Victor, If you're truly interested in Game B beyond a basic intro video, click the hyperlink to the Wiki page in my last message. Greg On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 3:56 PM victor <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > Thanks I like your spin. It tried to look up what the buddha said to get > it right but didn't find it, he said something like it is true to say > reality is and reality is not but neither is it not true that reality is or > is not. > As i said before I havent looked closely at game b but the video seemed > like a replay of game a promising utopia in 3 linear stages which i found > very puzzling. > > On 7/02/2022 at 09:20, Greg Thomas <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > A few quick thoughts on the critique of "Game B" by Cadell Last: > > - To use a quote from my friend Peter Limberg as a definition of "Game > B" and to contrast it with a more nuanced definition of "Dark Renaissance" > is stacking the deck in favor of the latter from the start. Why not quote > from the Game B Wiki > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.gameb.wiki_index.php-3Ftitle-3DGame-5FB&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UzNEWcmzUHonx-12VRO5QX3FR_lIamEfiRb8331XRIo&s=avcCSEtVDCIvv3T5dpXiIpHoeM-_gxvncvb-962rAfA&e=>: > "Game B is a memetic tag that aggregates a myriad of visions, > projects and experiments that model potential future civilisational forms. > The flag on the hill for Game B is an anti-fragile, scalable, increasingly > omni-win-win civilisation. This is distinct from our current rivalrous Game > A civilisation that is replete with destructive externalities and power > asymmetries that produce existential risk. Yet Game B is not a prescriptive > ideology (or an ideology at all): while the eyes of Game B players may be > fixed on the same flag, the hills are multitudes and the flag sits atop > each, and no player individually is equipped to map a route in advance." > > > - A fundamental influence on Jordan Hall's conception of Game B (and > likely others) is James Carse's *Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision > of Life as Play and Possibility. *The implication is that Game A is > replete with Finite games whereas Game B, ideally, would be in Infinite > Game. In Carse's hands, infinite games are played for the purpose of > continuing the game (of life), whereas finite games are win-lose affairs. > That basic description, however, doesn't do justice to Carse's poetic > brilliance, which actually fulfills, in my view, the Dark Renaissance > folks' pointing to paradox as fundamental to what's needed next. It isn't > infinite games vs. finite game, as that would be a continuation of the > finite game! Infinite games transcend yet include finite games. It ain't > either-or, it's both/and, with an emphasis on the more inclusive territory > of the Infinite game. Yet Carse isn't mentioned in the critique. > > > - Wouldn't a true paradox, rather than being A=B (rather than A vs B), > be both A=B *and *A[image: image.png]B? (couldn't get the non-equal > sign to fit snugly in between A and B) > > > - In addition to "paradox," which many post-conventional models point > to as a key indicator, how about interdependent polarities? Would that not > be dialectical? That framing (or mapping, to point to the work of Barry > Johnson and Steve McIntosh) is yet another important one for a next-stage > perspective or orientation. It's a both-and view that attempts to manage > and leverage the tension between positive values. For instance, liberty *and > equality, *support *and* challenge, particular/local/rooted *and * > universal/planetary/cosmopolitan. > > > - I agree that competition and conflict may be necessary for the human > condition. I had that criticism of Daniel Schmachtenberger when I heard him > explain being "anti-rivalrous." So an interdependent polarity such as *antagonistic > cooperation*, or Zak Stein's beautiful reframe of that same polarity, > "cooperative opposition" (which he mentions in this wonderful six-minute > video > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_0UURwXcMMCc&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=UzNEWcmzUHonx-12VRO5QX3FR_lIamEfiRb8331XRIo&s=9ruMaYooxdQcVhGPb2WVvqCdbTK_ya8b3xP3NuS7pys&e=>), > would be appropriate. Both/and, then generating the emergence of a higher > octave of understanding and embodied action is a fruitful goal for "what's > next." > > > - The focus on art is crucial, and the conversation among Daniel S., > Jim Rutt, Tyson Yunkaporta, and Jordan Hall after the video that sparked > this thread pointed to that lacunae in Game B theorizing. I have much more > to say on that front, but won't go there now. > > > - Masculine and feminine qualities are indeed fundamental qualities, > again, as an interdependent polarity. > > So, no, Game B isn't the b-all and end all, for sure. Yet it attempts to > point us in the right direction, which is, apparently what the Dark > Renaissance is attempting also. > > Greg Thomas > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 2:01 PM Victor MacGill <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> I found this piece that makes the points I was trying to make very >> clearly. >> >> Cheers >> >> Game A/B >> Enter Paradoxical Reality >> >> Cadell Last >> Feb 3 >> 3 >> 2 >> >> Yesterday, Alexander Bard, Owen Cox, Raven Connolly and I entered The >> Stoa to respond to the video/dialogos around Game B, from a “Dark >> Renaissance” perspective. You can find our video here: Game B: A Dark >> Renaissance Response. >> >> Here I would just like to reaffirm in written form some of the basic >> points I wanted to make in the video, both for clarity and in openness to >> future dialogue. >> >> First, to set the scene, I want to offer two quotes. The first is a >> definition of Game B from Peter Limberg, and the other a definition of the >> Dark Renaissance from myself. According to Limberg, Game B (inclusive of >> its relation to Game A) is: >> >> “Game A is the collective game that the world is playing, that will come >> to an end, if we continue to play it, we will self-terminate as a species, >> Game B is a new game, that we don’t know what it looks like, but their is a >> glimpse or a sense of what it could be.” >> >> In contrast, the Dark Renaissance is: >> >> “The Dark Renaissance is a broader potential artistic, philosophical and >> religious movement which seeks to reveal, affirm, confront, transform the >> more disturbing aspects of the human condition as the only way to organize >> society truthfully.” >> >> These two definitions are not necessarily in a zero-sum competition. >> However, there are some dimensions of the narrative structure of Game B, >> which from my point of view, need serious philosophical reflection and >> reorientation, in light of the ideas of the Dark Renaissance. >> >> The first is that — and as I would like to make clear is my main point — >> that the very logical structure of “Game A versus Game B” is itself >> problematic as a starting point. This sets up thinking for an ideological >> trap. We often set up simplistic narratives and oppositions, whether >> consciously or unconsciously, to bring thinking to an end in an impossibly >> clear and certain identity. >> >> Whereas the definition of Game B points towards an openness and an >> uncertainty (i.e. “a new game, that we don’t know what it looks like, but >> their is a glimpse or a sense of what it could be”), it does this against >> the backdrop of a certain and known enemy (i.e. “Game A is the collective >> game the world is playing, that will come to an end, if we continue playing >> it, we will self-terminate as a species” etc.). Consequently, as soon as >> Game B attempts to represent itself to a popular or a broader audience, as >> it did in “Game B: An Initiation”, it falls into the trap of a utopian >> reification of an other identity. The A versus B structure is simply too >> simple: >> >> Game A = bad, i.e. you are parasitized, competitive, >> far-from-equilibrium, separated, exclusive, rivalrous, dominating, lead to >> certain death >> >> Game B = good, i.e. you are non-parasitized (wise/wisdom centers open?), >> cooperative, thriving, whole, no longer excluding or dominating or rivalrous >> >> What if we are all parasitized from within? What if we cannot get rid of >> competition? What if our society is inherently far-from-equilibrium? What >> if separation, exclusion, rivalry, domination and death are features of our >> existence, and not bugs-in-the-Game-A-machine? >> >> In any case, what happens very quickly with “A vs. B” thinking is that >> you fall into the basic temporality of ideology that has recurred and >> recurred in many different conceptual frameworks: >> >> We were in a state of wholeness (oneness), and we need to return to a >> state of wholeness (oneness) >> >> This basic temporality gains its legitimacy in the form of a simplified >> enemy-obstacle, that emerged to break the unity, and that needs to be >> banished to reclaim the unity: >> >> Game A is the game “everyone is playing”, it is the source of all our >> troubles, and once we get rid of it, we will be in wholeness/harmony >> >> Such a structure of A vs. B is the opposite of real thinking, and the >> opposite of what is needed to approach the very real need to (maybe) think >> “a new game, that we don’t know what it looks like, but their is a glimpse >> or a sense of what it could be” >> >> In order to really think such a “new game” where we “don’t know” but >> “sense what it could be”, I would claim we need to learn dialectical >> thinking, and we need to learn how to apply this mode of thinking, to our >> unconscious thinking. Dialectical thinking operates on the logic of A=B. >> That is, dialectical thinking operates on the logic that embodies >> self-referential paradox. In applying dialectical thinking to unconscious >> thinking, we are willing to bring our thought in relation to the knowledge >> in ourself that we do not know, but which shapes or overdetermines our >> entire horizon of political action. In other words, we bring our thought to >> the fact that we are split from within, by a conscious and an unconscious >> knowing, and often this split reveals opposite desires and drives, which >> are in turn, often, irreconcilable and contradictory. >> >> From this point of view, we are not in the temporality of “now we are in >> Game A, but soon we will be saved in Game B”; we are instead in the >> temporality of “reality is fundamentally paradoxical and split within >> itself: A=B”. From this point of view, we need to educate the types of >> minds that are capable of embodying and working with paradox, first within >> themselves, and secondly, within the intimate networks and communities that >> they build with others. What is at stake here is nothing like a utopian >> emancipatory space free of conflict, rivalry, separation, and so forth; but >> the “potential” for a “broader artistic, philosophical and religious >> movement which seeks to reveal, affirm, confront, transform the more >> disturbing aspects of the human condition as the only way to organize >> society truthfully.” >> >> In order to truly become an artist, or a philosopher or a religious >> subject, one must be capable of being the type of knower that can embody >> paradox, first within oneself, and second within the intimate networks and >> communities, that one builds with others. This demands the logic of A=B, >> not A vs. B. This should be applied to this very article and this very >> “Dark Renaissance critique of Game B”. We are not here saying that the >> basic motive or desire of Game B is inherently wrong. Not at all. We as a >> species really are approaching global problems that may involve >> self-terminating dimensions. However, we are saying that there needs to be >> deeper self-reflection, deeper recognition of paradox, to raise the >> possibilities that we cultivate the form of knowing to enter a new world. >> This form of knowing is a form of knowing that cannot “jump to the end” >> with the vision of a “utopian wholeness”, but rather must “tarry with the >> thing”, which is the same thing as saying it must “work contradiction of >> its present moment”. What is essential here is that this tarrying with and >> working contradiction involves the irreducibility of intimate social >> reality. The typical intellect, the type of intellect that sets up Game A >> vs. Game B dynamics, does this precisely to avoid the irreducibility of >> intimate social reality, where we find the irreducibility of A=B. >> >> To this end, I want to simply echo some of the core points that my >> “partners in dialogos” emphasized throughout their critique of Game B, as >> they relate to this dimension of staying with paradox and contradiction of >> identity. >> >> Raven Connolly started off the session by making the core point that you >> cannot eliminate conflict from life. She warns that if you do, you end up >> with a lifeless world without the conditions of possibility for art, >> without the conditions of possibility to build the type of characters that >> can really withstand the real complexity of the world, and without the >> conditions of possibility to recognize our drives and incompleteness. She >> would later go on to emphasize that this drive and this incompleteness lies >> at the very heart of our sexual identities, where our very root-origin >> travels through us, from the genitals to the mind. How do we really channel >> this energy, in its enormous power? In its seemingly endless capacity for >> transformation? >> >> Owen Cox started off the session by making the core (Nietzschean) point >> that we are a tension between “Apollonian” and “Dionysian” drives, and that >> the Apollonian drive has a tendency to reify a perfect political order at >> the expense of the Dionysian drive. Here, in this very tension, one could >> argue the real impulses and capacities for art emerge in the first place >> (and not from wholeness). When one accepts the tension between the >> Apollonian-Dionysian drives, we end up with a much more paradoxical >> character, an A=B character, where sex, power, conflict, cannot be >> eliminated, but rather worked with, to mature our characters and our >> capacities to deal with the real complexity of the world (to connect this >> with Raven’s main point). Owen later makes the point that, intellectuals >> should take more time to think the very edge of these zones of tension, >> where tantric forms of subjectivity and organizations, disrupt their >> identities from within their inner masculine and feminine, and create new >> artistic modes of being. >> >> Alexander Bard started off the session by framing this same tension with >> the language of the “Boy Pharaoh” and the “Pillar Saint”. The Boy Pharaoh >> is the man who loves his body, but hates his mind (from Muhammed to >> Hitler); the Pillar Saint is the man who loves his mind, but hates his body >> (from Plato to Zuckerberg). For Bard, it is the failures of these types of >> men that have led to the reaction to a cynically nihilistic world >> (“post-modernism”), which cannot really think the masculine, which is not >> capable of navigating the split between body and mind. For Bard, “liminal >> spaces” like metamodernism or integralism, are capable of moving from >> cynical nihilism to ironic nihilism, but cannot take the necessary next >> step, that is: affirmative nihilism. Affirmative nihilism would be the >> emergence of the men who can recognize within themselves the tendency to >> either become “Boy Pharaoh” or “Pillar Saint”, and mature it (reveal, >> affirm, confront, transform it). In this maturation they can rather admire >> what they lack. For the man who loves his body but hates the mind, he would >> be able to admire the genius of the smarter men; for the man who loves his >> mind but hates his body, he would be able to admire the talent and force of >> the more physical men. >> >> For my part, it is confronting these main points from Raven, Owen and >> Bard, that force the emergence of intellects that can ultimately confront >> sexual division (first within themselves, and then in the society at >> large). As Bard warns, this is necessary to prevent the continued >> escalation of the gender wars. I think what underlies all of the “meta” >> intellectual spaces is the inability (or the simple unwillingness) to think >> the real of sexual division (for more, see: Sexual Division, A Problem in >> Ontology). As Bard also suggests, perhaps the real problem of our time is >> not global warming or atomic weapons, but the very rift at the heart of our >> social order. What we see is an increasing inability to navigate sexual >> division. Confronting sexual division also means confronting A=B dynamics, >> where we have the appearance of two irreducible opposites which must be >> thought together as a paradox. The literal reproduction of the species and >> the maturation of the species, lies at this very divisive locus. >> >> We cannot eliminate men, we should cultivate a “masculinity of the real”; >> we cannot eliminate women, we should cultivate an acceptance of a >> “femininity of the real” (Raven makes this point beautifully in the >> dialogos). Note here that the language “masculinity/femininity of the real” >> is not the same as “real men” or “real women”, and points towards the >> capacity for adult sexual identities to deal with self-referential >> incompleteness and paradox. Perhaps, from this standpoint, we could >> approach “a new game, that we don’t know what it looks like, but their is a >> glimpse or a sense of what it could be”. But this standpoint is dark. This >> standpoint involves a dark renaissance. It involves a movement “which seeks >> to reveal, affirm, confront, transform the more disturbing aspects of the >> human condition as the only way to organize society truthfully.” What could >> be birthed from such a movement, is the emergence of real artists, >> philosophers and religious subjectivity. >> >> A=B. >> >> In a society that births real artists, philosophers and religious >> subjectivity, perhaps we could have real societies capable of tarrying and >> working with the paradoxes that we are, instead of once more entering the >> ideological combat of A vs. B. >> >> Subscribe to Philosophy Portal >> By Cadell Last · Launched a month ago >> >> Idealism and Psychoanalysis >> On 20/01/2022 10:26 pm, Victor MacGill wrote: >> >> I embarrassingly recognised this after posting. I sort of threw in that >> opening to get it noticed and the flippancy didn't really work. I need to >> read up more about game B. As I noted that animation is the only >> information I have on game B to date. It will obviously be more nuanced >> than the animation, but I am left feeling very confused. Nora and the >> others involved are people I have held in very high esteem for a long time. >> I had an amazing evening with her in Stockholm several years back I >> treasure as a life highlight and I am struggling to match the quality of >> thinking I expect from those people that with what seems like missing some >> pretty straight forward factors. I am always open to seeing how the real >> problem is my lack of ability to grasp the complexity of the situation. I >> would be very open to explore how I might be misrepresenting or straw >> manning. >> >> Best regards >> >> Victor >> On 20/01/2022 8:53 am, Brandon Norgaard wrote: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Victor, cute that you repurposed Nora’s phrase in your message there. >> Did you notice she is one of the co-producers of the video? I doubt she >> would agree that the video is BS or colonial as hell. I suppose there >> might be some merit to the rest of your critique, but I do think you’re >> misrepresenting and kind of straw-manning the messages. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion >> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> *On >> Behalf Of *Victor MacGill >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:48 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* TOK An Initiation to Game~B >> >> >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> HI All, >> >> I finally got around to look at the video. >> >> >> >> It BS always was >> >> and its Colonial as hell. >> >> >> >> I haven't looked at Game B before. I think there is something about it >> that felt like a new label stuck on same old stuff and I put off reading >> about it. All I know about Game B is what was on the video., so if that >> misrepresents Game B then I got it wrong. >> >> The video buys into the old story of everything started out perfect and >> wonderful. Everyone co-operated and lived in harmony, then evil came - the >> parasite entered and turned humanity's heart to greed and hate and >> competition, but we can change it, get rid of the evil and live in a new >> co-operating utopia. This is Riane Eisler's Kurgan hordes who came and >> destroyed everything that had been so perfect and we can create a new >> partnership way. >> >> The parasite is in the story from the beginning. It is baked into the pie >> never to be separated from it again. The serpent was always in the Garden >> of Eden, just not activated. The honeymoon is always great, that nice time >> when we can pretend everything is wonderful but everything that unfolds >> comes from what is already present in the honeymoon. >> >> As a living system or an organisation is born and grows difference is >> low, requisite variety is low, opportunity is high. It is easy for the >> organism to grow, My men's group has 8 people in it. We can all sit and >> talk through anything that comes up. We have time to listen to everyone and >> come to a consensus. It all feels easy, but if there were 200 people in the >> group we could not do it. As difference and requisite variety grows >> opportunity increases, but so too does conflict - difference to be >> resolved. Conflict is an opportunity, but when the conflict is not resolved >> in positive ways, it leads to abuse and violence. >> >> Exponential growth cannot continue forever, there will always be >> constraining factors that pull it back. Increased difference also creates >> increased inequality to be resolved and whatever entropy a living system >> cannot contain and bring to order it dumps on others - and the other in >> itself. >> >> For as long as we create a dualistic spilt good-evil, co-operate-compete, >> autonomy-connectivity, we perpetuate all the old myths that perpetuate the >> colonial dream of getting rid of evil to create utopia and its all about >> the evil over there rather than I have seen the enemy and he is us. >> >> Our capacity for violence comes from our ape ancestors. It's how they >> survived all those millennia. It was never not there. This is actually the >> core thesis of the book I put into this group a few days back. And thank >> you because the Game B video has clarified my understanding of my thesis so >> I can now rewrite it to be much stronger. >> >> These ideas are nothing new. Nietzsche, Jung, Thich Nhat Hanh, the >> Buddha, the list goes on an on of people who have realised the potential >> for evil and violence is in everyone of us. We all have the capacity on a >> bad day of being evil, vicious bastards. We have to embrace the shadow, >> learn to live with all the drives and urges within rather than trying to >> separate them off and get rid of them. >> >> That requires a brutal honesty that is extremely uncomfortable. It is so >> much easier to say "I am right, you are wrong. You are the problem". Of >> course I am as bad as anyone. My work is in family violence, so I see it >> everyday and I see it in myself everyday. >> >> We need better stories. >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Victor >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19/01/2022 10:04 am, Alexis Kenny wrote: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> All, >> >> >> >> Gregg, I was definitely holding the ToK System in mind while watching >> this video (noting the places where ToK delineations and specifications >> would be helpful and necessary). >> >> >> >> SW, I think you're spot on in naming the issues of interest / >> accessibility / broad engagement that can be a part of Gregg's work. To his >> credit (as you note), he's super open to generating content beyond the >> abstract and is definitely moving more towards day-to-day applicability in >> his more recent projects. I would be REALLY interested to hear your >> thoughts on this as an artist, as well as the opinions of other artists and >> musicians out there (Ken and Greg and more). So...don't crawl back into >> your cave just yet! >> >> >> >> Warmly, >> >> >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> El mar, 18 ene 2022 a la(s) 13:56, Metamodern Magick ( >> [log in to unmask]) escribió: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> I just watched this. It's fantastic. >> >> My initial thoughts, of course, are centered around the power of >> mythology/gamification/symbolism to convey a message. My sense is we are >> going to need more stuff like this if "liminal" culture is to go from a >> relatively niche community on the internet to a full-blown cultural >> revolution. I have plenty of ideas on how to do this as a (theory and >> ritual) artist, but the trickiest thing, I suppose, is reforming the >> academic and mental health paradigms to incorporate this. >> >> Or maybe it isn't so tricky after all. Gregg's system does a wonderful >> job of utilising mythos as a way of demonstrating the relationship between >> different elements in his system. I'm curious on best practices for >> incorporating that mythos into less intellectually-inclined spaces. Art >> seems to be the way to go, but in terms of specifics...hmmm. >> >> Anyway. >> >> Also, this is my first time replying to a TOK Society email! Hello >> everyone! I'll be crawling back into my cave now. >> >> sw >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 3:45 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I really enjoyed this production. >> >> >> >> And, folks, UTOK does have a place in this. We need some new kinds of >> knowledge-psycho technologies to get us from Game A to Game ~B, and there >> is much gold to be mined from UTOK to frame this. >> >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> >> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Chance McDermott >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:14 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: TOK An Initiation to Game~B >> >> >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Christian, >> >> >> >> Loving this art style that captures the imagination and inspiration of >> indie games. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:32 AM Alexis Kenny <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Christian, >> >> >> >> This was pretty rad! Love the animation, accessible theory/language, and >> length! >> >> >> >> As always, I'm always looking for more tangible/concrete >> directives...maybe the other videos will provide that kind of information? >> >> >> >> Warmly, >> >> >> >> Ali >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> El mar, 18 ene 2022 a la(s) 00:40, Christian Gross ([log in to unmask]) >> escribió: >> >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DE-5FcyCuCKQhs&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QARa-wZMd_jYATqzAagty3KE1uB0Hf_MOjMJi8GfswE&s=7HquKEFWpY1898GPyPlOhxOKFkLg2rHFj4YONk24k7Q&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DE-5FcyCuCKQhs&d=DwMBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=wvCKAnnsGvs_qvwXuTSK-wedXj7ksfVElwI4XrYtwhg&s=9YSp0gkfn1QIxq6deTsiZRWKS_As0XW09JU6GFtmETI&e=> >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Alexis (Ali) Kenny*, PsyD, LP >> >> Staff Psychologist >> >> *LeaderWise >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.leaderwise.org_ali-2Dkenny&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=T6leLjh404GFDW26sJctaKyV7XMqBxDCiKEIEFbCu3A&s=p0fdmurvDswpm6U6SHvJxqNRl2v62dCbJIX0SbHm1_Q&e=>* >> >> email: [log in to unmask] >> >> phone: 406.540.3411 >> >> site: alexisckenny.wix.com/marriedinmission >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__alexisckenny.wix.com_marriedinmission&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=T6leLjh404GFDW26sJctaKyV7XMqBxDCiKEIEFbCu3A&s=8RERK69KS2l3qYqT-UDbgv0Ww8xjRrIa9h-QblFd0Jo&e=> >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Alexis (Ali) Kenny*, PsyD, LP >> >> Staff Psychologist >> >> *LeaderWise >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.leaderwise.org_ali-2Dkenny&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8s9v_CUDr9vHKGm4wgW7q8RV0fnITogklKeS9IHzdFk&s=KlaX7WdGW84vRKmIIOvHd7V_hU3sT_2UfEc39r2E-Vw&e=>* >> >> email: [log in to unmask] >> >> phone: 406.540.3411 >> >> site: alexisckenny.wix.com/marriedinmission >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__alexisckenny.wix.com_marriedinmission&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8s9v_CUDr9vHKGm4wgW7q8RV0fnITogklKeS9IHzdFk&s=b03qfyv9P-iHtgYJXOOYXOE4RkYIgvxhXxVN2RRoni0&e=> >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> -- >> >> Victor MacGill PhD >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.victormacgill.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QARa-wZMd_jYATqzAagty3KE1uB0Hf_MOjMJi8GfswE&s=0RXSwS-Eu9Rt7AaCjuYI0Em8azMsKRyN1MmI5PgPHi8&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.victormacgill.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vhXYWZW4yTDoXWye3M5dsotelqnu76xR1bNP6q3cxUY&s=QwUGmgufZ3BU-QXOSk53j5rcCqodnU4Kc6Mvu-UaCto&e=> >> >> Author of When the Dragon Stirs: Healing our Wounded lives through Fairy Stories, Myths and Legends >> >> and Gonna Lay Down my Sword and Shield: A complexity perspective on human evolution from a Violent Past to a Compassionate Future >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> >> -- >> Victor MacGill PhDhttp://www.victormacgill.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.victormacgill.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=p2t3PoL-ULrigzNr-uPfOJL33sepqQ5BBKIVB3OW1Es&s=cv-UI-CqJ0b94sUkrR_SuV2JqzkAFo1EMvZwGI3i3d0&e=> >> Author of When the Dragon Stirs: Healing our Wounded lives through Fairy Stories, Myths and Legends >> and Gonna Lay Down my Sword and Shield: A complexity perspective on human evolution from a Violent Past to a Compassionate Future >> >> -- >> Victor MacGill PhDhttp://www.victormacgill.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.victormacgill.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=p2t3PoL-ULrigzNr-uPfOJL33sepqQ5BBKIVB3OW1Es&s=cv-UI-CqJ0b94sUkrR_SuV2JqzkAFo1EMvZwGI3i3d0&e=> >> Author of When the Dragon Stirs: Healing our Wounded lives through Fairy Stories, Myths and Legends >> and Gonna Lay Down my Sword and Shield: A complexity perspective on human evolution from a Violent Past to a Compassionate Future >> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1