Soren, Gary R., Stephen J., list,
The situation seems more complicated than I thought. I find that some of
Stephen Jarosek's posts to Sadhu Sanga seem as if bcc'd to peirce-l. I
doubt that both Soren and Stephen J. are doing it either accidentally by
their own actions or on purpose.
At Sadhu Sanga, a person named Mark Iosim, to whom Stephen J. (in a
message seemingly bcc'd to peirce-l) was replying at Sadhu Sanga, wrote,
"I do not know how I ended up on this mailing list," i.e., Sadhu Sanga.
Back in Dec 2015 I thought (in viewing my online spam folder) that
somebody had subscribed me to Sadhu Sanga, so I sent an unsubscribe
message at that time.
It's as if Sadhu Sanga itself has arranged for messages from
peirce-listers on Sadhu Sanga to be automatically bcc'd as if by the
given peirce-lister to peirce-l (it would have to be that way, since
Sadhu Sanga itself is not subscribed to peirce-l). We may need to take
this up with the proprietor of the Sadhu Sanga list.
Best, Ben
On 2/2/2016 11:45 AM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Soren,
Did you see this message from Ben? Are you accidentally Bccing
peirce-l? If you're not certain, would you check with a tech person to
see that you are inadvertently copying these posts to peirce-l
Best,
Gary Richmond
Gary Richmond*
*
*
*
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Benjamin Udell* <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper
Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative
Biology'
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Edwina, list,
IUPUI's technical person told me that Sadhu Sanga is not currently
subscribed to peirce-l, at least not by its email address
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> or something like it. I
have checked and seen that new messages have appeared at Sadhu Sanga
that have not appeared at peirce-l. Maybe somebody subscribed then
unsubscribed Sadhu Sanga to peirce-l.
Your guess that something in the comments from Sadhu Sanga was
activating the spam filters appears to have worked, since your message
got through when you re-sent it after removing much of the comments
from Sadhu Sanga. I noticed that somebody's signature often used there
contains image links etc., something there must bother the spam filters.
Best, Ben
On 2/2/2016 10:09 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I don't know if this post will get through; my server notified me
that it was spam. So, I'm removing much of the comments from sadhu
sanga...Again, this post didn't come from the Peirce-L site nor from
Soren. It came from the Sadhu Sanga site - and I don't think the
Peirce-L site should be an appendage of that site.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Edwina Taborsky <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Søren Brier <mailto:[email protected]> ; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:02 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper
Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative
Biology'
Soren - I think it's useless to argue with a fundamentalist who is
isolated from reality. The statements he makes are ungrounded and
totally detached from the real world and thus, are outside of
rational or logical debate: , eg, he writes:
1) " There is no evidence for macroevolution presupposition and thus
we do not accept it. We accept subjective evolution of consciousness
and not objective evolution of bodies."
There is evidence for macroevolution - but evidence for the
'subjective evolution of consciousness'? No, there is no evidence for
this. But - Dr. Shanta asserts that his faith-based conclusion is valid.
2) Democracy is not based upon a scientific foundation and applying
such a system is extremely harmful (as we are witnessing at various
parts of the world) for a society, where unwise individuals form the
majority. Will you accept, if illiterate people (or individuals from
commerce/arts/’political science’ background) are given the power to
judging by a majority voting system ‘who is the best scientist?’
The above statement by Dr. Shanta is illogical and irrational.
Democracy has nothing to do with science but is a method of making
decisions based on an assumption of equality of individuals. We see
in the above that Dr. Shanta does not accept such equality - defining
people as 'unwise', as 'illiterate'....and suggesting that there is
some special, non-distributed knowledge base required in order to
make decisions about 'how we want to live'. That is, he obviously
supports elitist authoritarianism - but - what is his evidence for
the truth value of this elite class who will make societal decisions
for the rest of us?
3) And, he writes: "Modern science cannot get any credibility until
it overcomes the endless trial and error methodology, where
continually one opinion is replaced by another. The supremacy of
Absolute is not dependent on our acceptance and rejection. Our false
ego cannot change the fact that we are inherently dependent beings
and Supreme Absolute is the master of everyone."
The above is yet another example of an illogical belief. That is the
strength of science - that it admits fallibility, leaves its
knowledge base open to further data and experimentation and further
rational analysis - rather than pure blind faith. And of course -
this 'Supreme Absolute' is pure blind faith - an opinion held by
Tenacity and Authority.
4) He writes: "In this material world there are always different wars
are going on. The army men of one country are fighting against the
army men of another enemy country. These fights cannot be stopped
artificially because in a material conception of life people are
living a self centered life (which also include the extended self:
country, cast, colour and creed). Moreover, artificially we cannot
practice nonviolence,
Is he actually supporting violence?
5) Finally - this post doesn't seem to have come from the Peirce-L
site. That is, when I hit 'reply' - it was trying to send it to the
Sadhu Sanga site - rather than to Soren or Peirce-L. I don't think
that the Peirce-L site should become an appendage of the Sadhu-Sanga
site.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Søren Brier <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:*Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:11 AM
*Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] SV: SV: SV: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper
Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal Communicative & Integrative
Biology'
Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta
-----------------------------
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 .
