Dear list:
I thought the point of pragmaticism was simply to make meanings clear. “Now there are *three grades of clearness in our apprehensions of the meanings* of words. The first consists in the connexion of the word with familiar experience… The second grade consists in the abstract definition, depending upon an analysis of just what it is that makes the word applicable... The third grade of clearness consists in such a representation of the idea that *fruitful* reasoning can be made to turn upon it, and that it can be applied to the resolution of difficult practical problems... The best treatment of the logic of relatives, as I contend, will dispense altogether with class names and only use such verbs. A verb requiring an object or objects to complete the sense may be called a *complete relative*. A verb by itself signifies a mere dream, an imagination unattached to any particular occasion. It calls up in the mind an *icon*. A *relative* is just that, an icon, or image, without attachments to experience, without "a local habitation and a name," but with indications of the need of such attachments…” ~ Peirce, *The Logic of Relatives* Hth, Jerry R On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > This from Robert B. Talisse at http://www.nordprag.org/nsp/1/Talisse.pdf > may be germane. > > Hence the Peircean can offer what the > Deweyan cannot, namely, a substantive conception of democracy that is > consistent with a due appreciation of the reasonable pluralism of > comprehensive > moral ideals. But that is not all. The Peircean view does more than > simply accommodate reasonable pluralism. Importantly, the Peircean view > also makes available to pragmatist democratic theorists a kind of reason > that can be offered in support of the progressive agenda typically favored > by pragmatists which does not presuppose a controversial moral ideal. To > be specific, the Peircean can offer epistemological reasons to support more > aggressive policies of distributive justice, or fundamental reforms of the > news media which need not appeal to “growth,” but only to the prerequisites > of proper epistemic activity. For unlike “growth,” the ideal of promoting > epistemic responsibility amongst a population of democratic citizens is > not reasonably rejectable. > I indicated at the beginning of this paper that there is reason to think > that other purportedly pragmatist conceptions of democracy are nonviable. > Consequently, pragmatists who want to theorize democracy should > be Peirceans. > > > > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Stefan, Edwina, Mike, List, >> >> While I think that there is a most interesting and even important >> discussion adumbrated in these recent exchanges (I too would tend to >> disagree with Edwina's views, Stefan, as she wrote that she thought I might >> when she kindly sent me the draft of her slide presentation when I >> requested it off-list), I would like to suggest that, except to the extent >> that it is Peirce-related, that this discussion be taken off-list. >> >> You may recall that I concluded my message which began this thread with >> this question: can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which >> might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R (writing as list moderator) >> >> >> [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 Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 11:25 AM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: >> >>> Edwina, >>> >>> i can't discuss your views until i have not fully understood them To >>> understand them it would be great if you provided some of your work on the >>> topic. Yes, i have great objections to your views. [PEIRCE-L] Peirce >>> and Democracy >>> >>> >>>>> Edwina, >>>>> >>>>> i would be really interested how you tackled such a complex >>>>> theoretical concept empirically. >>>>> >>>>> Which historic datasets of demography and economics did you use? To >>>>> build up such a database must have been quite labourious! >>>>> >>>>> I would also be really interested in how you operationalized your >>>>> theory? What constructs and variables did you use? In which datasets are >>>>> they found? How did you model your assumptions statistically? >>>>> >>>>> In testing your theory, what were your initial hypotheses? Where have >>>>> you been able to falsify or verify your assumptions? Where did you >>>>> struggle >>>>> empirically because of data quality? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Stefan >>>>> >>>>> Am 19. November 2016 22:48:20 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky >>>>> <tabor...@primus.ca> <tabor...@primus.ca>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes - I've taught this relationship between economics, population >>>>>> size and political infrastructure for about 20 years. No- it's not >>>>>> really in the *Architectonics* book. It IS in a graphic book, *The >>>>>> Graphic Guide to Socioeconomics* - which a retired CEO banker and >>>>>> myself have just finished [about 170 slides]....which deals with the >>>>>> pragmatic relations between population size and economic modes and >>>>>> political modes. I am not sure if I should attach it since is has >>>>>> nothing >>>>>> to do with Peirce. It's a powerpoint presentation which we are planning >>>>>> to promote as a 'graphic guide for dummies' on the topic, so to speak. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is - we tried to make it clear that democracy, which means >>>>>> 'political power of the majority decision' is suitable only in large >>>>>> population, flexible-risktaking- growth economies, and unsuitable in >>>>>> small >>>>>> population no-growth steady-state economies which must ensure their >>>>>> economic continuity by focusing on retaining the capacity-to-make-wealth >>>>>> by >>>>>> stable measures [control of the land, control of the cattle, control of >>>>>> fishing rights, etc]. >>>>>> >>>>>> And we've been very surprised in our test runs with various people - >>>>>> how many people don't understand the basic issues of growth/no growth >>>>>> economies, carrying capacity of the economy; growth vs steady-state >>>>>> populations; what is a middle class; what is capitalism; the role of >>>>>> risk; >>>>>> the role of individuals..etc. etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>>> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:20 PM >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina, list, >>>>>> >>>>>> You've clearly given this a lot of prior thought, Edwina. I want to >>>>>> reflect on wht you wrote and see what others think before commenting >>>>>> further. Btw, would looking again at your book, *Architectonics of >>>>>> Semiosis*, for example, Chapter 2, "Purity and Power," be of any >>>>>> value in this discussion (as I initially began reading it I recall that >>>>>> in >>>>>> an off-list message you commented that in some ways you were now seeing >>>>>> things quite differently than you did in 1998)? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary R >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [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 Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary R- that's an interesting topic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) I'd like to first comment that *democracy*, as a political >>>>>>> system for arriving at authoritative government decisions, is the >>>>>>> 'right' >>>>>>> method but ONLY in a very large population with a growth economy and a >>>>>>> growth population. That is, political systems have FUNCTIONS; the >>>>>>> function >>>>>>> is: who has the societal right to make decisions among this population? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In economies which are *no-growth*, such as all the pre-industrial >>>>>>> agricultural and horticultural economies which dominated the planet >>>>>>> until >>>>>>> the industrial age, democracy is dysfunctional. That is, all political >>>>>>> systems must privilege the wealth-producing sectors of the population. >>>>>>> If >>>>>>> your economy is agricultural/horticultural - which can only produce >>>>>>> enough >>>>>>> wealth to support a *steady-state* or no-growth population, then, >>>>>>> the political system must put the authority to make decisions in the >>>>>>> control of the owners of wealth production; i.e., the landowners. This >>>>>>> control over the land must be hereditary [you can't have fights over >>>>>>> ownership], and limited [you can't split up the land into minuscule >>>>>>> small >>>>>>> farms]. Democracy, which puts decision-making into the hands of the >>>>>>> majority, doesn't work in such an economy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When the economy moves to a *growth* mode [and enables a growth >>>>>>> population], the political system must empower those sectors of the >>>>>>> population which *make an economy grow*. This is the middle class - >>>>>>> a non-hereditary set of the population, made up of private >>>>>>> individual/small >>>>>>> group businesses. This economic mode is highly flexible [new business >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> start, succeed, fail]; extremely adaptable and enables rapid population >>>>>>> growth. As such an economic mode, political decision-making must fall >>>>>>> into >>>>>>> the control of this middle class - and we have the emergence of elected >>>>>>> legislatures and the disappearance of hereditary authority. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a growth economy to work, it must support individual rights [to >>>>>>> invent, differ from the norm, to succeed AND fail] so that failure, for >>>>>>> example, will only affect those few individuals and not a whole >>>>>>> village/collective. Therefore, individualism must be stressed and >>>>>>> empowered; a growth economy must enable novelty, innovation, freedom of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> periphery....as well as success, which is measured by the adoption by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> collective of that product/service. FOR A WHILE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) But - it seems that the definition and function of democracy in >>>>>>> Dewey does not deal with the economy and the questions of the >>>>>>> production of >>>>>>> wealth and size of population. Instead, it deals with social issues - >>>>>>> Talisse writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The core of Deweyan democracy can be stated as follows. Deweyan >>>>>>> democracy is *substantive *rather than proceduralist, *communicative >>>>>>> *rather than aggregative,and *deep *rather than statist. I shall >>>>>>> take these contrasts in order.Deweyan democracy is *substantive *insofar >>>>>>> as it rejects any attempt to separate politics and deeper normative >>>>>>> concerns. More precisely, Dewey held that the democratic political >>>>>>> order is >>>>>>> essentially a *moral *order, and, further, he held that democratic >>>>>>> participation is an essential constituent ofthe good life and a >>>>>>> necessary >>>>>>> constituent for a “truly human way of living”.... Dewey rejects the >>>>>>> idea thatit consists simply in processes of voting, campaigning, >>>>>>> canvassing, lobbying, and petitioning in service of one’s individual >>>>>>> preferences; that is, Dewey held democratic participation is essentially >>>>>>> *communicative*, it consists in the willingness of citizens to >>>>>>> engage in activity by which they may “convince and be convinced by >>>>>>> reason” (MW >>>>>>> 10:404) and come to realize“values prized in common” (LW 13:71). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above seems to me, to be a social relations account - and >>>>>>> doesn't deal with the fact that democracy as a political system, >>>>>>> empowers a >>>>>>> particular segment of the population - the middle class, in an economy >>>>>>> based around individual private sector small businesses. It has nothing >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> do with 'the good life' or a 'truly human way of living'. Nomadic >>>>>>> pastoralists, and land-based feudal agriculture were also 'human ways of >>>>>>> living. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) From the Stanford Encyclopaedia, I found the following on Dewey: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "As Dewey puts it, ‘men are not isolated non-social atoms, but are >>>>>>> men only when in intrinsic relations’ to one another, and the state in >>>>>>> turn >>>>>>> only represents them ‘so far as they have become organically related to >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest’ (‘The >>>>>>> Ethics of >>>>>>> Democracy’,*EW*1, 231-2). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dewey is anti-elitist, and argues that the capacity of the wise few >>>>>>> to discern the public interest tends to be distorted by their position. >>>>>>> Democratic participation is not only viewed as a bulwark against >>>>>>> government >>>>>>> by elites, but also as an aspect of individual freedom– humanity cannot >>>>>>> rest content with a good ‘procured from without.’ Furthermore, >>>>>>> democracy is >>>>>>> not ‘simply and solely a form of government’, but a social and personal >>>>>>> ideal; in other words, it is not only a property of political >>>>>>> institutions >>>>>>> but of a wide range of social relationships. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above, seems to me, at this first glimpse, to totally ignore the >>>>>>> economic mode - and again, some economies whose wealth production rests >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> stable, no-growth methods [land food production] MUST ensure the >>>>>>> stability >>>>>>> of this economy by confining it to the few, i.e., those elites'...the >>>>>>> wise >>>>>>> few if you want to call them that'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is - the to put power in the majority/commonality rests with >>>>>>> the economic mode. Certainly, Peirce's *community of scholars* was >>>>>>> a method of slowly, gradually, arriving at 'the truth'. But this has >>>>>>> nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with governance and the question of >>>>>>> who >>>>>>> in a collective has the ultimate authority to make political decisions. >>>>>>> That is, political decisions are not really, I suggest, the same as >>>>>>> scientific or 'truth-based' inquiries. There is no ultimate 'best way' >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> much is dependent on resources, population size, environment.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, I don't see a focus on the required capacity of a growth >>>>>>> economy for rapid flexible adaptation - which HAS to be focused around >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> individual. That is, risk-taking shouldn't involve the WHOLE >>>>>>> collective, >>>>>>> but only a few individuals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) As for Peirce's philosophy of democracy - again, Talisse writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "the Peircean view relies upon no substantive >>>>>>> *moral *vision. The Peircean justifies democratic institutions and >>>>>>> norms strictly in terms of a set of substantive *epistemic *commitments. >>>>>>> It says that *no matter what one believes *about the good life, the >>>>>>> nature of the self, the meaning of human existence, or the value of >>>>>>> community, one has reason to support a robust democratic political >>>>>>> order of >>>>>>> the sort described above simply in virtue of the fact that one holds >>>>>>> beliefs. Since the Peircean conception of democracy does not contain a >>>>>>> doctrine about “the one, ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity” (EW >>>>>>> 1:248), >>>>>>> it can duly acknowledge the fact of reasonable pluralism. p 112 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This seems to suggest that a societal system that enables >>>>>>> exploratory actions by individuals is a 'robust democracy'. And, since a >>>>>>> growth economic mode, that can support growth populations, requires >>>>>>> risk-taking by flexible individuals to deal with current pragmatic >>>>>>> problems >>>>>>> - then, this seems to be a stronger political system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My key point is that the political system, economic mode and >>>>>>> population size are intimately related. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edwina >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:59 PM >>>>>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I read Robert B. Talisse's *A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy* (2007) >>>>>>> a few year ago and was thinking of it again today, in part prompted by >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> op-ed piece in *The New York Times* by Roger Cohen which quotes H. >>>>>>> L. Mencken (see below). At the time of my reading PPD, I was not at all >>>>>>> convinced that Talisee had demonstrated his principal thesis, namely, >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> we ought replace the inadequate, in his opinion, Dewyan approach to >>>>>>> thinking about democracy with a Peircean based approach. This is how >>>>>>> David Hildebrand (U. of Colorado) outlined Talisse's argument in a >>>>>>> review >>>>>>> in *The Notre Dame Philosophical Review. >>>>>>> **http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/ >>>>>>> <http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/>* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [Hildebrand] As I read PPD, I kept returning to two fundamental >>>>>>> propellants powering Talisse's argument for a Peircean-based democratic >>>>>>> theory. The first is constructive: his quest for a lean, non-normative >>>>>>> pragmatist inquiry to provide *just enough* of a philosophical >>>>>>> basis for a broadly effective conception of democracy. The second is >>>>>>> destructive: the argument that political theorists should reject Dewey's >>>>>>> self-refuting philosophy of democracy. Taken together, the insight is >>>>>>> this: >>>>>>> get over Dewey and accept this particular Peirce and we get just what we >>>>>>> need from pragmatism for the purposes of democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hildebrand's review is a good introduction to the PPD. While I'm not >>>>>>> much of a Deweyan, and I wouldn't presume to argue for or against his >>>>>>> ideas, yet I don't think Talisse makes a strong case *for* a >>>>>>> Peircean approach to political theory on democracy,. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should add, however, that Talisse is, in my opinion, a very good >>>>>>> thinker and an excellent writer. Besides this book, over the years I've >>>>>>> read a number of his scholarly articles and heard him speak in NYC and >>>>>>> elsewhere. PPD is definitely worth reading, while those with a Deweyan >>>>>>> democracy bent will probably find themselves arguing with him nearly >>>>>>> point >>>>>>> for point (as Hildebrand pretty much does). On the other hand, the >>>>>>> concluding chapter on Sidney Hook is valuable in its own right. As >>>>>>> Talisse >>>>>>> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hook's life stands as an inspiring image of democratic success; for >>>>>>> success consists precisely in *the activity of political engagement >>>>>>> by means of public inquiry*. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't got my e-CP available, so I can't locate references, but >>>>>>> it seems to me that Peirce's view of democracy as I recall it is, if not >>>>>>> nearly anti-democratic (I vaguely recall some passages in a letter to >>>>>>> Lady >>>>>>> Welby), it may at least be closer to H. L. Mencken's: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more >>>>>>> closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On >>>>>>> some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their >>>>>>> heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a >>>>>>> downright >>>>>>> moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I doubt that a discussion of PPD would be very valuable, but it >>>>>>> might be interesting to at least briefly reflect on Peirce's views of >>>>>>> democracy. As I recall,he hasn't much to say about democracy in what's >>>>>>> published in the CP and the other writings which have been made >>>>>>> available >>>>>>> to us. Perhaps more will be uncovered in years to come as his complete >>>>>>> correspondence is published in W (I probably won't be alive for that as >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> understand that it will probably be the last or near last volume in W, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> at the snail's pace the W is moving. . .) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which >>>>>>> might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? I would, of course, >>>>>>> hope >>>>>>> that if there is some discussion here that we keep to a strictly >>>>>>> theoretical discussion, especially in light of the strong feelings >>>>>>> generated by the recent American presidential election. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gary R >>>>>>> >>>>>>> st Philosophy of Democracy >>>>>>> [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>* >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>>>> 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 . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >>>>> gesendet. >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> ----------------------------- >>>>> 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 . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >>>> gesendet. >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail >>> gesendet. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> __________________________________________ >>> >>> Michael K. Bergman >>> CEO Cognonto and Structured >>> Dynamics319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://structureddynamics.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >>> __________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 .
