Helmut - I don't think the issue is simply over a commandment of 'Thou shalt
not kill'; it's over several other issues.
First, the reality of the human capacity for reason and thus, evaluation of
'what is good and what is bad'. Since human societies do not have an innate
knowledge base but must develop it within that society, then, they must have an
evaluative capacity.
Second, is the reality of evil. It exists in humans; whether it exists in the
non-human world is debatable but I, for one, can't see it. This requires
evaluation on our part.
Cultural relativism denies evaluation. So does pacificism. Both refuse to
acknowledge the reality of evil.
Third, is the fact that we are now, globally, by virtue of our electronic
informational network and our networked global economy - a 'world society'.
Therefore, what goes on in one area is known - and we cannot stand by and
ignore the reality of evil. This is the technical articulation of Peirce's
synechism; we are actually physically (Secondness) connected.
Fourth- within this synechistic 'complex networked society' - the global world
- we cannot have extremes of lifestyle. This ONE global society, each part
existing as it does within vastly different ecological realities - from desert,
to rainforest, to deciduous forests, to savannahs and plains to mountains to
ice..to... nevertheless cannot expect its population (which has increased
exponentially in so many areas) to live within extremes - extreme poverty - as
is found in the Middle East, Africa, Central America and elsewhere - to extreme
wealth - as is found in these same countries as well! And - we can't have
extremes of lifestyle where, in one domain, women are enslaved and forbidden to
get an education while in another, they are free. And so on.
The world is now too economically and informationally small to functionally
handle such extreme variations. This economic and societal imbalance and its
resultant economic and political vacuums is why we are seeing the various
implosions around the world. [No, they aren't due to the big bad USA].
What we see with ISIS, one type of vacuum filling implosion, for example, is an
extreme, violent utopianism, where IF ONLY they were in power,
THEN...perfection? Can't work for reasons which I won't go into here. But to
attain that power, requires massive brutality and killing. And massive
repression, where a huge section of the population are reduced to slavery.
Am I my brother's keeper?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 1:22 PM
Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
Hi! Eugene Halton was right with saying, that my post was amazingly
thoughtless- or rather ignorant, because I havent known anything about Mumford
but these quotes by Brooks. Now, when I see that what I have called
"neglectiion of the value of life" in the context of his position against
appeasement poilicy towards the nazis, I can understand it- but still I think,
that saying "life is worthless" is an overreaction. There are dilemma
situations, in which pacifism does not work, or even produces very bad results.
But not being a pacifist anymore does not mean that you must throw the
principles you have had when you were one over board: You still can say, that
the value of life is the most important thing, and usually "thou shalt not
kill". But in case of nazis or isis, it is better to kill them, because, if you
dont, they kill far more people. So this is blending some utilitarism (highest
advantage for the highest number of people) into the else no more working
categorical imperative. But all this is still universalism based on the value
of life. A psychologist I like very much, who has explored human morality in
dilemma situations, is (was) Lawrence Kohlberg.
Best,
Helmut
"Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com> wrote:
And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will add
"and none" while adhering to these sage rules..
@stephencrose
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my
views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is indeed
relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in analogous
circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in the same way in
which your neighbors are you".
That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also, members
of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within both modes. Not
just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one mode of denying that
self and submerging it within the utopianism of 'communal submission'. But
both; it's not an easy task.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself
said. “Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all
you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of
wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and
in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would
believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the
most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity.”
@stephencrose
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
wrote:
Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of
war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems
heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always utopian
rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's because I
support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs.
Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be
compared with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that
rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just
leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs.
Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does grass
have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more powerful'?
The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is
more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing
herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals.
I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies
and actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when
their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill others,
to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think that the
State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to step in and
stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'.
The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power
than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of
women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this?
Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass
slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing
people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to
people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves?
I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book
by Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God,
State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of American
power in a violent world'.
She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they
have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather
similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place
violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't hide
from it.
Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of
biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and
repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to this
ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such thuggish
behaviour.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Phyllis Chiasson
To: Gary Richmond ; Eugene Halton
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
Main
Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs
adviser.
I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions.
I admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone
from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the
yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i support
the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides.
So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling
them out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts)
I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a new
approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not as I
wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I tried an
all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed salt, as that
would kill the grass too.
It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out
to me that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free.
Someone comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and
that is the sum total of gardening work on that lot.
Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to
understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been preparing
the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things that i didn't
want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; I have even read
Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.)
However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts
to eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim
organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only in
this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the most
problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is that
they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions to take
root.
Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the
essence of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting
for them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every
time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion
seeds to take root all over the world.
I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction,
not just in pragmatism.
Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gene Halton wrote:
I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito
and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and yet
you continue, Gene, that "Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to
Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,”
whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which is it Gene? Did
Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as you termed it? Our
"take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford.
I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite
sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the group
of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, "Brooks's
understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I agree with you
at least in that.
It is possible that when I read your book Bereft of Reason a few
years ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just
quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American
involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and
McCarthyism after the war. . ."
Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in
WW2 perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex"
(Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical
triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we now
in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the
military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the military-global
corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex? And the women and
children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good wars," those
"wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc.
Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above
with "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations
about how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and
the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars fodder,
and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the future may bring
in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), that these wars may
have proved historically, at least, problematic, especially given the fact that
those resolved nothing, and that we have been and are still slaughtering
children and young men and women and old men and women in battle, soldiers and
civilians send to there deaths for. . .. what values?--to what end? (certainly
in this sense at least, I completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most
recently, that there is a case to be made for pacifism).
So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared
away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely correct
and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself considerably less
"uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph Esposito, whom I
greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has all the answers to
the question of war and peace.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton
<eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> wrote:
I read David Brooks’ piece in the New York Times, and have had a
long term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually
discuss Mumford’s essay described by Brooks in my book, Bereft of Reason, on
page 147 forward.
I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph
Esposito and Gary R’s claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and
misguided, and Helmut’s claim that Mumford’s position is close to ISIS to be
amazingly thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford’s point in
this context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification
regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford’s position regarding
intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey’s at the time before
World War II was incorrect. Mumford’s allowance of the emotions was closer to
Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks’s understanding of “pragmatism,”
whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the term Mumford was
using was "pragmatic liberalism."
Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the
United States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a
critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned
against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the
Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like to
see what conservative David Brooks would do with that.
I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in Bereft
of Reason, on “Lewis Mumford’s Organic World-View” below.
Gene
excerpt from Bereft of Reason: “The second confrontation with
Dewey and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what
Mumford termed “The Corruption of Liberalism.” Mumford believed that fascism
would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and urged strong
measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of European nations
which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in The New Republic that
the United States “Strike first against fascism; and strike hard, but strike.”
His militant position was widely attacked by the left, and he lost a number of
friends in the process, including Frank Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles
Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among others.
To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate,
just consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of
Common Sense on the question “If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be
Neutral?”:
Bertrand Russell, “The Case for U.S. Neutrality;” Max Lerner,
“`Economic Force’ May Be Enough;” Charles A. Beard, “America Cannot ‘Save’
Europe;” John T. Flynn, “Nothing Less Than a Crime;” and Harry Elmer Barnes, “A
War for ‘Tory Finance’?”. Dewey’s contribution was titled, “No Matter What
Happens--Stay Out,” and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford’s piece,
“Fascism is Worse than War.” Mumford believed that the inability of the left to
see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to stem Hitler’s
Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition of what Mumford
called “pragmatic liberalism.” The fatal error of pragmatic liberalism was its
gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of emotional neutrality as a basis for
objectivity, which he characterized as “the dread of the emotions.” He
illustrated why the emotions ought to play a significant part in rational
decisions with an example of encountering a poisonous snake: “If one meets a
poisonous snake on one’s path, two things are important for a rational
reaction. One is to identify it, and not make the error of assuming that a
copperhead is a harmless adder. The other is to have a prompt emotion of fear,
if the snake is poisonous; for fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the
blood-stream, and that will not merely put the organism as a whole on the
alert, but it will give it the extra strength needed either to run away or to
attack. Merely to look at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and
without sensing danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational
step of permitting the snake to draw near without being on one’s guard against
his bite.” Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the
rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in
order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this example is
a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling one’s way in a
problematic situation to a rational reaction before the rationale becomes
conscious…
… In my opinion Dewey’s concept that the “context of situation”
should provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to
empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its
shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey’s belief on the eve of World War
II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against Nazi
Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put it in
1939, “If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if we now set
ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we stay out, we
shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe that could
overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which to erect a
socialized democracy.” Dewey criticized the idea that American involvement was
“inevitable” while simultaneously assuming such participation would somehow
produce inevitable results.
Perhaps American involvement did lead to the
military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the
former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey’s localism blinded him
to the fact that Western and World civilization were being subjected to a
barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, which would not
listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a
legitimate broader context of the situation and the possibility that the
unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler’s totalitarian ambitions could not be
avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of
the twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American
intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change.
Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for
being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the
allies’ adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden
and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of
military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. Mumford
was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having written an
essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of Hiroshima and a book
within a year, as well as helping to organize the first nuclear disarmament
movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam War, expressing opinions
publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. Mumford’s last scholarly
book, The Pentagon of Power (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on
the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.”
Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995,
pp147f.
---
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien
<h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords
neglection of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I
was indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the
value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist.
Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other
imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not as
means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were scolars of
Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking scientists and
pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. And his concept of
"culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on the value of life, but
vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its context, maybe.
Best,
Helmut
"Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list,
I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses
Mumford. and even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to
support his argument contra Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always had
a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe I have
ever read an entire book by him.
This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations
from his books I found more which resonated positively with me than did
not--which is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed.
Still, some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism,
although his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it
at the moment.
See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell
<bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Helmut, list,
I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read
Mumford, although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read.
For what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark
in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never
backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that
I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting
just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve life,
not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with other crap,
a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching
hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. At best, it gives
direction to their numbed desires. But there is no politics but the
manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter’s constant debasement."
- Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_.
Best, Ben
On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite
close to the Isis: "“Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless.
Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is
worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and
direction to human life.” That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: Your
life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) heaven.
Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project that on the
people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know that they havent
understood anything, the least the concept of universalism, and bark against
those who have, because they are jealous.
Gesendet: Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr
Von: "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
An: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less"
List,
Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York
Times column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor
today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion
To the Editor:
David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of
American pragmatism (“The Problem With Pragmatism,” column, Oct. 3). Even the
slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook
will reveal pragmatists who were passionate about values as well as the means
of realizing them in enduring democratic social institutions.
The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East
is not paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and
self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is needed
is more pragmatism, not less.
JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO
Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014
The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of
Sidney Hook.
Brooks
' article,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D
which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, may
have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito points to,
perhaps what Susan Haack in Evidence and Inquiry terms "vulgar Pragmatism"
(182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's
version.
Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the
chapter "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as
writing: ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem,
'What is for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need
of a great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." (
op. cit.
201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be
essentially a logician.
Best,
Gary
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY
ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or
"Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the
message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
