Gary F, Gary R, Jeff, lists,
I wonder if we can divide habits into three classes, one of which can be
called "instinct" ?
Habits
|
__________|__________
| |
| |
v v
Non-heritable Heritable
(learned behaviors ?) |
_________|_________
|
|
|
|
v
v
Species-specific
Individual-specific
("instinct" ?) ("family
resemblances")
Figure 1. A possible classification of habits ?
All the best.
Sung
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:01 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote:
> Jeff, Gary et al.,
>
>
>
> My first thought was that instinct being a habit of the *species* (not
> just the individual), it would have been weeded out by natural selection if
> the “ledger” didn’t “balance”. Isn’t that a possibility for what Peirce had
> in mind?
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* July 15, 2015 3:21 PM
> *To:* Peirce-L
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
>
>
>
> Jeff, John, list,
>
>
>
> Jeff, quoting Peirce, wrote:
>
>
>
> This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen to be of
> advantage to the associating individuals; but each individual's instinct
> brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the advantages that it
> brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of
> the ledger must balance."
>
>
> Why must the sides of the ledger balance?
>
>
>
> I've been mulling this over since I read it and haven't yet been able to
> come to an adequate answer to your question. At the moment I'm thinking it
> might have something to do with Peirce's idea that every individual is a
> kind of society, while every society is also a kind of individual. I'm
> hoping that John or someone else on the list can put a brighter light on
> this.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Gary
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. Gary Richmond]
>
>
>
> *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 Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <
> jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
>
> Gary, John, list,
>
> I agree that this passage is particularly important for understanding
> Peirce's account of instinct. The first step in developing a better
> explanation of the nature of instinct is to provide a more adequate natural
> classification of the different kinds of instincts. It appears that the
> driving idea in this classificatory scheme is the role of association in
> the explanation of the different kinds of instincts.
>
> This claims is particularly interesting: "Association may happen to be of
> advantage to the associating individuals; but each individual's instinct
> brings no more advantage to him than the sum of all the advantages that it
> brings to so many others. It is double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of
> the ledger must balance."
>
> Why must the sides of the ledger balance?
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> Jeff Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> NAU
> (o) 523-8354
> ________________________________________
> From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:36 AM
> To: Peirce-L
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
>
> John,
>
> First, I agree with you that Miguel's snippet from "A Theory of Probable
> Inference" is a gem (esp. the "important truth, that all human knowledge,
> up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of our inborn
> animal instincts") and will have me rereading that piece later in the week.
>
> I happened upon this passage wherein Peirce writes of the instincts in
> considering the classification of sciences. He suggests that there are "two
> distinct kinds," namely, (1) those that may help to preserve the stock
> through preserving the individual, and (2) those that are social in the
> sense of advantaging "some other individual or individuals than the agent."
> (I've broken this long passage, part of an even longer paragraph, into
> smaller paragraphs for readability.)
>
> The second Family, that of Systems of Performance, has quite clearly two
> Subfamilies. Both the one and the other are, substantially, and in the
> gross, confined to animal and human performances, including organized
> associations. One Subfamily studies those systems of performance which are
> mainly confined to the brutes, to the lower animals generally, being in the
> instinctive stage of development; so that there is an inborn faculty by
> virtue of which the performance is determined in almost all its details.
> The Instincts are said to be all adaptive, although it would seem to be in
> very small measure that play is so.
>
> However, the instincts seem to be of two distinct kinds, those which are
> adapted to the preservation of the stock, if at all, through preserving the
> individual in whom the instinct acts, and those which are social, and
> therefore, so far as they are adaptive, are adaptive primarily to the
> advantage of some other individual or individuals than the agent [emphasis
> added].. Association may happen to be of advantage to the associating
> individuals; but each individual's instinct brings no more advantage to him
> than the sum of all the advantages that it brings to so many others. It is
> double-entry book-keeping; and the sides of the ledger must balance.
>
> But then, over and above this, association is generally connected with
> reproduction, and is therefore advantageous to the stock quite
> independently of its advantage to the individual. In many cases, the social
> instincts are expensive to the individual, even dangerous, sometimes fatal.
> It appears to me that this Subfamily has but one Genus and that this Genus
> has two Subgenera relating to the two kinds of instincts. There is a
> certain difficulty in the fact that instincts for war are on the one hand
> social, since war is a sort of social reaction, and is moreover often
> dangerous, sometimes certainly fatal, yet on the other hand, it seems
> improper to distinguish war from preying, and preying is generally an
> affair of bread-winning, adapted to the preservation of the agent. It seems
> to me, however, that in war the enemy is not looked upon as
> fellow-creatures, but is treated as a thing, and I believe that though the
> instinct brings danger, it is nevertheless a selfish one, and ought to be
> classed with those which go to preserve the agent. This is inconvenient, it
> is true, as regards duels motived by jealousy, which is the chief kind of
> fighting among herbivora.
>
> The leading instincts studied in the first Subgenus are those of Feeding
> and Food Getting. The study of these will make the first Species. The study
> of instincts of War will be the second, with two Subspecies, the study of
> instincts of active war making one, the study of self-preservation
> including the instincts of self-concealment being the other. Other species
> will study the minor instincts, such as those of personal Cleanliness, of
> Medicine (dogs eating grass, etc.), of hibernation, and the singular
> instinct for collecting and hoarding all sorts of useless things, as seen
> in rats, in mag-pies, and some other animals, a genuine collecting mania,
> apparently quite useless. Then I am inclined to think that we must admit a
> Species for the study of instincts of working materials, such as the
> tree-felling instinct of beavers, the instinct of the wood-pecker. With
> this I would reckon all instinctive mechanical skill. CP 7.378
>
> This may not closely relate to your particular interest in instinct, but I
> found the passage intriguing.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
> [Gary Richmond]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 8:36 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:
> colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending
> this gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it.
>
> I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not particularly
> useful.
>
> I should be asleep. Best to all,
>
> John
>
> From: mig...@cegri.es<mailto:mig...@cegri.es> [mailto:mig...@cegri.es
> <mailto:mig...@cegri.es>]
> Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM
> To: John Collier; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
> Dear John,
>
> In the last paragraph of an extremely interesting text, "A Theory of
> Probable Inference", W4: 408-450 (1883); Peirce points that "Side by side,
> then, with the well established proposition that all knowledge is based on
> experience, and that science is only advanced by the experimental
> verifications of theories, we have to place this other equally important
> truth, that all human knowledge, up to the highest flights of science, is
> but the development of our inborn animal instincts."
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel Angel Fernandez
>
> El 14/07/2015 a las 19:08, John Collier escribió:
> Folks,
>
> I am very interested in instincts for various reasons. I recently gave a
> talk on Piaget’s views on instincts at the International Society for
> Philosophy, History and Social Sciences in Biology in Montreal last week. I
> would be most interested if there is a Peircean position on instincts that
> can be supported by his writings. I would be surprised if this were not so,
> but so far I have not seen anything that I could use.
>
> Best to all,
> John
>
> From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
> Sent: July 12, 2015 8:04 PM
> To: ozzie...@gmail.com<mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Stephen Jarosek; Edwina Taborsky; Benjamin Udell; <
> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu><mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
> Ozzie, Stephen, Stephen, List,
> I agree. And I think, that idealists are in fact realists, because:
> Liberty, equality, fraternity and justice are not only ideals, but also
> human instincts, inherited structure of the human race, written down in the
> DNA. That is so, because genetically we are still hunters and collectors,
> and they have led a free life, people were quite equal with their rights
> and plights, everybody was dependent on everybody else, and they had to
> solve conflicts in a just way. So I think, that culture is often
> overestimated, a rigid culture can block these instincts for a while, but
> they will reappear soon. This view is just rosy because of its hope, that
> no rigid culture will gain total control.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
> Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com<mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com>>
>
> Stephen ~
> I don't go along with your characterization of American history in such
> generic terms. You seem to say the founding fathers supported personal
> freedom -- end of story. But America's founding fathers revolted for a
> specific reason: English citizens living in the American colonies did not
> have representatives in the British Parliament or the protections of
> British law.
>
> The US Constitution established a central government with constraints on
> what it could do, but among those constraints we do not find a limit on the
> size of government, special rights for a privileged minority or protection
> of the status quo (independent of other legally recognized rights).
> Live-and-let-live is the law of the land, but when enough citizens support
> new policies the founding fathers provided them/us a means of promoting
> their/our aspirations. New laws, new states, new voters, and
> Constitutional amendments were all anticipated within their master plan.
> Change.
>
> Thus America was a controlled social experiment. The founding fathers
> established a mechanism for seeking the most beneficial social policies,
> but didn't prescribe them.
>
> As far as outcomes, everyone has an opinion. That's politics.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Wyrick
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au<
> http://sjaro...@iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>
> It would seem that Edwina and I are on the same page throughout most of
> this topic. It is often said that the founding fathers of America
> understood something about human nature, hence their emphasis on minimal
> government. What was that “something?” Let me posit a guess. IMHO, it would
> proceed by way of the following reasoning:
>
> 1. Idealists are usually well-intentioned enough. They see the world
> through rose-coloured glasses and want to fix things that they perceive are
> “wrong” or “broken.” But accompanying their best intentions is a problem...
> a very intractable problem;
>
> 2. To make the naive but well-intentioned vision of idealists work,
> they need to harness cultural groupthink, and they need to implement the
> machinery of bureaucracies... ie, big government. They need to give license
> to groupthink to make it work. The person that assimilates well into the
> cogs of bureaucratic groupthink is a very different kind of animal to the
> naive but well-intentioned idealist;
>
> 3. The typical idealist is usually a very congenial person with
> passions and ideas. The typical bureaucrat (at least from the perspective
> of my own experience as a whistleblower-turned-refugee) is usually a
> secretive troglodyte that maps his own agenda to the purpose of the greater
> bureaucratic machine. He uses the bureaucratic machine, principally, to
> further his own ends, and his ideal situation is synergy between his own
> agenda and that of the bureaucracy. Any person that is perceived as a
> threat to both agendas is perceived as dangerous and is to be eliminated.
> In the meantime, while all this takes places under the cover of The Privacy
> Act, EEO, FOI, HR, and other such smoke-and-mirrors hogwash, the
> bureaucracy carries on its people-friendly masquerade that is usually
> publicly associated with the intentions of the idealists.
> I think that America’s founding fathers were onto something. How tragic
> that it’s all falling into a heap now. This then, is the crux of the
> problem. Bureaucracies require the application of a very different kind of
> groupthink psychology to that of the individualistic idealist that inspires
> them... the secrets and hidden agendas that make the behemoth of stoopid
> work are very different to the congenial, public best wishes of the
> idealists, and there is no solution to this conflict of interest. It is at
> this juncture that the well-intentioned idealist becomes naught but a
> useful idiot... useful as a public face of the bureaucratic machine that
> takes on a life of its own.
> sj
>
> From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca<http://tabor...@primus.ca
> >]
> Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2015 2:54 PM
> To: Thomas
> Cc: Benjamin Udell; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> >
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
> Yes, very nice outline, Thomas, of the strength of the 'melting pot'
> tactic, which I support. And that's why I'm against the current focus on
> 'multiculturalism' and 'identity politics' which is all the rage in America
> and Europe now. It actually retains and fosters those ancient irrational
> tribal hatreds. And any 'progressive' who, in their multicultural/identity
> political sanctimonious zeal doesn't understand that these minority
> enclaves - which are kept insular by multiculturalism/identity politics....
> can be even more racist, bigoted and irrational than any majority...is
> naive in the extreme.
>
> Edwina
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas<http://ozzie...@gmail.com>
> To: Edwina Taborsky<http://tabor...@primus.ca>
> Cc: Benjamin Udell<http://bud...@nyc.rr.com> ; <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 11:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
> Edwina ~
> Germans and the other groups you listed have all assimilated into American
> society, and none of the nationalities or races have proved particularly
> intractable. The melting pot is imperfect, but it does a good job of
> challenging cultural myths and ancient hatreds that seem to continue for
> centuries in closed/insular societies. The demagogues of America appeal to
> the down-and-out of most/all nationalities -- almost as though they're
> broad-minded humanists. That reveals a focus on laws and justice, as
> opposed to settling scores with ancient enemies.
>
> By contrast, Europe, Asia and the Middle East are comprised of far more
> insular societies. Historically most people there have been poor and ruled
> by often-brutal and almost-always deceitful autocrats who coopted the
> church to hold onto power. Little wonder that warlords and terrorists have
> played such a big role in their political histories.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Wyrick
>
>
>
> On Jul 10, 2015, at 6:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<
> http://tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
> Yes, stereotypes are basic to our identification of 'identity groups' -
> whether it be Jews, Italians, Germans, Russians, Chinese. Such distorted
> and simplistic images-of-the-other are found among all people. Americans
> are viewed by Europeans as...and so on. But the few key variables of
> behaviour that we understand to define 'that nationality' are not, in my
> view, an explanation for the rise of fascism in Germany.
>
> That is, my point is that we are all as human beings, susceptible to
> emotional blindness in our political and societal views; we aren't at all
> 'rational beings' when dealing with political and social affairs.
> Therefore, if the economic and societal order breaks down, I'd say that we
> are all susceptible to fascism. There is a critical threshold when the rule
> of law, the political order, the societal order, the economic viability
> breaks down - and a power-bloc can move in and take over..and then, impose
> its fascism.
>
> The ideology of 'old Germany', with its aristocracy, its ideals of
> governance had little to do with the ideology of 'pure race' of Nazism, nor
> the Nazi focus on nationalism as a biological construct and the contempt
> for 'lesser beings'. After all, the British upper class had a similar focus
> as the old Germans on 'noblesse oblige', strict rules of behaviour, a
> military career and so on - and were not susceptile to fascism. [But many
> were susceptible to communism/socialism!].
>
> There were plenty of people in the old upper class and the middle class of
> Germany who were opposed to fascism and Nazism.
>
> Yes, the horrors of WWII did bring a requirement that US military bases
> remain in Germany after 1990 reunification - but, logically, such a demand
> by the French and others cannot PROVE that, 'Germans are basically capable
> of moving back into fascism' without such a presence. That is - the modus
> ponens statement of:
> IF there are bases, THEN, they will be peaceful"
>
> can't be turned around to declare:
> 'They are peaceful; that's because there are bases'. (Fallacy of Affirming
> the Consequent).
>
> So- I am not convinced that the German people are predisposed to fascism,
> nor that Hitler's rise was a mysterious event. I remain focused on the
> economic, political and societal infrastructure - which can decimate a
> culture's deep beliefs in a decade. We have our own examples.
>
> Edwina
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Benjamin Udell<http://bud...@nyc.rr.com>
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
>
> Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII wasn't so
> long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to movies and TV
> series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to regard
> certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and 'just
> taking orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century German
> culture. Also I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an
> impressionable kid.
>
> But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and economics are
> everything against culture (glamour!) and society (status!) as some sort of
> zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish to convince people.
> The problematic character of early-20th-Century German attitudes -
> militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking orders' - have not
> gone unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of Germany in
> the 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military bases in Germany,
> guarantees sought by the French and other governments.
>
> Best, Ben
>
> On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric
> instincts than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for
> emotional irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and
> order breaks down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing security, is
> not functioning in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted by a
> higher authority - then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational examination of
> the situation is rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled mob,
> i.e., a band of thugs'.
>
> Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As Tolstoy said,
> 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it'.
> Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up
> as created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Helmut Raulien
> To: Ozzie
> Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <stever...@gmail.com><http://stever...@gmail.com> ;
> Peirce List
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM
> Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
>
> I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of that
> success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that a false
> abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper conclusion. But not
> all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg. Heidegger).
> Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on Hitlers intelligent
> ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part of the guilt, and
> lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric instincts than the
> other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than other nations, there
> has not been a democratic constitution initiated by the people.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com><http://ozzie...@gmail.com>
>
> ________________________________
>
> -----------------------------
> 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<http://peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<
> http://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<http://peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<
> http://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<http://peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<
> http://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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To
> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
> <mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
