>>> For instance, the images representing EU countries depict flames
>>>>> coming from burning cars.
>>>>> However, Europe is vast and diverse, and such scenes can be found all
>>>>> over the world.
>>>>> It would be helpful if you could clarify your intention in plain
>>>>> English, so I can better grasp the context and meaning behind.
>>>>> Additionally, the last four pictures have no country labels and address
>>>>> issues concerning humanity on a global scale.
>>>>> Extraterrestrials I don’t know where to place conceptually.
>>>>> Looking forward to your clarification.
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Gordana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Jason Hu <jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 19:11
>>>>> *To: *Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>
>>>>> *Cc: *fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning -
>>>>> [chaotic issues]
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Gordana, these roughly illustrate what I meant for the question
>>>>> you asked, maybe you're not aware of. I hope each of these images is clear
>>>>> enough. If not, please let me know. Best - Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 9:43 AM Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
>>>>> gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You say: ”the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and the Europe”
>>>>> I wonder which countries are you referring to with “the chaotic
>>>>> social issues”?
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KRgwqzNk$ 
>>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2266__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RS9jkPrXovtaK9OrMobFA5d-EXulXksAnRW7oZifSq9nxdVB2X27XUh6Co48niXvyVseo1lew6BDerrJGfgXTFnKLUxXAA$>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Gordana
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Jason Hu <
>>>>> jasonthegoodman at gmail.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Sunday, 19 January 2025 at 16:01
>>>>> *To: *"joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
>>>>> *Cc: *"Pedro C. Marijuán" <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, Jerry Swatez <
>>>>> swatez at mac.com>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] "Percepts" and self-reference and meaning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I second Joe strongly here, "*they are a possibly misleading way of
>>>>> describing natural physical processes, including and especially cognition.*
>>>>> *"*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to be a fan of Hofstadter's "Gedel, Escher, Bach" in my younger
>>>>> years, but gradually started realizing that type of thoughts might be an
>>>>> intellectual trap - an endless rabbit hole that leads to just
>>>>> self-entertainment or self-glory but no useful actions, no tools for
>>>>> handyman to do everyday work to benefit normal people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, *"**I have just written may not be completely correct (what
>>>>> is?)**" *so I welcome any of you to prove me wrong or even change my
>>>>> mind, by offering some solid example of how GSB thinking has been
>>>>> beneficial to solve/resolve/dissolve the huge conflicts going on in the
>>>>> Middle East, or the deep divide among the Americans between Trump
>>>>> supporters and Trump haters, or the chaotic social issues in the U.K. and
>>>>> the Europe. If no such examples exist so far, at least point out to me how
>>>>> it could be, under what conditions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards - Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 3:29 AM <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Lou and All,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just some comments to explain my resistence to GSB and much of Lou's
>>>>> otherwise essential work: the diagrams used do not nove; they are
>>>>> "eternal". They accurately reflect *only epistemic self-reference* and
>>>>> not recursion or  ontic hetero-reference. Therefore, they are a possibly
>>>>> misleading way of describing natural physical processes, including and
>>>>> especially cognition. Information applies to the content of the diagram
>>>>> below, but the mental "movement" from figure to ground and back, and its
>>>>> logic, is at a low level of complexity. Information more broadly. however,
>>>>> is easily seen as a dynamic phenomenon, embodying and describing
>>>>> *change.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I submit that what I have just written may not be completely correct
>>>>> (what is?), but that it has received insufficient serious attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you and best wishes,
>>>>> Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 19.01.2025 02:08 CET, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Karl,
>>>>> <image001.png>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Background.
>>>>> Figure and Ground.
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>> And in starting with the idea of a distinction one needs to have an
>>>>> unfettered notion of background.
>>>>> That notion is emptiness.
>>>>> The empty set is placed against a background of non-membership and it
>>>>> has no members.
>>>>>
>>>>>          { }
>>>>> The GSB mark is a relative of the empty set and stands for a
>>>>> distinction and for that state obtained by crossing from emptiness
>>>>> (the first distinction, if you will.)
>>>>> <image002.png>
>>>>> As soon as one fixes on a representation of a concept, that
>>>>> representation has more properties, more inherent and indicated
>>>>> distinctions, than the concept “itself”.
>>>>> Thus the curly brackets of the representation of the empty set, { },
>>>>>  are not necessary for the concept. And the right angle bracket is not
>>>>> necessary for the mark.
>>>>> We sometimes use < > for the mark as it is useful in typing, but
>>>>> execrable as an icon since < > is two characters representing one
>>>>> distinction. And so it goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is in fact very powerful to understand the backgrounds that are
>>>>> appropriate for discourse and keep them as minimal as possible.
>>>>> In LOF, GSB uses the notational plane as a background, not the line.
>>>>> This has some eplstemological advantages and some drawbacks.
>>>>> After studying any indication set-up it is useful to examine what kind
>>>>> of background is being used.
>>>>> Mathematical advances and scientific advances have resulted from such
>>>>> scrutiny.
>>>>> At the level of the Heart Sutra the concept of emptiness can be the
>>>>> basis for (everything).
>>>>> Very best,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:55 PM, Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Remark: this is usually called BACKGROUND.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> schrieb am Sa., 18. Jän. 2025,
>>>>> 22:43:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Pedro,
>>>>> It depends on how you look at it.
>>>>> Consider the Heart Sutra.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In Mathematics, all forms are brought forth from emptiness.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> { }
>>>>> {{}}
>>>>> {{},{{}}}
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Emptiness can mean “that which is not (yet) articulated or indicated”.
>>>>> At the bottom of what is indicated is what is not indicated.
>>>>> What is not indicated is not marked.
>>>>> Emptiness is a word for what is not marked.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Very best,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 18, 2025, at 3:05 PM, Pedro C. Marijuán <
>>>>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Lou and List,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to you (and Eric) for the thought-provoking exchange. Along it,
>>>>> I was reminded of a maverick approach to distinctions I read long ago. It
>>>>> was pointing to a set with N elements carrying multiple "signs" or "marks".
>>>>> The distinctions between these elements carrying heterogeneous signs within
>>>>> the set were expressed by means of partitions, actually multidimensional
>>>>> partitions. Other related authors tried to systematically obtain and
>>>>> compile those multidimensional partitions via a few 'logical' principles
>>>>> (economy, parsimony, symmetry) applied to the pruning of redundant signs,
>>>>> and subsequently the 'canonical' multid.partitions could be obtained
>>>>> 'almost' algorithmically (at least for small N)... etc. etc. At least, in
>>>>> my non-mathematical mind I could make some practical sense of this
>>>>> distinctional stuff (in which I was interested regarding cellular signaling
>>>>> systems and the way receptors combinations were occupied by different
>>>>> signaling molecules).
>>>>> I disagree with the closing statement (THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST
>>>>> ARISES FROM FRAMING NOTHING), because it situates itself above the
>>>>> conditions of any previous kind of existence. IMO it is a Barón of
>>>>> Münchhausen's type of statement. Maths as I pointed days ago inherit the
>>>>> inner dynamics of our sensorimotor transformations from which language
>>>>> developed. Maths, as it has often been recognized, is a particular form of
>>>>> collective language. It partakes of an enormous historical accumulation of
>>>>> thought-experimentation and pruning, particularly trying to capture the
>>>>> transformations of the external world. The implicit subject is always "us",
>>>>> the writer plus the concerned learned community of 'practitioners' of that
>>>>> particular math 'dialect'. And concerning distinctions, it obviously
>>>>> includes the possibility of entering into the scheme of other subjects (as
>>>>> Eric points) endowed with genuine distinctional capability--from living
>>>>> cells to...
>>>>> Anyhow, in spite of the disagreement, your message was a great
>>>>> reading. Thanks for those GSB quotations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerning Kate's recent emphasis on E. coli's two component system in
>>>>> charge of motion control, the discoveries on prokaryotic signaling during
>>>>> last two decades have left a richer panorama. For instance, E. coli counts
>>>>> with about 100 one-component-systems (1CSs), 28 of the 2 CSs class, and
>>>>> just two of the 3 CSs (actually one of them is the motion control). The
>>>>> 1CSs are more simple and primitive (evolutionarily), and slower, with
>>>>> respect to the faster, more specific, and more evolved 2CSs, which in their
>>>>> turn are less complex and sophisticate than 3CSs, which are applied to the
>>>>> treatment of very important signals than need a further layer of
>>>>> intervening processes. It always depend on the whole advancement of the
>>>>> cell cycle, or life history, which endowment the bacterium will contain...
>>>>> Anyhow, the whole signaling panorama of 'primitive' cells is
>>>>> fascinating--it is indeed the beginning of biological sensing &
>>>>> communication.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, Jason, thanks for that amazing report on the proton
>>>>> innards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings to all,
>>>>> --Pedro
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> El 17/01/2025 a las 21:57, Louis Kauffman escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Eric,
>>>>> There is a confusion here that is quite natural.
>>>>> LOF is a book of mathematics and philosophy. It discusses the idea of
>>>>> a distinction.
>>>>> When one takes a mathematical approach one attempts to begin with very
>>>>> simple structures and
>>>>> explore outward into complexity. LOF dwells on the possibility of one
>>>>> distinction throughout the whole book.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “We take as given the idea of distinction and the idea of indication
>>>>> and that one cannot make an indication without drawing a distinction.
>>>>> We take therefore the form of distinction for the form.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As such LOF is not concerned with where or how the distinction is made.
>>>>> In the same way, a mathematics book about number is not concerned with
>>>>> particular representations of numbers.
>>>>> Of course we have these concerns and we want to understand more and
>>>>> more about numbers in general
>>>>> and we feel that some representations will help and some ways to use
>>>>> signs and symbols will help.
>>>>> The same is the case with the idea of distinction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> GSB does have his ontology (or lack thereof!).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people are made a bit nervous by declarations that the world is
>>>>> created from nothing.
>>>>> But you can investigate this if you are not annoyed by it.
>>>>> What could ’things’ be ‘made of’?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you’re bothered, then you are bothered.
>>>>> Mathematics is similarly annoying
>>>>> as we have systematically shown
>>>>> how to build it all from nothing
>>>>> but the act of collecting/distinguishing
>>>>> and the act of creating signs and indications.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone has their niche of ideas and ways that they want to continue
>>>>> to use.
>>>>> In the approach of a big general idea, what we already “know" looks
>>>>> too good be abandoned,
>>>>> and so we keep demanding that the other talk in our language.
>>>>> GSB created new language.
>>>>> Wittgenstein pointed out the ontological consequences of the
>>>>> limitations of language.
>>>>> Both are very challenging.
>>>>> Neither are making religions.
>>>>> These are anti-religions.
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THE FORM WE TAKE TO EXIST ARISES FROM FRAMING NOTHING.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 17, 2025, at 6:19 AM, Eric Werner <eric.werner at oarf.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Lou,
>>>>> To point 4. Yes, I admit it was sarcasm. To me a distinction requires
>>>>> a subject. And that subject's neuro-hardware or firmware or software limits
>>>>> the distinctions that that subject can make. For example, the distinctions
>>>>> made by an ant, a frog, a cat or a human may be quite different.
>>>>> I realize you are probably the world top expert on Spencer Brown so
>>>>> you probably have a reply. But my instinct is that GSB is claiming too much
>>>>> by using 'distinction' as an ONTOLOGICAL or metaphysical foundation for
>>>>> what requires a subjective capacity. OK, this last sentence is not fully
>>>>> clear, but I think GSB is confusing subject and being.
>>>>> As for the sarcasm, it is a more personal emotional reaction having
>>>>> little to do with you. Although you may unknowingly have had a role in the
>>>>> matter through your publications.  I have friends who study early
>>>>> Wittgenstein and GSB as if their texts were biblical texts. Going to the
>>>>> library every day to read the Tractatus and LOF like a disciple doing his
>>>>> or her religious studies.
>>>>> At the onset of puberty and the ability to consciously reason, my
>>>>> mother took each of us into the kitchen and taught us to be critical of the
>>>>> bible, both the old and new testament. We were raised Christian but there
>>>>> were also Jews in my mother's ancestry. Who knows why, but I have
>>>>> maintained my religious skepticism and hence my perhaps inappropriate
>>>>> reaction when I smell religiosity. Apologies dear Lou.
>>>>> In spite of my critical attitude, I do believe there is more to the
>>>>> universe. There may be a God or Gods and angels.  There may be life after
>>>>> death. Life is always surprising. So, I am open to that.
>>>>> -Eric
>>>>>
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>>
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>>
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>>
>>>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>>
>>>>> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>>
>>>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>>
>>>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>> ----------
>>>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>>>>> el siguiente enlace:
>>>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>>>>> de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>>>> ----------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Mark William Johnson
>>>> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
>>>> University of Manchester
>>>>
>>>> Department of Science Education
>>>> University of Copenhagen
>>>>
>>>> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
>>>> University of Liverpool
>>>> Phone: 07786 064505
>>>> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
>>>> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KmTYMVPY$ 
>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WRuR2-u4W5LHuc7pCqkoZ5hxc6RMwobVWfbAcmo-u0rMOaSoBcIgju1DxQ8NhsI8RJuOKYx8viBacWGE$>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>> ----------
>>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>>
>>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>>> siguiente enlace:
>>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>> http://listas.unizar.es
>>> ----------
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Professor Terrence W. DeaconUniversity of California, Berkeley*
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
> University of Manchester
>
> Department of Science Education
> University of Copenhagen
>
> Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
> University of Liverpool
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
> Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KmTYMVPY$ 
>


-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
University of Manchester

Department of Science Education
University of Copenhagen

Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
University of Liverpool
Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
Blog: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TAXUJ5rkx67JShBFoolcaAMyD-oJxwI-AZwwM7GuoU3MIjC4vn8_8aKm8JNFGy_fPVajy-m14S0n4H1KmTYMVPY$ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250127/523b26d1/attachment-0001.html>