Hi Perry,
I don't know much about his work. A glance at his website seems like he is
going in the right direction, although my impression is that his approach
to biology may be too tied to physics, which would be insufficient to
explain life. To explain "allostery", for example, I predict that we have
to import into biology the concept of ITR (irreducible triadic relation)
from Peirce's semiotics, which implicates Firstness (possibilities),
Secondness (actualities resulting from natural genesis of organisms), and
Thirdness (regularities, e.g., survivability, resulting from
environment-organism interactions):
f g
Firstness -----> Secondness -----> Thirdness
| ^
| |
|____________________________|
h
Figure 1. The irreducible triad of Peirce which is equivalent/synonymous
to "category" in mathematics. That is, the mappings commute: f x g = h,
where f = actualization; g= habit (or regularity) formation; h =
information flow. f and g represent causality (ie., force-mediated
processes), and h represent 'codality' (i.e., information-mediated
processes).
All the best.
Sung
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Perry Marshall <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Sung,
>
> Do you have any opinion about Jeremy England's work?
>
> Perry
>
> On Saturday, July 18, 2015, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom, lists,
>>
>> T: ". . . this Habit sign has a complex interpretant. "
>>
>> S: You are absolutely right. All signs have multiple interpretants, but
>> let us remember that not all interpretants are created equal. Some are the
>> products of the free-roaming mind of the interpreter and some are not so
>> free but constrained by the object (or reality) it refers to, and this
>> constraint is the essence of the irreducible TRIADIC relation (ITR) of
>> Peirce (as I understand it), in contrast to Saussure's DYADIC relation
>> between signifier (or sign) and signified (or object).
>>
>> T: Because the rest of the world has a different interpretant for
>> "habit," assigning the same word to this complex sign may create confusion
>> among readers (except Peirce!) and therefore does not seem a pragmatic
>> choice.
>>
>> S: Well, one word having more than one interpretant (depending on the
>> interpreter) is not unusual and is something to be expected. But your are
>> raising an important issue here -- the difference between a "word" as a
>> 'representamen' and a "word" as as a 'sign'. What I mean is that, the
>> "habit hierarchy" proposed in Figure 1 of my (Jul 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM)
>> post can be a sign referring to a given object (or theory) but can have
>> two ore more different names or 'representamens', such as 'quan-seup' in
>> Korean, and 'Gewohnheit' in German.
>>
>> Let us again remember that Peirce distinguished between "sign" and
>> "representamen", although he usually used these two terms interchangeably
>> (to confuse most of us). You have, I think, stumbled upon a valuable
>> lesson for all Peirceans to learn from: the "habit hierarchy" in Figure 1 is
>> indeed a sign (which is triadic as Peirce defined) and the word "habit" is
>> the "representamen" assigned to the habit hierarchy (which is a part of the
>> irreducible triad of Peirce). This is why I often represent Peirce's
>> triadic sign as a 4-node network in order to distinguish between "sign" and
>> "representamen":
>>
>>
>> Representamen
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> SIGN
>> / \
>> / \
>> / \
>> Object Interpretant
>>
>> Figure A. A 4-node representation of Peircean sign.
>>
>> Some Peirceans may disagree, but I think this 4-node diagram provides an
>> unambiguous geometrical foundation for the 9 groups of "signs" proposed by
>> Peirce:
>>
>> the relation between sign and representamen = 'qualisign', 'sinsign'
>> and 'legisign';
>> the relation between sign and object = 'icon', 'index'
>> and 'symbol'; and
>> the relation between sign and interpretant = 'rheme', 'dicisign',
>> and 'argument'.
>>
>> As is well known among Peirceans, Peirce combined these 9 groups of
>> 'signs' into 10 classes of more complex 'signs' such as 'rhematic iconic
>> qualisign' (e.g., a feeling of 'red'), 'dicent indexical sinsign' (e.g., a
>> weathercock), 'dicent symbolic legisign' (e.g., a proposition), etc. (see
>> the figure and the table attached reproduced from [biosemiotics:46] dated
>> 12/26/2012).
>>
>> Finally, I would like to point out that the construction of the habit
>> hierarchy under discussion is an attempt to contribute to discovering "simple
>> concepts applicable to every
>>
>> subject":
>>
>>
>>
>> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to
>>
>> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to
>>
>> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to
>>
>> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of
>>
>> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology,
>>
>> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in
>>
>> whatever other department there may be, shall appear
>>
>> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward
>>
>> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every
>>
>> subject." CP 1.1
>>
>>
>>
>> Just as there are simple chemical elements (about 100) that can give rise
>> to almost infinite number of chemical compounds, only small number of which
>> are actually found in our Universe (e.g., water, plastics, drugs,
>> sugars, proteins, lipids, solid-state materials, nylon, etc.), including
>> living things on the Earth (containing only about a dozen, i.e., H, C, N,
>> O, S, P, Fe, Co, Ni, K, Na, Ca, Mg, Zn, and a few others), so I think there
>> may exist a relatively small number of "simple concepts" (e.g., 9 groups
>> of sign relations, 10 classes of triadic signs, ITR, energy, entropy,
>> information, categories, etc.) that underlie (or serve as the necessary
>> conditions for) all complex concepts, likely almost infinite in number.
>>
>>
>> Finally, I think the ultimate reality is continuous and complex. The
>> human mind can only know and discuss using signs only a very small pieces
>> of it at a time, following what may be called the "(n-1)-n-(n+1)" rule:
>>
>>
>>
>> f
>> g
>>
>> (n -1)^th level -----> n^th level -----> (n +
>> 1)^th level
>> |
>> ^
>> |
>> |
>> |_____________________________|
>>
>> h
>>
>>
>> Figure B. An application of the ITR (irreducible triadic relation)
>> principle to the process of human knowing. f = reductionism ?; g = holism
>> ?; h = validation ?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments, let me know.
>>
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ozzie <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sung, List ~
>>>
>>> Regarding the first diagram: The "Habits" sign includes physical
>>> appearances, (learned) behavior which may be practiced regularly by some
>>> but not all members of the cohort in response to an external opportunity
>>> and/or internal motive, and (instinctual) behavior that is exhibited by all
>>> members of the cohort sharing the same external stimuli, with a cohort-wide
>>> response potential if the external environment changes. In short, this
>>> Habit sign has a complex interpretant.
>>>
>>> The usefulness of assigning a sign+interpretant to an object is largely
>>> determined by the purpose of the thinker, and other things being equal
>>> simplicity is a virtue. Applying this particular Habit sign to a living
>>> creature points to: "Stuff that looks and behaves similarly, but with some
>>> variation, when an individual is in close proximity to (shares the same
>>> environment as) other members of the cohort." I'm thinking ants,
>>> Klingons or soccer/football fans. (;
>>>
>>> Because the rest of the world has a different interpretant for "habit,"
>>> assigning the same word to this complex sign may create confusion among
>>> readers (except Peirce!) and therefore does not seem a pragmatic choice.
>>> Perhaps biologists or botanists already have a good term (sign) for your
>>> interpretant-set.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tom Wyrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding me of your hierarchy theory.
>>>
>>> These two types of hierarchies you call subsumptive (S) and
>>> compositional (C), how are they related ? Are S and C mutually exclusive
>>> or are they different aspects of a third entity? If the former, the
>>> relation may be "supplementarity" and if the latter "complementarity", the
>>> two relational types that Niels Bohr discussed in 1926-7 (See [1] for a
>>> review).
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the habit hierarchy that I depicted in Figure 1 of my 7/16/2015
>>> post which is reproduced below for convenience with some additions may be
>>> more complicated than can be described as a S hierarchy, although it has
>>> that feature (e.g., "instinct" is thought to be subsumed by heritable
>>> habits). The C hierarchy is also involved because each node of the habit
>>> hierarchy may be a system of parts, e.g., "behavior" may contain emotional,
>>> cognitive, and belief components.
>>>
>>> What may be one of the most important features of the habit hierarchy is
>>> the fact that two successive bifurcations, 1 and 2, connects the origin
>>> (denoted as O) to three leaves or endpoints (denoted as a, b, and c). This
>>> is interesting to me because it may provide one "mechanism" to connect
>>> DICHOTOMNY (bifurcations) to TRICHOTOMY (three endpoints).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Habits
>>> (O)
>>> |
>>> __________|__________ (1)
>>> | |
>>> | |
>>> v v
>>> Non-heritable Heritable
>>> (learned behaviors ?) |
>>> (a) _________|_________
>>> (2)
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> v
>>> v
>>> Species-specific
>>> Individual-specific
>>> ("instinct" ?) ("family
>>> resemblances")
>>> (b)
>>> (c)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Figure 1. A possible classification of habits ? Reproduced from my
>>> 7/16/2015 post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A similar mechanism of connecting dichotomy (or dyad) and trichotomy (or
>>> triad) occurs in Chapter 42 in the Tao Te Ching which reads in part ('Tao'
>>> is now written as 'Dao' in more recent literature):
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tao gives birth to one,
>>> One gives birth to two,
>>> Two gives birth to three,
>>> Three gives birth to ten thousand beings.
>>> Ten thousand beings carry yin on their backs and embrace yang in their
>>> front,
>>> Blending these two vital breaths to attain harmony."
>>>
>>> -- from chapter 42, E. Chen (tr.)
>>> http://taomanor.org/10000.html
>>>
>>>
>>> The ideas expressed in this chapter can be diagrammatically represented
>>> thus:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dao
>>> (0)
>>> |
>>> __________|__________ (1)
>>> | |
>>> | |
>>> v v
>>> yin (1) yang (1)
>>> (a) |
>>> _________|________
>>> (2)
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> v
>>> v
>>> yin (2)
>>> yang (2)
>>> (b)
>>> (c)
>>>
>>>
>>> Figure 2. The Daoist theory of the origin of everything as a BIFURCATION
>>> HIERARCHY (involving two bifurcations, 1 and 2) leading to a triad (denoted
>>> as a, b and c) which give rise to everything in the Universe.
>>>
>>> The isomorphism (i.e., the similarity in structure) evident in Figures 1
>>> and 2 may indicate that the 'habit bifurcation hierarchy' that I proposed
>>> reflects the universal principle of the yin-yang dichotomy basic to the
>>> Daoist philosophy, just as the genetic code can be said to reflect the
>>> yin-yang principle embodied in the hexagrams of the ancient Chinese "Book
>>> of Changes" [2].
>>>
>>> If the above interpretations are valid, I would not be surprised if some
>>> scholars will find ways to connect the ITR (irreducible triadic relation)
>>> of Peirce to the yin-yang doctrine of the Daoist philosophy in the future
>>> (if it has not been done already).
>>>
>>> With all the best.
>>>
>>> Sung
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> References:
>>> [1] Ji, S. (2012). Complementarity.
>>> <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Chapters_2_complementarity_08192012.pdf>
>>> In: *Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular
>>> Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.* Springer, New York. Section
>>> 2.3, pp. 24-50. PDF at http://www.conformon.net under Publications >
>>> Book Chapters.
>>> [2] Petroukhov, S. V. (1999). Genetic Code and the Ancient Chinese
>>> 'Book of Changes'. Symmetry: Culture and Science. 10 (3-4): 211-226.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Stanley N Salthe <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sung --
>>>>
>>>> Subsumptive hierarchy: {most general or primitive {more specific or
>>>> more developed}}
>>>>
>>>> Compositional hierarchy: [whole [part [part of part]
>>>>
>>>> STAN
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you remind me what is the other kind of hierarchy you wrote about ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sung
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Stanley N Salthe <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sung -- That's a subsumptive hierarchy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STAN
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gary F, Gary R, Jeff, lists,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if we can divide habits into three classes, one of which
>>>>>>> can be called "instinct" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Habits
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> __________|__________
>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>> | |
>>>>>>> v v
>>>>>>> Non-heritable Heritable
>>>>>>> (learned behaviors ?) |
>>>>>>> _________|_________
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>> v
>>>>>>> v
>>>>>>> Species-specific
>>>>>>> Individual-specific
>>>>>>> ("instinct" ?)
>>>>>>> ("family resemblances")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Figure 1. A possible classification of habits ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sung
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff, Gary et al.,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My first thought was that instinct being a habit of the *species*
>>>>>>>> (not just the individual), it would have been weeded out by natural
>>>>>>>> selection if the “ledger” didn’t “balance”. Isn’t that a possibility
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> what Peirce had in mind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary f.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* July 15, 2015 3:21 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* Peirce-L
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff, John, list,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff, quoting Peirce, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen
>>>>>>>> to be of advantage to the associating individuals; but each
>>>>>>>> individual's
>>>>>>>> instinct brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the
>>>>>>>> advantages
>>>>>>>> that it brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> sides of the ledger must balance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why must the sides of the ledger balance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been mulling this over since I read it and haven't yet been
>>>>>>>> able to come to an adequate answer to your question. At the moment I'm
>>>>>>>> thinking it might have something to do with Peirce's idea that every
>>>>>>>> individual is a kind of society, while every society is also a kind of
>>>>>>>> individual. I'm hoping that John or someone else on the list can put a
>>>>>>>> brighter light on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <~WRD028.jpg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *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 Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary, John, list,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that this passage is particularly important for
>>>>>>>> understanding Peirce's account of instinct. The first step in
>>>>>>>> developing a
>>>>>>>> better explanation of the nature of instinct is to provide a more
>>>>>>>> adequate
>>>>>>>> natural classification of the different kinds of instincts. It appears
>>>>>>>> that the driving idea in this classificatory scheme is the role of
>>>>>>>> association in the explanation of the different kinds of instincts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen
>>>>>>>> to be of advantage to the associating individuals; but each
>>>>>>>> individual's
>>>>>>>> instinct brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the
>>>>>>>> advantages
>>>>>>>> that it brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> sides of the ledger must balance."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why must the sides of the ledger balance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Jeff
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeff Downard
>>>>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>>>>> Department of Philosophy
>>>>>>>> NAU
>>>>>>>> (o) 523-8354
>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>>> From: Gary Richmond [[email protected]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:36 AM
>>>>>>>> To: Peirce-L
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, I agree with you that Miguel's snippet from "A Theory of
>>>>>>>> Probable Inference" is a gem (esp. the "important truth, that all human
>>>>>>>> knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is but the
>>>>>>>> development of
>>>>>>>> our inborn animal instincts") and will have me rereading that piece
>>>>>>>> later
>>>>>>>> in the week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I happened upon this passage wherein Peirce writes of the instincts
>>>>>>>> in considering the classification of sciences. He suggests that there
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> "two distinct kinds," namely, (1) those that may help to preserve the
>>>>>>>> stock
>>>>>>>> through preserving the individual, and (2) those that are social in the
>>>>>>>> sense of advantaging "some other individual or individuals than the
>>>>>>>> agent."
>>>>>>>> (I've broken this long passage, part of an even longer paragraph, into
>>>>>>>> smaller paragraphs for readability.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second Family, that of Systems of Performance, has quite
>>>>>>>> clearly two Subfamilies. Both the one and the other are,
>>>>>>>> substantially, and
>>>>>>>> in the gross, confined to animal and human performances, including
>>>>>>>> organized associations. One Subfamily studies those systems of
>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>> which are mainly confined to the brutes, to the lower animals
>>>>>>>> generally,
>>>>>>>> being in the instinctive stage of development; so that there is an
>>>>>>>> inborn
>>>>>>>> faculty by virtue of which the performance is determined in almost all
>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> details. The Instincts are said to be all adaptive, although it would
>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>> to be in very small measure that play is so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the instincts seem to be of two distinct kinds, those
>>>>>>>> which are adapted to the preservation of the stock, if at all, through
>>>>>>>> preserving the individual in whom the instinct acts, and those which
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> social, and therefore, so far as they are adaptive, are adaptive
>>>>>>>> primarily
>>>>>>>> to the advantage of some other individual or individuals than the agent
>>>>>>>> [emphasis added].. Association may happen to be of advantage to the
>>>>>>>> associating individuals; but each individual's instinct brings no more
>>>>>>>> advantage to him than the sum of all the advantages that it brings to
>>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>>> many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of the
>>>>>>>> ledger
>>>>>>>> must balance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then, over and above this, association is generally connected
>>>>>>>> with reproduction, and is therefore advantageous to the stock quite
>>>>>>>> independently of its advantage to the individual. In many cases, the
>>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>> instincts are expensive to the individual, even dangerous, sometimes
>>>>>>>> fatal.
>>>>>>>> It appears to me that this Subfamily has but one Genus and that this
>>>>>>>> Genus
>>>>>>>> has two Subgenera relating to the two kinds of instincts. There is a
>>>>>>>> certain difficulty in the fact that instincts for war are on the one
>>>>>>>> hand
>>>>>>>> social, since war is a sort of social reaction, and is moreover often
>>>>>>>> dangerous, sometimes certainly fatal, yet on the other hand, it seems
>>>>>>>> improper to distinguish war from preying, and preying is generally an
>>>>>>>> affair of bread-winning, adapted to the preservation of the agent. It
>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>> to me, however, that in war the enemy is not looked upon as
>>>>>>>> fellow-creatures, but is treated as a thing, and I believe that though
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> instinct brings danger, it is nevertheless a selfish one, and ought to
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> classed with those which go to preserve the agent. This is
>>>>>>>> inconvenient, it
>>>>>>>> is true, as regards duels motived by jealousy, which is the chief kind
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> fighting among herbivora.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The leading instincts studied in the first Subgenus are those of
>>>>>>>> Feeding and Food Getting. The study of these will make the first
>>>>>>>> Species.
>>>>>>>> The study of instincts of War will be the second, with two Subspecies,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> study of instincts of active war making one, the study of
>>>>>>>> self-preservation
>>>>>>>> including the instincts of self-concealment being the other. Other
>>>>>>>> species
>>>>>>>> will study the minor instincts, such as those of personal Cleanliness,
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Medicine (dogs eating grass, etc.), of hibernation, and the singular
>>>>>>>> instinct for collecting and hoarding all sorts of useless things, as
>>>>>>>> seen
>>>>>>>> in rats, in mag-pies, and some other animals, a genuine collecting
>>>>>>>> mania,
>>>>>>>> apparently quite useless. Then I am inclined to think that we must
>>>>>>>> admit a
>>>>>>>> Species for the study of instincts of working materials, such as the
>>>>>>>> tree-felling instinct of beavers, the instinct of the wood-pecker. With
>>>>>>>> this I would reckon all instinctive mechanical skill. CP 7.378
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This may not closely relate to your particular interest in
>>>>>>>> instinct, but I found the passage intriguing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Gary Richmond]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary Richmond
>>>>>>>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>>>>>>>> Communication Studies
>>>>>>>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>>>>>>>> C 745
>>>>>>>> 718 482-5690
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Collier <[email protected]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for
>>>>>>>> sending this gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not
>>>>>>>> particularly useful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I should be asleep. Best to all,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
>>>>>>>> Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM
>>>>>>>> To: John Collier; [email protected]<mailto:
>>>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive
>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the last paragraph of an extremely interesting text, "A Theory
>>>>>>>> of Probable Inference", W4: 408-450 (1883); Peirce points that "Side by
>>>>>>>> side, then, with the well established proposition that all knowledge is
>>>>>>>> based on experience, and that science is only advanced by the
>>>>>>>> experimental
>>>>>>>> verifications of theories, we have to place this other equally
>>>>>>>> important
>>>>>>>> truth, that all human knowledge, up to the highest flights of science,
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> but the development of our inborn animal instincts."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Miguel Angel Fernandez
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> El 14/07/2015 a las 19:08, John Collier escribió:
>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am very interested in instincts for various reasons. I recently
>>>>>>>> gave a talk on Piaget’s views on instincts at the International
>>>>>>>> Society for
>>>>>>>> Philosophy, History and Social Sciences in Biology in Montreal last
>>>>>>>> week. I
>>>>>>>> would be most interested if there is a Peircean position on instincts
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> can be supported by his writings. I would be surprised if this were
>>>>>>>> not so,
>>>>>>>> but so far I have not seen anything that I could use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best to all,
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>>>>>> Sent: July 12, 2015 8:04 PM
>>>>>>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Edwina Taborsky; Benjamin Udell; <
>>>>>>>> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and
>>>>>>>> Abductive Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ozzie, Stephen, Stephen, List,
>>>>>>>> I agree. And I think, that idealists are in fact realists, because:
>>>>>>>> Liberty, equality, fraternity and justice are not only ideals, but also
>>>>>>>> human instincts, inherited structure of the human race, written down
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> DNA. That is so, because genetically we are still hunters and
>>>>>>>> collectors,
>>>>>>>> and they have led a free life, people were quite equal with their
>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>> and plights, everybody was dependent on everybody else, and they had to
>>>>>>>> solve conflicts in a just way. So I think, that culture is often
>>>>>>>> overestimated, a rigid culture can block these instincts for a while,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> they will reappear soon. This view is just rosy because of its hope,
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> no rigid culture will gain total control.
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ozzie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephen ~
>>>>>>>> I don't go along with your characterization of American history in
>>>>>>>> such generic terms. You seem to say the founding fathers supported
>>>>>>>> personal freedom -- end of story. But America's founding fathers
>>>>>>>> revolted
>>>>>>>> for a specific reason: English citizens living in the American
>>>>>>>> colonies did
>>>>>>>> not have representatives in the British Parliament or the protections
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> British law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The US Constitution established a central government with
>>>>>>>> constraints on what it could do, but among those constraints we do not
>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> a limit on the size of government, special rights for a privileged
>>>>>>>> minority
>>>>>>>> or protection of the status quo (independent of other legally
>>>>>>>> recognized
>>>>>>>> rights). Live-and-let-live is the law of the land, but when enough
>>>>>>>> citizens support new policies the founding fathers provided them/us a
>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>> of promoting their/our aspirations. New laws, new states, new voters,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> Constitutional amendments were all anticipated within their master
>>>>>>>> plan.
>>>>>>>> Change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thus America was a controlled social experiment. The founding
>>>>>>>> fathers established a mechanism for seeking the most beneficial social
>>>>>>>> policies, but didn't prescribe them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As far as outcomes, everyone has an opinion. That's politics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tom Wyrick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]
>>>>>>>> <http://[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout
>>>>>>>> most of this topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of
>>>>>>>> America
>>>>>>>> understood something about human nature, hence their emphasis on
>>>>>>>> minimal
>>>>>>>> government. What was that “something?” Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> proceed by way of the following reasoning:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see
>>>>>>>> the world through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> perceive are “wrong” or “broken.” But accompanying their best
>>>>>>>> intentions is
>>>>>>>> a problem... a very intractable problem;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists
>>>>>>>> work, they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to
>>>>>>>> implement
>>>>>>>> the machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give
>>>>>>>> license to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well
>>>>>>>> into the cogs of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of
>>>>>>>> animal
>>>>>>>> to the naive but well-intentioned idealist;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person
>>>>>>>> with passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the
>>>>>>>> perspective of my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is
>>>>>>>> usually a secretive troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the greater bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine,
>>>>>>>> principally, to further his own ends, and his ideal situation is
>>>>>>>> synergy
>>>>>>>> between his own agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is
>>>>>>>> perceived as a threat to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> be eliminated. In the meantime, while all this takes places under the
>>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>>> of The Privacy Act, EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors
>>>>>>>> hogwash,
>>>>>>>> the bureaucracy carries on its people-friendly masquerade that is
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>> publicly associated with the intentions of the idealists.
>>>>>>>> I think that America’s founding fathers were onto something. How
>>>>>>>> tragic that it’s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> problem. Bureaucracies require the application of a very different
>>>>>>>> kind of
>>>>>>>> groupthink psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that
>>>>>>>> inspires
>>>>>>>> them... the secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of
>>>>>>>> stoopid
>>>>>>>> work are very different to the congenial, public best wishes of the
>>>>>>>> idealists, and there is no solution to this conflict of interest. It
>>>>>>>> is at
>>>>>>>> this juncture that the well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but a
>>>>>>>> useful idiot... useful as a public face of the bureaucratic machine
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> takes on a life of its own.
>>>>>>>> sj
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]<
>>>>>>>> http://[email protected]>]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Thomas
>>>>>>>> Cc: Benjamin Udell; [email protected]<
>>>>>>>> http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive
>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting
>>>>>>>> pot' tactic, which I support. And that's why I'm against the current
>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>> on 'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in
>>>>>>>> America and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient
>>>>>>>> irrational tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their
>>>>>>>> multicultural/identity political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> these minority enclaves - which are kept insular by
>>>>>>>> multiculturalism/identity politics.... can be even more racist,
>>>>>>>> bigoted and
>>>>>>>> irrational than any majority...is naive in the extreme.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Thomas<http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To: Edwina Taborsky<http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Cc: Benjamin Udell<http://[email protected]> ; <
>>>>>>>> [email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:46 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive
>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edwina ~
>>>>>>>> Germans and the other groups you listed have all assimilated into
>>>>>>>> American society, and none of the nationalities or races have proved
>>>>>>>> particularly intractable. The melting pot is imperfect, but it does a
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> job of challenging cultural myths and ancient hatreds that seem to
>>>>>>>> continue
>>>>>>>> for centuries in closed/insular societies. The demagogues of America
>>>>>>>> appeal to the down-and-out of most/all nationalities -- almost as
>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> they're broad-minded humanists. That reveals a focus on laws and
>>>>>>>> justice,
>>>>>>>> as opposed to settling scores with ancient enemies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By contrast, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are comprised of far
>>>>>>>> more insular societies. Historically most people there have been poor
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> ruled by often-brutal and almost-always deceitful autocrats who
>>>>>>>> coopted the
>>>>>>>> church to hold onto power. Little wonder that warlords and terrorists
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> played such a big role in their political histories.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tim Wyrick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]<
>>>>>>>> http://[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, stereotypes are basic to our identification of 'identity
>>>>>>>> groups' - whether it be Jews, Italians, Germans, Russians, Chinese.
>>>>>>>> Such
>>>>>>>> distorted and simplistic images-of-the-other are found among all
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>> Americans are viewed by Europeans as...and so on. But the few key
>>>>>>>> variables
>>>>>>>> of behaviour that we understand to define 'that nationality' are not,
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> my view, an explanation for the rise of fascism in Germany.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is, my point is that we are all as human beings, susceptible
>>>>>>>> to emotional blindness in our political and societal views; we aren't
>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> all 'rational beings' when dealing with political and social affairs.
>>>>>>>> Therefore, if the economic and societal order breaks down, I'd say
>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>> are all susceptible to fascism. There is a critical threshold when the
>>>>>>>> rule
>>>>>>>> of law, the political order, the societal order, the economic viability
>>>>>>>> breaks down - and a power-bloc can move in and take over..and then,
>>>>>>>> impose
>>>>>>>> its fascism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The ideology of 'old Germany', with its aristocracy, its ideals of
>>>>>>>> governance had little to do with the ideology of 'pure race' of
>>>>>>>> Nazism, nor
>>>>>>>> the Nazi focus on nationalism as a biological construct and the
>>>>>>>> contempt
>>>>>>>> for 'lesser beings'. After all, the British upper class had a similar
>>>>>>>> focus
>>>>>>>> as the old Germans on 'noblesse oblige', strict rules of behaviour, a
>>>>>>>> military career and so on - and were not susceptile to fascism. [But
>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>> were susceptible to communism/socialism!].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There were plenty of people in the old upper class and the middle
>>>>>>>> class of Germany who were opposed to fascism and Nazism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, the horrors of WWII did bring a requirement that US military
>>>>>>>> bases remain in Germany after 1990 reunification - but, logically,
>>>>>>>> such a
>>>>>>>> demand by the French and others cannot PROVE that, 'Germans are
>>>>>>>> basically
>>>>>>>> capable of moving back into fascism' without such a presence. That is
>>>>>>>> - the
>>>>>>>> modus ponens statement of:
>>>>>>>> IF there are bases, THEN, they will be peaceful"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> can't be turned around to declare:
>>>>>>>> 'They are peaceful; that's because there are bases'. (Fallacy of
>>>>>>>> Affirming the Consequent).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So- I am not convinced that the German people are predisposed to
>>>>>>>> fascism, nor that Hitler's rise was a mysterious event. I remain
>>>>>>>> focused on
>>>>>>>> the economic, political and societal infrastructure - which can
>>>>>>>> decimate a
>>>>>>>> culture's deep beliefs in a decade. We have our own examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Benjamin Udell<http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> To: [email protected]<http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:19 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive
>>>>>>>> Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII
>>>>>>>> wasn't so long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to
>>>>>>>> movies
>>>>>>>> and TV series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to
>>>>>>>> regard certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and
>>>>>>>> 'just taking orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century
>>>>>>>> German culture. Also I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an
>>>>>>>> impressionable kid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and
>>>>>>>> economics are everything against culture (glamour!) and society
>>>>>>>> (status!)
>>>>>>>> as some sort of zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> convince people. The problematic character of early-20th-Century German
>>>>>>>> attitudes - militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking
>>>>>>>> orders' -
>>>>>>>> have not gone unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of
>>>>>>>> Germany in the 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military
>>>>>>>> bases
>>>>>>>> in Germany, guarantees sought by the French and other governments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best, Ben
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric
>>>>>>>> instincts than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for
>>>>>>>> emotional irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and
>>>>>>>> order breaks down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing
>>>>>>>> security, is
>>>>>>>> not functioning in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted
>>>>>>>> by a
>>>>>>>> higher authority - then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational
>>>>>>>> examination of
>>>>>>>> the situation is rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled
>>>>>>>> mob,
>>>>>>>> i.e., a band of thugs'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As
>>>>>>>> Tolstoy said, 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority
>>>>>>>> shares
>>>>>>>> in it'. Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of
>>>>>>>> law, set up as created by men, and capable of change by men, but
>>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>>> to all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Edwina
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>> From: Helmut Raulien
>>>>>>>> To: Ozzie
>>>>>>>> Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <[email protected]><
>>>>>>>> http://[email protected]> ; Peirce List
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and
>>>>>>>> Abductive Logic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of
>>>>>>>> that success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> false abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper
>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>> But not all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg.
>>>>>>>> Heidegger). Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on
>>>>>>>> Hitlers
>>>>>>>> intelligent ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> guilt, and lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric
>>>>>>>> instincts than the other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than
>>>>>>>> other nations, there has not been a democratic constitution initiated
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> the people.
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Helmut
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ozzie <[email protected]><http://[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------
>>>>>>>> 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]<http://[email protected]> . To
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<http://[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]<http://[email protected]> . To
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<http://[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]<http://[email protected]> . To
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<http://[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>>>>>>> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To
>>>>>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
>>>>>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[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 .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>>>>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>>>>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>>>>>>> Rutgers University
>>>>>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>>>>>>> 732-445-4701
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> www.conformon.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>>>>> Rutgers University
>>>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>>>>> 732-445-4701
>>>>>
>>>>> www.conformon.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>>>
>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>>> Rutgers University
>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>>> 732-445-4701
>>>
>>> www.conformon.net
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>>
>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>> Rutgers University
>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>> 732-445-4701
>>
>> www.conformon.net
>>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
