Sung ~
Your comments about "habits" suggest this passage from Peirce in his discussion
of physics: "Pairs of states will also begin to take habits, and thus each
state having different habits with reference to the different other states,
will give rise to bundles of habits, which will be substances." By substance
he meant a physical body found in nature.
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/guess/guess.htm
Is your "habit" sign used in a similar fashion?
As a relative newcomer to Peirce, I only found this publication today. But I
see the discussion of habit is part of a larger discussion where Peirce
dissects essential forces and mechanisms pertaining to every discipline of
intellectual inquiry. Then, I presume he intended to bring it all together in
a "compact" package. Is that your project, too?
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
> On Jul 18, 2015, at 12:52 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
> Tom, lists,
>
> T: ". . . this Habit sign has a complex interpretant. "
>
> S: You are absolutely right. All signs have multiple interpretants, but let
> us remember that not all interpretants are created equal. Some are the
> products of the free-roaming mind of the interpreter and some are not so free
> but constrained by the object (or reality) it refers to, and this constraint
> is the essence of the irreducible TRIADIC relation (ITR) of Peirce (as I
> understand it), in contrast to Saussure's DYADIC relation between signifier
> (or sign) and signified (or object).
>
> T: Because the rest of the world has a different interpretant for "habit,"
> assigning the same word to this complex sign may create confusion among
> readers (except Peirce!) and therefore does not seem a pragmatic choice.
>
> S: Well, one word having more than one interpretant (depending on the
> interpreter) is not unusual and is something to be expected. But your are
> raising an important issue here -- the difference between a "word" as a
> 'representamen' and a "word" as as a 'sign'. What I mean is that, the "habit
> hierarchy" proposed in Figure 1 of my (Jul 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM) post can be a
> sign referring to a given object (or theory) but can have two ore more
> different names or 'representamens', such as 'quan-seup' in Korean, and
> 'Gewohnheit' in German.
>
> Let us again remember that Peirce distinguished between "sign" and
> "representamen", although he usually used these two terms interchangeably (to
> confuse most of us). You have, I think, stumbled upon a valuable lesson for
> all Peirceans to learn from: the "habit hierarchy" in Figure 1 is indeed a
> sign (which is triadic as Peirce defined) and the word "habit" is the
> "representamen" assigned to the habit hierarchy (which is a part of the
> irreducible triad of Peirce). This is why I often represent Peirce's triadic
> sign as a 4-node network in order to distinguish between "sign" and
> "representamen":
>
>
> Representamen
> |
> |
> |
> SIGN
> / \
> / \
> / \
> Object Interpretant
>
> Figure A. A 4-node representation of Peircean sign.
>
> Some Peirceans may disagree, but I think this 4-node diagram provides an
> unambiguous geometrical foundation for the 9 groups of "signs" proposed by
> Peirce:
>
> the relation between sign and representamen = 'qualisign', 'sinsign' and
> 'legisign';
> the relation between sign and object = 'icon', 'index' and
> 'symbol'; and
> the relation between sign and interpretant = 'rheme', 'dicisign', and
> 'argument'.
>
> As is well known among Peirceans, Peirce combined these 9 groups of 'signs'
> into 10 classes of more complex 'signs' such as 'rhematic iconic qualisign'
> (e.g., a feeling of 'red'), 'dicent indexical sinsign' (e.g., a weathercock),
> 'dicent symbolic legisign' (e.g., a proposition), etc. (see the figure and
> the table attached reproduced from [biosemiotics:46] dated 12/26/2012).
>
> Finally, I would like to point out that the construction of the habit
> hierarchy under discussion is an attempt to contribute to discovering "simple
> concepts applicable to every
> subject":
>
>
> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to
> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to
> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to
> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of
> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology,
> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in
> whatever other department there may be, shall appear
> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward
> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every
> subject." CP 1.1
>
>
> Just as there are simple chemical elements (about 100) that can give rise to
> almost infinite number of chemical compounds, only small number of which are
> actually found in our Universe (e.g., water, plastics, drugs, sugars,
> proteins, lipids, solid-state materials, nylon, etc.), including living
> things on the Earth (containing only about a dozen, i.e., H, C, N, O, S, P,
> Fe, Co, Ni, K, Na, Ca, Mg, Zn, and a few others), so I think there may exist
> a relatively small number of "simple concepts" (e.g., 9 groups of sign
> relations, 10 classes of triadic signs, ITR, energy, entropy, information,
> categories, etc.) that underlie (or serve as the necessary conditions for)
> all complex concepts, likely almost infinite in number.
>
> Finally, I think the ultimate reality is continuous and complex. The human
> mind can only know and discuss using signs only a very small pieces of it at
> a time, following what may be called the "(n-1)-n-(n+1)" rule:
>
>
> f g
> (n -1)^th level -----> n^th level -----> (n + 1)^th
> level
> |
> ^
> |
> |
> |_____________________________|
> h
>
> Figure B. An application of the ITR (irreducible triadic relation)
> principle to the process of human knowing. f = reductionism ?; g = holism ?;
> h = validation ?
>
>
> If you have any questions or comments, let me know.
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sung, List ~
>>
>> Regarding the first diagram: The "Habits" sign includes physical
>> appearances, (learned) behavior which may be practiced regularly by some but
>> not all members of the cohort in response to an external opportunity and/or
>> internal motive, and (instinctual) behavior that is exhibited by all members
>> of the cohort sharing the same external stimuli, with a cohort-wide response
>> potential if the external environment changes. In short, this Habit sign
>> has a complex interpretant.
>>
>> The usefulness of assigning a sign+interpretant to an object is largely
>> determined by the purpose of the thinker, and other things being equal
>> simplicity is a virtue. Applying this particular Habit sign to a living
>> creature points to: "Stuff that looks and behaves similarly, but with some
>> variation, when an individual is in close proximity to (shares the same
>> environment as) other members of the cohort." I'm thinking ants, Klingons
>> or soccer/football fans. (;
>>
>> Because the rest of the world has a different interpretant for "habit,"
>> assigning the same word to this complex sign may create confusion among
>> readers (except Peirce!) and therefore does not seem a pragmatic choice.
>> Perhaps biologists or botanists already have a good term (sign) for your
>> interpretant-set.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom Wyrick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for reminding me of your hierarchy theory.
>>>
>>> These two types of hierarchies you call subsumptive (S) and compositional
>>> (C), how are they related ? Are S and C mutually exclusive or are they
>>> different aspects of a third entity? If the former, the relation may be
>>> "supplementarity" and if the latter "complementarity", the two relational
>>> types that Niels Bohr discussed in 1926-7 (See [1] for a review).
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the habit hierarchy that I depicted in Figure 1 of my 7/16/2015
>>> post which is reproduced below for convenience with some additions may be
>>> more complicated than can be described as a S hierarchy, although it has
>>> that feature (e.g., "instinct" is thought to be subsumed by heritable
>>> habits). The C hierarchy is also involved because each node of the habit
>>> hierarchy may be a system of parts, e.g., "behavior" may contain emotional,
>>> cognitive, and belief components.
>>>
>>> What may be one of the most important features of the habit hierarchy is
>>> the fact that two successive bifurcations, 1 and 2, connects the origin
>>> (denoted as O) to three leaves or endpoints (denoted as a, b, and c). This
>>> is interesting to me because it may provide one "mechanism" to connect
>>> DICHOTOMNY (bifurcations) to TRICHOTOMY (three endpoints).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Habits
>>> (O)
>>> |
>>> __________|__________ (1)
>>> | |
>>> | |
>>> v v
>>> Non-heritable Heritable
>>> (learned behaviors ?) |
>>> (a) _________|_________
>>> (2)
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> v
>>> v
>>> Species-specific
>>> Individual-specific
>>> ("instinct" ?) ("family
>>> resemblances")
>>> (b)
>>> (c)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Figure 1. A possible classification of habits ? Reproduced from my
>>> 7/16/2015 post.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A similar mechanism of connecting dichotomy (or dyad) and trichotomy (or
>>> triad) occurs in Chapter 42 in the Tao Te Ching which reads in part ('Tao'
>>> is now written as 'Dao' in more recent literature):
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tao gives birth to one,
>>> One gives birth to two,
>>> Two gives birth to three,
>>> Three gives birth to ten thousand beings.
>>> Ten thousand beings carry yin on their backs and embrace yang in their
>>> front,
>>> Blending these two vital breaths to attain harmony."
>>>
>>> -- from chapter 42, E. Chen (tr.)
>>> http://taomanor.org/10000.html
>>>
>>>
>>> The ideas expressed in this chapter can be diagrammatically represented
>>> thus:
>>>
>>>
>>> Dao
>>> (0)
>>> |
>>> __________|__________ (1)
>>> | |
>>> | |
>>> v v
>>> yin (1) yang (1)
>>> (a) |
>>> _________|________
>>> (2)
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> v
>>> v
>>> yin (2)
>>> yang (2)
>>> (b)
>>> (c)
>>>
>>>
>>> Figure 2. The Daoist theory of the origin of everything as a BIFURCATION
>>> HIERARCHY (involving two bifurcations, 1 and 2) leading to a triad (denoted
>>> as a, b and c) which give rise to everything in the Universe.
>>>
>>> The isomorphism (i.e., the similarity in structure) evident in Figures 1
>>> and 2 may indicate that the 'habit bifurcation hierarchy' that I proposed
>>> reflects the universal principle of the yin-yang dichotomy basic to the
>>> Daoist philosophy, just as the genetic code can be said to reflect the
>>> yin-yang principle embodied in the hexagrams of the ancient Chinese "Book
>>> of Changes" [2].
>>>
>>> If the above interpretations are valid, I would not be surprised if some
>>> scholars will find ways to connect the ITR (irreducible triadic relation)
>>> of Peirce to the yin-yang doctrine of the Daoist philosophy in the future
>>> (if it has not been done already).
>>>
>>> With all the best.
>>>
>>> Sung
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> References:
>>> [1] Ji, S. (2012). Complementarity. In: Molecular Theory of the Living
>>> Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.
>>> Springer, New York. Section 2.3, pp. 24-50. PDF at
>>> http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters.
>>> [2] Petroukhov, S. V. (1999). Genetic Code and the Ancient Chinese
>>> 'Book of Changes'. Symmetry: Culture and Science. 10 (3-4): 211-226.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Stanley N Salthe
>>>> <ssal...@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>>>> Sung --
>>>>
>>>> Subsumptive hierarchy: {most general or primitive {more specific or more
>>>> developed}}
>>>>
>>>> Compositional hierarchy: [whole [part [part of part]
>>>>
>>>> STAN
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Stan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you remind me what is the other kind of hierarchy you wrote about ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sung
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Stanley N Salthe
>>>>>> <ssal...@binghamton.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Sung -- That's a subsumptive hierarchy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> STAN
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <~WRD028.jpg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gary Richmond
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Communication Studies
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C 745
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 718 482-5690
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 .
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> <Ten_classes_of_signs_12232012.pdf>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
