And of course the iconoclast, obedient to the First Commandment, will add "and none" while adhering to these sage rules..
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Thanks, Stephen. [ I had expected to be 'flung to the wolves' for my > views]. That quote on synechism, from Essential Peirce, vol 2, p 2 is > indeed relevant. As he continued, "All men who resemble you and are in > analogous circumstances are, in a measure, yourself, though not quite in > the same way in which your neighbors are you". > > That is, we are both necessarily individuals (Secondness) and also, > members of a vast collective (Thirdness). We have a duty to live within > both modes. Not just one mode of isolation of the individual self. Nor one > mode of denying that self and submerging it within the utopianism of > 'communal submission'. But both; it's not an easy task. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 11:06 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" > > This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself > said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at > all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of > wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, > yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in > psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to > attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vani > ty." > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of >> war versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that >> seems heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always >> utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's >> because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs. >> >> Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared >> with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that >> rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just >> leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. >> Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does >> grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more >> powerful'? >> >> The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is >> more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing >> herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals. >> >> I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and >> actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when >> their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill >> others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think >> that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to >> step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'. >> >> The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power >> than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of >> women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this? >> >> Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass >> slaughter, openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and >> forcing people into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do >> this to people who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves? >> >> I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by >> Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, >> State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of >> American power in a violent world'. >> >> She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they >> have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather >> similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place >> violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't >> hide from it. >> >> Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of >> biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and >> repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to >> this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such >> thuggish behaviour. >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> >> *To:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Eugene Halton >> <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> >> *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" >> >> >> Main >> >> Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, >> who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs >> adviser. >> >> I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I >> admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone >> from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the >> yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i >> support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides. >> >> So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them >> out by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) >> I had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a >> new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not >> as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I >> tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed >> salt, as that would kill the grass too. >> >> It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me >> that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone >> comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is >> the sum total of gardening work on that lot. >> >> Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to >> understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been >> preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things >> that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; >> I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.) >> >> However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to >> eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim >> organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only >> in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the >> most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is >> that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions >> to take root. >> >> Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence >> of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for >> them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every >> time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion >> seeds to take root all over the world. >> >> I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not >> just in pragmatism. >> >> >> Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Gene Halton wrote: >> >> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito >> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and >> yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was >> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of >> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So >> which is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' >> shallowness as you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks >> than Mumford. >> >> >> I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite >> sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the >> group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, >> "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I >> agree with you at least in that. >> >> >> It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few years >> ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just >> quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American >> involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and >> McCarthyism after the war. . ." >> >> >> Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 >> perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" >> (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical >> triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we >> now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the >> military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global >> corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the >> women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good >> wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc. >> >> >> Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with >> "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about >> how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and >> the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars >> fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the >> future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), >> that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,* >> especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have >> been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old >> men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . >> .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I >> completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there >> is a case to be made for pacifism). >> >> >> So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared >> away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely >> correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself >> considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph >> Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has >> all the answers to the question of war and peace. >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> Gary >> >> >> >> >> *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, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long >>> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually >>> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of >>> Reason*, on page 147 forward. >>> >>> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito >>> and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, >>> and Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly >>> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this >>> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification >>> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding >>> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time >>> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was >>> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of >>> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the >>> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism." >>> >>> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United >>> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a >>> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned >>> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the >>> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like >>> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that. >>> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of >>> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below. >>> >>> Gene >>> >>> >>> >>> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey >>> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what >>> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that >>> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and >>> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of >>> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The >>> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and >>> strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by >>> the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank >>> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among >>> others. >>> >>> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just >>> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of >>> *Common >>> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be >>> Neutral?": >>> >>> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic >>> Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;" >>> John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War >>> for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What >>> Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's >>> piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of >>> the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to >>> stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition >>> of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of >>> pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of >>> emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as >>> "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play >>> a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a >>> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things >>> are important for a *rational* reaction. One is to identify it, and not >>> make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other >>> is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake *is* poisonous; for >>> fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will >>> not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it >>> the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look >>> at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing >>> danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of >>> permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his >>> bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the >>> rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in >>> order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this >>> example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling >>> one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the >>> rationale becomes conscious... >>> >>> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should >>> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to >>> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its >>> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World >>> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against >>> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put >>> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if >>> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we >>> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe >>> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which >>> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that >>> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such >>> participation would somehow produce inevitable results. >>> >>> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the >>> military-industrial-academic complex and McCarthyism after the war--though >>> the former would likely have emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism >>> blinded him to the fact that Western and World civilization were being >>> subjected to a barbaric assault, an assault from fascism and from within, >>> which would not listen to verbal reasoning. By ignoring the question of >>> civilization as a legitimate broader context of the situation and the >>> possibility that the unreasonable forces unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian >>> ambitions could not be avoided indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the >>> larger unfolding dynamic of the twentieth-century, and was led to a false >>> conclusion concerning American intervention which only the brute facts of >>> Pearl Harbor could change. >>> >>> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for >>> being? Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the >>> allies' adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of >>> Dresden and in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried >>> the fall of military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of >>> civilians. Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear >>> disarmament, having written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of >>> the bombing of Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to >>> organize the first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of >>> the Vietnam War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him >>> friendships. Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power* >>> (1970) was, among other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic >>> military-industrial-academic establishment." >>> >>> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995, >>> pp147f. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection >>>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was >>>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the >>>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. >>>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other >>>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not >>>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were >>>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking >>>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. >>>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on >>>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its >>>> context, maybe. >>>> Best, >>>> Helmut >>>> >>>> "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list, >>>> >>>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and >>>> even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support >>>> his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always >>>> had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe >>>> I have ever read an entire book by him. >>>> >>>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his >>>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which >>>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, >>>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although >>>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at >>>> the moment. >>>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> *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, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Helmut, list, >>>>> >>>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, >>>>> although I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For >>>>> what it's worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted >>>>> remark >>>>> in 1940, when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he >>>>> never backed down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another >>>>> book that I meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer >>>>> survival, fighting just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher >>>>> ideals ought to serve life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to >>>>> replace the crap with other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization >>>>> (quick flash of Pink Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and >>>>> think it will save them. At best, it gives direction to their numbed >>>>> desires. But there is no politics but the manipulation of power through >>>>> language. Thus the latter's constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in >>>>> _ >>>>> Splendide-Hôtel_. >>>>> >>>>> Best, Ben >>>>> >>>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to >>>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. >>>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... >>>>> .is >>>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and >>>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: >>>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) >>>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project >>>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know >>>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of >>>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous. >>>>> >>>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr >>>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>> <http://gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" >>>>> List, >>>>> >>>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times >>>>> column, "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor >>>>> today. >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To the Editor: >>>>> >>>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American >>>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism >>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>," >>>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William >>>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were >>>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring >>>>> democratic social institutions. >>>>> >>>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not >>>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and >>>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is >>>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less. >>>>> >>>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO >>>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney >>>>> Hook.* >>>>> >>>>> Brooks >>>>> ' article, >>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D >>>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, >>>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito >>>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms >>>>> "vulgar Pragmatism" >>>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. >>>>> >>>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter >>>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: >>>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What >>>>> is >>>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a >>>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." ( >>>>> op. cit. >>>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a >>>>> logician. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 .
