Gary R, List 1] I think you are misunderstanding the nature of interpretation as a semiosic process. I am absolutely not talking about paraphrases.
Within the semiosic process - and I suggest that Peirce claims that all our interactions are semiosic, then, it is a fact that all interactions- with the world, with texts, etc, are ‘interpretive’ . This term of ‘interpretive’ is not to be understood in the common usage sense of ‘making up a conclusion’ [ as can be found in conclusions via tenacity, authority and a priori] or rewriting a text. - but in the very real scientific sense that, one gathers data, analyzes it within a hypothesis..and comes to a conclusion. This conclusion is an interpretation ..of the data. Reading a text and coming to a conclusion- is an interpretation of the text. I note that Peirce’s use of the term ‘interpretant’ only gives weight to my comment. My point is that the semiosic process, as a triad, means that one does NOT get a direct dyadic knowledge of the data/text, but, does so ONLY via one’s own mediating hypothesis [ aka the Representamen/Sign]. Therefore- my understanding of this method of interacting with the world - means that all our interactions, except the most brutal, are triadic, and thus, necessarily, result in having passed through our own Repesentamen mediation…This means - we ‘interpret the world. All of us do this; ..because..we are semiotic. I am not talking about paraphrases of Peirce - which have nothing to do with this triad… I am talking about the conclusions we come to, each one of us, from reading any text. Because - our interactions with that text -are triadic. Therefore - quoting texts and making comments on that text - are ‘interpretations’ of that text. 2] As for the concept of ’three objects’ - I clearly said, that within the semiosic process, there are only TWO objects: the Dynamic and the Immediate. I gave specific references. But, I also suggest that Peirce also referred to a third object, which is outside of one’s own semiotic interaction; namely, the Real Object - and I gave several quotations that referred to the real object - which he clearly said was a ‘real object outside of our actions . 3] With regard to JAS’s view of the Dynamic Object and the Universe - I remain perplexed. He states that the Universe ‘is a sign’ - and that the Dynamic Object is external to the Universe. This, to me, suggests several things; that JAS considers - 1 - the Universe is a sign and as only the mediative relation of the triad.. Is this found in Peirce? - 2 - that the universe is finite; ie, it has spatial and even temporal boundaries! This must be, because- JAS claims that the Dynamic Object is external to the Universe. Is such a view found in Peirce? - 3 - if the Universe is a sign and only a sign [ with the DO external to it]..doesn’t this also mean that the Dynamic Interpretant of the Universe is also external to the Universe? Is this view found in Peirce? Edwina > On Sep 8, 2024, at 8:34 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > As I see it, Jon often paraphrases something Peirce wrote (or offers a > comment which functions somewhat like a paraphrase) and then gives an exact > quotation that supports that paraphrase. If you don't agree with his > paraphrase or restatement, not only can you again check Peirce's words in the > quotation offered then and there, but, if that doesn't convince you, you can > look for that quotation within the context in which it appeared. And you can > even look for other quotations by Peirce which take up the matter to compare > with the original quote. > > (This is not to say that at places Peirce doesn't seemingly contradict > himself or his views on a matter, or that his views haven't changed, often, > as I see it, evolved -- but that is another subject altogether.) > > What Jon does is not the same as "interpretation," so that anyone who thinks > the paraphrase, etc. does not follow from the quotation, can check it and > argue that Jon -- or anyone who occasionally takes this approach, as I most > certainly sometimes do -- has not paraphrased the quotation properly and, so, > has distorted its meaning: has not understood it correctly. > > Take this example from Jon's post where I said that his views were > 'definitive' on the semeiotic matters under consideration, but 'definitive' > only in the sense of mirroring Peirce's own views as clearly stated in the > quotation. > > JAS: As I observed before, Peirce also never states nor implies that a sign > has three objects. The key to understanding his different references to > objects in CP 8.314 (EP 2:498, 1909 Mar 14) is in its very first sentence. > > CSP: We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,--i.e. the Object as > represented in the sign,--and the Real (no, because perhaps the Object is > altogether fictive, I must choose a different term, therefore), say rather > the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign cannot > express, which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to find out by > collateral experience. > > The question here is: how many objects of a sign does Peirce distinguish in > explicating his semeiotic? This quotation says only two (and not three). And > the truth is that Jon or I, or any interested scholar could find and quote > many other passages where Peirce says the equivalent thing. So, in this > matter as in myriad others regarding how Peirce himself saw something -- and > said so numerous times in various ways, but always arriving at the same view > --n o "interpretation" is required or, really, needed. In such matters I > always turn to Peirce's own words and not to some 'interpretation' by you, > Jon, me, or anyone. > > Of course, that doesn't mean that I always agree with one or another of > Peirce's views, only that I can be reasonably certain that that is what he > himself thought and wrote. A good portion, perhaps even the most of Jon's > work is to 'get at' what Peirce himself said. Peirce repeatedly said that the > Sign had two Objects, not three. I don't see how the latter could even be > properly called an 'interpretation'. And it is patently false. > > Jon wrote earlier in this thread: > > I do not ascribe my beliefs to Peirce, I scrupulously quote his own > statements. > > It is standard practice to put any words added within a quotation in square > brackets, which signals that they are not in the original text. > > And I have no hesitation in saying from what I've read of Jon's work that > this is true as much for speculative grammar -- and semeiotic generally -- as > for cosmology, synechism, etc. Please try to offer a counter-example to > prove me wrong. (However, this is not to suggest that he hasn't done original > work in semeiotic and metaphysics, for example, but only that when the > thinking is his own -- even when springboarding from some Peircean idea or > another -- that he makes that clear.) > > So, to conclude this single thought regarding your rather superheated > response to me, Edwina: It is clear to anyone who reads Jon's posts or his > papers (except, apparently you) that he does not ascribe his own views to > Peirce but, rather expounds Peirce's own views by offering quotations from > Peirce's work (and, having just glanced at Jeff's excellent post, I would > tend to agree with Jeff that there are questions regarding, for example, the > weight one should put on Peirce's personal views as expressed in, for > example, personal letters as opposed to his more formal writings). > > Having read myriad posts and more than a few papers by both you and Jon over > many years, I would say that it appears to me that you are committing the > very error of scholarship which you accuse Jon of, namely, that of ascribing > your views to Peirce. Further, you seem to be saying that all > 'interpretations' are 'just that' --interpretations. That may well be. But be > that as it may, when the question is a matter of what Peirce actually said > (that is, wrote and thought), that is simply not true. For example, it is not > true that Peirce wrote or thought that the Sign had three Objects: that's at > best a misinterpretation if ever there was one. Or, if I'm wrong about this, > offer a quotation or two from his work that holds that there are three > Objects. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 10:46 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Gary R, List >> >> I’m not sure of the point of your post which seems to be that you support >> JAS’s posts [without argumentation] as definitive and correct replications >> of Peirce’s views. I haven’t seen anyone else post either in favour of or >> rejecting JAS’s views - ie - that HIS views are also exactly those of >> Peirce. Is it the case that all others who post to this list are also >> correct - or are they incorrect? >> >> You write: "You and I may argue that there are, within Peirce's trichotomic >> semeiotic and cosmology, passages and argumentations, etc. that support >> cosmological and religious views (perhaps even non-religious and scientific >> views and interpretations) far different from Peirce’s.” >> >> I disagree - the passages and arguments that Peirce writes are not “far >> different from Peirce’s’! Peirce wrote them!! >> >> You also write that ‘Jon is prone to supporting Peirce’s views with >> incontovertible text”! Well- me too! Same with others! But what you are >> ignoring is that no-one is iconic to Peirce’s texts! Each person who reads >> Peirce’s texts is interpreting it - and it is not up to any one of us to >> declare: Aha - that person is exactly repeating, incontrovertibly, what >> Peirce meant!. That is for the community of scholars - over time. I don’t >> think that you alone can declare that his view is ’the truth of what Peirce >> saw’ while….others..are not doing so. >> >> And I disagree with JAS. I disagree that, for instance, he sees the universe >> as ‘a sign’ [ ONLY the mediate process and only ONE?]…and inserts God as the >> outside-the-universe Dynamic Object of determination. Peirce actually wrote >> >> “The entire universe - not merely the universe of existents, but all that >> wider universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe >> which we are all accustomed to refer to as ’the truth’- that all this >> universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs”. >> I repeat: that the universe is ‘composed exclusively of signs’. [5.488f. >> Note; signs - is plural. ]. >> >> So- this is a Quote directly from Peirce. It HAS to be interpreted - by >> anyone who reads it, since any one of us is NOT Peirce but is engaged, >> ourselves, in a semiotic interaction with the text - and as a triadic >> semiosic interaction, this means that the result is AN INTERPRETATION of the >> text. Is this interpretation iconic, indexical, symbolic? >> >> So- does this text mean what JAS interprets - as only the mediate relation >> and only one? And did Peirce mean by these plural signs the triad or only >> the mediate relation??? Just because JAS posts his interpretation of a text >> does not automatically mean that he, alone, has direct and Truthful access >> to ‘how Peirce saw things’. I - and others - have, over this list, >> rejected such a conclusion. >> >> As for using non-Peircean terminology to interpret Peirce’s arguments - as >> Peirce wrote, “How concepts are named makes little difference’ [4.4]- and I >> am puzzled by JAS’s shock when I use such terms as ‘information’, data, >> nodes….I feel as if I should , when writing, provide brandy to calm the >> nerves of shocked readers who tell me that ‘Peirce never used such words!!’. >> Again - none of us has the ‘hubris’ to feel that we alone have direct and >> truthful access to Peirce’s meaning. .We are, each of us, operating within a >> semiotic process and that means - we interpret Peirce’s text. >> >> All that can be done, in my view, is that we can discuss our different >> views; support them with text AND analysis - and leave it at that. I don’t >> think that anyone should then decide - ah- X person is ‘more truthful to >> Peirce’ than Y person. I don’t think the small number of postings on this >> list has the power to do that. The community of scholars has to be broader >> and over a longer time. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 8, 2024, at 1:35 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Edwina, Jon, List, >>> >>> While Jon and I have had serious disagreements on many topics over the >>> years, none more so than in our discussions of religious metaphysics (and >>> especially of late, of religious beliefs which, as I see it, are >>> problematic when they are exclusionary; but Jon never discusses these on >>> List), it is my very measured opinion that he is quite correct in his >>> analysis and conclusions (which are not mere idiosyncratic interpretations) >>> of Peirce's views regarding synechism, the categories, >>> early/proto-cosmology, and his (Peirce's) argument regarding God as Ens >>> Necessarium. >>> >>> You and I, Edwina, most certainly do disagree with some of those views of >>> Peirce. Still, Jon has well supported his argumentation that these are >>> indeed Peirce's views. He has shown this, not rather definitively, but >>> quite definitively with more than ample textual support. Truth is, that Jon >>> himself doesn't agree with all of Peirce's cosmological-religious views (of >>> course with the major exception of his irrefutable theism). >>> >>> One might argue, as I have occasionally done, that theism was the only real >>> option for Peirce in the interest of bringing his contemporaries to a sense >>> that the universe was not 'mechanical', nothing-but-accident, etc., and >>> that to contribute scientifically to a sense that the universe is alive >>> with meaning was more than a desideratum, but a (quasi-?) scientific truth >>> that it was his moral duty to support and promote. Promoting a religious >>> sense of the cosmos was for Peirce a desideratum. >>> >>> As for my religious beliefs, they are most certainly currently in flux as >>> regards Christianity. For me, instructed first in the Episcopal Church, >>> that one ought see Christ (God) in the person facing you, your neighbor, >>> your brother or sister, Jon's rejection of my admittedly unorthodox >>> understanding of Christianity, was profoundly unsettling, especially as I >>> saw Peirce himself as standing far apart from the traditional and orthodox >>> Christian views. >>> >>> But all that discussion was off-List, and Jon has not discussed his >>> orthodox Lutheran views in this forum at all nor ever. That I now bring >>> this up is entirely my doing, and not his. Does Jon's research and >>> philosophical thinking mean to support his theistic views? Well, perhaps. >>> But the truth is, that there is much in Peirce to support, at very least, >>> theism. >>> >>> You and I may argue that there are, within Peirce's trichotomic semeiotic >>> and cosmology, passages and argumentations, etc. that support cosmological >>> and religious views (perhaps even non-religious and scientific views and >>> interpretations) far different from Peirce's. Jon has not denied that there >>> is that in Peirce's writing. So, there's disagreement to go all around! As >>> long as there is mutual respect, I'd say that that's a good thing! >>> >>> So, while Jon is prone to supporting Peirce's views with incontrovertible >>> textual support, and while this seems to irritate some members of this >>> forum (occasionally me, included), his having done so regarding many facets >>> of Peirce's philosophy has been of really inestimable value for those who >>> are truly interested in how Peirce saw things, whether one agrees with >>> Peirce or not. Jon has made it clear that that is all that he's attempting >>> to do. And, I have always -- and always will -- support his right to do >>> that on this forum. >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary R >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:48 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> List, JAS >>>> >>>> 1] Not everyone knows ’standard practice’ ; therefore, I consider it >>>> courteous to let the ignorant and uneducated reader of your post know >>>> that it is YOU who have inserted the word… and even, to further explain >>>> WHY. Why would you add such a word [‘merely] without explaining your >>>> intention? >>>> >>>> 2] So what if Peirce doesn’t use the words of ‘information sites where >>>> information is processed’. Is it heretical to explain his concepts using >>>> different terms?? Are you suggesting that this action of information >>>> processing doesn’t happen? >>>> >>>> What do you think analysis actually does? Just quote texts without >>>> examination of their meaning? What’s the point of that? The function of >>>> analysis is to understand the texts - and usually, this means explaining >>>> them in other ways..- multiple ways - using different terms and examples - >>>> and in different disciplines. Just robotically repeating the terms is not >>>> an analysis. >>>> >>>> 23 I have outlined Peirce’s analytic process - where as he pointed out in >>>> his reference to the semiotic process in his determining the weather >>>> [8.314] - he does indeed refer to ’the Object as expressed, is the weather >>>> at that time’ - and is quite different from the Dynamic Object. He also >>>> frequently refers to the Real Object - which is outside of the semiotic >>>> process. So- despite your claim - Peirce himself does often refer to an >>>> object outside of the semiosic process. >>>> >>>> 3] WITHIN the semiosic process, in its basic format, it is an >>>> irreducible triad of Object-Representamen/Sign- Interpretant…and in its >>>> more detailed format: …the full semiosic process is: Dynamic Object- >>>> ImmediateObject - Representamen/Sign - Immediate Interpretant- Dynamic >>>> Interpretant-Final Interpretant. >>>> >>>> I note again that the Real Object is outside of the semiosic process - but >>>> - it exists. >>>> >>>> 4]The above irreducible format of Object-Representamen/Sign-Interpretant >>>> is a key reason why I also reject your claim that the Dynamic Object is >>>> outside of the ’sign’. You stated that “every [dynamical] object stands >>>> outside of every sign that it determines . Therefore, if the entire >>>> universe is one immense sign, then its ‘[dynamical] object must >>>> nevertheless be external to it, independent of it, and unaffected by it”. >>>> >>>> I disagree with the above - because NONE of the three correlates of the >>>> semiotic triad and NONE of the six correlates of the semiosic process >>>> stand alone and independently . There is no such thing as a singular >>>> sign/representamen on its own. No such thing as a Dynamic Object on its >>>> own - independent of the other correlates. Peirce's outline of the >>>> semiosic process is that the Sign is a TRIAD; and is irreducible. [See for >>>> example, 1.480..where “representation necessarily involves a genuine >>>> triad. For it involves a sign, or representamen, of some kind, outward or >>>> inward mediating between an object and an interpreting thought” . And all >>>> Peirce’s definitions off the sign refer to its triadic nature..eg, “A >>>> representamen, or sign is anything [ not necessarily real] which stands at >>>> once in a relation of correspondence to a second third, its object and to >>>> another possible representamen, its interpretant….” 1901. R 1147. . >>>> >>>> Are you really saying that the Universe is ONLY the mediate relation [S/R] >>>> in the triad? Is ONLY the middle term of the triad of O-S-I?? And that the >>>> Dynamic Object, which Peirce himself defines as “the reality which by some >>>> means contrives to determine the Sign to its Representation” 4.536…”the >>>> dynamical object does not mean something out of the mind. It means >>>> something forced upon the mind in perception" SS 197. That is - the >>>> Dynamic Object is already taking part in the semiotic triadic process of >>>> determining meaning. Therefore - it is not, in my understanding, >>>> “standing outside of every sign that it determines’. The Dynamic Object, >>>> in my understanding, functions only within the semiosic process. >>>> >>>> And the same with the mediative term, the Representamen/Sign- it functions >>>> only within a triadic process. I simply cannot understand a universe >>>> understood as ONLY the singular mediative term…without the correlates of >>>> the Object and Interpretant - and don’t see how or why you break up the >>>> triad into independent parts.. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 7, 2024, at 8:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> List: >>>>> >>>>> I do not ascribe my beliefs to Peirce, I scrupulously quote his own >>>>> statements. >>>>> >>>>> It is standard practice to put any words added within a quotation in >>>>> square brackets, which signals that they are not in the original text. >>>>> >>>>> In Peirce's speculative grammar, the sign, object, and interpretant are >>>>> not "informational sites where information is processed." He never >>>>> describes them that way. >>>>> >>>>> As I observed before, Peirce also never states nor implies that a sign >>>>> has three objects. The key to understanding his different references to >>>>> objects in CP 8.314 (EP 2:498, 1909 Mar 14) is in its very first sentence. >>>>> >>>>> CSP: We must distinguish between the Immediate Object,--i.e. the Object >>>>> as represented in the sign,--and the Real (no, because perhaps the Object >>>>> is altogether fictive, I must choose a different term, therefore), say >>>>> rather the Dynamical Object, which, from the nature of things, the Sign >>>>> cannot express, which it can only indicate and leave the interpreter to >>>>> find out by collateral experience. >>>>> >>>>> As Peirce repeatedly confirms elsewhere, a sign has only these two >>>>> objects, immediate and dynamical. Accordingly, in his first example later >>>>> in the same paragraph, the "Object, as expressed" is not some third >>>>> object, it is the immediate object. Likewise, for any sign that has a >>>>> real (not fictive) object, it is not some third object, it is the >>>>> dynamical object. Peirce confirms all this in his second example later in >>>>> the same paragraph. >>>>> >>>>> CSP: I reply, let us suppose: "It is a stormy day." Here is another sign. >>>>> Its Immediate Object is the notion of the present weather so far as this >>>>> is common to her mind and mine,--not the character of it, but the >>>>> identity of it. The Dynamical Object is the identity of the actual and >>>>> Real meteorological conditions at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> Again, there is no third object. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian >>>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>>> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >>>>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 2:21 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>>> List, JAS >>>>>> >>>>>> I’ll continue to disagree with you - I do think that you post your own >>>>>> beliefs -[ and I don’t see what is wrong with this!] for example, where >>>>>> you ascribe to god, ‘creating and writing on the blackboard. My only >>>>>> complaint is when you ascribe your beliefs to Peirce. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you ignore the definition of Peirce that God means ‘Mind’. [6.502] >>>>>> Indeed, you tried to denigrate this quotation by adding your own term of >>>>>> [merely] ..in brackets, before the word ‘mind’ - without informing us >>>>>> that this addition was your own. Peirce didn’t write ‘[merely] mind’. He >>>>>> said - ’the analogue of a mind..is what he means by “God”. And, “the >>>>>> pragmaticistic definition of ens necessariium would require many pages; >>>>>> but some hints toward it may be given. A disembodied spirit or pure >>>>>> mind” [6.490 my emphasis]. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what if I use the term of nodes to describe the informational sites >>>>>> where information is processed? That’s a red herring tactic. What’s your >>>>>> problem with that? I didn’t declare their use as Peirce’s! But- these >>>>>> terms do, in my view, help to clarify what is going on within the >>>>>> semiosic triad. ..which is an active processing of hard data from an >>>>>> external site into an interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>> And most certainly, there is a basis for Peirce explaining that there >>>>>> are three objects!! He specifically details them in 8.314 - which >>>>>> quotation I already gave, where he refers to the “This is a sign, whose >>>>>> Object, as expressed, is the weather at that time, but whose Dynamical >>>>>> Object is the impression which I have presumably derived from peeping >>>>>> between the window curtains”. See the difference? >>>>>> >>>>>> This third Object, which is external and not necessarily sensed - is >>>>>> “There are Real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our >>>>>> opinions about them; …5.384. The Real Object [the weather] only became >>>>>> the Dynamic Object when Peirce looked at it. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is, I consider that you err in assigning the term of ‘Dynamic >>>>>> Object to these external ‘Real things’ with which we are not, at the >>>>>> time, semeosically interacting. . I consider that the term of Dynamic >>>>>> Object is, as Peirce outlines, that first contact of external stimuli >>>>>> into the senses. …which the semiosic triad will ‘indicate [8.314] …via >>>>>> the actual acceptance of stimuli. The actual acceptance of stimuli is >>>>>> The Immediate Object - “the Object as represented in the sign” 8.314. >>>>>> >>>>>> To give an example - if a dog is running around in he woods - there are >>>>>> lots of ‘Real Objects’..which the dog doesn’t interact with. But they >>>>>> are real! BUT - if it stops and sniffs the air, then - it has >>>>>> interacted with a Real Object, by ‘connecting, semiotically, with it - >>>>>> and thus, accepting the external stimuli which is coming from that Real >>>>>> Object. That Real Object is now, a Dynamic Object..because it is >>>>>> connected to the dog’s senses. BUT - not all the data of that external >>>>>> object can be sensed by the dog..so..what IS sensed and semiotically >>>>>> worked on, is the Immediate Object. It is this internal data - just a >>>>>> part of the full informational content of the Dynamic Object and just a >>>>>> part of the full informational content of the Real Object - that forms >>>>>> the Immediate Object, and it is this IO data that is transformed by the >>>>>> mediative laws of the Representamen into the various Interpretants. >>>>>> >>>>>> Edwina >>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>>>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >>>>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>>>> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a >>>>> while to repair / update all the links! >>>>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with UNSUBSCRIBE >>>>> PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. >>>>> More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >>>>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; >>>>> and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>>> >>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >>>> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at >>>> https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at >>>> https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while >>>> to repair / update all the links! >>>> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >>>> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L >>>> in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at >>>> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . >>>> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and >>>> co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
