I appreciate that more than I can say as I have pretty much managed to not really connect. I am run of the mill liberal arts which I think is lots of "educated" folk. I draw blanks when things seem too complex to pass what I think of as the C. P. Snow test. No offence intended, just apples and oranges and not enough Peirce Popularizers or emenders to participate in what I think is the actual victory of his triadic POV. He certainly deserves to be an Icon.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:21 AM Mary Libertin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 )Here I am unconsciously using an outdated term while 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 > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:32 AM Mary Libertin <[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. 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]> >> 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]> >> 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]> >>> *Verzonden:* maandag 1 april 2019 21:11 >>> *Aan:* Peirce-L <[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 >>> _ >>> >>> >>> >>> 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]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Gary, Jon, Ronald, List, >>> >>> >>> >>> Gary, >>> >>> I read your >>> 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]> >>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 18:35 >>> *Aan:* Peirce-L <[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 >>> (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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> 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]> >>> 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 >>> (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]> >>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 14:55 >>> *Aan:* [email protected] >>> *CC:* [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]> 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] . 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
