Dear Jeremy, I hope we all find evidence as important as ideas.
Sheldrake does not seem relevant to this discussion but if you have a particular point to make with respect to Sheldrake I encourage you to make it. Speaking for myself, I have nothing to say. I do not want to be drawn into the modern debate because it seems unresolvable between scientists that have given up on the scientific method (Dawkins et al.) and relentless religious interests. Many of us admire Stephen Jay Gould, and especially his last book, but I do not see his relevance here. Again, if you have a particular point then state it. As to the advocacy of Idealism, objective or not, argued by Benjamin or Charles, this is a very good question. "What exactly does this stance imply for list participants today?" I am happy to give you my take. I am sure others will disagree. The answer for me has to do with pragmatism or, reworded with a pragmatic bent, "How will I behave differently given Idealism?" While it is clear that the Peirce's accept ideas as primary they do not reject the physical world as the existent world, after-all they are one and covary (although I am actually having a hard time supporting my position that Benjamin actually meant "general covariance" in the form argued by Einstein). I have argued that Benjamin set Charles upon the task of building the bridge between pure mathematics and the physical sciences. Charles gave this a good attempt with logic as semeiotic theory, but the task remains undone. The reasons he failed are many: including: The initial logical premise is wrong (the idea of "truth" too often leads us into dualism and "reduction to a point" - which is where Logicism ended up). He gave up on his father and brother's enthusiasm for quaternions (a means of reasoning about structure that he yielded way too early in my view). His biophysical science is absent, immature or, at least, premature (just the time in history). How this effects your behavior depends upon where you are yourself in life. As a younger man I found a way to get on that bridge and build a part of it, I used it to inform my epistemology. As an older man, facing my own mortality, I find it informs me about the big questions concerning the nature of human life and death (now in my forthcoming book). My apologies for "leaving you reeling" - there is not a lot I can do about that except to encourage you to hang in there. Regards, Steven On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Jeremy Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > List: Steve, Jon, Gary, Søren & the rest of you > > This is probably my first contribution to the List discussion, although I > have now followed the lattern with varying degrees of attention for quite a > few years. I remain puzzled at exactly how each poster composes his/her > email trail. I have chosen Steve’s latest post and trail for comment as it > raises issues of particular concern to me. > > Objective idealism: What exactly does this stance imply for list > participants to-day? > > Smolin and evolution of the ‘laws of nature’. I see his views as > corresponding to a fundamental shift in the underlying discourse of > science. But I am puzzled to see no mention in the on-going discussion of > Rupert Sheldrake’s extensive writings. Let me cite for instance his book > ‘Science set free’ (2012), which markets in the UK sphere as ‘The science > delusion’. > > The evolution of organisms is admittedly some sub-set of that of the > cosmos, let alone that of the ‘laws'. But I am puzzled here by the lack of > any reference to Stephen Jay Gould, and especially to his magnum opus, > published just before his death in 2002, ‘The structure of evolutionary > theory’, let alone of any of his other prolific writings. > > Surely the mechanism of evolution varies according to what is evolving. > The key problem for me is how exactly Sheldrake’s view of evolution as > change of ‘habit' in the latter’s role in generating material reality fits > in with contemporary views about natural selection. Both of these surely > play key roles. > > Catastrophism: According to Gould, this is of key importance, and he > deals in great detail with both the relevant theory and evidence. As a > biologist by training, I find evidence is as important as ideas. > > Steve, your references to how the various Peirces conceived of evolution > fascinate me, although your terse quotes and summaries leave me reeling > from lack of also learning how these views wove into the history of ideas. > I feel increasingly convinced though that these several thinkers, not least > our Charles, were well ahead of their time in foreshadowing key features of > important emerging current views. > > Best wishes, Jeremy > > On 25 Mar 2015, at 9:35 am, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote: > > By way of follow up since I have been reading Clarence King. > > Let me note that King's version of evolution, so admired and approved of > by Charles Peirce, is a form of Catastrophism. Essentially he argues, quite > convincingly I might add, that periods of Catastrophe are primarily > responsible for evolutionary change. His "Systematic Geology" is reputedly > one of the most significant scientific texts of the 19th century. He does > not deny gradual natural selection but he does argue for a "plasticity" in > these Catastrophic events. Hence Peirce's claim that he modifies both > Darwin and LaMarke. He is not as extreme as Curvier (the principle early > advocate of Catastrophism). > > It is not possible to accept Charles Peirce's views on evolutionary > processes without understanding the work of King. > > King, incidentally, turns out to be a remarkable character. He lived much > of his life, under an alias (James Todd), as an African-Amercian. He met, > fell in love with, and married by common-law, an African-American woman > (Ada Copeland King, a former slave), with whom he had five children, four > that lived. He claimed to his wife to be a train porter, but all the while > he worked as a researcher out of Yale. He only revealed himself to his wife > in a letter written from his death bed (by profession he was, in fact, a > field geologist). By way of explanation, relationships between the races > were subject to violent attack during the 19th century. > > Appointed the first director of the United States Geological Survey, Ada > Copeland King (born ~1860) lived a long life and died in 1964. > > Regards, > Steven > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time right now and I am still in >> recovery. I also have projects that have my main attention. So the >> following should be deemed flawed and tentative. >> >> However, let me to point out that one needs to read more than the text >> Gary selected. >> >> Let us first clarify Charles' use of "necessarism." Charles is working in >> a climate of the exactitude of Newtonian mechanics. He rebels against this >> "exactitude" and is forced to draw a reference to what is widely called >> today "degrees of freedom" and he calls "pure chance." >> >> He is not saying that there is no *necessity*; a range of potential >> values available to results. >> >> In fact, he argues his father's position (search for the one instance of >> "undetermined" that you will find in discussion of "Elasticity" in Analytic >> Mechanics). Just as his main position is for the nature of the world in >> IDEALITY, in ideas, where faliblism reins. >> >> The discussion focuses upon three (actually four) theories of evolution >> (essentially Darwinian, Lamarkian, Spencerian and King) where he prefers >> the theory Darwinian/Lamarkian theory modified by Clarence King. >> >> CP 6.17 ... "This mode of evolution, by external forces and the breaking >> up of habits, seems to be called for by some of the broadest and most >> important facts of biology and paleontology; while it certainly has been >> the chief factor in the historical evolution of institutions as in that of >> ideas; and cannot possibly be refused a very prominent place in the process >> of evolution of the universe in general." >> >> This advocacy is in the context of his "Objective Idealism." >> >> He states: "Then the question arises whether physical laws on the one >> hand and the psychical law on the other are to be taken: (a) as >> independent, a doctrine often called monism, but which I would name >> neutralism; or, (b) the psychical law as derived and special, the physical >> law alone as primordial, which is materialism; or, (c) the physical law as >> derived and special, the psychical law alone as primordial, which is >> idealism." >> >> For which: "The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of >> objective idealism." >> >> But as he points out " ... before this can be accepted it must show >> itself capable of explaining the tri- dimensionality of space, the laws of >> motion, and the general characteristics of the universe, with mathematical >> clearness and precision; for no less should be demanded of every >> philosophy." >> >> And this requires *necessity* along the lines that we more conventionally >> understand it today. >> >> Elsewhere his discussion is more directly around faliblism and he >> observes that as these "psychical" laws evolve they are naturally better >> matched. >> >> Now, this is not conclusive because it is not yet clear if Peirce is >> essentially arguing that all is ideal and there is no physical, which is >> essentially how this may come over. >> >> On Smolin, and I mean this with all respect. We all know here how easy it >> is to dip into C.S. Peirce and be 100% wrong about what he says because you >> absolutely must have the broader familial and historical context. >> >> I think it a mistake for a physicist to make claims based upon anything >> less than a full scholarly reading without specifying the exact mechanisms. >> Deacon's debacle, for example. I doubt, for example, that Smolin would >> agree that all physics is ideal. Indeed, I doubt this for Peirce too >> because I expect that both will appeal to experiment and faliblism. >> >> So despite the interviews that Gary posted the mechanism that Smolin >> proposes remains a mystery unless he is arguing that science deals only >> with the mind and the laws he considers are only of the mind, at which >> point I'd argue that Benjamin, James and Charles have him beat and he >> necessarily must head my way. :-) >> >> Regards, >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> List, >>> >>> Here's a seminal text, quoted a number of times on the list over the >>> years, on Peirce's idea that laws evolve (more quotations when I have time). >>> >>> Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and >>> for uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This >>> supposes them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an >>> element of indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just >>> as, when we attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations >>> cannot be precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy >>> to errors of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies >>> to exist owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain >>> swerving of the facts from any definite formula. CP 6.13 >>> Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical >>> principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the >>> principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause, since the tendency to >>> growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ >>> accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to >>> be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never >>> can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity >>> is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic. >>> Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the >>> proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible; >>> so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by >>> those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In >>> short, Spencer is not a philosophical evolutionist, but only a >>> half-evolutionist -- or, if you will, only a semi-Spencerian. Now >>> philosophy requires thorough-going evolutionism or none.CP 6.14 >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Edwina, Soren, Jon, list, >>>> >>>> I agree with you, Edwina, that a topic having been addressed on >>>> peirce-l in the past might very well be fruitfully taken up at a later time >>>> since any number of list members may not have followed that earlier >>>> discussion or even joined the list after said discussion, while those who >>>> have followed it or who even participated in it may have modified their >>>> understandings (for example, having been exposed to some of the >>>> contemporary literature relating to it such as, for example, that which >>>> Soren recently pointed to). >>>> >>>> I also tend to strongly agree with you and disagree with Jon that the >>>> matter of the evolution of laws is a "pseudo-issue," and I don't recall our >>>> arriving at anything like a consensus that it's a "pseudo-issue" in that >>>> earlier discussion. Also it seems clear from the Peirce and Smolin texts >>>> that they both see the evolution of laws *as such *and not as merely >>>> our better, more clearly understanding them. For Peirce and Smolin laws >>>> themselves evolve over perhaps vast periods of time. And I would even >>>> maintain that Peirce's notion of laws evolving includes not only biological >>>> laws relating to the evolution on the earth, but involves 'cosmological' >>>> ones as well (this, I think, is Smolin's position as well). I'll try to >>>> hunt up a few Peirce excepts supporting that position in the next few days, >>>> but at the moment I'm exceedingly busy, so any help here would be >>>> appreciated. >>>> >>>> The idea of evolution occurring "over perhaps vast periods of time" >>>> leads me to one question I have regarding your conclusion, Edwina. While I >>>> do agree with you that the present question (the evolution of laws) "has >>>> little to do with 'variables varying over time' - which removes those >>>> variables from a causality due to interaction with the environment and >>>> reduces them to merely a causality due to the linear passage of time. The >>>> theory of adaptive evolution on the other hand inserts an informational >>>> networking of organisms with other organisms/envt...and suggests a freedom, >>>> a spontaneous and informed change to adapt to the requirements of the >>>> environment". >>>> >>>> But you conclude "Nothing to do with time. >>>> >>>> Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) to >>>> do with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive >>>> evolution has "nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic >>>> processes involve time. Or am I missing something here? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> xxx >>>> >>>> [image: Gary Richmond] >>>> >>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>> *Communication Studies* >>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>> *C 745* >>>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> List, Jon, Soren, Steven: >>>>> >>>>> Let's go a full step deeper into the inquiry of time. >>>>> >>>>> Start with the presumption that an event initiated the becoming into >>>>> existence of concept of matter. >>>>> (Alternatively, one can start with the Eastern view of the universe >>>>> cycling and re-cycling itself which forces even more difficult conundrums >>>>> into metaphysical discourse.) >>>>> >>>>> What existed before matter? >>>>> Mind? If so, what sort of mind? >>>>> Time? If so, when was time initiated? And what were its origins? >>>>> Mathematics? If so, when was mathematics initiated? Did mathematics >>>>> initiate time? Matter? If so, how? >>>>> >>>>> Intertwined with these conundrums are the questions on the nature of >>>>> mathematics itself. >>>>> >>>>> Was mathematics initiated by the mind of man? (as a part of the >>>>> emergence of man's mind?) >>>>> Or, does mathematics pre-exist the existence of humans? >>>>> If mathematics pre-exists human constructionism, when was it initiated? >>>>> Or, is mathematics a consequence of natural events, such as the atomic >>>>> numbers? >>>>> Or, did the ordinals exist before the cardinal? >>>>> Or, did the cardinals exist before the ordinals? >>>>> And, what motivated the (illicit?) constructions of the complex >>>>> numbers? Electricity? >>>>> >>>>> Just a few of the conundrums that come to mind when thinking of the >>>>> physical representation of time. >>>>> >>>>> Whatever one decides about physical time, both chemical time and >>>>> biological time and mental time are far more difficult problems BECAUSE >>>>> the >>>>> unbounded irregularities of time "flow" (that is, change) in these >>>>> disciplines. >>>>> >>>>> A simple example of these irregularities are the concatenation of >>>>> enzyme-catalysed reactions in creating the feedback and feed forward >>>>> "flows" of time in living systems. (Origin of logic of Biosemiotics?) >>>>> >>>>> If you can afford the efforts, play with these assertions in terms of >>>>> the small set of "connectives" of propositional logics. >>>>> Your conclusions, if logically sound and complete, would be keenly >>>>> evaluated by the scientific community. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Jerry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Thread: >>>>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878 >>>>> > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15879 >>>>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15880 >>>>> > >>>>> > Søren, List, >>>>> > >>>>> > Oh, of course, it was nice to be reminded, and that inspired me >>>>> > to scan through a sample of what had been said before, plus I'm >>>>> > really fond of that particular quote I featured on my blog, and >>>>> > I thought the glancing review from NPR was kind of interesting: >>>>> > >>>>> > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/ >>>>> > http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real >>>>> > >>>>> > To my way of thinking, the whole thing is really a pseudo-issue. >>>>> > Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than >>>>> > "the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were", >>>>> > which historically speaking is just the usual case. >>>>> > >>>>> > To say that "the laws of physics evolve" is just to say >>>>> > that the laws of physics we know contain parameters that >>>>> > we used to believe were constants but now we believe are >>>>> > variables, and all that does is initiate an inquiry into >>>>> > the laws that rule the time evolution of those variables. >>>>> > Which is again just another variation on the usual theme. >>>>> > The form of inquiry itself persists. >>>>> > >>>>> > Regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Jon >>>>> > >>>>> > On 3/20/2015 5:46 AM, Søren Brier wrote: >>>>> >> Jon >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern >>>>> physicist found it possible to uphold his position while having a view >>>>> close to Peirce's. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Søren >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>>>> >> Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> >> Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32 >>>>> >> Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky >>>>> >> Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List >>>>> >> Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Re: Søren Brier >>>>> >> At: >>>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Søren, List, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the >>>>> instigation, of much discussion here and there around the web a couple >>>>> years ago. >>>>> >> From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached >>>>> the topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the >>>>> rest of the summer: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in >>>>> connection with a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity >>>>> and the theory of computation: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/ >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Regards, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Jon >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote: >>>>> >>> Dear Steven >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for >>>>> the evolution of laws? >>>>> >>> The Singular Universe….THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF >>>>> TIME >>>>> >>> Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014. >>>>> >>> Synopsis >>>>> >>> This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of >>>>> nature. We argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the >>>>> mutability of the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning >>>>> into natural philosophy –- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries >>>>> between science and philosophy. >>>>> >>> The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as >>>>> to scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither >>>>> does it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized >>>>> readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to >>>>> people >>>>> in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics. >>>>> >>> In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the >>>>> idea of an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, >>>>> they maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This >>>>> second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new >>>>> picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the methods >>>>> of >>>>> fundamental science. >>>>> >>> The book develops four inter-related themes: >>>>> >>> 1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one >>>>> of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The >>>>> current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious >>>>> reasoning. >>>>> >>> 2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of >>>>> nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time >>>>> has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs. >>>>> >>> 3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. >>>>> There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of >>>>> affairs >>>>> that they govern.. >>>>> >>> 4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine >>>>> it to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality >>>>> (Platonism) in order to make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in >>>>> science. >>>>> >>> We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as >>>>> well as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way >>>>> theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that >>>>> is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable >>>>> experiments. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> And Smolin’s Time Reborn >>>>> >>> “What is time? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> It’s the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so >>>>> obvious. And yet, to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an >>>>> illusion. If you could somehow get outside the universe and observe it >>>>> from >>>>> there, you would see that every moment has always existed and always will. >>>>> Lee Smolin disagrees, and in Time Reborn he lays out the case why. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the >>>>> reality of time and the openness of the future. Smolin’s groundbreaking >>>>> theory postulates that physical laws can evolve over time and the future >>>>> is >>>>> not yet determined. Newton’s fundamental laws may not remain so >>>>> fundamental.” >>>>> >>> Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that >>>>> different laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe >>>>> over time. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Søren >>>>> >>> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > >>>>> > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >>>>> > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >>>>> > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >>>>> > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >>>>> > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >>>>> > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >>>>> > >>>>> > ----------------------------- >>>>> > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY >>>>> ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 >>>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 >>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > Jeremy Evans > 3 Rucker St, Northcote > Melbourne VIC 3070 > Australia > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
