Bill
Obviously we can't refer to 'eternal laws' or even 'no eternal
laws'. And as to whether the current laws are the same - we can't say
other than to rationally examine that IF they were different, then,
how and why did they change. And presumably, there would be residual
examples of matter formed in now defunct laws.
And can we really say that 'we stipulate it because it works... or
should we instead say: 'It works and therefore we stipulate it'. That
is, the laws are hierarchically dominant over our individual lives.
As to whether the laws might change according to a law that we will
never know - I think that's introducing magic into the scene. And I
don't think that our knowledge of a law 'makes' the law existential,
so to speak. It exists quite indifferently to what you or I or anyone
thinks of it. So, I don't compare it to Schrodinger's cat.
I think that art requires the acceptance of uncertainty and
exploration.
Edwina
On Sun 28/03/21 11:47 AM , "Brooks, William F" [email protected]
sent:
I’m deep in the woods and without a compass here . . .
In music there are eternal laws. In music there are no eternal
laws.
Why are these sentences incompatible?
Art, it seems to me, is a bit like Schrödinger’s cat: when you
open the box to see what “is” the case, all you have is something
alive or something dead, and until you indulge your desire for
certainty, the cat is both. The transformative potential of art
exists only if the box remains closed.
How do we know that the “laws” of the universe are the same as
they’ve always been? Isn’t that a matter of faith, really? A
theology of physics? How would one disprove the hypothesis that the
physical laws we know and love were, simply, different in, say, the
first 23 milliseconds after the big bang? (If there were a big bang.)
And, pushing the case further: how would one disprove the claim that
general relativity came into being in, say, 1730 (so that Einstein
could “discover” it two centuries later)? Why can’t laws
change—and change according to a “law” that we can never know,
because to know it would be to fix the outcome: to declare the
universe dead or alive (rather than both)?
The answer has to be pragmatic: we don’t “know” it; we
stipulate it because it works. And so we live our lives.
I’m a total naïf about C S Peirce, but I’m trying to learn. I
“know” just a smidgen about John Dewey—who spent most of The
Quest for Certainty, seems to me, attempting to show that our
“universal” laws were pragmatically arrived at by
“doing”—especially by “measuring”. I think he’s wrong,
because of art. Art requires The Quest for UNcertainty. . . .
Bill
William Brooks
[email protected] [1]
Emeritus Professor of Music
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
United States
(+1-217-417-4165)
William Brooks
[email protected]
Professor of Music
University of York
Heslington, York YO10 5DD
United Kingdom
(+44-1904-324449)
William Brooks
Senior Research Fellow and Series Editor
Orpheus Institute, Ghent, Belgium
[email protected]
Take care of things. And people.
On Mar 28, 2021, at 08:19, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut - I'll disagree with you.
1] Natural laws DO change. That ability to change is vital for the
development of complexity. In the physico-chemical realm, the laws do
not change very much over time; that provides stability. But in the
biological realm, the laws that form a species DO change, and this
enables adaptation and evolution. In the societal realm, the laws
change - and can change rapidly, such that we 'believe' on idea in
one generation and its opposite in the next generation.
2] And, since thermodynamics is a natural property of the universe
- and I also feel that semiosis is a natural property of the universe
- then, I have no trouble with using both in examining the realms of
this universe [physico-chemical, biological and societal].
3] It is an error to 'equal' sociology with physics'. That is,
examining both the human-realm and the physico-chemical realm as
operative within semiosis doesn't mean that they are
identical/equal! As I said, semiosic processes in the
physico-chemical realm operate very slowly and change is slow
[millions of years] while in the human realm, these processes are
extremely fast.
Edwina
On Sun 28/03/21 4:20 AM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Edwina, Terry, List, just like not all human behaviour is
adaption, not all laws are habits, although Peirce said so. Natural
laws do not change or weaken. They function in the same way in open
and closed systems, only in an open system matter, or matter and
energy (depending on your definition of "closed": Hermetically or
not) is exchanged with outside. That overall entropy netto increases,
does not mean, that in an open system at some spots e.g. in a volume
of gas sometimes it could not be forced to decrease: This partial
lessening (not rejection) of entropy happens in a piston machine with
each stroke. Whether the universe is a closed system that tends
towards equilibrium, or is an open system e.g. due to its expansion,
nobody knows, because nobody knows what makes the universe
acceleratedly expand: A force from in- or outside. I think that
blending semiotics with thermodynamics, if done too eagerly, leads to
confusion: Subsuming everything under adaption or habit, equalling
sociology with physics. For claiming that both kinds are due to same
mechanisms, you have to reduce both human and matter/energy behaviour
to the common denominator: Habit. But doing so, instead of looking at
the differences, is reduction, which you in other places are opposing
against. Best, Helmut 28. März 2021 um 00:24 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Terry, list
Entropy is a concern in a closed system, where the laws of the
system, if any, decay such that they cannot continue to provide
continuity of type and individual instances become unable to interact
such that there is no predictability or even capacity of
interactions. The system is 'at equilibrium' where nothing can
interact with anything. Pure chaos.
In an open system, which is what a CAS is, this is not a problem. My
view of the nature of the universe and all its subsystems as operating
as complex adaptive systems - is that these prevent entropy, for they
are 'far-from-equilibrium'. This means that they are operating
within laws of organization [3ns], that ensure continuity of type and
thus, predictability of interactions...but operating also within 1ns,
which is deviation from the norm. This deviation ensures diversity of
type and thus, the formation of new habits/laws [as the old ones
weaken] to further strengthen the universe's capacity to reject the
force and tendency towards equilibrium [yes, rejecting old laws]
...and the tendency to disable the capacity for relations..ie
entropy.
I think it is interesting that laws do not last forever, so to
speak, but decay in themselves, and the system requires new modes of
organization - both material and conceptual. So- we aren't, in a way,
evolving towards some 'perfect society' or 'perfect environment'. We
are always changing...The only constant seems to be an increase in
diversity and a rejection of homogeneity.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 4:56 PM , Terry L Rankin [email protected]
sent: Edwina, Helmut, List:
Are the causal laws of the universe ‘adaptive’ -- i.e., no
doubt creative by virtue of their efficacy per se -- but such that
entropy is not inherent in the ‘ex nihilo nihilo’ cosmology of
Big Bang >>> Big Crunch thermodynamic physics? I get that the
strength of those laws is always manifest in probabilistic (frequency
of outcomes less than 1 or not universal, inevitable) as well as
cosmically universal (in the sense of not admitting exception)
strength, but is that sufficient to suppose that thermodynamic
entropy can be somehow defeated or overcome – are those causal laws
defeasible as well as probabilistic? Does the ‘openness’ of
CAS/CASC system science necessarily uphold this defeasibility of
causal laws?
Terry
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 4:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopy, semiotics and
meditation.
Helmut
In an open system, which is what a CAS is, entropy is not increased
but decreased - by virtue of the organizational laws that prevent
its operation and include reparative and growth abilities.
A CAS is adaptive - which means creative; it has the ability to
change its rules and thus, its interpretants. I'm not sure what you
mean by the brain's 'iconic ability to depict'. Abduction is an
adaptive and creative function. And..adaptation is a creative
action.
I don't separate adaptation and creativity.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 4:26 PM , Helmut Raulien [email protected] sent:
Edwina, List,
I donot think, that chaos is rejected, but that by harnessing
dissipation, order is created. Entropy cannot be stopped, but in
overall entropic processes, anti-entropic (informative) processes are
created, increasing the whole entropy. And the systems are not only
adaptive, but creative too, due to the brain´s iconic property to
depict. So not only induction, adaption is possible, but also
abduction, creativity, especially with the human ability of symbolic
thinking and languages. So, are we not only CAS, but CACS (complex
adaptive and creative systems)? However, creativity is often used to
adapt. But not only does the individual adapt itself to its
environment, it also adapts the environment to itself. And we also
create new problems we should then adapt to, but don´t. So, are we
CACPs (complex adaptive, creative, problematic systems)? Best, Helmut
27. März 2021 um 19:55 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Terry, list
My view of the triadic semiosis is that it inserts a mediative
process within what is a dyadic interaction. Notice, using the ten
classes of signs 2.227 - that not all the mediation is in a mode of
Thirdness; it can be in 2ns or 1st. Indeed, in three of the ten
classes, mediation is in a mode of 2ns - the famous sinsign set.
That is, between the Object and the Interpretant is a process that
removes the dyadic interaction from being a purely mechanical
interaction and opens it to interpretation by both the Object and the
Interpretant sites/nodes. As Peirce says, semiosis is an action, an
influence, which involves co-operation of three subjects: O-R-I.
But the point is - the triad enables complexity-of-outcome. If you
have a universe that only operates by direct physical contact, then,
it will rapidly entropically dissolve. If you insert a capacity for
rejecting chaos, a capacity for laws that rule over the mechanical
contact, then, you enable continuity and reproduction and also,
diversity. You get a 'complex adaptive system', which inserts a
capacity for self-organization [that mediative process] and stops
entropy fast.
And since matter-is-mind within Peircean analysis, then, this
triadic process is operative throughout the physical, chemical,
biological and conceptual realms. 'Matter is effete mind" 6.25. And
"what we call matter is not completely dead bu is merely mind
hidebound with habits" 6.158. "he whole action of the mind [is] a
part of the physical universe" 6.61
No, 1ns doesn't become 2ns or 3ns. The experience itself goes
through various categorical phases.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 1:23 PM , Terry L Rankin [email protected]
sent: Thanks again, Edwina! This clarification is very helpful.
[BTW – I found Marty’s paper at academia.edu, free PDF
download.]
Lately I’ve been filtering much of my acolyte ideas and active
praxis of Peirce’s pragmaticism around
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/semiosis&data=04%7C01%7C%7C60ef34b976ab4762a10608d8f1605abf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637524743431324636%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sNomFTmnMn7FeUcSNIaO7UEWt9uGJUmrrwOqJwBEjAE%3D&reserved=0
" target="_blank"> EP 2.411 (1907):
It is important to understand what I mean by semiosis. All
dynamical action, or action of brute force, physical or psychical,
either takes place between two subjects (whether they react equally
upon each other, or one is agent and the other patient, entirely or
partially) or at any rate is a resultant of such actions between
pairs. But by “semiosis” I mean, on the contrary, an action, or
influence, which is, or involves, a coöperation of three subjects,
such as a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative
influence not being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs.
Am I misunderstanding CSP here in regarding semiotics as the broader
domain (universal, per his “bedazzling sentence”) within which
human and other distinctly cognitive sign-processing becomes
triadic, while other (non-cognitive) sign processing is (mostly or
entirely) dyadic – specifically and precisely for lacking an
interpretant (i.e., as produced by the observer and her observance)?
Might this be the ‘boundary’ or categorical metamorphosis where
the semiotics of 1NS and 2NS become or acquire their 3NS?
Terry
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:22 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopy, semiotics and meditation.
Terry
An intellectual construct IS a 'mode of being'. I was too slick in
my response. What I was trying to point out is that Peircean semiosis
is not confined to human intellectual abstractions of observations of
the physical world. That is, the Peircean semiosic universe, in my
view, is all about the generation of morphological forms. This is
done within the complex process of semiosis and produces both
material and conceptual forms. And - these forms are not just
intellectual abstractions made by the human observer - which would
reduce the world to nominalism. They are real in themselves and exist
without any human intellect observing them.
As you can see from the ten classes, 2.227, a particular form can
be operative only within a mode of 1ns, but in the case of a more
complex mode, eg, 2ns, it could be operative only in 2ns but that
would have included 1ns
You wrote: "As ‘ideas in the mind’ (“only intellectual and
human constructs”) that could, in principle at least, be expressed
in an EG, would they have concomitant ‘brain states’ as
(“actual physical properties of matter and its organization”),
thus existing as both abstract intellectual constructs and
objectively real presence in addition to abstract being in reality?
"
Could an idea have a concomitant brain state? Hmm - that's what
neurologists have been trying to find out - but - I'm not sure that
there are two 'forms' - a mental form and a concomitant physical
form'. I think that would deny the triadic semiosic process of
generation of forms and would make the process of Mind almost
mechanical.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 11:51 AM , Terry L Rankin [email protected]
sent: Edwina & List,
I’m pretty sure I wholly agree with Edwina on her point, but
(of course) I’m curious to ask questions RE:
ET > A 'mode of being' is not the same as an 'intellectual
construct'
Are the differences categorical – i.e., perhaps intellectual
constructs have a (predominantly 3NS?) mode of being that is
inherently symbolic? On this view, do all ‘mode(s) of being’
manifest at least 1NS and 2NS and perhaps 3NS as well in semiosis? As
‘ideas in the mind’ (“only intellectual and human
constructs”) that could, in principle at least, be expressed in an
EG, would they have concomitant ‘brain states’ as (“actual
physical properties of matter and its organization”), thus existing
as both abstract intellectual constructs and objectively real
presence in addition to abstract being in reality?
Thanks, Edwina! I’ll try to find an download Marty’s paper.
Terry
From: [email protected] On Behalf Of
Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 10:28 AM
To: 'Peirce-L' ; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopy, semiotics and meditation.
List
I'd comment that the problem I'm having with these discussions is
the unspoken assumption that these categories seem to exist or
function only within the human intellect prescinding/analyzing them.
But are these categories only intellectual and human constructs or
are they actual physical properties of matter and its organization? I
obviously prefer the latter outline. As Peirce says, for example, with
reference to Firstness .."Firstness if the mode of being" 8.328. And
Secondness is the 'mode of being" and Thirdness is 'the mode of
being'. That is - these categories are not abstract intellectual
constructs but are objectively real - I refer to Peirce's 'objective
idealism'...which is NOT the same as 'idealism'.
A 'mode of being' is not the same as an 'intellectual construct'.
I refer anyone to Robert Marty's 'The podium of the universal
categories of C. S. Peirce' for explanations of the categories.
Edwina Taborsky
On Sat 27/03/21 9:27 AM , [email protected] sent: Auke, Gary,
Jeff et. Al.,
The example in Auke’s post below is quite compatible with what
I had in mind with my vague reference to “guided meditation.” I
should mention that I’ve never engaged in it myself, as I’m one
of those who learn mostly by reading and writing, as I put it in my
earlier post. I have no experience of formal meditation practice
under expert guidance.
I notice, though, that our discussions of phenomenology tend to
focus on perception (with Merleau-Ponty’s classic work leading the
way). Peirce’s phenomenon/phaneron includes far more than the
sense-perceptibles observable within the empirical sciences such as
physics, chemistry, biology etc.: it includes imaginary mathematical
objects, hallucinations, dreams, fictional characters and much more.
“Thus the tragedy of King Lear has its Firstness, its flavor sui
generis” (CP 1.531). And thus Kepler's De Motu Stellae Martis would
count as a phenomenon, as Jeff suggests. But I confess that I don’t
yet see how a phenomenological analysis of it would differ from a
strictly logical analysis.
Let me try another example. The closest I’ve come to awareness
of a pure First (which of course cannot exist in the Peircean sense
of “existence”) occurred when I had my eyes closed and my hands
over my eyes, and a vivid blue patch appeared, persisting for maybe
five seconds before gradually fading out. Its Firstness wasn’t
quite pure because it did not take up the whole quasi-visual field,
but stood out from a blackish background. But the quality of it was
of the kind to which the subjective/objective distinction is
irrelevant. The real/unreal distinction is also irrelevant. These I
take to be hallmarks of the Firstness which can be prescinded from
any phenomenon/experience, i.e. from the otherness/existence (2ns)
or meaning (3ns) of it.
I think Vincent C’s post was very helpful indeed, and would
like to focus on this sentence from it: “The object of any
scientific investigation, incl that of phaneroscopy, is in principle
an intersubjectively observable phanneron. ” I think this implies
that there is a part or ‘stage’ of phaneroscopy that cannot be
scientific, because a phenomenon such as a dream or my blue patch is
not intersubjectively observable. When Peirce described himself as
“never having entertained a doubt that those features of the
phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to
all minds” (CP 1.284), I take it that he was referring not to the
observable details of any phenomenon, but to the “irreducible
elements” which are always prescindable from the phaneron and thus
present even to minds who do not practice prescission. Peirce was
claiming a sort of implicit consensus on that, not because it could
be demonstrated in public but because the regular practice of
prescission makes the presence of those “features” indubitable
in practice. For him, and doubt of that could only be a “paper
doubt.” Anyway, that’s how I read him.
Gary f.
} Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything
that counts can be counted. [William Bruce Cameron] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Auke
van Breemen
Sent: 27-Mar-21 05:32
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopy, semiotics and meditation.
Gary,
I did miss this one,, found it in a reply:
Guided phaneroscopic practice may be an approach worth exploring.
But who shall be "the guide acting as a mentor"? Certainly Peirce
didn't have one, and neither did you (I think) nor I. At the moment I
wouldn't know how to begin to 'guide' someone in the core practice,
but it's definitely something worth considering, and so I intend to.
At one point in my life I was leading groups in guided meditation,
but at the moment I don't see how that skill might transfer to
guiding phaneroscopic practice. But it's definitely worth thinking
about as, for one thing, I could definitely use a collaborator or two
to help develop this project!
---
1
Attention meditation (aiming at typing the different contents of
consciousness) in combination with semiotics might do the trick. As
in, as I recall, Gary F's bird example. Suppose we sit and meditate
with closed eyes just registering what passes on. We might hear the
bussing of some heating or airco equipment. But we don't hear the
equipment we hear the noise and only can decide on the correct source
by going to look. And then the singing of a bird makes its entrance.
We don't hear the bird but the singing. A proficient birdwatcher
will not hear a bird but a specific type of bird. It is the
distinction between symbol and legisign we are dealing with in these
examples. We hear a legisign and have an accompanying symbol. (with
an index towards the expected source involved, etc)
2
Eventually, when meditating with crossed legs, the bloodvessels will
be compromised, giving rise to feelings of increasing uneasiness. And,
in comes the desire to change position. The difference with 1 can be
indicated by the two energetic interpretants: the mental (for 1) and
the energetic (for 2).
3
If we change position, it is a response to the sign (dynamical
interpretant response?). If we don't change it still can be counted
as a dynamical interpretant, but it is not in the same sense a
response, in my estimate.
4
I tried not move because Barendregt, the teacher, told that the
pain would go eventually. And indeed, a distracting bird could
sometimes do the trick. But sometimes I tried just to feel the pain,
and that gave rise to the moment I experienced the pain to resolve
in a series of impressions, as flashes of instantanious lightning
devoid of any meaning. The first sign type?
I think along these lines a phaneroscopic study can become a guided
study. One has to do it for him/her self, but a guide can be made, if
I am right.
Auke
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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&data=04%7C01%7C%7C60ef34b976ab4762a10608d8f1605abf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637524743431334604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t43w8IPs9%2Br1BXoLaC3P%2BE44rF3AQQpyUMjPwi/NHbo%3D&reserved=0
[4]" target="_blank"> 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
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm__;!!DZ3fjg!tEiCmAQwDqNvHZ6Sc2cEi6Xg5huwPykkJbny4NtVFkGmlL7njhlf2zd5KIUrbaPOSBPz$
[7] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm&data=04*7C01*7C*7C60ef34b976ab4762a10608d8f1605abf*7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa*7C1*7C0*7C637524743431334604*7CUnknown*7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0*3D*7C1000&sdata=t43w8IPs9*2Br1BXoLaC3P*2BE44rF3AQQpyUMjPwi/NHbo*3D&reserved=0__;JSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSU!!DZ3fjg!tEiCmAQwDqNvHZ6Sc2cEi6Xg5huwPykkJbny4NtVFkGmlL7njhlf2zd5KIUrbRM9lvhz$
[4]
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm&data=04%7C01%7C%7C60ef34b976ab4762a10608d8f1605abf%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637524743431334604%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=t43w8IPs9%2Br1BXoLaC3P%2BE44rF3AQQpyUMjPwi/NHbo%3D&reserved=0
[5]
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm__;!!DZ3fjg!tEiCmAQwDqNvHZ6Sc2cEi6Xg5huwPykkJbny4NtVFkGmlL7njhlf2zd5KIUrbaPOSBPz$
[6]
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm__;!!DZ3fjg!tEiCmAQwDqNvHZ6Sc2cEi6Xg5huwPykkJbny4NtVFkGmlL7njhlf2zd5KIUrbaPOSBPz$
[7]
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm__;!!DZ3fjg!tEiCmAQwDqNvHZ6Sc2cEi6Xg5huwPykkJbny4NtVFkGmlL7njhlf2zd5KIUrbaPOSBPz$
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
