Augustine of course also worked on a triadic theory of signs, predating the Conimbricenses, but perhaps not quite as explicitly. I have to check this out a bit further.
> On Mar 8, 2021, at 3:10 PM, Daniel L. Everett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Just a couple of references: > > 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/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/ > > 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) developed a pre-Chomskyan >> theory of linguistics, Tagmemics >> (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) 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) >> 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]> 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 (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 >>> [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 >>> [3] 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]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>> about what you wrote >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30, <[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 aand >>>>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph . >>>>> I hope this can help you. >>>>> Mauro >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Mike Bergman >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; >>>>>> [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] 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 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 knowledge >>>>>> structure, and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology (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] / 805-705-9174 >>>>>> >>>>>> www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On >>>>>> Behalf Of Mike Bergman >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM >>>>>> To: [email protected]; [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. 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/ >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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/ >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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]. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> "[..] 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 >>>>> -- >>>>> 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/ >>>>> --- >>>>> 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]. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com. >>>> -- >>>> 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/ >>>> --- >>>> 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]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com. >>> -- >>> __________________________________________ >>> >>> Michael K. Bergman >>> Cognonto Corporation >>> 319.621.5225 >>> skype:michaelkbergman >>> http://cognonto.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 >>> [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. >> >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
