Just a couple of references: https://www.amazon.com/Conimbricenses-Questions-Mediaeval-Philosophical-Translation/dp/0874622417 <https://www.amazon.com/Conimbricenses-Questions-Mediaeval-Philosophical-Translation/dp/0874622417>
https://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Signis-Semiotic-John-Poinsot/dp/1587318776/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=poinsot+tractatus&qid=1615234027&s=books&sr=1-1 <https://www.amazon.com/Tractatus-Signis-Semiotic-John-Poinsot/dp/1587318776/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=poinsot+tractatus&qid=1615234027&s=books&sr=1-1> https://www.amazon.com/Inference-Signs-Ancient-Debates-Evidence/dp/0198250940/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=james+allen+inference+from+signs&qid=1615234053&s=books&sr=1-3 <https://www.amazon.com/Inference-Signs-Ancient-Debates-Evidence/dp/0198250940/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=james+allen+inference+from+signs&qid=1615234053&s=books&sr=1-3> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/semiotics-medieval/ <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/semiotics-medieval/> I realize most on this list will be aware of these works, including others such: Πυῤῥώνειοι ὑποτυπώσεις by S Empiricus Etc. > On Mar 8, 2021, at 2:51 PM, Daniel L. Everett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On the role of triadic categories in Peirce’s philosophy and hierarchy, you > might (if you haven’t already) want to check out some of the commentaries on > Aristotle by the Conimbricenses, the Portuguese Jesuits of the 16th century > (followed decades later by the important work of another Portuguese, Joao > Poinsot). So far as I know it was here in their work (which Peirce knew well) > that the first triadic basis of semiotics is explicitly mentioned (there is > an excellent translation of some of this work by John Doyle, which I am sure > most of this list will be familar with). > > In the 20th century, Kenneth Pike > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lee_Pike>) developed a pre-Chomskyan > theory of linguistics, Tagmemics > (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111657158/html > <https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111657158/html>), that > also had a foundational triadic structure. In PIke’s work hierarchy was also > crucial and he developed theories of various linguistic hierarchies (the > basic three were referential, phonological, grammatical). Pike’s work > predates Simon’s considerably. > > > In his own work, mathematician-theologian Vern Poythress > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Poythress > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Poythress>) argued that the basis of the > triadic organization of Tagmemics and elsewhere was the trinity > (https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Trinity-Perspectives-Knowledge-Imitate/dp/1629953199/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=trinity+by+vern+poythress&qid=1615232590&sr=8-3 > > <https://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Trinity-Perspectives-Knowledge-Imitate/dp/1629953199/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=trinity+by+vern+poythress&qid=1615232590&sr=8-3>) > Poythress is a serious mathematician as well as a theologian and a solid > linguist. > > I am inclined to believe that the doctrine of trinity was important in the > thinking of the Portuguese Jesuits and also for Peirce (though I currently > have no textual support to make a serious claim wrt the latter suggestion). > > Simon did win the Nobel Prize in Economics, but when I knew him at CMU (in > conjunction with my role on the computational linguistics faculty of the > Pitt-CMU program going at that time), he defined his long-term research > program as human problem-solving, leading to computer science, psychology, > and other fields, beyond economics. His work on the hierarchy can also be > related to (though it is rarely, if ever, credited) the conception of all > linguistics structure as endocentric and recursive that Chomsky has urged > (and which I have long argued against). > > In any case, I highly recommend the Jesuit Aristotelian commentaries and the > work of Poinsot (Deely has recently published a beautiful version of his > Tractatus). > > Dan > >> On Mar 8, 2021, at 1:39 PM, Mike Bergman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Given the number of questions regarding Peirce's universal categories in >> relation to my hierarchy paper, I have split out my response to them >> separately and have renamed the thread. I will follow up this thread with a >> separate thread on Bruce's 'twisted, closed loop' idea. >> >> It is clear that Peirce's research and method of inquiry were based on what >> he proudly classed as an 'architectonic' [1]. For me, it is one of the most >> appealing aspects of Peirce since it reflects his commitment to applying >> consistent logic and methods in all intellectual endeavors. Pragmatism has >> perhaps survived as the most often-cited basis of Peirce's architectonic. I >> agree with this in the context of praxis, but I have suspected for many >> years that the root fount of Peirce's approach is in his triadism, what he >> himself jocularly called his 'triadomany' [2]. >> >> His universal categories are the root of the root. When last published [3], >> I had assembled up more than sixty instances where Peirce applied triadic >> splits; I have perhaps two dozen more needing a published update. All >> representations across these examples have a context to derive their >> meaning. Yet, still, there is a character across the categories of Firstness >> (1ns), Secondness (2ns) and Thirdness (3ns) that bring a unique feel and >> sense for each, generalizations emerging from the vague. >> >> An author's release of my book chapter on Peirce's universal categories is >> available for free from my Web site [3]. Table 6-2 and its table notes, in >> particular, provide a flavor for how Perice's triadic categories were >> expressed by him in scores of examples. For example, in the case of >> 'reality', I would surmise Peirce to describe it as 'chance' (1ns), >> actuality (2ns), and 'continuity' (3ns). More than 60 other examples and >> variants are provided in the table. >> >> In the case for the KBpedia Knowledge Ontology >> <https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/> (KKO), the context is 'knowledge >> representation'. That scope is close to being the same as 'everything there >> is', but the expression and organization need to be geared to logical >> constructs that are consistently used so as to be able to be reasoned over. >> >> In the KKO context, the triadic structure is 'monads' (1ns), 'particulars' >> (2ns) and 'generals' (3ns). 'Monads' are the possible ideas or attributes >> about things, but they are unexpressed. I have also called monads >> 'unrealized building blocks'. They are pregnant with potential, but as >> monads are the pure qualities, not yet embodied. Of course, once you try to >> represent or capture the idea of something like 'redness', you have given it >> expression so that it is no longer 1ns. Monads in the KKO context are best >> scoped as the unconnected relations between things and the unembodied >> attributes of things. >> >> 'Particulars' (2ns) are the events and entities relevant to the scope of the >> current domain. Every particular is individuated. How to categorize >> 'attributes' into 'particulars', 'particulars' into 'generals', and >> 'generals' into more abstract 'generals' is the motivator for my paper on >> hierarchy. >> >> 'Generals' (3ns) are the types, classes, generalizations, abstractions, >> rules, laws and processes relating to the nature of reality and >> interactions. Thinking and continuity are 'generals'. Particulars are a >> predominant focus of generalizations. Because KBpedia is an interacting >> amalgam of typologies, aside from the 200 or so concepts in KKO, 58,000 of >> the remaining concepts are all organized under the KKO 'generals' branch. >> However, specific individuals in the knowledge graph may reference the KKO >> concepts under the 'particulars' branch, and reasoning may occur across >> attributes and predicates using the 'monads' branch. These latter two >> options are nascent in KBpedia, but have not yet been tested and >> demonstrated. Now that our first task to create a Peircean knowledge >> representation with KBpedia is usable, I hope (and welcome others!) to begin >> applying such tests. >> >> I do not associate 1ns with 'matter, life and ideas' as Ravi may be >> implying. Rather, the associates I see are matter (2ns), life (2ns) and >> ideas (3ns). Monads do not have a position or representation in space. They >> are unexpressed, unembodied attributes or relations. Absolute chance and >> possibilities are 'monads'. >> >> While perhaps it has been useful for me to be the primary editor of KBpedia >> and interpreter of Peirce in relation to knowledge representation, I think >> more Peirce and knowledge representation afficiandos need to contribute. It >> would be fantastic to see knowledge graphs suitable for testing and refining >> computer programs in Peircean triadic logic and abductive logic, as examples. >> >> At any rate, I hope this note or the paper reference [3] may help you >> understand my take on Peirce's universal categories. >> >> Best, Mike >> >> [1] http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/triadomany >> <http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/triadomany> >> [2] Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1891. “The Architecture of Theories”. The >> Monist 1, no. 2: 161–76. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896847.pdf >> <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896847.pdf> >> [3] https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf >> <https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-6.pdf> >> >> On 3/7/2021 1:34 PM, Ravi Sharma wrote: >>> Mike and Bruce >>> >>> While coming from eastern (indian) philosophy and metaphysics based >>> preliminary background, I would like to understand one of the three items >>> above: >>> (I have to fully read Mike's ISKO paper which is modern, and also >>> understand in this context Aristotle, Pierce and Sowa, category theory!) >>> Monads >>> Particulars >>> Generals >>> and for example >>> I. Firstness [1ns] — these are possibilities or potentials, the basic >>> forces or qualities that combine together or interact in various ways to >>> enable the real things we perceive in the world, such as matter, life and >>> ideas. These are the unrealized building blocks, or elements, the essences >>> or attributes or possible juxtapositions. They are not divisible, what >>> Peirce called indecomposables, since they are integral qualities or ideas >>> in themselves >>> >>> Regarding - 1ns - matter, life and ideas. >>> These appear to me to be complex multi level hierarchies. While matter >>> without life can not have ideas, life and ideas are somewhat acceptable as >>> cognitive life (most of it is at the life's level to carry-on life's >>> cycle.), but there are precursors to matter and life, namely some seed of >>> becoming (desire) or consciousness before matter and life originate! >>> >>> II. Also what is the role of Monad, is it like origin in a >>> multidimensional space, is it affine, Euclidean, Hilbert space, or a space >>> later defined in terms of sets and groups? >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> Ravi >>> (Dr. Ravi Sharma) >>> MagicJack US 3133935264 >>> India mobile 011 91 96366 58888 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 6:38 AM Mauro Bertani <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hi Mike, >>> about what you wrote >>> >>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30, <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Then this strip – now defined as containing in general form everything we >>> know about epistemology and semantics and hierarchy and abstraction and >>> taxonomy and conceptual structure – goes through this mysterious “twist” >>> which “closes the space” and forms this amazing “closed loop” which seems >>> to contain all of cognitive science within its single boundary. All >>> elements within that boundary are defined as “intervals” – bounded ranges >>> with lowest and highest values in some dimension. By virtue of “the >>> twist”, the entire loop becomes a single boundary – a single “edge” -- >>> which contains nested it (bounded within it) within all possible taxonomic >>> distinctions in their general form. As a single boundary, the entire >>> structure takes the same form as “the real number line” – it IS “the >>> continuum” in a closed loop form. When seen in the flat plane, the “upper >>> ontology” is the unbounded infinite and the ultimate meaning of “unit”, and >>> the lowest level approaching infinitesimal differentiation, and the >>> taxonomic categories we want to position at the bottom of our taxonomic >>> hierarchy. When we close the loop, the infinite and the infinitesimal are >>> mapped straight into each other as one continuous edge – where their >>> differences are only apparent when viewed in the flat two dimensional >>> perspective. Rotated through the twist, all the differences disappear and >>> all that remains is unity. I think this is analogous to the Buddhist >>> cosmology of “the beginningless universe” – maybe it’s the same idea. >>> There are books out there on the subject “A universe from nothing”. I >>> think these are all related. >>> >>> I made a theory that partly reflects your vision. Very briefly it is >>> represented by this diagram >>> >>> <structure.png> >>> >>> there is the concept of line and continuum. Let's assume we have a >>> hierarchical tree with simple concepts and a hierarchical tree with >>> propositions. We combine these two trees according to the phrases Subject - >>> Predicate - Object. We get a number. This number can be related in new >>> subject-predicted-object phrases.. We thus obtain increasingly complex >>> concepts, represented by increasingly large numbers, which are arranged on >>> the line according to their complexity. similar a >>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set >>> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set> aand >>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph >>> <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph> . >>> I hope this can help you. >>> Mauro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Mike Bergman >>> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce >>> >>> >>> Hi Bruce, >>> >>> I am glad this is a line of discourse you want to pursue (and have pursued >>> since at least 1994 as your link indicates). I'm happy to engage on any >>> questions or topics; there are many other Peirce afficiandos on these lists >>> that also have helpful insights. For now, I only comment on one of your >>> points below: >>> >>> On 3/4/2021 9:31 AM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Wow. I love this. I've been writing on this subject forever -- saying >>> more or less the same things and citing the same authors -- e.g., Herbert >>> Simon. I'm going to print your article, Mike, and take a close look at it. >>> Back in the early days, I bought every book there was on Hierarchy. You >>> make basic points in your opening that I’d say pave the way towards a very >>> powerful general theory of epistemology. >>> >>> >>> The basic themes you outline in this article are at the essence of my >>> notion of “Closed Loop Interval Ontology” – which is hierarchical exactly >>> as you describe, with the addition that the framework is defined as a >>> closed loop interconnecting these “levels” into a single closed >>> mathematical structure. >>> >>> >>> My early stuff on this subject is here: http://originresearch.com >>> <http://originresearch.com/> >>> >>> The trick here seems to be – that this thesis is so powerful, it becomes >>> combinatorically explosive – heading towards the fabled “theory of >>> everything” – maybe in explicit epistemological detail. >>> >>> >>> Interesting that you say that “natural hierarchies are real” – which opens >>> the way to some additional complexity or levels of inclusion. Maybe there >>> is a “hierarchical relationship” across levels of reality, such that the >>> kind of practical-real-world “reality” defined by Barry Smith can be mapped >>> directly into an absolutely abstract model which I would say is a “science >>> of the artificial”, as Herbert Simon might have described it. “Does >>> absolute abstraction exist in nature”? >>> >>> My own view is that Peirce's universal categories of Firstness, Secondness, >>> and Thirdness provide this level of "absolute abstraction [that] exists in >>> nature". I don't know if you realize that some of your earlier references >>> to Ogden and Richards <http://originresearch.com/sd/sd4.cfm> were actually >>> a paraphrase of Peirce's insights. My own research focus has been on trying >>> to understand the 'mindset' of Peirce's universal categories, expressed in >>> perhaps a 100 different ways in his writings, that sets a frame of >>> reference for tackling knowledge representation (epistemological) questions >>> at virtually any level. Ogden and Richards picked up on one with respect to >>> meaning, but there are other examples galore across Peirce's writings. >>> >>> What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a way to break away from either-or >>> Cartesian mindsets that always pit issues as win-lose propositions, and >>> ignore the "fact" that one can both be a realist and an idealist. By >>> accepting the reality of absolute chance we are also removing false >>> dichotomies between determinism and evolution. As with wave-particle >>> duality or quantum v classic physics, Cartesian thinking is a cultural and >>> intellectual posture that leaves us stymied and frustrated. I much prefer >>> the trichotomous view of actuality bracketed by chance and continuity, the >>> essence of Peirce's universal categories. >>> >>> BTW, there is no reason why this viewpoint can not inform the structure and >>> basis of a top-level (upper) ontology. (One that I humbly feels offers an >>> integrative framework for ANY knowledge graph or ontology.) That is exactly >>> the approach we have taken with our KBpedia <https://kbpedia.org/> >>> knowledge structure, and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology >>> <https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/> (KKO). >>> >>> Best, Mike >>> >>> >>> Fascinating article and project, Mike. A lot to talk about. >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> - Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hierarchies — real or artificial — abound to help us organize our world. A >>> hierarchy places items into a general order, where more ‘general’ is also >>> more ‘abstract’. The etymology of the word hierarchy is grounded in notions >>> of religious and social rank. This article, after a broad historical >>> review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy >>> since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include >>> taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in library and information >>> science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to >>> computers, notably ontologies, knowledge graphs, and knowledge >>> representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of >>> inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for >>> classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express >>> subsumption relations that have many flexible variants, which we can >>> represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects >>> the dimensions of that variability, leading to a proposed typology of >>> hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a >>> perspective informed by Charles Sanders Peirce that natural hierarchies are >>> real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for >>> knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards such >>> as RDF or OWL reflect this perspective, importantly through their >>> open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. >>> Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural >>> hierarchies involving the nexus of chance, evolution, entropy, free energy, >>> and information theory. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bruce Schuman >>> >>> Santa Barbara CA USA >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> / 805-705-9174 >>> >>> www.origin.org <http://www.origin.org/> / www.integralontology.net >>> <http://www.integralontology.net/> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mike Bergman >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM >>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>; >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> Subject: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce >>> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> >>> I am pleased my open-access paper on hierarchy in knowledge systems, as >>> informed by my understanding of CS Peirce, has been published by IEKO: >>> >>> https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy >>> <https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy>. I hope you enjoy! >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. >>> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or >>> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ >>> <http://ontologforum.org/info/> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ontolog-forum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >>> >>> -- >>> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. >>> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or >>> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ >>> <http://ontologforum.org/info/> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ontolog-forum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "[..] events are primarily linguistic or cognitive in nature. That is, the >>> world does not really contain events. Rather, events are the way by which >>> agents classify certain useful and relevant patterns of change." >>> Allen and Fergusson >>> >>> "No, no. History of Eternity. At first I wanted to find every single one of >>> the buyers to apologize because of the book and also to thank them for what >>> they had done. There is an explanation for that. If you think of >>> thirty-seven people—those people are real, I mean every one of them has a >>> face of his own, a family, he lives on his own particular street. Why, if >>> you sell, say two thousand copies, it is the same thing as if you had sold >>> nothing at all because two thousand is too vast—I mean, for the imagination >>> to grasp. While thirty-seven people—perhaps thirty-seven are too many, >>> perhaps seventeen would have been better or even seven—but still >>> thirty-seven are still within the scope of one's imagination." >>> http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges >>> >>> <http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges>-- >>> >>> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. >>> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or >>> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ >>> <http://ontologforum.org/info/> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ontolog-forum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >>> -- >>> All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license. >>> For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or >>> unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/ >>> <http://ontologforum.org/info/> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "ontolog-forum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. >> -- >> __________________________________________ >> >> Michael K. Bergman >> Cognonto Corporation >> 319.621.5225 >> skype:michaelkbergman <skype:michaelkbergman> >> http://cognonto.com <http://cognonto.com/> >> http://mkbergman.com <http://mkbergman.com/> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman <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 >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> with no subject, and with the sole line >> "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . >> ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and >> co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
