Stephen, You’re absolutely right! Nominalism is binary thinking.
I wonder why Peirce never used that phrase in relation to his definition of nominalism? Yesterday I looked through all of the uses of “nominalism” in the electronic collection of Peirce’s Collected Works, and Published articles, with that in mind. I was wondering why he was so loath to being that clear. No matter what, I checked to confirm my memory of Peirce’s use of the term. )Here I am unconsciously using an outdated term while consciously arguing about using technical terms usefully. ( Thanks Stephen! Mary > On Apr 4, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find it helpful to use "binary" as an adjective when nominalism is meant. I > write mainly for popular consumption. Mainly on Twitter. The reason is that > more understand it in context. Nominalism is less accessable. We live in a > binary world beset by what inhibits and rejects triadic thinking. As time > passes binary will denote a rejected form of looking at things consciously. I > am responding to your note about the pervasiveness of nominalism. > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose <http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose> > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:32 AM Mary Libertin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > List, > > P-listers, > > Hi! The discussion below about Stamper’s Ladder brings to mind an excellent > article “Levels of Representation”: https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/levels.html > <https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/levels.html>. I am working on the space of > representation and the space of representionality (related to levels of > representation) in understanding fiction (and understanding, God knows, > reality). I find this article interesting. I’m astounded by the levels one > must continually become aware of to be semiotically literate. More generally, > I’m struck by the depths of nominalism in our world, a subject worth tying > into the current one. > > In relation to the more recent posts about terminology, I’m reminded of > Peirce’s own tenacious efforts to differentiate his ideas, scrupulously > conscious of past and future use of terms. I’m thinking of Peirce's > redefining the term pragmatism to pragmaticism to separate his ideas from > others, especially FCS Schiller’s works on pragmatism which attacked Peirce. > See FCS Schiller’s collection of essays Humanism, a word he used to > differentiate his meaning from others, especially Peirce’s. Any use of a word > acquires its meaning from context and the direction the meaning will > ultimately tend towards. The creation of the present context of the meaning > of a word involves both theory and praxis. It is the relationship between the > two, theory and praxis, that is more important than either one alone. Peirce > used the term “pragmatism” to inquire about its connection to science, > biology, physics, chemistry, logic and the list goes on. And he applied his > ideas in these fields to help him understand the field in relation to his > ideas about the theoretical “pragmatism”. So, in a sense, both sides of the > current debate on Peirce-list are “right.” Understanding theory and > understanding its use are related. I actually understand James Joyce’s > writing because of Peirce. They both were encyclopedists. The reverse is true > too. I wonder if it is even possible to understand the meaning of a word > without knowing how and when it could be used to greatest affect. > > I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks! > > Mary Libertin > >> On Apr 3, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Auke, list, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> First, as regards Stamper's ladder, I don't know if there exists a diagram >> which would show the modifications and augmentations which you've suggested >> have been made to the ladder since he devised it, but I think it might be >> helpful for the list to look at the basic diagram: >> >> <image.png> >> >> Perhaps this (or some other diagram which you might supply) could serve as >> the basis for forum members getting a handle on those enhancements that you >> outlined in an earlier message, especially should we get further into this >> topic. >> >> Although I have probably said enough about the current disagreements >> regarding views of semeiotics, and while I would like for us to get back to >> substantive matters, I feel I need to say a word about this: >> >> AvB: 1. One was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other >> reads it at an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a >> great job in his books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. >> with the third the book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). >> >> I had earlier drafted a segment of this post which took up each of the >> individuals mentioned above as I thought your outline over-simplified the >> complexity of the interests of each of the scholars named. But I decided >> that it was probably best that I only say for now that the thinkers you >> mentioned above cannot, in my opinion, be so neatly pigeon-holed. As I see >> it, their interests extend at least over the three approaches to Peirce >> scholarship which you have chosen to characterize. In my view none of them >> can be so compartmentalized. And further, does anyone here (or elsewhere) >> have the expertise, or for that matter, the right to categorize these >> individual's approaches or interests in this way? I would only say that >> there is no doubt in my mind--and I think I know enough of their scholarly >> work to say this--that they are all extremely intelligent and >> extraordinarily complex thinkers; and that is the only way I would care to >> characterize them publicly. >> >> Thank you for the more detailed explication of your earlier example. It >> completely clarifies it as "an expression of “inconsistencies aris[ing] at >> the level of axioms” at the social level and that that it is usually >> possible to "accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict.” I >> continue to find this analysis of interoperability at the social level of >> considerable interest and would be eager to learn more. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> Gary Richmond >> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >> Communication Studies >> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:33 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Gary, List, >> >> >> >> Regarding Stampers Ladder you wrote: my interests have changed considerably >> in the baker's dozen of years since I wrote that paper and … >> >> >> >> RE: The ‘might’ in ‘you might be interested’ wasn’t meant as ‘you should’, >> but as a polite alternative to ‘may’. >> >> My aim was not to get you reading Stamper, but to show that from practical >> need somebody extended the amount of layers in such a way that somebody >> interested in nagging about the technical terms of semiotics and their >> relations, could recognize this as fitting with the Peircean scheme and >> decided to try to put the idea further in such a way that all sign aspects >> are covered. >> >> >> >> This example seemed especially fit since, lately, I see some quit >> fundamentalist attitude on this list regarding the interpretation of >> Peircean semiotics. If you look at the foundation of those attempt, it >> strikes me that the one seems to originate in turning speculative grammar to >> the end all of the enterprise and the other the semantic layer. If we do >> this when interested in information systems (as well man as an information >> system as in building them for organizations) then not only such enterprises >> fall short in coming to terms with the subject matter. They also tend to >> block the way of inquiry. Each sign aspect provides another perspective on >> the problem and each aspect has its own telos. The question ought not to be >> ‘who is right according to Peirce’, but how do we connect the different >> perspectives? >> >> >> >> When a student, I bought a worn reproduction because I wanted the frame it >> was put in. When home I hung it at the wall and soon decided to keep it >> because it showed three reformation ladies reading the holy bible. 1. One >> was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other reads it at an >> arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a great job in his >> books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. with the third the >> book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). >> >> It nicely expresses the way one should deal with the philosopher one has a >> particular interest in, as a safeguard for an uncritical attitude. >> >> >> >> >> >> With regard to the example. >> >> Let’s take the DSM classification of autism. The label z is deemed >> applicable if x out of x+y characteristics is applicable, where >> x+y=characteristics of z. Let x be the characteristics pertaining to >> information processing and let y be the characteristics pertaining to >> empathy and social behavior. >> >> Now a parent and a school disagree regarding a child/pupil having z. If we >> now turn the attention to each of the characteristics, it will prove the >> case that on that score, there is less divergence in opinion. On top of >> that, in many cases the characteristics that remain contested prove to >> result from the context the child is in, i.e. home for the parents and >> school for the authorities. For me it is an expression of “inconsistencies >> arise at the level of axioms” at the social level and “they can usually >> accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict”. >> >> >> >> Hope this is more clearly stated. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Auke van Breemen >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Verzonden: maandag 1 april 2019 21:11 >> Aan: Peirce-L <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance >> >> >> >> Auke, List, >> >> >> >> Thank you for reading my paper on interoperability. It would appear that a >> great deal of work has been done in that area since I presented that paper >> as the keynote at a workshop developed by Aldo de Moor, Harry Delugach, and >> Simon Polovina at ICCS 2006. While interoperability continues to be, it >> seems to me, a vexing problem, it has appeared to me that clear advances >> have been made in the past decade. >> >> >> >> I read some of Ronald Stamper's work years ago, but I must admit that my >> interests have changed considerably in the baker's dozen of years since I >> wrote that paper and, the following year, one on enterprise and >> inter-enterprise systems architecture: >> >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic_architectonic.pdf >> >> <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic_architectonic.pdf> >> _ >> >> >> >> You quoted me quoting John Sowa from the interoperability paper: >> >> >> >> JS: The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for >> communication among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The >> major inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these >> systems would accept from one another. But they can usually accept >> lower-level facts without creating any conflict. >> >> >> >> And commenting on "[systems] can usually accept lower-level facts without >> creating any conflict" wrote: >> >> >> >> AvB: It is supported in my research at the social level. >> >> >> >> I would be interested in hearing more about this (your single example wasn't >> entirely clear to me). >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> >> Gary Richmond >> >> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >> >> Communication Studies >> >> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:49 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Gary, Jon, Ronald, List, >> >> >> >> Gary, >> >> I read your >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf >> >> <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf> >> >> >> You distinguish three levels of interoperability. The Syntactic, semantic >> and pragmatic levels. You might be interested in Ronald Stamper and his >> semiotic ladder. He also started with three levels, but actually building >> information systems and designing methods to do that, he found the need to >> extend the amount of levels with three, the technical, empirical and after >> your three the social. I can match them with my semiotic KiF-Framework. Then >> still three pigeon holes of the nine sign aspects are left open. I hold it >> to be the index, the legisign and the symbol position. This makes sense >> because in the KiF-model they are either the connection (index) of state and >> effect or the type pertaining to the effect and the meaning attached to it >> in regular settings. This gives rise to two questions of interoperability: >> horizontal and vertical. >> >> >> >> If we follow the categorical scheme the semantical level is, as you also >> state in your trikon a second (relative to its first and third). We may >> assume a twofold distinction behind it. Lets venture as hypothesis that >> Sowa’s work is the firstness of that dyad. I would suggest looking at >> Stampers ontology Charts for the secondness of that dyad. The reason being >> that Stamper includes actors in his scheme, introduces time and looks at >> meanings as affordances. It seems to bridge with the pragmatic level and it >> has with the introduction of ‘person’ and ‘role’ the ability to align with >> my social layer framework for educational settings. >> >> >> >> Note that your Trikon differs in directionality for different roles in IS >> design. The project leader serves the pragmatic level, the information >> analyst the semantical and the programmer the technical. Your use of the >> Trikons enable to sort out the directionalities and the order they ought to >> be put in. My use enables an inspection of the views on that matter in >> actual practice in terms of more or less. So, together we have a kind of >> control system if we design Trikons for the other levels too. In essence I >> think we need six. State is a sign with three relata and the effect is a >> sign with three relata of which one enters the interpretation process of the >> other depending on the goal that reigns the process. >> >> >> >> This is an interesting remark you cite from Sowa: >> >> The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for communication >> among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The major >> inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these systems >> would accept from one another. But they can usually accept lower-level facts >> without creating any conflict. >> >> >> >> It is supported in my research at the social level. A mother with Hindu >> background typed her sun as an ‘old soul’, a common name for children with >> certain a-typical traits in het culture. The officials talk DSM and look for >> terms like autism or attention deficit. At the same time, when asked they >> agreed on multiple characteristics, only diverging for context sensitive >> responses (Home vs school). >> >> >> >> Still, I had to deal with the Platonic (mayeutica) element inherent in the >> mothers world view as it is opposed to the far more Deweyan didactics of >> pofessionals. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Auke >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: Gary Richmond <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Verzonden: zaterdag 30 maart 2019 18:35 >> Aan: Peirce-L <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance >> >> >> >> Auke, Edwina, Dan, List, >> >> >> >> Auke wrote: >> >> >> >> AvB: I shifted from the production of objects made in arts to personal >> development and from there to interactions. Resulting in the application of >> a semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving in an educational >> setting, >> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf >> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf> >> (it is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial >> domain). >> >> >> >> I find your semiotically grounded work for conflict resolution in and beyond >> educational settings of considerable interest. Much of my college teaching >> in a philosophy department, of especially creative and critical thinking, >> centered on the application of Peirce's semeiotic (and especially his >> pragmatism) to conflict resolution, problem solving, etc. But in workshops >> and papers I have also addressed its application to other matters, for >> example, interoperability in the use of internet technology here: >> >> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf >> >> <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf> >> >> >> My friend and colleague, Aldo de Moor (with whom I co-authored a paper along >> with Mary Keeler), also used Peircean principles in developing his >> consulting firm, CommunitySense >> >> https://www.communitysense.nl <https://www.communitysense.nl/> >> >> many of these principles gleaned from his years of attending John >> Sowa's/Mary Keeler's ICCS conferences, listening to, reading and writing >> papers, giving and auditing talks, and organizing and participating in >> seminars either about or related to Peirce's work. For a time he was quite >> actively using Sowa's Conceptual Graphs (built on Peirce's EGs) in his work. >> With all this in mind, I'm going to forward your paper to him, Auke. You >> continued: >> >> >> >> AvB: For example, everybody reading the Springer Quality of service text >> will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as >> theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to >> incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me to >> have participants in my method explicate their position in such a way that >> contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a systematic way. >> >> >> >> I'm gratified that my Trikonic inspired your work. Occasionally I'll receive >> an off-list note or link telling me how that work is being used in a context >> I'd never imagined it being used in (although tricategorial thinking by its >> very nature ought to be, in my view, applicable to any number of fields). >> >> >> >> So, I agree with you, Edwina, and Dan that, as Dan wrote: >> >> >> >> DE: Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. >> >> >> >> And as Auke somewhat metaphorically wrote: >> >> >> >> AvB: ". . .in the end, it must be the fruit of application that proves the >> worth of the tree. >> >> >> >> Or as Edwina put it, Peirce's pragmatism concerns: >> >> >> >> ET: ". . .the powerful functionality of his analytic framework when used in >> examining and explaining our real world, its operation and our interactions >> with that world. : >> >> >> >> Yet, as I see it, there remains considerable work yet remaining for >> developing and explicating Peirce's theories and this includes refining, as >> it were, with an eye especially to its pragmatic use, his terminology. After >> all, as Auke just wrote: >> >> >> >> AvB: . . .one pins down an conceptual infrastructure with the help of ‘terms >> and their relationship’. >> >> >> >> And, while I found Dan's overgrown beanstalk metaphor spot on, I would tend >> to strongly agree with Auke's conclusion regarding Peirce's terminology. >> >> >> >> AvB: . . . I like to be able to inspect that framework as to its build [I >> take this to mean, "how it's constructed"?] and for that I find the >> technical term distinctions that Peirce made very inspiring. / / / The focus >> is on the understanding of semiosis, the tools are the technical terms. Its >> good to keep inspecting and comparing ones tools. >> >> >> >> As I've repeatedly said in this forum over the years, it seems to me that >> there is no good reason why work in one should exclude work in the other; >> that is, there is no reason why the development of theory (I, for example, >> am very interested in the possible development of Peirce's phenomenology and >> technical terminology will most certainly play a part in that) and practice >> (as suggested by the examples Auke, Dan, and Edwina offered) can't operate >> side by side if not quite hand in hand. In my opinion hostility to one or >> ignoring one are equally unwise because finally unbalanced. While it may be >> necessary to concentrate on one and not the other at any given time (and >> this is something Peirce strongly suggested and was, indeed, his practice), >> in my view both are essential. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> Gary Richmond >> >> Philosophy and Critical Thinking >> >> Communication Studies >> >> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Dan, Edwina, List, >> >> >> >> I agree with Dan and Edwina with an however in favor of work on the semiotic >> engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the general >> public. >> >> >> >> Since I started analyzing design processes of artist in the late 80’íes I >> tried to combine an empirical bend with an interest of modelling the >> situation graphically in technical semiotical terms. The general scheme Dan >> and Edwina point to (and as I understand it in my own undoubtedly very >> personal way, which itself evolves along the way) functioning as the hard >> core of the research program. I shifted from the production of objects made >> in arts to personal development and from there to interactions. Resulting in >> the application of a semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving in >> an educational setting, >> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf >> <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf> >> (it is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial >> domain). >> >> >> >> However: This I could only do because I always tried to model semiosis in >> semiotic terms. And, because others on this list, and elsewhere (Sarbo, >> Farkas), were trying to come to grips with the technical side of semiotics. >> >> For example, everybody reading the Springer Quality of service text will see >> that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as theoretical. >> Without that work I would never have imagined to try to incorporate it in my >> application. It proved gold because it enables me to have participants in my >> method explicate their position in such a way that contestants in a conflict >> can compare their differences in a systematic way. I leave out the valuable >> influence of many others on this list. >> >> >> >> It must be an interplay between both interests. It is also important to try >> to model the process of interpretation in semiotic terms for its own sake. >> The key to that in my take is showing how the sign aspects are related to >> the interpretants, Peirce distinguishes, when a sign is inscribed in a sheet >> in its actual state. In that respect he left an interesting, still >> incomplete and as to its constituent pieces debated puzzle. >> >> >> >> But of course, in the end, it must be the fruit of application that proves >> the worth of the tree. >> >> >> >> Best Auke >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Van: Dan Everett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> Verzonden: zaterdag 30 maart 2019 14:55 >> Aan: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> CC: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce >> >> >> >> I agree with Edwina . Peirce himself left strong indications that some of >> his finer terminological distinctions were likely to be unimportant for >> research purposes, which was his main concern. >> >> >> >> Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. >> >> >> >> The kind of article that Edwina links to is a beautiful example of the kind >> of thing that would have really interested Peirce. >> >> >> >> I think of Peircean terminology as a beanstalk he planted. It grew far too >> large in many ways. But the science, the math, the logic, these are the >> things of true lasting importance. >> >> >> >> Dan >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Mar 30, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> In my view, the basis of Peirce is not which term is to be used when and >> where - although I acknowledge that such a descriptive outline can be >> fascinating for some - but my view is that Peirce is really 'all about >> pragmatics'; i.e., the powerful functionality of his analytic framework when >> used in examining and explaining our real world, its operation and our >> interactions with that world. This analytic framework - which functions >> regardless of the terms used - is, to me, 'the basic Peirce' - and can be of >> great insight in many disciplines. >> >> Here is an example. My minimal computer skills didn't allow me to copy more >> than once - so, I've left out the vital title and authors. It's in the >> online journal Entropy. The link below should get anyone interested to the >> site. My point is NOT to open discussion on the actual article - but to show >> how the Peircean analytic framework, which to me, consists of that dynamic >> triad [O-R-I] with its subsets and the powerful three categories - is the >> basic pragmatic infrastructure of our entire world. >> >> The article below is about information dynamics - and - note the terms of >> 'majority-logic decoding' [another term for 3ns???], and 'single unit >> transformations' [2ns???]...and entropy [1ns??] ….And non-equilibrium >> dynamics [the triadic semiosic process??] >> >> ""We investigate the performance of majority-logic decoding in both >> reversible and finite-time information erasure processes performed on >> macroscopic bits that contain N microscopic binary units. While we show that >> for reversible erasure protocols single-unit transformations are more >> efficient than majority-logic decoding, the latter is found to offer several >> benefits for finite-time erasure processes: Both the minimal erasure >> duration for a given erasure and the minimal erasure error for a given >> erasure duration are reduced, if compared to a single unit. Remarkably, the >> majority-logic decoding is also more efficient in both the small-erasure >> error and fast-erasure region. These benefits are also preserved under the >> optimal erasure protocol that minimizes the dissipated heat. Our work >> therefore shows that majority-logic decoding can lift the >> precision-speed-efficiency trade-off in information erasure processes. View >> Full-Text <https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/3/284/htm> >> Keywords: finite-time information erasure; majority-logic decoding; >> nonequilibrium thermodynamics finite-time information erasure >> <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=finite-time%20information%20erasure>; >> majority-logic decoding >> <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=majority-logic%20decoding>; nonequilibrium >> thermodynamics >> <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=nonequilibrium%20thermodynamics> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 >> <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 >> <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 .
