Stefan - I am not making 'big claims on the agora'.
I posted my concerns on a specific and limited list, the Peirce List, about a
proposed discussion topic on democracy as outlined by Dewey and Peirce. My
concerns about Dewey were that his outline of a political system separated it
completely from an economic system - and separated that economic system from
its ecological environment. As such, I felt that his theories about a political
system failed to see that it is not and can never be simply an intellectual
enterprise but is grounded in hard factual reality [economics/environment]. As
for Peirce, he said almost nothing about political or economic systems - BUT
his focus on the nature of Mind within a biological system and on the
interrelationship of the individual and the collective could be analyzed within
an economic and political system.
My claims, furthermore are hardly 'big claims' but are basic commonsense, and
backed up by supportive empirical factual data on ecology, population growth,
technological development, societal changes, various tribal societies and
historical development.
You, very obviously, have some kind of deep personal and intellectual interest
in this area, and probably have very different conclusions - so my views are
upsetting to your conclusions. Yet - you haven't offered, 'on the agora', any
counter argument; you have merely attacked me without providing your own
evidence in rebuttal.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: sb
To: Mike Bergman ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina,
i don't insult you and i don't sneer at you. You are making big claims on the
agora and i hold you accountable for your claims on the agora.
I am sure you have some kind of publication where you have laid out your
theoretical views (published papers, working papers or presentations) providing
literature etc. I am also sure you can provide some written work about your
empirical research on this topic (posters, presentations, whatever...). This
would be just one post to the list with some of your work attached. I don't
believe anbody would be anoyed if you would present us some of your work to
back up your claims.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20.11.16 um 15:11 schrieb Edwina Taborsky:
Stefan - again, your CHOICE of assuming I have no proof, because I refuse
to start up a discussion of these issues on a site devoted to Peirce, is just
your own illogical and non-empirical opinion.
That's right - I provided the conclusions of these theories - again,
because this site is not for these issues - about which Peirce really said
not-one-word. I suggested going off-line but you ignored me.
Yes, I taught these FACTS for 20 plus years - and, as with all my classes,
it was data-based analysis.
No- it is absolutely not geodeterminism - what a conceptual error on your
part, but factual reality about two key areas: First, the environment and
second, human adapative capacities. A population HAS to acknowledge reality;
that means ecological reality. It has to acknowledge the capacity - both
benefits and limitations - of that local environment to support a population;
that means soil type, arability; water type and quantity; climate and
temperature; local plants and animals; domesticative viability of local plants
and animals..which all deal with the 'carrying capacity' of the environment to
support life - plant, animal and human.....
All of these factual realities must be acknowledged - and then - you can
move on to the very obvious adaptive strategies of population size [and how
people limited its growth], settlement size and organizational infrastructure,
migration, ..and the societal organization of the population...and the
political...etc.
We studied ten major societal systems - as basic human logical adaptations
to the factual realities of their ecological environments - and - the changes
that technological advances enabled.
And yes, we explained why a growth economy requires an emphasis on
individual rights. Actually, that bit IS Peircean, for he would acknowledge
that freedom and spontaneity, which is a property of the individual and not the
collective, provides novelty and thus, adaptive ideas...that might, just
might, become habits of organization within the society. We studied how
no-growth societies actually limited and disabled individualism, and how growth
societies privileged individualism. Again- these are empirically based..The
movement to a printing press, individual literacy, schools, even the growth of
universities..began to promote individualism.The US Declaration of Independence
privileges individualism...
Even, I supposed, privileging the wealth-producing sectors of the society
could be understood as Peircean [as well as basic commonsense], for that part
of the population that enables continuity of type [pure Peirce] must have some
form of dominance over the marginal deviations-from-the-norm.
And what happens when the population grows beyond the carrying capacity of
the local environment and current technology? We studied that as well.
So- because I chose not to 'hog the thread' with non-Peircean analysis,
does not mean, despite your words, that I have no proof. You obviously reject
such a perspective - calling it 'geodeterminism' [which it is not] -
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: sb
To: Mike Bergman ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu (IUPUI)
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Mike,
Peirce would't approve that "last snide tone" if i would bar the road of
inquiry. I don't do that. I just want somebody who makes big claims about how
the social world works to back up her claims empirically. To discuss such
complex things At least a clear theoretical outline of hypotheses and their
relation is needed, an outline how to operationalize them and an outline how to
proof them empirically.
But in the initial post Edwina didn't fomulate hypotheses. She told
everybody in an apodictic way how things work:
a.. That is, all political systems must privilege the wealth-producing
sectors of the population
b.. When the economy moves to a growth mode [and enables a growth
population], the political system must empower those sectors of the population
which make an economy grow.
c.. For a growth economy to work, it must support individual rights"
If somebody talks this way i believe it has to be grounded on thorough
empricial analysis which goes beyond "looking" at things. I would expect a bit
more evidence from somebody who has developed an intoduction for dummies into
the topic and taught this stuff to students for about 20 years.
And no, giving shallow hints at streams of literature is not "the best
available" evidence. Cultural ecology is not a monolithic block. Not everthing
within it has the geodeterministic component Edwina gives it. I also adore the
Annales School (Braudel), but there has been some work in economic history
since then. Furthermore Vidal de la Blaches genre de vie didn't have - in
contrast to Friedrich Ratzels ideas - this geodeterministic component. And
since then there have been one or two scholars of political science who have
thought about the nexus of democracy and economy. It is easy to tack an
eclectic selection of theories and studies together, but it is another thing to
show empirically that the claimed relations between them actually do exist.
Yes, i also want to learn more, but we only learn when we fail. Doing arm
chair social science isn't the best way to fail. The best way to fail in the
social sciences is to work empirically or at least to try to by outlining how
to examine something.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20.11.16 um 07:01 schrieb Mike Bergman:
Stefan, the questions you ask for data and methodology are natural and
understandable in terms of Peirce's abiding guidance on the scientific method
and fallibility. Edwina, the evidence you offer is the best available given our
current state of knowledge, and represents a reasonable and supportable
hypothesis given the evidence.
I think Peirce would approve of the inquiry of this thread, but not the
last snide tone of your response, Stefan. This has been an interesting thread,
and Edwina has put forward one of the more cogent summaries of how to look at
the question of "why democracy" I have seen. In the end, it is all wrong, but
it is something to strive to learn more from, not dismiss.
Best, Mike
On 11/19/2016 11:53 PM, sb wrote:
Edwina,
oh, this is a Peirce list, that's interesting, isn't it? What kind of
red hering is this? You keep writing this stuff on this list for years over and
over again. Now, when someone asks you for some evidence of your "theory" you
say you can't provide it because this is a Peirce list? Why the heck do state
that stuff in the first place on this list over and over again?
Asking for evidence is quite a natural thing for scientists - not
willing to provide it for ideologists.
Got nothing more to say and ask.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20. November 2016 03:36:35 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca>:
Stefan - I can't deal with your questions on this list, as it is a
site devoted to Peirce - and Peirce has nothing to do with ecological analysis
of societal adaptation.
i may deal with it off-list - but your questions are, to me, rather
strange, for you seem to be approaching societal adaptation as if it were some
kind of chemical formula carried out in a laboratory. There are plenty of books
on 'cultural ecology' [look up the term]- which is basically what I'm talking
about [R. Netting, E. Moran.] And plenty of books dealing with non-industrial
societies, their physical environments, their societal systems, their
economies, their populations sizes..etc.
There are all kinds of data on population dynamics among various
groups..
As for technological change - there are equally well-documented
works on the development of technology, the development of sources of energy
[manpower, animal, wind, water, fossil fuels, etc]. The development of towns,
of currency, roads, ...literacy etc...And there are plenty of books on societal
organization and the development of the middle class market economy in the
West. [J.D. Bernal, Ferdinand Braudel..]
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: sb
To: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina,
where can we find these descriptive data? Did you use archival
data? Did you do any fieldwork? Has it been published? What sources do you draw
on? How did you conduct your qualitative research? What hypotheses guided your
qualitative research? Have documented how you get to your conclusions? Could
you provide us your analytical framework? What are the exact cases you did
study? What are the dimensions of comparison between the cases? Where are they
similar? Where are they different? What is your ecological analysis based on?
Where did you get the ecological data? How did you link it with the cases you
have studied? Have your heard of Qualitative Comparative Analysis?
In short: Could you please provide us information on what data
you did use, where to find these data, how you analyzed the data and where to
find the documentation of your analysis to back up any of your claims?
"Looking" at "the West", "late industrialism" and "climate", is a
bit abstract, isn't it? I would really appreciate if you could elaborate a bit
more on data and how you arrived at your conclusions, than on the conclusions
themselfes.
Best,
Stefan
Am 20. November 2016 01:35:38 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca>:
Stefan - the analysis is based on descriptive data of the
ecological anthropological analyses of various socioeconomic peoples -
hunting/gathering; the different types of agriculturalism - wet and dry
horticulture, pastoral nomadic, rainfall agriculture...and early and late
industrialism. It includes first a consideration of the ecological realities in
the area; second the socioeconomic descriptions of the way [kinship, political,
legal] that people have adapted to those ecological realities..and third, the
history and technological developments ...particularly of the West. Why the
West? Because it has the richest most fertile biome on the planet - which is
why its population kept increasing and why it eventually had to, with
difficulty, change its technology to support that increased population.
Data would be based around ecological factors: arable land and
soil, water type and availability [ie, desert, tundra, seasonal, irrigation,
rainfall, rainforest..] ; climate and temperatures; plant and animal types and
the domestication capacities of both; carrying capacity of the land; carrying
capacity of the technology to extract food/sustenance;
Then, you'd look at population size. And then societal systems
- such as kinship systems, and political systems.
There is no lab test possible; there are no falsifying
assumptions. It's pure description of 'the ecological realities and the
societal forms of actual peoples. Then, one can generalize. And it's
interesting to see how peoples - completely out of touch with each other - have
nevertheless developed the SAME societal structures if they are in similar
ecological realities.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: sb
To: Edwina Taborsky ; Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina,
i would be really interested how you tackled such a complex
theoretical concept empirically.
Which historic datasets of demography and economics did you
use? To build up such a database must have been quite labourious!
I would also be really interested in how you operationalized
your theory? What constructs and variables did you use? In which datasets are
they found? How did you model your assumptions statistically?
In testing your theory, what were your initial hypotheses?
Where have you been able to falsify or verify your assumptions? Where did you
struggle empirically because of data quality?
Best,
Stefan
Am 19. November 2016 22:48:20 MEZ, schrieb Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca>:
Yes - I've taught this relationship between economics,
population size and political infrastructure for about 20 years. No- it's not
really in the Architectonics book. It IS in a graphic book, The Graphic Guide
to Socioeconomics - which a retired CEO banker and myself have just finished
[about 170 slides]....which deals with the pragmatic relations between
population size and economic modes and political modes. I am not sure if I
should attach it since is has nothing to do with Peirce. It's a powerpoint
presentation which we are planning to promote as a 'graphic guide for dummies'
on the topic, so to speak.
That is - we tried to make it clear that democracy, which
means 'political power of the majority decision' is suitable only in large
population, flexible-risktaking- growth economies, and unsuitable in small
population no-growth steady-state economies which must ensure their economic
continuity by focusing on retaining the capacity-to-make-wealth by stable
measures [control of the land, control of the cattle, control of fishing
rights, etc].
And we've been very surprised in our test runs with various
people - how many people don't understand the basic issues of growth/no growth
economies, carrying capacity of the economy; growth vs steady-state
populations; what is a middle class; what is capitalism; the role of risk; the
role of individuals..etc. etc.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
Edwina, list,
You've clearly given this a lot of prior thought, Edwina.
I want to reflect on wht you wrote and see what others think before commenting
further. Btw, would looking again at your book, Architectonics of Semiosis, for
example, Chapter 2, "Purity and Power," be of any value in this discussion (as
I initially began reading it I recall that in an off-list message you commented
that in some ways you were now seeing things quite differently than you did in
1998)?
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Gary R- that's an interesting topic.
1) I'd like to first comment that democracy, as a
political system for arriving at authoritative government decisions, is the
'right' method but ONLY in a very large population with a growth economy and a
growth population. That is, political systems have FUNCTIONS; the function is:
who has the societal right to make decisions among this population?
In economies which are no-growth, such as all the
pre-industrial agricultural and horticultural economies which dominated the
planet until the industrial age, democracy is dysfunctional. That is, all
political systems must privilege the wealth-producing sectors of the
population. If your economy is agricultural/horticultural - which can only
produce enough wealth to support a steady-state or no-growth population, then,
the political system must put the authority to make decisions in the control of
the owners of wealth production; i.e., the landowners. This control over the
land must be hereditary [you can't have fights over ownership], and limited
[you can't split up the land into minuscule small farms]. Democracy, which
puts decision-making into the hands of the majority, doesn't work in such an
economy.
When the economy moves to a growth mode [and enables a
growth population], the political system must empower those sectors of the
population which make an economy grow. This is the middle class - a
non-hereditary set of the population, made up of private individual/small group
businesses. This economic mode is highly flexible [new business can start,
succeed, fail]; extremely adaptable and enables rapid population growth. As
such an economic mode, political decision-making must fall into the control of
this middle class - and we have the emergence of elected legislatures and the
disappearance of hereditary authority.
For a growth economy to work, it must support
individual rights [to invent, differ from the norm, to succeed AND fail] so
that failure, for example, will only affect those few individuals and not a
whole village/collective. Therefore, individualism must be stressed and
empowered; a growth economy must enable novelty, innovation, freedom of the
periphery....as well as success, which is measured by the adoption by the
collective of that product/service. FOR A WHILE.
2) But - it seems that the definition and function of
democracy in Dewey does not deal with the economy and the questions of the
production of wealth and size of population. Instead, it deals with social
issues - Talisse writes:
"The core of Deweyan democracy can be stated as
follows. Deweyan democracy is substantive rather than proceduralist,
communicative rather than aggregative,and deep rather than statist. I shall
take these contrasts in order.Deweyan democracy is substantive insofar as it
rejects any attempt to separate politics and deeper normative concerns. More
precisely, Dewey held that the democratic political order is essentially a
moral order, and, further, he held that democratic participation is an
essential constituent ofthe good life and a necessary constituent for a “truly
human way of living”.... Dewey rejects the idea thatit consists simply in
processes of voting, campaigning, canvassing, lobbying, and petitioning in
service of one’s individual preferences; that is, Dewey held democratic
participation is essentially communicative, it consists in the willingness of
citizens to engage in activity by which they may “convince and be convinced by
reason” (MW 10:404) and come to realize“values prized in common” (LW 13:71).
The above seems to me, to be a social relations account
- and doesn't deal with the fact that democracy as a political system, empowers
a particular segment of the population - the middle class, in an economy based
around individual private sector small businesses. It has nothing to do with
'the good life' or a 'truly human way of living'. Nomadic pastoralists, and
land-based feudal agriculture were also 'human ways of living.
3) From the Stanford Encyclopaedia, I found the
following on Dewey:
"As Dewey puts it, ‘men are not isolated non-social
atoms, but are men only when in intrinsic relations’ to one another, and the
state in turn only represents them ‘so far as they have become organically
related to one another, or are possessed of unity of purpose and interest’
(‘The Ethics of Democracy’,EW1, 231-2).
Dewey is anti-elitist, and argues that the capacity of
the wise few to discern the public interest tends to be distorted by their
position. Democratic participation is not only viewed as a bulwark against
government by elites, but also as an aspect of individual freedom– humanity
cannot rest content with a good ‘procured from without.’ Furthermore, democracy
is not ‘simply and solely a form of government’, but a social and personal
ideal; in other words, it is not only a property of political institutions but
of a wide range of social relationships.
The above, seems to me, at this first glimpse, to
totally ignore the economic mode - and again, some economies whose wealth
production rests in stable, no-growth methods [land food production] MUST
ensure the stability of this economy by confining it to the few, i.e., those
elites'...the wise few if you want to call them that'.
That is - the to put power in the majority/commonality
rests with the economic mode. Certainly, Peirce's community of scholars was a
method of slowly, gradually, arriving at 'the truth'. But this has nothing,
absolutely nothing, to do with governance and the question of who in a
collective has the ultimate authority to make political decisions. That is,
political decisions are not really, I suggest, the same as scientific or
'truth-based' inquiries. There is no ultimate 'best way' for much is dependent
on resources, population size, environment..
And, I don't see a focus on the required capacity of a
growth economy for rapid flexible adaptation - which HAS to be focused around
the individual. That is, risk-taking shouldn't involve the WHOLE collective,
but only a few individuals.
4) As for Peirce's philosophy of democracy - again,
Talisse writes:
"the Peircean view relies upon no substantive
moral vision. The Peircean justifies democratic
institutions and norms strictly in terms of a set of substantive epistemic
commitments. It says that no matter what one believes about the good life, the
nature of the self, the meaning of human existence, or the value of community,
one has reason to support a robust democratic political order of the sort
described above simply in virtue of the fact that one holds beliefs. Since the
Peircean conception of democracy does not contain a doctrine about “the one,
ultimate, ethical ideal of humanity” (EW 1:248), it can duly acknowledge the
fact of reasonable pluralism. p 112
This seems to suggest that a societal system that
enables exploratory actions by individuals is a 'robust democracy'. And, since
a growth economic mode, that can support growth populations, requires
risk-taking by flexible individuals to deal with current pragmatic problems -
then, this seems to be a stronger political system.
My key point is that the political system, economic
mode and population size are intimately related.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:59 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy
List,
I read Robert B. Talisse's A Pragmatist Philosophy of
Democracy (2007) a few year ago and was thinking of it again today, in part
prompted by an op-ed piece in The New York Times by Roger Cohen which quotes H.
L. Mencken (see below). At the time of my reading PPD, I was not at all
convinced that Talisee had demonstrated his principal thesis, namely, that we
ought replace the inadequate, in his opinion, Dewyan approach to thinking about
democracy with a Peircean based approach. This is how David Hildebrand (U. of
Colorado) outlined Talisse's argument in a review in The Notre Dame
Philosophical Review.
http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23707-a-pragmatist-philosophy-of-democracy/
[Hildebrand] As I read PPD, I kept returning to two
fundamental propellants powering Talisse's argument for a Peircean-based
democratic theory. The first is constructive: his quest for a lean,
non-normative pragmatist inquiry to provide just enough of a philosophical
basis for a broadly effective conception of democracy. The second is
destructive: the argument that political theorists should reject Dewey's
self-refuting philosophy of democracy. Taken together, the insight is this: get
over Dewey and accept this particular Peirce and we get just what we need from
pragmatism for the purposes of democracy.
Hildebrand's review is a good introduction to the
PPD. While I'm not much of a Deweyan, and I wouldn't presume to argue for or
against his ideas, yet I don't think Talisse makes a strong case for a Peircean
approach to political theory on democracy,.
I should add, however, that Talisse is, in my
opinion, a very good thinker and an excellent writer. Besides this book, over
the years I've read a number of his scholarly articles and heard him speak in
NYC and elsewhere. PPD is definitely worth reading, while those with a Deweyan
democracy bent will probably find themselves arguing with him nearly point for
point (as Hildebrand pretty much does). On the other hand, the concluding
chapter on Sidney Hook is valuable in its own right. As Talisse writes:
Hook's life stands as an inspiring image of
democratic success; for success consists precisely in the activity of political
engagement by means of public inquiry.
I haven't got my e-CP available, so I can't locate
references, but it seems to me that Peirce's view of democracy as I recall it
is, if not nearly anti-democratic (I vaguely recall some passages in a letter
to Lady Welby), it may at least be closer to H. L. Mencken's:
As democracy is perfected, the office represents,
more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty
ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron.
I doubt that a discussion of PPD would be very
valuable, but it might be interesting to at least briefly reflect on Peirce's
views of democracy. As I recall,he hasn't much to say about democracy in what's
published in the CP and the other writings which have been made available to
us. Perhaps more will be uncovered in years to come as his complete
correspondence is published in W (I probably won't be alive for that as I
understand that it will probably be the last or near last volume in W, and at
the snail's pace the W is moving. . .)
Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce
quotations which might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? I would, of
course, hope that if there is some discussion here that we keep to a strictly
theoretical discussion, especially in light of the strong feelings generated by
the recent American presidential election.
Best,
Gary R
st Philosophy of Democracy
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9
Mail gesendet.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9
Mail gesendet.
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
gesendet.
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
CEO Cognonto and Structured Dynamics
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://structureddynamics.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
