John:

Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the  
highest-level is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our  
technological inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the  
topic of "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be  
explored.

When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a  
result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be  
alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one  
most associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm  
from the 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?

But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,  
that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today  
science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting  
"probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.   
Indeed, one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been  
trying (without much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since  
its absence is seriously getting in the way of building human-like  
robots . . . !!

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhTwjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=

I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented  
"dimensions of complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in  
"complexity science") to build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we  
don't know what "causality" means anymore.  This requires us to  
go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes" and to sort through how they  
function in today's "culture."  And, to do that, we will need to use  
McLuhan to get there.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=

Much work to be done . . . <g>

Mark

P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture  
and call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold  
Toynee &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the  
top-level "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*  
technologies, beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These  
"dimensions" require an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in  
a thorough retrieval of what we once understood about causes -- all  
four of them.

P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the  
Bible.  And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is  
simply no way to think about this level of *organization* without a  
comprehensive "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to  
understand cell-cell communication but, as we know, that's not the  
full ToK story.  I began my study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of  
22), when I went to University of Chicago Divinity School (looking for  
a draft deferment), majoring in the "Old Testament."  I remember once  
floating in a salt-water pool in Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes  
about how "Jesus got nailed on his boards," with some Jewish friends  
who declared that I was "more Jewish" than they were.  In fact, I'm  
Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.

P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is  
over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already  
living for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More  
religion." This is what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the  
"Post-secular Age."  As work shifts to the robots and people wind-up  
with a massive increase in their "leisure," many of them will move to  
lives of religious activity, including "monasteries" and a huge  
increase in "contemplation" -- all of which means that we are already  
living in a very different "culture" from the one we grew up in.  Yes,  
it will be a challenge for ToK to explain why that happened.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular_dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DBi-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e=

Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed in
> the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education?
>
> As for  --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
> *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its
> relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for
> instance) . . . !!
>
> If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of evolution
> is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and
> phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous
> receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of growth
> and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in
> homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life cycle of
> the
> the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell
> communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite.
> Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing the
> production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls of
> the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause gene
> mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those
> genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the
> homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will
> remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached,
> constituting what we
> think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress', that is
> how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for communism
> based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same
> mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish homeostasis,
> one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in order to
> fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I have
> attached
> paper of us on the topic fyi.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant)
>> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of which was
>> in a private email).
>>
>> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation."  Instead, it was an
>> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an Armageddon
>> that would end human biology once-and-for-all.  Marx was a hired-gun by F.
>> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually responsible for
>> all this nonsense.
>>
>> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences were
>> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near" --
>> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local farmers.
>>
>> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an
>> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd Coming.  How
>> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ??
>>
>> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until roughly
>> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called the
>> "Axial Age."  Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all the
>> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood that
>> term.  This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for Greg
>> to return to elaborate.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1
>> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e=
>>
>> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz.  All in
>> due time.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_
>> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV
>> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e=
>>
>> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology.  Also a
>> topic for future elaboration.
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
>> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=
>> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e=
>>
>> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for *destroying*
>> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to
>> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . . !!
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here and
>>> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology as
>>> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way of
>>> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I liken
>>>  it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v Einsteinian, the
>>> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity is due
>>> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference between
>>> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large matter.
>>> ’tis
>>>
>>> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients from
>>>> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral
>>>> stint. I
>>>> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen
>>>> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung development was
>>>> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an interesting
>>>> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the
>>>> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye, the
>>>> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a
>>>> bastion
>>>> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I was
>>>> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own
>>>> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very different
>>>> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the
>>>> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and
>>>> chasing
>>>> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story by
>>>> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and mundane
>>>> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given that a
>>>> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at its
>>>> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the death of
>>>> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had said,
>>>> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have anything to
>>>> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I just
>>>> hadda
>>>> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own 'sanity'.
>>>>
>>>> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I start
>>>> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through metabolic
>>>> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each
>>>> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle. I
>>>> think
>>>> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to
>>>> agriculture
>>>> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and greed
>>>> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to that in
>>>> the
>>>> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready source
>>>> of
>>>> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone
>>>> leptin,
>>>> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of
>>>> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the gut-brain
>>>> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin and
>>>> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a
>>>> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by the
>>>> fat
>>>> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over the gut
>>>> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the CNS
>>>> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain doesn't
>>>> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if you
>>>> get
>>>> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper (Cochran G,
>>>> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J
>>>> Biosoc
>>>> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that Ashkenazi
>>>> Jews
>>>> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and that
>>>> this
>>>> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing being a
>>>> bad
>>>> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading to
>>>> pathology.
>>>>
>>>> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find it
>>>> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong, and
>>>> b)
>>>> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our planet.
>>>> As
>>>> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto is the
>>>> realization that what we think of as evolution are all
>>>> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a
>>>> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its
>>>> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen, which
>>>> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition. BTW, my
>>>> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but hasn't
>>>> been
>>>> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the
>>>> Cosmos
>>>> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's the way
>>>> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be viewed
>>>> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of
>>>> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the problem
>>>> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in which we
>>>> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it backwards, of
>>>> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment and
>>>> that
>>>> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with Descartes
>>>> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain, when
>>>> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's Vitruvian
>>>> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains in a
>>>> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The
>>>> Empathic
>>>> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only.....
>>>>
>>>> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a step-wise,
>>>> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a way
>>>> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology together
>>>> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is buildable- I
>>>> have
>>>> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic Table of
>>>> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural sciences....what a
>>>> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how to
>>>> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of course I am
>>>> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on the back
>>>> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our salvation,
>>>>
>>>> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far as I am
>>>> concerned......John
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than
>>>>> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side) . . .
>>>>> <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW faculty.
>>>>> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint at
>>>>> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only "ministers"
>>>>> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a PhD
>>>>> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of
>>>>> NSF-funding post-Vietnam.  Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started an
>>>>> early
>>>>> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and
>>>>> studying
>>>>> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career on
>>>>> Wall
>>>>> Street &c.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its
>>>>> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to
>>>>> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before that
>>>>> was
>>>>> quite a thing yet.  Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all* about
>>>>> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them
>>>>> (although,
>>>>> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is what
>>>>> we
>>>>> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the
>>>>> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka
>>>>> *entelechy*)
>>>>> and what Leibniz meant by "monad."  Have you had a chance to look at
>>>>> Leibniz in this way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs translates
>>>>> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality" (i.e.
>>>>> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying to
>>>>> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological terms, is
>>>>> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.")  Btw, this was Plato's
>>>>> "World
>>>>> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his most
>>>>> famous
>>>>> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with Leibniz.
>>>>>
>>>>> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown in
>>>>> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) -- giving
>>>>> rise
>>>>> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being
>>>>> celebrated
>>>>> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta get
>>>>> back
>>>>> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his German
>>>>> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a "biological"
>>>>> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about
>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>> linked to "mutation") . . . !!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this and,
>>>>> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today,
>>>>> theirs
>>>>> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in which
>>>>> the
>>>>> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist Party
>>>>> of
>>>>> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which developed
>>>>> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a writing
>>>>> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness") radically
>>>>> unlike
>>>>> our alphabetic one.
>>>>>
>>>>> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a
>>>>> "home"
>>>>> since the 13th-century).  I remember one day when I was participating
>>>>> in a
>>>>> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me to
>>>>> the
>>>>> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited back).
>>>>> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he had to
>>>>> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in 307BC
>>>>> his
>>>>> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely
>>>>> disappearing.  Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged after
>>>>> his
>>>>> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and slandered
>>>>> by
>>>>> Bertrand Russell.  There is something psycho-technological about trying
>>>>> to
>>>>> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as Spengler
>>>>> would
>>>>> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to "merge"
>>>>> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for
>>>>> "Singularity.")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the
>>>>> ability
>>>>>
>>>>>> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and
>>>>>> otherwise. I
>>>>>> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the cell as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism integrates
>>>>>> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources'
>>>>>> .......or
>>>>>> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know don't
>>>>>> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely help
>>>>>> us
>>>>>> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John and Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both for
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about each
>>>>>>> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the common
>>>>>>> world
>>>>>>> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often seem
>>>>>>> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons becomes
>>>>>>> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow dwell
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>> --Lonny
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> or click the following link:
>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> or click the following link:
>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> or click the following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1