I agree with Edwina about the book. One effort to discuss was cut off by Stephens J.'s peremptory dismissal of my effort. I regard that and other incidents as a sign that I should probably not try to say much at all.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to discuss the > basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to correlate the rise of > Hitler with abductive logic - that it requires that we either buy your book > or read it. > > I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a reasonable > reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think that a research > topic dealt with by a member requires that members of this list read that > member's work. My view is that it is incumbent on YOU, to provide members > with a reasonably thorough precis of the salient points of your argument. > > With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is that you > seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with some 'magical' or > mystical element. > > For example, you claim that when his party took power, German politics > consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In Canada, at the > federal level, there are 26 political parties - and there is nothing > particularly magical or surprising that only three are dominant. There are > about 30 minor political parties in the US. Only two-three are dominant. > > Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You seem to > be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of historical analysis, > which examines history by focusing on the charisma or whatever of some > singular causal individual. I consider this a weak analytic frame; I prefer > the 'long duree' framework of the 'Annales' school (eg, Braudel), which > considers infrastructural causality such as the population size, economic > mode, technological capacity, trade relations etc...rather than individuals. > > As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not rooted in > pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of the past, such that > 'if only we returned to that pure mode', then, all would be well. It is now > rampant in the Al Qaeda (from the 19th c!) and ISIS of the MENA. There are, > I maintain, population and economic reasons for the refusal of these > populations and governments to deal with the pragmatic problems of the area > and the resultant retreat into fascism. > > Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is set up, > e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely difficult to move > out of the rhetoric and back down to hard reality. That requires an > external intervention. Certainly, internally, some tried to stop Hitler - > > As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would be > helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical. > > Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers, of due > to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)? > > What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'? > > Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for > explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or read it > online, but for you to explain key points to us - and then, explain why you > align it with Peircean theory. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> > *To:* Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > *Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> ; Peirce List > <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic > > Dear Respondents: > > Several of the responses show how highly charged the subject of Hitler is. > In that light, I really appreciate Helmut Raulien's comment: > > "Read Ben Novak's dissertation first, Id say: It is really suspensefully > written, like a detective story, and very enlightening." Thank you, Helmut, > > But for those who may find the subject distasteful, I feel I have to > explain why it is nevertheless important, and why it is important for me to > solicit > the views of those dedicated to the study of Peirce. > > * * * > > The essential question that my book seeks to investigate is "Why was it > that Hitler--of all people--was politically successful?" Let us hone in on > this question. When Hitler joined the tiny German Workers Party in 1919, > over 50 other political parties were formed in Munich alone, and 178 > throughout Germany as a whole. This begs the question: What was there about > Hitler that enabled him and his party to outdistance all the other parties > and become the major force on the Right in Bavaria by 1923? > > By the same token, in the Reichstag election of 1930 when Hitler broke > through a leader of the second largest party in Germany, there were 28 > parties on the ballot, the 4 major parties, and 24 smaller parties, each of > which hoped to break through because of he the onset of the Depression. In > the election results, Hitler and his party left all those other parties in > the dust. > > One cannot say that this was the product of conditions--the conditions > were the same for all the parties. The question that I wanted to > investigate was this: Why was Hitler able to take advantage of the > conditions (that were the same for all parties) better than anyone else? I > devote the first chapter of my book to presenting the failure of scholars > up to this point in giving a meaningful answer to that question. Thus H. > R. Trevor Roper wrote way back in 1953: > > Who was Hitler? The history of his political career is abundantly > documented and we cannot escape from its terrible effects. And yet, … how > elusive his character remains! What he did is clear; every detail of his > political activity is now—thanks to a seizure of documents unparalleled in > history—historically established; his daily life and personal behavior have > been examined and exposed. But still, when asked not what he did but how he > did it, or rather how he was able to do it, historians evade the question, > sliding away behind implausible answers. > > In 1998, nearly half a century later, Ron Rosenbaum in *Explaining Hitler* > confirmed > that no progress had been made: > Rosenbaum describes the same two unanswered questions as (1) “The real > search for Hitler—the search for who he was”, and (2) “the question of his > advent and success,” and the failure of historians to answer them as the > biggest > mysteries of the century: > > Is it conceivable, more than half a century after Hitler’s death, after > all that has been written and said, that we are still wandering in this > trackless wilderness, this garden of forking paths, with no sight of our > quarry? Or, rather, alas, with too many quarries: the search for Hitler > has apprehended not one coherent, consensus image of Hitler, but rather > many different Hitlers, competing embodiments of competing visions, Hitlers > who might not recognize each other well enough to say “Heil!” if they > came face to face in Hell. > > What has not been dealt with is the question of what was there about this > man, and what was different about his approach to politics, that made him > so much more attractive and successful than any of the others? What was his > "secret," or his "trick"? So far, historians simply confess they don't know. > > This was the challenge I took up in my dissertation. I spent fourteen > years researching it, thanks to a very patient dissertation committee. > > I began with a clue: Konrad Heiden was a journalist who covered Hitler > from the very beginning of his career, and wrote the first books warning > the world of the danger of this man, whom he called "the greatest > mass-disturber in world history". Nevertheless, in his first book, *The > History of National Socialism*, where Heiden asks: "What natural gifts > determined Hitler's fate?" His answer is quite surprising. What > distinguishes Hitler from the others, Heiden writes, is "quite a different > characteristic than demagogic sureness of aim--namely logic." Indeed, > Heiden writes, "His utterly logical way of thought is Hitler's strength.." > > How could logic be the basis of Hitler's strength, i.e., his political > success? That is the challenge I undertook: to find out how this man could > be conceived of as logical at all. But by this time, I was thoroughly > familiar with Sherlock Holmes dictum: "We must fall back upon the old axiom > that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however > improbable, must be the truth." > > I won't go through the long process, but eventually I discovered Umberto > Eco and Thomas Sebeok, *The Sign of Three, *and from that, Peirce. . Then > it all fell into place. The power of Hitler's oratory and ideas stemmed > from abduction. As the first person to apply adductive logic to politics, > it should then come as no surprise that he rose to power in "The Golden Age > of the Detective Novel.' > > I am not going to go further into it here, for that is the purpose of the > book. You can read a copy of my dissertation at the site Mara Woods found: > > http://access.cjh.org/home.php?type=extid&term=1055795#1 > > and you can read about 70 pages of the published book by clicking on the > picture of the book at Amazon: > > http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Abductive-Logic-Strategy-Tyrant/dp/0739192248 > > or simply buy the book. > > I would be extremely grateful to hear from Peircean experts on my handling > of the logic. > > I also dare to hope that some one of you may perhaps write a review of the > book for Transactions or some other publication--since I hope that what I > present in this work may be of broader interest, and that if I am judged > successful in solving the problems I set out, that such a book will quicken > greater interest in Charles Sanders Peirce and the logic of abduction. > > Thanks to all who have responded so far. > > Ben > > > > > *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net>* > 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 > Telephones: > Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 *Best to call and leave messages.* > Landline: 239-455-4200 *My brother's main phone line.* > Mobile (202) 509-2655* I use this only on trips--and in any event > messages arrive days late.* > Skype: BenNovak2 > > *"All art is mortal, **not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be — **though possibly a colored canvas and > a sheet of notes may remain — **because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message **will have gone." *Oswald Spengler > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > wrote: > >> Stephen, you make my point impeccably. ‘nuff said ;) >> >> >> >> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 9 July 2015 5:27 PM >> *To:* Stephen Jarosek; Peirce List >> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> >> >> Again this topic is too huge and important to allow any generalization to >> stand without question. Consider our mentor Peirce. Here I will place in >> quotes the statements in this post that I find questionable: >> >> >> >> "a new kind of totalitarianism." >> >> >> >> "how benign and “normal” evil can be." >> >> >> >> "internet, drones in the sky, a hedonistic cultural narrative that >> conceals secret opinions and hidden agendas, political correctness, and so >> on." >> >> >> >> "History really is repeating, and it’s not just a figure of speech:" >> >> >> >> "the smug besuited receive accolades for their progressive initiatives" >> >> >> >> "evil is not some other place or some other time. It is here and it is >> now." >> >> >> >> Briefly, I see evil as harm and measurable. There is some possibility >> that it is being addressed more now than in the past. Evil is neither >> benign nor normal. It has grades from the worst which is killing to the >> more modest which rises from selfishness and thoughtlessness. Political >> correctness is entirely contextual and hardly wrong in many circumstances. >> >> >> >> Lumping things into a litany simply mandates, if we are willing, a >> discussion of each element. I think the Internet is a plus. The evil done >> by drones is measurable and relative. "And do on" implies an unending >> jeremiad and reminds me a bit of Christopher Lasch or the current >> perorations of Chris Hedges. Neither in my view are particularly salient in >> understanding where we are and where we are going. >> >> >> >> We are not particularly awash in progressive developments, more's the >> pity. >> >> >> >> History does not repeat to the point that we can speak of eternal return. >> Time is chronological, continuity is reality and fallibility is in my view >> a more accurate description of conditions than the word evil. >> >> >> >> Cheers, S >> >> >> >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> >> wrote: >> >> Edwina wrote: >> >> “...well, fascism is hardly new. And the current Islamic fascism and ISIS >> in the Middle East and Africa is our modern example of the Third Reich.” >> >> Frequently, people write as if fascism is in the past, or in other >> cultures but not our own. I personally suspect that we are witnessing the >> emergence of a new kind of totalitarianism. We are IN it and so we are in a >> position, if we step back calmly, to observe how benign and “normal” evil >> can be. What was that phrase... “the banality of evil.” THIS one is >> scary... internet, drones in the sky, a hedonistic cultural narrative that >> conceals secret opinions and hidden agendas, political correctness, and so >> on. History really is repeating, and it’s not just a figure of speech: >> >> >> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/fox-news-host-meygan-kelly-asks-what-about-mens-rights-after-yesmeansyes-sexual-consent-law-is-signed-in-new-york-10375817.html?icn=puff-3 >> >> Are we being melodramatic if we suggest that we are seeing precisely the >> same tactics that were employed by the Nazis in dehumanising their victims? >> But let us be careful here... these are men (ultimately) doing it to men... >> it’s a kind of gendercide by cowards, no blood need be shed, while the smug >> besuited receive accolades for their progressive initiatives. So speaking >> for myself, I have little sympathy for men, given that they are both the >> doers and the doees (who allow it to happen)... it’s complicated, and it is >> cultural (not gender). But the bottom line is that no, evil is not some >> other place or some other time. It is here and it is now. Welcome to the >> zombie apocalypse. >> >> sj >> >> >> >> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com <stever...@gmail.com>] >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, 7 July 2015 5:30 PM >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky; Peirce List >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> >> >> This is interesting in itself. It could stand alone as something to >> discuss. There are many angles. There is the intriguing idea that something >> economic creates thuggery (I am condensing) and the assumption that the >> emotions behind evil actions are stronger than those what might tend toward >> reason, sweetness and light. I do not have any fixed opinion. What I like >> the idea of fixing is how to deal with minnows in a forum such as this. >> They slither about and we need to find a way to catch them and let them >> grow into conversations which have the benefit of not merely noting >> interesting things but allowing them to mature into conclusions that no one >> had before the conversation began. >> >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >> It is a fascinating topic but is it really as mysterious as Ben Novak >> claims? After all, the idea of fascism, an ideology that assumes a previous >> lost purity and perfection of life within a societal order, ...and declares >> that IF this purity-of-behaviour/belief can be reinserted into the society, >> THEN, perfection of life will ensue...well, fascism is hardly new. And the >> current Islamic fascism and ISIS in the Middle East and Africa is our >> modern example of the Third Reich. >> >> >> >> I'd say that such an ideology emerges in a population that has moved >> beyond the carrying capacity of its economic mode; the resultant imbalance >> and the inability of the govt to remedy this, results in an alienation of >> people from reality and a movement into irrationalism and emotion. These >> emotions are primal, far more basic than reason and science; so, thugs and >> violence will never disappear. >> >> >> >> So - the belief emerges, within the Peircean abductive 'a priori' (this >> fascist way of life will work!)..and rather than moving on to that >> ideology being evaluated by the scientific method, it is stopped in its >> tracks. The ideology is then reinforced by Authority and Tenacity. ...and >> the people are lost in terrible violence. >> >> >> >> What we also may not realize is that tribalism, the idea of 'Us' versus' >> Them is basic to the human species, since our knowledge base is not innate >> but is learned socially. So, this social group that holds our knowledge is >> vital. Its power over us, as an individual, is important. This group is >> 'the tribe'; we must trust the veracity of their knowledge...and we don't >> trust other tribes. So, knowledge/beliefs are held by virtue of Peirce's >> false methods far more often than they are held by the non-tribal method of >> science. >> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> >> >> *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> >> *Cc:* Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> >> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 07, 2015 10:20 AM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic >> >> >> >> >> >> Ben: >> >> >> >> Fascinating topic... will attempt to download thesis. >> >> >> >> from the post by Stephen Jarosek: >> >> >> >> “Unlike the other forms of logic, abduction is based on instinct and has >> a power over emotions.” >> >> >> >> Is this your statement? >> >> >> >> Is this your belief? >> >> >> >> In your view, what are the linguistic / rhetorical constraints on this >> form of logic? >> >> >> >> In other words, what binds this view of abduction to other forms of logic? >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 5, 2015, at 9:35 PM, Ben Novak wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Stephen: >> >> >> >> I agree that the price is outrageously high. Unfortunately, the publisher >> sets the price, and I have no control over that. It is my hope that soon >> the price may come down.....but, again, I cannot fathom the logic of the >> publisher. >> >> >> >> In the meantime, the book is available either in your library, or through >> interlibrary loan.(You may also request your university library or local >> public library to obtain a copy) You may also check the worldcat to find a >> library that has it near you. >> >> >> >> If for any reason there is a shortage of copies of the book through >> interlibrary loan, you may also request a copy of the text of my original >> dissertation, which is entitled *The Third Logic: Adolf Hitler and >> Abductive Logic,* Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State >> University, 1999. Be advised that this version has a host of clerical >> errors, and is missing the final chapter, which I added to the book version >> for publication by Lexington. >> >> >> >> Additionally, I have been advised by someone that a copy of the >> dissertation is also available somewhere on the internet where >> dissertations are digitally archived, though I have been unable to locate >> where exactly this is. >> >> >> >> Finally, I will be glad to send a review copy to anyone who will commit >> to writing a publishable review of the book for *Transactions* or some >> other publication. >> >> >> >> Thanks for your interest. >> >> >> >> Ben Novak >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net/>* >> >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> >> Telephones: >> >> Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 *Best to call and leave messages.* >> >> Landline: 239-455-4200 *My brother's main phone line.* >> >> Mobile (202) 509-2655* I use this only on trips--and in any event >> messages arrive days late.* >> >> Skype: BenNovak2 >> >> >> *"All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be — though possibly a colored canvas and a >> sheet of notes may remain — because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> A less expensive edition might encourage more to buy it. Especially if >> they have no budget for such purchases. I am sure such a discussion would >> be of interest. >> >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Peirce-L members: >> >> >> >> Please allow me to join Tom Wyrick in accepting the invitation to >> introduce ourselves. >> >> >> >> I am rejoining this List for the third time. I first joined in >> approximately 1999 when I discovered Charles Sanders Peirce as I was >> writing my Ph.D. dissertation. Peirce's theory of abduction then became a >> major part of it. I completed the dissertation and received my Ph.D. from >> Penn State University in 1999, at the ripe old age of fifty-six. At that >> time I was a practicing attorney in State College, PA. I think I recall >> Jon Awbrey as an active discussant even way back them... >> >> >> >> Subsequently, I moved to Europe where I taught at various universities in >> Slovakia, Austria, and Bulgaria.; In about 2006, I rejoined the List and >> engaged in some very interesting email discussions with, Sami Paavola, >> among others >> >> >> >> I am happy to say that in 2014 Lexington Books saw fit to publish my work >> under the title, *Hitler and Abductive Logic: The Strategy of a Tyrant*. >> You may find it on Amazon here: >> >> >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Abductive-Logic-Strategy-Tyrant/dp/0739192248 >> >> >> >> The relevance of this work to Peirce-L list members should be obvious >> from its title: *Hitler and Abductive Logic*. The editorial reviews >> bring out the Peirce connection even more: >> >> >> >> *Hitler and Abductive Logic: The Strategy of a Tyrant* is >> thought-provoking and extremely creative, exploring aspects and influences >> of Hitler’s formative years that other biographers and historians have not >> examined to the same degree of detail. The application of the logic of >> abduction to Hitler’s mental development is fascinating, and clearly no >> other author has tried to apply Peirce’s description to Hitler in such a >> way. >> (Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Bowling Green State University) >> >> The amount of literature on Adolf Hitler is astounding. And yet, as Ben >> Novak demonstrates, historians still have not fully explained how this >> ill-educated and irrational provincial Austrian actually rose to power in >> Germany. This work uses the concept of abductive logic both as a means of >> investigating the mystery of Hitler's rise to power and as a way to >> understand the mind and character of Hitler. Novak's book, written in an >> engaging narrative style, offers a compelling argument for a new approach >> to the mystery of Hitler's rise to power. (Jackson Spielvogel, Pennsylvania >> State University) >> >> >> >> In light of some of the recent discussions on applying Peirce's concepts >> to issues outside of formal academic discussions of logic, many of the >> current members of the List may find this work of compelling interest in >> expanding the discussion to wider examples of applications of Peirce's >> logic. >> >> >> >> I would be very interested in the reviews of Peirce specialists on the >> manner in which I apply Peirce's concepts to this subject. Of course, I >> realize how grotesque, sensitive (and toxic) the subject of Hitler is. >> However, if Sherlock Holmes and August Dupin are correct that >> >> >> >> 'The more *outre'* and grotesque an incident is the more carefully it >> deserves to be examined... (Holmes), >> >> >> >> 'It appears to me that this mystery is considered insoluble, for the very >> reason which should cause it to be regarded as easy of solution - I mean >> for the *outre'* character of its features... (Dupin) >> >> >> >> ...then the rise of Hitler especially invites the application of their >> methods, which consist of brilliant applications Peirce's adductive >> logic---as Umberto Eco and Thomas Sebeok make abundantly clear in *The >> Sign of Three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce *(which is a work that also plays a >> significant role in my book). See: >> >> >> <http://goog_189368004/> >> >> http://www.amazon.com/The-Sign-Three-Advances-Semiotics/dp/0253204879 >> >> >> >> In any event, I will be very happy to discuss this subject and the >> application of adductive logic with any members of the List who are >> interested. >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> Ben Novak >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Ben Novak <http://bennovak.net/>* >> >> 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 >> >> Telephones: >> >> Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 *Best to call and leave messages.* >> >> Landline: 239-455-4200 *My brother's main phone line.* >> >> Mobile (202) 509-2655* I use this only on trips--and in any event >> messages arrive days late.* >> >> Skype: BenNovak2 >> >> >> *"All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts >> themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar >> of Mozart will have ceased to be — though possibly a colored canvas and a >> sheet of notes may remain — because the last eye and the last ear >> accessible to their message will have gone." *Oswald Spengler >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
