[Paleopsych] Alice Andrews: Playing with Myself: Questions for myself about my novel, Trine Erotic

[Premise Checker]

I'll have to look at Buss's book, Alice, except that I've abandoned 
reality and am reading only fiction now, at least as far as books go. The 
impression I get that most of EP talk about love is about short-term 
mating comes from the lists I take.

There is plenty of talk about the need a woman has to turn a cad into a 
dad, but not much discussion of what long-term marriages are really like. 
It seems that they settle into what's called a "companionate" marriage and 
that infatuation has long since gone. But remember that marriages did not 
last a long time in the EEA, since lives themselves were short.

Of course the literature on marriage is huge. There's so much variation 
that it's not possible to nail down an exact defintion of it, that is, to 
single out the necessary and sufficient ingredients.

Everyone agrees that marriage in the Western world has become more and 
more based on love (which kind?) than the convenience and desires of 
family and others.

On 2005-06-16, Alice Andrews opined [message unchanged below]:

> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 08:06:48 -0400
> From: Alice Andrews <aandrews at hvc.rr.com>
> To: The new improved paleopsych list <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
> Cc: Premise Checker <checker at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] Alice Andrews: Playing with Myself: Questions for
>     myself about my novel, Trine Erotic
> 
> First of all, I want to thank you,
> Frank, for appreciating my novel and
> for writing and posting this...I feel
> a lot of support from this list, which
> isn't nothing! Sure it's electronic,
> but it's still real and I feel real
> appreciation.
>
> So, just to correct a few things:
> Of course I know about multi-level
> selectionism--how could I not! And I
> think it's good stuff and it makes
> sense to me! I'm a supporter.
> In fact, I'll be meeting with David
> Wilson in about 3 weeks (with others)
> to discuss the possibility of a new
> Evolutionary Studies program here at
> New Paltz. Very exciting!
>
> You wrote:
> What's also missing from the novel, as
> it is from evolutionary psychology
> generally, is the desire for a
> long-term monogamous commitment, which
> is
> a quite different kind of love.
>
>
> Hmm. Let me say this: The novel deals
> with some love themes: passionate love
> v companionate love (what i call 'hot'
> love and 'warm' love) and selfless
> love and selfish love, and also
> romantic soul-mate love, short-term
> mating and long-term mating, among
> other love themes.
> It's true that many of the female
> characters "desire" romantic love and
> don't care how they get it or for how
> long, whether it is for 10 years or a
> year. I also think some (if not all)
> the female characters DO desire
> monogamous enduring relationships...As
> well, there is plenty of talk about
> "long-term, monogamous commitment" I
> think.
> But anyway, what drives any story is a
> quest/motivation/striving... The
> female characters DO want love.
> In fact, if you think about it, 3 out
> of the 4 female characters DO end up
> in long-term, monogamous, committed
> relationships...
>
> Also, what do you mean when you say
> the
> "desire for a long-term monogamous
> commitment" is missing from EP? I'm
> not sure I understand. Do you mean
> that evolutionary psychologists talk
> too much about short-term mating? I
> think that's the popular culture's
> EP....
> Just as an interesting example: David
> Buss, in his EP textbook, devotes 58
> pages to male and female long-term
> mating and only 23 pages to male and
> female short-term mating.
>
> Well, again, thank you for supporting
> me, Frank....
> All best!!!!
> Alice
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Premise Checker
>  To: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>  Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 3:31
> PM
>  Subject: [Paleopsych] Alice Andrews:
> Playing with Myself: Questions for
> myself about my novel, Trine Erotic
>
>
>  Our list member has written the very
> first novel written around
>  evolutionary psychology ideas, and I
> can recommend it highly. It is
>  composed of stories with stories,
> and you're never quite sure what the
>  reality is. It's like postmodernism
> in this way. And you wonder to what
>  extent the novel is autobiographical
> or about the person the author wished
>  she were or just made up of
> creatures that exemplify what
> evolutionary
>  psychology demands that they do.
>
>  But it's quite clear that the female
> protagonists very much want men they
>  can bat ideas around with, though
> there's no place for the love of ideas
>  for their own sake in evolutionary
> psychology. The narrators seem to know
>  this, though they want to transcend
> these limits. Gordon Tullock, an
>  economics professor I had, thought
> that altruism in humans was the result
>  of an evolutionary defect: we had
> not been humans long enough for
> altruism
>  to have been weeded out! I'm sure
> he'd worry that Alice is defective,
>  being much too in love with ideas.
>
>  One answer, that she apparently
> doesn't know about, is that evolution
>  takes place on many levels, not just
> at the level of the gene. This makes
>  group selection possible and makes
> room for altruism. The book here is
>  Elliott Sober and David Sloan
> Wilson, _Unto Others_, which is slowly
>  getting accepted in the biology
> community. (Paradigm shifts do take
> time,
>  you know.)
>
>  Another answer is that, however much
> the overall selfish gene theory is
>  true, our desires are indirect
> mechanisms to promote the overall goal
> and
>  that there are many of these
> desires. Steven Reiss came up with 16
> basic
>  desires that are relatively
> independent of one another. Desiring
> to raise
>  (one's own) children is largely
> independent of romance (which includes
>  the neighboring desires of wanting
> coitus and of wanting aesthetic
>  experiences. Why the latter, I'm not
> sure, but factor analysis puts the
>  three of them together.). And both
> are independent of curiosity, which is
>  at the top of my list and my wife's
> (I am sure) and at least near the top
>  of Alice's.
>
>  What's also missing from the novel,
> as it is from evolutionary psychology
>  generally, is the desire for a
> long-term monogamous commitment, which
> is
>  a quite different kind of love.
>
>  Note to myself: you've got to get
> around to buying and reading C.S.
> Lewis'
>  _The Four Loves_. You shouldn't let
> your atheism keep you from the book.
>  After all, Moses and Solomon (less
> so Jesus) were proto-sociobiologists.
>
>  ---------------------
>
>  Alice Andrews: Playing with Myself:
> Questions for myself about my novel,
> Trine
>  Erotic
>  http://www.entelechyjournal.com/playing_with_myself.htm
>
>  [This is the first novel written
> from the perspective of evolutionary
>  psychology. I am finishing it up now
> and am enjoying its playfulness
>  exceedingly.]
>
>      Q What are some of the major
> questions you try to deal with in
> Trine
>      Erotic?
>
>      A Well, there are quite a few:
> Is there free will? What is the will?
>      What is and is there a single Ia
> self? Are we determined by our genes?
>      Can we (and how and what affect
> does it have to) go against our
>      nature? What is the unconscious?
> Is it what evolutionary psychologists
>      refer to as our universal human
> nature? Or is it something else? And
>      how does it work? And is there a
> universal human nature? How does
>      culture influence us? What is
> art? What is love? And is there
>      something beyond our
> evolutionary, deep reflexessome kind
> of global
>      brain, as Howard Bloom suggests,
> that is motivating us?
>
>      Q You dedicate the book to every
> womans desire and the art within her
>      and to alpha males everywhere.
> Does that mean its not for other
>      malessay, Beta?
>
>      A No, no. Its sort of
> tongue-in-cheeky. Im playing with the
>      evolutionary theory that art is
> displayed as a mating signal/strategy.
>      So Im saying: Here is this piece
> of artand, naturally, I would want to
>      signal the highest type of man.
> Of course, alpha male is subjective
>      when it comes to humansfor apes
> it may be just a factor of strength or
>      posing. For me, an alpha male
> doesnt always look like an alpha; a
> man
>      could be an alpha and work in a
> factory but be an original thinker and
>      want to lead or organize people.
> (David M. Busss work explains this,
>      actually.) But anyway, its not
> just for alpha males. Its for all
>      males. But its particularly for
> men who are creative and deep and
>      interested in figuring out the
> world . . . understanding human
> nature,
>      and more. And it's for females
> too!
>
>      Q Why did you write the book?
>
>      A Well, for one, I was compelled
> to write. And there are a lot of
>      other reasons as well. But, I
> have to say that I found the fiction I
>      was reading leaving me cold. I
> just found myself not getting turned
> on
>      by all that good literature. I
> wanted to be turned on. I saw the
>      appeal; saw the code of it. You
> know, theres something here in this
>      story but Im not going to let on
> to what it is because youre supposed
>      to get it because were so smart,
> and good fiction shows and doesnt
>      tell.  And Im not going to even
> attempt to affect you in any way
>      because that would be pompous
> and sentimental and ultimately
>      ineffective. And were so
> sophisticated and subtle. I guess
> these are
>      some of the rules of fiction.
> Like how you shouldnt write out ideas.
>      And its related to the
> seduction/anti-seduction stuff I write
> about in
>      the book. Most modern fiction is
> quite seductive, in the
>      Baudrillardian sense, by trying
> or appearing not to seduce. I think my
>      style is anti-anti-seductionor
> [2]meta-seduction. I am possibly
>      "seducing" by going against a
> seductive "hiding" strategy. For
>      example, I can choose to wear
> revealing clothing (which isnt
>      seductive) or less revealing
> clothing, which concealswhich is
>      seductive. But I can wear the
> revealing clothes as a reaction to the
>      seductive strategy, which says,
> Im not trying to seduce with the
>      not-trying-to-seduce clothes.
> And this is seductive in its own waya
>      hiding from hiding. Of course,
> the revealing clothing looks the
>      sameits just a matter of
> intention. And only a few will be able
> to
>      read the code or signal. I
> realize this is made confusing because
> I am
>      using Baudrillards sense of the
> word. In fact, what you have are three
>      things working: seduction (in
> its denotation), anti-seduction, and
>      anti-anti-seduction or
> meta-seduction. Dont tell me Im
> confusing
>      YOU!??
>
>      Im not terribly affected by most
> fiction (though I know Im in the
>      minority). And Im not proud of
> that fact. Its just the way I am. Im
>      not very subtle. I like to read
> nonfiction. Otherwise I feel like Im
>      wasting my time. Id rather be
> doing something or writing or learning
>      something. Unfortunately I dont
> have that feeling (that Im learning
>      something, etc.) when I read
> most fiction. And perhaps that is a
> fault
>      of mine. Perhaps Im just not
> refined enough or my personality
> doesnt
>      allow me to slow down. Maybe it
> has something to do with the fact that
>      Im right-brain dominant. I
> really see a difference though,
> between
>      people who love fiction and me.
> And, thankfully, Ive stopped worrying
>      that theres something wrong with
> me in this.
>
>      For the record, I dont place a
> value on one or the otherseductive
>      fiction (which is what is
> accepted and favored) versus
> meta-seductive
>      fiction (fiction which tells you
> what its doing, openly wants to
>      affect, deals with ideas, etc.).
>
>      But to answer your question: I
> wrote a book that I was wanting to
>      read.
>
>      Q Is there any fiction you do
> like?
>
>      A Oh, of course. I loved Smillas
> Sense of Snow, liked Jeanette
>      Wintersons Sexing the Cherry,
> D.H. Lawrenceliked Kundera when I was
>      younger Dostoevsky, John Berger,
> Hermann Hesse, and [3]there are
>      others
>
>      Q You mention wanting to affect
> the reader. What kind of affect are
>      you hoping for?
>
>      A Any, I suppose. Nietzsche
> wrote that the effect of works of art
> is
>      to excite the state that creates
> art . . . he says its intoxication .
>      . . First and foremost, I want
> the reader to get some pleasure from
>      it. After that, its mostly a
> working out of some of the questions
>      which seem to haunt us, stuff
> about love. And I suppose I want it to
>      be a part of the readers working
> it out, like a friend. There is also
>      the sort of feministy thing
> about desire and art in women. I
> suppose I
>      would like TE to inspire women
> to let loose their desire and art
> more.
>      In Sirens Song, the nameless
> protagonist says her father told her
> that
>      the point about art was to share
> itabout an audience. Which reminds me
>      of a scene in Bride of the Wind,
> a film about Alma Mahler I just saw
>      on video. Alma says to her
> husband Mahler, I wish youd conduct
> one of
>      my songs. And he says, One of
> your songs? . . . Perhaps one day in
>      rehearsal. And she says,
> Rehearsal? But then there wouldnt be
> an
>      audience. And he says, Ill be
> there. Arent I enough? And Im
> interested
>      in this. Because despite the
> womens rights movement and so much
>      liberation and so many women
> artists, I still think there is this
>      thing within us (women) . . . a
> resistance . . . and I question its
>      etiology. If such a resistance
> existsor rather, a relative lack of
>      desire to broadcast compared to
> menis it innate? That is, is it
>      related to biology, to the
> evolutionary theory that men try to
>      broadcast to as many women as
> possible, since it is in their genetic
>      interest to do so? (Or since
> they are the product of millions of
> years
>      of evolution which ensured such
> a tendency persisted?) Or is it
>      cultural? Or some admixture?
> Again, I question my premise as well.
> Im
>      interested in trying to uncover
> whether or not such a tendency exists.
>      I certainly have felt my
> relative lack of desire to broadcast.
> But of
>      course, that could have
> everything to do with other things:
>      personality, conditioning, stage
> of life, etc.
>
>      About my Sirens Song character:
> her feeling had always been that it
>      was something that had to do
> with her (whatever her art was, be it
>      painting or writing); she didnt
> have an impulse to broadcast it. And
>      so, there is this question about
> what art is, and its purpose and
>      function. And, in some sense,
> the book is my grappling with deciding
>      to share whatever it is in meand
> that in my sharing of it, there is
>      meaning. There is a dialectics
> of desire, as Barthes saysand I quote
>      him at the beginning of Sirens
> Song. For me, I couldnt and wouldnt
>      want to put the book out there
> if I didnt think it would serve some
>      kind of purpose. And of course,
> art is purposeful. It is motivated by
>      all sorts of deep, powerful
> urges. The artist experiences it as an
>      outpouring of some kind of force
> that has to be expelled, a feeling of
>      compulsion. And then theres that
> choice an artist makesdo you go mad
>      or stay somewhat functionally
> neurotic, or do you release and
> create?
>      (The existential problem of
> whether or not it is a choice, I cant
>      answer. My answer probably
> changes with my mood.)
>
>      But also, there is the EP theory
> of art as signal. And in some ways
>      that is also about survival. So
> I see art as a saviorfor the artist
>      but also for the audience, of
> course. Once I decided that Trine
> Erotic
>      was for an audience, it took on
> a whole new light. It was outward
>      directed and relating, and it
> was pleasurable in a way that before
> it
>      hadnt been (that is, writing for
> myself). So much goes unsaid in the
>      culture. Most of us (except
> perhaps for some hard-core feminists)
>      think women are free to do their
> thing. We have this sense,
>      historically and culturally,
> that women are now free. Yet I dont
>      really think so. I think its
> good to show a female character who
> feels
>      restricted with respect to
> desire and the art within her. I think
> some
>      women will identify and it may
> feel liberating, or help create
>      movement. And of course, thats
> where the fiction reactionaries come
>      in. I shouldnt be so pompous as
> to think that something I have created
>      could have some kind of affect.
> But to me, perhaps because Im a woman
>      and mother (it may be nature or
> nurture or both), I dont see why you
>      would put something out there if
> it wasnt for some good, for some use.
>      And that is also tied in to the
> notion that it could be my compulsion
>      and selfishness (much like an
> overbearing parent) that made me
>      continue to write new stories,
> though it felt like love, but that it
>      is finally the selfless love for
> the reader that allows me to stop
>      creatingto allow the reader to
> create something of their own from the
>      book or envision the next story
> or storiesto be individuated and truly
>      the artist, to be free.
>
>      Q This seems related to the
> whole reader response issue in the
> novel .
>      . .
>
>
>      A Yes.  I say the book is alive.
> And in a way, the book is like a
>      lover. It is also a meme (or
> memeplexwhat I call memesome). I, the
>      author, am egoless; the words
> are not minetheyre this meme. And the
>      words belong to the reader, and
> the reader is the artistcreating
>      meaning and art through the
> reading.
>
>      Q You say feministy, but
> sometimes you sound downright
> backwards about
>      women in the novel. The scene
> with the woman walking behind Caleb,
> for
>      example, youre not critical of
> ityou seem to romanticize it.
>
>      A Well, first of all, the most
> interesting thing about people is
> their
>      contradictions. I think thats
> why Ed and Calebs characters are
>      interesting. I am putting those
> questions out there, because we have
>      all felt them. I mean, I say
> something like, it was a walking dance
>      which fulfilled something primal
> for them and though they both
>      understood the sexist
> implications, they didnt care . . .
> Its dealing
>      with the different layers again
> accepting and integrating them not
>      trying to ban certain impulses
> or desires because we are told to. Is
>      it bad or is she inferior
> because she is turned on by walking
> behind
>      him? I dont know. I dont think
> so. If she feels free as a woman, then
>      I dont see the problem. But I
> see the potential danger in this
>      positionjust as there is
> potential danger in an EP/essentialist
>      position. But Steven Pinker I
> think does the best job of explaining
>      why it doesnt have to be
> dangerousand in fact, in the long run
> might
>      do more good than harm.
>
>      Q You play with the question of
> patterns . . . Why?
>
>      A Well, for one, Gurdjieff, the
> basis for Rajingiev and Guerttiev, was
>      interested in habits. And I
> guess I am too. The book is about
> these
>      women who have recurring
> patterns in their relationships. And,
> of
>      course, people do throughout
> their lifespanoften debilitatingly so.
>      And I suppose a big question in
> standard social clinical psychology is
>      how do you break these patterns?
> But Im not only interested in
>      patterns as related to
> psychological
> processes/neuroses/habits, but
>      also to questions of time, e.g.
> eternal recurrence. Would it all
>      really be the same if we played
> it all back from the beginning? And
>      can we change? And do we really
> have free will? And can we actually
>      determine reality or has
> everything been set and were just
> living it
>      out? The new physics gets at a
> lot of these issues . . .
>
>      Q Why didnt you use Gurdjieff s
> name in the book? You use the real
>      names of others
>
>      A I didnt because many of the
> philosophical/spiritual ideas I wrote
>      about in Sirens Song and some in
> Baby Theory are really not the ideas
>      of Gurdjieff. Rajingiev and
> Guerttiev are not pseudonyms for
>      Gurdjieff; they are names for a
> fictional sage. Yet Gurdjieffians will
>      certainly recognize some of
> Gurdjieff in them, thats true.
>
>      Q What does the title mean,
> Trine Erotic?
>
>      A Well, trine means three . . .
> and three is important throughout the
>      book. Erotic refers to Eros . .
> . love (though also it has a sexual
>      component). But the first
> meaning of the title is three love
> stories:
>      three loves. (Trine Erotic= Love
> Stories, Sirens Song, and Baby Theory
>      . . . Also Conscious Shock =
> soft kill, Red Love, and Sirens Song.)
> In
>      addition, there are couplet
> stories that make a final third story:
>      Conscious Shock and Third Force
> make Trine Erotic; soft kill and Red
>      Love make Love Stories; Love
> Stories and Sirens Song make Conscious
>      Shock . . .)
>
>      And there is a feeling that
> Third Force isnt over and that Trine
>      Erotic itself is part of
> something . . .
>
>      Three-love is also for a sort of
> triune theory of love I have in the
>      book: evolution, experience,
> culture. The notion that our problems
>      stem from the conflict between
> our different layers. So, for example,
>      if I were a man, I might feel an
> attraction for women who are heavier
>      or who have a particular
> hip-to-waist ratio than what the
> culture
>      tells me is attractive. This
> conflict of impulses and desires tends
> to
>      clog feelings, or at least makes
> people feel disjointed. It is hard to
>      put it all together. Its hard to
> know what it is the I really desires;
>      what is more true for the self?
>
>      Three is everywhere in TE. Its
> also a Fibonacci number, and Id say
>      just about every number in the
> book is a Fibonacci number. And trine
>      is also an astrological concept,
> relating to the relationship of
>      planets.
>
>      Q Whats a Fibonacci number?
>
>      A Fibonacci was an Italian
> mathematician who discovered an
> interesting
>      series of numbers, which are now
> called Fibonacci numbers. It begins
>      with 1. You then add one to that
> to get 2. You then add those two
>      numbers together to get 3. Then
> 2+3=5; 3+5=8; 5+8=13; 8+13=21 . . .
>      and so on . . . Whats
> interesting about these numbers is
> that the
>      ratio between any of the pairs
> of numbers is approximately the golden
>      ratio or the golden number,
> which is around 1.618. And whats
>      interesting about the golden
> number is that artists throughout
> history
>      have used it in their art. (The
> golden mean, the golden section, or
>      golden ratio is most beautiful
> to our eyes.) In addition, what is
>      interesting about the actual
> numbers themselves in the series is
> that
>      they can be found in naturein
> particular in the spirals of things.
> So,
>      if you count the spirals in a
> pine cone or the seeds in a sunflower,
>      or the spirals of a shell, you
> will find you get a Fibonacci number.
> .
>      . . 13 rows of spirals, or 21,
> like that. As well, the human face
>      shows a lot of correspondence to
> Fibonacci numbers and the golden
>      ratio. . . . And this is
> interesting because there is a lot of
> work
>      being done in EP and other
> fields to suggest that there is a
>      correlation between symmetry and
> what is thought of as beautiful, with
>      developmental health and
> stability, perhaps, even fertility and
>      fecundity. And perhaps, somehow,
> there is a relationship between the
>      mathematics of outward beauty
> and inner.
>
>      Q Why use Fibonacci numbers?
>
>      A I think theres a magical
> quality to the numbers, no question.
> They
>      seem most natural. Its like
> choosing between painting your wall a
> flat
>      yellow or painting it yellow
> with a mixture of white, with a subtle
>      Lazure technique, to create a
> feeling of softness and naturalness,
>      what youd find in nature. In
> addition, mathematics is important
>      throughout much of the book. I
> talk about there being a math to
>      everything; about the algorithms
> of our adapted mind; write about how
>      the nameless protagonist adds
> everything up: Calebs lies, his
> Heliosen
>      ways, his amorality . . .
>
>      Q In the book, you sometimes
> refer to TE as metafiction. Why?
>
>      A Oh, because its about
> fictionits a story about a story about
> a
>      story. And because its concerned
> with ideas about fiction and writing.
>      Also, because I go outside of
> the fiction and interject as the
> author
>      about the work. Its meta in a
> lot of ways. Im interested in
> fictionthe
>      craft of writing. I see TE as a
> triptych. Each section, each story has
>      a different style. Some stories
> are crafted more than others, but so
>      far, readers have told me they
> dont see a difference. To me theres a
>      huge difference, as far as craft
> and complexity between some of the
>      stories . . .
>
>      Q Which ones?
>
>      A I dont want to say.  I want to
> get virgin feedback still . . .
>
>      I do want to say this: I dont
> think of myself as a writerI think of
>      myself more as a synthesizera
> synthesizer of memes. If my writing
> were
>      a singing voice it would be
> closer to Leonard Cohens than
> Pavarottisor
>      Joan Osbornes than Kathleen
> Battles. The tradition in fiction is,
> of
>      course, pre-film, and has mostly
> been concerned with painting mental
>      pictures for readers. But Im
> more interested in representing and
>      transmitting ideas than I am
> pictures. My emphasis is on conveying
>      meaning up frontthats where I
> put my energy. I realize meaning is
> also
>      conveyed subtly, but its just
> not enough for me. I have more I want
> to
>      convey. And, of course, I also
> do it in the traditional wayI dont
>      think it would be a novel
> otherwise. Also, thats not to say Im
> not
>      interested in language. I am
> very much. And I have a pretty good
> ear,
>      so I care very much about the
> sounds. Sometimes I would spend half
> an
>      hour on one sentence. For
> example, every sentence fragment is
> there
>      for a reason. I could have
> chosen instead a semi-colon or a
> connecting
>      word or an em-dash, etc., but
> for me it was a question of sound and
>      meaning and even a visual
> impression. And of course, sometimes,
> my
>      first writing would be just
> right and I could leave it alone. That
> was
>      always nice.
>                             _______________________
>
>      [4]Alice Andrews has taught both
> writing and psychology (and sometimes
>      both at the same time) with an
> evolutionary lens for over a decade.
>      Currently she's teaching "Social
> Psychology " and "Personality and
>      Psychotherapy" at the [5]State
> University of New York at New Paltz.
>      Alice is also an editor and
> writer (books and magazines), and was
> the
>      associate editor of
> [6]Chronogram from 2000-2002. She is
> the author of
>      [7]Trine Erotic, a novel which
> explores evolutionary psychology.
>
>  References
>
>      1.
> http://www.entelechyjournal.com/
>      2.
> http://www.entelechyjournal.com/meta-seductionfiction.htm
>      3.
> http://www.entelechyjournal.com/books.htm
>      4.
> http://www.entelechyjournal.com/andrews
>      5. http://www.newpaltz.edu/
>      6. http://www.chronogram.com/
>      7.
>  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587761211/qid=1029245378/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1/trineerotic-20%22%3ETrine%20Erotic%3C/A%3E/102-5304949-9560913
>  _______________________________________________
>  paleopsych mailing list
>  paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>  http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych