Auke, list, Auke wrote: "You provided an excellent quote to point to the difference between sheets of assertion and phaneroscopic or semiotic sheets."
I found it difficult to grasp exactly what you're suggesting in this message beginning with your distinguishing "between sheets of assertion and phaneroscopic or semiotic sheets" This is doubly confusing because sheets of assertion would seem to me *to be* "semiotic sheets" rather than whatever your proposed "phaneroscopic sheets" might be. Indeed, the seemingly contradictory language you use appears to me to work to conflate phenomenology (the 1st cenoscopic science) with logic as semeiotic (3rd branch of the 2nd second cenoscopic science, viz., normative science). In a word "phanerocopic" doe not = "semiotic". Expanding on this a little, in my view, the categories of phenomenology are all too often also confused/conflated with the metaphysical categories (which, as I see it, are the Universal Categories applied--offering *principles*--to metaphysics, perhaps recast at Three Universes of Experience). In addition, the application of the phenomenological categories to semeiotics (according to the 'principle of principle' recently discussed) frequently occurs with no sense of their origins in phenomenology (also, their anticipation in the valencies of the simplest math). Be that as it may, despite your intriguing comments, it is entirely unclear to me what a phaneroscopic (or "semiotic" as your wrote) sheet might look like, what its purpose might be, its rules, etc. I'm not an expert in EGs by a long shot, but my earlier stated reservation concerning the possible use of EGs *within* Peirce's science of Phenomenology is based exactly on the Peirce quotation I'd earlier given and which you reproduced in your message, namely, that "All that existential graphs can represent is *propositions*, on a single sheet, and arguments on a succession of sheets, presented in temporal succession." (Btw, following de Tienne, I tend to limit my use of the expression, "Phaneroscopy," to the *initial* *stage* of phenomenological research; de Tienne adds another stage, I a third.) So, as I see it now, unless an entirely original kind of graph can be created to aid in phenomenological *research *(perhaps, as you're suggesting, modifying EG notation), at present, EGs seem to me capable only of (a) helping to clarify those logical moves by Peirce which served to reveal the connection between types of propositions and the three categories, or (c) explicating the findings of phenomenological research in graphic form. Yet perhaps I'm missing something here (again, I'm no expert in EGs). To aid our comprehension, could you possibly draw even a crude draft modeling what might appear on a "phaneroscopic sheet"? That would certainly be most helpful. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:07 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary (List), > > > > You provided an excellent quote to point to the difference between sheets > of assertion and phaneroscopic or semiotic sheets: > > > > CSP: > > All that existential graphs can represent is *propositions*, on a single > sheet, and arguments on a succession of sheets, presented in temporal > succession. > > - > > > > A semiotic sheet could be modeled with the sign aspects. The interpretant > aspects could bridge the gap with phaneroscopy: emotional interpretant (a > feeling of a quality is an instance of it, but it can encompass much more). > This differs from representing propositions on sheets. I think it should > start with a sheet and a sign that gets inscribed and must find a way to > model the interaction. On the most general level there are 9 sign aspects > according to Peirce, but only six interpretant aspects, so it seems > reasonable to suppose that the three missing interpretant aspects are > concerned with the (object of) the sign. I found the three missing to be > the index, the legisign and the symbol position. > > > > If we suppose a line of identity, it could appear on a semiotic sheet as a > dot. It is the index signifying the interaction between sheet and > inscribing sign. If the legisign position is not ‘satisfied’ the > interpreting system (sheet) has no collateral knowledge of the sign. And it > will not be able to ‘satisfy’ the symbol position, which provides the > meaning of the sign. > > > > I use ‘satisfy’ to prevent a mechanical interpretation of the > interpretation process. The goal operative in the sheet and the sign > co-determine the responding sign. The model has, in my opinion, to provide > a process of translation from qualisign to the response sign that is guided > by the doleme. The categories have to deliver the dependency structure in > between. > > > > Looked at from this angle the extended Welby classification refines the > analysis on several aspects already made. P. 162 of the Welby > correspondence offers a lot to ponder. Just in order to illustrate the > importance of looking at the responding sign as the outcome of the > interpretation process, I give the last trichotomy. > > 10. Assurance of interpretants by signs. > > a. assurance by instinct > > b. assurance by experience > > c. experience by habit. > > > > It is a measure for the adequacy of the response. > > > > Best, > > > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > > > *Van:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Verzonden:* woensdag 13 februari 2019 21:23 > *Aan:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Analyzing Propositions (was EGs and > Phaneroscopy) > > > > Jon, John, list, > > > > Jon, this post is quite helpful in clarifying what you've recently been > arguing, perhaps especially "that "according to Peirce, 'the proper way > in logic" is to treat *anything *that refers to content as a Subject, not > a predicate.' " It seems likely that what you've written so far will need > further support to be convincing to many. After all, you're arguing for an > interpretation just the opposite of the standard one, an analysis which > Peirce himself also argued for (as you've admitted). I expect that it will > be an uphill battle, but one worth undertaking. > > > > In addition, your post seems to me to help prepare the way for a > discussion of logic and EGs in relation to phenomenology. However, I hope > that *that* discussion doesn't begin in earnest too soon as both Gary F > and I (and perhaps others) haven't yet completed Atkins book on > Phenomenology. > > Personally, while I have a great deal of interest in Phenomenology, I > haven't as much interest in EGs as some on the list, notably, John, Gary F, > Jeff, and yourself and some others have, in part, because of what Peirce > says in the 1908 letter to Lady Welby which Gary F recently shared a link > to: > > > > The system of Existential Graphs (at least, so far as it is at present > developed) does not represent every kind of Sign. For example, a piece of > concerted music is a sign; for it is a medium for the conveyance of Form. > But I know not how to make a graph equivalent to it. So the command of a > military officer to his men: “Halt!” “Ground arms!” which is interpreted in > their action, is a sign beyond the competence of existential graphs. All > that existential graphs can represent is *propositions*, on a single > sheet, and arguments on a succession of sheets, presented in temporal > succession. > > > > So, for example, John's recent EG'd musical notation example, besides > being unwieldy and inelegant, was not at all convincing to me because it > left so much out that is essential in music, say, of the Romantic era (e.g. > dynamics, expressive marks, changes in tempo such as *ritardando *and > *accelerando*, phrasing, the 'voicing' of the counterpoint, etc., etc., > etc.), and this in consideration of the Sign which is a simple musical > composition's notation only. It's possible that *some *of the things just > mentioned could be included in the graph, but most likely that would add to > the awkwardness and inelegance of it. > > > > So, imho, EGs being isomorphic to first-order logic in their beta part, > they ought direct themselves towards what first-order logic *can best *express > in its graphic form. As you know, the gamma part has not been much > developed and may never be. Finally, while I'm eager to read what Atkins > has to say about EGs in relation to Phenomenology, at the moment I have > difficulty imagining that they might be of very much value to that science > except in explicating its discoveries logically, clearly and unequivocally. > But I continue to study EGs time permitting, and hope to benefit from the > upcoming discussion of them in relation to Phenomenology. > > > > Your post today seems to me modest in its claims, but supported strongly > by CSP quotes; also in consideration of their chronology and the frequency > of certain terminology. Yet it also makes clear that you are only making a > 'stab' at something which Peirce had not completed, and this is the > "additional step" which you are taking. So far, I find your exposition of > Peirce's mature logic to be clear and increasingly convincing. And I am > finding your dialogue with John especially helpful. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary R > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > > > > [image: Afbeelding verwijderd door afzender.] > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:37 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John S., List: > > > > I changed the subject heading, since we are still not actually discussing > EGs and Phaneroscopy. > > > > JFS: But "Bob owns a red car" could be separated in four ways: (1) "Bob / > owns a red car." (2) "A red car / is owned by Bob." (3) "A car owned by > Bob / is red." (4) "A car / is red and is owned by Bob." > > > > You left out a fifth way--"Bob, owning, car, redness / _____ is in the > dyadic relation of _____ to a _____ that possesses the character of _____." > > > > JFS: Therefore, the set of subjects is disjoint from the set of > predicates. > > > > My point was that non-continuous predicates, such as "owns/owning" and > "red/redness," can be analyzed *either *as predicates *or *as subjects. > > > > JFS: The predicate "is a car owned by Bob" can be true or false *of* > something only when it is linked to a subject, for example, "That Chevy / > is a car owned by Bob." > > > > We can also analyze that "predicate" as four Subjects (something, car, > owning, Bob) "married" by two Continuous Predicates--"_____ is identical to > a _____ that is in the dyadic relation of _____ to _____." > > > > JFS: The "proper way" on p. 885 would replace the verb 'breathes' in the > sentence "Every mammal breathes oxygen" with the verb 'is' in "Every mammal > is an oxygen-breathing animal." > > > > No, we have been over this already. The "proper way" is Peircean, not > Aristotelian, and analyzes that sentence as "Every mammal is in the dyadic > relation of breathing to oxygen." There is no need to insert the word > "animal." > > > > JFS: Yes, but that is continuity of *pure* predicates, not of predicates > that refer to content in the universe of discourse. > > > > In Peirce's "proper" or "ultimate" analysis of Propositions, "pure" > predicates are the *only *predicates. *Anything* that refers to content > in the universe of discourse--i.e., anything that can only be understood by > an interpreting Quasi-mind that has had previous Collateral Experience with > it--is a *Subject*; it belongs to the *Object *of the Proposition. The > only information that a Proposition can *convey*, which therefore belongs > to its *Interpretant*, is the logical form of the relation that "marries" > all of the referenced Subjects. In order to understand "Bob owns a red > car," I need Collateral Experience with not only Bob and cars, but also > owning and redness. In order to understand "Every mammal breathes oxygen," > I need Collateral Experience with not only mammals and oxygen, but also > breathing. > > > > JFS: In CP 4.538, Peirce said that the triad rheme/dicisign/argument > would have to be widened to cover those image-like things. His earlier > definition of quasi-predicate would cover those aspects. Therefore, the > widened term 'seme' includes both 'predicate' and 'quasi-predicate'. But > no logical subject could ever be a seme. > > > > That is *not *what the text says *at all*. The trichotomy that had to be > "much widened" was term/proposition/argument; "rheme" and "dicisign" are > not mentioned, and as I have pointed out repeatedly, "quasi-predicate" *never > *appears in *any *of Peirce's writings, other than its one occurrence in > 1903. The definition of "Seme" is "anything which serves for any purpose > as a substitute for an object of which it is, in some sense, a > representative or Sign," which clearly encompasses *all *logical subjects. > > > > JAS: The additional step that I am taking is to recognize... > > JFS: If Peirce did not explicitly take that step, don't put words in his > mouth. > > > > But I *did not* put words in his mouth; I said quite plainly that I was > taking an additional step. > > > > JAS: Bellucci cites another passage where Peirce clearly endorsed... > > JFS: If he didn't explicitly say something that seems "clear" or > "obvious", he probably had some reason for not doing so. > > > > But he *did* explicitly say something in this case--three times! > > > > CSP: I regard everything to which the assertion relates and to which > reference can be removed from the predicate, although what is referred to > be a quality, relation, state of things, etc. as a Subject. (R 611) > > > > CSP: But the proper way in logic is to take as the subject whatever > there is of which sufficient knowledge cannot be conveyed in the > proposition itself, but collateral experience on the part of its > interpreter is requisite ... The result is that everything in a proposition > that possibly can should be thrown into the subjects, leaving the *pure > *predicate > a mere form of connection ... (NEM 3:885) > > > > CSP: When we have analyzed a proposition so as to throw into the subject > everything that can be removed from the predicate, all that it remains for > the predicate to represent is the form of connection between the different > subjects as expressed in the propositional *form* ... when we have > carried analysis so far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have > carried it to its ultimate elements. (SS 71-72) > > > > I already acknowledged that the EGs reflect his earlier analysis, and that > maintaining such an approach makes perfect sense when using EGs to teach > first-order predicate logic today. I have a *different *purpose in mind, > for which his "proper" and "ultimate" analysis is more suitable. > > > > JAS: Perhaps what you mean is that CSP's logic was a logic of Subjects, > as I am now employing that (capitalized) term ... > > JFS: That conclusion is not just imprecise. It's false. Peirce never > did and never would say that EGs are "a logic of subjects'. > > > > In context, I was directly responding to the assertion that Peirce's logic > was a "logic of proper names"; and all I mean by a "logic of Subjects" is > what Peirce described to Jourdain as "the proper way in logic." He > apparently never discussed how to interpret EGs in accordance with that > analysis, which is why I am taking a stab at doing so myself. > > > > JFS: It's impossible to have a logic without *both* subjects and > predicates. And predicates that refer to content are never "pure". > > > > Of course; but again, according to Peirce, "the proper way in logic" is to > treat *anything *that refers to content as a Subject, not a predicate. > > > > Regards, > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:29 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary F, Jon AS, and Jerry LRC, > > I started to write this note several days ago, but had some other > things on my agenda. The following comments begin with the older > material with just two brief comments about the newer. > > GF > > Given your emphasis on precision, you are apparently referring > > to formal (i.e. mathematical) logic, and not to logic as semeiotic... > > you seem to have skipped over the science which comes between > > mathematics and logic/semeiotic in Peirce’s classification of the > > sciences, namely Phenomenology (or Phaneroscopy) > > In Peirce's classification of the sciences, *formal* logic is a > branch of mathematics. I hadn't seen Atkins' book, but I read the > Google excerpts and ordered it. > > GF > > the new Atkins book on Charles S. Peirce’s Phenomenology, which > > Gary Richmond mentioned a few days ago. Atkins has quite a lot to > > say about the overlaps among logic, semeiotic, EGs and phenomenology, > > From the Google excerpts of Atkins' book: > > p. 5: Peirce... concludes that the categories ought to be found > > first in mathematics, a part of which is formal logic, and then > > traced through phenomenology, normative science (including logic > > as semiotics), and metaphysics. > > > > p. 6: The analysis of the phaneron, moreover, involves both > > logical analysis and inspective analysis. > > As an example, consider the questions about logical subjects and > logical predicates. To show the difference, consider the EG for > "Bob owns a car." That EG can be drawn on a straight line: > > Bob———Owns———Car > > There are two lines of identity, one for Bob and one for the car. > The two monads have one peg each (Bob- and Car- ); and the dyad > has two pegs ( -Owns- ). > > Peirce said that an EG can be "separated" into a logical subject > and predicate "in more than one way". The simplest example is > "Bob" as the subject and "owns a car" as the predicate: > > Bob——— -Owns———Car > > In this case, the line of identity for the subject remains with > Bob, the left peg of Owns is unattached, but the right peg of > Owns remains attached to the line of identity for Car. > > With this short example, there is only one other option: > "A car is owned by Bob": Car——— Bob———Owns- . In this > case, the right peg of Owns is unattached. > > But "Bob owns a red car" could be separated in four ways: > (1) "Bob / owns a red car." (2) "A red car / is owned by Bob." > (3) "A car owned by Bob / is red." (4) "A car / is red and > is owned by Bob." > > In every case, the logical subject has a line of identity with > one end free; and the logical predicate has an unattached peg > where that line had been attached. > > JAS > > How can subjects be disjoint from predicates if they can denote > > properties? > > Consider Bob's red car. There are four possible subjects. > Case (4) "A car" is probably insufficient to determine the referent. > If there is only one Bob in the context, case (1) "Bob" may be > sufficient. Cases (3) or (4) depend on the context and what the > speaker knows about the listener. > > In every logical subject, all the predicates in the subject have lines > of identity attached to every peg. But every logical predicate has at > least one peg that is not attached to any line of identity. > > Therefore, the set of subjects is disjoint from the set of predicates. > > JAS > > How can predicates by themselves be "true of things" when only > > a complete proposition is capable of being true or false? > > Note the difference in syntax. A proposition by itself can be true > or false. But the phrase "true of things" indicates that a predicate > is not true by itself. The predicate "is a car owned by Bob" can > be true or false *of* something only when it is linked to a subject, > for example, "That Chevy / is a car owned by Bob." > > JAS > > JFS: By "the proper way", he was talking about transforming an EG > > into one of Aristotle's sentence patterns... > > > > Peirce did not say anything about Aristotle in his letter to Jourdain > > There was no need to. Every university graduate in the 19th c. was > familiar with Aristotle's syllogisms. For a summary of the patterns > for syllogisms, see slides 15 ff of http://jfsowa.com/talks/aristo.pdf > > Compare the methods in those slides to the attached NEM3_885.pdf. > The "proper way" on p. 885 would replace the verb 'breathes' in > the sentence "Every mammal breathes oxygen" with the verb 'is' > in "Every mammal is an oxygen-breathing animal." > > In that "Aristotelian" transformation, the pure predicate -is- has > two pegs. In the full sentence, each of the two logical subjects > has a line of identity with a free end, which can be attached to > one of the pegs. > > Note that EGs for both logical subjects would contain embedded monads > or dyads for the content: Mammal- Animal- Oxygen- -Breathe- . > > The logical subject for "oxygen-breathing animal" would contain > a teridentity with one line of identity attached to Animal-, one > line of identity attached to the left peg of -Breathe-, and one > line of identity with a free end. That free end could be attached > to the right peg of the pure predicate -is-. > > JAS > > Peirce's further insight in 1906 about this continuity of the Line > > of Identity, as well as that of the blank Sheet of Assertion, was > > what eventually led him to formulate the concept of the Continuous > > Predicate two years later. > > Yes, but that is continuity of *pure* predicates, not of predicates > that refer to content in the universe of discourse. Those pure > predicates are structural elements of EGs -- and of Aristotle's > syllogisms. Both Aristotle and Peirce intuitively recognized the > central role of the copula 'is' long before 1906. > > Bellucci (p. 20) said that after 1908 Peirce never again mentioned > continuous predicates: "continuous predicates are by no means > abandoned. Instead, they are incorporated within the system > of Existential Graphs." > > Note that predicates that refer to content may refer to discrete > content or continuous content. But continuity in the content is > independent of the two pure predicates in the the EG structure. > > Furthermore, these issues about pure predicates are unrelated to semes. > As Peirce said, semes are wider than predicates because they refer to > content such as images and percepts of images. That is why the letter > to Jourdain is irrelevant to any questions about semes. > > JAS > > Subject, Proposition, and Argument obviously correspond to rheme, > > dicent, and argument in this text and to Seme, Pheme, and Delome > > in the later division > > No. A rheme is never a subject. See the examples above. For > a second opinion, note what Bellucci (2013, p. 38) said: "It thus > appears that “rhema” and “predicate” are used interchangeably, but > that a rhema is better called a predicate when considered in the > context of a proposition." > > The same criteria distinguish quasi-subjects and quasi-predicates, > which are images or percepts of images. When an image is used as > a quasi-predicate some places on the image could serve as quasi-pegs. > When an image is used as a quasi-subject, an index of some sort > could serve as a quasi-line of identity. > > The terms 'quasi-peg" and 'quasi-line' are mine. I'm using them > only to emphasize the parallels between a symbolic notation for > logic and the kind of semiosis that occurs during perception. > > In CP 4.538, Peirce said that the triad rheme/dicisign/argument > would have to be widened to cover those image-like things. His > earlier definition of quasi-predicate would cover those aspects. > Therefore, the widened term 'seme' includes both 'predicate' and > 'quasi-predicate'. But no logical subject could ever be a seme. > > JAS > > The additional step that I am taking is to recognize... > > Bellucci cites another passage where Peirce clearly endorsed... > > No. If Peirce did not explicitly take that step, don't put words > in his mouth. If he didn't explicitly say something that seems > "clear" or "obvious", he probably had some reason for not doing so. > > Bellucci's article, which I strongly endorse, is a detailed analysis > of the limited amount of evidence -- just five short comments that > Peirce wrote between 2006 and 2008. Bellucci suggests a good reason > why Peirce never mentioned continuous predicates after 1908: > > Bellucci, p. 4 > > Peirce does not abandon continuous predicates after 1908; quite the > > contrary, they just merge with the continuous graphs within the > > diagrammatic system of Existential Graphs that he is then developing > > and perfecting. > > In short, three pure predicates form the structural foundation of EGs: > the line of identity, the blank Sheet of Assertion, and the triad for > teridentity. After recognizing their fundamental nature in EGs, > Peirce found no further need to discuss them separately from EGs. > > JAS > > I am not a logician, so please forgive my imprecision. Peirce > > was quite clear about the scope of "everything" in his own > > statements, and also provided helpful examples. > > > > CSP: ... I regard everything to which the assertion relates and > > to which reference can be removed from the predicate, > > > > Perhaps what you mean is that CSP's logic was a logic of Subjects, > > as I am now employing that (capitalized) term; > > That conclusion is not just imprecise. It's false. Peirce never > did and never would say that EGs are "a logic of subjects'. It's > impossible to have a logic without *both* subjects and predicates. > And predicates that refer to content are never "pure". See the > examples above. > > For a clearly written tutorial about EGs in MS 514 (1909), which Peirce > regarded so highly that he sent a clean copy to Mr. Kehler in 1911, see > http://jfsowa.com/peirce/ms514.htm > > In ms514.htm, Peirce's words are in black, and my commentary is in red. > For more examples, see http://jfsowa.com/talks/egintro.pdf > > JLRC > > Jean-Yves Beziau, 13 QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIVERSAL LOGIC > > http://www.jyb-logic.org/Universallogic13-bsl-sept.pdf > > This short and terse essay is a good starting point for comparing > > CSP’s views with modern logics. > > I agree. But I don't believe it's possible to have a single unified > logic. However, I believe that Peirce's EGs would be an excellent > common core with other logics as extensions or variations of the core. > > Following are the slides for two lectures I presented in 2015: > > At a Peirce session of the APA in Vancouver in April 2015, I presented > "Peirce, Polya, and Euclid: Integrating Logic, Heuristics, and Geometry" > For the slides, see http://jfsowa.com/talks/ppe.pdf > > At a Smart Data conference in San Jose in August 2015, I presented > a 3-hour tutorial on natural logic, which included some of the slides > in ppe.pdf: http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf > > Starting with the natlog.pdf slides is good for an intro and overview. > See the last slide of each lecture for references and URLs. > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > [image: Afbeelding verwijderd door afzender.] > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
